DrugsBunny

@cetus Sensitive.

Apolitical, in this context, obviously means "this user is NOT permitted to discuss politics" rendering them apolitical in the literal sense that within the domain of this forum they will not be engaged in politics. It's a semantics game to insist this is an unreasonable label. To be perfectly clear, I'm not even referring to @Yarco, because Leo didn't make this decision until another user @Fadl decided to indirectly call me a drug addict while asserting the conspiracy of partisan treason regarding the FBI raid. You're probably about to say, "all he said was that the left doesn't want to deal with Trump next election", to which I'll respond: Do you really think that's all he meant by that specific language. Please don't be this intentionally naive.

The lack of self awareness here might actually deserve some kind of trophy. Why not afford me the same courtesy you're describing here regarding my perspective? The reason you won't is because you're politically opposed to my perspective, and your grievance here is not one concerned with open-mindedness as you would have us believe, but with defending your worldview, as I have done, and as @Oeaohoo has. You heard it here first, folks; gays are actually a conspiratorial manifestation from the (((globalist elites))), and the pride flag is the covert symbolism for desanctifying humanity. I'm not being dramatic, but your language is indistinguishable from that of Q-Anon, and "globalist", in the context you're using it, is nothing other than an anti-semitic dog whistle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Right-wing_usage Looks like I'm supposed to report this, and I'll take pleasure in doing so. Gays are now "deviants" apparently. Big yikes. Bro, @Yog are you really going to keep defending this guy? I could already tell he was bigoted nationalist, which is why I went so hard on him, but now that he's made it abundantly clear I'd hope you can admit you were mistaken to take issue with my approach. It's not a coincidence that all the people here opposed to Leo's decision have expressed disgusting views here themselves. I'm trying to imagine the world one must live in to equate homosexuality to murder and rape. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/80666-insight-into-suffering/ Ban 'em all Leo. Let them pursue consciousness work with the many tools this forum provides, but don't allow them to further delude themselves into lunacy while subjecting the rest of us to their bigotry.

@Oeaohoo It would be wise and somewhat courteous to make some effort to conceal the fact that you frequently binge watch Jordan Peterson, but I'd imagine your habit for wearing antique monocles and sipping oolong tea with your pinky fully extended would naturally preclude you from affording others this modest courtesy. I would ordinarily excuse the pedantic posturing here, but considering how little substance you've actually managed to convey in spite of this heaping onslaught of drivel I'm going to be blunt about how asinine this comes across. Having just looked up "Faust" so as to familiarize myself with this specific flavor of pretentious posturing, I can only laugh at the idea that one could, with a straight face, equate the pursuit for LGBT acceptance with selling ones soul to the devil. It must make you so angry that people no longer have to live in shame for expressing themselves openly as who they are. No one is forcing you to do anything, we just ask you not be openly bigoted. I'm actually cracking up, my dude's straight up Jordan Peterson on steroids. Let's actually deconstruct what you've just said. Cosmopolitan: • (of a person) One who is free from local or national bias/attachment • (of a culture) Containing people from many different countries Post-modern: • An intellectual stance of skepticism towards epistemic certainty or the stability of meaning • That which follows modernity Nomad: • A person who does not stay long in the same place • A wanderer The implications of what you said are actually pretty revealing. You're essentially ascribing an implied faultiness towards the broad rejection of nationalism, from which I can only surmise that you are a proud nationalist yourself. Post-modernism has nothing to do with this, but you couldn't help but throw in the fancy buzz-word. I hope I'm not being too abrasive here; after all, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to conjure a cogent worldview with the taste of Jordan Peterson's ejaculate ingrained into memory as thoroughly as it must be for someone who would post this.

It's ultimately a good idea to ban certain users from posting political drivel and to take the extra step of making their "apolitical" status visible for all to see. This is supposedly a community for conscientiousness, introspection and self-improvement, so you're committing a blatant affront towards the pursuit of this objective by pompously broadcasting your own selfishness/ignorance and to be blunt, stupidity, by insisting that the FBI commited partisan treason by legally investigating humanity's greatest embarassment, Donald Trump, the bigoted manchild who: Tried to steal the election while insisting it was being stolen Directed an unprecedented insurrection attack on the capitol when he lost Denied the seriousness of covid-19, framed as a liberal hoax Demanded states "slow the testing down" when it became obvious covid was real, sacrificing human lives to preserve the false perception of his preventative efficacy This "FBI raid" was the issue of focus when Leo decided to adopt this much welcomed change, so let's not pretend it is unwarranted or that Leo is being unfair here. You'd have to be haplessly devoid of even the slightest modicum of introspection to believe Trump didn't have this coming, and I'm personally glad there will be accountability for the juvenile dullards subjecting the sane adults of this community to their deranged brain-rot.

