Instead of saying, "during high-dose psychedelic experiences, the sense of self dissolves completely", I would say "during high-dose psychedelic experiences, the narrative of the self dissolves completely". If you just say "the self dissolves completely", then you're equating the self with the narrative, which is to say you're denying the existence of a real self, which implies a lot of things that I don't like... including possibly a lack of true free will. This is a semantic argument, but I think the semantics matter a lot on a subject with metaphysical implications.My sense of self does not dissolve on psychedelics because my sense of self is not tied to my narrative of self. It's tied to the narrative-maker. That is how I actually get to fully disagreeing with the idea, even though we don't have to 100% agree on what the self is.
>>42200273>All these dudes who died in the civil war is meaningless and in vain if you don't have the first amendment. Your laws are fakeWTF r u even saying you stupid glownigger
>>42200273Youre never not you in the grand sense of you the experiencer, but the sense of yourself does change and on one trip for me even split
>>42200273Why is the image like that? That isn't how it looks in the film.
>>42200302Yes, it changes. Your narrative changes, and even your awareness of the chooser/experiencer/narrative-maker itself. Your model of your own experience changes, and I cannot say for a fact that I am in the final stage of this model progression, but I feel that I have reached a stable position because ultimately nothing shakes it. Psychedelics, tragedy, glory, banality, etc. Sidenote, but perhaps that is why people with young childhood traumatic experiences get accelerated on this timeline (if it doesn't break them first).
>>42200311Idk, but growing up is recognizing that he is not the bad guy. It's your shadow, which is whatever remains of your undiscovered/denied self.The idea that you should fight this guy (ie the Matrix story) is retarded. It makes sense though because the directors became trannies. Some think this was Hollywood conspiracy, but if you're actually fighting your shadow... you are already unstable mentally.I'll tell you about a dream I had a couple months ago. There were people coming after me, to kill me. It was ultimately a 2 on 1 sword fight, and we fought for what felt like hours. They would swipe at me, and I would block. They would stab, and I would shift my torso. I blocked most of the hits. There were a couple that I took, but I kept fighting and never died. I was also never on the offensive and it never occurred to me to be on the offensive. I think I understand why. I think I was playing the role of the architect, and the "heroes" were after me. You'll note that we've created two competing cosmogonies, and in both of them, you have a "good guy" and a "bad guy" (or plural, for either side).In the orthodox/matrix model:Good guy = Narrative selfBad guy = Narrative Maker selfIn my model:Good guy = Narrative Maker selfBad guy = Narrative selfIn a more modern, integrated mode of thinking, you wouldn't say "bad" though. You'd say "less educated" or "imperfect". The role, then, of the good guy is to educate the rest and improve the entire environment of the self. To be a gardener or beekeeper, perhaps.Let's think this through.1. Narrative self educating Narrative Maker selfThis sounds a lot like the idea that you are not "god" and that your life is in sacrifice to it.vs2. Narrative Maker self educating Narrative selfThis sounds a lot like the idea that you ARE god, and you must sacrifice other things to it, including your ego maybe (which is narrative).
>>42200377So, here is what I propose:#1 is right externally#2 is right internally#1 is the default exoteric message#2 is the default esoteric message- Among Abrahamic religions, #1 is strongly preferred interpretation for Christianity and Islam, and #2 is the preferred method for Judaism and Masonry (which draw from the same origin, which was Phoenician then Iranian (Aryan) then Israeli).
>>42200393Furthermore, I think there is a lot of neurosis generated among those who try to study this subject because they want to reduce one side into the other. I think people have a bias towards one or the other depending on hormones and life experiences. If you lean left, you believe the exoteric can be derived from the esoteric, and if you lean right, you believe that esoteric can be derived from the exoteric.
>>42200273It doesn't dissolve later like afterwards when you're walking to your car and it feels like a movie you belong in and not a weird tragedy you're watching on a television set?
>>42200801In other words, Judaism and Masonry has an inherent left-leaning ideology, and Christianity and Islam have an inherent ideology.And if you look at broad world conflict, it's generally between these two classes of ideas. However, we have to keep a nuance as to what either side truly represents. From the third perspective, they are both short-sighted, imperfect ideas. The best result isn't where one overpowers the other, and consequently the idea is to force the imbalance out of the system. This also means you recognize when there is an imbalance even when others say it is balanced.I think we need to now apply this to the concept of left and right in power. Although we say Jews and Masons are in power, we are really saying that those who recognize the power of the Narrative Maker over the Narrative have authority on man. That means if you also know this, then you're already in the club. You don't need to apply for the gold jacket. Consequently, if you have this based of a view, and you still "hate" Jews the way that many on 4chan do, you are essentially doing so with envy. Your desire to rule the world is really no different, so you merely see them as a competitor.Anyway, this isn't a pro-anyone message. I think we need to reevaluate some symbolism in the context of this model though. I think one implication is that a true elite right faction would be a collection of true nobles. I think the general sentiment about the current elite is that they are not fully of noble blood. The general explanation is that they married into it but don't originally come from it; eg, the Rothschilds (my personal theory is that Rothschilds are potential Khazarian nobility, as an explanation for how they rose to power over other Jews during the 1700s, so they could be noble but not Western European noble, which is the illegitimate power they hold now).
