InfinitePotential

I got a 10. But I’m skeptical of all these kinds of surveys because 1.) they require self-awareness, which I don’t have and 2.) I almost never select “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree”. My preferred answer is almost always “it depends”. Guess I’m just nuanced like that. I’m gonna guess cat? No — dog. Is it dog?

There is no conundrum I recommend not dwelling on body count, as though it’s a major factor in your own self-worth or the suitability of a potential partner. 30 partners? 2 partners? Think about how much information is lost when you reduce someone’s entire sexual and romantic history to a single number. I’d be much more interested in the story behind the number — how someone treats other people, what they value, and how they approach intimacy and relationships. And I’d encourage you to reconsider your characterization of most women as “hoes.” That’s a much bigger obstacle to finding a meaningful relationship than anyone’s body count. If you approach a woman already viewing her through that lens — however justified that characterization may seem to you — you’re undermining the possibility of a meaningful relationship before it even begins. Live your life, treat people well, and don’t make numbers more important than the actual human beings involved. Find people you enjoy being with, and be with them. But since we're on numbers — you're 19! You have an enormous amount of growing, learning, and maturing ahead of you. That's a wonderful thing. Enjoy

Maybe not an example of conformity but while I’m airing grievances: stop providing people’s names after quotes, as if they own the words. Or as if it’s some big mic drop. “Profound musing on reality”………… -Albert Einstein. Oooh wowww, ~Einstein said it~ No. That’s manufactured profundity. If you’re gonna attribute a quote to someone, their name should come first. Generally, when a person is saying a thing, we know who the person is off the bat. You don’t go around saying a thing wearing a mask and then take off your mask to reveal who said it. This isn’t the masked singer. This isn’t The Masked Quotee. It’s like, reading a biography without knowing who it’s about til the end. Or just any book, but you don’t know the author til the end. So why, when it’s just a small piece, does the name come after? Conformity — that’s why. Apes. InfinitePotential:: ”No naming the source after a quote. Do it before or don’t do it. This is The Way It Should Be.” Also no more statues of humans.

Prime time tv being post-sunset. Social activities being post-sunset. Being a diurnal mammal and yet staying awake and active hours after darkness.

