Carl-Richard

Omg it makes sense ? Yeah, but one problem with mechanistic practice is that it's easy to fall into "easy solutions" (licks, scale runs etc.), exactly because you've practiced them. I guess the way out is to either practice only very rundamentary movements or practice an impossibly huge variety of things to a point where things start to melt into each other. That said, the type of shit I'm able to imagine is pretty inhuman from a technical standpoint, not in terms of "computational density" (as Zappa once said), but simply sheer originality. I think it's generally not compatible with the mandatory constraints of learning an instrument and the prototypical modes of learning (licks etc.) that one has to internalize, at least in the beginning, and that always stick with you to some extent. For example, you can virtually always identify a blues-inspired line or a jazz-inspired line. That has to boil down to technique at some point. Even purely self-taught players will have to emulate music they've heard before, unless they're raised in a black box. Well, I should say that I can easily sit back and relax and appreciate all kinds of music, stripping away different conceptual layers, expectations etc. It's really only when I compare it to that inner perfectionism that I sometimes tap into that I feel that tension, which nowadays is not often (it was much worse before). Sometimes I just need something catchy and groovy like Tool. I really like I.O.U. in that it's generally more accessible, same with Wardenclyffe Tower.

?

@thisintegrated Self-help > intellectual > spiritual.

What a weird synchronicity. Yesterday, right after I turned down your Tarot reading (because "fortune tellers spook me out"), I was watching this video where they were suddenly talking about synchronicities, and one of the guys started telling a story about a spooky synchronicity that involved a Tarot reading So maybe my apprehension was highly intuitive 1:31:09 - 1:36:13

I recently watched Bernardo Kastrup touch on this topic (one's relationship to good and evil) which you might find interesting: 37:25 - 51:45

My best ideas tend to be a synthesis of my core values, of what I consider maximally meaningful. My mind is less prone to sporadic brainstorming nowadays. (Systems thinking is of course not my idea, but the visualizations and neologisms came mostly from my own mind).

Nice! One day I'll post my 9 year all natty transformation, both muscles and hairline ?

I probably had something resembling GAD in my high school years. My way out was a spiritual awakening spurred on by meditation. I couldn't recommend anything else.

Very random, but Bernardo Kastrup's wife after taking psychedelics

Welcome! Idk, fortune tellers spook me out

@Scholar I was mostly talking about how intuitive ideas themselves are inherently difficult to express in words, in the sense that anybody would have problems expressing them. You seem to be talking more about a thinking process that is specific to intuitives, which probably has some truth to it as well.

No. Excessive, compulsive and recursive self-criticism can be.

@charlie cho I don't think the most brilliant logicians you can think of ever spent their time doing practices to better their logical reasoning specifically, just like a climber doesn't just do finger crunches all day. In life, logic tends to be a subset of a larger process.

I generally don't believe in reductionistic approaches when it comes to bettering yourself in broad and overarching aspects such as logical reasoning (I'm more "learning by doing"/"practice makes perfect"), but also in this case, learning some philosophy wouldn't hurt.

Well, the raw predictive utility of such science isn't lost just because of its metaphysical packaging. Science works. It's just that the way we talk about it is different (while also adding or omitting some additional conclusions, but again, not in a way that fundamentally negates the science).

Yeah. Bernardo talks about how Whitehead presents alternative descriptions of known phenomenas through neologisms more so than a framework of explanations that links different concepts with previously known phenomena (i.e. "reductionism": explaining one thing in terms of a simpler or more understood thing). That is for example one of the appeals of Analytic idealism in that it provides an explanation of the decombination of universal consciousness into seemingly separate points of view by referring to the empirically verifiable phenomena of DID or dissociation.

That's called being an intuitive thinker. Imo, masterfully expressing intuitive ideas is mostly a matter of repetition, not necessarily about increasing raw memory capacity. I have a friend with a nearly photographic memory who is not very verbally sophisticated at all. It's more like a delicate process of articulation than a retrieve-from-storage type deal. It's dynamic and recursive. It's also more about how you make the pieces fit, not necessarily which pieces you use (structure over content). In a way, verbal expression is a kind of feminine thing, like a dance (however cliché that sounds). You have to give yourself up to it, but also not too much that you lose balance, or else you'll become a poet, or even worse – word salad. Terrence McKenna comes to mind as somebody who likes to float a bit over on the poetic side, such that it becomes almost more about the aesthetics than the ideas (which is actually a symptom of mania in bipolar disorder; "clanging"). So maybe that's a place where you want to take a modicum of inspiration from, however limited that may be (genius and madness are indeed related) That happens to me all the time

Whenever I meet a genuine intuitive, I'm afraid I'll scare them from how crazy I am

>:D

If you ever meet me irl, I'll battle you on how little we'll talk >:) or tbh I can't keep my mouth shut around intuitives so nvm ?

?Whaaat but I'm so not extroverted lol

Simmer down, people ?

No. There are so many options out there. I think extroversion as a trait, at least as conceived by laymen, is mostly defined relative to the general population, which would probably create a 50/50 split of intro/extrovert, but don't quote me on that No. Idk. Functionally speaking, yes, but things like agreeableness, conscientiousness and stress tolerance are probably more important.

Yeah, like trauma. I don't know why you pulled the meditation card