We are capable of holding more than one identity in our minds and switching between them. Some people use that ability to create "characters" (tulpas: https://www.businessinsider.com/hearing-voices-in-your-head-...) that they interact with or even allow to take over their bodies. Apparently some people go as far as replacing themselves with a tulpa they've created (they call this ego-suicide).

We are also capable of realizing directly that personal identity itself is also construct, a mask we put on to make sense of the world. Seeing through this illusion can be deeply unsettling, as well as deeply liberating. E.g. Buddhist insight into anatta, or non-self.

Shinzen Young's description on the nuts and bolts of Shingon Buddhist deity yoga practice is simply fascinating.

https://alvinalexander.com/personal/shinzen-young-shingon-sh... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_VizlDWcTA

This is cool, but I've always felt buddhists make this too big of an issue. Yeah, the ego is just a process, like any other, but it was probably created as a result of some selection mechanism.

I'm pretty sure in a situation of conflict, it's beneficial to kick the ego in higher gear. Sure, when things calm down, relax that thing. I feel pretty strongly that's the evolutionary reason for having an ego to begin with.

The evolutionary reason is survival. When you were ostracized from your group, or attacked by others in the group, for tens of thousands of years, that meant certain death.

Now it doesn't, and our emotional evolution hasn't caught up to our society or our intellectual sophistication. You don't have to respond to conflict at all, in 99% of cases. There is no benefit to winning. If someone cuts you off in traffic, getting mad and honking causes more pain for you AND for the other person. The most beneficial thing is to not even react other than to prevent a crash.

There’s not much personal direct benefit, but if someone cuts you off, honking has the benefit of letting that person know they were being antisocial. Without feedback, it’s easy for people to start to think that selfish behavior is ok.

Done out of anger, it rarely works. When someone honks at you in anger when in traffic, you might take time to self-reflect on what you've done wrong, if you've committed any antisocial behavior, and what you might do differently in the future, but most people don't. Because of their ego, they feel the need to defend themselves from attack.

Better yet, ram into the back of them so they really get the message.

I think the point is that you will do less to reinforce positive behaviour in others, than you will to amplify your own negative response conditioning.

Though I would add that if you sent your message across in a state of absolute zen then perhaps the reaction would be beneficial all round.

I'm no expert on this, but here's an essay from an American Buddhist monk that might explain the context a little better. In short, Buddhism is meant to be practiced and the idea of "no self" isn't supposed to be an answer to a philosophical question, it's supposed to be a guideline for how to relate to your experience. (Emphasis mine)

> A case in point is the teaching on not-self. Many students interpret this as the Buddha's answer to two of the most frequently-asked questions in the history of serious thought: "Who am I?" and "Do I have a true self?" In the light of these questions, the teaching seems to be a no-self teaching, saying either an unqualified No: There is no self; or a qualified No: no separate self. But the one time the Buddha was asked point-blank if there is a self, he refused to answer, on the grounds that either a Yes or a No to the question would lead to extreme forms of wrong view that block the path to awakening. A Yes or a qualified No would lead to attachment: you'd keep clinging to a sense of self however you defined it. An unqualified No would lead to bewilderment and alienation, for you'd feel that your innermost sense of intrinsic worth had been denied.

> As for the question, "Who am I?" the Buddha included it in a list of dead-end questions that lead to "a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, [you] don't gain freedom from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair." In other words, any attempt to answer either of these questions is unskillful karma, blocking the path to true freedom.

> So if the not-self teaching isn't meant to answer these questions, what question does it answer? A basic one: "What is skillful?" In fact, all of the Buddha's teachings are direct or indirect answers to this question. His great insight was that all our knowledge and ignorance, all our pleasure and pain, come from our actions, our karma, so the quest for true knowledge and true happiness comes down to a question of skill. In this case, the precise question is: "Is self-identification skillful?" And the answer is: "Only up to a point." In the areas where you need a healthy sense of self to act skillfully, it's wise to maintain that sense of self. But eventually, as skillful behavior becomes second nature and you develop more sensitivity, you see that self-identification, even of the most refined sort, is harmful and stressful. You have to let it go.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/quest...

