Jacobsrw

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    884

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jacobsrw

  1. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    OK so why you think you can debunk everything I say by just saying they are just concepts and thoughts? . 

    I empathise with what you are saying and I apologise if I’m coming off abrupt. But much of what you are generating as a discussion supersedes the mind. If you were speaking about concepts relative to concepts then this would not be necessary. However, the experience of a psychedelic cannot be conceptually understood nor the consciousness from which it rests within.

     

  3. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    Just so you know. Everything you say are also concepts. But it seems like your concepts are the only  true concepts or you are allowed to use concepts and I'm not.  I'm tired of people telling me I'm saying concepts. To talk we have to use concepts or we better just shut up. 

    And there is absolutely nothing funny btw. 

    Exactly right. 

    If you want the actuality of reality, experience it directly beyond concepts and mind.

    This we call consciousness but really it has no name simply by the fact it cannot be described.

  4. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    What do you mean science is a hallucination?. And anything else for that matter? What do you mean exactly when you say something is a hallucination? 

    Science is merely a thought. It is demonstrated and practice through thought expressed through thought and interpreted through thought. A complete projection of the minds conceptual making.

    All of which the mind creates is a hallucination. Which just so happens to be every fragment of a self and all it believes it experiences.

  6. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    @Jacobsrwwhen you take a DMT you see entities.  People think these entities are immaterial ghosts or something.  According to science they are just material visuals caused by altered perception centers in the brain that's affected by the drug. That's what I meant.  That's not my opinion again. That's what scientific study says. For me that's the most reasonable explanation. 

    Haha dude, what is this but a formulation of concepts?

    A psychedelic experience is beyond concepts.

  7. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    29 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    @Jacobsrw you are just spreading these statements as if it's objective absolute facts.  You actually don't know that.  You don't if science is capable of explaining psychedelics. There's no reason to not think this is possible. If you do a bit research on the topic you will see it's just a matter of time before it happens. It's a hallucinating drug.. Why would science not to be able to understand it like any other chemical when you inject in your body?. 

    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 xD

    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.

  8. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    3 hours ago, SamueLSD said:

    Today during my daily 30 minute meditation, I had various negative thoughts and feelings arise, so I decided it was the perfect time to do some thoughtless shadow work. 

    I began to visualise love upon everything that came into mind. People who have affected me negatively, people I don't know, myself, everything. The negative feelings quickly transformed into a melancholy, yet powerful sense of love. 

    I had a realisation - Love is simply what is when there is no conditions applied / no mind-filter there to decide what is and isn't love. When I had my first awakening/breakthrough, there was only love, simply because there was no one there to judge what love is. Everything was instantaneously accepted and perfect.  

    If something exists, it is automatically and unconditionally accepted and loved, and it actually IS love, because it 'is'. 

    Now for my question: Is there truth to what I am saying / any traps I might be falling into? 

    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.

  9. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    @Jacobsrw @Jacobsrw

    Ofcourse different chemicals have different effect on the brain that's so obvious. 

    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.

  10. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    37 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    @Jacobsrw he was running an experiment on psychedelics. It was his first time so it's understandable.   It was the intention from the experiment from the very beginning to track what's happening in his brain during and after the trip. He's so scientifically minded so you can't blame him for that. You can't force people to just use your own method of studying and exclude any other method. If we as humans just accept every thing as it is in the world science wouldn't advance and will probably stay like apes in the jungle.  

    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. 

    37 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    But straight to the point.. What's your current understanding of how psychedelics work? and how do you explain the very clear correlation between the trip and the brain activity? 

    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.

  11. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    50 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    we actually can observe the  correlation between what the person  sees under the effect of psychedelics and changes in the responsible parts of the brain (for generating perceptions). it's not completely understood yet but i think we will be able to have a material explanation in the near future as studies on the brain advances further. 

    what do you guys think? 

    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.

  12. Posted

    59 minutes ago, Anderz said:

    From my amateur perspective it seems that science, and thereby society at large, has moved astray into a trap of dogma. Stephen Wolfram mentioned that at first he didn't believe that the Higgs field, which supposedly spans the entire universe, could possibly work. He also gave several examples of surprises in particle physics when actual measurements were done. Such surprises are generally a bad sign and lead to falsification of the theory.

    But what has happened to the standard model in physics is that instead of admitting that it has been falsified they have added more and more fudge factors and hacks in order to try to keep it consistent with observed data. It reminds me of what happened centuries ago when they believed that the sun and the planets orbited around the earth. They used epicycle theories which they made more and more complicated when new observations contradicted their theories.

    The Wolfram Physics Project model is a completely new way of looking at fundamental physics. Everything in physical reality in the model is made of a "no-thing" called a hypergraph:

     

    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?

  13. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    23 hours ago, DaHonorableCourt said:

    Then I realized, solipsism means, “I am real and everything else is not”. Thats all it means. Then it truly hit me for the first time; There are no others to be real or not. Its all me. I am literally living all of your lives right now.

    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. 

    23 hours ago, DaHonorableCourt said:

    I am so much more than I thought. I realized I must be God. Because I am everything. I am infinite & boundless. But then why not just use the word “me”? there is no need for “God” when you realize its all you anyway. You are God no matter what. Once you take the ego out of the equation all this shit just makes so much sense. It never did until now. 

    Now I understand what you meant with virtual partition Leo, or should I say me:), and what you meant in the “how to deal with loneliness” video about being ultimately alone. I never understood this shit until now.

    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!

  14. Posted

    On 01/06/2020 at 1:11 AM, WHO IS said:

    Greetings beautiful people,

    Usually people ask "how" do I this and that, and fear of death is one of those things that people want to get rid of. BUT! WHY would someone even want to get rid of fear of death? I mean its that thing that makes you survive longer

     

    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.

