lmfao

@Display_Name Yes. wakey wakey. @Mu_ Yeah you're right dude. It's so hard to not go mad or jump to conclusions. Verbal sorts of inquiry are useful for me but they end up at me reaching what I think is an impass and I panic a bit. But then I stay with it and realise that what I previously framed was false. @mandyjw "It may be that they just don't seem important enough to what we think of as us." Right. @Johnny5 I don't have much to really say. I said what was on my mind. Humans are flawed. Opinions are egoic. Part of maturity is to be unashamedly egoic at times. If I wanted to create a separation between my ego and my true self, I'd write everything in quotation marks so as to denote distance between the two. But that's a childish game if taken to extreme.

I went through a phase of being obsessed with watching documentaries about life in prison. Perhaps these are good sources for you to examine this domain of behaviours. This "law and disorder in Johannesburg" documentary had this gem of a man. Louis Theroux has amazing documentaries.

@Nahm I can't easily articulate it, but for some reason I viscerally dislike you. I think you put out signals which remind me of signals I've seen from people in the past who are fake. That is to say, some sort of mechanical response is triggered. I get pissed off you don't validate my ego and criticise it. But then you always validate and embrace cheesy declarations of love, whether sincere or superficial, no questions asked. When false positivity and false virtue is rampant everywhere in the mainstream, you appear like another perpetrator of it. So I assume you're a hypocritical advocate of sunshine and rainbows. Now the dislike is mostly gone after airing out my mind, and what remains are contradictory feelings of calm and anxiety. The anxiety likely being an overactive fight or flight response.

@Nahm Yes. Far from some ending. Self to examine, motivations and unnoticed material. Things are fusing together. Can't find resolution to it, maybe even calling it as that is the "problem". Pay attention to thought, don't pay attention. "Everything just is how it is so don't worry" becomes a mantra to calm yourself, but what is the energy then fueling the inquiry and skepticism into the thought in above quotation marks. What's fuelling the inquiry into the inquiry then. Loops and struggling. Notions invoking time become "flattened" , misleading word maybe, into something clearer. Becoming a walking a contradiction or trickster figure. But even that is yet an another visage. I've just gotta relax this whole panicking. Get the swing of things. Maybe I'll go eat what sadhguru would call a "negative panic food", or just some food, to calm the incessant contracting. Because albeit my disjoint writing style I haven't gone psychotic, just having a complex state of consciousness to remain calm about. It's annoying that my natural expression of words doesn't make much grammatical or verbal sense.

@meow_meow I'll probably read your journal yes, I think you can relate. I am scared of doing any inquiry and meditation like you were. But I'll do it. Edit: Wow, that video was scarily accurate. It's the point of no turning back. Can't throw it in reverse. Jesus Christ. "Head caught in the tiger's mouth" @Someone here Very true, brainwashed myself yes.

Devil's advocate position relative to this forum on police brutality. Albeit there's plenty of material on all this, I think this is a pretty good depiction of what a reasonable skeptic of all this would look like. I think the video shows the importance of statistics. Even if you think the particular statistics someone provided are bad, or misleading, there's the importance of having good statistics. In contrast to bad statistics or no statistics. ---- Sam Harris has always been a bit too status quo for me. He's painstakingly linear but meticulous with logical speech. He's boring because of it. His views on foreign policy, islam and religion show enough his lack of wholistic wisdom and his western supremacy. Since the west is stage orange, it's inevitable he propagates the west. I think he's very low in neuroticism, and is almost the opposite of someone who thinks with empathy. He's pure reason and facts. He's a one trick pony with one lens though. But that low neuroticism is an unambiguous strength about him that makes him excellent as a clarifier, and it's a nice mentality to see.

