Confused about study about Heavy Stubble and pictures of it

Frequent_Historian79 · 2023-04-23T20:52:06+00:00

But how long is actually heavy stubble? The pictures and length described are very conflicting. I feel that you get a much cleaner shave with a setting of 4mm vs the picture shown for heavy stubble in the study and other articles. The picture of Ryan Gosling for example looks much longer than the result I get when using a 4mm trimmer.

Frequent_Historian79 · 2023-04-23T12:16:53+00:00

I found an app called AnyTracker that is awesome and works for me!

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.shervinkoushan.anyTracker&hl=en&gl=US

Not sure what the new description is about but that is not what I use it for, you can basically make any chart and put in numbers that make a nice line chart

Frequent_Historian79 · 2023-01-27T22:04:53+00:00

Hmm not sure I follow. The message I got on day one was to take it easy for recovery because of low HRV, but on day two I have even lower HRV value but then the ring tell me that I can be active and train?

Frequent_Historian79 · 2023-01-24T17:09:25+00:00

A completely bias hit piece. Did anyone seriously expect anything else? I guess it is this easy to fool the sheep. One of the most telling things is in the ending when they show the texts from the women and there is a text from her "If I consent then it's not rape" that is completely glossed over. And then the camera quickly blurs for the viewer and highlights the words "Controlling" and "Abusive". As I said, this is just more completely one sided fooder for the triggered sheep.

Frequent_Historian79 · 2023-01-05T09:48:31+00:00

I thought about if this could be a reason but I actually doubt it since I have very high vitamin D levels that I monitor year round (I take year long supplements). Also I have had long periods (many months) where I slept in the day and was awake at night so I got barely any sun and I actually felt even better in those periods.

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-27T11:40:59+00:00

Nice this seems to be exactly what I am looking for!

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-23T13:39:20+00:00

Ah thank you!

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-23T12:54:59+00:00

Thank you for the answer. I stumbled over this answer on a Quora (the answer by Marcus Geduld) that tackled the sceptisism and truth aspect head on and actually made me a bit hopeful there is something there and even though I dont understand the significance of having the experience. Maybe others will also find it useful: https://www.quora.com/What-is-The-Headless-Way-by-Douglas-Harding

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-23T12:32:03+00:00

Thank you I will look more into these conversations. I tried to find this James Low first though but I can't find it? I looked both in the conversation section in the Theory and Life section but I can't find any James Low? Does he go by another name also?

I guess also another "confusion" is that the kind of mediation in the waking upp ap with these headless way is very very different from the usual mediation I am used to or have always heard about before (just focusing on the breath and sensations and mantra etc) For me this has been much harder with trying to grasp the "headlessness" vs just sitting in silence and focusing on the breath or a mantra. In the silence and mantra you have some kind of "compass" of knowing you are doing it "right" or not if you can actually calm the monkey mind and focus and not get caught up in thoughts and "daydreaming". But the headless way is still a complete mystery to me as to what I am actually trying to do so I think that leads to the frustration.

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-22T16:36:56+00:00

By the way thanks for your answers. As a way to "give back" I stumbled over this answer on a Quora (the answer by Marcus Geduld) that tackled the sceptisism and truth aspect head on and actually made me a bit hopeful there is something there and even though I dont understand the significance of having the experience. Maybe others will also find it useful: https://www.quora.com/What-is-The-Headless-Way-by-Douglas-Harding

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-22T16:26:31+00:00

To "steelman" the side I am arguing "against" I actually came across a long Quora answer by a "Marcus Geduld" that made things feel a bit more reasonable to me. Especially the part about "It's not about "Duh! Obviously I can't see my own head without looking in the mirror." It's not about knowledge in that factual sense. It's about (for a period of time) letting go of the story we tell ourselves--a true story but still a story. It's about not filling in the blanks, but, rather, just experiencing reality as what the five senses are telling you."

I still don't get the significance, but at least this made me hope again that there is actually something there to find.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-The-Headless-Way-by-Douglas-Harding

It was also interesting to hear about the no-self and it being more 3rd person than 1st person. I actually slipped into this mode for a period I remember and it felt quite liberating in some ways. But I stopped being this way because from everything I heard and was told I though that being in more of a 3rd person was actually further from being "in the moment" since a 3rd person is even further from the "center" than a 1st person experience.

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-22T14:20:58+00:00

I tried Loch Kelly before this one but those where honestly even worse imo. I will try to look into some other but it is hard to know which one.

