Carl-Richard

Instead of going deeper on SD in particular, you could read a bit about other types of stage theories, particularly in the field of developmental psychology, and contrast it to "non-stage" developmental theories there (e.g. Bronfenbrenner or Sameroff) to get a fuller understanding of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_stage_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_stage_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

Regardless, you've reached the end of the explanatory tree.

Then I consider your reasoning to not be useful.

There are many things that are logically possible but which are not reasonable possibilities. For example, you have no way to prove right now that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, or that there isn't a hyper-dimensional space unicorn floating around the orbit of Neptune, or that every time you close your eyes at night, there isn't a giant spider that creeps up from under your bed and sits beside you. All of those things are logically possible, but they're just not very reasonable. My last post talked about this: if you want to reduce the vast potential of suffering that your imagination can conjure up, you have to make peace with the unknown and not let it bother you too much. When you're driving your car, your steering can malfunction and make you crash into a ditch. When you're flying a plane, a loose nut can get dislodged and get sucked into the engines. There is an infinite amount of logically possible scenarios like that. But why worry about them?

What is your view on the idea that individuated consciousness seems to be intrinsically tied to biology?

@Jehovah increases Thanks ChatGPT ?

Of course the concept of the ontological unknown is just a concept that the intellect makes up, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't pointing to something in reality. It's the same thing with the concept of non-duality: it's a concept pointing to something in reality. I guess what the non-dual tradition is saying is "just don't concern yourself with the ontological unknown; concern yourself with what is experienced directly". That is why it rejects things like matter, because nobody has directly seen matter, only direct experience. But that doesn't in principle invalidate the existence of the ontological unknown. It's just an ontological preference to say you only care about the known. Therefore, "the absolute" is only absolute in the realm of the known. It can also be the case that the unknown is just a fantasy, or a kind of artefact of the functioning of the intellect (which is to ask questions; "what if?"). In other words, for the intellect to ponder the unknown is self-serving to its very existence. Of course it will do that — it's in its nature. If the known is "this", it will ponder "not-this". If the known is non-dual, it will ponder duality. Also, I guess the non-dual tradition focuses on accepting the unknown, to make peace with it, rather than rejecting it. Because when you're obsessing about the unknown, you keep projecting "what ifs" all the time, which is the root of suffering. It doesn't get you anywhere other than existential OCD. So if you care about reducing suffering, accepting the unknown by letting it remain unknown and living in the known is the way to.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been thinking about something @SeaMonster once said. The unknown is often equated (maybe mistakenly) with non-duality or pure being. But what if non-duality is rather just the conceptual unknown, and thus still non-conceptual knowing (because obviously, non-duality is known)? So then, what about the truly "ontological" unknown? Does it actually exist? If it does, we can't know if non-duality is actually the true absolute, but instead only absolute in the realm of what is known. The only counter to that would be that the unknown is actually known. Thoughts?

To explain something in terms of something else is by definition relative. Also, you can't keep explaining things by pointing to something else forever. At some point, you reach the unexplainable, the absolute, the final reduction. Try it: what are chairs made of? "Wood". What is wood made of? "Cells". What are cells made of? "Chemical compounds". What are chemical compounds made of? "Atoms". What are atoms made of? "Quarks". What are quarks made of? "Strings". What are strings made of? "No idea".

?

I'm very much concerned about details like this (this video is surprisingly accurate): Like, why do you see those particular patterns and not something else? It has always fascinated me since the first times I tripped.

I'm fine with that I think a satisfying explanation would need a certain level of specificity relative to what is being asked. For example, I think explaining the occurrence of psychedelic visuals as having to do with the 5HT2a receptor is a satisfying explanation, but to explain the structure or form of the visuals I think requires a different kind of explanation.

You can still explain things despite all that. An explanation is when you reduce something to something else. I'm looking for such a thing.

So you've never encountered something called an explanation before?

A confluence of genes, environment and experiences, or in other words: statistics. People come in different shapes and sizes: some are very oddly shaped or very large, while some are very differently shaped or very tiny. Given enough people, you're bound to find some oddballs out there.

I sometimes have that fear myself, but just as a passing thought and very rarely, and I would think that's normal behavior. Any normal behavior can be taken to the extreme (because of the natural distribution of individual differences), thus some people will be plagued by that fear very intensely and which may warrant a diagnosis in a diagnostic statistical manual. There, I explained it — easy

I met a spirit phoenix once on a microdose of LSD and a bit of weed and a bunch of other substances ? (I'm exaggerating the story a bit).

