Carl-Richard

That was just a fancy way of describing getting so stoned that you're completely useless as a human being. It's one of those times where you come back from a long break and get sent into another dimension. The thing you're describing just sounds like the general deterioation of cognition that happens when you're a full-time weed couch potato: hyper-prolactin state, inflammation and no resilience-inducing stimuli (controlled exposure to stressors): fapping to porn all the time, overeating shitty food, smoke damaging your respiratory and circulatory system, no physical exercise, no mentally stimulating activities.

That is where therapy comes in.

Good insights. I'm Norwegian. English is my second language. True. It's easy to discard any push-back from "mystics" once you completely disregard the legitimacy of their view. Yes, like I said: people who pursue self-help or spirituality, even relatively healthy ones, are more predisposed towards such problems. You can appear to be healthy in one moment but become sick in the next. Probably. MHC is a meta-theoretical model, which is a so-called "model about models". At the lowest level, a model is a system, and therefore the simplest type of meta-theory would be meta-systematic. There are more complex types of meta-theories that try to understand the more simpler meta-theories, and there are even more complex meta-theories that try to understand the more complex ones again. Then MHC tries to understand all of that, which means it's at least at a level above that, which means it lands at the highest level of complexity (meta-cross-paradigmatic). The highest level includes a caveat ("performative-recursive"), and the way I interpret it is that there is really no highest level. It can go on forever. So in a sense, MHC seems to model itself, infinitely. Meta-theories are notoriously self-referential, and MHC truly takes the cake in that aspect. The lowest level are the easiest to study quantitatively, but they're so simple that they're not that interesting. Surveying children goes into qualitative studies, and those are always difficult, but yeah even more so with children. I think it's most helpful to use it when trying to understand abstract systems themselves, i.e. scientific hypotheses, theories, meta-theories, paradigms etc., rather than trying to specifically understand cognitive development. For example, how complex is the paradigm of evolutionary biology compared to the paradigm of biology? What about cross-disciplinary approaches? Though of course, you can use it to assess your own or somebody else's main mode of operation in your daily life. I think it's particularly useful to explain the different levels of context awareness, construct awareness and theory pluralism (see my topic on Systems thinking), or in other words the ability to see a larger perspective, having high self-awareness and openness to different views. How to accurately pin yourself on a stage just boils down to the willingness to investigate your own psyche. Not in a strict physiological sense, but other than that, it's up to you. If you like to party, sure. Phytochemicals is a humongous class of substances; basically anything that comes from a plant. It includes everything from poisons like cyanide and ricin to narcotics like morphine and cocaine to medicines like Aspirin and Aloe Vera. What I meant is that the word "chemical" usually refers to something synthetic in everyday speech, but from a chemistry perspective, everything has a chemical basis. It's modelling the level of complexity of cognitive operations, so in a sense yes. Misunderstanding a chemistry question isn't necessarily a sign that your mind is too simple and that the level of analysis is to complex, but maybe that you're just not identifying the correct level (i.e. it's be much simpler than you think). That is usually the insight people get after they finally get the answer: "was it really that simple?" Getting the answer might be simple, but that doesn't mean it's not complicated.

The systemic communication theorist Gregory Bateson calls this "context", which is your interpretative framework, and everybody has a different one based on previous experiences. His work is all about showing how communication is not a straightforward thing.

Read slower, breathe, feel

Try not smoking weed Take it from an ex- full-time stoner.

Now we have another non-mRNA vaccine "Novavax" made especially for you

Being sober means you only consume what is essential. I'll define drugs as non-essential substances that produce a pronounced pharmacological effect. You have essential amino acids, fats, minerals and vitamins etc., which all have pronounced downstream pharmacological effects, but which are required for optimal, organic functioning of the system. However, it's possible to consume an unbalanced amount of those, and this goes back to the aspect of physical health (healthy, balanced diet). Once you start going outside what is merely essential, you're into medicinal territory, which has its place if you for example get sick, but it's generally not for daily consumption (unless you have some incurable chronic ailments where you decide that the positives outweigh the negatives). There are some atypical non-essential substances that complicates things. For example, the way I view psychedelics is that they can increase resilience and vitality over time given the right conditions. Sometimes the conditions just aren't right (like with our friend Adam), or maybe there are no current visible signs of progress at that moment (not all growth is linear or determinable within a specific time horizon). Psychedelics also have an atypical pharmacological profile and are non-addictive, so they don't easily fall under the category of hedonic drugs. Other non-essential substances with less pronounced psychoactive effects like polyphenolic phytochemicals also seem to be beneficial for health, but some are also detrimental. It's also possible that we lose some of the bigger picture by taking the analytical lens of pharmacology and looking at single compounds. For example, polyphenols often come from fruits, and a fruit is a whole package deal. There is lots of complexity there that we can't unpack analytically but which we can only test for ourselves. An important point here is that all of our bodies are different. This is generally my advice for optimizing resilience and vitality: find out what works best for you: what does your body like to eat? It's also not just about diet: generally learn to listen to how your body responds to different stimuli, both short-term and more crucially long-term. Let the intelligence of your body be your guide.

