Carl-Richard

I think this is what you think the law states (which I mostly agree that it should state and which warrants a different and more suitable name), but I think most people have a more flowery conception of it, hence I was referring to the "usual conception" of it.

The problem is that taking DXM produces a state reminiscent of dementia, so that defeats the purpose 😂

When you put it like that, it's less accurate, but not invalid, because it's more general. If everything functions according to attraction, then you're describing a more general phenomena. The usual conception has the opposite problem: it's too specific, and unreasonably so (because given the option, you would probably not use it, imo). It says you attract things that you intend to attract, but it misses that you sometimes attract things that you don't intend to attract but which you're inadvertedly paying attention to. But these are really trivial knitpicking points. You can use whatever words you like

Masturbate more, overeat nutritious foods (proper ratio of carbs, fats, proteins), avoid strong daylight when possible, learn to adopt sub-optimal hunched-over postures, perpetually tighten the left side of your abdomen (even when falling asleep), constantly distract yourself with your phone or conceptual thinking, sleep on your stomach. Your goal is to reinstate a suitable level of contracted energy in all of your daily behaviors.

Life is a distraction.

This certainly elevates the already stellar epistemological rigor of the forum, yes, oh yes indeed.

I think there is a saying that goes like "tripping is like holding up a mirror"

This is one reason why I think it's healthy to reclaim the word "religion" and not use the word "spirituality" as some "better than you" ("holier than thou") shield for ironically protecting your own dogma. It's simply the case that your idea of spirituality (most likely New Age for people here) is a set of beliefs and practices just like traditional religion. To constantly fixate on the ways which your idea of spirituality is not that (i.e. the mystical dimension), can be a definite source of self-deception. What we need more of is to fixate on the dimensions that New Age lacks, which is everything else than the mystical dimension (at least in this place).

A mix between New Age and traditionally religious person And I mean that quite seriously. I'm not married to a single tradition (historically defined "tradition", e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam), but I'm also wary of the possible pitfalls of picking and choosing between different traditions in a way that gives you a malnourished or incomplete framework. In other words, I would want a New Age religion that is rich in its content, with multiple dimensions (mystical, intellectual, institutional, communal, ritual, aesthetic, law and ethic) and that is firmly integrated into the culture and larger society. Why? Because I don't believe my introduction to New Age was at all safe, responsible, grounded or healthy. The lack of social nets, the lack of people to go to for help, is probably the biggest lack that New Age currently has. Other than that, the rampant anti-intellectualism, skepticism to ethics, narcissism and generally disorganized and lonely nature of the movement are important aspects as well.

You experience being the author of your actions, but you also experience things being outside of your control, and these things influence your actions, and your actions influence these things. Hence compatibilism: determinism and a certain type of free will are compatible.

My first trip gave me a hard lesson in the first of the Four Noble Truths: the truth of suffering. I was grasping so hard, wanting to have a fun experience on the substance, while the grasping itself became the only thing I could focus on, and it left me feeling more empty and hollow than I had ever felt before. That kick-started my search for "something more" (which ironically involves the end of looking for something more).

I'm tempted to post a video of Jan Esmann showing you exactly what kundalini energy is, but I believe kundalini is so real that it would be like assault to do so.

To hammer home the point: I think if you were to describe what you mean by "classical non-dualist", you would actually describe a contemporary type of non-dualist, inspired by different religious traditions but not married to a single one, i.e. New Age . "Classical" non-duality is found in "classical" religions.

Yup. Most New Agers don't like the term. That's partially why I like to call them that 😂 (also because it's correct). What do you mean by "woo woo stuff"? Crystals? Astrology? Tarot readings? That's just one type of New Age. New Age is when you get inspiration from religious traditions without being married to a single tradition. It's when you want to be religious (spiritual) while also fully living in the modern world. A general rule is whenever somebody from the West (or who identifies as such) calls themselves "spiritual", or whenever somebody calls themselves "spiritual but not religious", it's New Age.

New Age* I used to be a militant atheist when I was a teenager, which is essentially the same phenomena as you're talking about. So I can understand how it is to believe you're right and all else "go to hell" and that it simply happened to be what I was born into. But you said you used to be muslim like them, so what are you not understanding? Were you somehow different?

And that is to be expected

Yeah, there is probably some other guy camouflaged in the woods who is high as a kite on LSD and looks at OP on his nature walks and thinks "man, this guy is so stuck in his routines, he is not even dropping psychedelics on his nature walks; I'm getting so irritated watching him do this every day" (must be a microdose I guess). Meanwhile, there is a second guy travelling through the woods in astral form, thinking "man, these people are so stuck inside their bodies, it's irritating watching them do this every day". Then you have the mystic sitting under a tree thinking "bruh, these guys spend so much time engaging in forms, they don't even know about the formless" and then goes back into the void. Then you have the Buddha at the gas pump eating a hot dog.

The more I socialize with people, the more I think about what I might be missing in terms of insight, perspective or mere perception that they are tuned into and which I am not.

I've been revisiting Linkin Park the last couple of days for the massive dose of nostalgia. The band is literally the sound of my generation; truly iconic, innovative and talented, especially Chester (RIP). My first CD my dad gave me that I had wished for, was Linkin Park. It was a live concert CD to my surprise, but it didn't really matter (pun intended). It was from 2008, and I think I got it the same year: Back then, my favorite song from that album was for some reason "No More Sorrow". It was probably the metal-y buildup. Today, I find especially "Crawling" and "What I've Done" much more impacting, lending much to how I now realize how they were an authentic reflection of Chester's suffering. Those two songs made me emotional when I heard them again. Again, great band, famous for a reason, or I'm just molded in their image.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

I prefer summing up everything that has been said here in one phrase: "absolute vs. relative". But maybe I'll fall in love with talking about it all day again some day.

Can a person ever be deluded about what is real?

My unconscious biases are not real? 🤔

That's called pursuing a goal.