It doesn't matter how it was created, it's still poison. Practicing Buddhists don't "make a big deal" of the ego out of some neurotic compulsion taken too far: the ego is seen clearly as an essential link in the chain of suffering and is dropped, breaking the chain.

I invite you to directly experience it for yourself; come and see.

I don't think we would have survived as a species in an "egoless" state. It's very nice while you have it, but it lacks all strength and drive that are necessary for great achievements or for putting up a good fight when necessary.

For full perspective: I've practiced various meditation techniques my whole life - Orthodox Christian, various flavor of yoga (mostly Raja and Kundalini related stuff), even some Buddhist techniques (mostly Zen). I'm fairly familiar with the Buddhist doctrine, and Christian, and the Hindu Dharma. I've had my share of experiences, including some that looked quite ego-free - and yeah, it's awesome.

I'm just saying, we shouldn't draw absolute lines here, or anywhere. The danger of narrow dogmatism is always present. And there's room for, and value in, the inner fire, the energy that builds things up and pushes things forward. That, too, is what we are.

You live in a wonderful, immense house; don't confine yourself to a couple rooms only.

Absolutely. Imho, there are a couple of different directions we can take in exploring reality via contemplation. The direction of (for lack of a better term) purification/egolessness is emphasized by Buddhist schools. An orthogonal direction might be the age-old practice of shamanism, in which engagement with wild realms of the spiritual Outback is sought, for the purposes of healing and exploration.

Sorry to keep shilling for Shinzen Young, but he is one of the few authors who has legitimacy in traditional Buddhist lineages, but seems interested in exploring and systematizing alternate traditions.

You might find his thoughts on shamanism interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33u14OjeHpE

It doesn't matter if we would have survived as a species or not. Our great achievements can be summarized as a continuum of suffering done in the name of I. Even now a billion people live in the most abject daily torment of survival while the richest of us pack our noses with a stimulant that destroys whole swaths of the natural world.

You're confusing the relative world with awakening and then making it out for wisdom. All of man's great achievements can be summarized in a few passages from "Ozymandias": gone tomorrow.

'Even if a whole mountain were made of gold, not double that would be enough to satisfy one person. Know this and live accordingly'

We should absolutely make out for wisdom what is wise and point out unskillful pursuits where we see them. Buddhist teachings aren't a postmodernist mash-up of whatever you like. It can sound rude, even condescending but it's not what you make it out to be. The suttas are there to offer wisdom, Right Understanding.

Practicing various meditation techniques your whole life sounds like you haven't made up your mind yet or haven't seen one through to the end. I know exactly how that feels and I'd trade the decade I spent sampling for depth in any one.

> It doesn't matter if we would have survived as a species or not.

That is a point of view completely detached from reality. Have a nice day.

Are you saying you do not have an ego?

"You must give up your ego!"

"Who said that?"

_I yam what I yam!_

--Popeye

I'm not an authority on this stuff, but the rationale that resonates with me is: 1) gaining awareness of & context for the ego-narrative can HUGELY reduce psychological suffering, and 2) the ego doesn't go away for the vast majority of practitioners - it is put into perspective within a larger awareness

I agree, and I find the buddhist method very useful.

But it seems that ambitious people usually have strong attachment to the ego and that what drives them.

And that's useful in a highly competitive society, where apartments are expensive, for example.

And once you out that into a larger perspective, some of that drive gets lost.

I came across a concept of “direct experience” with out going through normal meaning-making structures. Anyone have more details on this?

An emphasis on direct experience can be found throughout Buddhism, usually in the context of emphasizing its utility, while downplaying the usefulness of intellectual elaborations on Buddhist ideas. I.e., it's much better to have a single, concrete, personal experience of emptiness/non-self in meditation, than to read several volumes of Buddhist logic.

If you want to trot out the doctrinal stuff, Dharmadhātu probably what you're looking for - it's the label given to purified mind in its natural state, free of obscurations. It is the essence-quality or nature of mind,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmadhatu

For hallucinations there's been some research on the brain that found that what we see is more imagined than actually there. Our brains kind of fill in the gaps by hallucinating images.