>>42200878I think Christianity as true right wing ideology was the original point, at least since Rome formalized it in 300 AD or so. Before that, Christianity was Left (esoteric leaning). That doesn't mean it was bad either, and in fact for that period of history, it may have been the most important form of revolution.I think with this being known, the left wing Christianity of 1 AD and the right wing Christianity of 800 AD were both good in their own way. However, if you look at Christianity just in 800 AD, you're already looking at a good deal of degradation into ritualism. By the time of 1000 or 1100 AD, you have wars fought on behalf of this superstition (the Crusades). I guess if I'm right, then it's wrong to call Christianity as left or right. The right follows the bloodline of Christ, the left follows the message.Ok, maybe I need to reevaluate the Rothschild connection. Maybe it's NOT Khazaria but actually Merovingian French that have some connection to the ancient Middle East, which makes these the "true Jews", which are the Israel of the Bible. (No, I don't actually care about who is Israel for authenticity sake. I'm just drawing connections.) In any case, Khazaria as the illegitimate equivalent of the Merovingian makes more sense. You could have had a Khazarian settlement in France, who refused to follow the exoteric Christianity because it wasn't part of their people's history, which became known as "Jews", even though I'm guessing the Khazars are actually a Persian bloodline, which means they're adjacent to Israel but not actually Israel. This would also make them part Aryan but quite mixed with other races. However, I don't think that defines the quality of their genes either way. What seems to have done the most harm is inbreeding, or poor breeding possibly. That is the real karma for the elite.In any case, if you can view all of this from a third person perspective you can resolve the widespread neurosis on it, at least for yourself.
>>42200973I think what is challenging about studying history is that the good live in the light, and evil hides in the shadow. That isn't to say all shadows are bad, but evil can't survive the light, therefore whereever it is, it must be hidden. Speaking less autistically, conspiracy is the idea of power actuated in secret, and secret power is the most powerful kind of power. Not all secret power is evil power, but of all evil power, the most powerful and long-lasting would be that which is able to maintain secrecy over a very long period of time.In other words, every label we use to define such an evil group is unlikely to be accurate. How can they be from one nation, if they could have taken over that nation in a previous era? And why stop at that era if you have thousands of years you can go back and see how many times that land had changed hands.I think you can identify groups by their symbols, both the self-prophesed and the archetype of their behavior. And it will be real families with real bloodlines, but their origins and names will change. In other words, the battle of the past 2000 years is really about something that started in the Middle East over 2000 years ago, and while Rome recentered all of history on itself, it was kinda "bad" (and definitely powerful), but _neither_ player in this duel between what we might call the Christian nobles (I think they are Hellenistic-Persian-Scythian-Phoenician) and what we might call the Christian merchants (who attempted to reform the religion around their aspect of Christianity while ignoring the other aspect, and then called themselves Jews) was Rome. Maybe the Christian merchants took over Rome though. This is Josephus and the Flavian dynasty, along with other intrigue involving Herod and Rome. One thing that makes them merchants, as you'll recall, is that they had a temple where people had to pay money to pass through. Sounds like Silk Road religion, right? That's Christianity. That's why it's in Bactria.
>>42201039That's why Zoroastrianism is a flavor of it too. The only difference is that it's centered in Iran, but the premise is the same. I think if we're being honest, the center of power probably was closer to Iran than Judea for most of the Bronze Age anyway. Even in the era of great Mesopotamian empires, the first large land empire came from the north of the rivers, which intersected with the territory of the mountain folk, which is how the middle east intersects with the steppes. In other words, Zoroastrianism is probably a more faithful rendition of whatever we're calling Judaism, and Christianity therefore is actually an esoteric Zoroastrian movement.Interesting stuff to ponder.Who do you think had the worse rule of 100 BC? That's the setting for where the largest revolution arose and why. Rome was indeed an empire, but I'm still not sure it is right to see it as the enemy of Rome. If we do that, then at least we can safely say that the Jewish-Roman Wars are the perfect context for the source for historical Jesus. However, if we Rome as a tragic character with good elements and a rotten core that has a potentially foreign origin, then once again we're looking to the east. Maybe Persia. Maybe Cilician pirates, Mithridates the Great's empire, and Mithraism. We need to clarify that for this era, the Iranians were called Parthia. Parthia was powerful, but static. They repelled Rome but didn't really do much else in the western sphere. I know the people in Pontus, Anatolia, and Armenia claimed Persian descent, but it's not like Parthia was expanding westward. That's why it doesn't make sense to say they were the hidden force in Rome.That's why I'm left to conclude that Rome _was_ the enemy of Christianity in its revolution. There was intrigue in Parthia, but now I think this is a distraction. It was the Mithraists, who were also Cilicians, Ponteans, Phoenicians, who created Christianity as a left wing movement against Rome.
