• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dazz

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender
  1. I'll outline an observation rather than waffle. In psychology studies at uni I've being learning a wide range of materials, one thing that stuck out to me was findings on multiculturism and cultural frame switching where it was highlighted in experiments they discovered an ability to switch personalities based on perceptional cues, such as a chinese person speaking to another native chinese person would behave and act differently than the same chinese person speaking to an american person. This is a very superficial overview but if you found research articles on the topics you could gain a more in-depth understanding. The findings are across cultures/language and can be primed such as being shown a picture of a chinese person influences fluency and language abilities. I've been considering that if you think about it, this can really be applied down to the most basic level. In these experiments they took people from different countries, but if you took people from different households, for example a child who had a separate household for their mother and father, you would find similar themes. Their mother would communicate in a specific way to them, based on their own formations of language and their experience, their unique attitudes and behaviours, assumptions and bias, that the child would then most likely adopt most of rather unconsciously (for example attitudes towards police), and likewise with their father, they would have their own absorption of his experience. Maybe if you showed a child a picture of their mother before interview, it would influence similarly, likewise showing them a picture of their father. So, what's been observed on the wider country level, may be narrowed down into individual levels, and you could keep going with this through different avenues. So, is there really anything groundbreaking about the initial observations? Obviously, to the scientists the first are backed by scientific observation, and mine are simply imaginary. I don't feel like this is anything I could really discuss with lecturers. Maybe there's a term for this but I've found myself making these 'spiralling observations' whenever I am learning things. I find it interesting but I'm not sure if it's that useful. Is this anything that anyone else has any experience of? If so, would you consider others being open-minded to these types of conversations?
  2. cocaine definitely, excessive alcohol, cigarettes, weed if it doesn't have some kind of entheogenic effect on you, a lot of people I know who are real stoners are very myopic and selfish, junk food, buying consumer shit you don't need, etc. Anything that's not taken for specific purposes with wholeness in mind.
  3. One thing I've struggled with in the journey to a higher expression of consciousness is navigating around others who first are not interested in a deep understanding of reality and second who take advantage of good nature. I find it really tiring to listen to people whine about their circumstances and be completely incapable of helping themselves due to listening to and believing their thoughts (solidly, and unshakeable) and sticking to concepts that don't serve them, at all. But nonetheless people complain endlessly about their circumstances, about how unhappy they are, but won't do anything to help themselves. You don't need to self actualise much to begin to help yourself. I hate seeing old friends become addicts to different outlets, all in an attempt to cope, and I know it isn't my responsibility to change them, but what is the 'right' answer? I understand everything is inherently Good, but individually these people are suffering. This is simply a facet of the wider subject I'm trying to approach. How do you 'defend', without invoking ego, against other egos? How do you contend with dominators in relationships, personal or work place, without invoking your own ego, as a means of defence, because you are actually under 'attack' and will be taken advantage of if you don't do something? I just find that when I take myself away from people and society, I feel much more energised, calm, complete, but then when I return to dealing with people, it heavily involves egoic interpretation, and it knocks me down a level. And unfortunately I'm not in a position to take myself away from society until I'm older, which I fully intend on doing. It just seems, that especially now after the COVID fiasco, the general 'energy' of people is highly neurotic, highly individualistic, highly egoic, high stress and it's extremely difficult to not 'absorb' this in interactions with others and participation in society. During the covid lockdowns I've been taking myself away and stopping in the woods and it's been extremely constructive in spiritual work, to be around nothing and nobody and realise I do not have 'anxiety' and 'depression' what I have is an incompatibility with the way we currently live. And then after a few days of coming back, I feel like I must leave again to return to the peace I found. I hope this makes sense and doesn't come across as a rant. I guess to summarise, this work is individual, unique, introspective and inward, have you found any helpful methods in applying outward to others, that helps to maintain the peace you find from the introspective work?