What Am I

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,288

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by What Am I

  2. Posted

    Eric Weinstein goes into the implications of what he believes is an upcoming breakthrough in physics. For those who aren't aware, he's heavily into the UFO topic these days, with an extra special interest in what occurred back in the 1950's in the US, when anti-gravity physics research was all the rage before suddenly going silent and being replaced by the dead-end known as string theory.

     

  4. Posted

    6 minutes ago, aurum said:

    It's safe to assume you're doing a bunch of BS.

    As I recall, you also talk about Ken Wilber and God but supported Trump. This is a joke.

    Yes, big time BS, for sure. Our first conversation months ago was about kundalini, and my somewhat extensive experience inducing it both with and without 5-MeO-DMT. While I'm more than just a believer in such things, I'm also not some weird crystal hippie chick who treats their beliefs as if they should be common knowledge. I'm in no position to expect anyone to agree with something like the literal existence of kundalini.

  5. Posted

    23 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    I don't think you're employing it, but I think you've unwittingly fell for it.

    How else would one arrive at the position that RFK's ideas are just as credible/valid as top-notch scientists?

    How else would one vote for a guy who did everything in his power to steal the 2020 election and who will spend the next 4 years fabricating evidence to justify it? 

    The reasons and justifications you present to support your stance all seem to be explained by the notion of "post-truth".

    I'm still exploring the idea, but so far, it's tracking really well. I can't believe it took me so long to come across this idea. 

    I mean no disrespect here. I'm just saying what things seem like to me. 

    All good; the critique makes me take a closer look at myself.

    I mean, it's possible the theory applies. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. And if we were to apply that same theory to scores of Trump supporters, I imagine it would fit pretty well as to the cause of their realignment into the right.

    I do think though that there's a chance I'm a little different from your average Trump supporter, and probably just your average person on the street in general. It seems likely I'm using different weights and choosing my actions by different criteria. As much as I've already spilled about my atypical experiences and beliefs, there's a lot more to say that I'll purposefully hold back. I guess I'm pretty unusual, but I bet everyone has aspects of themselves they choose to keep close to the chest for fear of being misunderstood or whatever else. Mine just happen to guide my choices in life.

    But at the same time, I'm fallible like everyone else. I very well could be falling into the traps you're describing. And since they're usually unconscious by definition, I wouldn't even know it.

  6. Posted

    24 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    They weren't subtle to me. You can usually taste the flavor of it on someone just by watching them for a few minutes.

    It just tends to be mixed in with positive and neutral Masculine qualities. And so, those who are prone to admire positive Masculine qualities and be in more Masculine environments might be quite acclimated to that flavor and miss the aftertaste of poison in the elixir. 

    For sure. At least in my case, I made note of the evasiveness in that type of person because I identified those same actions in myself. Like in the late 2010's when I was in the office, and everyone would be saying how vile Trump is, etc. I never once hinted that I lean right, but if my co-workers were paying close attention, they'd notice that I never indicated I leaned left either. I just sort of nodded along and kept it ambiguous. I've since come to realize that practically everyone who follows this pattern, when it's all said and done, turns out to vote rightward. With some exceptions, I'm sure.

    And as you said as well, there's usually a certain masculinity mixed in with the prediliction. Taking Rogan for example, he lifts weights, hunts, smokes cigars, and just has a general way of being that can be none other than classically masculine behavior.

  7. Posted

    6 minutes ago, aurum said:

    No I think you're spot on. I can remember thinking the exact same thing about the establishment.

    Like, if they're missing the bombshell that is God, what else are they missing?

    I think it's just inevitable when one is opening up to post-conventional stages of development.

    Man, do I ever appreciate the sympathetic opinion here. Thanks so much for that. It can feel lonely when you've stumbled onto something unspeakably incredible, but then it turns out to be essentially unknown by others.

    10 minutes ago, aurum said:

    But you can't just get stuck in being mindlessly anti-establishment either. That's a failure of meta-cognition to realize that anti-establishment thinking is itself a kind of belief system / ideology that the mind adopts.

    Yeah, no doubt it can be taken too far, and I bet you I've crossed the line more than once. It's too easy for anti-establishment thinking to become a knee-jerk impulse that occurs with no critical thinking behind it. There's some built-in landmines that have probably claimed more than a few who were otherwise sincere. Since I'm dabbling with it so much now, I can only hope I'm not way off of the correct path.

  8. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    It's not taken the wrong way at all. I don't mind being challenged or questioned. 

