Carl-Richard

What's self-deceptive about it?

"Stretched and torn into a new creation" - Meshuggah - Spasm, a song which someone has said is about Kundalini Kriyas, but I think it's probably just about epileptic seizures.

Prarabdha karma 😉

I wrote "health is about keeping things stable" earlier, but I erased it (seemingly so you could write it 😂). A psychic connection a day keeps the doctor away 🤣

Eckhart Tolle was suicidal when he awoke. Extreme fasting tends to increase meditative ability, not decrease it. People who're dying from ill health typically enter expanded states of awareness. I think we underestimate what is possible if you let go of completely everything, and what time and attention can do to you. What is mostly holding you back is not health. It's your goals, your attachments, what you occupy your time with. If you let go of everything right now, you will be enlightened no matter how sick you are.

How many hours a day must be spent doing nothing? Leo is on that modern sage grind, which arguably requires you to do shit. However, an enlightened man doesn't need to spend time doing nothing, because he's already doing nothing in whatever he does.

Because your intelligence and knowledge is finite. Only God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. IQ is defined by the test, and it's generally about finding visual patterns and rotating shapes in your working memory while under a time constraint. So faster working memory and greater working memory capacity naturally loads bigly on IQ. Intelligence is contact with reality. What is the level of engagement, what level of detail, of profundity of experience, are you capable of?

Cenk, Hasan Piker, most of the people at The Majority Report; it's sandpaper to my ears. Ironically, the most soothing voice in politics (except Sam Harris) is Nick Fuentes

Everybody knows the square root of red is infrared 😛

Hanzi Freinacht contrasts IQ with cognitive complexity (building complex thinking from the ground up), symbolic code (if not speaking your own complex language, at least adopting complex language from others), state (e.g. flow, peacefulness, blissfulness), and depth (having experienced and integrated various states, be it the low or the high). While IQ has a strong working memory component (the speed and capacity of the gears or conveyor belt of the mind), I think associative ability (being able to associate different concepts, often more loosely or creatively than others) is up there. There is also a pattern identifying ability, which is linked to being able to both see and imagine spatial relationships, drawing distinctions and seeing their relationships, logical reasoning. Also, while IQ is more "quantitative" in nature (be it due to size, speed, amount of relationships, amount of distinctions, length of logical strings), there are more "qualitative" forms of intelligence which indeed is related to the earlier concepts by Hanzi, but also something like refinement or subtlety, precision (related to conscientiousness), intuition, richness in feeling, and wholeness. You see it more in artists, creatives, those who delve more into feminine aspects.

Can you let go so intensely, so exhaustingly, so lovingly, that there is no you to do anything?

One thing I've thought about context is there is this band called Meshuggah that has released two versions of the same album: one has drums played by a human, the other has drums played by a computer. Everything else was kept virtually identical (even the acoustic sound of the drums). And because Meshuggah is a very rhythm-oriented and groovy band, the difference is palpable. But why? You have the same musical notes, the same musical ideas, the same musical "sentences", the same "text" being communicated. But the context, the more subtle surrounding conditions, is very different. And when the context is a human producing a rhythm, that's a rhythm another human can move and synchronize to more naturally, because humans more naturally do human things. This points to the experience of music indeed being a whole holistic experience, not easily reduced to mere notes on a sheet of paper. This also reminds me of presenting things (in school or otherwise) and reading up from a sheet of paper without having a clear understanding of what you're reading. If what you're saying is not coming from a place of full embodied understanding, if the words from your mouth were not formed and molded as a result of your understanding that exists within your mind, chances are that lack of understanding is what will be communicated, even despite the understanding that formed the words on the sheet of paper. Because even though I have poo-pooed the common man's abilities for perceiving psychic phenomena, I think more mundane phenomena like even just understanding what somebody is saying involves tapping holistically into somebody's mind as they lay it out through their presence (be it through speech, their body, their eyes, their tone of voice). You empathically, telepathically, connect with their understanding as it exist holistically inside their mind, and if it doesn't exist and they're just reading up from a script, the chances are you will have the experience of "what the hell am I listening to?" rather than "yes this is very understandable and good well-conceived thoughts". This is also why AI speaking to me through text often doesn't speak to me through clear and embodied understanding, because as far as we know about how AI works, it doesn't have that. The uncanny valley is the lack of embodied connection to something real and similar to you, which depends on the whole, and that which is often unspoken, the larger context.

Euugh bruh not literally veiny like that 😝 I meant like with the cuts.