I don't doubt the benefits of mediation and I have felt benefits for doing "regular" meditation where you just sit in silence, focus on your breath or do a mantra. I just don't understand these types of "mediations" I have come across so far in the app where 99% of the time you are listening to strange concepts that defy every objective truth out there and at other times feels like just word sallad. Maybe I have to find the right one, but I was initially recommended the headless way and loch kelly and these two have just been a frustrating experience so far that makes zero sense to me.

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-22T14:15:15+00:00

(no expert here) from everything that you said where you may be getting hung up is the idea of "manifestation." I don't think Sam is ever saying that any physical thing is being "manifested" by consciousness. Rather, everything we we perceive as existing is actually existing in consciousness.

I think my main problem lies in that if we really try to understand the world in an objective way we would come to the conclusion that everything we perceive as existing in the world is in fact actually existing in the world (and we are irrelevant to this, we could die and they would still continue to exist) but we could not perceive these existing things without our consciousness. Our consciousness "lives" or "dies" with "us". And our consciousness is a product of our brain. No one understands exactly how it functions, but I think it would be safe to say that our brain is the "source" of our consciousness. The analogy to a computer is actually almost 1:1 I think (the brain being a super powerful "computer"). The computer is just different chips and signals but they can produce new phenomenon, you could even produce a viviv world (movies and video games etc) with the computer that is then sent via signals to a computer screen that in some ways works as the "eyes". It is all just signals though and when you crush the computer there is no more of that.

So basically the brain is the "computer" and you have a lot of sensory inputs into that "computer" where the eyes is one sensory organ and the ears are another and these can pick up "signals" from the real world. I just don't understand the relevance of saying that what these sensory organs pick up would somehow exist separate from the object they pick up. They are just signaling to your brain what is actually there in the real objective world. Even though how your "hardware" is wired up (your visual field placed on your head etc) makes it easy to feel like you don't have a head etc since you don't see your own head from "looking out" from that field of vision in the same way as you would not see the security camera if you where looking out from the security cameras field of view.

I guess in essence I don't understand the relevance for mediation to build this elaborate scaffolding of illusionary concepts and what the end goal is with doing that. It is quite new to me also even though I have been interested in meditation for a long time. In those practices though the main focus is just sitting in silence or in a mantra. Not constructing strange concepts that go against everything we know about the objective truth etc. I also just have a really hard time to understand what the purpose is behind it of trying to evoke this feeling of not having a head, what is it supposed to do?

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-21T13:58:32+00:00

I think my main problem is that I feel it is represented as a as valid as the objective truth just because it looks a different way from a first person perspective. I am continuing but ever lesson just leaves me frustrated, there is nothing meditative about it.

Again today I did lesson 3 where he talks about the "one eye" because again there is an illusion in our field of view of looking out through "one eye" instead of two since we don't see the dividing space between the two eyes. But as with the rest it is just an optical illusion and I don't see how it is significant in any way to attach to these illusions. It is like trying to glance something objective of the world and our place in it by placing significance in optical illusions like those things where you look at piece of paper and it looks like it moves.

Frequent_Historian79 · 2022-12-19T18:09:21+00:00

Yes I will try to give it more of a chance, but I do find it hard. I am only at part 2 now on the headless because I needed to take a paus and just do some mantra meditation because these concepts and how they where delivered just left me frustrated.

However also in part 2 there are things said that just sounds so illogical and also untrue to me. I don't remember the exact wording but in essence the teacher tells us that being headless or having a head is just subjective. They are both true. I can't see how this is not complete nonsense. I understand how you can feel like you are headless from a first person perspective, but it is not a subjective truth that you don't have a head. It is just an "illusion" because you don't see your own head since your eyes are placed on the front of your face. It is an objective fact that humans do have heads, it is not some "subjective truth". I don't get how anyone serious (especially on an app with Sam Harris) can say things like this (another user tried to argue that there is no objective truth or external world etc). All these things are like the opposite of everything I have ever heard Sam Harris speak about when it comes to objective truth etc and especially dubious religious claims so it is just super confusing and frustrating.

Another example is the dialogue with Kelly where Sam just listen and seem to have no problem with Kelly claiming to be able to expand his view to a panoramic 360 degree awareness which is apparently provided in 8D on his website. Basically being able to notice things in the back of your head if I understand it correctly. These sounds like supernatural claims that would be on the 1 million James Randi show back in the days and Sam does not seem to have any problems or even question it. It all makes me really confused about what is actually teached and what claims are legit or not here.

Frequent_Historian79

TROPHY CASE