I don't know what I don't know

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, jbram2002 said:

I never really felt shame for gaming until much later as people continue to say how gaming is for children (it's not) and that adults playing games is immature.

Thankfully, this is changing thanks to youtube. Video games are a brilliant medium for conveying unique understanding.
It's just like any other media, like with music or movies. It's not about what you do, but how. Even video games can be a valid thing on the spiritual path.

It seems like I'm projecting my childhood on to you. Thank you and sorry.

[jbram2002]

42 minutes ago, tsuki said:

It seems like I'm projecting my childhood on to you. Thank you and sorry.

No need to apologize. You had good insight, even if the source was misplaced. 

[jbram2002]

I feel like replying to a post made in a closed topic. I'm not sure this is really helpful to myself or not, and as such, maybe I shouldn't post it. But I feel like a lot of people get this idea incorrect. Here's the post: 

This post is talking about a theoretical 90% tax rate. Previously (1950s), the United States had a tax rate about this high on the top income earners in the country. A lot of people (generally conservative thinkers) believe that lowering taxes as much as possible is a good thing, and taxation to this amount is an unfathomable and unconscionable extreme. Another point of view might be that our country is significantly in debt, and we should strive to rid ourselves of debt while making those who can afford it pay a higher percent of the burden than those who cannot. Instead of arguing over which ideal is better, I'm going to look closer at what a 90% tax rate means.

Let's assume someone has to pay taxes on $1 million earned income. To look at how one would currently pay taxes on this (assuming there are no deductions or credits beyond this $1M), we should look at tax brackets as defined in the US. Currently, we have several tax brackets up to a maximum of 37% for income over $510,300. Clearly, since $1M is over $510k, we should pay 37%, or $370,000 in taxes. Right? 

Wrong. Tax brackets don't work like that. Instead, we pay taxes individually at each level. There's a lot of complicated stuff in taxes including AMT, EITC, child tax credits, income types, and a few other things that we're going to ignore. If you want to learn more, feel free to look here. The short story is that we pay the following:

10% on income up to $9.7k
12% between $9,700 and $39,475
22% between $39,475 and $84,200
24% between $84,200 and $160,725
32% between $160,725 and $204,100
35% between $204,100 and $510,300
37% over $510,300

For our theoretical $1M, this ends up being $334,987.50 once you do all the math. This is about 33% of your total income pre-taxes. This number would normally be further reduced in a whole bunch of ways. Most millionaires pay an effective tax rate far below 30%. 

Let's look at a theoretical world where the tax rate above $510,300 jumped from 37% straight to 90% (this would be highly unlikely as there would normally be a gradient). In that case, your taxes would increase to $594,528.50 which is an effective tax rate of just under 60%. You are still able to use the $400k that you take home after taxes. Again, keep in mind that this number would typically be drastically reduced through deductions and other loopholes, or we are assuming that this $1M is after all deductions. 

In short, people are scared to see that 90% tax rate number. They think why even bother making more money if it's going to be taxed at a higher rate? If I jump to a higher bracket, then I'm going to take home less than if I'm at a lower bracket. This is simply untrue. If you'd like to read more about the American progressive tax system, feel free to read here.

Now, no one is seriously proposing a 90% tax rate right now. The closest serious proposal is a 70% tax rate on those making over $10M/yr from Representative Ocasio-Cortez. You can read more about it from Forbes here.

Edited June 5, 2019 by jbram2002

[jbram2002]

I've been getting a feeling that nothing on this forum even matters. Every day, there are dozens of posts about senseless, meaningless topics. A guy is crying because he got jerked off by a trans woman. Leo says we need to do 40 years of 5-meo in order to experience enlightenment (how old is Leo again?). People are arguing about whether you need to do hardcore practices in order to be enlightened or not.

It doesn't matter. None of this is enlightenment. If you think enlightenment is in a pill or in practices, you're still in a dream. They might be able to help you get close to seeing what it can be, but those are not enlightenment. 

I see a lot of people who have gone through a single awakened moment and believe they are fully enlightened, yet their every word denies this possibility. I'm certainly not enlightened either, but at least I'm able to say it. And to point out when I'm being egoic, like in this and my previous statement.

It's getting a little tiring.

