Carl-Richard

https://www.amazon.com/Until-Light-Takes-Aaron-Aites/dp/B004IZO2S4

This topic is not another debate about psychedelics vs. meditation. This topic is about all drug-taking where the drug is taken to achieve a specific effect, be it for the purposes of productivity, spirituality, medication or recreation. Even so, it should be mentioned that classical psychedelics also have an atypical mechanism of action, and many of the points here therefore don't apply to them. Nevertheless, the prevailing idea among strategic drug-takers (e.g. coffee drinkers, nootropic users and enjoyers of pharmacological sleep-aids) tends to be that drugs have a net positive effect on their lives. My claim is that it's not that simple, neither from a short-term or long-term perspective. The main concept presented here is the trade-off between flexibility (1) and selectivity (2): between 1) the ability to self-regulate and respond dynamically to different types of stimuli, and 2) the ability to respond strongly to a specific type of stimulus. 1) In its sober state, the body-brain system usually has a certain range of activity which it can unlock given the correct stimulus. For example, if you're about to lift something heavy, the system will experience a stimulus that produces a shift towards a state of higher activation by engaging those related systems (e.g. increased dopaminergic activity in various parts of the brain and and an activation of the sympathetic nervous system). When the stimulus ceases, it will reduce the activation accordingly. This is what a healthy system does: it responds to challenges according to the level of the challenge, and when the challenge is over, it reduces the activation. If the response is insufficient for the challenge, you can train the system to respond better over time. 2) On the other hand, taking a drug like say caffeine will make the system respond more strongly to a specific set of challenges (like lifting heavy stuff), but it will not be able to self-regulate this response to the same extent as an endogenous response (either tailor it specifically to the challenge or reduce activation after the challenge is over). This can create a waste of resources (excessive strength and duration of activation) and a lack of refinement (less specific and dynamic response). What good is it to blast your receptors with stimulant chemicals when you're supposed to rest? The drug also compromises the ability to respond to other challenges that require a different type of activation. For example, you'll not be able to sleep well or perform tasks requiring fine motor movements (e.g. threading a needle) on most types of stimulating drugs. While that is also true for the duration of an endogenously induced activation of the same kind, this response is much more dynamic. For example, unlike a cup of coffee, you're not very likely to be stuck with an elevated heart rate for the next couple of hours after lifting something heavy (it's usually back down to baseline after a couple of minutes). It's widely known that when the drug has left the system, it still has a lasting effect on the system, namely the system's own attempt to self-regulate and respond to the effect of the drug (downregulation), which is the root the phenomena of drug dependence. This happens because the drug induces an unbalanced pattern of activation and utilization of resources, and the system will always try to regain this balance (homeostasis). It does this through negative feedback loops: countering excess activation through reduced activation. As the drug leaves the system, the system will reduce the associated activity below baseline in order to replace the lost resources and re-balance the overall functioning of the system. This creates periods of subnormal levels of specific types of activation and an overall sub-optimal level of functioning. As a result, you'll need progressively higher doses to achieve the previous level of activation (increased drug tolerance) and to avoid dropping below the baseline level of functioning (dependence). Drugs also tend to complicate other bodily processes (e.g. vasoconstriction, diuresis, muscle twitching, digestion problems, liver strain) and may in some cases be toxic. So as a summary of the points above, this is what drugs really do: they provide one period of selective and rigid activation, then one period where the opposite effect is produced with the same level of selectivity and rigidity, all while decreasing the efficiency of the drug at next administration and potentially producing harmful side effects on the side. If you're a person who is on the spiritual path and is struggling to maintain a consistent meditation practice, struggling with fluctuating energy levels, bodily discomfort, fatigue, brain fog and emotional instability throughout the day, then maybe one priority should be to create a sense of stability, and eliminating all non-essential drugs can often be an overlooked step in this direction. It's easy to forget how much our culture has programmed us to consume all kinds of substances that are non-essential and that may do more harm than good. With that said, proper sleep, diet and exercise are the most essential parts of maintaining a healthy regulatory capacity. The question is then whether drugs can actually serve as a net positive at all. I would say it depends on what your goals are. Do you value having a calm, clear and intuitive mind that is stable, subtle and refined? Do you value having a stable level of functioning throughout the day? Then maybe stay away from all drugs, be it stimulants or depressants, because all of it has an unbalancing effect on the system. But let's say you're less concerned about these things and you're more concerned about "getting shit done". Is there then a place for drugs? Maybe yes, but only if used strategically within small time periods and rather infrequently. You want to reduce the problems of limited duration and build-up of tolerance. For example, if you're going to do 3 hours of intensive work and nothing else after that, then using caffeine could be a good idea for that particular session. However, if you do this everyday, it will gradually have less effect and the response will become less refined. Therefore, consider only using caffeine for special occasions. There is a deeper point to be made about refinement and the blunting effect of drugs on subtle processes, not in the sense that you're frying your brain through irreversible structural damage, but in the sense that you're not allowing the emergent properties of the system to refine themselves and properly unfold in a stable environment. After all, a central way of conceptualizing the movement towards higher consciousness is the movement towards more subtle levels of perception, cognition, feeling and being. This parallels with seeing the importance of ecology (stable, self-sustaining life systems) in the health and sustainability of the macrocosm of the world and the microcosm of one's own body. Through ecology, the path towards growth is recognized as the increased ability to self-regulate as opposed to the increased consumption of external resources. In other words, the solution lies in the intelligence and strength within, as opposed to a solution from the outside.

