Carl-Richard

Lying and cheating doesn't feel good.

Death caps is exactly the "thorn" in your argument. How do you know the difference between a herbal death cap, an innocuous herb and something inbetween?

Bro Connor is actually a comedic genius 😂 Watch this 😂

@Elliott This is exactly the bullshit within-person designs I'm talking about. Consider that heavy lifting could maybe benefit more from bilateral training? Maybe limiting movement patterns to just one side of the body limits power output and therefore limits the potential effects of that modality of training? Within-person designs are better if you take a lifter who is at a stable muscle mass while lifting regularly and make them experiment with each technique whole-heartedly for separate periods (preferably matching the seasons). But that's still just N = 1 if you do as in the video and use one person, so you can't necessarily generalize to everybody.

If you are watching a show, why not enjoy it? If it's a cringe show, then cringe about how bad it is. But having an existential crisis about how the show is constructed, that is not needed.

Not exactly evidence for the personhood of God, but NDEs involving actual seeing without having eyes open or a functional brain are evidence of mental and perceptual faculties existing "before" the events proposed necessary by naturalism (according to the current evidence or paradigms; evolution and development of physical perceptual instruments), which could indicate that also other higher mental faculties (e.g. planning) could exist at the bottom of reality as a part of a "personal" God.

I have a feeling young people believe they have discovered something new because when they look at their parents or the older generations, they are not in that game, but the truth is they probably used to be in that game but they just stopped caring. Like, you could definitely trace "looksmaxing" back to some dude or gal in Ancient Greece calling it by some Greek name (Looksus Maximus). Or that's just my 0.9% Greek/South-Italian genes speaking (they are carrying all my efforts towards Looksmaxing).

My bar for speaking solipsism with you without pulling my hairs out is that you know the difference between cosmic solipsism and egoic solipsism, and you know the difference between a perception and pure consciousness.

The video format of playing a bunch of random funny clips on top of a droning monologue is so cheap and deceptive. It makes the droning monologue sound more impressive when in reality it's mostly just slop. It's the same issue with food videos that use high-speed cuts and transitions. It hijacks your dopamine system and makes what you are looking at artificially more salient than it actually is.

In my personal opinion, "God" is not a problem for me. People have different knacks for different words. Some are allergic to "ego". Some are allergic to "solipsism" (that would basically be me). The larger lesson of "language is not it" is a good one, but individual words, that's more personal. But I will say, "solipsism" is an absolute communicative self-immolative exercise.

There is a powerful pointer attributed to Leo which goes like "You are creating everything". It resonates strongly with the notion of "God". Besides, God-realization is often used as a description of higher states of divine love not merely reducible to the pure emptiness realization.

You could stop suffering quite easily, but you don't want to, either do what is required or drop what is required, which is very straightforward: everything you value must be dropped, everything you're doing that stands in the way of this must be deprioritized. Then meditation comes quite naturally. You're lucky to do spirituality before you have built a life, to see what is there, because that is simpler than tearing it all down. But you actually want to tear it all down before you get to see what is there. That is the conundrum. People want to mess themselves up before they put themselves back together again. As for when is enough enough, it depends on the person. Some can drop it all at 14-15 years old. Some need more time to mess around. And the messing around can get very tricky, even in the later stages. Some can have many deep spiritual experiences and still believe it's not possible to let go fully of everything. Stuck in limbo, moth and the flame.

Space and form. Consciousness is the space which everything arises in. Intelligence is the forms it takes. The reason "intelligent" people can tend to be unwise is because they are stuck on a limited set of forms, so they become prone to deception, bias, inflexibility, blindspots. Yet increasing consciousness increases the perspective, breaks the attachments to any particular form, and you start seeing between the lines, seeing details some people can't see. Increasing consciousness doesn't make you automatically wise, but across time, it will. Time is an important dimension of wisdom, but again, so is space. Space and time.

I prefer the shitty version (95% oxide/5% citrate) because I think the slight laxative effect has a better effect on my cognition than the magnesium itself (or I get enough magnesium with it).

He might be. That is essentially the entire tension between contemporary non-duality, analytical idealism, the mystical but still scientifically subscribing (naturalists), and Christians, Muslims, who are more open to the super-natural (and the brilliant cross-over: Christian perennialist panentheists, e.g. Rupert Sheldrake, who studies wacky shit like whether the Sun is conscious). Threading the needle is to remain agnostic: if you're a scientific andy, not that much evidence of a God that more or less literally speaks the world into existence through his divinely ordained plan (at least that I know, maybe somebody could make the case better than I can). But it's not exactly a divine impossibility either. I can't believe I'm linking this video of all videos on this topic, but Nick Fuentes (colloquially labelled neo-nazi) presented a similar tension here (not the meta-cognitive vs non-meta-cognitive God tension but the "tendency towards mystical phenomena associated with the Third Eye" tension, sort of tangential but anyway): 1:02-1:23 (when D starts talking, the clip is over).