Jacobsrw

Basically, the radiation of love to others in which you either imagine or experience. I was referring to the experience of love as an expression.

Haha dude, what is this but a formulation of concepts? A psychedelic experience is beyond concepts.

Firstly, you study the foundations from which science is built. Which just so happen to be, empiricism and logical reasoning. Both are mind oriented and conceptually driven. If the conventional mind is transcended in a psychedelic state what makes you think science can use it to explain a psychedelic experience? It just becomes a self-referential contradiction. It’s absolute absurdity to think it could. Science needs to be superseded in order to explain this. Science has never understood the experience of a drug All it’s done is projected it’s conceptual frameworks on what it calls a highly integrated “hallucination” and deemed this a feasible analysis. Science itself is a hallucination. It’s explanations will be no more advanced than that’s ability to explain matter, which is completely conceptual with no real relevance in actuality.

Beautiful! I had a similar experience not long ago when eliciting memories of all those of whom I have shared experiences with. I emanated an unconditional energy that just naturally arose. Only thing I’ll note, is to be mindful of the ego’s desire to cling to the feeling of love and exuding it to others. I had a moment where I was pulled into the experience of ruminating upon others and realised I must not allow the mind to romanticise or get too attached. Deep connection supersedes attachment. It’s the ability to compassionately interact while equally having the capacity to let go.

You’ve just interpreted what I said using reductionism. You missed the point. Science cannot discern meaningful differences between altered states of consciousness. Regardless of the substance in which induces it, all it can do is make neurological inferences. It cannot discern the transferable differences in consciousness between two highly activated states and it is what they fundamentally represent. Which is the very limitation of science. Its no more helpful in this area than a Giraffe trying to figure out why it fails to swim in water. Altered psychedelic states are prior to science. Just the very fact you asked the question displays the cumbersome efforts science attempts at understanding psychedelic experiences.

Agreed. He is definitely premature in his psychedelic endeavours. However, wouldn’t one seek to discover what areas of interpretations may be required to best understand such an esoteric experience? Wouldn’t that be the scientific approach to take? He assumes his scientific lens could deduce such an experience yet struggled to wonder why it didn’t. Would not this suggest a needed leap beyond science? My views are irrelevant. Anyone who has experienced psychedelics can vouch for the futility in trying to explain them via a materialistically scientific lens. Science can merely explain metaphysics let alone a psychedelic experience. This is not about views and opinions, but limitations of paradigms, as stated by Thomas Kuhn. Well according to neuroscience the psychedelic molecule binds to the receptors in the brain which then magnifies the proliferation of brain connectivity. However, this is completely rendered irrelevant on the level of consciousness. Neuroscience assumes more connectivity equates these altered state of consciousness. Yet by that very same logic, one could assume any drug that increases brain connectivity to be of the same equivalence - Ritalin, heroine, modafinil, adderal etc. All of which, produce completely different experiences than psychedelics. This is a clear scientific limitation. The findings of a materialistic science are meaningless because they by no means explain the fundamental realisations that occur when in a psychedelic experience. It is completely void in this regard. Materialism assumes a brain and that’s the problem. Any changes in consciousness become superimposed as caused by the brain. From that position, psychedelics will never be understood by materialism.

In my view, short answer, no. I watched this video sometime back and David completely distorted his psychedelic experience through approximating materialistic notions. He admittedly struggled to materially conceptualise what he experienced, yet continued to use a materialist paradigm in order to try explain it. Materialsm will forever be baffled by the psychedelic experience because it undermines its entire paradigm. Trying to explain psychedelics via materialism is like trying to explain an ants perspective using a humans. Not going to possible. It will be forever limited to biases and tautological inferences. Psychedelics extend far beyond the ontological, metaphysical and cosmological explanations of materialism.

Is this not another perspective that attempts to quantify space and time much like Einstein’s general relativity, E = mc2? What advancement will this contribute to understanding the fundamentals of reality? Is this not just but one more conceptual analysis of the metaphysical that struggles to still explain it?

Great work! This is magnificent. You are one of the few who truly see through the invariably deceptive illusion of solipsism. When there is no ego seperate from reality, all is real and all is you. Nothing is secondary, all is part of you, therefore real. Solipsism is the illusory belief that the ego-mind is real and nothing else is. But there is no ego-mind that projects a world. Ego-mind and the world is created from the one infinite consciousness. All is I and all is one. That’s why terms that are not indicative of a personal pronoun are sometimes preferred. Such as: consciousness, infinity, nothingness, emptiness, oneness, non-duality etc. These terms essentially mean all there exists is the one reality. Loneliness cannot prevail when there is no subject/object relation. Loneliness requires duality. When duality, self and other collapse so too does the very notion of aloneness. Great insights!

Death does not exist because self does not exist. Therefore, there is no “I” to fear it. One cannot remove fear of death if there is no self to experience it. Realise the fundamental nature of self and understanding death will be a subsequent following.