The easiest way to point to the distinction is to ask the question: in your direct experience, who came first, you or your parents?

If you'd like a secular guide to experiencing this yourself, for my money, Sam Harris's Waking Up app is the best way to do it. It takes quite awhile to build up the mental toolset to get there, but it's very much worth it.

https://www.wakingup.com

That's amazing! I did not expect to read about Tulpas on Business Insider, so thank you for that.

Somehow I'm not surprised that the tulpa in question is a batpony. There seems to be an interesting intersection between Tulpamancing and My Little Pony.

Perhaps something about escapism.

> Apparently some people go as far as replacing themselves with a tulpa they've created (they call this ego-suicide).

Sure, but I wonder how useful that is. After all, you're replacing one ego with another. Before, the controller was this group of processes running on this slice of the CPU, now it's a different (but similar) group of processes running on a somewhat shifted slice of the CPU.

Maybe if the new processes are better in some ways then it would be worth it? Less anxious, more confident, something like that.

There's no "worth it" outside of not existing. The "person" that was there before is not there now, otherwise it would be suicide.

There's a great Reply All episode on this: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/49hr6k (#74 Making Friends)

I started watching that video and something about the interview with the "Tulpamancer" just really creeped me out.

I think it's because we're watching schizophrenia and a doc who feels it's just rich escapism.

Mental illness like schizophrenia are by definition a net negative, that’s why their disorders. It seems strange but people can be very different without mental problems or seem perfectly normal but have severe issues.

It’s why some but not all young children with imaginary friends can be considered fine. More strangely some adults have similar imaginary friends which they realize are mental constructs but they still enjoy interacting with them.

How do we cope wit it

Wonder how close this phenomena is related with lucid dreaming. The reason I bring it up is back in college I was struggling with an assignment and could not get the solution to a problem. That night I had a extremely vivid lucid dream where I was told the solution to the problem. The crazy thing was I tested it the next morning and it worked. Most likely my subconscious solving the issue but it was extremely strange as the answer was very clear and was not a technique I was used to.

Leaving problems to simmer in the subconscious overnight is a pretty common technique. Results aren't always as vivid as a dream, but it's not unusual to wake up with an "Oh yes - of course" if you prime the problem the day before.

Back when chemistry was just getting started and scientists were still trying to figure out the structures of molecules, benzene was a tough issue, probably because folks could not make yet the mental leap to non-linear structures (closed loops).

And then one night Kekule dreamed up the benzene ring, and the rest is history.

Apex Twin claims he's using lucid dreams to make songs:

> [...] it’s a technique James claims to be responsible for 80% of the tracks of Selected Ambient Works Volume II. In a 1994 interview he explained, “I go to sleep, dream I’m in my studio with imaginary bits of gear and do a track. Then I wake myself up and recreate it. I can do this in about 20 minutes.”

https://www.factmag.com/2017/04/14/funny-little-man-the-fact...

He also claims a lot of other weird things to add to the Aphex Twin “lore” I’m not sure how much of it you can believe.

I had both type of experiences, lucid dreaming and something like what's described in the article. While a theory of the subconscious may explain both, they feel completely different. It's like skiing is technically like kicking a can because you use your legs for both, but no one analyses them both from the same framework and gets interesting conclusions or predictions.

My colleague used to joke about having “shower ideas” he’d come into work with some new direction or solution he’d come up with while in the shower or doing other day to day non-programming things. I’ve heard other people mention walking around the block works for them too.

Oh yes, I certainly have "shower ideas" and I usually actively cultivate them. Sometimes its actually in the shower but other times it's while I'm mowing grass. It happens enough that I've grown to depend on it and use it purposefully - "I can't figure this out so I'm going to not think about it and go mow grass."

The trick is you have to stop trying to solve the problem and just let your brain work on it in the background.

As a layperson reading experiences, it sort of seems to align with a lot of Jungian psychology models. The idea that there's a guiding visualizable other self that provides insight and meaning when visited, but is still ultimately an extension of the self.

I have tried DMT more than a few times. Every time I felt a sense of connection to something greater, some would call it "God", and some call it "the Universe", etc.

