Cepzeu

This one question always keeps coming back to me so I thought I'd ask on the forum. From my understanding of epistemology, everything perceived outside of direct experience is a story. For example, I have never experienced the earth being round, I've only experienced it being flat. I personally assume that the earth is round because I believe that science has shown us that it's round, but if i dig deeper, then I know that this is just a story I believe. In truth, it could be flat, it could be round, I can't really say. The reason I ask is that we discuss epistemology on this forum but also there are instances where conspiracy theories are shunned. Now I know that all of this is a distraction from spiritual work but I am asking because I want to know what is correct epistemologically. I can believe that the earth is round, I can believe that the earth is flat. From my direct experience, the earth is flat, so I feel like it would be further from the truth for me to believe the earth is round because that is a belief rather than direct experience, I only choose to believe the earth is round because it sounds rather plausible. But at the end of the day it's the same as a religious person believing in an anthropomorphic god. Here's another example. In my direct experience I've probably ever seen maybe 10,000 people over my life. Science says there are around 7 billion. Epistemologically, (if I understand it correctly) direct experience is king compared to stories or beliefs. Which one is more true in this case? Is it true to say that I have only seen ~10,000 people but I choose to believe that there may be more? I think I might be misunderstanding a part of what Leo says but this point has been coming back to me over and over as a source of confusion.

@Serotoninluv I just did this now and it appears to me that "knowing" is a word that we use to reinforce an idea in mind. the thought "I know ....." reinforces the mental model of whatever "....." is. For example, I know that if I touch the table in front of me it will feel like the texture of wood. But "knowing" and "texture of wood" are part of a "non-physical" space which feels different to the "physical" feeling associated with touching a wooden texture. The thought "wooden texture" is a symbol for the feeling of a wooden texture, but they have nothing in common. Like the word cat has nothing to do with the animal associated with that word. Thus it appears that thought is self-reinforcing, i.e. the word "know" is a symbol which reinforces "wooden texture" which is another symbol, both occurring in thought and not related to the phenomena they symbolise. "Not-knowing" appears to be similar in the sense that it is a symbol. But this symbol reinforces symbols which are contextually different from the symbols that "knowing" reinforces but phenomenologically the same. I.e a thought arises: "I don't know if my mother is in the living room or the garage". Contextually, "garage", "living room", and "wooden texture" are different, but phenomenologically they are all symbols arising in mind, pointing to "things" that are not them ("cat" =/= the animal). Experientially, I can use "knowing" as a thought symbol to confirm other phenomena. I can think: "I know that I can see the table" as I'm looking at the table, but again this thought is itself distinct from the visual perception of the table. However, both the visual perception and the thought occur in awareness of the two.

@TheAvatarState I never said that I don't know enough about the problem, in fact it's the opposite, there are a huge number of things I don't know but I trick myself into a sense of knowing through modelling and taking on second-hand beliefs - which I'm trying to unravel, hence the post. I never said an answer couldn't be found, I said that I have not personally experienced that answer, I have only believed an answer, hence there is a disconnect. The difference is direct experience vs. belief. From my human perspective, the point is exactly the opposite, the earth is sensed to be flat by me. This was the whole purpose on my post. Th earth is sensed to be flat in direct experience, but i believe a 'story/consensus' that it's round. My question was on the levels of epistemology surrounding those observations. I do not sense with my senses that the earth is round, I sense exactly the opposite. In terms of practicality, I'm weaving away from that because it's besides the point of the post. If we're talking about the practicality of me carrying out my day-to-day needs /surviving then it actually of little practicality to me because I'm not a GPS engineer who is required to take earths roundness into account. I don't see how leaving the knowledge unknown is keeping me tied up in concepts. Saying "i don't really know" is closer to being than to conceptualizing. Conceptualizing about the shape of the earth is further from being in direct experience no matter what shape the earth is.

