Jacobsrw

@kag101 well done for having the awareness to take a step back, many don’t. Psychedelics are not for the unprepared mind. Just a few things to consider: 1. Careful on using other people as competent reference points, especially those who express hysteria. This guy is not the best individual to model considering his admission to psychedelic abuse. Also, people are eccentrically different, so your ultimate reference point should be you, your own direct experience not another’s. 2. Be careful not to conflate your experience with psychedelics for the full quality of a psychedelic. They are much of a transcendental potentiation as the are a gargantuas obliterating one. It’s completely predicated on the user. Used correctly, they can be powerful, used incorrectly they can be destructive. And of course what is correct and incorrect is often subjective, one must experiment safely if to elicit any benefit.

@Victor Mgazi For me, I have only tripped once but it with such little experience I can say that it has enabled me to question the very illusion of suffering. This has become significantly powerful in instances where the mind naively assumes it is suffering without considering its own fiction it created to facilitate such an idea. Psychedelics have helped create a junction point from which I can now see the deceptions of the mind with more transparency. In so doing, I now perceive reality for what it is more frequently, pure Being beyond assertion.

@DrewNows Haha well depends what allows for more consciousness; separateness is often the ego’s way, where oneness is often consciousnesses way. No i don’t think it’s wrong necessarily but it’s completely dependent on which theorist you refer to. Many have good intentions, yet champion them in a destructive manner. It’s not about pleasing. If one willingly espouses their views in a disingenuous or dangerous way, we don’t just throw our hands up and go “oh well, their opinion”. We have to be able to see when a message is more dangerous than the quality it proposes, that’s if it proposes any at all. This goes for the media as it does any theorist. If a terrorist champions non-duality but recruits people to it fundamentalistically their prior intentions are redundant. But really we cannot change peoples ways but only enlighten them through our best efforts to communicate authentically.

@DrewNows I rarely agree with the media. But I also rarely agree with “conspiracy” theories. Everything the mind derives is a conspiracy. It’s just to what degree. These theories in my opinion are not as awake as they assume they are, that’s my main point. Just because you find gold in rubble doesn’t mean the ground you then walk on is made of it. Yes I’ve looked into germ theory, viruses and vaccines. All are largely delusional in my opinion, but are much more complex than theorised. Yes I agree people with opposing views have a right to share their views, but also have a responsibility in how they convey them. Recent theorists have not acknowledged this point in my view. This is all I have attempted to make clear.

@Vipassana Probably the most awake comment on here. I concur on behalf of my ego.

@DrewNows Look, I have my own views on all those topics to which I feel no need to share here. The pharmaceutical industry is a disease, I need not go further, more critique I could mention than I have words. I disagree with much of what is being done governmentally, but why does that mean I must side with a theory in order to validate this? I agree with some of the points made by them, but they do not at all account for the complexity of a government. Way too simplistic in my view, many areas not considered. If people refute a government so much go and live on an deserted island and see what transpires. Also, I pointed out the positives I agreed with in a previous thread. Pleaser refer to them. The dangers in these theories far exceed their positives, hence what I have stated. @Vipassana Again, I feel you have misunderstood what was conveyed. The point was not these topics but in how one communicates them. You have completely missed this point I feel. I agree with some of what you are saying. However, If you despise this forums sub areas so much why contribute? You are now projecting your own contrasting bias, careful on what you choose to critique it may become you who you are critiquing in the end. Wish you the best man.

@Vipassana this forum has better things to discuss that’s why. I think you may have unfortunately misunderstand what has been stated here. Good luck on your journey.

@DrewNows The nature of your words suggest otherwise. Please consider what you speak before criticising those that may have fruitful information to share as well. Again, you are making more assumptions than Trump makes complements. What makes you think I haven’t been aware of these theories for the last few years? I live in the west where information is free to explore, not under a rock with slugs (although, beginning to consider maybe I do). I’ve been in disagreement with vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry for years, please refrain from asserting assumptions for things you do not know ? hahaha I think @Leo Gura has better things to do than to entertain your bedtime stories. @Vipassana judging form the quality of some comments here wouldn’t be a bad idea hahaha

@DrewNows correct, I have. Clearly you have not. If you had, you would also question these theories you hold allegiance to, as they are extremely limited and largely unsubstantiated in their perspective. These problems are beyond just a “cult” theory. Is there some accuracy to the ideas in these theories, yes some. But holistically, it’s much more complex than that. But if it helps you sleep at night to caress the ego with simplistic comforting theoretical concepts don’t let me stop you

Please educate these people ? Consciousness to some here seems to be more of a perceived threat than I knife.