Stuff I'm working on for me: Being a bit more selfish... I've isolated myself too much in order to be available at any point in time. I need to be able to say no when I want, or to be busy in my own life. I need a life outside of just work and family as well. It's actually very difficult to do this. My ego identifies with selflessness, and it's almost painful at times to deny that.

Health stuff. It's ongoing. It sucks. It's not going to get better, and I need to be okay with that. No one ever said it would be easy.

Motivation. In general... motivation is very low on a lot of things. Basically everything. Feeling like a lot of things don't matter, but I still need to do them. Work is a big one. Went to a job site a while back and felt borderline incompetent. Was not a good feeling. I still did my job though. My place is in front of a computer, not in the field, but I can be content wherever I'm needed.

Boss is being hypocritical in a lot of ways. He says it's hard to get work done when people aren't in the office. I requested a day at home because my wife has a doctor's appointment and I need to watch the kids. He was upset because my coworker has been working from home nearly 40% of the time consistently for the past several months and he can't say no. Boss has been in the office an average of an hour or two a day for the past three months. But I'm the one who's a problem when I was in the field recently (for work) and ask for a single day at home. Not sure if this is egoic of me to complain... or if that's even a negative thing. Not sure how to meld the Law of Attraction to make this a positive.

Emotions are very neutral right now. I'm not sad or depressed, but I'm not happy either. I just am. I would almost rather be blissfully ignorant.

[Bill W]

57 minutes ago, jbram2002 said:

Leo says we need to do 40 years of 5-meo in order to experience enlightenment

Enlightenment or psychosis 

Sorry, I'm in what might be called a devilry mood. When I'm in the devilry mood I feel like starting a thread called "I'm not enlightened, don't ask me anything" and see what comes back. 

Devilry is a word I never heard of before, can't help but smile to it. 

I can relate to some of what you experience on the forum. However, fortunately for me, whenever I reach that point where I think everyone is writing a load of complete BS, I stumble across a real nugget, some real inspiration that gets me thinking about things differently. It's also an exercise for me to practice humility and tolerance. I've had to stop myself a few times flippantly replying to a topic that I have no interest in. I'm not for a second suggesting you are not humble, I'm speaking about myself. Personally, it does me some good to pick out the nuggets and try to not get bogged down in nonsense. However, one man's nonsense is another man's inspiration. 

We are all infected with the human condition and everyone has their own way of controlling the symptoms I guess. 

 

[jbram2002]

@Bill W In this forum, I think claiming to not be enlightened would make you a minority  

[DrewNows]

maybe you guys missed the memo: either no one or everyone is enilghtened. 

 

[Bill W]

18 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

maybe you guys missed the memo: either no one or everyone is enilghtened. 

 

Have you seen the link (posted today) in the "is the forum addictive" thread. The man wanting to buy some new concepts. That's the memo I got. There is a few memo's going around possibly? 

[jbram2002]

I'm of the opinion that it's likely impossible or extremely unlikely to reach true enlightenment on this plane of existence, but there are several stages of awakening one can reach. I feel like there's always another stage. Someone who claims to have reached enlightenment is usually proclaiming a very egoic statement: that they are better than all the others who have tried and failed to do so. That egotism is thus a trap and a folly, plunging them down from the level of awakening they have attained.

I'm also of the theory (untested, I'll admit) that shortcuts such as psychedelics might be temporarily useful, but in the long term, are extremely damaging to one's personal development. Claiming that the use of mind-altering drugs was the reason why one reached enlightenment makes me highly skeptical that the person even has a basic understanding of enlightenment. Sure, if you submerge yourself in an artificially altered state for days or weeks or months, it will feel permanent. But I can't imagine that's healthy for either your physical or mental self. I'd challenge anyone who uses psychedelics as part of their enlightenment procedures to abstain from using them for a long period of time (perhaps years) and achieve the same or more pure states without them.

But then, I've only reached the first stage of awakening myself, if that. What do I know?

Edit: I should probably add that I didn't write my previous post to bash on anyone or anyone's ideals. I'm just feeling very blase at the moment about a lot of the things here.

Edited June 11, 2019 by jbram2002

[DrewNows]

@Bill W @jbram2002 you’re perfect whether you feel the need to do work or not ?

some people come here to play politics while others seek to gather tools and techniques and verify their experiences.

What’s funny is when we try to figure out others without figuring out ourselves...I’m SO guilty of this. ?