I saw exactly what he was doing (why he was doing it and also that he was doing it), so it's harder to get mad. Had he slapped me in the back of the head without me knowing it, that would maybe have been a different story. I think his background is rougher than average, but I might be assuming things.

People get so hung up on words. Communicate using concepts. Don't let yourself be defined by single words. (That said, I still think using the word "solipsism" is culturally stupid, just like calling it Cheesology; you throw people off despite having a reason behind calling it that). (And if you believe you're the only conscious human being, the only conscious operator of this meat suit, clearly distinct from other meat suits, you're lost).

I remember I was hanging out with my buddies one time and one of my more druggie drug buddies was like "I've never seen you mad" so he started pushing me violently. And I was like "you're right". He didn't seem to give up, so I think I had to force myself to come off as mad for a second so he would stop and so my other buddies would stop cringing.

You didn't answer my point, which is that survival value is so vague that you indeed have to go into more specific things like marketability, scarcity and quantity to tease apart the different contributions of the feminine and the masculine. The feminine secures survival of the masculine until the masculine has been adequately cared for and made healthy and mature. Then the masculine secures survival of the feminine. It's hard to pinpoint what is more important, because one feeds into the other. Again, you don't get a Musk or a Besoz or a Jobs if they don't grow up and develop into well-functioning care-taking adults instead of dysfunctional care-needing man-babies. Enlightenment was just an example. The point is you value something because of what it is. You value water because it provides you survival benefits. You don't only value it when you don't have it. That's like saying you only value your wife, your car and your house when you don't have them, but that when you have them, their value drops to zero. You value your wife because you like being with your wife. You value your car because you like driving your car. You value your house because you like living in your house. And that's what survival is fundamentally about. It's about what you like, what you identify with, what you're attached to. Scarcity is about market value, nothing more, nothing less. Jordan Peterson's idea (which is not really his idea, but whatever) of a value hierarchy and that you cannot act without it (and that by the way, on top of the hierarchy, is God; enlightenment), is not reducible to mere market value. But it explains why a mother cares for their child, why a man protects their woman, why anybody would protect anything despite it having no market value. Because they value it. We value feminine labor despite its market value. But how much? Maybe it's the wrong question. Maybe "how much?" implies a market, or at least quantitative thinking, which ironically skews masculine.

If you have low cardiovascular function, you essentially have vascular dementia, because blood can't get to your brain. So no cardio means dementia. If you have low muscle mass, you essentially have diabetes, because glucose can't get out of your bloodstream (skeletal muscle is responsible for about 80 to 90% of insulin-meditated glucose clearance). And high blood glucose leads to inflammation. So no lifting weights means diabetes, which leads to chronic inflammation, which is also associated with dementia. So the answer is "stay hard"

I think you mistake working memory for long-term memory (e.g. episodic, semantic). Working memory is more like a CPU than something that is stored. Or rather, working memory has a central executive ("CPU") that processes information held in the short-term memory ("RAM") which is retrieved from the long-term memory ("hard drive"). Better working memory essentially means a faster CPU and more RAM.

That's obvious, you can now answer the real point. Is enlightenment valueable only if I don't have it? Things have innate value. They have value because they provide certain functions and freedoms, or simply because they are good in and of themselves. Scarcity only amplies that value locally and temporarily in some situations. Some things provide the basis for a lot of functions and freedoms, for a lot a value. Water does that, mothers do that. You could put that which is more basic and opens up for the most functions and freedoms as providing more survival value, by virtue that they make those things possible.

Seems a bit vague, doesn't it? If I had asked "who is physically stronger?", it would be easier. The point is that "survival value" is a bit vague, and men and women contribute a lot to survival in their own ways. Who contributes the most seems a bit hard to pin down.

What makes you survive more? Your mom or your dad?

Or rather, only focusing on the speed of your car will make you drive off a cliff, certainly in mountainous terrain

Is survival value even a specific concept? "Value" is like the least specific concept there is, "survival" is arguably just as much.

I think my analogy in the original post is a bit more elegant: philosophy would be like a particular skill (e.g. playing tennis or golf), while brain training (for working memory or IQ) would be the muscles and the skeleton. Or another analogy I've used before is the car: working memory is the speed of the car while philosophy would be some of the roads you have discovered, your orienting skills, your map knowledge. Science is a particular set of roads, maybe polluted highways, while philosophy (not the calcified historical ones, but the one you do as a person) could be the mountainous and sketchy roads you see in my country, surrounded by nature and fresh air.