Carl-Richard

What are the anti-natalists so worried about? "We're imposing life on somebody who didn't choose it". They did not "self-determine" their existence. And in their existence, they don't self-determine everything that happens (only a part, if that). So they suffer. But if your self-identity is equal to everything that happens, then you self-determine everything. The model that describes internal vs external motivation is called "Self-determination theory". Internal motivation is about self-determined behavior, doing what you feel compelled to do by yourself. If you are the entirety of reality, then everything that happens in reality is you doing what you feel compelled to do by yourself. So everything that happens becomes internal motivation. It's determined by you. You are causing everything to happen, you are choosing everything to happen. Acceptance is allowing something to exist, and ultimately, it's about making something a part of yourself. If you deny something the right to exist, that is you resist it, you reject it, you don't want it to be a part of your reality. You want to be separated from it. You want to not be with it, be it. If you want to not be separate from it, to love it, then that's acceptance. Acceptance is just another word for love. When you love somebody, be it your partner or family, you accept them into your life. When your love is finite, you accept only some things but not others. But if your love is infinite, you accept everything. Accepting everything is loving God, loving yourself as all of reality.

The reason I use the words "internal vs external motivation" is because I believe internal motivation is very important for doing anything in life, but since life itself is intrinsically external motivation, you can never be completely internally motivated, so it's about finding a balance.

I reduced names used in the thread for clarity's sake (but not so much because I was externally motivated ).

So naming it "God" or "Being" doesn't really matter.

A part is a piece, a whole is a container of pieces. A holarchy contains parts and wholes where a whole is also a part and a part is also a whole.

Saying "that is the mind", that is the mind. "Being" is a name. "Only what is" is a name.

Whole becomes part and part becomes whole. Nested holarchy.

The whole the part lives in.

Everything. Yep, which is why it's a name for everything.

God doesn't dissolve (in the realm of the known). You can drop the name of God, but God won't be dropped.

That's true, we're not sure how much. That would require very specific studies.

God is a name for everything.

@Emerald described masculinity as "lofty". If there is one song that captures this, it's this one: If you don't get the highly abstract (lofty) idea they're working with (particularly relating to how they construct their guitar riffs and the general rhythmical ideas in the song), you won't get the music. It's also masculine in my "big yell" sense 😆

What's the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy person? A big factor is vibrancy, energy. Fiber and the other phytochemicals that usually come with it have many health effects (we have gone through some of them here; anti-inflammatory, pro-microbiome), so that's how it's causitive of energy. Is it the same as eating readily digestible carbohydrates? No, but many unhealthy people do that. If you want to be very detailed-oriented, do some ChatGPT for that possibility space.

At some point, you just have to accept that it's not even just possible but inevitable or already here, but you're just not trusting yourself or loving yourself or giving yourself the permission to be who you already are. Some people meditate without even truly believing that they can awaken, that they are capable of it, that they deserve it, or whatever blockage they have in their mind. This is the biggest act of self-sabotage you can ever put on yourself. And when they do awaken, they laugh because it was so stupid and obvious.

I'll try to notice these discontinuities. I notice them mostly with my "odd" dreams. You know how some gurus can "look you in the eye and know your past, present and future"? What if it's simply their visual perception that is so attuned that when they see your eyes (and face and body), they can see and deduce exactly what has caused those things, reading your karma like a shopping list, but it's indeed not as much separate from a "physical" thing but it's just their perception is so deeply detailed and profound? But then, how is that really different from essentially getting a massive download of information from the ether (as you're deriving a lot of information based on comparatively little information)? Psychics are maybe just psychos at physics 🤪 (partially 😌).

You don't have to, just acknowledge that while you avoid the negatives of fiber (bloating, etc.), you also avoid the positives. That's not my claim. "Digestion issues"? Is it bloating? Loose stools? General GI discomfort? These arguments don't seem very well-defined, maybe because they are anecdotes. Also, "digestion issues" is one thing. Some also experience symptoms like low energy and fatigue. That also has to be explained (and it can be, by e.g. a lack of fiber). But trying to "explain anecdotes" is different from finding specific scientific mechanisms. There might be interesting mechanisms associated with only consuming meat. But those have to be discovered scientifically. Paradigm: carnivore might avoid some of the negatives of fiber and some of the positives. And people report different things. And different people have different predispositions. If you clearly identify the symptoms and you identify the positives and negatives of each, I think that gives a clearer picture. Inflammation can come from non-dietary sources, and fiber has effects that extend outside its local effects on gut lining. I think the best heuristic you can use in health is "everything is interconnected". Then the details simply tell you how much.

A.k.a. 1/810, related to 1/81 and 1/(9*9) and 1/(3*3*3*3). Can any mathematicians please explain yourselves? Why are you doing witchcraft in my computer?

https://www.youtube.com/@essentiafoundation/featured

At some point, it becomes clear when you're running up against a threshold and you can intuit what is on the other side. What does that threshold look like? Here is an idea: Are you awakening sober, spontaneously, without intention, at seemingly random points of your day, even while doing things actively? And the awakenings keep becoming more and more consistent until they become seemingly self-sustaining and it's hard for them to not happen? That's a sign. Why are you guiding yourself towards enlightenment when it could be a dead end?

Viewing these things as "shields" and not things that give an additive effect seems a bit self-serving in your case. There are other sources of pathology than diet that can be offset by fiber and related phytonutrients (free radicals from stress etc.). Also, do you always move or work out after your meal, and if not, do you experience side effects due to post-prandial glucose? Do you generally experience side effects due to post-prandial glucose? And how often do you eat?

The entire premise of trying to paint somebody as emotional in order to make a point is too brute to be worth my serious attention.

No, just obsession, and essentially no internet access. And filling a hole from not smoking weed. Seeing, feeling, moving and breathing with great care. Giving attention to objects, environments, nature. Cultivating attention in every activity, small or little, be it picking up a glass to drink, or using a remote controller, or peeling potatoes, or skiing up a mountain. You just have to be in a desperate enough situation 😀

It was quite shortly after engaging in seated meditation. But before that, I had been engaging in active mindfulness 24/7 for a week straight in the mountains. And before that, I had been doing psychedelics a few times and weed chronically multiple times a day for a long time. Quitting weed on the mountain also had a drastic effect on my awareness.

"Only my techniques are valid. Oh, somebody else is advanced with other techniques? Genetics." Not doing drugs could actually be a causative factor of "me". It does not have to be in spite of that or because of me.