Tuesday 23/06/2020 17:14 Venting about my rage and shadow issues Random entry of me reflecting on my emotional issues. So I'm thinking about the times that I've lost control over myself. That includes the time I'm low and depressed. But it also includes the times when I'm acting on charged emotion and am triggered with rage. I have weird rage issues. I am generally an open and friendly person. Most of the time I'm very gentle. But if someone finds a way to trigger me badly, do I get triggered badly. I will go off. I can have periods of time where I'm shadow possessed by rage. I wonder if I'm a grown grizzly bear who feigns being a harmless cub, but will act passive aggressive. Whilst the imagery is self-indulgent and narcissistic perhaps, in some way it holds. I'm in denial of my own evil, and hence have no control or proper order for these aggressive energies. I am not a psychopath. I'm not a sociopath. I have the capacity to be deeply empathic, despite being on the spectrum is this complex and nuanced way. But sometimes I get high off my own rage like I'm on crack cocaine. An unintegrated shadow part of me wants to destroy and even torture my enemies. I never let the shadow drive me berserk, but at times like this the aggression just strongly flows through me and leaks out in all I do. Making me irritable and cold. And the thing is, I've romanticised and admire the dark sides of me. I admire the destruction, the seeking for retribution. I don't do anything physically, but mentally and sometimes verbally I throw a massive narcissistic tantrum. --- Anyway, I'm gonna go do some kriya yoga.

Join an MBTI discord server, plenty of nerds there with too much time on their hands. They'll probably be willing to type you. Go onto https://disboard.org/ and type "MBTI". Sift through the servers until you find one which isn't toxic or full with clueless snowflake zoomers. A few of the servers are full of degenerates and 4chan faggots but you'll relatively easily be able to dodge that. These bad sorts are few in number, so this warning is more for the sake of briefly describing the landscape of those circles.

@The Don So two things I'll focus on. This man and then my thoughts in general. I'm family friends with an Iranian Muslim who was a bit like this guy. Relatively thoughtful and he provokes you in a very gentle and welcoming way. The links he made to religious scripture and the garden of Eden are bullshit to put to one side. The link about how Jews reject the snake but Hindus are somehow invoking the evil snake/devil with kundalini is a fabrication of his ideology. What he said about how you don't need to curl your fingers a certain way or activate your chakras in a certain way to access god was a point which landed for me. --- So the relevant thing being brought up for me is what it means to have a method for enlightenment. You can go into technical detail of all these methods. And then you can think more metaphysically. The paradoxes, the seeking vs non seeking, the domain of the absolute vs domain of the relative. If I am already it, why do you need psychedelics, meditation, proper breathing to realise it? Inquiry along that line is what I see as valuable here.

Nice, I'll try this in some form

@dimitri That sounds like some cheesy shit Sadhguru would say hahhahahah @Ya know Yeah good question. From what I've seen, some of these "Indie games" seem to be have good aesthetic and be a bit arty. I forgot the name of one of these games which seemed really good, cba to boot up my ps4 and check rn. None of them are high consciousness really, it's just about aesthetic. Or maybe I'm saying none of them are high consciousness to justify me playing my low consciousness multiplayers.

@Aquarius What's the problem with just loving your ego? Maybe you can formulate things in terms of good ego vs bad ego. Another point. You want to be able to love others. (Talk about loving your "true self" might be a bit abstract and ungrounded for you so if it was me I would stick with the "others" thread). Why? Isn't your motivation for loving others, in one way or another, still egoic? Despite framing these questions in a rhetorical way, you can see them as prompts and devil advocates rather than presupposing an answer.

It's been a while since I've thought about Sam Harris. Some years back when I was very conscious of the fact that I was no longer muslim, and I had to formulate some sense for my childhood and upbringing, he was the perfect person for me to hear talk. I do think he has often needlessly been attacked and vilified. It's a fate many public figures have to deal with to various degrees and in various ways. I can strongly empathise with him and feel Sam's pain. If I am to make an image for how he's felt hurt by the world. He wishes to be a voice of clarity and sense but instead gets stones thrown at him and is spat on, banished from the town of villagers who don't want to stop being savages. He feels like Ralph from Lord of The Flies. The tribe he wishes to help has turned on him, and that's his trauma. He feels like a biblical prophet that the ignorant villagers have banished and ostracised. What highlights this is his whole relation to "identity politics". I've heard the most generalised thoughts on the matter that he's given publicly. So with Sam, he's an idealist of sorts and likes to think in universalities. He's trying to work towards universalities. He has strong principles which he'll highlight with the occasional hypothetical and metaphor. The metaphors will feel in a certain sense very detached and idealistic, but it shows the vision that he has. What Sam will do is give an ideal like "We should live in a society where skin color is as innocuous as hair color". Or an ideal like "We should aim for a society where you are as happy as possible to be reincarnated in a randomly chosen human of any race/gender/background". He is then very committed to that ideal and vision. He ends up becoming very rigid and stubborn if you push him on a few certain points, I've seen. He becomes tunnelled visioned with his logical ideals. He looks at "anti-racists", looks at the SJW's and their retarded tribalism, and completely pushes out the useful energies in that vicinity.

