Carl-Richard
Moderator-
Content count
16,219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Carl-Richard
-
-
16 hours ago, Davino said:@Carl-Richard Maybe more context is needed. We were reading a 'philosophical' text on sexism in french and Italian language class. After the explicit understanding we went deeper and I was asked good inquiries on the topic. I wasn't directly called out sexist because I expressed myself more or less correctly, but they said my view could easily be misinterpreted as sexist and that I should be careful, which is true. So it got me thinking.
Even in that situation, I would probably not present something undigestible to someone. If someone is able to digest something, it should be obvious. But maybe it takes practice. I remember I used to always talk about whatever I was interested in without considering almost anything about how the other person related to it (which is actually described as "autistic thinking"). Then I deliberately spent a long time trying to only talk about things that were highly relevant to the other person's interests (and skills and capacities). Now I'm very acutely aware of how someone will handle something when talking to them. And over time, as I run into people who do exactly the opposite (and some who are indeed actually autistic), it becomes more clear that this is exactly what I did and that it worked.
16 hours ago, Davino said:Another big factor is time. If we have 2 dedicated hours to discuss the topic, then I'll be able to present my nuanced view. However, most casual conversations are 10min long for topic at best. This presents a very hard restriction on high quality communication.
Yeah, duh. The only time I've talked about idealism with someone else is when we were in each other's company for a couple of hours.
-
Bumblefoot is the most natural, forward-moving (dynamically) and intuitive-feeling guitarist I've come across. Everything feels like he just instantly grabs it from the ether with no plan or thought. So many guitarists make it into a neurosis. This just flows effortlessly. No pretense, just presence.
-
Don't. Keep yourself as simple as possible and you'll fail at even that.
EDIT:I only read the title. If somebody asks me "what do you think about sexism?", I don't know how to answer that. I don't think it's a question you usually get asked (feel free to expand on what you were actually asked). It's more the case that you talk about something and the topic of sexism comes up and they spin their story and then you just give a thought related to it. It doesn't have to be "the deepest most amazing" view, that's not what pops up in my mind.
When you usually talk to people, your mind naturally tunes in to their level, unless you feel some kind of drive or compulsion to share something else. And if you do and they look at you sideways, it was probably not for the right reasons. In a conversation, the focus is really always on what the other person needs or wants or thinks. If you present something way outside their wheelhouse, you're not really tuned in to the conversation. Just do whatever "feels" right. If it feels icky to present them with some odd view you have, don't.
-
-
20 hours ago, TheSomeBody said:level 2: The people included in this category have in some way improved upon their state of health and well-being to the point in which they experience a significant increase, or expansion, in their states of consciousness and happiness as a result. This development can occur as a consequence of a change in their diet – often a reduction in both the density as well as the amount of their solid food intake, or it can occur by other means, such as an increase in physical activity or spiritual practice (for instance via sport, dance, yoga, qi gong, meditation, fasting, etc.). The people in this level of manifestation often consume one solid food meal, or two small meals, per day, and out of the 24 hours of the day, their digestive systems are working, on average, 40-60% of the time.
A.k.a. intermittent fasting.
20 hours ago, TheSomeBody said:level 3: This category includes most of the people whom we refer to as “Breatharians.” They usually consume liquids containing calories every day, and they might have one or two solid food meals per week, month, or year (and they have been doing as such for a minimum of one year).
Soylent drinkers and protein shake enthusiasts rejoice.
20 hours ago, TheSomeBody said:They also have the capacity to go long periods (weeks or months) only on water, or even without water (dry).
So does anyone.
I would say step up the definition game for this one. -
55 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:The thing is, these experiences went away, returning me to baseline consciousness. I’ve heard Leo mention being able to focus on absolute truth in his direct experience, but when I try that I can’t quite get there. I seem to generate some fantasy of absolute truth that is almost there but actually just an illusion of understanding when I inspect it. So the question is what to make of these experiences? Are they glimpses of awakening, actual awakening, a weird state of consciousness, or a self-deception? I’m aware that asking if an awakening is valid is ridiculous, but that’s what I’m asking 😄
Glimpses of awakening. Keep going and they will happen more frequently until you can't stop them from happening. Then you'll see if you can really handle it. But then it's also too late.
-
22 hours ago, Peo said:Only slightly. More addctive then pshychedelics but less addictive then caffeiene and nicotine.