  15. Posted

    5 hours ago, John Iverson said:

    I need more understanding of this.. 

    is being a Pilot, Counselor, Lawyer, Engineer or a professional a mediocre? and living in bare minimum? If it is How? They are professionals , universities and school and Society made them respectable, especially Pilots, i have a friend here that's studying to become a pilot and i am thinking right now, about how he is living in Bare Minimum in society? His family is rich, and I don't know if he genuinely dreamed to become a pilot but i can see that he really admire it, on the other hand it made me think that he doesn't know the possibility about life, he just living life and interacted with life on what is on the surface, like everything in the society and in the mainstream, he could be someone else and actualized something new that people will be inspired by actualizing it

    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.

  16. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    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?

  17. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    On 01/06/2020 at 5:33 AM, andyjohnsonman said:

     

    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. 

  18. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    7 hours ago, Free Mind said:

    It is increasingly becoming clear to me that there is only me. I cannot handle this. I’m 24 and can not handle this. I’m not ready. I’m too weak. Oh Leo, how can I possibly accept that it was all just me this whole time. What about my mother. My sister. I’m breaking down. I’m utterly confused. I thought I was able. I don’t want it. It’s too grand beyond my feeble mind. Leo, what do I do? Shall I just live the rest of my life in deliberate ignorance? I don’t know anymore. I don’t know anymore. I don’t know anymore. 

    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.

  19. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    3 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

    This is a serious question. I've never understood the rationale behind protesting. How does it work? What do people hope to achieve by protesting for or against anything?

    Say some crime happens. It could be a sexual assault case by a powerful man leveraging his power. It could also be the George Floyd thing. Everyone loses their minds and starts protesting! Why exactly is everyone doing that?

    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.

  20. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    23 minutes ago, Saba said:

    Hi everyone!

     I have been writing for Thought Catalog and my own personal blog for years, but in the last year I decided to try writing professionally. I just graduated from a degree in Neuroscience and Psychology, and I have the time. But to have a successful blog, you have to market yourself. And somehow, marketing takes the passion out of it for me. I hate pimping my content, and it most marketing tactics seem futile. I also worry that maybe I'm too unique in my interests, too obscure in what I write about.

    2 Questions:

    1) How do I market my blog while keeping my passion for it? How can I stay passionate while making my passion profitable? 

    2)  Do I have to write more palatable content, or just keep marketing? Does anyone have tangible advice for marketing a blog?

    I also need real criticism. My friends and family just say "good writing", etc. I need some to hear some harsh truths about how I can improve. My blog is https://sabastudies.com/ . 

    Thanks guys :) 

    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.

  21. Posted

    3 hours ago, Jordan94 said:

    I've been thinking about trying to cultivate and increase equanimity recently, I feel like it might be possible to an extent with some training practices

     

    Basically the idea would be to have something slightly (or a bit more, but I think it's better to not go too far) unpleasant/painful, but obviously not harmful, and trying to just observe the physical sensations and be just observing and accepting and okay with the experience
    I feel like this could train the mind to be more equanimous

     

    Do you guys have any ideas about what training could qualify like that ?
    For example I'm thinking some physical exercices could be okay, I've found that it's better to have something static rather than active though, because then it's way easier to concentrate on the sensations and on trying to just observe the experience in an accepting way

    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.

  22. Posted

    8 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

    @Jacobsrw

    Not understanding. Actually practicing. Committing to it, absolutely. 

    And yes, it makes all the difference - if difference is still perceived.

    Can, and probably will be sooner or later. It must not though. What you absolutely must, however, is to breathe. Isn't that the simplest Truth?

    Direct Consciousness is conscious breathing, right now :) It's One and the same FOLKS! 

    And yes it will perish all suffering, "sooner or later". Only breath remains. Nothing can(not) stop it. Quite literally.

    Thank you, I appreciate your thoughts! :)

     

    Appreciate your thoughtfulness and contribution with this post. Feel there is more to consider but you are onto something important nonetheless :)

  23. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    28 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

    @mandyjw Gotcha. Thanks again for your input :)

    @Jacobsrw While there certainly is truth in what you're saying, can you see how right now, right here that's all just thoughts and ideas? Do you see the chronology? Causality? Duality? This and that because of this or that?

    Too much circling.

    Imo, dropping all ideas about anything being the self's or the mind's fault and simply breathing consciously, is a far more direct and effective method for "achieving" liberation.

    Life is no-one's fault. 

    Self is all cool. Mind is all cool. Everything is.

    Just breathe.

     

    Indeed you are correct. Unfortunately, understanding that does not the least bit difference to our experience. We still remain inherently mind dominated, and often beyond our own awareness that we are. The mind must be realised for the illusion it is, since the suffering it precipitates is often beknown to us.

    I feel, breathing consciously is much like a mantras. Useful when done but when finished or normalised to, can become obsolete. It is merely a intermittent practice that reorients the mind. Much is still left suppressed and must be faced directly.

    I’m not disagreeing with the breathing method. It is definitely one strong method to help alleviate suffering, one heavily backed in Buddhist tradition. Yet, it alone wont perish suffering in its totality. Direct consciousness is required for that.

  24. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    On 31/05/2020 at 1:28 AM, Saba said:

    Guys. This is the most important scientific theory of our time. 

    Science has broken through the paradigm of physicalism. Leo, you have to watch this interview. It explores Gödel's incompleteness theorems, 5-MeO-DMT, meditation, INFINITE permutations of consciousness or "conscious agents"... everything. 

     

    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.