@integral Eh. Its not that difficult to get an enlightenment experience in my opinion. Like anyone can glimpse something and talk about it. The real game is integrating it and depth of experience.

@Preety_IndiaSam Harris has been very good on the subject of Trump in my opinion. As in he's slapped a bit of sense to stage orange teens on the internet who might have otherwise supported Trump. The only thing I'll strongly disagree with there as well is saying Carl Benjamin is better than Sam Harris. @ParanoidAndroid I think he gets a bit too caught up in just facts as well. Yeah I respect it too. The thing about him is that he's very good at is walking you through things with logic that anyone can follow. So he's a great communicator by being so meticulous. He has more empathy than I gave him credit for, you're right. There's a bit of a clash of temperaments of me and him I think is what it is. If I perceive someone to be going through details very slowly or perceive them to be "missing the point" I get impatient. I can have impulsive and whimsical tendencies which will make me get annoyed when I see someone as meticulous as him. I think what it also is is that I perceive Sam to be dense the same way a woman might perceive their male partner to be dense. His low neuroticism is his trusty shield in battle. @Leo Gura Yes, exactly. He's so comically composed and flat.

Explicitly obvious non-duality themes in it. I could tell you how but it would give the game away. It's literally asking the question of, is duality worth it. Whilst ideally I wouldn't even say that last sentence to taint your impression of the show, I have to say/reveal something to get you interested. Of course this won't all come together until you watch all of it , and the show takes an outlandish but great turn at the end. Since I'm not giving spoilers, this thread/topic will seem pointless but I'm dead serious. The metaphor present in the show for the themes I'm alluding to isn't indirect, it's extremely direct. Watch the anime TV series, then the "The End of Evangelion" film. That's my TLDR message to anyone who wants to get into the series but is confused by the multitude of movies with it. If you do watch it, watch the show with a blank mind, without my beliefs.

@Rasheed The idea that wikipedia is untrustworthy is just an old meme that is becoming less and less popular thankfully. Over a decade ago I would hear people complain about Wikipedia. Not so much now.

Hey come on now that's an insult, brunettes ≥ blondes.

@ewerson18 will do

I have a few things I'm keeping ongoing for now. I'll see how it all unfolds, plan my life purpose when I can. Trynna get a proper work out and yoga routine. Sketching. I'm reading a lot more fiction now. I probs wanna finish the multiple self help books I never completed over this summer as well. Gonna keep learning driving as well to get my licence when I can. I'm reading a high school book on grammar for myself since I want to learn good writing. Looking at the rules of language I take for granted should increase my existential insight and ability to contemplate. Contemplation and inquiry is right up my alley, one of the few good abilities I have. When I'm in my zone, all the images and impressions just flow. In regards to authors and experts who invoke the most intelligent elements of me: Carl Jung, Peter Ralston and Jiddu Krishnamurti. These fellas are just amazing and I feel like they have whatever capacities I have but magnified by a 100 trillion. Albeit Carl Jung and Ralston are so different, I resonate so deeply with both. I get the feeling I need to fulfil and keep up the momentum of my current/past trajectory of being into math and physics very heavily. I'll get back into it hopefully, see if I can invoke new deities to engage me. I'm coming for you, Baby Rudin. Neither are you, Lagrange. In this world of wage slavery, and considering my current degree, it's probably I might be forced into this math/physics sector unfortunately. I'll probs pick up coding as well. ------ In this wage slavery world, I'm just trynna build myself up as much as possible right now. Sometimes the only solution to a dilemma is play. So I'm just gonna do that, but do it seriously inshallah

The way Leo described the singularity and the fragments of god in his latest video basically explicitly mirrors the literal plot of Evangelion by the end of it.

