Dan502

We can make a distinction between being God, which is what we are anyway, and realising that we're God, which is partly what Actualized.org is about. In order to realise that we're God, we must first realise that what we think we are is not God. Most of the time people don't think that they're God so this is fairly straightforward, but it helps to reiterate it here because there are all kinds of people wandering around telling each other that they are God, which can confuse the mind, which is good but people can also latch on to it as a belief, which is not realisation. Actually one thing I hadn't thought of, which is so obvious that I missed it, is that the average person's mind would also have to drop the existing belief that it's not God Huh... interesting.

@Thought Art thank you

In order to teach you that you're God, the spiritual traditions must first help us to drop our existing personal identity. And if I, as a person, am so fucked up that I believe I am God, then a spiritual teacher would be there to help me drop that identity. With an identity like that, I might not make it through the door and if I did they'd have their work cut out, but who knows, I might get lucky.

Merry Christmas all

I'd recommend watching The Behavior Panel's YouTube analysis of when Graves, Grusch and Fravor testified. In summary, they interpreted Graves and Fravor to be displaying what appeared to be higher authenticity than Grusch. In any case, listening to the panel's analysis reveals the variety of ways in which people convey information verbally and nonverbally.

I think sometimes people imagine infinity/absolute as like a number line that carries on going forever. Whereas in infinite/absolute terms there is no 'carry on going' because 'carry on going' occurs within dimensions like 'time' and 'length' Drop all distinctions and it will make much more sense. It's in-finite. It's not finite in any way.

Thank you for the apology Leo. I accept it. I am thankful for your teachings. You are unique and you are loved. I'm sorry to hear that you have been suffering. I hope it passes soon.

@mr_engineer what's your SMV?

mr_engineer I would agree that it might be harder to quantify a man's soft skills, values and virtues, than to ask him how much he earns. Are you saying that because women earn salaries now too, they will search for men who earn significantly more than they do? Are there enough very successful men for all these average women?

I suppose if a person: - has a need and an appetite to learn how to have more helpful thoughts; and - believes that this is, or may be, a key issue for them; and - will work on themselves (CBT takes work both in and out of sessions); and - there isn't deeper trauma or other difficulties e.g. relational or personality difficulties that would make acting on the helpful thoughts difficult then yeah maybe CBT could help with resilience in cognitive tasks and also with success by helping someone to think open-mindedly about challenges and opportunities. Personally I'm less keen on CBT as I find it a bit shallow and would likely rebel against being told how I should think. I prefer psychodynamic or person-centred therapy but that's just me.

What we, when identifying as people, normally experience as our existence could be thought to take the form of distinctions and unifications. In other words, separations and connections. It might seem that out of this contrast, every thing arises, or of this type of contrast every thing consists. When we ask a question, it's because we've realised separation and are seeking a connection. When we receive an answer it's because we've realised connection and in time we will seek separation again in the form of another question. I wonder if the fact that you're asking a question about the essence of questions, and how it's related to you, makes it seem fundamental.

First off, yes. Nothing is just anything And also, if you like, no, nothing is not "just" anything. The word "just" is a manipulative tactic used by the ego/relative mind (similar to the word "but") in order to suggest that ourselves and others should place less value on one concept, in this case consciousness/nothingness relative to another, such as the quantum field. It's understandable that we might use this tactic here. After all, if we were to suppose, or realise, that the words nothingness, consciousness and quantum field were all being used interchangeably for the same relative purpose, we might indeed agree that they are synonymous, at least in practical usage. However I don't often hear people say "While meditating, I experienced a state of the quantum field". I imagine that's because quantum field, which is a theory, is used more intellectually as a concept. A framework. Whereas, the word "consciousness" is more often used to describe our experience, or even, we might say, the essence/basis of experience. Hmm... my words won't do consciousness/nothingness justice here

A social group is a bit like a rowing boat, in that in order for it to go anywhere, people have to put in the effort of rowing i.e. speaking. This statement is not absolutely true but it may help. It's natural for groups to contain some disagreement over the direction in which to take a conversation, or even the kind of conversation that's worth talking about. What kind of conversation would you find interesting and could you find a group that discusses it?

I get the feeling Jordan Peterson hasn't made much room in his life for promiscuity. He married his school sweetheart, started a family and became a workaholic to the extent that in the years when his testosterone was higher, he prioritised writing papers at his desk rather than... what would you say... seeking out new ink pots into which to dip his pen. Since becoming a global celebrity, it seems inevitable that he's received sexual invitations and I imagine his flirting skills could be high. That's about as far as my imagination goes though.

A teacher is arranging a game of baseball for a school class. A democrat says "we should give each student the opportunity to choose which side they want to play for". A conservative says "the teacher traditionally has the authority to decide the teams, and should do so again this time". Then someone without an ideology comes along. They observe what's being proposed, they consider how the game might turn out if either of the existing proposals were implemented and, if they're feeling bold, they might make a suggestion about the method of team-allocation not being overly important so long as adjustments can be made in order to ensure that the two sides are roughly evenly matched, as this will likely create optimal conditions for a decent practice.