It’s not our job to figure them out but hey maybe they can help reveal something to us about ourselves we hadn’t realized. Instead of worrying about others we might as well turn our attention back around  

edit: I took magic mushrooms once and it was the scariest experience of my entire life, of course it was a bad trip in a bad setting and state of mind, but it didn’t lead to any sort of enlightenment experience, only a perception/experience of the world I’d never before believed was possible  

Edited June 11, 2019 by DrewNows

[jbram2002]

@DrewNows Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Nonduality helps us realize that you and I are the same. We go through the same problems. My problems are your problems and vice versa. Helping me is the same as helping you etc.

[Bill W]

7 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

@Bill W @jbram2002 you’re perfect whether you feel the need to do work or not ?

some people come here to play politics while others seek to gather tools and techniques and verify their experiences.

What’s funny is when we try to figure out others without figuring out ourselves...I’m SO guilty of this. ?

It’s not our job to figure them out but hey maybe they can help reveal something to us about ourselves we hadn’t realized. Instead of worrying about others we might as well turn our attention back around  

Yes, as said also by Jbram. I agree with you. I agree with every word actually, except whether or not you are guilty. That I don't know!

Good post. You nailed it. 

I don't want to dilute Jbram's journal with my own stuff, but while we are here, I don't care much for all this enlightenment, who is God, nondual, infinity stuff. I don't understand it and I don't really want to or need to right now. I have loads of tangible self-development stuff I am working on and there is enough things on this forum for me to get my teeth into that I do understand. 

 

[DrewNows]

@jbram2002 haha yeah see my edit. Psychedelics will be the best way to experience non-duality in visuals and see energies. It also pushes you toward egoless state...I predict it will be more widely used eventually to help people with addiction and other mental illnesses 

@Bill Wawesome and thanks. Yeah you know what path you will take, trust in your desire and curiosity 

edit: but they are definitely not for everyone, sort of like being vegan ? 

Edited June 11, 2019 by DrewNows

[tsuki]

Nonduality is a spectrum until it is not. However, when it is, it's difficult to tell up from down.

[mandyjw]

 

[jbram2002]

23 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

I took magic mushrooms once and it was the scariest experience of my entire life, of course it was a bad trip in a bad setting and state of mind, but it didn’t lead to any sort of enlightenment experience, only a perception/experience of the world I’d never before believed was possible  

@DrewNows Having never taken any sort of psychedelic (and having no desire to), my personal belief is that you will see what you want to see. Not your surface thoughts, but those deeper down. It probably takes ahold of what you want and makes it more visual. So a person who is more receptive to enlightenment might see things that make them believe they are experiencing enlightenment, but all of that was already within them. They're simply shortcutting and avoiding the difficult part of figuring it out themselves. Similarly, a person in a dark state of mind may see some very dark things they don't wish on anyone. I've seen research suggesting psychedelics can be useful for addiction and other issues, but I would prefer that mind-altering drugs remain illegal for the average person. If it's licensed through a physician, that's a completely different thing altogether.

9 minutes ago, Bill W said:

I don't want to dilute Jbram's journal with my own stuff, but while we are here, I don't care much for all this enlightenment, who is God, nondual, infinity stuff. I don't understand it and I don't really want to or need to right now. I have loads of tangible self-development stuff I am working on and there is enough things on this forum for me to get my teeth into that I do understand. 

@Bill W Don't worry about diluting my journal. It's all our stuff. Also, I rarely use it anyways, so if something is helpful for you to say, I want you to feel open. I think it's important to realize what is helpful to you and what isn't. Nonduality helps people in a lot of ways, but perhaps it's not something you need to focus on right now. In my opinion, a lot of it is rhetorical anyways (and intentionally doesn't make sense so you're forced to think about it more). The short version is that God is a part of everyone. This gets further shortened down to "I am God." This later gets translated to "Since I am God and you are God, I am you." Another way of looking at it is that you and I both share a lot of things in common. There's a mirror whenever we look at someone that shows us ourselves. That's basically the simple version of it where I am right now. I don't really feel like I am all that is God, but rather that God exists within me and within everyone, even the most evil person. I have much in common with so many people that it is often better to treat them like myself. This helps me be less frustrated with others for exhibiting the same flaws I have.

6 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Nonduality is a spectrum until it is not. However, when it is, it's difficult to tell up from down.

