zurew

Why do you think you are not as free as a man? Can you list some privileges that a man has that you don't?

But maybe you assume that I wish to treat everything or all perspectives the same, which I don't. Yes, i assumed that, because you were talking about how everything is just data for you, so i thought there is no perspective which has more relevance for you comapared to the other ones. So now you are somwhat agreeing that you actually play the hierarchy game (because you said that you don't treat all perspectives the same). The real problem here is you don't like to go meta enough. You don't want to apply the tools against themselves (like doubting doubting, or questioning questioning etc) because then you would realise the finite nature of those tools. Maybe it is mental masturbation, or it shows you the nondual nature of life and it shows you that doubting is just one finite tool, and using it can only get you so far. Notice that you can only think inside your language, you can't think outside of it. Its not good nor bad, it just that it has its own limitations to it , because anything that is potentially outside of the boundaries of your language you can't think about it. If we are staying consistent with the me problem (me problem is : figuring out what you actually are) ,then using finite structures like logic and language can only give you a finite model of yourself. Again, you are using finite structures and you are trying to make sense of yourself using those structures. You don't want to go outside of those structures (like letting go of doubting and letting go of using language and human logic to try to figure yourself out that way). How does it create any 'clarity' if you can doubt that clarity as well. Anything that you think make more sense down the road, you can doubt that as well, so eventually you don't get anywhere. Its like you can say that what zurew said about xyz can be doubted so he is wrong about xyz. I can doubt an infinite amount of things, but that does not necessarily give any clarity at all. i don't think it can give any clarity for the problem what we are wrestling with right now, because of the finite nature of doubting. I can doubt gravity, does that mean that gravity won't work anymore? I can doubt that the police will catch me if i steal something, does that really mean that the police won't catch me?

Do you only have an issue with the brutality of killing an animal or you are having a problem with killing an animal as well. Why don't you have a problem with killing plant life? I think we shouldn't focus on the morality part that much i think there are much more better arguments for veganism or for vegetarianism if we are talking about enviroment protection and global catashropes. The morality part is problematic, because everyone draw their line at a different place. I agree with you on the brutality of animal farming though. But that does not mean talking about morality can change animal farms, they don't give a shit about morality, they care about their own survival.So we need other arguments and other ways to change these things in the world. In my opinion, you should rather advocate for certain practices for people such as meditation, yoga and psychedelics, so they can feel much more connected to other parts of life. Of course this doesn't work on a massive scale, but when you are talking about an individual maybe its more effective to change his/her way of life this way.

Nice labeling ,so you don't have to engage with the content in it ever again. Doubting is killing itself, Doubt doubting. 'The data so far suggests that each and every thought can be doubted' doubt that one. Yes i do value doubting to some degree, i did not imply it is a 'bad' thing. However, if everything can be doubted why use it as a tool or standard? If you can apply it to anything (to every sentence, to every thought) then why you give doubting as a tool any significance whatsoever? How can it serve your self -inquiry? Being able to doubt things doesn't mean anything - it does not mean that what you doubt is not true.

When you said that 'You're assuming that the sober state is actually finite and that the psychedelic state is actually infinite. I will inform you that neither of these assumptions is true'. The 'neither of these assumptions is true' statement need to be true in order to falsify my statements about the sober mind being finite and limited. So on the hierarchy of perspectives it needs to be upper compared to my statement. So again you can't escape the hierarchy. You act like i use a whole different kind of vocabulary compared to you or anyone here. Its not the case. Just because we didn't have the same definition in our heads for God or for Truth that does not mean, that we can't find a common ground. So you are trying to give every perspective the same level of significance. Do you think that your perspective, have more significance compared to mine? if you are using the 'every perspective need to be treated like they have the same significance' ,then why do you give more significance to perspective 1 compared to perspective 2. perspective 1: Every perspective need to be treated like they have the same level of significance vs perspective 2: Not every perspective should be treated like they have the same level of significance. There following two perspectives are about knowing yourself: There is this perspective that you can know what/who You actually are. There is this other perspective that You can't know yourself because everything can be doubted. --> You are leaning towards this perspective, so you are biased towards it and you are not treating every perspective the same as you claim. Yes i am doing that, and i am aware of it, i am doing it on purpose. Then this statement in an of itself can be doubted. You assume if you can doubt something ,then you can't be sure if that thing is really true or not. Doubting things is not a special thing to do, you can doubt doubting itself, so it can be defeated in a second. Using doubting as a special method is not really a good thing if you want to treat everyhing the same. Why would you lean more towards doubting if there is a thing called not doubting. Choosing doubting over not doubting is again a hierarchy.