@DrewNows Your very comment clearly reflects your lack attention to what I have previously stated. I question socialistic and governmental influences endlessly, especially those of current times. Why do you think I take part on this forum? You assume one must agree with these theories in order to question their environment. Ignoring that questioning is infinite and can be done in endless ways. I am not convinced by the rigour of these conspiracy theories in which you seem to ascribe. In fact, just your very comment demonstrates your leniency to theories rather than questioning every aspect of your reality beyond them. A theory does not explain the entire mechanics of a situation. It does at best try to explain what is happening according to a given context. Judging by the “conspiracy” theories I have come across of recent, they are far from doing this to any comprehensive degree, any more than that of a fundamentalist dogma. My questioning of what is going on extends beyond these mere theories that you have stipulated or indicated. Please return when you are ready to question beyond the parameters of them. As @Consept has pointed out, you seem to me more close minded than those you are critiquing.

@DrewNows Well I think you demonstrated my point. Question is, what level of quality is your shovel?

@DrewNows I think you misunderstand the significance of what’s been said. I cannot inform you otherwise. Suffering = good/bad dualism, enjoy.

@DrewNows Good and bad are relative, not absolute. It depends on one’s survival needs, where one exists and what they are made of. One can respond appropriately to protect the survival of themselves and others. But understand, that this is a bias with no objective truth to it.

@Beeflamb This is extremely delusional. Here’s why: Rogan assumes thoughts, ideas and concepts are somehow interwoven into neutrons. They are not. You cannot capture a thought via a neural network, all it does is convey neurochemical information that facilitates a thought, not a thought itself. Just like a bike is facilitated by the metals and plastics it is made of, and yet metal and plastic do not at all explain it. If this idea was to come into fruition you would literally have access to arbitrary biological data dis-correspondent to the thoughts one has in relationship with it. Thoughts are conveyed by the mind via consciousness. Not some biological chemical activity. This is again a materialist assumption which holds no weight under close examination. I feel this is his stage orange speaking here.

@Consept That’s it. There is no such thing as a bad or good world. It is simply whether the context in which an organism exists is having its survival benefited or impinged upon. Good and bad are dualistic limitations applied to reality. It’s a wonder the terms are even used considering how much suffering they both imply. Reality is the most unspeakable, incomprehensible magic one could ever experience ?

@Consept Hit the nail on the head there! Consciousness is the only medium by which accurate interpretation can be initiated, and of course that’s providing the given individual has the capacity to be receptive to it.

@Consept I agree, and reiterated a similar point yesterday. Ones view of another’s awakeness is completely a subjective approximation, can never be truly known, an endless battle that one haha. It’s more of a probabilistic matter. We can only estimate the probability of someone’s level of awakeness but never know for sure, that’s my bias however. Even though intuition is a higher form of deriving insight it is still limited to bias. It is expressed through the lens of a human and is tainted by individual character. The only thing that is not, is consciousness. Completely independent, all encompassing, and equally able to express finitism. Also agree with your perspective on speakers. They are a relative matter which are judged largely by ones level alignment to them. Notice that those who are deemed unawake are those we often do not align with?

Who else here is concerned about this Brian Rose/David Icke London Real movement? After watching one of the interviews between Brian Rose and David Icke, I got the sense a new cult may be manifesting. This banding together for free speech, finds me very concerned. At first, there appeared to be some meta-perspective taking and critical analysis employed, I was open to that. But then adamant belief in such proposition that the claims became no different than that of religious fundamentalist dogma. It’s like using a weapon to remove a weapon. Damage is likely to be caused. Although there are some valuable points shared between them, I see this going so far it’s going to spread like a plague. People getting so brain washed that they’re being mind controlled and indoctrinated that they then fight the very hand that feeds them. A possible all out civil war, in the following of a delusional Trump ideal. Even if what was said was true (which is highly improbable), fighting the government or at the very least resisting them, is not going to resolve it. Similar to Leo’s insight, Love is needed not contorted egoic reactions. What’s others thoughts on this?

@Zega I started watching this last night. Hard to judge her credibility. Clearly there are some degrees of corruption in the medical health systems, this is evident beyond conspiracy theories. Not so sure of severity and degree though. Appears a mix of both genuine concern and also inflated claims. There’s a lot of strong arming in government more than there is premeditated egregiousness. Really, it’s too short to make a conclusive opinion. Nonetheless, I’ll finish watching it and provide and updated comment.

@Meta-Man Haha yep, chimp seduction ? very true.

@TrynaBeTurquoise Haha sorry to disappoint but I forgot to mention the other two ingredients. Ginger and honey ? Of course, organic only.

@Husseinisdoingfine Haha quite possibly, although careful what you put forth here many in this thread adhere to his theoretical concepts

@Zanoni thank you for confirming. I didn’t get around to helping out.

@Meta-Man Okay so imagine this, each users attention is co-opted for the duration of a short clip which consists of a rapid change in sound and light, bright colours and text. Then, automatically a second clip is played subduing it’s recipient into further browsing. It’s different because it purely works off producing sensory excitation. Biggest technological distraction to be created. It’s successful because the ego loves distraction and people have the attention span of a fish. It only further perpetuates unconscious impulsive behaviour. But who am I to judge, I right now am using a phone...