    It might not seem like it, but I'm careful with what I consider to be true. Most of my judgements on this topic are probabilistic, but there are some things I know to be true that others might find it impossible to believe I could know. It can seem like I'm full of shit or just arrogantly assuming things if prerequisite truths are unknown by the observer. 

    In the grand scheme, no one can definitively say how Trump or Kamala would impact the world.

    I guess this notion was what I was trying to get at. It does sound like you acknowledge that, despite something appearing unbelievably unlikely, it's still possible for it to be true.

    19 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    This kind of relativism is the sneaky game being played and it's being used to undermine truth. It undermines critical thinking and blurs the lines between valid assessments and subjective opinions. This I know to be 100% true. 

    This game was played by big tobacco in the 50s. Big oil plays it, hiring think tanks and scientists to do research that sows doubt on actual scientific fact. 

    The same thing is occurring with the embrace of RFK. Relativism is being used to diminish truth and reason.

    I can see how my question could perform exactly this function, lol. A kind of muddying of the waters to plant a seed of doubt, which may one day grow to ultimately shift your opinion.

    Who knows, our minds are mysterious. It's possible an unconscious part of myself was attempting an underhanded tactic, maybe even alongside a righteous part of myself that was just genuinely curious. Either way, your point stands that such things have been done in the past to detrimental effect, and it'd be wise to remain on the lookout.

    Thanks for the resources, I'll read more into post-truth relativism. It'd be beneficial to be able to dodge similar traps when they're laid out for me.

  9. Posted · Edited by What Am I

    18 minutes ago, aurum said:

    Yes exactly.

    That's part of what made me give him the benefit of the doubt. Of all the popular podcasters out there, he seems to have some of the best understanding of God. He has had legit mystical experiences, no doubt about it. And he does seem sincerely committed to personal growth. 

    It's all very twisted.

    Without being able to directly know his and others' minds who are similar, it could be that they've experienced the "impossible" so many times that their faith in what we think we know (i.e., the establishment) has been shaken to its core. And perhaps they're more open than usual towards accepting very unconventional scenarios as actually having a chance of being true.

    I made this case about myself in a recent post. I could never make the claim that it's for sure the correct way to think about things, but I'm being honest when I say it is a significant driver of my worldview. It's possible that guys like Aubrey are similar, whether they're conscious of its influence or not.

     

  10. Posted

    3 minutes ago, aurum said:

    This is what I think it was for Aubrey more than any social media algorithm. 

    He's a wealthy guy with a big social circle, surrounded by fellow new agers, elites and those with anti-establishment views. And that has likely come at the cost of truth.

    Aubrey is an interesting case, in my opinion. He's had countless psychedelic experiences with the goal of self-betterment, and an absolute ton of 5-MeO-DMT breakthroughs in particular. He even became a facilitator for bufo as part of a tradition. So he's no stranger to profound states of consciousness bordering on literal temporary enlightenment. It'd be tough to say he wasn't a beholder of absolute truth, many times over.

    But I suppose, as Leo posted in a recent blog (and as I believe as well), intellectual development and awakened consciousness should not be considered a 1:1 in terms of their required parallel development.

  11. Posted

    42 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    I've wondered why things that are clear as day to me go unnoticed by others. I used to think it was a matter of intellect, analysis, or bias, and it can be, but how do you explain how intelligent people miss what appears to be very obvious? I think it has to do with intuition. People lacking intuition have to rely on thinking to see things, whereas good intuition can serve things up on a platter.

    You're a fella I respect in our conversations, so I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but do you leave open even the possibility of your own incorrectness where this topic is concerned? I'm not meaning to say that you are wrong, but rather just asking if that's even on the table as something that can exist in this reality.

    To give my perspective from the other side, I most certainly am not sure Trump was the right choice. You'd have to be one of those mega-MAGAs to be that bought in, considering how easily things could go wrong in the coming years.

  12. Posted · Edited by What Am I

    I think I mentioned this in another thread, but out of necessity, you guys might as well go full "purity testing" in your assessment of various figures' support. If they're not vocally and explicitly for the left, they're probably not really for the left. I could have told you Joe Rogan, Aubrey Marcus, etc. were leaning in the right's direction long ago; probably even before Covid. And I wouldn't be surprised if they voted for Trump in 2020, and maybe 2016.

    It's just that it was subtle, and they were likely terrified of the severe backlash from admitting it. It's easy to forget, but things were different back then in terms of the public perception around who was clearly considered the bad guys.