"Find the experiencer" can be used as a pointer towards awareness, but it contains an implicit duality that can be deconstructed (experiencer/experienced). This is nevertheless a problem with all pointers, because pointing is communication, and communication is dualistic. Truth is existential.

Social interactions and emotional bonds are some of the strongest promoters of a healthy self-regulatory capacity (the general ability to handle stressors). It's only really beaten by meditation (and sleep)

Don't worry, I know exactly what you feel as an ex-addict myself . I was just trying to be accurate, not to morally condemn those who take drugs or are in any way "dependent".

Thank you! Sound good. Just to clarify, it's not that you should strive to achieve homeostasis in your body. Your body's sole function is to maintain homeostasis (to maintain a balance between inputs and outputs). Drugs are just one type of input. The problem happens when you start relying on a constant stream of inputs in order to function, and when the nature of the input is selective and rigid (like with fast-acting psychoactive drugs), this compromises the functioning of the system in various ways, the main point being a loss of flexibility in responding to challenges in the environment. Whatever is introduced to the system, the system will regulate itself as a response. If the nervous system produces a DMT molecule endogenously, then the system will accommodate the effects of this through various self-regulation mechanisms (e.g. by downregulating the activity of the related systems, e.g. the serotonergic system). Likewise, if you introduce some DMT from the outside, the system will also respond by regulating itself. The system is in a constant state of self-regulation. The question is just about how balanced it is, and the more unbalanced it is, the less flexible it is. Taking a large dose of exogenous DMT will definitely create an unbalancing effect. Drugs are non-essential and modulate existing activity already produced by the system. Many vitamins are essential and are not produced within the body. However, eating an unbalanced amount of vitamins will also produce an unbalanced response in the system. Same with essential amino acids. Say if you eat too much L-tryptophan (precursor to serotonin), then the system will respond by downregulating serotonergic activity. This is what is meant by eating a balanced diet: getting just enough essential nutrients that your body needs to sustain itself; not too much, not too little. The key takeaway here is balance The system is obviously in constant flux with the environment where the inputs and outputs are always changing. Homeostasis doesn't mean that the system is isolated from its environment. Rather, homeostasis is the different measures that a system has to take towards self preservation, i.e. "what do I need to do in order to keep surviving?". For any self-perpetuating life system to survive, it must maintain a fixed boundary between itself and its environment, and it does this by managing a relatively balanced flow of energy through the system. Signalling molecules like neurotransmitters are just one way that an organism can change its patterns of input and output, which is why the nervous system also needs homeostatic mechanisms like negative feedback loops in order to protect the larger integrity of the system.

