erik8lrl

Jon Hopkins is one of the artists at Wavepath.

https://wavepaths.com/ https://listen.wavepaths.com/

Love is Love Is a word With too many definitions Too many implications Too little imperfections What is there to say But love without words Like strings without end Or rain without clouds This Without you Without me Without love This is also love In truth This Time and space Filled with being Of the wordless word The loveless love The dreamless dream The pathless path God is within Love Is...

Fast for 12-24 hours before the drink. Eat clean and healthy for the 3 weeks before the ceremony. Also good to keep up meditation and spiritual practice so that you are in the best state possible. Surrender to whatever happens during the trip. The more you resist the more you are likely to throw up. Throwing up is a natural response to the drink for most people. It actually feels good afterward. Purging whatever you needed to release. If your ceremony place is good, then they would make everyone feel safe and loved where they are okay with throwing up in front of each other. Also if you are afraid of throwing up you are likely not ready for a deep trip (ego death, God-consciousness, etc). So take small doses at first to test the water.

Time doesn't exist linearly in the absolute perspective. Infinity implies eternity. Eternity is timeless. All that can and can't exist, exists/doesn't exist. All concepts and separation collapse into one. The analogy is correct if you ARE the console, the games, the game maker, the player, the concept of playing, the concept of a game, the concept of you, and the concept of this analogy as a whole. All that can and can't happen, will/will not happen, all possibilities are included. Old or new are relative concepts that don't apply to God (in the absolute perspective).

What is understanding? The recognition of one's self in things The recognition of self-similarity in things The recognition of love in things When I say "I understand you", what does it mean? It means I have imagined being you and experienced existence as you It means I have expanded/put away (a part of) my sense of self to include you in it. What about when I say "I understand how something works"? Let's say it is gravity What does it mean when I say "I understand how gravity works"? First, "I" is the understanding occurring to, I as a human being, for God do not need to understand, since God is already understanding all (Paradox, I am God) Second, gravity is defined as a concept in my experience of existence Third, "works" means I acknowledge the existence of this concept and how it functions in the logical systems of this universe. So it actually means: I acknowledge the defined/imagined concept/phenomenon of gravity as a part of this functioning universe I (as God) then create this concept in my existence But what if I don't understand it? It still exists. What is the difference between understanding it and not? For example, I have been trying to understand Voice Leading I know of its existence and its phenomenon But I have yet to define it. Or rather, my current definition of it feels incomplete or untrue I don't yet fully understand it. But I know it. What is the difference between understanding and knowing? Knowing is the acknowledgment of the existence of a concept/thing. Understanding is realizing the nature of that thing in existence. And the truest nature of all things is that they are God/self. So the deepest understanding is the realization of God in things. And the moment you realize that, you also realize your own nature. Thus that thing, from an existential point of view merges with you into one. So really understanding can be defined as: **The process of conceptual unification.** We may understand things in different degrees and depths And they are all pointing towards the absolute truth. And since the absolute is infinite, we may continue this process for infinity. And thus you may also define it as: **The process of self-recognition/self-realization/self-identification/self-unification** This is true, but it also reaches the level of absolute to the point that it now defines existence. Existence is the process of self-recognition/self-realization/self-identification/self-unification Existence is understanding Understanding is existence Understanding is God This is why you can understand God, but you can't know it. You understand what God is when you understand what understanding is. (Strange loop) Knowledge is defined/confined by existence and experience. What we define as knowledge is information/concepts that we've created/experienced through our senses. Without experience, there won't be any knowledge or knowing, since there will be nothing to acknowledge. But God is beyond (including) existence, thus you can understand God by becoming one with it. Once you unify with it you reach the deepest/truest nature of that thing/yourself/God. It is a recognition, not an acknowledgment, since you've always been it, you simply forgot. Recognition: The remembering of self Acknowledgment: The conceptualization of existence The second definition of understanding is more fundamental than the first. What is a concept? A concept is imagined Conception can equal to imagination Thus conception = creation Thus conception = existence Existence is a concept, That which God/infinity conceptualized/created (Strange loop) Thus we can redefine understanding as: **The process of existence/creation/God unifying with itself.** Thus when I say God is in the process of understanding itself I mean, God is the process of understanding and it is understanding and it is... (Infinite strange loop) It all just is... Back up a few levels of abstractions: From the human perspective, understanding seems to be associated with the mind What is the mind? The mind is the conceptual self The body is the physical/experiential self The soul is the fundamental self Beauty is experiential unification Understanding is conceptual unification Being is Spiritual unification (in process) Pleasure is physical unification Happiness is emotional unification Bliss is Spiritual unification (in actuality) What is the difference between experience and concept? Experience is a higher abstraction Concept is more fundamental Concept can exist "before" experience Conception leads to creation, creation then leads to experience (Strange Loop) Experience is a subset of conception/creation For God, all concepts are created and explored Conception is a subset of God/self/infinity So why do I desire to be understood? I can see the true nature of others, but they can't see the true nature of me/themselves. What I desire is actually to unify with them conceptually, As a creation of existence to recognize that we were/are conceptually one being. Why do I experience human emotional pain when I fail to create understanding? (Even tho it is very mild and only from those whom I wish to understand) 1. Because I alone understand the truth 2. The sense/illusion of separation gets intensified 3. The desire is not fulfilled The truth is, there is no one to understand, or that we all already understand, we are already what we are. But this conceptual existence is designed for us to have the imagined experience of separation and unification (love) We designed the process of this function so that we can experience this love. I have this desire because I wish to experience this love. But the process is designed to maximize the impact of this experience. Thus there are those who cannot yet understand (or pretend to be that way as a human) I need to recognize that this too is a part of infinite love. And continue to follow my heart and be a part of God/existence. It is funny if you understand, how all these people are convincing themselves that they are not what they are, how they (we) are playing this game while their true self knows full well how everything is. Like actors shooting a scene. The sense/illusion of separation (aka the ego) (or the lack of it) is a part of the design of this whole structure in order to intensify/maximize love. Unification won't feel satisfying until separation is experienced to the extreme (in infinite different degrees). It's all love... Thus we have unified with the concept of understanding... (strange loop)

