zurew

I dont have it formalized in any way, again all I can tell you is that If I reflect on it - I intuitively know that Im okay with violating consent in a bunch of scenarios , because I care about certain things more than just consent. Yes , but you still go for it, right? If you would be against it in a principled way, then you wouldn't risk it, but you are okay with making the risk of violating consent in a bunch of scenarios. You can go with this, but this goes back to what I said from the beginning. You are not against violating consent in a principled way and if we go back to the question I asked, then the answer is obviously "its okay to have children in a world where there is 100% guaranteed bliss and 0% chance for any suffering." And from then on, the talk isnt about "its wrong because you violated consent" but "its wrong because of the negative stuff you put the kid through".

Its not about being pro killing people , its often times an unrecognized entailment of the view. Its compatible with you having a principled stance against all consent violations. If you think that violating consent in any type of way is fundamentally so wrong that it overwrites everything else, then it necessarily leads to reducing all consent violations to 0. And the answer to your earlier question is that under my personal view its wrong, but not because all type of consent violations are fundamentally wrong (you do violate consent every time you do any type of action where you dont 100% know that the other being is okay with whatever action you do), but because when it comes to things specific to sex, that type of consent violation is fundamentally wrong under my view. No its not necessary, again its only necessary under certain specific scenarios like sex. Pragmatically you wont find any anti-natalist who live up to this. When you ask a question without asking me whether I will be okay with it or not, you are potentially violating my consent and dragging me through and experience that I didnt consent to.

Cant see your answer - whats the answer to the question I asked?

No it isnt. So in a hypothetical where there is no chance of any suffering at all and there is guaranteed pure bliss , you are telling me that these people would still be against having children? its not, most who are not virtue-signaling pussies about it would say what I said - If they would have the pragmatic means to do so , they would end all suffering forever and that involves killing all life. Because again this often times goes back to negative-utilitarianism.

1) You can just reject the main premise that suffering is something that you have to care about the most (to the point where you ignore everything else). Generally when it comes to moral intuitions , I dont think most people agree with the underlying thoughtprocess. Like imagine biting bullets like "No,no no even in a world where there is only 1 millisecond of suffering and 10 trillion years of guaranteed full bliss, its still wrong to have children, because they cant consent to that 1 millisecond of suffering" Once you start to think about hypothecials like that, you suddenly realize that you are not against suffering in a principled way. 2) The other one is a pragmatic one - You dont have the means to kill all humans and even if you did, there would be still incredibly amount of suffering on Earth when it comes to other beings reproducing. So the argument is that you have reason to have children and or to not stop people from having children as long as you believe that there is a chance for technological progress, because the more you progress there the more chance you have to end up in a place where you can actually kill and destroy all life (and with that end reproduction and suffering).

Yeah it seems to me that you can get stuck in dead ends if you are linguistically/conceptually confused and engage in for example category errors. Like imagine the zen master telling you to contemplate for 40 years the square root of red. "No no no dude, dont chicken out, just contemplate it a few more decades and you will figure it out" "You are just not open minded to the possibility, that square root can have the property of redness".

Like this is the level of idiosyncrasy people here engage in and they refuse to clarify further 💀

Nah, it doesnt get settled, because people generally arent interested in clarification and I think a good chunk of them genuinely dont understand the difference between sense and reference and the difference between syntax and semantics - these concepts needs to be explained to them first before one can start the real convo. Like you can explicate as much as you want with what intended meaning you use certain phrases and a good chunk of the people here won't be able to engage with that.

Thats just the beginning. After you do it for 40 years , you gonna look something like this

What a surprise that someone needs to lay down basic communication norms almost every single time when a new thread is started. Like you need to walk through fucking 95% of the actualized.org users how semantics works before you can begin to have a discussion about anything.

Master Roshi being the biggest coomer , still has all the energy for a kamehameha.

Stay hard

I dont think goggins seeks to transcend suffering. He seeks to realize his potential by confronting the fears he has. If the realization of his full potential involves a fuck load of suffering, then he will choose that road. He doesnt seek escape, he seeks the moment and the vision where he goes up to heaven and god pulls up the list of things goggins supposed to become and say "This is all the things you supposed to become, but Im not gonna lie, im all-knowing and you still fucking managed to somehow overdo your list. I had to add new lines to your list as you were living your life". He created a tyrannical super soldier super-ego (Goggins) that does not let him (the vulnerable David) to chill. I dont think he has much choice about it, in the sense that that super-ego will fuck him up psychologically if he doesnt do what it tells him to do.