Well, I don't.

"Just don't be mentally ill lol" ._.

What other things happened?

You can have breakthrough experiences on a microdose ;D

Arguably, a central aspect of wisdom is holism. More specifically, it's the ability to see different aspects of life and how they're all interconnected, whether it's your mind and your physical body, other people's happiness and your own happiness, your finances and your life opportunities, your habits and your successes; the list goes on. Since I'm particularly interested in psychology, I have mostly realized this through learning different theories from psychology (and of course with a bit of help of other people I admire, particularly John Vervaeke, Bernardo Kastrup and Jordan Peterson, as well as my own experiences). I will present some of those theories here: Plato: "the monster, the lion and the man" Let's start with Plato's three aspects of the psyche: the monster, the lion and the man. The monster represents the more primal survival instincts, for example the need for food, sexual reproduction or safety. The lion represents the mammalian instincts of connection and social bonding. And lastly, the man represents the self-aware rational mind; the intellect. For Plato, in order to perturb self-deception and achieve wisdom, you must balance all these aspects of the psyche and give them life, not neglect or repress them. You'll see that many of these principles (promoting balance, avoiding repression) are common to all the theories I'm about to the present. Freud: "id, superego and ego" Next up is Freud's three aspects of the psyche: the id, the superego and the ego. The id is again the primal instincts, the fundamental driving forces of your survival, and it cares very little about higher moral responsibilities. The id just does what it wants to do. The superego is analogous to the voice of conscience, which tells you how you ought to act, and it's peculiarly often experienced as your mom's voice nagging you to do the right thing. You can ponder why that is (hint: it's highly socially conditioned). The ego is the thing that mediates between the id and the superego. It's the self-aware center of the psyche, and it chooses what it wants to listen to; the id or the superego (or at least it thinks it does). Similarly to Plato, Freud proposes that in order to avoid psychic conflict ("neurosis"), you must learn to balance the different psychic structures. Self-determination theory (SDT): "competence, belonging and autonomy" Not many people are familiar with it, but self-determination theory (SDT) is similarly a powerful theory of the psyche with three components: the need for competence, belonging and autonomy. SDT proposes that in order to achieve optimal motivation for a given behavior, you must address all these three needs. The need for competence says that all organisms have a need to express their innate capacities (for example their physical strength or agility), as this is in line with ensuring the survival of the organism. It's again about primal survival instincts. The need for belonging represents how your needs (psychological or otherwise) need to be supported in a social context (again, this is obviously about social needs). Lastly, the need for autonomy says that a given behavior must be in line with the individual's own wants, feelings and values. It's the more self-aware, rationally oriented part of the psyche. Modern neuroscience: "the Triune brain" The second last one is often the least expected, but modern neuroscience has its own version of this three-part split of the psyche, represented by the structures of the brain. It's called the "Triune brain", and it's of course a vast over-simplification of how the brain actually works, but there is still value to talking about it: the reptilian brain, the limbic system and the neocortex. The reptilian brain (a.k.a. the basal ganglia) takes care of lower-level survival functions like basic motor movements, the limbic system takes care of complex social emotions, while the neocortex takes care of the intellect. According to modern neuroscience, proper functioning requires an integration of functioning across brain structures. Deficits in one structure lead to deficits of the whole, which can happen when development is impaired (as the different brain areas experience different "growth spurts"). The biopsychosocial model of health To hammer it all home, you've probably heard about the biopsychosocial model of health. It's the most condensed summary of the point I'm getting at: life consists of multiple parts, and you must tend to all of them to live a healthy life. This approach to health is foundational to fields like health psychology, and it's a growing approach in various other health fields. Summary You might have noticed a trend of three levels of ascending complexity: biological, social, psychological. These different theories provide different perspectives on how the human psyche is structured and how the different parts need to be tended to in order to secure proper functioning and health. Whether you conceptualize it as avoiding psychic conflict like Freud, or promoting optimal motivation like SDT, or achieving wisdom and avoiding self-deception like Plato: it's all pointing to a common lesson about life. You don't have to subscribe to any particular theory to discover this lesson in your own life, but it often helps to get some pointers from the outside, and arguably, it will always follow the principle of holism (which often comes in threes).

@Zedman Lol you ok?

Let's go one level up: where are the people who hate people who hate normies? Get em! ?