Carl-Richard

Psychedelics bring you there because infinite consciousness made it so. It's infinite, so it must necessarily be that way atleast one place within itself. Some other place in infinite consciousness, you eating a flower makes you realize infinite consciousness. Some other place, you not eating a flower makes you realize it.

There is only one substance. The fact that you are aware could only mean that this substance is consciousness. If there is only one substance, there are no other substances that can limit it, and therefore it has to be infinite => infinite consciousness!

I think you're the one in denial if you know there is nothing to worry about but worrying is still happening You think there is nothing to worry about, and you worry because you think

Come again?

When there is no mind there is not even a you doing anything, so why worry?

How to kill your soul^

Nobody truly starts from scratch though LOL

So basically the Cartesian method (analysis -> "certainty" -> synthesis), a.k.a modern mainstream thought I personally wouldn't call it 1st principle thinking, because apparently there are many types of so-called 1st principles.

What's that?

Look at the example I gave about people from different cultures perceiving different things. How come that given the same picture, the same type of light hitting the retina, which triggers the same amount of receptors of the same type, leading to the same neural signals being sent to the brain; how come that there still happens to be a perceptual difference in different people? The top-down answer is that the people from the same culture draw upon the same types of stored information in the long-term memory because of similar experiences, and that this information which comes from the "upper levels" (cortex) somehow modulates the raw sensory information coming from the "lower levels" (sensory apparatus). There is no bottom-up answer that can explain the perceptual difference. That would be just one concrete example. My point is that this distinction applies more generally aswell. In general, the bottom-up approach looks at the start of just one kind of signalling cascade and says "Look here! It all started here with the receptor binding a transmitter substance!" while the top-down approach says "well hold on, there is a lot more going on here!". One perspective is analytic and reductionistic, and the other is holistic and systemic. Some of your confusion may stem from the fact that there is some overlap, because "bottom" is connected to "down" and "top" is connected to "up". That is not a problem. The problem is that bottom-up alone is inherently an exclusionary approach because of its tendency towards reductionism. You ideally want a synthesis of the two. I have no problem if you want to say "it's DMT and...". Top-down recognizes that there isn't just one type of one type of transmitter or one type of receptor at play. There are infact many, and they all interact with eachother in complex ways. That is also just one level of analysis (transmitter-receptor level; ligand-binding). There is a myriad of different phenomenas going on: networks, pathways, homeostasis, adaptation, feedback loops, emergence etc.. Research done on The Default Mode Network is just one example of a top-down, relatively holistic approach. I say relatively, because realize that all of this is still constrained within a fundamentally broken materialist paradigm that is reductionistic in its own twisted ways, but again that is a separate discussion.

How do you walk something that heavy?

I believe Terrence wasn't primarily talking about non-duality but more general existential insights. He was very left-brained in many respects. There is also a distinction between talking about non-duality and experiencing it. Don't underestimate the role that luck plays in getting exposed to the right culture and being able to conceptualize it properly. It's also not really about being smart either. It requires first and foremost spiritual intelligence. Non-duality in its most basic form isn't that difficult to understand conceptually (if such a thing is even possible). It's infact too simple that people over-intellectualize it and look past it. I mean there have been illiterate non-dual people all throughout history.

I swear there is like an universal internet law that whenever you mention the words "smart" or "IQ", you'll start to see the opposite of those things as the conversation progresses

Yeah duh! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system People tend to get the idea that Tier 2 is just a way your mind operates. Oh no - there is an entire field of study out there that resonates at that frequency. In that sense, doing the work can mean either 1. actually study complex systems or 2. do self-improvement. Both are useful, both are hard. My point is don't expect too much from an open forum

I believe sophistry became a naughty word in part because Socrates and Plato feared the sophists and their ethical relativism. In that sense, there is a lot of sophistry on this forum

There ain't gonna be no "we" unless you have some spectacular plan you haven't revealed yet. Leading by example ain't gonna cut it. Why limit yourself to just ego developmental theory? Why not start using all the jargon from all the subfields of complex systems theory? That would truly be a tier two practice But you ain't gonna do the work and neither will other people.

A big reason why many people doubt the existence of psychic powers is due to the fact that you can earn one million dollars if you're able to demonstrate it under a set of experimental conditions (James Randi's challenge) and so far nobody has been able to complete it. Is this really a good reason to say that psychic powers don't exist? Now, what I'm going to claim is that you don't have to go outside the paradigm of conventional scientific methodology in order to understand why this doesn't necessarily have to be the case. When it comes to observing behavior in a scientific context, there is a distinction between observing a phenomena in its organic environment and observing it in an experimental situation. This is a huge methodological issue in fields like social psychology. In the experimental approach, you create an artificial environment where you can isolate different causal factors, but you can never be sure if you've demonstrated a causal relationship outside of that artificial environment. This is especially true when you're dealing with complex things like mental phenomenas and social dynamics. There are many reasons to believe that the functioning of subtle behaviors like psychic powers are highly sensitive to specific conditions, both in the external environment and within the psychic's own mind. It's a well-established fact that once you put a person in an experimental setting, you're impacting the normal functioning of that person. Therefore, the inverse of the statement in the previous paragraph is also true: just because you can't demonstrate a causal relationship in an experimental environment does not mean it cannot exist outside of that environment. If you're still in doubt, you can also venture a bit outside the realm of conventional thought and more into the spiritual realm (this is also just based on my opinion). I think that psychic powers work similarily to how more normal intuitional insights seem to work, in the sense that from the perspective of the person having them, it doesn't feel like "you" created the intuition, but rather that it simply "came to you". It's like this piece of information you were given is not really just about you specifically, but that it's a part of something greater than yourself. You can also describe this as a plan, a natural unfolding, the creative evolutionary impulse of the universe, or God. From this perspective, trying to prove the existence of psychic powers in an experiment for you to win a million dollars seems rather silly. Why should the universe care about you doing that? In what way is that a part of the plan? I also think that once your intention is to further your own survival through these lower motivational forces (recognition, fame, greed), this naturally closes you off to these higher intuitional domains. When you're operating from these lower aspects, you're messing with your connection to the greater flow of the universe. Just imagine the difference between a mind that is at ease with itself and a mind that is fuelled by egoic desire. These more subtle aspects aren't allowed to bubble up if your mind is constantly filled with all this noise from impulsive thoughts, desires and fears. Let me know what you think. I would appreciate if you could primarily talk about your personal experiences rather than some belief you have. Have you ever experienced psychic powers or any subtle intuitional experiences? Please share

What - are you some kind of social engineer? What are your motives?

Why haven't you updated your vocabulary to complex systems theory? You only want to talk with yourself?

A bit off topic, but are you a native Spanish speaker?

Why is this bad? What if this is what you need?

This is a warning sign. Don't be surprised if you end up an addict. I'm talking from experience. You calling ketamine a "low hedonistic drug" tells me that you know very little about drugs

But bliss is still you.

High information flow comes with the cost of low accessibility. So he is strategic in some ways but less in others.