I suppose out of infinity anything is possible, but I'm starting to think it must be the case that, at least for some people, the way they talk about their "soul", experiencing heaven, and past lives, and stuff that should only be accessible after death, that it must be the case that multiple lives can take place under the same "dream" of metaphysical consciousness. For instance if you physically die and feel yourself shooting up towards a light tunnel that brings you to some metaphysical conception of heaven, wouldn't that be part of the dream, and you haven't gone infinitely meta yet? Thoughts?

@undeather Sounds awesome, thanks.

That's so good to hear. Question, do you get unlimited water there? Are there showers? I have a weird affliction where I have to brush my teeth excessively to relieve irritation. Would I be able to accommodate this condition on a retreat?

Can we stop pretending that there's even a modicum of intellectual merit in denying trans people their identities just because it makes you uncomfortable? Asking "What is a man/woman?" is like asking "What is a name?"; a name is that which one goes by, same with gender. If your name is @Yidaki, what's to stop someone from saying "Hey, you're name is self-referential! That means it's invalid because definitions can't be self-reflexive." Hopefully you can see why this is just asinine. Nobody would claim that names are contradictory because they rely on self-reflexivity. The reason why this is the ONLY way to consider gender is because it provides the most utility, and very obviously so. For instance, if someone is born with a woman's brain, but has a male body, such a person has to live up to incompatible gender expectations, which leads to isolation and suicidality. Therefore instead of having strict rules limiting gender to one's biological sex, we can accommodate those with gender dysphoria by defining gender as that which one goes by, so we are instead saying gender is that which you are internally, and disregarding external physicality. Unwillingness to take one's word for what gender they are is simply bigotry, and people like yourself need to take a serious introspective look into why conceding this obvious courtesy makes you so uncomfortable. I'm curious, since this transphobia is popping up more often on this forum I'm curious if you actually believe it's even possible for people to have a female's brain structure in a male body. I'd be willing to bet you don't actually believe gender dysphoria is real, which would discredit this whole "ideologically neutral" facade of intellectualism you're going for.

You think if God literally came down from the heavens and bestowed the unflattering truth about Trump upon humanity, conservatives would just call God a libtard and stick their heads further in the sand in the face of divinity? I'd bet on it.

Just some petty food for thought here, but what do you imagine the supposed legal betting odds would be on trump getting arrested at this point now that the feds have raided his private property? There's gotta be a place where you could bet on this right? I might actually wanna put down a few hundred on him getting arrested at this point. Another wager I'm not quite as confident in would be him actually spending significant time behind bars if arrested.

When spirituality meets transphobia. Seriously people, stop responding to this as if this self-appointed internet scholar is actually presenting a critical subject matter and isn't just a simpering transphobe. My dude actually named himself @Scholar and cited a Jordan Peterson video. It's hard to conjure a more pretentious commitment to the phony aesthetic of intellectualism. Just cringe and ignore the poor troll. He is insecure and projecting his own self-hatred onto people suffering from the very real affliction of gender dysphoria.

I've determined that radical self acceptance (otherwise known as self-love, minus the imagery of chronic masturbating) needs to be one of my main goals in consciousness work. I would like more perspectives on how I can actually achieve this. Is it better to actually improve my life by achieving more materialistic pursuits which would naturally lead to self acceptance, or can psychedelics and meditation open new facets of my awareness that will better facilitate this goal without the need to pursue a higher materialistic status?

I'm referring to the subliminal healing auditory videos such as ones found on this channel. I fell asleep to something like this the other day, and had a sort of sleeping hallucination (felt noticeably distinct from an ordinary dream) with obvious spiritual undertones and implications (flying, feeling of freedom). I've only had about 5 of these, which have all come in the last year. I'm starting to think some of the stuff I've previously dismissed as bullshit is actually grounded in something real, but I'd like more perspectives on this.

Every other concept in the list had heinous moral implications, whereas homosexuality does not. If he meant it as you're interpreting it, the obvious word to have used instead would be "homophobia". Given his choice of words it's fair to assume he shares at least some political alignment with the likes of Steven Crowder or Tucker Carlson. In my most generous interpretation I can only surmise that you see gayness as a form of moral degeneracy. In my more blunt interpretation I'd say this is inbred tier homophobia wrapped in pseudo-spiritual toxicity attempting to exonerate evil from a metaphysical perspective of godlike total acceptance. I haven't experienced any significant godlike states of consciousness, but if I had, and thus fully embraced all forms of evil, this would be a state of consciousness — a state of being that shouldn't be haphazardly transcribed into reckless language that can only be interpreted by ordinary people as callous indifference to human suffering.

