Jannes

@Miguel1 Thats very inspiring and somehow touches brief chapters in my past where it was similar to me. (not with sex though) thanks for sharing! @Emotionalmosquito I am not sure what you are doing but night game can be pretty harsh. Are you doing some other social activities? Some kind of sport or club can be good to be social and it's not overly demanding. You dont need to be a party maker to be a part of the group there.

Sure all of trips were different of course. But it never got like 98% serious business. I personally matured a lot which could play into it. You mean the same amount of substance? That never played a big role for me, small and middle doses all had the same kind of vibe just with different intensity. I was a middle around. I had way lower and way higher.

No substances definitely affect each other. When I took lsd I saw the same colors and bubbles when I micro dosed on shrooms which is a domain that was very lsd like and I never got it on shrooms before. Isnt that just the synthetic form of psilocybin?

ideal idea of a snack on lsd: A thought about a recent LSD trip that got back to me. I saw all kinds of graffiti art on lsd and probably because I was hungry I saw some kind of food. It was something hefty, fatty, maybe the idea of a little cheese, maybe the idea of a little salami, but nothing very specific. It didn't really have a form physically or taste wise. I remembered a talk of Jordan Peterson where he talks about how when men look for a girlfriend what they have before they got a real girl is the ideal girl the womenness so to say before reality shapes it and gives it all sorts of edges so that it can manifest. So in order to have a real girlfriend one has to sacrifice the ideal in their mind. This can be analogous to this nonspecific food I saw on lsd. It was the ideal thing but it wasn't anything in particular. It wasn't a hamburger, it wasn't lasagne, it wasn't pizza, it wasn't a sandwich, it wasn't a steak, it wasn't noodles, .. it was something superior to all of it, it was the ideal thing. I wonder if thats what plato means with his ideology/ Allegory of the Cave.

The problem with renewable energy is that 1) it's not accessible everywhere, 2) it can't be transported over large distances yet. So if there are no other options couldn't the population of first world countries "just" move to global places with lots of solar power? Of course these countries have a population of their own and many of them aren't as developed. In Africa Mauritius has at least a human development index of 0.8. Australia is hot, has very little population and is has the most developed country in the world Australian Capital Territory HDI 0.98.

Like what? I haven't thought about that. But most countries import and export all kinds of stuff. That wouldnt be unique to this place. It's about making local energy expenditure like for driving, cooling, light, etc. green. BUT with lots of energy you could potentially produce all kinds of stuff by manipulating the environment with energy. If it's too hot you could potentially built giant air conditioning and grow plants with that etc. If you lack water more energy demanding ways of getting water get accessed. Maybe that's all not profitable maybe it is, I just want to analyze the possibility. Because there was a massive worldwide shock when big nuclear power plants exploded. (Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant explosion march 2011) In Germany which is very far ways kids couldn't play in sandboxes for 3 months, all kinds of mushrooms weren't eaten. There were all kinds of symptoms like higher death rate of children which were associated with atomic radiation. If one of these suckers exploded near a an important big city it would be a disaster for the health and the economy of the whole country. Nuclear power plants have two huge problems. 1) they can explode, 2) you can't properly store the nuclear waste. It got very popular to be against all nuclear power plants. "Die Grüne" a Democratic Party in Germany were becoming very popular because they were against nuclear power plants. The thread of them becoming a big party let chancellor Angela Merkel decide to join that popular opinion so her party wouldn't loose so many votes. The Germany overshot with their goals though. Russian gas was a good interim solution before going all green as it is half as damaging as petroleum. You can learn a lot by coming up with questions like these. Even if at the end it shows that there is good reason for why it doenst work, you understand why. Or maybe you actually find a new solution. It's the best from both worlds.

Okay perhaps I am no geographical expert. But you dont need green farmland for every place, if it's just a city wouldn't everything do as long as you have energy? Also you could turn many shitty places around. With solar parks some deserts could built savannas so not unattractive at all. Dont ask me about the mechanisms though.

Not in Australia for example. Small population for the amount of land. Of course I am not talking about conquering land that is already taken.

When all the cool kids go to Australia. Look it's just a possible solution. Maybe it's not realistic but maybe it will have a partial implementation because it is a real possible solution.

Dont meme me.

Maybe. If this is a real solution and influencer do it they might start a trend and pull parts of society with them. Just like the vegan movement. Moving to another country is also adventurous. If they shape existing countries into popular ones who knows. Or maybe countries in the future will have to pay for their environmental pollution and hot countries with los of renewable energy will be a lot cheaper.

For many of them arrogance is a necessary adoption. Many nice guys aren't ethical either, they just give them free shit and are nice to them in hopes that they get pussy, they dont want to be good. This goes so deep. So an attractive women needs to punish these manipulative guys. Also if she would be too nice every low value guy would approach her which would hurt the guys when they get rejected and would put her in danger because rejection is always a bit dangerous. I dont think that they become unethical people because of their position I think that's more what people who dont know them say about them although it could be true to a partial extend.

A spectacular way to survive.

But its absolutely true that I am dreaming.. Well I am open to the possibility that I will understand this differently when I have a mystical experience of that sort myself. I have to get my life in order first before going ham into spirituality unfortunately.

But right now this is not the case. Right now my limited POV is all there is, everything else is concept. Of course in a mystical experience my limited POV could be stretched to even an absolute amount. (transpersonal consciousness)

Illusion is absolute truth because its true that I experience an ego. What I mean is my POV.

transpersonal consciousness can't be Absolute Truth because we can't be conscious of the consciousness outside of personal consciousness and therefore its a concept and can be doubted. Absolute truth can't be doubted. Yes solipsism is not elegant, it's not useful, its inhuman but is it true?

I completely agree. I am not sure what we are arguing about maybe the same understanding from a different angle? Yimpa might have the bigger picture.

I answered what I mean with direct experience.

I think non-solipsism carries a lot of assumptions. If you deconstruct those you get to solipsism. What IS.

Sure I agree with that. What I mean by "solipsism" is the direct experience. When you articulate it it becomes secondary truth of course. BUT even though the is secondary truth territory solipsism should be formulated in such a way that absolute truth is articulated as direct as possible and without any detours. Thats what gives it a higher placing in secondary truth then other mind games I think. Yes that's how I understand it. But that's my direct experience. In my direct experience there is nobody but me.

Very interesting thanks for clarifying. Yes I do take on a hyper-empiricist ontology at the moment as I believe it might take me to mystical experiences or on the other hand in rationality I can get lost running in circles. But just because I take on a solipsistic approach doesnt take rationality away. Of course I still live from a rationalistic point of view and support your explanation with the connection of the individual and the objective world highly. It's not that I am against it or find it unreasonable. I only see it not as the ultimate but as a secondary truth. But secondary truth is important. I dont get what you are saying.

I am just saying that I can only imagine transpersonal consciousness in personal consciousness. So how do I know transpersonal consciousness exists as a form outside of it? How do I know you exist, how do you know I exist? You can't know and because you can't know transpersonal consciousness might not exist. (Of course if it exists it is the superset of personal consciousness like the ocean is the superset of all waves.) I am confused. I think you put transpersonal consciousness as fundamental whereas I put personal consciousness as fundamental. No I think my personal thoughts and experiences exist absolutely because I am conscious of them right now. Thats the only thing I can't doubt. I can doubt transpersonal consciousness though cause I dont experience it right now.

No in the full Blog post it says that these Aliens say that all humans have the same capacities as these Aliens creatures. In some of Leos videos I heard that he experimented with healing. Also there aren't really any mystics which can heal themself. But I think we should be open to the possibility that we can learn it with help.

Whole body once a week to keep my gains.