Carl-Richard

In response to a topic called "what's a good dose for first time MDMA", without clarifying anything, you mention taking a dose that is 4x of what is considered a "heavy dose" on PsychonautWiki (a potentially lethal dose according to people here) and now you're doing a non-dual bullshit dance saying that it's your choice whether or not it's a lethal dose. Get a grip. According to some scientific data, there is no reason to take anything exceeding a 150 mg dose: https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.323 MDMA is an amphetamine (actually methamphetamine), 1P-LSD is a lysergamide. Don't compare the two. If you're ever going to give advice on drugs in the future, please do this based on actual scientific data and not something you pulled out of your ass. And if you ever again do the non-dual bullshit dance around putting other peoples' lives at risk, you will be banned.

I guess nature is super weird. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals

Whether it is rational or not to smoke some weed or drink some alcohol depends on your goals, and it's different for everyone. But I still think in a very general sense, smoking weed or drinking alcohol is less rational than jerking off. You could technically say that if a person doesn't care at all about how his life turns out as a result of smoking weed every day that it can be rational for them to do that, but realistically, they will contradict that statement in some of their behavior (e.g. they will aspire to enhance their cognition or motivation in other ways, like nofap, or just simply pursue some meaningful goal which requires those things), which means that the statement that it was rational was simply a failure of insight or a self-deception (which is typical in addiction by the way). When you're addicted, because your mind has become very impulsive, it likes to create impulsive and not very rational coping strategies. Suddenly one day, if things get a bit hard, it can say "but I don't care about anything anyway", and not one second later, you'll go on to contradict that statement by pursuing some goal or another. So a good way to identify if something is an addiction is to see if the behavior is in strong contradiction with other held beliefs or behaviors (which in the case of daily weed smoking, it virtually always is; occasional fapping, maybe not so much).

Probably the only Death Metal song where you can hear (almost) all the lyrics. Probably the catchiest one too.

I just talked to a guy who says he has been on nofap for 2 years. He tried to convince the other guy we were talking to why he should try it, and I tried to give the "balance is probably best" take, and then he was like "you say that because you're trying to justify your addiction" (not in like an angry tone or anything by the way; it was a chill discussion). Then later in the discussion, we came onto the topic of drugs, and I said I used to smoke a lot of weed, and he was like "me too; still do, every day". I didn't call him out on it (mainly because I was mindblown by the idea of being on 2 years of nofap while smoking weed), but damn, that's a stunning contradiction my dude Maybe he doesn't view smoking weed daily (which I would essentially classify as an addiction) as something bad? Anyways, I think the lesson is to distinguish between actual rational behavior and falling for fads. I think most young people will be better off fapping once in a while than expending a lot of thought and energy dissociating themselves from their sexual impulses. Then for some people, they've naturally transcended the desire to fap, and it's not something they have to think much about. If you're in that situation, then go for that. Other than that, you'll probably fap less overtime anyway, so it won't be a problem for long

I never made an UIM, but I have like 10 pure accounts and 2 ironmen lol. I just thought about maybe making a F2P ironman (or a non-ironman but from scratch) to relive those nostalgic memories

I don't know why I've never shared this before, but this song contains some of the most beautiful/interesting/cool chord progressions. The first time I heard it, I was actually blown away.

Why juice it?

I just thought about an analogy that might work: imagine taking steroids for only one day and then working out really hard that day vs. not taking steroids and working out regularly. If you want a steady progression of gains, you should focus on working out regularly. Steroids on their own won't lead to much steady progression, but steroids in combination with working out regularly will certainly boost your progression. And of course, there are lots of other things you're missing out on if you don't take steroids for that one day and lifting your ass off, like the experience of being an absolute beast for one day, but again, you probably won't maintain that unless you're actually constantly taking the drugs or taking them in conjunction with regularly working out.

This is all good, but the problem occurs when I ask why you choose to meditate regularly (which is presumably something you do). Then you have to do this linguistic dance of "well, technically meditation doesn't achieve anything, blah blah blah". I say save yourself the linguistic dance and just say you do it for enlightenment. Your mind is flexible enough to understand that you're in this case talking about a relative thing and not the Absolute, and it's so much simpler. And you actually do this generally with other words: words often have different meanings depending on context. You don't generally strive to hold on to one context-free definition of a word. You go with the flow of the context. But sure, enlightenment is a touchy subject and maybe you think highlighting the absolute side of things is very important, but I'm a bit more pragmatic than that.

which is why I say it's a valid perspective, but it's not the only one, and I won't pretend that it is. Maybe it's someone's path to pretend that it is and that is how they'll awaken, and sure, you can awaken in many different ways, even by hurting yourself physically. I just personally don't like hurting myself (in this case intellectually). Generally, hurting yourself (your relative self) is not something I'll promote. I think it's very possible to awaken while having a good head on your shoulders, and that you'll be generally better off that way. There are certain trade-offs that I might consider, but trading off your intellect would be too much (or like Frank Zappa would say: "treating dandruff by decapitation").

It's the same general dynamic: person 1 says something relative, person 2 says "but the Absolute though"; repeat ad nauseam.

Why it gotta be liquid? Eat some fruit. It has 80% water in it.

Ok, so language is bad, yet here you are talking very much. This has essentially been a long-winded version of "The Advaita Trap": I say instead of skirting around these performative contradictions, just embrace language to your full capacity. https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/the-advaita-trap-a-one-act-play/

There are relative manifestations of consciousness, and thus also enlightenment.

His point is that the only valid language game is the Absolute language game. I disagree. I'm saying that you can talk about the relative sides of enlightenment without negating the absolute side of it. The disagreement might lay in the fact that he doesn't think it's just a language game. But that is all we're doing here. To think that what we're doing right now is more than just conceptual talk is certainly not very non-dual.

Yet "I think Truth lies in the abnormal" is a statement about the relative domain and how it pertains to enlightenment. So you see, you can talk about enlightenment in both the relative domain and the absolute domain. For instance, the relative domain is where "enlightened people" live ("people" are relative things), as well as processes, practices, brain states, etc. Meanwhile, the fundamental nature of enlightenment is of course in the absolute domain.

Nuh-uh, not according to @UnbornTao. There is nothing in the relative domain that has anything to do with enlightenment, supposedly. "Abnormal", "finding", etc., is all conjecture, not direct experience.

Sort of. My point is that it's possible to speak like a normal person sometimes. It doesn't have to always be "...but direct experience!". It should be possible to say that there are enlightened people, that these enlightened people went through a process of awakening at some point in their lives, and that to say these things isn't necessarily blasphemous or negates the Truth with a capital "T". It's only an observation about relative reality, and if you recognize it for what it is, it's not a big deal. To demonstrate how absurd this really is: there is no reason why you shouldn't apply this "direct experience" business to any other topic than spirituality. For example, "going to the toilet is not actually a process with a start and an end; it's simply a pure happening of Infinite Consciousness; there is nothing truly happening, there is nothing being done, nothing being achieved, etc." Now, that is a completely valid perspective to take, but it's also completely ludicrous to think that it's the only valid perspective or the only useful way to engage with the topic.

Oh no, don't rob the New Agers of their only speciality! ?

You should re-read what I wrote above about Neo-Advaita. There are benefits to conceiving of things the way you're doing right now, but it's just another language game. If you recognize that it's just a language game, you can subscribe to other language games as well without problems. In other words, you can describe things as a process and also not a process. Because there is utility to both descriptions. It's not for no reason that people talk about enlightenment as a process (with a start and an end result), and you do understand that reason: people meditate and learn various things that give them insights, shifts in perspective, and which eventually lands them in a place which we call "enlightenment". Is it the same for everyone? Is there a mandatory step by step recipe you need to follow? No, but these are things people do and that we associate with enlightenment, which can be conceived of as a process with a start and an end result. If you want to be thoroughly consistent in your skeptical approach to describing reality, you should go all in and not say anything, because that is already "delusion" from the perspective of the Absolute (and you save yourself the performative contradictions). But again, you want to say things, so you need a language game, and I'm saying you might as well use multiple language games in a way that is rational and not get religiously stuck on just one.

To get you a certain result, in this case being enlightened, which is preferable to not being enlightened. You do understand this.

I think very few people become enlightened without ever having engaged with various technologies or tools that were available. Even Sadhguru meditated regularly in his early years, even though his first awakening was rather spontaneous. Besides, whatever you're providing here in this conversation can be thought of as a tool as well. Science is just one way to provide better tools over time. I think this is the very definition of Neo-Advaita: "there is no tool, no knowledge, no practice, no path that can take you there — only direct knowing of Yourself." It's of course a performative contradiction, because the very utterance of Neo-Advaitan words is a tool for making you gain insight into something, words said with a purpose to illuminate a path. In reality, Neo-Advaita is only a particular language game that can help to prime certain insights in certain contexts for certain people, but if you take it as something more than a language game, you shouldn't be surprised if you find yourself stuck with no insights, no progress. There are many language games, many tools, and they can be helpful for different people at different times.

You think meditation is not a technology or tool? Psychedelics? Transcranial magnetic stimulation for inducing flow states?

Haha if you guys still don't think Neil is a narcissist, watch this: Even his own people can't deal with him But like seriously, see how he leans into contextual things like incessantly interrupting people, shouting, waving his hands, even running up towards the person he disagrees with? Even when done half-jokingly, it's still frame control, and a specific kind which normal people don't dare to counter. You really have to be a narcissist to do these things, and the other people on the panel are not that, so Neil takes advantage of it (and you can see the mix of genuine distress and the "oh Neil" smirk on their faces, because again, it's not normal behavior). You know who does exactly the same things? Alex Jones. Don't tell me you don't see the similarities.