Weed addiction is much more sinister than addiction to caffeine or nicotine.
-
1 hour ago, Someone here said:Gravity is not a "principle " .it is classified as a physical law .Newton grasped it by wondering why the apple falls on the ground or why objects Don't fly to the sky but instead fall back on the ground when you throw them upward.
What is a physical law?
Here is an insight I had about gravity (an "original" insight):
People often say gravity is not a force but an acceleration. But when I jump off a 10 foot diving board, I don't feel like I'm accelerating as if I'm sitting in a car that is pumping the gas (there is no feeling of inertia). I just feel like I'm weightless, in free fall. But still, my speed relative to the ground is increasing by the second (m/s^2), so I am indeed "accelerating" relative to the ground, but there is still no feeling of inertia. So what is more accurate to say is that when you're falling towards the ground, the ground is accelerating towards you rather than you accelerating towards it (but that is also not accurate if acceleration requires inertia in some part of the system, because the Earth certainly doesn't experience inertia either in that case).
And now I just realized that the reason they say gravity is not a force is for the same reason that I experience inertia in the car but not when jumping off the diving board:
When you are acted upon by a force (which can be expressed as "Force = mass x acceleration") and it causes you to move, you experience inertia. But you only experience inertia when moving relative to your own reference frame ("inertial frame"). The fact that you experience no distinction between the ground accelerating towards you and you accelerating towards the ground when jumping off the diving board, is because they are equivalent with respect to your reference frame. And not coincidentally, The Equivalence Principle states "there is no difference between an accelerating frame of reference and a gravitational field". So when accelerating due to a gravitational field, it's actually your reference frame that is accelerating, i.e. the thing you use to judge whether something else is accelerating, which is the same as experiencing something else accelerating towards you. Holy shit Einstein is a genius.
-
1 hour ago, Someone here said:Balance is not not balance. And not balance is not balance.
Wow
-
2 hours ago, Someone here said:@Carl-Richard you too suffer from the same issue . If this behaviour continues and this unappreciation of my efforts to tackle and understand the most abysmal aspects of reality which none of you boys even dare to look at yet you so desperately confused about and want to understand..I say if this continues I might leave you guys in the dust wondering about bullshit like "are you even tier 2 bruh ?".
Now I'm actually unsure if you're actually Max.
I'll stop derailing the thread now ☺️
-
21 minutes ago, Someone here said:@Sincerity man you need to stop being so jealous of me that i have the balls to post the most fascinating topics on this forum .
and another thing is i needed to let this outta my chest .
100% Mr. Girl.
-
25 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:Who is Mr girl?
-
You're like Mr. Girl with conduct disorder.
-
1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:Might I ask how did you "destroy your life completely"? What specifically did you do?
He had one intrusive thought.
-
No. Absolutizing, dichotomizing, catastrophizing, Blue thinking destroys your life relatively speaking.
-
-
2 hours ago, Ulax said:I just want an anime gf who tells me I’m stage yellow. That’s all I know.
I want a Stage Beige jungle shaman that believes she is Coral and tells me assertively that I'm Orange and should work on my income streams.
-
I believe that people call other people stupid mostly because they disagree with them or have other values than them. It has actually very little to do with intelligence. And if you believe otherwise, it's likely because your idea of intelligence is very specific and deeply tied to your values.
-
4 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:Real genuine, heart centered compassion and love for people does not look like: “people are stupid and humanity is retarted, I know better”. It just doesn’t.
It's funny: the image of a genuinely retarded child brings compassion (for most people I know). "Retarded" used as a pejorative comes from a sense of frustration and anger, the opposite of compassion. You have compassion for the child because you are truly so far beyond them in capacities that you have a sense of understanding and acceptance of their behavior. But if you call someone "retarded" as a pejorative, it's because you are not so far beyond them that you can do the same. In fact, the people you call "retarded" are actually more like you than actually retarded people. And in order to view them with compassion, you must elevate yourself so far above them that you are actually divine. But we don't call that being an egomaniac, but being a saint.
-
9 minutes ago, Aaron p said:It's difficult for me to talk about about this topic sometimes nevertheless it's very true. Having come through many layers of my own stupidity I am very acquainted and qualified in this area.