This is interesting. In the past i have done some tarot sessions and i think most of them became true. I can't explain either how it works, but it seems like , that it works. You can't necessarily see all the important messages first, but after some time when you look back on it, you can clearly see that more and more things became true. Of course you can get better at reading or getting the cards messages. You can argue that given infinite amount of time every event will happen. Yes it sort of true, but when we are talking about a finite amount of time a few weeks or months then it is intersting. I don't know about the mechanics of it either , but it seems to me, that when you are doing practices like tarot you are using your intuitive knowing much more effectively. Maybe because you are focusing your mind to a particular event or a person for a certain amount of time, and you open up your mind , and then you can get certain insights about events and people (because you opened your mind up to the possiblity that you can get insights about it). But it is all speculation from me, don't take my word for it. It seems like that it is 100% about your intuition. It doesn't matter what definition is used for a certain card, it didn't really matter for me either. In my opinion ,you are sort of feeling into that message, pulling cards is just a reason for the mind to open itself up and get the right insights.

From this sober state, It seems like we need to recognize certain patterns and then using those recognitions to be able to achieve different states of mind. We need to play along these causality factors to be able to alter our minds from this sober state. We are sort of trapped here in our own 'hell'. This hell has its own characteristics and features, and to be able to break out of it, you need to play along those features. Psychedelics is one tool to get there, but of course you can use other tools as well. The reason why i stress altering your mind states, because if you radically alter your mind states, you change your identity as well. Shattering your finite ego, and then realising that you are infinite. Only using an infinite mind you can recognize that you are infinite. The closest you can get to know what reality is by becoming reality. I can never know what being Nivsch is, or how it feels like using this finite state. I can use an infinite set of metrics but it will still be reductive. Only by becoming you i can truly know, what it feels like to be Nivsch. You can always make bigger models of reality and use the subject-object dynamic, but there will be always a line between you and reality. That line is making the sensemaking process impossible if we want to know reality existentially. So you can go from two places. The first place is when you assume that you can't know reality, because you are finite, so you can only make more and more complex models of reality. The second place is when you recognise, that if you want to know reality or yourself fully/existentially, then you need an infinitely big perspective to be as accurate as possible. This is the same with yourself, only using an infinite mind to make sense of yourself can be used to get as accurate image about yourself as possible. So we can go deeper and ask ourselves, how can i alter my state of consciousness so it can be as big as possible? I assume i can reach infinite conciousness, the reason why i assume that because i know, thats the only thing that can give me the clearest answers for the 'reality' and for the 'me' problem. So you eventually experiment with it using hardcore meditation or yoga practices, or using hardcore psychedelics and then you get there. Becoming infinite/realising that you are infinite and then reflecting on yourself. This is practically speaking either doing super hardcore meditation/yoga practices for a certain amount of time or taking a certain dose of 5meo DMT to be able to break this finite ego down.

The queston is what qualities the 'highest' perspective would have. What is that can include every other possible perspectives? The infinite mind does. I don't agree with this one. If your identity is infinite, it includes everything. How can you have an infinity identity with a finite mind? You seem kind of like a stage yellow guy (forgive me for trying to put you in a box, its just an observation if we are trying to use the model, it is a sudden judgement i am placeing on you, so don't put that much emphasis on this take). Trying to put a lot of emphasis on other perspectives, i respect that, especially if we are talking about every-day problems. But when it comes to this reality problem, i don't think its the best approach to have.

Only if you assume that every state has the same level of significance. Not every perspective has the same relevance. For example lets just take psychology. Lets say you have a trauma and you want to solve it. You will go around your peers and ask everyone is they have the solution and you will give every take the same relevance or you will prioritize them and make a hierarchy from them? I assume you would make a hierarchy from them, and you would put a psychologist 's take on the top or at least near the top. There are perspectives, that are more complete than others, and there are perspectives, that are including the other perspectives in them.What do you think , which perspective would include all the other perspectives? An infinite mind could do that. Who or what could make sense of an infinite mind? The infinite mind itself.

You are building your models from you sober state. Again you are putting more emphasis on this one compared on other ones.(so you are not doing what you claim to be doing - you are putting more emphasis on a certain perspective) You can build you models as much as you want. You are trying to make sense of reality from a finite state. Using logic which is another finite tool you are using. Even if you could build an infinitely big model of reality you would still need to make sense of it using your finite brain and logic. And then you can mistake your model of reality for reality. How well it will serve you? Again, this kind of phrasing only make sense if you are trying to make sense of infinite state of consciousness with your finite brain. Whats wrong with simplicity? What if your are trying to make things more complicated than the way they are? The ultimate trolling question i could ask you right now, that why you are placing more emphasis on your perspective compared to mine? Why do you want to downplay my perspective, if every perspective are the same and have the same importance?

