Carl-Richard

I meant like measurable in the sense that there are actual THC molecules docking in my brain at a substantial amount or if the smell triggered some learned psychological response. I agree that the psychological response would have a measureable physiological side, but that is not the measurement I'm talking about. As for molecules docking at the nose, we know that the sense of smell only requires a few molecules to trigger an experience, so I would definitely imagine it's possible to smell weed long before you're getting high from it.

It definitely affected me. The question is if it's something objectively measurable or if it's all in my mind. That said, does it sound right to say "PTSD is all in your mind"? (Again, I'm not saying I have "actual" PTSD).

KKK is a perfect reflection of Christianity.

I think I know some 😉

While it's probably the most interesting conversations you can have, it's also probably the hardest conversations you can have, which is why almost nobody has them. Even when Schmactenberger is directly asked the question of how to implement his ideas in practice, he doesn't actually get to the point, or at least I can't remember ever seeing it. I'm thinking specifically about his conversation with McGilchrist and Vervaeke where he was directly asked that question. He seems stuck on defining the problem but not actually acting on it. And I don't blame him. I can't even imagine an attempted solution that is not microscopic in its impact without presupposing a level of coordination and integration between different systems that would automatically solve the very problems we're trying to fix (a perfectly internally coordinated and functional organism is not a house divided against itself).

You have a serious thing for beliefs 😆

Isn't the answer almost always not "not this" but "balance"? Give me one example of something leftists promote that conservatives do not promote at all. This sort of hearkens back to an earlier point I've made about how when you have a certain wideness of perspective, every conversation like this just becomes an exercise in rehearsing concrete examples of a phenomena, of refreshing your understanding of an already understood abstract concept. For example, merely mentioning things like "socialism", "drug legalization", "open boarders" is simply a way to cue our minds to the larger concept ("harmful", "going too far"), because in reality, we know that all these things largely depend on their degree of implementation, not whether or not they're implemented. Nobody really thinks government should have zero say in people's lives (unless you're a fool). Nobody really thinks drugs should be under either 0% legal control or 100% legal control (what does that even mean?). Nobody really thinks boarders should be either 100% open or 100% closed. That is not to say these conversations are useless. It's just interesting to point out how it's less about specific "policies" (the "whats") and more about how they're implemented (the "how much", "in what way", etc.), but that we still decide to mention specific "whats" to create a conversation. Maybe an interesting conversation could be to try to identify if there is a common pattern in degree of implementation that can be identified across different cases that leads to harm (a sort of systems thinking inquiry into the notion of balance itself). Or maybe even more interestingly, are there patterns of behavior or societal and psychological drivers that predictably lead to these failures in degree of implementation? Isn't that what Daniel Schmachtenberger and his ilk are doing with concepts like the Metacrisis, Moloch, Meaning crisis, Game 1 vs. 2? Isn't that what a lack of wisdom is (a lack of balance)? And how do you implement these concepts in practice and in a wise way? That's probably the most interesting conversation you can have.

He is young, passionate and aesthetically-oriented, not unlike many spiritual people, artists, etc. He just chose bodybuilding as his passion. When done to the extremes, it has certain trade-offs, like most things done to the extremes. I spent my late teens/early twenties frying my brain with weed (later replaced with meditation), sitting in the woods thinking about crazy stuff and listening to music, neglecting school, friends, etc. It's partially a part of being young, and some people are more extreme than others, and there might be some trauma and insecurities involved too. Still, despite the obvious trade-offs, you can still have a highly reasonable, insightful and inspired person underneath. Seeing the need for balance is something that comes with age.

@Wisebaxter He met her at a gaming-related thing, but I'm not sure if she was into smoking back then. She seemed like she didn't like to smoke that much the times we hung out. She was absolutely stupendously hot though 😤😮‍💨

My friend found one, or rather he created one. They broke up.

Some people just don't have a very active mind like that. But what I find interesting is what happens when you take somebody who has an active mind like that and then make them meditate and give them the right wisdom and tools to get their mind in a functional state. What does that produce and in what ways is it different from the "naturally" inactive mind? I think the answer is basically intelligence (or sheer information processing, sensitivity, intuition, conceptual thinking). Like Sadhguru says, your intelligence can either be working for you or against you. If you have a lot of intelligence but it's not working in your best self-interest, that is when you get extreme self-sabotage, neurosis, anxiety disorders, nihilism, etc. A rock doesn't have these problems, but it's also a rock. It can only roll downhill if something else lets it. And there you have an analogy for group-think, dogmatism. Also, a rock doesn't have "control", as illusory as that control is from an absolute perspective. In reality, control is as illusory as any appearance in reality, which is all appearances.. The problem is ironically enough only if you're controlled by it — if you're the rock rolling downhill to the conception of control.

I actually sort of understand what you mean. Still a bit abstract, but seemingly coherent 👍 Can you give one concrete example of living subjectively?

More funny than weird 😂: Both funny and weird 😌:

That sounds like the "stare at a single point" meditation methods I contrasted the zooming method to earlier, which I've also tried, and they do make your vision cloudy and trippy as you're doing it. That has to do with your eyes getting dry as you said and the desensitization of receptors in your retina as you're keeping your eyes fixated and not moving (as well as the usual visual snow/static interacting with these changes). The thing about the zooming method is that you're not necessarily keeping your eyes fixated at one point, but you can be actively moving your eyes as you're trying to find the finer details. In a sense, it's like a form of moving meditation, where there is an explicit goal and often a dynamic behavior to reach that goal. Also, the effect of the vision becoming clearer that I was referring to is experienced afterwards as you end the meditation and go about your normal tasks, not during the meditation (although that arguably by definition happens during the meditation as well).