  13. Posted

    12 minutes ago, Scholar said:

    It also shows that the main reason for why this moral norm is enforced culturally seems to be eugenics, given that there is a clear distinction made between step family incest and "real" incest, even though in terms of the ethical concerns, step family incest is probably more harmful than real incest, proportionately speaking, because step-family seem to be more likely to sexually abuse you than your regular family.

    Ah, fascinating point, that's true.

    14 minutes ago, Scholar said:

    Additionally, a lot of individuals online who seek advice or solidarity have to deal with an army of incest-fetishists who will harass them as a function of their own sexual fantasies, prying into their personal life's just because they get excited by it. So there is a degree of inappropriate sexualization of individuals who are in these types of relationships. There is a dehumanization occuring on both the level of righteous moralists who condemn such relationships and view individuals who participate in them as fundamentally deviant, as well as in the objectification of these sorts of relationships as a result of the fetishization.

    Man, you struck again in terms of presenting new concepts that opened different avenues in my mind, lol. That ability of yours to both create a lengthy stream of consciousness while also keeping it pertinent and insightful is pretty awesome indeed. Once again, you've lived up to your name. :)

  14. Posted

    @Scholar very insightful, thanks. I agree with you regarding the inconsistencies and unfortunate bias demonstrated by so many.

    Do you have any thoughts on the relatively recent change in porn offerings? Specifically, the massive increase in popularity of incest porn? I'm guessing there's some interesting psychological dynamics at play, considering it's still taboo on the surface, but it's highly prized in terms of individuals' hidden desires.

  15. Posted

    6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Of course TechBros don't wanna be regulated. They are all libertarians because that's what serves their power and wealth.

    What is sick is that they sell out democracy to a fascist for more wealth which they do not even need.

    This is literally elitist corruption happening live on Rogan's show, and no one sees it for what it is because they are so brainwashed to hate wokes.

    I see what you're saying, and I wouldn't disagree about Tech Bros' potential for depravity. But what Andreessen is claiming sounds like far more than your average instances of regulation. They're very serious acts of elitist corruption in and of themselves by the government and private banks in conjunction with one another, perhaps worse than what the Tech Bros would ever enact.

    But if it's true, I think it'll likely come out and be exposed in this upcoming administration. The actions that were taken would be a matter of fact, and it should be possible to show receipts once power has shifted. If the current government engaged in this type of corruption, it should be called out, even if the new government is corrupt themselves.

  16. Posted

    This episode of Rogan was interesting. Andreessen goes into detail about various factors that led himself and many other leaders in tech to defect into Trump's camp. And he goes on about it for a very long time—all the way from the middle of the episode to the end.

    It's quite a tale, involving supposed debanking and other underhanded maneuvers by the federal government to keep tight control over tech doings. In my opinion, he's either straight up lying or there really is some extremely concerning overreach going on.

     

  17. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    This is what I've been wondering. It doesn't seem like a very appealing ideology. I mean, I can see how people get on board with it, but it doesn't seem to have any real staying power. That combined with I don't see it much IRL, makes me question it's prevalence. I don't get out much these days so it could be widespread AFAIK, but something about that idea just doesn't seem right.

    lol agreed, same here. When I've seen conversations between adherents on Youtube, it always seems so tense and tortured. Like you have to walk on eggshells to communicate, never being sure which verbal slip-up might get you exorcised from the group.

    But I certainly don't get out much either, and definitely not into those spaces. Hopefully more people chime in with their experience.

  18. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Basman said:

    I go to a university in a progressive town and in my experience you don't really see anyone who's outwardly "woke" unless you seek out those spaces. The vast majority are completely normal. They do exist and you can usually tell when I've found. They are generally wimpy and gay looking, no offense. Nerdy types and typically peak millennial (they love ironic "quirky" humor, ALA Marvel).

    Jeez, I assumed they were at least numerous in your type of environment. If they're rare at a progressive university, we may all be under some kind of illusion as to their overall numbers. Especially considering that many believe excessive wokeness was a determinative factor in the last election. Corporate America and a relatively small number of super-vocal social media sectors may have played themselves. With right-wing amplification playing its part as well, of course.

    13 minutes ago, Basman said:

    There might be some merit to "woke people" not being the coolest kids on the block. In fact, I got written up by one of them for a rape joke at a party. Had to go through the whole rigmarole of uni hearings and shit instead of just telling to my face that they had a problem.

    xD

    Pretty classic.

  19. Posted

    I don't have much to add, except to say I think I agree with your impression of the average woke adherent. I'm sure some are more sophisticated, but at that point, it may be appropriate to say that they've graduated from the "woke" label.