Addressing bad habits, especially addictive or compulsive ones, is in my estimation one of the most important and relevant subjects we could be exploring today. And I think that's only going to become more true. Atomic Habits is worth a read, but the whole “just floss one tooth” or “just do one push-up” thing doesn’t particularly resonate with me. Granted, if you genuinely committed to flossing just one tooth every day, you’d probably eventually become a person who flosses their teeth. Which is one of the main points of the book: make the behavior so easy that there’s virtually no resistance, and gradually it becomes part of your identity. I think it’s pretty valuable for building new habits. But for breaking deeply ingrained bad habits, especially addictive or compulsive behaviors, I’ve found other approaches more useful. Some of the best resources I’ve come across: Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT) — Taught in Jack Trimpey’s Rational Recovery. The book focuses primarily on alcohol addiction (with all my problems, thank God that’s not one of them 😅), but the principle can be applied more broadly. The basic idea is to make a “Big Plan” to never do X again. Then, whenever a thought or feeling arises in support of doing X, recognize it as the “Addictive Voice,” or “the Beast.” It’s the part of you that only cares about getting X, regardless of the consequences for the rest of your life. And it’s very good at pretending to be you. I take some issue with the “never do X again” commitment (or maybe that’s just my Beast talking 😂). It doesn’t always seem realistic or even appealing. But the relentless recognition of anything and everything arguing for X is incredibly powerful. This has perhaps been the most powerful idea for me. But you gotta practice it. Instead of feeling like you need to dig endlessly into your psyche, do shadow work, heal your inner child, revisit past traumas, etc., it’s wonderfully straightforward to just ask: “Is this thought or feeling arguing for X?” If so, recognize it for what it is. You don’t need to entertain the argument. Not that deeper psychological work can’t be valuable. But you don’t need to resolve your entire psychological history to make a different decision right now. And indeed — all that stuff can be a way to perpetuate the addiction. “I still haven’t resolved Y, that’s why I still do X”. Allen Carr’s Easyway — E.g., The Easy Way to Stop Smoking. These books are great at challenging the assumption that doing X is even what you really want. Because look: if doing X were genuinely a net positive in your life, what would be the problem? Easyway has you reconsider the supposed benefits. Smoking, for instance, is expensive, unpleasant in many respects, and much of the relief it provides comes from alleviating the withdrawal that smoking itself created. My main criticism is that X often IS genuinely pleasurable. Otherwise, why would we keep doing it? I don’t think we need to pretend otherwise. But there’s a huge difference between acknowledging that something provides pleasure and concluding that it’s actually improving your life. Easyway is excellent at challenging the latter. The Freedom Model for Addictions — Another fascinating perspective. Its central argument is that we’re not powerless over an addiction. It actually challenges the notion of “addiction” outright. We continue doing X because, at some level, we believe doing X will make us happier than the alternatives. So reconsider those beliefs. Really investigate what you’re getting out of the behavior, what it’s costing you, and what kind of relationship you actually want with it. Maybe abstinence. Maybe moderation. Maybe something else. I don’t necessarily agree with all its claims about the nature of addiction — it seems to brush aside some very real biological aspects of addiction as hogwash — but I find the emphasis on personal agency and reevaluating our preferences very valuable. Urge surfing — A single practice more than a book / resource. But, kind of unavoidable when working through an addiction. When an urge arises, simply observe it. Feel it in your body. Notice the sensations, the thoughts, the restlessness, the anticipation. Watch how it changes without immediately acting on it. That’s it. Don’t distract yourself. Don’t replace the addiction with something else more positive (though — you’ll do that naturally with more time!) Just observe the urge and don’t act on it. Simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple. If you actually commit to practicing urge surfing — this can work wonders. Over time, you appreciate more and more that an urge can be present without needing to be obeyed. And urges often become less frequent and less intense with time. Though particularly strong urges can absolutely arise long after the behavior has ceased. The bottom line is that an urge isn’t a command that needs to be obeyed. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) — Closely related to urge surfing, but a broader framework. One of its central ideas is “cognitive defusion”: learning to see thoughts as thoughts rather than instructions or truths that automatically require action. The thought “I need X” comes up. Recognize it as a thought, not an instruction. “I’m having the thought that I need X” is VERY different from “I need X.” And rather than constantly fighting unwanted thoughts and feelings, ACT teaches allowing them to be present while choosing actions aligned with your deeper values. You can experience craving, discomfort, anxiety, whatever — and still do what matters to you. The Happiness Trap by Russ Harris is an excellent introduction. Dopamine Nation, by Anna Lembke — Maybe one of the best books to read for The Science™ of addiction. It explores how our brains regulate pleasure and pain, how repeated exposure to highly rewarding stimuli can reinforce compulsive behavior, and how our modern environment makes the whole situation extraordinarily difficult. We’re surrounded by opportunities for immediate gratification that previous generations could scarcely have imagined. Food, pornography, gambling, drugs, social media, video games, shopping, endless entertainment. Whatever your particular vulnerability, there’s probably an entire industry ready to cater to it. One of the book’s central ideas is the pleasure-pain balance. Imagine a seesaw in your brain. When you experience something pleasurable, the balance tips toward pleasure. But the brain wants to restore equilibrium — homeostasis — so it compensates by tipping the balance back toward pain. Lembke illustrates this with little imaginary gremlins jumping onto the pain side of the seesaw. The problem is that the gremlins can overcorrect. And with repeated excessive stimulation, they become increasingly effective at tipping the balance toward pain. Eventually, you’re not even pursuing X so much for pleasure anymore. You’re pursuing it to relieve the discomfort of not doing X. This rings as extremely true to me. The book advocates a period of abstinence, often around 30 days, to give the brain’s reward system an opportunity to recover, followed by a reconsideration of what relationship you want with the behavior. Obviously, the seesaw is a simplified analogy, and recovery isn’t governed by an exact 30-day clock. Also — quitting for 30 days is easier said than done! Duh, quit for 30 days. But how? But it’s an incredibly useful framework for understanding why compulsive pleasure-seeking is so self-defeating and painful. ⸻ I would absolutely love to see more Actualized content devoted to breaking bad habits and addictions. “Awareness Alone Is Curative” is a seriously powerful episode, but I think this subject is worth tackling from lots of different angles. Because sure — if we could just turn up the dial on our awareness, that would help with a lot of things! Like my point about Easyway: if you were fully aware of the entirety of the consequences of doing X, including all its immediate and far-reaching effects, choosing not to do X might become trivial. But addiction has a way of obfuscating that awareness. When the craving comes, suddenly all the reasons not to do X become less compelling, and the immediate promise of pleasure becomes overwhelmingly important. Sometimes “be more mindful” just ain’t gonna cut it. We need ways of actually bringing that awareness into the moments when we’re most inclined to lose it. And frankly, I think this is one of the biggest things holding humanity back. We’re up against some pretty powerful forces here. Our biology evolved to pursue rewarding experiences, and now we live in an environment where incredibly sophisticated technologies and businesses are competing to exploit those tendencies. There’s a website, an app, a product, a substance, or an experience waiting to satisfy practically any craving you might have, often at the expense of your long-term well-being. And this is only going to get more severe. Learning how to relate to our own desires more consciously strikes me as one of the most valuable skills a human being can develop. I’d love to see more of that here. And I’d be remiss if I didn’t add one more tool against addiction: psychedelics. Obviously, these need to be approached responsibly and with considerable care. But man — the stories, The Science™… there’s some extraordinarily promising research on psychedelics for addiction. In my estimate, psychedelics are perhaps the most powerful tools we have for addressing addiction. That doesn’t mean you need psychedelics to overcome addictive behavior. Plenty of people do so without them. And psychedelics certainly aren’t a magic bullet. But the possibility that a profound experience could help someone radically reconsider their relationship with a substance or behavior — and actually follow through on that realization — is fascinating to me. More content on all of this, please!

@integral Love it. Understood on predicate vs foundational. And I appreciate the kataphatic/apophatic distinction. I don’t think I’m necessarily advocating either position, though. I’m really just taking the original premise seriously: strip away all stories and interpretations, and attend to the bare actuality of experience. From that perspective, it’s hard to say anything about what’s left without adding another conceptual layer. Not that those concepts are necessarily wrong. But there’s something prior to all of them. Clap. Just that. The happening itself. I imagine you already appreciate this distinction. For me, though, it’s just so easy to forget. As for existence being its own meaning, I’m pretty okay with that if we’re granting that there’s meaning in the first place. But I find it interesting that I can envision existence without meaning (e.g., a material universe without conscious observers. Though, amusingly, that’s being imagined…), whereas I can’t envision meaning without existence. Existence seems prior to meaning, just as it seems prior to learning, or exploring, or any other purpose we might propose. I think your original point was that any of those other meanings we might propose are missing the mark. It’s just this, existence. I would tend to agree there. Though perhaps someone with God consciousness will correct us there. Maybe it’s love. Maybe it’s 42. As always, IDK, I think.

It seems to me though that you’re saying 1.) remove all stories but then 2.) creating a story of there being meaning. But you’d already stripped things down to just the actuality, the suchness of simply staring at your hand. if you’ve really stripped everything away down to just the raw experience, what’s left isn’t meaningful or meaningless. Doesn’t mean there isn’t actually meaning at some level, in some deep sense. But from this perspective of deconstructing everything, it seems hard to include meaning in that. Also, if indeed the only meaning of existence is to exist, then what about all the particulars of existence? Why not simply a blank screen of existence? But things are happening. There is flow and movement. Relationships, experiences, meaning being constructed. Not just existence, but this play and dance of particular experience. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the insight that existence needs no purpose beyond itself. I actually find that compelling. But I wonder whether declaring that existence is its own meaning adds another conceptual layer to precisely what you’re trying to appreciate without one. That said — whatever you posit, it can be deconstructed. And, this is a forum, not a silent retreat. We don’t want to just write empty messages to each other. So, I can be nitpicky, but the a-ha insight you seem to have had — while perhaps not perfectly translatable into irrefutable language — is valid. I think. Maybe.

I’m hard-pressed to identify obvious biases from your videos. A huge part of your work is devoted to identifying and overcoming bias in the first place. But one possibility occurs to me: a bias toward comprehensiveness over concision, or perhaps an attachment to length as a marker of depth. One constructive criticism I’ve had of your videos is that the long lists of examples are often excessive, at least for me. Drilling a point is helpful. Exploring it from multiple angles is helpful. But it’s often the case that you’ve made a point, I’ve understood and appreciated it — about as well as I’m going to on one of my walks — and then you proceed through another long list of examples when a small handful would have been just as effective, for me. I wonder whether the length of your videos has become part of your identity as a teacher. Perhaps there’s some attachment to the idea that really serious, profound teachings require exhaustive explanations, and that shorter presentations would cheapen the material. But being concise isn’t necessarily being superficial. Distilling a profound insight into a clear, efficient explanation can itself be an impressive intellectual achievement — not that that’s the point. Of course, I’m aware that I may have my own bias toward concision. I mean — I’d like to wrap the video up and go play some rocket league or something. Or to just download the insights into my brain NOW. And, I’m aware that some people probably benefit from the additional examples, and different people respond to different angles. But I do wonder whether your preference for comprehensiveness sometimes comes at the expense of effective communication. I suspect it comes at the expense of reach. I’d love to see more of the “Actualized Clips” — that one channel. (I think you were a part of that? Or maybe someone else was just pulling that together.) Doesn’t mean I want to see TikTok shorts of you dancing and pointing at self-help slogans. (Actually, scratch that — that would be great.) In all seriousness, though, actualized.org is probably the single best collection of material I’ve ever encountered. And I’ve consumed a lot. Still no goth girlfriend, but overall, you’ve produced work that I expect to return to for the rest of my life. (/compliment sandwich) And yes, it’s not escaped me that I’m critiquing your lack of concision in an overly elaborate way. Takes one to know one I guess.

Hell yeah. “As an AI language model, I don’t have personal beliefs or values, but here’s something pretty trippy to think about…”

If you are an infinite dreamer, existing eternally, with absolute never-ending capacity to dream… a dream of a typical 80 year human life makes up absolutely nothing of the totality of your infinite dream. In other words, from the perspective of your infinite dreamer self, the next “moment” (80 years from now), you may be dreaming something radically different, so that your dreams actually are not so consistent as they appear to be from your current perspective. Also, given certain states of consciousness, illogical things can happen. Also, when you’re dreaming at night, weird things may happen, but you don’t realize you’re dreaming. Similarly, we’re in this unbelievable magical existence… we take everything around us for granted and treat it as mundane and normal, when actually it’s pretty fucking crazy that we’re bipedal apes looking out of little orbs in our skulls riding on a rock hurling through empty space, etc.

I won’t say this is the #1, but it’s up there, and just to add another to this thread: self-deception. It’s always stuck with me from one of / several actualized videos the bit about (and I’m paraphrasing) “how can you possibly trust your mind, when your mind is the one assessing whether you can trust it?” kinda like how can we prove the validity of logic… with logic? The more closely I look, the more apparent it is that the mind tends to be interested in self-survival, not Truth. good news is, the mind is also interested in happiness, which methinks can lead to Truth.

This topic is an important point. When people discredit psychedelic experiences saying the realization one has is due to ingestion of an exogenous substance, I say well, we drink water and eat food, and act like when we are adequately fed and hydrated (and all the other things our body requires), only then is our perception of reality accurate and valid. In fact, if we were to stop consuming water or food - arguably becoming as sober as possible - we would eventually trip like a mother fucker. So, to accurately perceive reality, we have to intake the right amounts of certain things, and nothing of others? Almost seems like our perception of reality is always influenced by our state of mind ? And, like the original post, with us all walking around with god knows what chemicals lodged in our brains and bodies, can we really call ourselves sober.

Happiness. Peace of mind. Contentment. Joy. Feeling good, lastingly.

No, I don’t think so, if I understand you correctly. First off, there isn’t an “us” - an actual separate entity. But, speaking at the level of there being “us”es - at least in appearance - our individual consciousness is the product of, or at least dependent on / correlated with our brain. So that would have to be perfectly simulated, probably down to the quantum level (which is impossible in principle, due to indeterminacy and other quantum weirdness), unless there is some redundancy and quantum effects could be ignored. But that’s not enough, as our entire nervous system is at play in our conscious experience. But then, that is dependent on our entire physiology - the whole body. Which is dependent on all of the microorganisms inhabiting our body. But these are all affected by what is outside the body. And this is just at the “present” moment (which general relativity says does not even absolutely exist or make sense in principle). But, the past and future would all affect things as well, to the point of where it becomes impossible to draw a line saying here is the entirety of what we need to simulate in order to recreate this locus of consciousness. (Perhaps the entire observable universe is such a line - but to simulate that one would have to know, just to start, the position and momentum of all particles contained there in - which quantum mechanics tells us is impossible - but particles are ultimately just an approximation / model depicting what is actually the case…). in short, no, this is a task that technology derived from physical sciences taken to the extreme simply could not achieve. It is entirely possible and imo likely that our “locus” of consciousness is not the result of physical, or computational, or any type of “process”. It requires actual magic. And yet, seemingly, here we are having conscious experience…

Weird Fishes is one of my favorites all time, lots of other good picks in this thread too. A bunch of random ones I’m into lately: okay I’m done for now ?

But then can you really just add these “sentience units” to compare whether one group of organisms has more “sentience units” than another? The shrimp just aren’t capable of suffering like the whale is. It’s more like, what’s less ethical: pinch every human on their weenus or kill the whale? I feel like from a certain perspective, there are no amount of ants that I would not be willing to kill to save the life of a human, much less a corgi puppy. Even if their sentience is .000001 and a corgi’s is 1000, I’d kill all the ants regardless. Of course, that would bring a whole ‘nother host of problems, but the direct suffering as a result of killing the ants vs the corgis would make me choose the ants. Of course I’m biased here cause I like dogs and don’t like ant bites. Also, my reasoning kinda worries me for what an ET civilization / super-intelligence may think about us…

How about “what do I really want?”

Notice everything in your field of experience. Accept everything in your field of experience. Ignore everything in your field of experience. also there’s Neti-neti

I’m asleep af but I do think I have a kind heart and a pretty good grasp on some things. Plus I always tip well to balance all my shitty karma

I used to think this was true. Technically, it is. For example, people’s insulin responses to the same foods can be vastly different. (And indeed, a single person’s can be different at different times, in different situations). But that being said, there are rules of thumb that apply to the vast, vast majority of people. All animal species have little variation as to what constitutes an optimal lifestyle for each individual, health wise. Humans are not likely to be an exception. Sure there is genetic diversity, and we have spread to all corners of the globe and have different environmental influences (unlike other animals), but biologically speaking, we are (almost) all extremely similar. For example, lions are unanimously fit for consumption of raw meat, occasional hunting, and lots of laying around all day farting and grooming (idk, I’m not a lion expert). There is little to no variability. No need to make some tweaks to the standard lion lifestyle for one lion and other tweaks for another, barring injury. I see little reason why humans would be any different. Sure, we are any many ways vastly more complex, but we’re all the same species. That being said, modernity has so radically altered our “natural” environment… unnatural problems could require unnatural solutions. And too, there is a “generational health” aspect to these matters. The book Deep Nutrition makes the case that basicslly, from my understanding, if your parents and grandparents and so on lived unhealthy lifestyles, you’re fucked. If they didn’t, then you can get away with eating trash, because your genes have some good “momentum” (very loosely speaking). Makes sense to me - if I’m locked in with healthy habits, the occasional poor night’s sleep or chocolate binge isn’t too big of a deal. But weeks of that and I’m a totally different person. Anyways, my main point of this is that no, there are bits of health advice that are (virtually) applicable to everyone. They likely include avoiding poisonous substances, exposure to sunlight and nature, enough high quality sleep to feel well-rested, management of stress, some amount of physical activity, and plenty of 5-MEO-DMT. (They do not likely include abstaining from food for exceedingly long periods of time).

