SeaMonster

Assuming that I am correct about some things other people have trouble seeing, I also know that trying to correct them without them asking for it is pointless, as you just trigger their egos and they dig in more. So basically I don't bother with unsolicited corrections. I'm frankly done with all that shit. I understand how mine and others' psychology works much better now, so I have less inclination to engage in pointless interactions.

One of the perils of psychedelics is what Carl Jung called "inflation." I think this may be what you're experiencing. I would not do any more psychedelics, and dedicate myself to humility and service to counteract the effects (it is doable.)

The trouble with the test is how to answer the questions: based on lifetime average or based on current circumstances, based on narrow or broad interpretation. I would recommend answering based on lifetime average/long-term tendencies and interpret broadly. If you interpret the questions too narrowly or based on current circumstances you will get the wrong result. If you still have trouble, you may need to ask someone who has known you for a long time which of the descriptions fit best. And basically, yeah, you can't change the basic function stack, but you can develop and integrate the weaker functions so you're better rounded (which really makes all the difference in the world.)

(I'm talking about them at their peak.) Messi is the greatest dribbler and accuracy shooter I've ever seen. Ronaldo is the greatest combination of power and accuracy I've ever seen, and is more athletic than Messi (crazy vertical and header ability.) There is a reason there is a debate about who's the greatest. The two were not that far apart, no matter who you think is better. There is a bias towards forwards in football because they're typically the guys that score/assist most, they're the stars and the others are more of a supporting cast. It would be more accurate to say those are two of the best forwards of all time, so you have a point.

Reality is reality. Defining A in terms of B doesn't really change the nature of A, does it? It merely restates it. Not if I'm present. If I'm present then I'm not worrying about the future - by definition. I don't have to "understand reality" -- I merely need to surrender and accept "what is." If you're talking about some sociological/political/economic model of reality, what does that have to do with spirituality or enlightenment, and how does that affect how I react to things that I don't like and don't want to happen? If I'm in a state of acceptance, then whatever happens, happens. YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT ANYWAY. SERIOUSLY, WTF, DUDE?

Being present is all I need. What is "knowing what reality is" anyway? I don't know what it is nor do I care, I just want maximum inner peace.

Out of curiousity -- what hard truths about yourself have you faced after your psychedelic journeys?

It's all extraordinarily simple and basic. We're all just walking meatbags of trauma and can go to amazing lengths to avoid facing our pain, so we stay stuck in our bad habits. That's all psychedelics do (and need to do.) They show you this so you can't hide from it (although some people do actually manage to hide from it.)

My guess is that the difference between the two is that the people whose lives got better actually applied the hard truths they received during their journeys and the person who got deep into LSD didn't want to face the hard truths. That's the only reason to get "deep" into a psychedelic -- you receive a harsh truth...and you go "I don't like this answer, I want a different answer." In other words, you don't want to face the truth. The truth is simple. It relates to your life, it's not some kind of abstract metaphysical bullshit for you to lord over people who haven't tried the psychedelic. It's what you're supposed to change in your life. And most of the time it has to do, like you said, with healing. Trauma causes self-neglect and self-abuse, and the proper insights can restore self-care and self-love and self-respect and change one's life in the process. There is nothing complicated or complex about any of this shit -- anyone telling you otherwise is taking you along for the ride on his ego trip.

It's not a good question, because abstraction is a way of avoiding the concrete, specific things one needs to be doing because they are too painful or scary. You have to get to the level of the specific so that it hurts or is uncomfortable.

"Contemplating the present moment" is an oxymoron. Either you are present or you're in your head, somewhere else (the past or the future or contemplating something.) Either you are fully in your senses or in your thoughts. Most people are in their head because they are distracting themselves from their pain or negative emotions.

I'm not even sure that "desire" is an adequate translation and I'm not a Sanskrit or Pali expert to really know what Buddha was talking about. It probably means a type of ego-clinging kind of desire like you said. The only "bad" or clinging desires are those that are only present when the ego is present. If they are present when the ego has been totally seen through, then they aren't "bad" desires. The ego only sees its own agenda, it doesn't know if its agenda is healthy or right. So if the ego wants A, it cannot see that maybe getting A isn't ultimately good. It's a blinkered kind of -- blind -- desire.