https://psychophysics.qualiaresearchinstitute.org/tracer

https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/01/28/god-and-open-individualism/

Secure.

https://sparketype.com/sparketest/ https://www.goodlifeproject.com/sparketypes-list/

@peanutspathtotruth Yes, that's good. It's best if you connect your history research to present issues and events. This will help you understand the structure of politics more clearly. Also, I would do the same thing as I wrote about on finding good sources with history. If you research history in a different country and a different language, you will find that even on the same event, the details and perspectives are often very different (especially if they are opposing nations). Academics are also biased, and they still function under their own survival bias and their nation's survival perspective. Some countries even change or erase things they've done in the past when teaching kids at school so that they can brainwash them into their perspective. That is not to say you shouldn't use academic sources, but just be aware of that as you check the sources. And it's best if you check out academics that are in different countries to learn as many perspectives as possible. If you research war, you will find that even if both sides speak truthfully about the facts of an event, they can manipulate the perspective and context of the event to make themselves look like the good guys. Personally, I like to research academics in different nations and then find real accounts of the event from different people who lived through it (on both sides) to get a partially direct experience.

@Fleetinglife Yes, it is not an easy path. The ego development process is very complex. Wisdom does not develop overnight. It takes courage, work, and time. So keep going, and as you deconstruct/understand more and more perspectives, it will become easier and easier.

@peanutspathtotruth It depends on the topic of interest. Meta sources like Daniel or Leo are not really good for sense-making on a specific topic/issue. They are better for learning sense-making methods and frameworks, and I think in that perspective, Leo, Daniel, and Ken Wilber are enough for you to have a well-defined sense-making process. The sources I was talking about are sources that actually help you to make sense of a specific topic. So in that perspective, it's hard for me to give you general recommendations since they are all sources covering many specific topics that I'm interested in. What I do and would recommend is to start with one topic and really go through the process on that topic. Find quality sources and make sense of that topic completely (to the highest degree possible for you). Through this process, if you are doing it correctly, you will start not only to understand the topic on the surface but the underlying meta structure of sense-making as a whole. Because everything is connected, when you dive deep into this process, you will start to connect information/issues that are not even directly related to each other. As you gain more understanding of the meta-structure through this process, sense-making will become easier and easier because you will start to recognize patterns in all human issues. And thus slowly developing an intuition (logic+emotion understanding) on sense-making and a better grasp of the whole of the information landscape. For example, if you want to fully understand the context within the conflict between Israel and Palestine. You would have to study the history of religion (between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). This then leads to the study of the history of the Middle East and Europe across several thousand years and not only in Isreal's perspective but also in Palestine's perspective all the way to the present time. (Not too deeply, but just enough depth to understand all the major events that happened) And through this process, you will go through many events that lead to other events in history, and like a tree, it will branch out and connects with other topics that might seem unrelated. For example, how does the origin of Christianity relates (or differs) to the racial issues in present-day America? You will start to see parallels in how human conflict functions and evolves on a structural level. I know it sounds like a lot of work, and it is. But it's like a skill that develops and becomes easier the more you develop it. Wisdom does not come easily; it requires you to put in the work and time. It's not something you can develop overnight. Sense-making is a meta-skill (like learning, and love), it will help you connect all your knowledge/epistemological understanding into a holistic structure that leads to God. That's said, you can still strategize and optimize your research process to make it as efficient as possible by finding good sources (as I've defined before) on topics that interest you.

Read Range:Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David Epstein.

Everyone is "evil" to some degree depending on your perspective. How evil they are to you depends on how much of a threat it is to your survival in the perspective you hold. To someone whose survival comes from/depends on democracy and freedom (in the US sense), China will seem like a huge survival threat if the person is not good at sense-making and or are underdeveloped consciously (below yellow). The more perspectives you have, the less evil everyone will seem. In God's perspective, everything is good.