You are breathing too much. Practically everyone in modern society is chronically mildly hyperventilating, due largely to being overly comfortable, sitting down all day, junk food, overeating, underactivity etc etc. Optimizing your breathing is, in my opinion, the single most beneficial thing you can do to improve your health and well being (okay tied with meditation and relaxation). Proper breathing is unfortunately overlooked in the health and fitness community, and of course in society at large. On top of that, the breathing advice we DO get is often counterproductive. For example "take deep breaths". On the surface this may sound like good advice.... wouldn't bringing in a ton of air help oxygenate your body? The answer is no. It's counter-intuitive (like so many things in self-actualization), but breathing LESS oxygenates your body MORE. I won't get too scientific but it has to do with the carbon dioxide in your body (see Bohr effect). You actually do not breathe because you are hungry for oxygen, you breathe to get rid of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, though often demonized as a toxic byproduct of breathing, is required to transport oxygen into your cells and bloodstream. Our goal is to increase your tolerance for carbon dioxide, so that more of this gas can stay in your body for longer, so that more oxygen can be transported into your bloodstream and cells. And in general, more oxygenation = better health and well being. To add just a little more science, you want to be breathing through your nose, because the air interacts with your sinuses to produce nitric oxide which further increases oxygenation. (Increasing nitric oxide is another extremely worthwhile endeavor in addition to breathing properly). Additionally, your nose warms the air and filters out impurities. Proper Breathing Inhaling and exhaling through the nose Slow, gentle, calm, soft Non-visible, quiet No sighing, yawning, gasping, coughing, abrupt inhales or exhales, etc Using the diaphragm ("horizontal" breathing, not "vertical") Exhale is not forceful, rather it is simply a relaxation of the body Slight pause after exhale Rhythmic and regular Less than you are currently breathing Better advice than "take deep breaths" would be: relax your body and take softer, gentler breaths. Think about it this way, what does a calm, healthy, fit individual breathe like at rest? You wouldn't even notice their breathing. Then, consider an overweight, unfit, anxious individual breathing at rest. This person's breathing would likely be visible, perhaps you could hear it, they might even be breathing through the mouth sighing a lot etc. Consider also when you are deep in meditation... with your body and mind as calm as can be, your breathing can almost become nonexistent. Ideally, you want to get your "control pause" as high as possible. Your control pause is the amount of time you can comfortably hold your breath after exhaling. To measure, sit upright, comfortably, relaxed, and breathe as normal for a few minutes. Then, take a normal inhale, and normal exhale. Hold your breath until the first inclination to breathe occurs. The number of seconds between that exhale and inhale is your control pause. Note, you should be able to resume breathing normally after measuring your control pause. If you have to take a big gasp or feel out of breath, you have held your breath too long and improperly measured your control pause. A good goal is to get your control pause over 20 seconds. Even more is better. Don't worry, I was at like 3-5 seconds when first starting. Every few seconds you can increase to your control pause has a substantial influence of your health and well being. I especially notice it in my mood, cognition, mental health etc. Proper Breathing Exercise There are many exercises, but the goal of most is to maintain a slight air hunger for some time. Don't overdo this, you wouldn't try to bench 300 lbs your first day at the gym Sit upright, completely relax your body Gently, softly, slowly, inhale through the nose. Inhale slightly less than you would naturally Exhale through your nose by completely relaxing, especially your diaphragm and stomach Wait a little bit longer to inhale than you would naturally Continue for as long as you'd like. This is a great way to meditate / start your meditation Breathe in this manner while also doing physical activity like walking, running, lifting weights etc etc for SERIOUS health gains (try not to open your mouth!) (can't stress this bulletpoint enough) You will know you are doing well when your extremities feel warmer, you are producing more saliva, and you feel calmer and more at peace Other tips to oxygenate your body Exercise Walk, walk, walk Don't sit too much Eat oxygenating foods: Beets (MVP), spices like ginger turmeric cayenne etc, high nitrate vegetables like leafy greens (nitrates increase nitric oxide, beets have the most which is why they're MVP... In fact, I would wager that most of the benefits of eating plenty of vegetables comes from their nitrate content), raw cacao, cordyceps mushroom Meditation and relaxation Properly hydrate Do not overeat or eat junk food Look into fasting Improve your sleep quality (may need to write a separate post on this sometime) TAPE YOUR MOUTH SHUT AT NIGHT WHILE SLEEPING (maybe the single easiest yet most beneficial thing you can do for your health) Some Resources Patrick Mckeown's youtube videos and book "The Oxygen Advantage" Research the "Buteyko Method" Some Caveats The goal is to make your unconscious breathing more in alignment with the above descriptions of proper breathing I.e., breathing exercises where you DO hyperventilate can potentially have benefits as well (Wim Hoff method, shamanic breathing, etc), but chronically hyperventilating (which practically all of us do to some degree) is harmful, and in general breathing less throughout your day makes you healthier "A perfect man breathes as if he is not breathing" -Lao Tzu

Smoked DMT in a dream, reality became very fractal like and I sorta spiraled into an infinite singularity. Highly recommended

@Matt8800 I’m really interested in this as a possibility. However, I have dealt with negative entities in nightmares in a different way.... by loving and blessing them. For example, I had a pretty sick dream with a demon sitting in the living room of the house I grew up in farting and laughing at me (weird I know). Doesn’t sound it, but it was scary in the dream. I started “blessing it”, saying things like “I love you so much, you deserve to be happy and well, you deserve to be loved and cherished, I bless you” etc. This made the demon get up and run away into a dark room, then it challenged me to come at it in the dark room. I tried to turn on the lights, didn’t work (as is usually the case in dreams). Then walked around the back and turned on the lights, which worked, then continued blessing the demon in the same way and it turned into a beautiful woman. Anyways, this method has worked for me lots of times, and I find myself having fewer and fewer nightmares. Would be curious to hear your thoughts on this method versus the one in the OP. Also, what about dreams where there is no negative entity but simply fear? Like, dreams where you’re dissolving into infinity, or falling to your death etc. Nothing specific to direct anger and rage at in these dreams?