Stare at a grainy surface under decent lighting. Pick one area, lean in if you like, and try to see smaller and smaller details. Pretend that you're zooming in and trying to see the atoms of whatever you're looking at. Try to find the smallest detail you can find, and then zoom in even more and find an even smaller detail. Posture is not that important, although pick a posture that is relaxed and allows you to keep your head decently still (even when you're leaning in). When you feel tired, simply switch to meditation with your eyes closed (do nothing). It works well as a concentration exercise that you can do before your normal meditation routine. I do think it's superior to more bland concentration exercises (e.g. simply staring at a point), because it has a goal-oriented aspect to it and even creates a sense of progression, which motivates you and sharpens your focus. One major way of how it works to induce a meditative state is that in order to see smaller details, you have to keep your head more still, and in order to keep your head more still, you have to be more relaxed. It creates a feedback loop (kinda like biofeedback): when you see more details, you can track what your body was doing as you saw more details, and this makes you more aware of what makes you able to relax and thus see more details and thus become more relaxed, etc. This feedback mechanism is technically how the progression of all meditation works, but the visual nature and relatively complicated but also simple nature of the task makes the feedback immediate and high-fidelity and thus more efficient. It might have some drawbacks, like posture, but it could serve as a useful variation to a stale meditation habit. You might notice your vision becoming clearer, which is a fun side effect (and not surprising, as you're essentially training yourself to pick out details). I use it before I read, as I feel that it speeds up my reading. If you only care about the meditative benefits, it could create a synergistic effect with other meditation methods by sharpening your focus.

Reality is change, and thus you suffer.

Bro you're literally psychotic I'm laughing too hard to be able to write a response.

@Schizophonia Also let me echo the CATS model mentioned a few pages earlier (and basically every modern model of stress worth their salt): Truly harmful "stress" is largely dependent on cognitive appraisal (mental frame). So if you're in a "stressful" situation and you feel like you're coping, it's generally not going to lead to harmful stress. I'll give an example that is a bit more technical than the previously mentioned parachutist example, but I can't be asked to repeat it: You put a cat in a box and expose it to a stimulus that causes pain if it doesn't move in time, effectively teaching the cat to avoid the stimulus. Over repeated exposures, as the avoidance behavior is mastered, the initial stress response gives way to a relaxed "coping" response. Crucially, it's not that the stress response first arises and then is replaced by the coping response as the avoidance behavior removes the cat from the stimulus. Rather, after mastery, the stress response never actually arises. So there is something within the cat that has changed how it interprets the otherwise stressful situation (cognitive appraisal). The same is true for anything else you might consider stressful, including working out while screaming your balls off. If you find working out to be stressful, maybe you're just not very good at it. Maybe you're just a pencil-necked individual (sorry, I love Bugezism ).

Meditation is one of the most engaging things I've ever engaged in, and it consists of moving as little as possible. But sure, I agree that team sports is in some ways more engaging than some forms of weightlifting, but weightlifting is not 0% engagement/enjoyment. If it was, I wouldn't have been doing it non-stop for 10 years. And there are many exercises you can do that are not simple. For example, there is a reason why deadlifts is an infamous exercise for people doing it wrong. The type of flow state I get into at the gym is unmatched by anything else. When you get really good at your routine, you become like a well-oiled machine: every exercise, every movement, every drink from the water bottle — all of it runs like clockwork. That is something you get less from team sports because it's less predictable, more probability for error, which can also be a source of frustration. Also, if you're really invested in the outcome of the game, winning or losing (or even the prospect of it) can be hugely stressful. But we can spend hours over-analyzing these things for and against. It's clear that you can derive enjoyment from almost anything, as long as you're good at it. "Just stressing" is just wrong. That's just psychotic. And I can assure you, Rick Bugez and Jujimufu are like that all the time ;D Btw, videos like this show how "working out" can blur the line with competitive (maybe not "team") sports (although here it's intentionally playful and creative): Also, are you really saying only team sports is fun? What about non-team sports (which weightlifting is a part of by the way)? Why would top athletes spend their life getting good at something that is boring? Just because something is highly structured and "simple" (try doing snatch) like weightlifting doesn't mean it's not fun. People find golf fun for God's sake >:O What about the average gym goer? (careful not to confuse going to the gym with bodybuilding )

Horsecocking heavy weight is hella engaging. Wtf are you talking about?

Why?

There are some food items with added sugars that I use, like Sriracha sauce, Barilla basilico tomato sauce, etc. These either contain little added sugar or I use them only in limited amounts. Let me put it this way: I only eat during my 3 meals that only contain "real" foods (proper macronutrient profile) and I only drink water. The only exception is one fruit during my gym workouts. I avoid sodas, juices, cakes, sweets, snacks, caffeine, alcohol, etc. I also mostly avoid foods like pizza where the main ingredients are flour and I avoid eating too much bread (it makes me feel bad).

That's the main reason why I do it. But I don't do it mainly for the "high" (hedonic pleasure). There are many highs I avoid (sugar, drugs). I do it mainly for the increased functionality, which makes life in general more pleasurable (eudaimonic pleasure) and not least more meaningful. The problem with hedonism is that it's experienced as quite meaningless and causes degeneration. When you go for functionality, there is inherent meaning in that, and there is growth rather than degeneration.

Now, libido (or testosterone) is one thing that certainly does not correlate squarely with longevity 😂 Neither behaviorally nor physiologically. Or rather for the physiological aspect, it's a bell curve (too low T and too high T is probably not good). Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass (I know little about the subject). I wonder if OP will react to this 😄

John Vervaeke calls himself a Buddhist Neoplatonist. Rupert Sheldrake is pretty much a Christian Hindu. Most contemporary nondualists integrate concepts from different religions (e.g. Sat-Chit-Ananda = The Holy Trinity = emptiness-form-energy).