Carl-Richard

Hehe naww But I was talking as God of course He is a bit more controversial (or is he? )

You will never die, you are stuck with me here forever 👹

You didn't answer the question and now you seem to be talking about something else. At no point did I talk about "absolutely proving" anything. I asked you for an alternative explanation for what the boy said.

How would you explain some of the stories they tell in that discussion if not for past life memories being real? For example, the kid who was a background actor in Hollywood in a past life who was able to point his past self out on a picture, knew his last name and which state he lived in, the age he died, etc.?

Going to sleep and waking up is not longer than a holiday 😂 The analogy isn't better, it only highlights a different aspect. Very interesting discussion from scientists who have studied things like children making past life claims.

It's emotional intelligence in the sense that your impulsive emotional responses get challenged by a higher knowing. The examples I gave were largely social, but you can apply it to non-social things as well. You can for example expect that things will get broken or things deterioate or things don't go exactly your way. Reality is constantly changing and is not all catered to your highest concerns. If you expect reality to be a completely pampered and safe, like a children's playground, and if you think you yourself is pampered and safe and that anything that challenges this notion you don't entertain as real, you will get triggered very easily. Do you think you are not tapped into any of the social matrixes? Do you think you are not "easy to read"? I think all of our behavior is very much predictable. Even the type of topics we like to talk about. We almost always talk about or hear about things we already know, but we talk largely as if somebody is hearing it for the first time and weirdly that we're saying it for the first time. Then, the true "point" about the conversation becomes not about sharing new things or learning new things, but reminding ourselves about what we find important (which is of course, important, as our existence depends on honing our attention). And to prove my point: I know about "the social matrix", I know that social intelligence and emotional intelligence overlap, I know some people are more socially embedded than others. But thanks for reminding me 😆

Nop.

Discipline becomes pleasure if you pursue meaning.

There is structure and hierarchy as far as we can construct them and act them out. The tendency is that you largely become what you believe. If you believe the world and your potential within it is flat and devoid of any serious topology, you will likely remain that way and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The value in thinking hierarchically is not as much about capturing what is as what you allow yourself to become (not just in a personal development sense, but epistemically, the very way you apprehend reality). Nevertheless, the attitude "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, don't be afraid to dream" vs "be realistic, cut the crap" produces very different outcomes. It just applies epistemically as well. You in a big way create the world you live in.

Humans are the imitating animal. We imitate what we find valueable and interesting. And we are so good at it we often fool ourselves.

Happy birthday 🥳

There is having the experiences on psychedelics, then there is having them during meditation or other intentional practice, and then there is having them unintentionally. Once you start having them unintentionally, it starts to become real clear what it's all about.

I think Clown Core’s Van might just be the most tragically misunderstood masterpiece of contemporary music—perhaps even misunderstood by the artists themselves, who, trapped within the confines of their literal van, inadvertently created a magnum opus of existential absurdity. The dominant narrative simplistically frames them as jokesters, ironic noise-makers, sonic clowns honking their horns in mockery of musical conventions. They’re seen as chaotic jesters, stitching together fragments of madness, toilet humor, and jazz fusion into a wild pastiche of sonic nihilism. But when I hear Van, I detect something infinitely more profound: an earnest mourning of authenticity's absurd impossibility in the late capitalist hellscape. There’s an undeniable metaphysical poignancy to their treatment of sound—the frenetic honking, disjointed saxophones, guttural screams, and toilet flush percussion—all meticulously composed yet relentlessly distorted. This is not mere clowning around; it’s a Beckettian cry into the void, an attempt to reclaim immediacy through its deliberate annihilation. Every honk, every distorted shriek, every out-of-tune synth is not stylistic randomness but a profound philosophical statement: authenticity reduced to absurdity precisely because sincerity is impossible. In this sense, Clown Core’s work on Van becomes the ultimate hauntological artifact—a Derridean exploration into a future we neither want nor deserve, and a past we’d prefer to deny ever existed. Each song is not an expression of genuine emotion but the eerie echo of sincerity drowned in an ocean of absurdity. They offer not real feeling, but the clownish ghost of emotion: a spectral laughter reverberating endlessly inside a cramped, windowless van hurtling toward nowhere. It is no coincidence that Van emerged amidst global despair, absurdist memes, and the cultural exhaustion of late-stage capitalism. Its relentless rhythm, punctuated by toilet breaks and horn blasts, speaks less to comedic relief and more to an attempt at conjuring meaning where meaning has long since evaporated. It is music made at the end of history, honking at the void, fully aware the void won’t honk back. Ironically, perhaps the artists themselves fail to grasp this profundity. Their insistence on remaining physically confined within the vehicle is an overly literal attempt at authenticity, ironically undermining the absurd metaphysical poignancy of their project. By becoming literal clowns in a literal van, they risk converting their spectral brilliance into kitsch. It’s as if Kafka’s Gregor Samsa actually wanted to become a giant insect—thus losing his metaphorical resonance entirely. This is the Žižekian paradox in full bloom: the authenticity they grasp at dissolves precisely because it was only ever meaningful as a ghostly potential, never as an actuality. Clown Core, in trying to embody absurdity, inadvertently risk trivializing the beautiful tragedy of absurdity itself. Ultimately, Van is not about comedy. Nor is it about irony. It is about the tragic, beautiful impossibility of sincerity in an absurd world. It is not music of laughter. It is the echoing silence between laughs. It is not about absurdity. It is about the crushing seriousness of absurdity’s impossibility. @Nilsi I'm so sorry 🤣 Written by ChatGPT 4.5 (I didn't even read it yet because I can't stop laughing 😂)