So we have to put this perspective above the other ones? You are trying to suggest here that every perspective has an element of truth in them. Thats why you don't dismiss any perspective, and then trying to make your model of reality and yourself from your sober state. Making a model of reality won't work to get the full picture. You are trying play a puzzle game, as if reality was a puzzle. Trying to find its pieces and then trying to make a model using those pieces. Those pieces will be finite, so it will give you a finite model about reality and about yourself.

So you are trying to suggest here, that all perspectives are having the same level of truth in them? All perspectives are equally True? Notice from what state you are saying that. You are using you sober state for that. So ultimately you are placing more value on your sober state. WIth Using your sober state you are trying to makes sense of all the states and trying to judge them and figure them out.

How did u come to the conclusion that neither of those are true? So you are suggesting that the sober state is infinite and the psychedelic state is finite. Explain that, because that doesn't make much sense to me. Truth: knowing what you actually are. We can start with that. Why do you place more value on your sober state compared to a psychedelic state? You are trying to call others out on placing more value on a psychedelic state but at the same time you are doing the same with sober state. That seemingness and doubt coming from a sober state. You are clearly playing the hierarchy game and the same time telling yourself ,that you are not. All your logic and reason flies out the window, once you change radically your state. Again, you are trying to wrap this all up in logic, assuming you can. You haven't tried any serious psychedelic, and at the same time you are saying from your sober state, that this and that in your opinion can't be known. If you are serious enough you should try different approaches out. The very 'i don't know if i can know what actually i am' notion is coming from this sober state. Again you are placing more value on this one, compared to the other ones. All your tools that you are using are in wrapped in this state (your logic, using reason etc). But at the same time you are trying to tell yourself, that you don't put more value on this state than on the other ones. Have you questioned ever, that 'reality is unknowable' or that 'I am unknowable' ? Asking again because you have dodged it twice now: How can you know, that 'I am unknowable' or that 'reality is unknowable'? On what basis you are saying that? Whatever base you are using for that, that is at the top of your truth hierarchy.

Yeah, i have heard about that one too, it is an interesting one. Thank you for your detailed explanations and answers, and for your time!

Trying to put everything into a box or into a framework, even experience itself. Trying to makes sense of anything , just by doing the sensemaking itself is reductionistic. Thats why i think that becoming the experience itself is the deepest you can go. Trying to makes sense of the existential nature of life, by using a set of metrics or by trying to make sense of it as an observer or as an outsider will always create a 'wall' between you and that particular thing which you want to make sense of. The closest you can get to the nature of reality, is by becoming reality. Thats the only way you can know something existentially, every other way will just only see parts of reality.So if we use this logic, only by becoming infinite and then self-reflecting makes sense, if you try to find out what reality is as a finite self, you will only discover parts and not the whole, because as a finite self you have your own biases and limitations. Just by becoming infinite you can realise what reality really is. Why is that? Because if you want to make sense of reality as a finite self, you will have some biases that will distort reality, and you will only see parts of it.By becoming infinite you don't have any bias, you can clearly see reality as it is. Now i am going to ask you more questions to inquire further, you don't have to answer them if you don't want to. Do you think, that every perspective has only a part of truth in it? Or do you think that Truth cannot be known? If you go with the first one, the problem will be, that even this perspective, that 'every perspective has only a part of truth in it' will have only a part of truth in it if you want to make it to be true. If you want to go with the second one, the question is, how do you know, that Truth cannot be known? Or if you want to go with neither, then where do you want to go exactly, what is your stance? What is exactly that make you think that you are more of a human rather than God? Whatever method or exercise you are using to get to the conclusion that you are a human, you place that exercise/method above other ones, why is that? It seems like, you are using a hierarchy here. You don't treat this problem as if every perspective would have the same level of truth in it. Thats good, nothing wrong with that, i am doing the same, i am just arriving at a different place. Whatever at the top of your Truth hierarchy, the real question is why do you place that particular thing there, what makes it more trustable compared to the other ones?

Would you say, that a bare minimum IQ is required for almost any job, or thats a wrong argument? The reason why i ask, because i have read about it somewhere, and i am curious, because you seem to know a lot about this. I mean, if you know exactly what is required for that particular job, you can construct a set of metrics, and that can be used and that can somewhat automatize the hiring process or it can reveal some important stuff ,for that special job. Of course the whole process shouldn't be automatized. Testing with certain kind of Intelligent metrics lets be it IQ or EQ or something other can be useful. That does not mean though, that it can show overall how intelligent you are, because its all depends on the context, and on what you want to do. So given the necessary context, Intelligent metrics can be utilized. If we are specifically talking about an overall intelligence of a human, then i am agreeing with you ,that only using IQ for it, is really dumb. Yeah, i am sure there is much more to intelligence, than just IQ, there is no agrument there. It would be interesting, if we could make a set of metrics that could could reveal the geniuses and the outside of the box thinkers. Maybe assuming it can be done with a set of metrics is dumb in an of itself, because its too reductionistic, and there are things that can't be put in a box, but maybe there could be something, if enough number of metrics is used.