Maybe if you're lucky your next divine insight will highlight how asinine it is to include homosexuality in the same category as rape or murder. Epic self-report right there, and for what? This numbingly tame bit of spiritual hearsay that we've all read before? Aha, alright. ???

@Brivido I'm finding your posts seriously fascinating and I've basically stalked your profile to read your old posts and I'm finding great shit. Normally I have trouble lending credence to people's claims here but it seems you are genuine and worthy of my perceived credibility. I hope you won't mind answering some more questions now that I've tactfully flattered you. ?? I'm about half way finished with KUNDALINI TANTRA - Swami Satyananda Saraswati, and from what I've gathered so far, it apparently claims that you should have yoga experience (specifically hatha yoga) before doing these. I would obviously prefer to just start with the techniques in the book right off the bat, so: To what extent would you deem it necessary to actually do other yoga beforehand? What benefits will these lesser yogas even give me? How long were you doing other yoga forms before these techniques? I'm also wondering a few things related to your psychedelic experience: As someone who has never tried 5-meo DMT, nor even NN-DMT, do you think it's safe for me to take 5-meo MALT? Do you think I can learn to stay in the I am after just a few trips of 5-meo MALT? You answers are much appreciated.

@Brivido This is all such great info thanks. I'll definitely buy that book. Can you describe how you learned to be mindful throughout the day (and not just while meditating)? I imagine it's something like just dismissing unproductive thoughts that take you out of the present moment, but I'm also wondering if it just gradually became apparent to you how to maintain such a state all day only after meditating for a long time, similar to how you said you had to learn to mimic the 5-meo-malt state to achieve the aforementioned phenomenon, I imagine I would have to mimic what meditation brings. Any clarifying explanation is much appreciated.

Cool. How long do you meditate? How long have you been practicing consciousness work? What resources taught you to do Kriya yoga? Can you list every psychedelic you've done and describe how frequently you use them? If you don't mind.. Thank you.

I find it sad that we merely perceive people on the basis of their least fortunate moment. Demon mama, while having undeniably fucked up here, is easily more intelligent than 95% of this forums user base, especially anybody who watches Destiny.

Been quietly following this community for a while, much to my frustration, as there seems to be a consistent lack of logical backing for significant ontological claims; just blind deference to spiritual hearsay. Leo seems to commonly defer to a pretty unsatisfying assertion to address metaphysical inquiries: "You're imagining X". Okay, fine. But what if I were to assume this for literally any and all conceptual notions? Could it be said that even the actual distinction between solipsism and mutual sentience is imaginary, and what exactly would this imply? Is there any point at which there is no utility in assuming this postulation? Shouldn't I be able to say that the distinction between imagination and objective reality is imaginary? You must see that I am essentially rendering the term meaningless at this point. When describing the metaphysical process of intelligent conjuring which allegedly creates reality under this epistemic framework, I find the term "imagination" to be a bit deceptive, or definitionally frivolous (for admittedly underdeveloped reasons, mind you — it is obviously conceivable that this may in fact be the best term for what is metaphysically taking place). Intuitively, it seems that such a term is too easily conflated with a sort of nebulous lack of substantive existence, which is how I generally interpret "imaginary" in this context. For instance, "You're imagining other people" implies that other people do not exist, but If I were to assert this claim as flippantly as I see it used in this community, I could invoke the same postulation to affirm the opposite implication, for instance, "You're imagining that other people are imaginary" would essentially mean that other people DO exist. Can somebody actually provide a non-frivolous answer to the inquiry of whether it can be said that the distinction between solipsism and widespread consciousness is imaginary, and what this would even mean? My best guess would be: "Everything is imaginary, thus even distinctions between real vs imaginary can also be said to be imaginary if we assume a recursive instantiation of imagination which defies logical intuition", but this is just a guess, which is what I tend to see on this forum, except there will be no admitting that ones claims are conjectures. I genuinely want this explained as if I were an autistic 5 year old. Explain why I should even lend merit to you. If it isn't clear, I tend to see the majority of this forum as hapless followers, so I am really just trying to appeal only to the brainy scientific crowd here, which my saying will undoubtedly evoke the appeal of the exact opposite, so I have little hope of an effective answer, but maybe somebody will surprise me.