@peanutspathtotruth There are too many. It's impossible to find truly 100% unbiased sources, all sources are biased in nature, but each differs in its degree of bias. So it's best to find sources that are on the same level of nuance as this project, but with differences in bias/perspective. Every source of this quality has different aspects/nuance in their perspectives, so I can't just say one is better than the other in a general sense (some might be very deep and complex in their sense-making/research, but only cover a small range of topics/perspectives, while other are more shallow but covers a wider range of topics). But overall the best perspective is combining many different sources that come from a broad range of information landscapes that all reach this level (Consilience Project) of sense-making or deeper. What I do: 1. Find sources that are not in the extremes in terms of their degrees of bias. Sources that can look at both sides with facts and don't provide black and white opinions. Sources that are more nuanced and self-aware. They don't have to be completely neutral, but just not blindly pushing propaganda or only their perspective. The Consilience Project would be an example of this. It's fairly nuanced but still leans towards US/western interest. I would partially disagree with Daniel's idea of reading everything on the spectrum of bias because it's too time-consuming, and the more extreme they are, the less insightful they are (in terms of sense-making, you can still read to gain insights on epistemology or ego development). However, if you cannot find any sources that lean somewhere in the middle, then your only option is to read both sides and then piece them together by drawing a line somewhere in the middle. 2. Check the funding source for these sources. Who is behind these sources can basically tell you how biased they are and what they will bias towards. A lot of mainstream media in the west are funded either by the government (BBC as an example) or by those who work for the government or by corporations. For example, the CIA has been creating off branches of companies that spread misinformation or funds the media to manufacture consent since they cannot do that as a government body. It's best if the source is independent, but if they are funded by a political group, you just have to keep that in mind when you check their sources. Or it's also okay if the political group funding the source is more neutral/nuanced, likely with less survival bias involved. A political group that is a third party between the perspectives of the issue for example. 3. Find sources that provide facts, direct experiences, and integrity. If a source is very clearly trying to invoke extreme fear, or hate, or any form of extreme negative emotions, they are likely not a good source. With good sources, even if they are biased towards a perspective, they don't demonize the opposite but bring understanding and context into them. If the source is clearly trying to play with words to manipulate your perception of the narrative, you just need to be aware of it while consuming their information. 4. Find sources in different parts of the world. If you see an issue happening outside of your country, don't just read your country's news. Check out sources in that (or around that) region to bring more insights and context into their perspective, even if they are in different languages than the one you know. It's best if you can find sources in that location that has integrity (that follows all of the above) but also speak your language. Because if you just translate sources, often the translation can misinterpret/mistranslate the source leading to wrong assumptions and interpretations. It's really best if you can speak their language as well, this way you can truly understand what they mean. I find that a lot of great sources are simply hidden in a different language on the internet. For example, if you want to find good sources on China, the best sources are actually all in Chinese, with the most balanced/nuanced ones coming from Chinese in Singapore since they completely understand both the western perspective and the Chinese perspective. But there is no way for you to find them if you don't know Chinese. You wouldn't even know how to search for them since they will only show up if you search in Chinese. The same applies in every language, there are whole rabbit holes of sources that are simply segmented into different parts of the internet in that language bundle. Once you find those sources that really bring great insight into their perspectives, it becomes very easy to make sense of that perspective. 5. Use different search engines, or look for sources that are lower on the ranking and that are different perspectives from the top ones. Search engines can easily censor information by de-ranking them since most people only check what is ranked on the top. Which is often very biased and low quality. You have to dig a little deeper to be able to find good sources. And every search engine has a different bias in terms of their ranking. A good way is to use the algorithm (Youtube for example) to consciously filter information that is extremes in their bias and only consume sources that are potentially balanced. This way over time the algorithm will start to recommend more sources that are good naturally. 6. Verify with direct experiences. The only way to truly make sense of different perspectives around the world is to gain direct experience on it, either by traveling to those places and meeting people and talking to them or talking to someone who has integrity and direct experience but holds an authentic perspective (deep understanding of their culture, history, and politics) of that region of the world. It's best if they are just a normal person in that environment and not someone trying to sell their perspective for survival. When someone is doing perspective selling as the main part of their survival source, they will be very biased, to the point where they will do anything to keep creating narratives for that perspective. However, it's also okay if the source asks for monetary support but only if they are very clearly nuanced (follows all of the above) and accept both perspectives and are not using fear to oversell their bias. Then they are a quality independent source. 7. Understand that everyone only has a partial understanding of everything and never the complete whole (since it's infinite). Most beliefs and believed-truths are likely to be made out of unself-verified partially false/partially true assumptions, not the actual truth (this applies more to those who are below yellow, and the lower they are on the spiral, the more this applies). But the more conscious and developed they are, the closer they are to the whole. So take everything as a partial truth even if it comes from very high integrity sources (follows all of the above). Always assume that what you know is not 100% of the full picture, even if you have done a lot of good sense-making/research. Because even if you have 99% of the picture, that 1% could still change the context of the entire whole. If you do all of the above, you will understand things much closer to what they are in reality, but also you will start to reach a non-duality/unification between all perspectives that is filled with love and the brilliance of existence.

It's only online games on PC and Mobile platform (MOBA, MMO, Battle Royal, etc) and only with servers in China, you can still play in other servers with VPN. Offline gaming and console gaming is still okay. Online is still okay on console. Accounts are tied to your social id so once your times is up it just logs you off. But this doesn’t really do anything, since kids can just create account with their parent’s id and by pass everything. It’s more like a reminder to kids to not get addicted to online free to play games, and enforce parental controls. Also push incentives to play on console and encourage playing higher quality games. It’s funny how everyone is freaking out on China when South Korea did the same thing long ago. But no body talked about them lol.

Very underwhelming, and the articles don't really show their sense-making process in detail or connect to the concepts they are trying to teach (at least not clearly enough to teach people). And tho most pieces are not nearly as biased as mainstream news and are very educational with their thinking process (it's still mostly speaking to a US audience from a US perspective, not a global perspective), it's not as whole or multi-perspective as I'd hoped. Tho their team consists of people in many varied fields, they are not as diverse as I'd hoped. It would be nice if they can have more people who have integrity, direct experience, and expertise but are opposite in perspectives on a topic to come together to makes sense of their differences in perspectives. And not only that, but also looking at the same topic from the perspective of many different fields and levels of abstractions. The level of wholeness and complexity in their perspective is not as whole/deep as I'd hoped. But it's only the beginning, and it's already better than most media sources. If most people in the US can do sense-making on this level, it'd be a huge improvement.