    It is strange, because despite the concept of wokeness being so prominent, it's not as if everyone you see in public has blue hair and a Che Guevara t-shirt. In fact, as you said, it seems like quite a rare occurrence to actually run into anyone who's outwardly of the ideology. Though it could just be a matter of where you spend your time. You and I are older fellas, and the woke population may drop off significantly at age 35+.

    It's also possible that we're dealing with a top-down pushing of ideology. Maybe it was never really popular with the people to begin with. And if entertainment and corporations stop pushing it, perhaps it'll fade away altogether. I noticed Walmart is backing down from DEI, which seems pretty relevant.

    https://apnews.com/article/walmart-dei-inclusion-diversity-34b06922e60e5116fe198696201ce4d9

  20. Posted

    21 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    lol, no. Of course I wouldn't set out to go to a cave and abandon all earthly things (although I did want that in my mid 20's), but I might be compelled to such extremes if I allowed spiritual development to proceed. I already live in awareness that it's all an illusion. I've already gone meta on so much that I intuit anymore could be destabilizing. I think further development has its pros and cons but I'm just taking it slow for now, and I think a spiritual force is at play in making me feel this way. 

    Definitely a reasonable move to trust your gut, especially if it's an informed decision.

  21. Posted · Edited by What Am I

    @Joshe Alright, alright. I'll have to concede a little. Your argument about how the truth of the matter is opaque to the casual observer is pretty accurate. There could be angles of the choice to which we're just not aware. And I haven't heard about Trump voicing any anger towards it, so perhaps he was approving and maybe even involved.

  22. Posted · Edited by Leo Gura

    On 11/26/2024 at 0:43 AM, OBEler said:

    I cannot access right now c@What Am I what is on this site? What books can you get there?

    You would need the Tor browser to view the .onion site. Check it out if you're not already aware of it.

    I just did a few searches for known authors of books about spirituality, and I got quite a few hits. Seems very promising.

    On 11/26/2024 at 6:08 AM, MaDoubt said:

    38.000.000 books, right here

    Nice! Thanks for sharing. Looks like this is another great source.

  23. Posted

    9 hours ago, Joshe said:

    If I developed it, I might stop caring about money and my family would suffer. This is just one example of many things that could go wrong. 

    I can't see how it's beneficial to anyone but me. I could feel more free, more love, more at peace, and enjoy life more if I practiced, but I think it would make me ineffective, passive, and really just not fit to operate in this world. It just seems self-serving. I'm sure this take isn't appreciated by many. lol. 

    Don't get me wrong, I know it's nice, but so are opiates. I do want to push the limits before I die, but it's too early for that.

    Well, I think the idea of meditation may be inspiring images of Buddhist monks hiding away for years in a cave. It really doesn't have to be that way, lol. But I can respect your caution in not wanting to potentially rock the boat.

    Another benefit that comes to mind is one that's often mentioned by Ken Wilber. If I remember correctly, it was observed that a successful meditation practice is the only known thing that's capable of advancing the practitioner an average of two levels in Spiral Dynamics when they're already advanced in age. Apparently, most people become cemented at their current level by young adulthood, but meditation has the power to break one free from those shackles. That's not surprising, since it involves a dissolving of the source of conditioning itself.

  25. Posted

    48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

    This is unlike incest laws, which do not offer protection, given that other laws already offer such protections. They also come at a fundamental cost that can be unbearable to individuals, namely to never be able to be with the person one wants to be. There is also no clear prepetrator in cases in which things appear to be consensual, at least in horizontally incestuous cases. To punish individuals (and potential victims, which most jurisdictions do), for such consensual acts is not in line with basic principles of liberal society. The fact that this is even seriously considered to be an option in my view shows just how extensive the bias against such things is.

    It's funny how something can appear counterintuitive at first but then clarify with explanation.

    As I'm guessing you know, there are those on the political right in the US who live in rural areas and practice incest. Many are heavily mocked for it, even by the more educated left. I imagine this would also demonstrate the bias you're describing. It's interesting how being smarter doesn't automatically make one thoughtful, so to speak.

    55 minutes ago, Scholar said:

    I can see why you might assume that these things are comparable, given that both of them restrict the sexual autonomy of individuals. The protection of individuals of course is important, and sometimes outweighs freedom. But the restrictions here are fundamentally different in kind, and the effects of those restrictions cannot be equated, given that laws around incest might facilitate harm and abuse rather than mitigate it.

    Makes sense.