I haven't read The 48 Laws of Power, but I've skimmed some of the material on it online. A question which has come to my mind is "How do I reconcile this knowledge/wisdom with selflessness? And reconcile it with radical honesty as well?". I don't know enough to say that radical honesty is a not a different thing from selflessness. It very well could be a different thing in certain contexts, partially elucidated by this theory perhaps. I have two threads of thought I want to mention. Second thread feeling less grounded and more abstract to me. I'll use "------" before I type it. One idea. Perhaps the reconciliation comes in treating material such as The 48 Laws of Power as a manual for how egos and humans play games for social and political dominance. You can use the knowledge from it to understand how people more calculating and selfish than you operate. So what I mean. Your mode of being can be very uncalculating, very non-machiavellian and straightforward, but knowledge/understanding of this sort helps you know the motivations and principles behind how others around you behave. And thus your ability to skilfully dodge and maneuver around devil's who wish to hamper you is increased. This segways into a second point. --------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe there is a place for being machiavellian and breaking radical honesty principles. And still being selfless and embodying love. One thing which got me to think this. I remember Leo once talking about stage red. And that sometimes stage green trying to help stage red will be exploited and be ineffective at helping. The implication being that if you wish to elevate these stage red folk, it would be better that some semi-authoritarian blue government rules over them. Simply because Blue will be effective at elevating them but Green won't, even if green people are generally higher consciousness than blue people. So maybe this whole Machiavellian thing can be seen as a tool for getting the change you want. But it seems so messy and such a slippery slope. It feels self defeating and contradictory to my sense of authenticity/virtue to be calculating and scheming to overcome a world which is calculating and scheming. Especially if it means acting lower consciousness. It would be a tricky thing to navigate if it is possible to so. How would you know you're being selfish vs just doing what is needed to fight selfishness? And what does it mean to do what is needed to fight selfishness? It seems like you're doomed to become a hypocrite and be selfish yourself under the guise of virtue. Even if intellectually it all seems a bit mad, it's whatever. I'll just go about life and act appropriately in the moment however I can. Respond to a thing as it arises, in whatever manner the tides guide me.

I've started reading "Zen Body-Being" by Peter Ralston and am taking body awareness seriously. The first exercise given in the book involves differentiating between the command/will to move and movement itself. It's deep and difficult stuff. My motivation for this is health based. I can feel my weak, nauseated, chronically fatigued body. I want to heal it. So I'm considering multiple angles. The tension in my muscles, diet, mental ailments, etc. If this healing is possible I have the gut feeling that it is a large journey and struggle with plenty of demons. I have poor posture in general. I've found some posture exercises on the internet to do. I'm just wondering if its possible to restructure the entire way I operate my body. Lots of research needed here. Maybe this is a yoga thing I need to do. In trying to address one problem you come across every other problem. Like a tangled up ball of yarn. Slowly unweaving it. Does anyone here feel like they've reconnected with their body to a very large degree of awareness? Did it lead to any sort of healing? Was there a cheat code for you or not really? I've never found such cheat codes, besides staying with a thing for as long as I can or for as long as needed.