On one trip I caught a glimpse of this and within the trip I moved towards it, curious what it was, and I was pushing closer towards it trying to discover what it was, and then it "shattered" and revealed itself as my own subconscious - that force within me that protects me and guides me and loves me, it was my own self at its purest essence, stripped of all the layers that we construct to deal with the rest of the world. It was a rapturous epiphany, I literally turned into a million smiles and my own subconscious welcomed me "home".

I know it probably sounds strange to some, but I do consider it a breakthrough. I haven't really needed to do any DMT since then. "Once you get the message, hang up the phone" - Alan Watts. I got the message. Oh wow, I got that message.

I never believed the "aliens" in DMT trips were anything like "aliens", because after all, everything that occurs during a DMT trip is happening within your own brain. These aren't "beings", they are you, yourself, or at least the inner workings of "the self".

I've had a similar experience and it made me a better person. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. Thanks for sharing.

I don't think that everyone that tries DMT will get there. The visuals can be distracting and are easy to focus on instead of using it as a tool for deep introspection. The "machine elves"/aliens may be something the subconscious uses to distract and some may see them as "the thing" and not look further, I don't really know. No doubt every trip is different, as is every person.

I see other dimensions, aliens, a higher mathematical order to reality, God, etc... as another way to explain "the subconscious". I think your subconscious manifests itself as what would be easier to understand for your ego, with varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the person.

A conspiracy theory fan, a priest, a therapist, or a hardcore fan of David Lynch movies will probably see their inner selves manifest differently when the subconscious pushes through to show itself to ego in a way were it can be seen with our "eyes" and heard with out "ears".

Just beautiful, thank you for sharing.

I am always wondering. From split brain patients we know that there are two fully functioning halfs. And when you think about it from an IT perspective, it is difficult to imagine that they are fully synchronized (emotionally, information, etc). So basically you have a pair of twins sharing a phone line giving somehow the idea of a single person. I am not surprised that some odd things going on.

(The old: left hemisphere math, right art or vice versa has been debunked if I remember correctly)

> From split brain patients we know that there are two fully functioning halfs

I don't think it necessarily shows that. The "two halves" may just be a phenomenon that arises when the brain splits, not something that's normally there. And I believe there have been recent studies that even brought the original split brain conclusions into question, i.e., there might still be communication happening between the two halves.

>(The old: left hemisphere math, right art or vice versa has been debunked if I remember correctly)

As usual with biology, it's a bit more complicated than the '60s explanation ever revealed to the public. https://youtu.be/dFs9WO2B8uI

Well, he did deliberately induce this state on himself and record the results in The Red Book. And given that he had those experiences, it's no surprise his model of psychology aligns with those who also have.

Which is not necessarily to discount it. I'm intrigued by his research and willingness to apply the scientific method to things other scientists would dismiss out-of-hand.

I have a copy of the red book that’s still shrink wrapped, it’s big.

Think I should open it or read a digital copy now?

You should open it. The art is beautiful. I read a page everyday.

Half the book is in Middle German. So..there is that...I just admire the calligraphy.

To the other jungians out there- a note/reminder that the black books are finally being released in October.

Since I haven't bought/read the 'Red' book, does the Black contain everything the Red does, i.e. a superset?

Exciting!

I wonder if this lines up with the psychology of Internal Family Systems (IFS): https://www.reddit.com/r/InternalFamilySystems/

Basically, that we are a collection of inner-selves, not a single self. IFS provides a framework for working with our inner selves.

Or maybe the self is an illusion.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/The_Illusion_of_the_Self

Both.

There are multiple selves, and each one of them is not as set in stone as we think.

I've given up on reddit since their redesign. I know there is the `old.reddit.com` trick you can do, but I can't be bothered.

Is there a non-reddit reference to this "Internal Family Systems" thing? I'd be interested in looking into it more.

It's mentioned in The Body Keeps The Score

From an IFS perspective, it sounds like DMT introduces parts that guide our attention toward the Self. That's different from regular IFS parts - protectors and exiles - that guide our attention away from the Self.

To play devil's advocate: Math arose largely to deal with the problem of scarce resources. Magical drug-summoned beings might never have needed to do that.