>>42201078One thing that is challenging about this idea is that we're placing Ukraine as among the actual origins of these people, because that Black Sea region is part of ancient Phoenician territory. Maybe not the wealthiest, but part of the same culture and with historical importance. That means that there is a sense in which the Khazarians are legitimate insofar as they come from Ukraine. It's just the people who actually claim it oppose the legitimate bloodline, which is what went into Western Europe immediately following the revolutionary Christian movement against Rome. I think it must have been a princess from the Cilicians and a prince from Rome that sealed the deal. I think this is the Flavian marriage with Berenice. But to be fair, Rome had been friendly with these people even back to when they exchanged prisoners for the Roman standard around ~50 BC, when Caesar was still alive and brokered the deal. Caesar has a special connection to Cilicia because he was even kidnapped by them as a younger man. Makes you wonder if we're even getting the real story on that. Suppose that he became a Cilician agent ever since that moment, he went back to Rome and lied about what happened, then he single handedly ended the Roman Republic that had its own imperfections but was pretty impressive nonetheless. Suppose then that the pirates continued to deal with Rome, using key marriages like the one to Flavius to ensure Rome would become more favorable to the east.Then, as a form of limited hangout, the Romans accept Christianity as the state religion, even though it is esoteric in nature. It requires a good deal of editing to make it semi-right wing.
>>42201129It seems difficult in this context to identify a single family or secret brotherhood capable of being the enemy of this revolution throughout its duration.Sure, Rome is the evil of Christianity, but Persia is the evil of Hellenism, and Persians (or supposed Persians) make up the supposed Christians among the Ponteans/Anatolians/Armenians. There is circular logic here if you're trying to say one of these tribes or geographic regions is purely good or bad. Era and context matter.Therefore, is it more likely that a single family could travel from Persia to Rome to Khazaria to France to Britain to America to Israel? Or is it more likely that this is an esoteric story, where we have consistent archetypes, different families. This evil is more like entropy rather than a single group of clear and everpresent ideology.
>>42201173Anyway, if I may close out this rambling adventure, I would say that knowledge of the Narrative Maker is rare, and this knowledge is powerful. It's not good or bad. For you, to make yourself better, it is the best thing you could know. For others who horde power, it becomes associated with the worst evils.The hanged man has long been my favorite archetype. Not to say it should be the stage you cling onto, but it represents the point where you clear out your largest misunderstand about life. You stop tugging when you're supposed to push, or vice versa. I would venture a guess that the hanged man, or Odin hung on the world tree as all Druids imagined themselves, is crucially upside down. It represents is willingness to look up at the world instead of down on it. Instead of conquering, he surrenders. This is NOT a symbol of cuckoldery. This should also not be misunderstood as the symbol of passivity. It's the peace of mind of knowing the limits of your own power. It is the beer you crack or edibles you take at 5pm on a Friday. If you think about it, it's a pretty chill pastime as long as you get your work done during the week. Considering the long history of Christian work ethic, I have no reason to suspect it was passive.
>>42200273>which implies a lot of things that I don't like
>>42201219They say love takes courage, don't they? It's almost like living a good life requires being irrational and "imperfect" at times.
>>42201219But anyway, I don't hate buddhism. It is more transparent about what it is, and you should consume it in moderation.
>>42200377>tranniesyou have more shadow work to do before running your mouth my sophist friend
>>42200273>then you're equating the self with the narrative, which is to sayOkay, sure, whatever nerd.DMT obliterates the self. The simple act of perceiving cannot itself be The self for there is no intent by which the identification can act. Perception is an act, yes, but a perception of no-self could be explained by awareness/consciousness having a higher cosmic hierarchy position than the ego, a.k.a. The Self.
>>42201275There is a truth outside of the self, but only a self can discover truth, because non-self has no need to attach to truth.