I kind of regret opening this thread. It doesn't seem as if the actual intention of the inquiry is being addressed. I wanted a discussion on whether the distinction of real/imaginary has any substantive meaning. I am obviously referring to Actualized's definition of ontological imagination, which is asserted to be a metaphysical process of intelligent conjuration that creates reality and shapes conscious experience, as consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality, and its content (your life/direct experience) is that which is being metaphysically imagined (basically God creation). This is clearly what was being referred to, but people have conflated this with ordinary human imagination... Other people are deferring to the very uninspired "logic won't suffice to address this" as if it's some brilliant observation and not a completely obvious consideration, so painfully obvious that I would have preemptively rebutted it in the OP if it weren't already too long. An example of an acceptable answer that could satisfy the logical prerequisite could have been: Because everything in existence/consciousness is presupposed to be a form of metaphysical conjuration (or "imagination" as it's frivolously referred to in Actualized's framework), this concept would be entirely groundless, and it's application would have no limits. Abstract concepts like the distinction between imagination versus orthodox conceptions of objective reality can be said to also be metaphysically imaginary, which means the concept of metaphysical conjuration (imagination) can be self-reflexive. When you say "Metaphysical consciousness is imagining reality, and it is also imagining that it is imagining reality" you are invoking a recursive instantiation of imagination which does not change the implications of the original postulation, nor does it render the distinction of metaphysical imagination meaningless. If you say "Metaphysical consciousness is imagining that there is a real difference between solipsism and mutually experienced consciousness" it would seem as if you are saying that asynchronous isolated consciousness (solipsism) versus synchronous consciousness would be a meaningless distinction, but this is not necessarily accurate, because metaphysical imagination would be so fundamental to reality that even its paradoxical instantiations can be substantively real. If God is imagining the distinction between solipsism and its opposite, the distinction, having been metaphysically conjured, becomes real, and therefore, you are not actually rendering the term of "imagination" meaningless when applied in paradoxical ways. Of course, an answer like this is far too academically fastidious for it to be palatable to the woo-woo mystical schmystical crowd that Actualized attracts, but something like this is what I was asking for. Instead we have people like our friend and moderator @Space spewing their 2 cents with the following 5head banger: To him this inquiry is just silly because he lacks the critical thinking skills to see the merit in asking such a question. It is entirely possible that the existence of such a paradoxical application of the term "imaginary" would conceivably render it meaningless, in which case it would have significant implications because nobody should fear solipsism any longer, because it's distinction from synchronous consciousness would be meaningless. I just love being called silly by people who lack the cognitive means to even properly interpret what I am trying to address. @SOUL It's amazing how nobody is willing to acknowledge how their perspective is just conjecture. This is philosophy, it is possible to admit this and still make compelling arguments.

I imagine it's difficult for you to conjure a sensible response to my inquiry with the taste of Leo's ejaculate so thoroughly ingrained into memory, so perhaps I should excuse this pompous drivel you've posted. No idea what I've said to upset you here, but the supreme lack of self awareness with the adjectives you've ascribed is pretty impressive. Do you always resort to this flimsy color model to assign unflattering roles to other people? ???

This answer seems to regard present conscious experience as 'real', and everything else as imaginary, as opposed to literally everything being a metaphysical process of intelligent conjuration (imagination) such as Leo asserts. This is the framework I am working from. Would you disagree that the framework Actualized content often asserts is one which states that even your direct experience is imaginary? There seems to be a mix-up of definitions. I am not closed minded to this answer, but please understand that this doesn't necessarily have to be true. I considered preemptively rebutting this anticipated response in my thread but it was already getting a bit lengthy. The concept of metaphysical imaginative creation in itself is not inherently transrational; there may be elements to it which transcend human rationality, but broadly, the concept can be rationally understood as a metaphysical process which gives rise to intelligent creation via the infinite property of consciousness which is presupposed as the fundamental building block of reality. Saying something is imagination, in this context, simply means it is a mental construction, implying that the universe is a mind. Nothing transrational about that so far... It is thus conceivable to describe the process more thoroughly in a way that conforms to a sort of logical structure. In the original post, I believe it is pretty clearly stated that I am referring to metaphysical imaginative creation, which is obviously not localized imagination, nor would there even be any point in referring to this, as there is no confusion what that sort of imagination is... Everyone already knows how that works.

TL;DR - "You're imagining X" is seemingly too frequently applied. Should this also be applied to even abstract conceptions? The distinction between imaginary and real, is that imaginary? What does this imply? Notice I can invoke this postulation to assert opposite implications: "You are imagining other people" vs "You are imagining other people are imaginary". If the distinction between solipsism and mutual consciousness is imaginary, can it be said that other people are real? At what point is there no longer utility in asserting this notion? You must have missed when I asked: