Carl-Richard

As an ex-cannabis user, this is the most infuriating misunderstanding out there in common cannabis circles. Firstly, addiction, or more specifically "that which mediates addictive behavior", is 100% psychological. Secondly, there is a rampant conflation of the term "dependence" and "addiction". What you're talking about is "psychological dependence", which includes emotional–motivational withdrawal symptoms. "Physical dependence" involves persistent physical–somatic withdrawal symptoms. Actual addiction is defined as a compulsive behavior that happens independent of withdrawal symptoms. That means there are additional psychological mechanisms at play that would only compound with the effects of withdrawal. The conflation of "psychological dependence" and "addiction" is more understandable, as the withdrawal symptoms do infact resemble the emotional states seen in addicts. However, "physical addiction" is nothing but a misnomer. It talks about withdrawal symptoms, not addictive behavior, and it's more analogous to a diabetic needing insulin not to die. Of course physical dependence tends to happen alongside psychological dependence aswell. The laymen perception of the severity of physical withdrawals are also way overblown, mostly due to the known potential danger of death. Opioid withdrawals for instance are often compared to a mild cold. It's the addictive psychological component that breaks you, and it can come from cannabis just as much as any other drug. The phrase "addiction is primarily psychological with Cannabis" is only ever said in order to diminish the potential harm caused by addiction. If we want a really good example of how moronic that statement it is, consider the fact that methamphetamine and cocaine possess zero physical dependence qualities, yet they're the go-to example of drug addiction.

What would you guys choose: a blank beta mind or an angry alpha mind?

Harsh noises, you say? Where are my metal buddies?

Chill.

Yes. It also has potential to stagnate the mind.

Genius hahaha

That is powerful.

@Leo Gura If he only knew how some people look at his video with that same face

Emphasis on the quantity and diversity of mind blowage.

But I scored 80% N on the test?

It's how much you like getting your mind blown.

How do you read people?

@Artsu Just curious what your MBTI personality is? You seem very knowledgeable about it. I'm an INFP-A. I only tested myself twice, but many months apart.

What makes you think you haven't integrated green?

I remember back in 5-7th grade, there had developed this weird culture among the guys where we would get up from behind somebody's back without them suspecting it, and then try to pin them to the ground as fast and violently as possible. It was essentially a normal way that the guys would greet eachother, and it was just really exciting and typical adrenaline-filled guy-on-guy behavior (that came out wrong ). It had gotten so bad infact that one time when my girlfriend tried to jump up on my back without me suspecting it, I immediately threw her to the ground as a reflexive response, and that was so damn awkward lol. I did it so fast, she didn't even know what happened (). Everybody was in on it, and we didn't really get hurt. However, it had to come to an end. I believe it went on for a solid two years until one time it happened in front of one of the cool teachers (who had also gotten used to it), and then he said in a begrudging tone: "OK guys, I think it's time you stop doing that, don't you think?" ...and that was all it took for us to go from red to blue .

I was about to post that

It's only true relative to a set of presuppositions. We've been through this already. Absolute Truth does not come in the form of a thought. Only a thought comes in the form of a thought. A relative thought can be relatively true (which would make it relative), or relatively false (which would make it relatively invalid). You need to go experience it.

A thought is not Absolute Truth. A description is not Absolute Truth. Absolute truth cannot be emulated nor represented. Absolute Truth itself is the only thing that can be Absolute Truth. It doesn't make them irrelevant; it makes them relative. If it can be dissected, it isn't Absolute Truth.

You're underestimating the extent of relativity. Relativity doesn't just apply to the interpretation of something. The actual thing itself is a confinement, a label, a limitation, a concept, a fiction; which is relative. You're only talking about relative things here, not absolutes. The only absolute is God itself: pure, undivided consciousness. No "things" exist in an absolute sense. This is why it's important to make the distinction between the relative and the absolute domain. In the relative domain, yes, you are robbing a bank. In the absolute domain, there is only God. However, if you're able to concede on this distinction, then you could technically say that it's indeed absolutely true that you're robbing a bank in a relative sense (but then the use of the word becomes redundant).

I hope you'll laugh as much as I do some day when reading that.

When you're the only one that exists, why would you exploit or hurt yourself? If you're truly honest with yourself, it's really all just about the fear of being alone. The fear of being alone disappears when you accept that there is only one point of view. There are many different views in a relative sense, but only one view in an absolute sense.

How would you know the difference and what difference would it make for you?

I should've made it more clear: N vs P and S vs J.