Give it time, you've been together for 4 years and it's hard to go alone all of a sudden. Give it time man, I wish you well

@TheAvatarState I have to be honest and say that for me personally it's not important or practical to know what the shape is hahaha , I could live on a triangular rock and my day-to-day life wouldn't be different. I just started this post out of curiosity. But see again, from a skeptical point of view, to prove that the earth is round I would have to fly out to space and see it being round. Even 'signs' like the stars moving, or a ship disappearing on the horizon etc. are phenomena by themselves, and to combine a set of phenomena and call the earth round would be an inference rather than proof. The cross referencing works for every day existence but truthfully arriving at a consensus point from cross-referenced material is not itself truth, it is an inference of true phenomena. I'm not in any way doubting the practicality of science when it does things this way. I'm just getting down to the root of discerning truth form not-truth in my direct experience. Unless I fly to space and see a round earth, the best I can say is "here is a bunch of evidence that points to the earth being round, in truth I don't know whether it's round or not, but given this evidence I can infer that it probably is". (Keep in mind I'm not advocating for round earth vs flat earth, I'm just using it as an example.)

*Flips table and runs around the room*

Yes, I was just kidding

@Leo Gura Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking. The truth is that I don't know in most cases and this is where my questioning arose, because during self-inquiry I realized that a lot of the models I've heard I hold to be true and build my world-view around. The truth is most of my knowledge is second hand and inferred and for most things the true answer is "I don't know" P.S. 156 pounds. Not a guess! I just know it

@EvilAngel Yes, I understand completely. I do think it's important to deduce the likelihood of something and separate wheat from the chaff @Nahm Yes, I probably wrote it a bit wrong, sorry my English is not the best. I completely agree.

Thank you all for your answers It is really a question in the realm of survival, because ultimately as @Nahm said, the peanut doesn't exist. @Shan To answer your question it is purely for curiosities sake. It's just a thought that keeps returning to me as I try to reconcile it. Ultimately you do take on belief in order to survive and yes, if you want to have a somewhat good model of understanding of the world, it's about expanding your direct experience and seeing which model of reality fits best, as @Telepresent said. Ultimately its ok to hold a belief, but not forgetting it's a belief. What this comes back to is that self-actualization is a personal path and you have to verify everything that's talked about here in direct experience, as Leo reminds us. I just see that a lot of thing he talks about, I take on as a belief which is a very big trap. It was only when I had an awakenign experience that the belief was substantiated by direct experience. @Anton Rogachevski thank you! I will have a look

@Shan My pleasure I am based in NZ but have some knowledge of the Aus system too. In terms of understanding your results, your doc should give you a call to come back to the clinic and discuss everything, if they don't, you should be able to book another appointment for them to talk about your results with them in detail. That is what happens in NZ, I would be surprised if it didn't happen in Aus. This is where you will have to do a lot of trial and error testing. SSRI's are recommended because they get people from depression to a baseline zombie state, where they don't feel bad, but don't feel good either (this is for the purpose of actually being able to do some talk therapy or cognitive behavioural therapy without constant thoughts of suicide etc.) Docs should not be prescribing SSRI's indefinitely. And again, docs focus on getting you to baseline, not necessarily really great. IMO nootropics are VERY personal and work based on your brain chemistry. I tried dopamine and it made me nauseous without much improvement (you have dopamine receptors in your gut as well). I tried 5-HTP and it made me feel a bit more focussed and feeling good. On the other hand, my gf has depression and was on SSRI's as well. She took some 5-HTP (when she was NOT on SSRI's - DON'T mix SSRI's with anything unless a doctor has advised it) and felt amazing, in a way better mood, without brain fog. Obviously she responded to it better than I because her depression may stem from underexcretion of serotonin or a lack somewhere in that pathway, as you may know. Every person is different. The hard work for you will be doing this self-experimentation. Buy a bunch of the supps and try them one by one, then when you've tried it for a while, maybe try a combination (again DON'T mix with prescription drugs unless given the all clear by a doc). See what works and what doesn't. You body is unique and your biochemical pathways will vary compared to other people so it's up to you to experiment. No one will really be able to give you a customised plan because again, everyone is different. They will just put you through trial and error as you can yourself. If you want to be extra cautious I would get the guidance of a doc to make sure your combination of nootropics won't hurt you significantly (you can get into trouble with mixing serotonin based nootropics - read up on serotonin syndrome). Try one for a month (some take time to build up), try another one for a month, etc. etc. Excelling in life is a long term path, don't rush it it's to be enjoyed All the best in your journey, post up some results in the next 6 months or so if you feel like sharing