Reality is real

Causality is imaginary.

The threads that mention COVID-19 tend to derail into the same people making the same three points from one year ago. It's not just that it's boring and repetitive, but it also creates a skewed picture when people stop caring about engaging with it. It also doesn't help that so many people don't know how to represent statistics accurately (most notoriously not controlling for age).

Whatever you choose, there is nothing wrong about trying something out and changing your mind. A lot of the pressures you feel around choosing a career, like the idea of having to pick your lane when you're 17-18 and literally close your mind, is merely cultural conditioning. That isn't an excuse to give up all goal-oriented behavior, but rather to discover what your true goal is.

Awaken kundalini and become a shaktipat teacher. Easiest way to "teach" meditation

Hehe thanks I might make an own thread on vitality and resilience (and internal regulation). They're powerful holistic concepts from the psychological literature.

Was Spinoza or Parmenides aware of Advaita Vedanta?

He opened with "I don't agree with Leo promoting vaccines to his followers." Seems like that was the deal-breaker. The other stuff was just the same vague go-to insults from anybody who has ever left the forum. Here is an interesting question: what does it take to prove that you're not "blindly following Leo and his opinions on many topics"?

Is that why you're on this forum? To talk about vaccines?

What is movement?

Some categories are too wide to fit neatly into one SD stage, and I'm suspecting that might be the case for class reductionism. The perfect question to illustrate this is: "which SD stage is ideological?" What about "liberal class reductionism"?

To expand on my previous response, being sober is something that can be refined and mastered, in the sense that the benefits you get from it puts you off wanting to take any mind-altering substances. This idea goes hand-in-hand with physical health, emotional mastery and spiritual growth. The overarching concepts that unites these three realms are "vitality" and "resilience", or "internal regulatory capacity": your ability to tackle stress and control your internal and external environment. This is the goal of all therapy, all psychedelic drugs, all meditation. Hedonic drugs are external regulators, and once you get dependent on them, you ride the hedonic-adaptive slide all the way to the bottom until you discontinue use either voluntarily or by force, either intermittently ("tolerance break") or permanently (when you overdose on heroin at 27). How severe this process is depends on your internal regulatory capacity, which is controlled by the amount of trauma you have, your genes, your cognitive-emotional style etc. To maximize regulatory capacity means to heal trauma, recognize your genetic predispositions and learning healthy cognitive-emotional regulative patterns, i.e. physical health, emotional mastery and spiritual growth. Once your vitality and resilience is maximized, you're turned off by any type of non-essential external regulators, because your internal state allows for a much more refined state of consciousness (more meaningful, more resourceful, more blissful). Hedonic bliss is not the same as existential bliss, at least not in the long run. One is self-contained, self-improving and organic, the other is dependent, degenerative and synthetic.

Based on what you're saying, unless you're microdosing the stuff, I don't see how you're not constantly high. I'm saying this as an ex-stoner who has had both his mind completely deleted from it on multiple occasions and has used it merely as a morning coffee. The difference comes from how often you use it (or maybe people are just extremely different).

If you're approaching cannabis like a nootropic, you're underestimating the depths of sobriety.

There is a recontexualization from "what do I want or need?" to "what does the world want or need?" These two are not necessarily incompatible, but your perception of both also evolves over time. However way you choose look at it, when it comes to creating and providing, you probably want to balance your personal strengths and your higher vision. Maybe this conversation could give some insight into the dyadic split that is going on in your mind: Notice how Allan Wallace has studied both physics and Buddhism, and that his vision is to create a rigorous scientific study of consciousness using introspection as a methodology (Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies). He is playing on his strengths: marrying his technical side and his higher self, which means he isn't dismissing ordinary physics or scientific methodology, but is simply looking to expand (modern science is not very friendly to introspection). If my say is worth anything, this kind of thinking is what drives my study of psychology. I want that synthesis of science and mysticism. In my view, "science" and "not science" is not as much of a dilemma as a challenge.

They're babushka dolls