Yes - I've been looking forward to this one - still working my way through it.
One thing that really needs addressing for this burgeoning spiritual take, is the idea of loosh. For me, loosh has a direct relationship to Duhkha in Buddhism. Wiki says:
Duḥkha commonly translated as "suffering", "pain," or "unhappiness," is an important concept in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Its meaning depends on the context, and may refer more specifically to the "unsatisfactoriness" or "unease" of mundane life when driven by craving/ grasping and ignorance.
I also see a relation to the Christian idea of sin, and karma.
Loosh however is even more objectionable to me as it has an even more tangible sense of reality than Duhkha. It is said to be a spiritual energy that is harvested by someone for something. (This is how Bob Monroe describes it!) Its not intended to be a metaphor.
The reason these terms (loosh, Duhkha, sin and karma) are problematic is the same - it is not an actually existent thing, it is all in the eye of the beholder. You cannot point to it, it is not physical. Plainly it is a concept/idea that you might (or might not) relate to. If life is pain and suffering to you then that is duhkha, or loosh, or perhaps the effects of sin or karma. But does this mean that if life is pleasurable to you, then there are no such things?
To see what I'm getting at, take a look at the Vinegar Tasters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
The allegorical composition depicts the three founders of China's major religious and philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism.
The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his philosophy: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering due to attaching possessions and material desires; and Taoism saw life as sweet due to it being fundamentally perfect in its natural state.
The point is that these idea are really just 'barnum statements' (as legalman puts it) - terms that can mean whatever the beholder wants it to mean, eg "good", "fair", "fun", etc. We are not uncovering an underlying reality here, only our interpretation or reaction to reality.
I would put it even more simply - these value-judgements about this or that concept are also illusory.
Now, of course we 'colour' our experience with interpretations and feelings, and we have words to convey those internals states for the benefit of those we interact with (and ourselves) - but the nature of reality is that we can't know what another means by terms like 'loosh'. We would need to be telepathic to experience that. And its not a one way street - one's character will help determine the experience - eg someone prone to depression might agree that life is suffering - that is a filter that they apply to their experience of reality - the glass is half-empty. A 'happy' person would see the glass as half-full. Are either right?
One issue I have with Dan and Mark is when they mention loosh they wheel out a bunch of unverified ideas - eg the suffering in Africa, North Korea, etc.
Firstly, as fakeologists, we shouldn't presume that the images we are presented with are the reality. I don't think all of Africa is in perpetual suffering. And I'm not even sure what North Korea is. So, the examples of suffering they use are imagined, not personally verified. They are convenient emotional touchstones to convey their point - but not reality.
Secondly, I don't dispute that suffering is a part of this experience. But then so is joy and pleasure. If I were to cherry pick one type emotion and then tarnish my entire reality with that brush (whether good or bad), I would be doing myself a self-inflicted disservice - I would be putting myself into a state of illusion, with no nefarious elite required.
So, I guess my objections are that I dispute the characterisation that 'life is suffering'. For me, this is an erroneous interpretation and then a personification of the objective world, as if it reflects one's personal, emotional state.
Consequent to that, I object to the idea that loosh is something that is collected - and I include negative loosh (suffering) and positive loosh (love) in that.
Perhaps its worth considering how illusion could result in energy collection. In objective reality, there is a system in place, we pay taxes, give our time to it, etc. This really is loosh collection. On account of an illusion (the common belief that government is real, as opposed to a contrived, harnessing idea) we really do give over the fruits of our energy.
In reverse, where is the loosh collection? I really don't see it. It seems like the mis-application of an immersive, real-world concept (external governance (eg government), as opposed to self-governance) to the subjective world of ideas. Government + tax, etc, is the real loosh collection.
To survive, the loosh idea would now have to fall-back into: 'loosh is a metaphor or model, not objective reality'. This is actually fair enough - as long as that it is understood that we are not talking about objective reality, who could object to how individuals want to colour their subjective experience? I've no objection to loosh as a metaphor - but of course, I am also free to metaphorically flush it down the toilet. The problem is that if it stands as objective truth, it becomes an article of faith for a new religion.
PS one final point on the Vinegar Tasters - that I think is incorrect in the original, in my humble opinion. It says:
Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his philosophy: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering due to attaching possessions and material desires; and Taoism saw life as sweet due to it being fundamentally perfect in its natural state.
So it seems that Taoism is the 'best' sort of outlook. My criticism is that Lao Tsu should go "full Vulcan".... so why smile? His response should be flat, not smiling. Ie neutral:
not smiling:
Shame the neutral icon on this forum looks a bit worried, but I hope you take the point.