Just thought this was an interesting share. My friend is ghetto af. Has been homeless and has been to jail before. But he's very intelligent and well-read with a large reservoir life experience. He's "Person A" here. It's a large paste. So just read until the next set of "____________________" if you want. In this initial part he talks about policing and jail. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Person A: The main problem is lack of fathers. I would introduce much more liberal systems for work release, so they can leave jail early. The people pulling the levers of who can leave jail should not just be judges, but also their employers and community. Additionally, I would provide huge tax breaks to companies that hire those people, to incentivize. I would also decrease the tax rate in areas with high crime to offset the emigration of people, to encourage business and job opportunities. Obviously decriminalizing drugs. And I think people should be reimbursed for time in jail for selling drugs. Which would positively target the black community. I don't think they should be handed money necessarily, but rather, the time you spent in jail gives you a tax deduction relative to years spent in jail. ----- Obviously, the whole racist BLM narrative is 99% bullshit. Obviously, the media is nothing more than a propaganda engine at this point. But here's where the real problems are: If a black person gets arrested... He doesn't have the education to really know his rights. The public defender lawyer piece of shit, has no respect for "Javon". The nig*** knows that once he enters the criminal justice system, he's donzo. So he has to fight. What choice does he have? -- The fact that he knows this, means that confrontations with police are going to escalate more than your average white person. Which means more aggression, thus more chance of shit going awry. Fundamentally, the problem that no one talks about is thus: Police officers don't have autonomy anymore. ---- Back in the day, if a police officer pulled you over, they could make a judgment call such as: "alright, I can tell this person fucked up, I'll give them some advice, they can move on" Nowadays it's different. They are obligated by law, to report their interactions. Thus, less autonomy. Thus, forcing minor mistakes to escalate into talking with a judge. The reality is, most criminals, when they encounter a cop or 2, will adjust, if the cop gives them leniency. -- We need to deescalate cop-encounters, and give cops more room to be generous to the people they interact with. Body cams, ironically, exacerbate this problem. So cops are not even allowed to "slip under the radar" and be generous to people. Or they'll be cited for not reporting a criminal interaction. -- Professional State prosecutors are judged on their prosecution rate. Public Defenders are not. Public Defenders are just doing that as a short stint in their career in law. ---- So prosecutors are highly incentivized to send people to jail. And public defenders are only incentivized to do the basic paper work and time, then move on to the next level in their career. --- So professional public defenders and prosecutors should be abolished. And replaced with random selection of lawyers, much like jurors are randomly selected. So people don't make careers out of sending people to jail. -- Also, crazy idea that no one might take seriously But Jails should be private BUUUUUUUUUUTTT Those found guilty should be able to choose their jail. This would initiate market forces. When a guilty person chooses their jail, the government pays that jail a stipend to pay for that person. So jails are now competing for prisoners, and their utility function is DECREASED recidivism rates, and more human environments. -- There should be no bottleneck in the system where we treat human beings like they're not human beings. Once you initiate that, a cascade of degeneracy takes place. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Alright, now a dialogue starts with "Person B". Talk about criminalisation of drugs. Why it matters from a legislative point of view it matters whether a criminal choice is "systematic" vs "individual". Conversation gets a bit more messy now, a bit more sifting now since there's a debate and clash of views going on. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Person B: Definitely don't agree people should be reimbursed for selling or that production and distribution of drugs should be decriminalized but prohibiting possession of small amounts and use is far from productive. Person A: Should we criminalize people for telling their friends how awesome a particular drug is? If we're going to be "moral", it's not sellers and buyers that are culpable. All they're doing is filling in vacancies in the market that already exist. The true assholes are the "advertisers"; those that turn normies into druggies. But how do you police that? You don't; not reasonable. Whatever moral issues one has with drugs, the criminalization/[war on drugs] has done nothing but make things worse. Person B: "It's not sellers and buyers that are culpable'' This is nonsense. Buyers are the ones creating the vacancies. Selling drugs is pretty fucking degenerate. Y'know, the ole selling someone a product hoping they ruin their lives over it so they sell their house and abandon their children so they can buy a few grams. And while I'm all for people making their own choices, and using drugs should be legal, I find it hard to consider legalizing the selling of outright poison to the general public. Of course, goes without saying not every drug is remotely like this. It's a case to case basis to some extent. Person A: A serial killer isn't thinking: "well, if I don't kill this person, someone else will" A drug seller is precisely thinking: "well, if I don't sell drugs to this nig someone else will" - They are fundamentally different things. You have to take into account the incentive structures of the environment. - I can, with great powers of autism, agree with: "it is, ultimately, buyers that create these vacancies". That is technically true in some collective sense, but realistically, it's not true from the