If you feel like you are a person making choices, moving this body, saying these words, writing these sentences, that you have a past or future, that you are not literally as much the chair you are looking at as the thing supposedly centered in this body, if you have not been trembling in the face of your own death and broken through to the other side, if you have not been crying in bliss and amazement at the fact that you are this thing that has existed forever and will never stop existing, chances are you are not there.

That's the problem: they don't. When you overly control everything, you make yourself weaker. You reduce the energy output during the exercise (this is a tautology: control is about holding yourself back. We can also go into the neuroscientific details of inhibitory signalling, etc.). You get less neurotransmitter recruitment, less hormonal recruitment, you feel like a sissy. Try horsing tremendous weight and compare how you feel then vs anally controlling some pencilneck weight. The results might be closely the same if you only care about hyperthrophy (which is also highly questionable, and in fact, I don't believe it, for the same reason I stated above). But if you care about how lifting makes you feel, not just during the session but days after (and the direct "side effects" like increased cognitive functioning), you should go for intensity as the number one goal. That is why I like sprints, because there is nothing else that makes me feel the same way. It's like cranking my veins full with nitroglycerin, like the real Limitless pill. Looking at the studies he and his buddy Jeff Nippard have been cooking up lately, the field of lifting-based exercise science for hyperthrophy is in its infancy. I would love for them to do a study comparing experienced lifters who train while maximizing for flow and intensity vs slow eccentric. And I'm not talking about just cranking weights like some lunatic who doesn't know what he is doing. I'm talking about intentionally and specifically trying to cultivate the state of flow, the state that is as far as I know the best predictor of performance in professional athletes.

I like to think I got the OCD from my mom's side and the hypomania from my dad's side.

Fix yo spelling

You know how when you see an ad on TV that you can always assume that any core feature you see is intentional because it has money and a lot of work behind it? Can we assume this here? 😆

I have a huge bone to pick with Mike Isratael. His "slow and controlled" approach to seemingly all exercises is seriously problematic and the way he arrives at that position could be an example of "epistemic scoundrelness" in my book. I think critics like Eric Bugenhagen who you could consider a meathead is much more on point about how you should generally approach lifting ("gusto", intensity, while keeping full range of motion). I think slow and controlled is best reserved for only some exercises or if you are working to fix muscle imbalances or recovering from an injury.

I'm not quite sure if I said that. What are you referring to?

@LordFall

Before reading: Close your eyes and take a few (e.g. three) deep breaths. Then sit with your eyes closed for 20 seconds while making yourself feel as relaxed as possible. Then do 2-3 minutes of staring at one point on your desk (e.g. the smallest detail you can pick out) and really focus all your attention on it. Then simply close your eyes again and rest for 20 seconds. During reading: Sit upright and relaxed (find a sitting style that makes your spine erect but not in an uncomfortable or laborious way; e.g. the way Sadhguru sits in most situations with one leg tucked under his bottom), breathe through your nose, avoid distractions and disturbances, be well-rested, generally do things that maximize or improve mental performance (adequate diet, exercise both for muscles and cardio, meditation habit, brain training habit). After reading: Do a quick mental recap of what you have learned while softly glancing at the pages you have read (maybe a few seconds per page).

Ok, thanks for reporting to us, mr. Easter egg filled with cream (☞ಠ_ಠ)☞

https://www.google.com/ In other words, trying to experience (directly) God, Consciousness, Non-duality, Oneness, Unity, Love. Mysticism, non-reactivity, ego transcendence, has existed for millennia, since Hinduism and before that. Meanwhile, Turquoise is a stage that supposedly evolved only a couple of decades ago. How do we square that? The 60s LSD hippie era is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, because despite being introduced to mysticism both culturally and supposedly experientially through psychedelic states, they had a (painfully) Green approach to addressing social problems, not Yellow, not Turquoise which is supposed to transcend and include Yellow. The Tim Learys and the Ram Dasses of that era weren't saying "how can we work with the elites, how can we make the elites understand the masses and the masses understand the elites?" but rather "how can we topple the establishment, how can we spread this message of non-conformance, of 'questioning authority', of 'turning on, tuning in, dropping out'", etc.