Do you think that IQ tests at work can have some relevance, or do you think that these IQ tests are completely stupid? What would you measure for or what set of metrics would you use, if you wanted to hire someone, and if you wanted to use an automatic approach to see how capable that particular person is for the job . Of course every automatic approach will be somewhat reductive, but if you have a big company, maybe it is a good move to use something automatic.

Its not necessarily that 'he doesn't have the intrinsic understanding of the subject'. For example If you can't articulate enlightenment well, then it automatically means that you don't know what enlightenment is? We socially created these beliefs, and dynamics where we are attracted to people and believe people more if they are confident in what they are saying, and if they can reason well. Reasoning is mostly used in a social context, of course you can debate with yourself, but most of the time reasoning is used the defend ideas and ideologies. Just because you can reason well why materialism is true, that doesn not mean that it is the case. Being able to reason well doesn't necessarily mean that you know what you are talking about. Just because you can't reason well or can't articulate something well, doesn't automatically mean that you don't know that particular thing.Especially if we are talking about intuitive knowing. Can you articulate me well, how color blue looks like if i have never seen it in my entire life? If you can't, does that automatically mean, that you don't know the concept of color blue?

IQ can be good to get a sense about certain kinds of things. A certain amount of IQ is required for every job, because if you don't have the bare minimum amount, you basically incapable of doing certain things and you can't really learn effectively. Once the bare minimum is reached, then after that it can be argued, that it doesn't have that much significance for a normal person. If you want to go to the academic field, or if you want to do a certain kind of job, then yes you will need to have a higher amount. But looking at it in a broader sense, it is just one intelligence measure from the many. But just as with anything, you need a certain amount of it, to be able to be more effective at anything. It is very unintelligent in my opinion, to only use IQ tests to figure out how intelligent a person is. Here you can see other kinds of intelligences. But even this is limited.

@LostStudent If you don't think ,that it is has bad consequences for your life, then do it as much as you want. But as @aurum said, experiment with it. See if doing less or more can change how you feel about yourself, and about your life.

In my opinion, this is more like a subtle presence detection. Its like you mostly use your 5 senses, but there are more, and maybe unconsciously one of your other senses opened up, and you got a peek into something, what you have never experienced before.

What is the difference between framing manifestation this way vs setting a goal and making the necessary steps to achieve it? Maybe that, with manifestation or with the LOA you don't necessarily need to know the between steps to get to the end? Because thats sounds practical in an of itself. Thank you for your detailed explanations, they are very helpful to understand this 'problem' from a different angle.

My understanding is that not necessarily a thought or thoughts, but the very act of observing something can have its on effect on the quantum world. For example, i don't know if you are familiar with the double slit experiment. It was a relatively old experiment, where they realised, or found out, the very act of observing a particle has a dramatic effect on its behaviour. Maybe you are right and thoughts have their own effects on the quantum world as well. My only problem is with the delayation. Basically i wouldn't be sure if i have actually manifested that particular thing, or it was a coincidence. But i am open minded, and maybe a more tangible model could be constructed about manifestation. Maybe, with a lot of experimentation some model could be made about it and some hypothesis could be made as well(assuming there is an observable pattern to it). I think assuming, that there is a pattern to it could be good, because if there is one, then that means we can find it. If there isn't one and this assumption is false, then so be it. Most of the time assuming that everything can be grounded in a scientific framework and methods is not good. Because it closes down reality pretty much. We make a mistake that our model of the world is the world. But in this particular case, it might be acceptable to try to search for a pattern or something tangible. This sounds very similar to what i have heard about the law of attraction. Basically, yeah the LOA and manifesting something from thin air is kind of similar. So the more vivid i can imagine something and the more emotion i can give that particular picture the stronger it becomes, and eventually it will be manifested. Yeah, maybe i am overthinking this. Maybe, the more insight and knowledge we have about physics and quantum physics the more conventional 'manifestation method' can be created. This is kind of like a big dilemma, if for example i want a gold ring, should i try to manifest it from thin air by concentration, or should i just try to build some skills and get a well paying job, and then buy that ring. The second option in this case the more rational one, and it seems much more plausible that it can be done. However, that does not mean that the first one isn't a possibility. In my opinion, manifestation from thin air can be a good choice, if that particular thing can't be easily created or can't be created at all with a conventional method.

Have you confirmed any of the red pill theories yourself, or you just took it for granted and now you are defending it?

If we are talking about equal rights and opportunity through all genders, why not? It is a net benefit for society.