am curious if any anon has good knowing trees to bark up for interacting with thoughts and emotions as voices.i've started interacting with my mind as entirely not-self and thus entirely unconscious. no thoughts come from me, but are simply various aspects of the mind expressing itself - albeit a very shallow version.i'm sorry if this is too psychological as it deals with such a shallow aspect of mind and being, but i've been interested in it since about last year after a fair amount of transformation and am wondering how to really drive the ball forward.for instance, there are ways to get it into a state of rapid fire answers, where it will answer "yes" or "no" OR it will remain silent - undeclared.what does the silence mean?it's not a yes or a no, and it feels significant, more than just a state of not-knowing. it is withholding and i want to know how to engage more meaningfully to get through the undeclared
>>38433157Bump, would appreciate some guidance with this
It sounds like you're working your way to dialectical thinking through trial and error. If no thoughts come from you how are you asking questions?
careful not to accidentally create tulpa or invite demons into your mind
AI slop thread
>>38435232It's a conversation between separate voices, neither of which are my self.It's like i'm sitting at a table hearing them talk.Any pointers for looking into dialectical thinking? Read some stuff on the bicameral mind that resonated>>38435244So far nothing like that, though i do have to be mindful of my energetic state
>>38433157>it's not a yes or a no, and it feels significant, more than just a state of not-knowing. it is withholding and i want to know how to engage more meaningfully to get through the undeclaredJunk in, junk out. Ask bad questions, get bad answers. If it feels significant, my guess is that the mind concluded it couldn't reduce it to either a yes or a no because it fundamentally objected to the question or the options for the answers.
>>38433157>for instance, there are ways to get it into a state of rapid fire answers, where it will answer "yes" or "no" OR it will remain silent - undeclared.Yes, but you don't want it. It's called schizophrenia, and most of "them" are not more reliable in their answers than GPTs. They seem consistent enough to fool you, but that's about it. If you want answers, that's easy. If you want good answers, as opposed to linguistically structured garbage, brain farts, and endless self-criticism, well, that's hard. First step to fuck your mind up is just to identify any single voice in your head narrating or dictating your actions as non-self. Captcha: JAAGPT
>>38435346>Any pointers for looking into dialectical thinking?libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=10C82D0D35FE260F3B2240ABFF0918ACStart with mastering the fundamentals. Put as many hours in as you can. Get a journal and externalize the developments the voices make in their conversation, it makes things clearer and keeps them from repeating themselves. When they say something that seems to be a non-sequitur, follow through regardless, they often paint analogies back-to-front and reveal patterns and connections you consciously wouldn't notice. Alternate between equitable conversation, asymmetrical dialogue, argument, and straight up explanation. Reorganizing the information in these different ways promotes more complete understanding of the relationships between the pieces.For best results, have one talk like Socrates.
>>38435468>have one talk like SocratesHave one that talks like this guy. Trust me bro.
>>38435409>First step to fuck your mind up is just to identify any single voice in your head narrating or dictating your actions as non-selfever heard of buddhism?
>>38433157>what does the silence mean?The answer is more complicated than words can convey at the level of conscious awareness you are at.
>>38433157I am an extremely solitary animal.If the answer isn't yes, it's no.But i'd be careful with the thought construct. As you correctly stated, it's superficial. I only take some thoughts seriously, those my intuition knows come from deep deep inside.
>>38437082Buddhism identifies everything as non-self. Anything partial, anything other than that can't strictly be called buddhism .