To then argue against that: Trippy aliens would not need to confront our simplest kinds of scarcity, like for land or food, in order to need to economize. Any world that offers choices offers tradeoffs by definition. Rational agents facing tradeoffs arrive at math.

Unless somehow emotional intelligence is more useful to them than economic rationality.

Hi-tech aliens could send no-tech agents.

> they can't solve math problems

> I never believed they were anything other than hallucinations

I mean, dogs can't do math either, yet they are real.

I'm not necessarily arguing for the independent reality of the entities, I'm just saying that's not a super-conclusive test.

I think people generally perceive these entities as being advanced and hyper intelligent, hence the math question.

But yeah, still not conclusive either way (but the most likely answer is still that they're constructions of your own mind).

maybe they are so hyper-intelligent that they let their subconscious handle the math problems

Just to be pedantic, dogs can count (probably, or something akin to it).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12357291/

But they can't look up

> Apparently they can't solve math problems.

I wonder if math problems, or even simple logic statements, are the most appropriate criteria for interactions.

Hmm, depends, it's one way to aim towards objectivity though. Unless of course these being exists in dimensions where base reality itself necessitates a different mathematical makeup ... causing the entities themselves to respond to your presence with "yeah, right, nice try fantasy person, wink-wink, now get out of my day dream"

I was more thinking about how music is a common element for trips. Maybe math problems aren't appropriate because, as you say, it requires an entirely different structure. Music though is very sensory and perceptual so could you elicit say pattern recognition? If you played a sound or pattern but isolate the sound from the participant, could the entity repeat the pattern?

Like the idea of using music but since we have to take into account that the participant's mind acts as the "gate" to the entity it makes little sense to expect the entity to be able to repeat a pattern that has not entered the participant's consciousness.

One way this could work however would be if the same entity revealed itself to two participants. Then it would be quite straightforward to see if information/music/other shared by between one participant and the entity could be accessed by the other when participant when communicating with the entity.

True; I think the rational stems from the following research questions:

R1 - Is the entity a projection of the participant or manifestation of a separate entity?

R2 - If the entity is a manifestation, can it process information that is not presented by the participant?

R3 - Can that information be presented to another participant with the entity acting as an intermediary? This would expand on your idea of "if the same entity revealed itself to two participants", then perhaps having Person 1 receive musical input, describe the entity's reaction, Person 2 does not receive the musical input and describes the entity's behavior. If there is are common reaction behaviors between the entities, it wouldn't prove they are separate from the host, but could lead to additional types of studies.

There is a classic Slate Star Codex post/short story about whether DMT entities can do math: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-th...

> “Right,” I said. “We’ll have more transcendent joy if you help me out and factor the number than if you just sit there being spiritual and enigmatic.”

This is hilarious :) Especially when you think of the entities he's arguing with as different aspects of his own consciousness.

There's parts of all of us that want to pursue knowledge of the world around us and those parts that want to pursue our emotions and knowing ourselves.

So, I've not read any of SSC, though obviously the news lately has made me aware of him.

But this? This is pure genius. Thank you for the link! So many laugh out loud moments. I particularly enjoyed '“I demand a better answer than that,” I demanded.'

Scott is fond of sentences like that, especially with puns thrown in. I have no idea how he's so good at coming up with them. They took me a moment to understand so I'll explain with an example from this page [0]:

“I’m not going to make a deathbed conversion,” Tom said diagnostically.

The sentence indicates that Tom is dying and not currently religious, and the word "diagnostically" sounds like a mixture between "die" and "agnostic". They aren't quite funny when explained but when you spend 3 minutes trying to figure one out before it slaps you in the face it's a very good time

[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/tag/tom-swifties/

More examples:

“I went rock-climbing with my girlfriend,” Tom updated.

“The defibrillator worked!” Tom said, repulsed.

“My karate instructor died,” Tom said, desensitized.

Woah. I never got most of the jokes on that post when I first read it. Now it's all obvious (and fun, finally). Thanks!

I wonder if this is determined by skill of the person

In lucid dreams entities can solve math problems to a certain degree. Does it mean that the lucid dream ones are real then?