>>42201275>The simple act of perceiving cannot itself be The selfYour ability to perceive is what a self is, boomer. Just correct your worldview instead of turn the world upside down out of insecurity.Is it easier to not have a self than to live with awful things that you did that were genuinely YOUR fault?
>>42201258Do you think someone got to them and turned them?If I were to reframe, then the implication is that at the end of the movie, Neo becomes the next architect, and the old architect represented the reign not just through one era, but several, and the new age hero is supposed to succeed in ways the previous ones didn't.
>>42201314Maybe I'm putting too many specifics into the Matrix part of this. I don't pretend to know everything about a movie franchise. I was just using it as a representation for my actual idea.
>>42201317I just reread a synopsis of the series. It's possible that I'm looking at the form and recognizing its validity, but not recognizing that the architect represents the leader of the elite today, and Neo represents a rebellion against the whole order.
>>42201305Never abdicated for the abandonment of the self. But I can tell you that the framing around the indictment you threw my way doesn't exist when the sense of the self is obliterated. All of that is stripped away, and it's just a rush of imagery and meanings that are new to the naked awareness. So as jabs go, it's pretty useless and gay in this discussion, innit?
To add to this Matrix thread, I just looked up the Wachowskis, and I saw that Jupiter Ascending was their most recent movie, so I looked it up and asked Claude to compare it to the Matrix. Got an interesting response.
>>42201347Maybe I'm just on edge as a result of this hostile environment, but I see now that I assumed something about your viewpoint that was wrong.And I will also say... the ability to remain calm around aggression is a worthwhile skill.
>>42200273>Instead of saying, "during high-dose psychedelic experiences, the sense of self dissolves completely", I would say "during high-dose psychedelic experiences, the narrative of the self dissolves completely".Correct. Ego =/= atma.
>>42200273I never got ego death psychedelics have shown me how shitty my ego has been which has helped me grow but they've never "killed" my ego if anything they've only made my ego stronger by showing me how fake and gay every thing is
>>42200273this, i hate the niggas who speak of ego-death or the disolving of the self as a good thing, the soul never disolves, is inmortal and has no beginning and no end. in any case, like OP said, is really a semantic thing so it doesn't really matter, but i think that my whole point as a living being is to grow and be stronger and expand myself. the last thing i want is my self to disolve
>>42201890>the soul never disolvesAgreed, but it can go into a sort of spiritual "un-coma". If a coma is someone who is unaware, a soul in a spiritual "un-coma" is so full of awareness that they lose themselves.This is merging into the white light.The thing is, it doesnt last. A soul may remain as such for trillions upon trillions of lives of entire universes, but they will eventually act again.And without any realization of spiritual action, they will return to material action.
>>42201219>>42201233i hate buddhism, the denying of a soul is the ultimate evil, akin to jehova witnesses
>>42201899oh yeah sure, the point of the soul is to grown, awareness beyond lenguage
>>42201901I think the healthy reading of buddhism is that some people living an extremely hard life were able to completely dissolve fear and pain, all with their mind. Isn't that quite an achievement? Now, if you're Joe Six Pack living in California, making 100k a year, spending your free time on the internet, maybe dissolving fear and pain doesn't exactly improve your situation. In fact, it makes it worse if you're one of the many people who requires fear or pain in order to be motivated to do anything.
>>42201936>i think the healthy reading of buddhism is that some people living an extremely hard life were able to completely dissolve fear and pain, all with their mindyeah, but you dont need to deny the self to do that
>>42201861>I never got ego deathdidnt take enough
>>42200273I had a conversation with someone in my head who defined the threshold of self as that which experiences, so even though you experience "ego death" there is still something that exists that has the experience of such, and that is the self, which is distinct from other individual selves and never fully disintegrates.
>>42200302>and on one trip for me even splitI've had that, where my self split into a number of lesser spirits which my self seemed to be comprised of. I think they were my chakras.
>>42201384Maybe my first comment was unnecessarily harsh. Apologies, it was a big day for me. Also, I noticed that my original message was probably less clear than it could have been. When I said >Perception is an act, yes, but a perception of no-self could be explained by awareness/consciousness having a higher cosmic hierarchy position than the ego, a.k.a. The Self.I could have communicated the same message by saying that perception is the baseline upon which all sense of identity is built, and when the perceiving force perceived itself perceiving that's when identity is formed.
>>42200273The real trick is watching the self see the self through the self looking back at itself. The mirror must be shattered to find the true one in the shards. The mirror devours Neo so the self must devour the self.
>>42202824brother ive taken full strips multiple times and smoked a retarded amount of dmt at once not knowing what i was doing