Definitely see this in a lot of people. I know some people get all mixed up when viewing nonduality. They lose all sense of ethos, morality, ego, other, responsibility, and a whole bunch of other things... but not in a positive all-encompassing way. More like in an actual loss. If A = B and B = C, therefore A = C and the consequences of B no longer exist. It can get very dangerous if a person is unable to remain grounded.

[jbram2002]

5 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

 

I'll have to watch this later

[tsuki]

16 minutes ago, jbram2002 said:

Definitely see this in a lot of people.

On 2.06.2019 at 0:04 AM, seeking_brilliance said:

Gospel of Thomas Chapter 8 verses 1-4

(1) And he says: “The human being is like a sensible fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea filled with little fish.

(2) Among them the sensible fisherman found a large, fine fish.

(3) He threw all the little fish back into the sea, (and) he chose the large fish effortlessly.

(4) Whoever has ears to hear should hear.”

*actually looking for an interpretation on this one. Any time he says 'whoever has ears...' it is an intentionally coded parable. 

[jbram2002]

@tsuki Not being someone who has read Thomas nearly as much as the "canonical" scripture, I don't have any outside interpretation of this. I'll share my initial thought on this.

A lot of Jesus' parables where he said "whoever has ears to hear should hear" are either extremely important or extremely simple truths. I'm curious about the context of this parable, but my guess is that it doesn't have much context. I think the interpretation might be along these lines:

Casting your net into the sea will net you a lot of things. These things might be ideas, objects, luxuries, friends, or really anything that could be measured along good to best. The beauty of a parable like this is how widely it can be interpreted. For example, you could apply this to dating or stocks or ideals surrounding nonduality.

The fisherman found a lot of options in his net. Most of these options are valuable, but not very valuable. They are little fish. Back then, a fisherman could still sell these little fish, but it would probably be a hassle to do so, and the profit would be minimal. Fisherman also tend to have limited space on their boats, and if they fill it full of little fish, they won't have room for bigger ones. 

The fisherman chose the largest fish and kept it, while releasing the others. He chose the best option after examining what he had. In dating, this is choosing your spouse from the options available. In stocks, it's carefully perusing your options and picking the best one. In idealism, it's looking at all the various options and throwing away the parts that are confusing or dangerous to your mindset while keeping the best ones. But in a lot of things, choosing one option means throwing away the others. In dating, if you choose the big fish, you don't want to be sampling the other fish on the side. You want to go all in on your choice.

The fisherman decided it would either be too much of a hassle to deal with the extra fish, or perhaps that he wouldn't have room for more and better catches if he was greedy and kept the little fish to himself. Maybe he realized that it was better to put the fish back and let them grow so more opportunities would arise later. In stocks, you have a limited amount of income to spend, so you can't put money in all of the options out there. You need to pick and choose the best ones and throw away the others. Sometimes those opportunities will be better later, so it might be a good idea to let them mature for a while and re-examine later.

This is a really interesting parable (as most of Jesus' parables tend to be) that can be interpreted in a large number of ways. I think the simplest interpretation might just be "choose the best option for you and throw away the rest."

Edit: I looked it up to see if I could find context, but alas, Thomas is literally a book of parables with almost no context on all of them. I did find an alternate interpretation that might be useful as well (says the same thing but in different words):

Quote

And he said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!" 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by jbram2002

[DrewNows]

15 minutes ago, jbram2002 said:

@DrewNows Having never taken any sort of psychedelic (and having no desire to), my personal belief is that you will see what you want to see. Not your surface thoughts, but those deeper down. It probably takes ahold of what you want and makes it more visual. So a person who is more receptive to enlightenment might see things that make them believe they are experiencing enlightenment, but all of that was already within them. They're simply shortcutting and avoiding the difficult part of figuring it out themselves. Similarly, a person in a dark state of mind may see some very dark things they don't wish on anyone. I've seen research suggesting psychedelics can be useful for addiction and other issues, but I would prefer that mind-altering drugs remain illegal for the average person. If it's licensed through a physician, that's a completely different thing altogether.

Who says we don't see what we want to see right now (either consciously or subconsciously)? Are the beliefs you hold even your own? Who influenced them and why take up beliefs or opinions about things you haven't directly experienced? 

What's so great about the information age is we are all beginning to learn to think for ourselves, doing our own research, and deciding what's best for us instead of simply having to always trust others to know what's best for us and be looking out for our best interest instead of their own