The level of purpose that arises in reaction to the chaos of Red (namely Blue) requires a certain ability to abstract over space and time. The Purple sense of purpose and the Red sense of self-assertion is more embedded in "the now", in immediate impulses, and nihilism is the recognition of a lack of an abstract framework of purpose, something which doesn't arise before Blue. Blue is able to see outside of itself in time and space, beyond its immediate living conditions and desires and into the future, into the transcendent ideal dimension of God, the Law, family, virtue. Purple's sense of purpose is explicit and embodied (the immediately felt connection to the tribe), and it's the same with Red's reaction to it (the immediately felt egocentric impulses). Blue's sense of purpose is implicit and abstract: "me as a separate individual have to work to fullfil my purpose as a servant of God, as a lawful citizen, as a responsible family man, as a virtuous person". When a person evolves his ability to think abstractly and not merely adhere to a dogmatic construct but is able to employ self-consistent hypothetical deduction, then Orange rationality is born, and the Blue dogmas are no longer sufficient for providing a sense of abstract purpose. The way out is to reclaim the embodied purpose of the pre-rational Purple through the trans-rational domain: non-dogmatic mysticism.

Can you observe that?

Nihilism is the first response when the purpose of the transcendent dimension is undermined by the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm (the transition from dogmatism to rationality), so it first comes online in low-Orange. It can get countered as early as mid-Orange through mental gymnastics or linger all the way into the beginning of the transrational realm at Green or Tier 2.

I still think it's right to call it direct experience. It's true that the content of non-conceptual experience is variable, but the recognition of the "directness" of this experience has more to do with the changeless aspect that underlies all experience (the formless void). This becomes more obvious when you actually experience the void in samadhi where all content or form is removed. It's nevertheless true that our experience of form is radically constructed. Experiments on the early development of the visual system demonstrate this pretty well. If you place a newborn kitten in a box with only horizontal lines in it and you let it grow up in that environment, it will not be able to perceive vertical lines, because its visual system has only been trained to perceive horizontal lines.

Asking "Who am I?" reveals exactly what you are, because there is no answer. There is just pure being.

This is meant mostly for young seekers who are juggling early life with self-transcendence. It's no surprise that the most awakened people you see in the world are some of the most well-integrated and resourceful people out there. While it's not uncommon for mystics to enter a deep introspective phase of their life, it's not an unproblematic endeavour. In the past, being a mystic was synonymous homelessness, and fortunately for them, there were structures in place that made it possible to survive (Indian culture is very accommodating to mystics). However, in the modern world of Western individualism, it's not a wise decision to leave your life behind, certainly not before it has even started. I recommend re-defining the concept of spirituality from the idea of seeking the highest to integrating the whole. What makes us human is our desire to expand endlessly, and the ultimate expression of this is the desire for truth. You can imagine the desire of truth to be an expansion towards the highest altitude of consciousness. However, the impulse of expansion does not only extend towards higher altitudes but also towards wider breadths and deeper depths. It's not just an movement upwards, but rather it's an expansion in all directions. So in other words, to be truly spiritual is to maximize all expansion in all aspects, not just the higher ones. In fact, when the lower aspects are denied their right to expand, they will impede your ability to go higher. For example, if you deny your sexual energy, this will create a disruption in your emotional system and impede your spiritual energy. There are a myriad of "lower energies" within you that need to be processed and expressed before you can fully move on to the next level (e.g. the desire for safety, belonging and esteem), and working on the wordly things will help you in that direction. So it's not just that it's impractical from a survival perspective to not develop the lower aspects of yourself, but it will also cause problems for your truth-seeking. I can use an example from my personal life to illustrate this point: I've personally had a little "wood mystic" phase in my early teens (dropped LSD a couple of times, started smoking weed heavily to expand on those insights). What initially began as an intense seeking for truth turned into a denial of personal responsibilities and avoiding the hardships of life (stopped caring much about school, friends and family), and the stress from having to deal with all those bad decisions made me very neurotic and depressed. I later realized that the dysfunctional part of my behavior stemmed from some emotional issues, namely having had very strict parents that didn't let me fully express my emotional impulses, and that me immersing myself completely in truth-seeking and avoiding responsibilities was me trying to fill that hole from my youth. Something as basic as the need to express one's impulses (to consume, to indulge, to "want", to self-assert), which I expressed through intense truth-seeking, was ultimately creating more problems for me and holding me back. What I was avoiding, and what I'm focusing on now, is to integrate my personality, harvest my potential, become a resourceful person and then go directly for truth without being a liability to others. I'm not saying that what happened to me will happen to you, but there are many things that can go wrong if you take the seeking approach over the integrating approach. Every part of your life impacts every other part in some way, and if you fail to address one part, it will have a detrimental impact on the whole. This is essentially a lesson in holistic thinking: of not getting too caught up in one aspect of life, but to be able to see the bigger picture.