@Shan throwing away a medical check up or a visit to a dietician is unwise IMO. Your anxiety and/or other problems can be caused by a number of nutritional deficiencies which won't be fixed by nootropics. You could have an Iron deficiency for all you know, very common especially in vegetarian/vegan diets. Could have underlying inflammation as well maybe form coming off from a viral infection. I had a viral infection and was just floored for 6 months, had to sleep 9-10 hours every day. Fix problems first, get a good foundation, then focus on being a high performer. Leo does actually advise to sort out your blood work and diet and get regular health checkups. What he meant by that quote is that doctors aren't in the business of making you self-actualize, you are in that business. Doctors are there to make sure you are at a good base line. From a good baseline you can go ahead and make your life extraordinary, but you gotta baby step it. As far as I'm aware Medicare will cover a bulk-billed GP if you come and say you want your bloods done because you are low on energy etc. Nootropics will only add a moderate boost. Proper diet and sleep can solve a lot of underlying problems. It is from a position of good diet and sleep that people then go further and add supplements to get that extra moderate boost. Even Leo said that apart from Modafinil, all the other supps he listed are like having a really good coffee without the side effects of caffeine. If you are still hesitant to see a doc, try 5-HTP.

@Epsilon_The_Imperial You begin to realize the limits of talking about and conceptualizing the practice. Those at the higher level are doing the process, 95% of the people on the forum are talking about the process, not doing it.

@CreamCat Safety of GMO as a whole is a trap, Safety of each variation of GMO in the short and long term on a case-by-case basis is what needs to be done. Monsanto's maize long term safety has not been verified, we don't know if it is good or bad in the long term. Other GMO products will have other tests.

@CreamCat I didn't say it was making GMO dangerous, I said it wasn't taking it into a positive direction in the sense that the spread of the pollen to different farms by wind led to other farmers acquiring the male genetic component which turned their maize crops into the same as Monsanto's, which led Monsanto to sue them. Also there is a big ethical debate on the role of intellectual property in genetic alteration. I'm not familiar with the details of Monsanto's policy but one example is a cancer research company that found associations between cancer and thousands of genes. No matter how small the association was they decided to patent all the associated genes which essentially monopolised cancer-gene research to them. Given a lot of this information was in public datasets this was an unethical move and the patent was overturned in court. @pluto You're speaking from a naturalistic fallacy. Humanity is part of nature and the universe, our "unnatural" creations and technology are an expression of our nature-given ability of non-instinctive thought. People's intentions are governed by nature. Destructive and creative are part of the same spectrum and are relative. Nature/universe is what it is, being "in-tune" with it is a subjective human view. The closest thing we have to nature is what exists in the now. All of our technology is a rearrangement of parts of nature. People who are not "in-tune" are themselves part of universal flow. Their "non-in-tunement" is through the will of universal flow.

This is a quick method for revealing what you are, which is awareness itself. One of the big initial barriers is getting a taste for what being nothing is like and this has to do with the difficulty of transcending monkey mind and body awareness. This method is very simple and can be done for as little or as long as you like. 1. Lie down on a bed with a pillow on your back and take a few deep breaths. Relax your body and close your eyes. 2. Now tilt your head from side to side, touching the pillow with your cheek bones one by one, left then right then left then right etc... Do it at a rate of about 100 touches per minute. I.e. aim to tilt your head to one side in just under a second. It should look like you are waving your head to say 'no' but while you are lying on a pillow. 3. The head should be in constant motion like this for a period of time, you can start by doing this for a full minute. 4. No mind should come easily if you are concentrating on the movement. 5. Now notice in your direct experience that you are not 'inside your head', you are not a 'mind'. You should notice that while the head is moving, there is 'something' in the background which is whitnessing the head move. Notice that this something is aware of everything while the head is moving, i.e. the moving of the head does not 'distract' this awareness from seeing anything. Notice that's it's not actually a feeling or a sensation, yet you still 'know' that it's there. That awareness is You.