I think the inferences you made are a bit loose, and I dont think that you need to have a clear answer to your question. So lets just grant that most of those hardcore monks are not enlightened, from that doesnt follow that the practice doesnt help in any way at all to get enlightened. (similar argument can be made for any other practice or for psychedelics) The other thing is that , you probably have other goals (other than just enlightenment - like having a peace of mind, elevating your concentration ability that are all practical and useful and cool in other domains), so what do you really have to lose with doing the practice? If it is the case, that it doesnt help with enlightenment in any way at all, then still ,you gained a lot from it, and if it helps with enlightenment ,then you have enlightenment + other bonuses. If your view is that psychedelics lead to enlightenment - then do psychedelics, but that doesnt prevent you from doing these practices. If your view is that no practice is needed for enlightenment , and that it is avalaible in all mental states, then doing the practices wont prevent you from grasping the truth. No matter which line we go down, neither one provides an argument against doing the practices.

Any thoughts on doing hatha yoga before kriya yoga? Some people say that hatha yoga is good for a foundation (not sure what they mean by that) and also claim that it will make kriya yoga more effective.

https://consilienceproject.org/technology-is-not-values-neutral-ending-the-reign-of-nihilistic-design-2/

@Leo Gura Do you still practice yoga?

I grant that it wouldnt get an A, maybe not even a C. But what we have here is even worse. What we have is people introspectively giving explanations which is even worse. This shit would be a disaster even if it would be done on any non-controversial thing like smell. People having a sense of smell give them no authority or credibility to speak on how smell works. They would cook up and come up with crazy and trash theories. But at the same time, I also understand the other side of the story. Using Plato's cave analogy - it would be like endlessly studying the shadows and thinking that that will help you to make good inferences about the items that created the shadows or thinking that the shadow "caused" the items.

Something just causing seems wrong ,but the "just will yourself" also seems wrong to me. The "no gurantee" resonates with me, thats why I would probably use phrases like participation or voluntary necessity (ie being a seeker , like you need to want it, but its not sufficient to just want it) rather than just "will yourself there" or "something caused you to get enlightened completely outside your efforts and will" ). But regardless, the way to do this in a more rigorous way is to take a sample of enlightened people that we agree on for the sake of the argument and then collect variables and then run studies on them. The obvious issue is that the sample size will be small and even there we wont agree on all the people and the number of hypotheses that can be created is also incredibly large and there is no way to check who got enlightened.

I think its useful to make that distinction to avoid some language games, but its nowhere near sufficient to have an answer. If we dont make that dinstinction, then I dont know frankly what we are doing here - because all of us are already enlightened then. But the question is - Is it random, can certain things have an effect on it, and or can certain things actually cause it?

I also think that a good chunk of the confusion comes from not being clear about certain things. So for example, there is a difference between what Reality's nature is and between the realization of that nature. Realization/recognition is time related, nature isn't and both of these can be true at the same time. It can be true that reality's nature has always been the case(in an eternal - non time dependent way,) but it can also be true that the recognition of said nature is time related.

Im arguing about this exact thing with @UnbornTao and im still confused on his view. The honest answer is that I have no clue, but my assumption is that things can have an effect on it, but they dont cause it. The entailment of nothing having any effect on it seem to lead us to conclusions that I dont think any zen/neo-advaita duder would wanna bite. Cause then they give me a good reason to not let them to just freely hit me with the zen stick - let me conceptualize as much as I want, since conceptualizing has as much chance leading me there as anything else.

He actually takes the view that nothing has an effect on enlightenment, not just that nothing can cause it ,so under that view - he could literally video himself throwing spaghetti loops at the wall and have as much expectation of anyone getting enlightened as if he would do 10 enlightenment workshops.

Just use the zen stick and beat people into enlightenment.

Btw, if anyone is interested - it seems that there are some videos uploaded on Ralston's Vimeo channel that arent uploaded on his youtube. https://vimeo.com/peterralsto