But again, what exactly does he mean by this? If we're using common nonduality terminology, realizing The Self is what a lot of the best known spiritual teachers already aim for or have taught. e.g. Ramana Maharshi: But you're saying that's something beyond enlightenment, which means it's something else. But in order to know if Leo knows what he is talking about, one has to gauge if he is even at the consciousness level of these teachers. If he is, he should explain what his experience of "I" is like, if there is any. It would take a few seconds. If he isn't, then he is just saying things that are confusing or nonsensical using terminology that other teachers have used in his own idiosyncratic context. (In order to be "beyond enlightenment" -- whatever that means -- one must in the very least be AT enlightenment, no?) If he is talking about integrating the psyche post-enlightenment, then he should specify (I've already described that as the work to be done after the most subtle ego strand is gone.)

That's not a bad range, I would say 30-36. Of course, there are some very mature kids. I was a camp counselor once and one of my kids was an extremely mature 9 year old. I think he went on to be very successful on Wall Street. That's rare, of course, but there are people like that of all ages. The problem with being too young and immature and becoming awakened is that...you're still young and immature...and now you may think you're somehow more advanced or better than your elders. But you're still young and immature. Being spiritually awakened hasn't granted you life experience/wisdom or domain knowledge of all kinds. So it's possible for the prematurely awakened to be super-obnoxious, or maybe more socially isolated than they would have been otherwise. The no-self awakening is just the first step on the road to Self Realization, and it's a particularly tricky stage to navigate (it's where a lot of Zen Devils are.) Mix that with youth and you could easily have a juvenile delinquent if the personality is otherwise disordered.

What does "deconstruct your mind" even mean? The most charitable interpretation matching reality is something like the self-inquiry technique. If that's so, why would you need a particular psychedelic in the first place? From Wiki.

Keyword in bold. There isn't a single spiritual teacher out there who thinks that an "awakening" as defined by him/her is "temporary." That's an experience of some type not an awakening.

But it's not even about empirical evidence yet -- it's about defining our terms. I don't think Leo uses the term "awakening" to mean the same thing as any other spiritual teacher I have ever read. This could mean that Leo has made up his own definition of "awakening" and hence he is not "wrong" within the context of his definition, he's just "wrong" with regard to objective reality (i.e. how all other spiritual teachers define "awakening.") Awakening is a permanent shift in awareness, it is not an intellectual insight per se. The only answer that one has to give is, what is my experience of "I" right now, if any? One doesn't need a philosophical lecture, just a simple answer. How am I experiencing "I"? Can Leo give a clear, unambiguous answer to that question so that his level of consciousness may be gauged or is he going to continue to insist that his definition is paramount, unique and unquestionable?

Merely notice what you're "clinging" to. There's a repetitive thought, focusing on a point, calling it "I." But it's just a thought, a belief. Become aware of what you're doing. Become aware of your conception of "I."

Leo is an INTP E5 and he sets the tone. Well, I think it's down to this: everyone must be careful not to spiritualize their own innate personality tendencies (i.e. their own ego.) If you're naturally cerebral, that's just your freakin' personality. If you're naturally emotional, that's also just your freakin' personality. If anything, the height of spirituality is being whole (HOLY) meaning integration, meaning becoming more than your personal -- ego -- comfort zone.

Love the "integral ecological" i.e. yellow/teal stage description: survival before compassion. That's an acknowledgement of the mess that toxic compassion creates and the higher stage needed to remedy that. Believe me, that is coming and coming hard in the next 5 years.

LOL. I'm a 77/100 Introvert. You guys are in for a world of hurt if you don't get out there and socialize. Your minds will devour you. Speaking from experience.

The problem with people on this forum is that they think there is this one world culture that applies to everyone. This is an Israeli article. Israeli men probably have much more testosterone than your typical American or European guy. Maybe their pickup is more aggressive, who knows? But their entire culture is much more aggressive too, for excellent survival reasons. On the other hand, the author has freakin' gender pronouns in her Twitter profile, and is an English Lit major, so she has likely been marinading in Anglo type feminism her whole adult life and gets a girl boner trying to apply US/EU standards to Israeli men.

You could look back on your past (even if you're young) and see which decisions worked for you and which didn't. Then you can extract some kind of general principle regarding which course you're here to follow. E.g. for me being more independent and self-reliant works and depending on others doesn't. And some people are the opposite, they're better off with a partner. For some people being more spiritual works, for others more materialistic. It might help you if you write out a story of your life and what/when things have worked well and when not.

Speaking of curbing monopolies, the Republicans want to break-up Google's ad business. So maybe you'll see some of it in the next several years.

You mean backlash to stage green, I assume. Musk is freaking Stage Yellow, ffs. Of course greenies like Leo are incapable of seeing that. Musk is very much about localism as far as speech. He is ok with following local national laws, he simply doesn't want toxic Green bullshit here in the US. That's Yellow, not Orange. Orange is about universal individual rights. Yellow is about respect for localism.