Mediocrity is not akin to any one role. It is underpinned by ones approach and motive through expressing it. Any role can be mediocre, even a guru or sage. It is more a question of what is one doing in their position? Are they using it to its maximal potential? Are they exuding the highest potential they them self can express through that role? Are they serving others while acting from it? This is the only measure of mediocrity.

Some contemplation from today... Utilitarianism and hedonism are two paradigms that function under two dualistic premises. The ‘pleasure and pain principle’. That is, to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. However, this endeavour is not only limited in what it can produce, it is far more damaging and contradictory than users may be aware. Firstly, one who intends on maximising pain and minimising pleasure has already ascribed to a taxing duty. One must work to gain desirable experiences while equally deflecting those that hinder it. This effort to multitask, is not only conflictive but simultaneously contradicts the pleasure principle itself. When having to maintain pleasure while avoiding pain, one inevitably exhausts them self before they have even experienced the pleasure they first desired. Once one is exhausted from such a process, they then endure pain. Which creates a conflictive dissonance to the motive of seeking pleasure. Not only does it exhaust ones entire being and contradict the underlying premise in which was first sort, it is an infinite loop. One who continuously seeks pleasure will never be satisfied. Because: (1) pleasure is impermanent so any means to uphold it requires continually pursing new pleasures. (2) the mind is fundamentally never satisfied, it operates to consume and utilise, always requiring new information to extract. (3) one gets stuck in the duality, self and other. Objects are conceived as derivances of pleasure and self is the one who experiences them. This of course separates one from their experience and subjugates reality to becoming a conceptual prison. Why is this important? Simply because almost all people in developed countries operate under these notions as a fundamental primacy - the core belief. The mind creates illusory survival needs which then identifies a self on who’s behalf must fulfil them. Our employment objectives are saturated by this, our produce manufacturing, our businesses, our media, our friends and family and most of all the preconditioned homeostatic force of our own minds. The importance in understanding these two dominating paradigms is clearly demonstrated in our heavily materialistic globe. Understanding this will enable solutions to be created (especially for people stuck in stage, say orange) for transcending into more optimal levels of functionality. I personally, have found great value in illuminating this area of behaviour.It has helped me better understand survival in the context of developed societies, in which I subsist. However, it necessarily exemplifies the large amount of work we still require doing. I myself am doing my best to contribute in this area. I recommend we all do through each of our own unique vehicles. Of course, this I only but one of many survival mechanism. Many still require equal attention Would be good to hear people’s thoughts on this. If you too, have noticed such dynamics in human activity?

I watched this a while back the speaker seemed as if he may have been heading toward nihilism. Something felt off about the presentation. It seemed very morbid and absolutist. A good watch but did in part appear more about entertainment than the existential reasoning behind the presented argument.

It is only once realising you are all alone that you then realise all was together. Let go of the corrosive idea of “I and other”. One is never alone, because the one who thinks they are alone does not exist. “Aloneness” cannot exist without an “I“ to conceive of it. A slice cannot be a slice without first being derived from a whole. Realise that all is one. Not an idea of one, not a philosophy of one. Actually ONE. You will see it is far more palpable and real then the belief in a self and other. You will see that there is no need to feel demoralised since you were never a subject in which could be isolated. You were always connected to everything, the seer that has always seen itself in all seeing it ever saw.

Hey man, I’ve felt similar to you on this. Protesting from a third person perspective seems absurd and non-conducive to meaningful change. It seems more like an antagonist approach at first. A lot of the protesting we see today is extremely primitive and tribalistic. To first answer your question, it appears protesting is a means of either last resort or unstable ideology. People sometimes protest because they feel there’s no practical solution that will otherwise produce a prompt response. Or people sometimes get consumed by herd mentality and become identified with a group. Mindlessly act out the dogma of the group without considering its implications. In both cases it is a matter of ego survival. I have never been not so much for protesting, by in large. However, over recent years I have seen that protesting has potential to be empowering and revitalising, providing it is done strategically and authentically. Violence, damage and abuse do not need to be akin to protesting. Nor does discerning an enemy to incite a contest against. There are peaceful protests but sometimes they too create aggravation. I feel protesting needs to have more pragmatic intent behind it than merely trying to stronghold an opposition. It requires pragmatism, long-term solution, funding for a actionable cause, community work, and networking. Fundamentally, protests are short-term strategies. There needs to be supplementary solutions. Protesting requires consciousness if to be done effectively. If that’s even possible that is.

Do some research around independent blogging, since it is a unique way to build a business but also a difficult one. I had quick look through your website it looks appealing and fresh. However, it’s best to have a good understanding of who you are writing to and the needs of the consumer who desires it. I may be one of the fewer who would read it, so a specific audience requires first discerning. As for marketing, I recommend Facebook, Pinterest, Google and maybe YouTube. People are likely to consume content through the medium which best suits it (most likely google for blogging). But also YouTube has a lot potential too. Create accounts on each platform, run adds and see where your audience most arises. I too struggle regarding your marketing predicament. I don’t want to market inauthentically but it’s essential in order to attention. It’s all about balance. Ive been blogging for the last few years and found that it mostly revolves around your target market. Curating content in which suits their needs but also facilitates a unique view. I use blogging to supplement, along with podcasts, products, art and other various content. If this is to be your sole income, you’ll need to ensure content is fits the audience’s consumable capacity. Attention spans are dissipating very quickly these days. Short and sweet is sometimes best.