@Jack River yes I agree with you, however, the beginning stages of realization that you are one is disidentifying with ego first. First you realise that you are nothing. Then you realise you are everything. Leo mentions this progression in his recent self inquiry method. For beginners it's important to get that first part down. Then, as you said, you can move into Self recognising content as just more Self.

Just to clarify, this is a technique for beginners who are still associating with the body/mind. In my experience self inquiry produces theoretical understanding of no self unless you do it for months. Methods such as this make it possible to get a glimpse of what is being inquired about. @cetus56 a little bit yeah, ?. I haven't tried other ways, but maybe slowing down may work as well, the trick is to get a constant motion. This method works on the same principle as the spinning dance Leo shared on his insights

GMO can be safe, it can be unsafe (possibly) (recent research shows ambiguity in the long term safety of Monsanto maize). At the end of the day genetic modification is a TOOL. It is very easy for people who don't understand the molecular biology of genetic modification to lump everything into a big "GMO" bin and call it bad. All Type I diabetics survive because insulin is made in GMO E. coli. There is a strain of GMO rice called "Golden Rice" that is designed to produce more beta-carotene and provide vitamin A to some African populations, whose children go blind because of the shortage of vitamin A producing foods there. There are many things it can be used for. My educational background is in molecular biology and plant biotechnology. From my experience, 90% of lay people have no nuanced understanding of how GMO are made and just jump on the bandwagon of "GMO" is bad. Now, just because a tool can be neutral (similar to money), doesn't mean a big corporate ego can't take advantage of it for personal gain. Monsanto are involved in some very shady business practices and are not driving GMO in a positive direction.

I think many people have experienced deja vu in the past. Oftentimes we dismiss it as simply a feeling of being in the same space - deja vu. But from a consciousness point of view, is there more to deja vu that meets the eye? Could it be a replay of a subconscious fixation? Could it be the experience in consciousness occurring at the same time as a memory of the experience is evolved in the field of consciousness? I guess it makes sense that the unfolding of consciousness could occur in the 'memory space' of awareness (i.e. you experience material reality from the human perspective and also that reality is inserted as a memory into 'mind' space a.k.a your thoughts as consciousness is unfolding). I guess what I'm asking is whether there is something that can be learned about ourselves from deja vu?

@ivankiss Yeah I guess that is what I'm trying to figure out. whether it'a a or b a) awareness creates the real moment and then mind tries to grasp it (a creation-of-symbolism-in-thought response), or b) The moment that we experience as deja vu actually DID occur in the 'past', and the replaying of it in the current time could possibly be a sort of message from the subconscious (ie inifinite consciousness) to our conscious (ie the only sliver of infinite consciousness that we have access to under ordinary brain states). (a repetition event).

@EmanyalpsidPlease be careful with your assumptions. DNA is broken down into nucleoside bases as it's metabolised so a direct DNA to DNA modification is not possible. So far there have been no biological problems with GMO (politically and ethically it's another matter). Yes, long -term effects are not known, so how can you assume that these foods will be "likely" to cause what you mentioned?

No, there is no obligation for you to stay, you can purchase their products if you wish but no one is forcing you to spend money on them. If you pay for their service or product then yes you get access to closed groups as with a lot of businesses. Of course you can take it to extreme levels and 'worship' RSD, which is unfortunate as they try to grow you out of that mentality. I bought The Natural by Max when it first came out, learned a lot about myself and corrected my incorrect view of how attraction works. I was in the closed group and participated in discussions as I do on this forum. I got success and a lot of personal growth and then I focused on other things and left. Similar to many other information products IMO but can attract Machiavellian types more so than a marketing course I guess. Lots of potential to learn how to manipulate girls that can get out of hand if used by someone with an unhealthy approach.

Anybody else experiencing problems connecting to Actualized.org main site or the forum?

@CreamCat lucidity in life would be the equivalent of spiritual awakening. Notice how for most people they are not "lucid" for the whole day, they walk around like zombies. Getting in touch with the actuality of life would be, as you said, living in a lucid dream.