Carl-Richard

But if you can't eliminate existing bullshit, you should try to polish it. And we can't eliminate the need to classify people as psychologically unwell, at least not in our current society.

@Danioover9000 My guy, my dude, buddy, we're not talking about waking up in the morning. Razard thinks saying "autism is just a theory" is a sign of mysticism and spiritual awakening

If you want my personal experience with the side effects of nofap (after several weeks and months): oversensitivity to sounds and textures muscle stiffness and aches trouble with falling asleep a feeling of being psychologically ungrounded and "on edge" emotional flatness and numbness zero sex drive ("flat line") but also overstimulation from just looking at a girl lack of social and physical finesse Some confounding factors might be that I was meditating at least 1 hour every day at that time, and that I had recently discontinued a long period of drug use.

Well, I don't believe you're literally Jesus Christ, and I don't think you will ever convince anybody on here that you are.

If you insist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Diagnostic manuals for psychiatric diseases do have legitimate issues that are valid to question, and it basically boils down to the fact that it's hard to measure something psychological using quantitative measurements (the things that make us think physical sciences are more scientific). I won't disagree with that. I could've through this gone point by point, but I think this one quote is sufficient: But not the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)? The existence of many of these concepts predate both the DCM and the ICD. Maybe the better way to put it is that the DSM and the ICD help us define better what we mean by these terms and how we should diagnose and treat them, because what existed before was not better (i.e. some paternalistic psychoanalyst merely making the authoritative decision that based on their expertise and clinical experience with the patient, the patient has x disease). We should appreciate that there are attempts at making universalized systems for classifying diseases that holds the practitioners to at least some standards other than their own. But again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better.

NO WAY! He did the solo in Konnakol: 1:56 Insane.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Why?: 1. "Scientific knowledge is purely the product of social forces, power struggles, and politics. The natural world has no role in the construction of scientific knowledge". 2. "There is no absolute truth; true or false is always relative to someone's perspective, it's just a preference to believe certain things". 3. "Physical reality is a social and linguistic construct". 4. "The science of one society is no more valid than that of another".

But what is the message that Christ wishes to send humanity? (and can you say it in a way that does not invoke the image of Christ?) Are you using Christ as a metaphor or are you implying that you're literally Jesus Christ and that there is nothing else you're trying to say?

And the truth is?

If you read my elaboration above, the author was actually presenting arguments for why the bolded statements are unreasonable. My problem with him was not his arguments per se, but his overall conclusion (i.e. that you should adopt a realist language game: "theories are pointing at truth!"). My frustration is partially that I feel less and less that there is just one true way to talk about things, but also that I value the relativist language game a bit more. I do like to think of theories as "useful fictions", because it keeps our feet to the fire of the truth that we're inextricably intertwined with our theories, and the alternative makes you more prone to the worst kinds of self-deception.

He has one thread where he sometimes speaks from the absolute perspective. He doesn't seem to be shoving it in people's faces.

So this is from a book chapter I'm reading in philosophy of science that the author; while trying present the views of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos; took the time to give his own personal take on why so-called "extreme forms" of relativism are rationally unfounded or logically inconsistent (the four points above were examples of those views). It reminds me of a similar book I read 3 years ago at the beginning of my studies where the author inbetween presenting different views on ethics and morality, had to give his own personal take on why morality is necessarily objective. Then, like now, I felt like closing my ears while reading it. I also find it funny that the first author essentially disagrees with the second author by clarifying that he is exclusively talking about epistemic relativism and not moral relativism (implying that the former is less defensible). As for my own personal opinion, I feel the objectivist/relativist or realist/anti-realist dichotomy is basically just about choosing the language game that you think emphasises what is most important. For me, I think emphasising that all truths depend on some aspect of ourselves, our constructions and thus deceptions, is more important than emphasising the fact that there seems to be a through consistency behind some of these constructions. For example, to call our scientific models "useful fictions" as opposed to "corroborated theories pointing at truth" helps to remind me of the fact that we're always a part of the picture and that you won't make that go away no matter how many logical contradictions you want to ascribe to some of the contigency of that way of thinking. In general, I feel that people's different language games become less and less appealing, even the ones I've been more fond of the last couple of years (like Bernardo Kastrup's "Analytical Idealism"), because I see the point in all of them, and none of them are exclusively "right". Simultaneously, I find it increasingly harder to follow what a single author even means by what they're saying, as there are so many different ways of interpreting words like "truth", "relative", "objective", etc., depending on the context and the background knowledge of the author. In one sense, it's freeing and simplifying, but in another sense it's disorienting and complexifying. Sometimes, I think back to when things were simpler and smaller, and how I felt I could understand things for certain (while sometimes running into a wall of "these people are just wrong", which I now probably understand as "this is complex"). To do a callback to Spiral Dynamics, I think this is what true "Green aperspectival madness" feels like (or aspects of it). It's one thing to grasp it conceptually, but it's another to live through it. Anyways, I did want to engage more directly with you guys' responses, but I had to get this off my chest first, and now it's super late, so I'll maybe get to that tomorrow

That's life for you. You can continue to view change as something scary, or you can choose (partially) to view it as something exciting. And starting university is exciting. If you miss your home, remember you can always visit. I visited my family frequently back when I studied outside my hometown (today, I study in my hometown so I can visit even more often ?).

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.