vantage point of any individual. It's always important, from a policy or political perspective, not to get trapped in category errors of collective VS individual culpabilities. --- I don't know about legalizing drugs, that's a debate beyond my jurisdiction. But drugs should be decriminalized in most instances. By the fact that users are literally psychologically warped by drug impacts. And sellers are psychologically warped by economic forces. Person B: "If I don't do it, someone else will" does not justify doing things. Person A: From a vantage of policy and legislation, yes it does matter. The prohibition of alcohol in the united states is a good example of this. And we got rid of those laws, precisely because we understood that when you're dealing with incentive structures, you cannot rely on typical justifications of criminal justice. --- We want to punish individual choices as much as possible. Person B: Alcohol is an edge case though since the usage of it was a staple of western society. Person A: We want to eliminate systemic choices as much as possible. Whether or not it's an edge case isn't the point. The point is, once there's economic forces at play, you cannot treat people as individual actors. You must treat it as a system. Person B: I do agree that drug selling/drug use is, to an extent, the product of flaws in the system, by the way. Person A: You're a European nig*** so I'm sure you're aware of the massive success in Portugal's decriminalization of drugs right? Person B: They decriminalize use. Not production or distribution. Person A: That's true, but they did lessen the punishments. Person B: And while addressing the flaws responsible for the massive use/sale of drugs is obviously necessary, these flaws do not justify making the choice to sell poison to people who are addicted to poison. Person A: Do you realize You are basically, logically saying: "We will commit to jailing precisely X% of the population" X = the % of drug sellers needed to fulfill market demands. --- If you don't shift market demands You don't do a fucking thing -- By reducing the punishment for drug users, you give them more options to heal. Thus, reducing demand. Thus reducing sellers. Sellers will spawn. They always spawn. It's human nature You can't do shit about it. Person B: I never disagreed with decriminalizing drug possession or use. I explicitly agreed with that. Person A: Real talk niggah: If you could make 20k in the next 2 weeks selling drugs. (presuming all the hard work is done, you just need to press the button to make that choice) Can you honestly say you wouldn't do it? Knowing, the logical creature that you are. That they're going to get those drugs regardless of your decision? Person B: However, in your eyes, you are saying that it's the system making these choices for said person and that they can practically not be held accountable because the system is flawed. Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean people should strictly be rewarded for actively exploiting it - especially not at other people's expense. Person A: I'd do it. I'm a moral autist that would deliver a wallet full of 40k to their owner without question. And even I'd do it. Person B: I probably would. And I'd accept being held somewhat accountable for the effects of my choice. There's a reason fraud is illegal. Person A: I understand your point, but things have to be differentiated between "aberrant choice" and "systemic choice". - The former, you deal with forces directed to the person. The latter, you deal with forces directed to everything but the person. You want to strip the drug seller of their powers. You know, as a policy maker, that they are a mathematical inevitability. Person B: And while this policy being addressed should be a priority that doesn't mean the ones doing these things should get away with it. Person A: You can literally snipe drug sellers in the head with A.I drones. All you end up doing is increasing the cost of drugs, and increasing their stealth and defensive maneuvers. Person B: I don't know. It's hard to say exactly what would happen if you were to entirely decriminalize drug selling. Person A: Here's what you want, as a policy maker. You want a potential drug seller to think the following: "What's the point in selling drugs. I'm not going to make any money, and it's more work than just finding a job" That IS YOUR FUCKING GOAL Putting them in prison does nothing, except for initiate Darwinian forces that attract drug sellers that are better at avoiding the law. Drug sellers/$ per capita literally the same. -- If anything, by criminalizing drugs as such, you are forcing people to break the law when they otherwise wouldn't. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Alright, that's it. I was late to the convo and opened it at this point. I then asked Person A one question which prompted him to send a response ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Me: Breaking the law in other ways besides selling drugs as well? Person A: No. People aren't robbing stores at some constant rate. Unlike selling drugs. Selling of drugs is a constant rate. It's always the same. The only things that change is the cost of drugs. You know the irony? The higher the cost of drugs, the MORE CRIME, because people commit crimes to pay for the drugs. Literally does nothing. -- Here's the psychological point though Drugs are inherently irrational This means that drugs do not map onto economic forces properly. Addicts will merely pay more for the same drug. The same isn't true for say, a toaster, or a videogame. --- The majority of people who sell drugs don't commit other crimes. My pothead younger brother sells drugs, that fucker wouldn't harm a fly.

In regards to the point made about police officers having to report every interaction. How he thinks body cams makes cop-civilian encounters worse. It reminds me of the general point that the world is becoming ripe with documentation and paperwork. Very legalistic and rigid codes of conduct for things. Whilst you can obviously understand their function as a safety net and ultimate arbiter for settling disputes, one can feel saddened by the pathologies of it.