Trust me I have the work experience and diploma in stupidity, but at least I was able to recognise it and make efforts to transcend. This is of course an ongoing process as I would imagine it is for everybody. But it is a genuine difficulty that I'm noticing in myself dealing with people who are completely moronic. Racists, religious ideologues, people who have no idea what they're doing in positions of leadership and power causing immense damage and suffering for others and themselves.
What gets me most is the people who make active efforts to teach their stupidity to young people. It may point to a lack of maturity in myself but I have to be honest about where I'm at in my own development... The stupidity of other people really really irritates me.
Guys is there any actual solid hardcore spiritual methods to deal with the lack of consciousness in other people? I find it particularly hard to deal with people who are actively in my life leading people into chaos and causing young people in particular extreme amounts of damage.
Why do you expect people to be spiritual? Do you think this is a reasonable expectation to have on people? People barely know how to feed themselves.
You need to accept what is true. Reality is not perfect. You are incredibly privileged to be able to be in the position of seeing another way, but you are not taking reality for what it is if you try to impose it on reality without setting your expectations low for how fast that will happen.
-
6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:Franck Lopvet.
To summarize very roughly, his idea is that any pathology or physical phenomenon in general is "just" a manifestation of global energy, in "fractal model"
Hence the fact that tough people have a tough face and vice versa, that x person trapped in x situations gets cancer, all the way down to less obvious things like "people who don't like the world in a certain way and want to forget it in a certain way end up getting Lyme disease" lol.All roads lead to Rome so Joe Dispenza also says more or less the same thing, he explains that to treat his patients, he simply changes his self-concept.
The self-concept changes and, hey presto, a sometimes very serious and advanced illness disappears immediately or almost.
Or even disabilities.Then we can always rationalize as much as we want using the "language of the Maya" (hormones, inflammation, etc.), but ultimately, it's about non-duality.
You could probably track something like Hawkins' Map of Consciousness onto proneness to disease with a very strong correlation. And you could peg various neurophysiological markers on each level (weighted with chronicity).
-
Think of them like they're retarded children who don't know any better. When someone hits so far below your expectations (or you just don't have many expectations of them), it no longer becomes a thing you react negatively to but simply "I understand why that is". But it sort of requires that you understand why they act the way they do, but it doesn't take a genius to do that, it's usually just about reminding yourself whenever the emotions kick in.
I talked about exactly the same thing in this thread:
I recently talked to a friend of mine about watching Destiny, and he said he really doesn't like him at all; he thinks he is too robotic and detached from his emotions, a psycho, etc. And I agree with that, but I still watch him, because it's a shitshow and it's entertaining (and he does say interesting things from time to time). What I didn't get to tell him is that I think that most people (and most of life) are a shitshow, so it doesn't make much of a difference (i.e. my expectations are already low).
In a sense, getting angry at stupid people is a reflection of your own stupidity, because if you can't deal with stupid people, then how stupid are you? 😝 On the other hand, if you don't feel quite well (due to stress or other things), and you don't have the vigilance, vitality or frame to step back and think, it's natural to let the emotions take over. It takes resilience and good fortune to take the meta-perspective in any situation. But then it's simply about increasing your resilience and getting your emotions well-regulated. And of course, some things trigger you more than others, especially people who in many ways are actively working against your values. But the same things apply, it's only a bit more challenging.
-
Words for counting.
-
On 6.5.2025 at 9:55 PM, Schizophonia said:I took large doses of psychedelics, but the only drug that induced serotonin syndrome was tramadol.
Tramadol is such a weird drug. I combined it with weed a few times many years ago and it's like being on every drug at once.
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard
I have nothing against breatharianism. I have something against how you defined the levels.
As for the legitimacy of breatharianism, even within a materialistic paradigm, you can have increased efficiency and behavioral modes within a system that would lower requirements for things like food. For example, if you have a very low resting heart rate, you are generally calm and not very stressed and you do things in a very consciously aware and streamlined way (like when practicing "active mindfulness"), I wouldn't be surprised if you needed only half of the food of somebody else of a similar size. The one time I spoke on the radio, I was starving a few hours later, probably due to the adrenaline. And definitely if you add on top of that a very "inactive" lifestyle where you maybe only sit and meditate for 12 hours a day (which certainly if you're in a samadhi, is also the most efficient way of "resting"), you probably don't need much of anything for days. And let's also not forget that somebody who weighs less of course needs less food by default than somebody else.