Observation. Specifically, staring into objects until they begin to change in their perception. I call this ‘Concentration Stillness’. Whereby, you choose a specific object to stare at, fixate upon a feature of it without deviating. Doing this for several minutes has the object and it’s surroundings begin to morph. You begin to see literally right through the object and an indescribable stillness overcomes you. The body becomes light and your experience slows. Mind activity dissipates and you enter into a still watching.

Scientists postulating that consciousness can be conceptualised through tangible quantification ? Its the mind grasping at thin straws, attempting to compress the incomprehensible and unspeakable into a comprehensible representation. Mathematics is a derivative of mind which is a derivative of consciousness. You cannot simply use concepts to understand what lies beyond it. This is likely to end up reductionising and over simplifying consciousness.

Very true my friend

So for several years I’ve been contemplating and writing on a particular idea. This has lead me to posit a theory. And it is this... “children perceive existence more accurate than the adult they become” This leads to the child naturally having higher levels of consciousness than the adult. How so? Well the child has been described to be a blank slate. An organism unrefined and with very little motor, operative and cognitive function. This means, the child is “unconditioned”. They are born as a pure sensory organism through which existence is perceived for what it is, not what is inferred about it. We can see and test this by observing a child’s inability to process “complex” tasks, fine motor function, memorise and maintain stable visual acuity. None of these occur in a child’s experience. A child wobbles, their reality is inconsistent, warped and difficult to comprehend. This is much like the psychedelic experience which leads the individual to a more integrated and connected states of consciousness, coincidently. The adult on the other hand, thinks of itself as a superior being due to its conditioned and “refined” intellect. But really all the adult has done is created a controlled hallucination through which it mistakes as reality. The adult perceives and interprets in an organised fashion and projects its cognitive distinctions onto the perception it sees. So the reality the adult sees is a tainted perspective, thwarted with assumptions, concepts and ideas. The child’s is pure, unobscured and natural. The implication here is that the developed ego-mind is just a bag of conditioning assuming it develops by accumulating more knowledge. Thus, it’s level of consciousness technically recedes. The child is far more conscious. It just innocently navigates reality as any organism would with absolute awe of its remarkable incomprehensibility. Accepting it for what it is, a hallucinatory experience. This turns out to be very important, since all governing scientific theory interprets this the other way around and as result basis it’s conceptions from such an assumption. If the child is perceiving reality with less conditioning it must be perceiving reality for what it is. In other words, the child is much wiser in its interpretive capacity and should not have its intelligence denigrated. If the adult is an conditioned assumptiuist delusionist, then it’s intellect should be strongly questioned. This has sparked within me the desire to confront the scientific community of its naivety. I study psychology and find that all knowledge and teaching completely undermines this obvious observation. Would love to hear others thoughts on this proporsition ?

You have to remember, different teachers articulate the same experience differently. Some convey it in different words so as to align with their own unique communication style. In essence, what’s being spoken can never be adequately imparted through language. Language is but a mechanism to convey. It must not be attached to when doing this work. Otherwise, it will only create further confusion. One must verify it all for them self.

Good read. That’s very true, children are unburdened in a sense. But I would say that so too is the adult. An adult thinks they are burdened because they have a dichotomous high ideal in “freedom”. That is, to be unburdened “I must be able to do as I please”. But really that’s just the ego speaking. The adult’s most dominating problem is that they always wish to be wherever they are not. Which inevitably leaves them suffering wherever they already are. They can never be content because the ego from which they operate can never be satisfied. There’s always a “better” situation it imagines. Adult responsibility must be acknowledged. But we must also acknowledge freedom is not the mere manipulation of our experience, but the surrender to what IS, without being effected by whatever is experienced. To sink into the impenetrable, imperturbable and unharmable source of our existence where freedom is always inherent. Ultimately responsibility is at our disposable. However, we can choose how we wish to wield it. Whether to wield it with honour, enacting it with play and joy like the child. Or to feel diminished and enslaved by it like the adult. It’s our choice. Responsibility would be much better suited if seen through the creative playful lens of a child. Burden can be only experienced from the perspective of the ego self. It cannot be experienced from pure being, which the child state appears to more organically and authentically intuit.

Pleasure haha precisely ?

Hahaha you are a funny dude. I‘d be scared to navigate your mind Just follow your intuition. In the end you’re going to end up you require anyway. All I suggest is be open along the way and abstain from clinging to anything.

@Elton sure thing, if you forward me your details via message I could send you something once I have it together. Nice! I like the one about observation. I reckon I’ll add observation in there somewhere.