@Human Mint @tuckerwphotography @VeganAwake ? It's perfectly fine to "leave" once you have established a firm foundation. The problem is that especially many young people overestimate their level of development and make short-sighted decisions which directly impede spiritual work and threaten basic survival.

Green is solid when teenagers look down on Richard Dawkins like they look down on creationists today.

It's the awareness of the fundamental nature of thought as self-talk, talk as a play of symbols, and the representational nature of symbols. The word "cat" represents a cat; it's is not a itself a cat. As thoughts are spoken, maps are written. When you stop speaking, you get to silence. Why do we speak? Why do we make maps? As means towards an end. What is silence? What is truth? It speaks for itself.

Let go

Women tend to have an easier time letting go.

It's very tricky to try to imagine how other people experience fundamental aspects of the world differently, and that is where concepts like the Folk Theory of Essences are brilliant tools. I was personally struck by this when reading about the pre-Socratic philosophers and their metaphysical ideas. How do you go about interpreting something that comes from such a vastly different cultural context than your own?

Relative reality is speech. Speak because you're spoken to, not because you understand (my new favorite quote ).

Such a view would be reductive, bad faith, coming from a place of hurt instead of inspiration. I could give a more optimistic analysis of a member of the Taliban.

LOOOL

I've watched the entire thing before and it perfectly summarizes my point: a career in science is not synonymous with construct awareness. This is nothing new (there are countless examples, not just QM). Don't be afraid to watch it anymore than you're afraid to watch Richard Dawkins debating Deepak Chopra. It's the same level of worldview disconnect. If you have doubts about the legitimacy of this work, then you're free to focus on something else. That is also one reason why it's not a cult. A cult robs you of your personal autonomy. Actualized.org is about strengthening your personal autonomy. If you think that this is me gaslighting you, then sure, don't listen to anything I'm telling you. If you've formulated your own thoughts on the subject and you're able to understand the arguments that people are making, then it's no longer about "trusting someone". It's about what resonates with you. However, if your idea of sensemaking is to blindly appeal to an arbitrary standard of authority, then do that, but then there is no reason to argue in the first place. This is what we're doing here: we're providing arguments, and it's up to you if it resonates or not. The authority question is anyway irrelevant, because that clearly goes both ways (there are academics on both sides).

See the lights out on the water Come and go, to and from In the time it takes to find them You can live, you can die And nothing stops the river as it goes by Nothing stops the river as it goes All alone and all together Every day, come what may By the time we find each other We can live, we can die And nothing stops the river as it flows by Nothing stops the river as it goes

If you appreciate Daniel's ecoliteracy approach, look into Fritjof Capra, Gregory Bateson and Arne Næss. He draws a lot of inspiration from them.