The Crocodile

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    988

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Crocodile

  1. Posted

    3 hours ago, Elliott said:

    In another thread a guy kicked a dog trying to bite him and he feels terrible.

    What happened was he walked onto somebody else's property, walked up to a golden retriever with the express intention of interacting with it, then when it went to interact with him he started kicking it, it possibly fought back, and he kicked it until it actually seemed to be dead.

  6. Posted

    12 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

    Is this all based on your direct experience? What is this experience that you are having right now? No!!!

    Whatever your ideas are, are false. What is this experience that is happening to you right now? Look around you. You don't know what this is. Period. Start from there. What is this awareness? Pay very close attention to what's happening directly in your experience. It's difficult to do this because your mind won't shut the fuck up. You take the voice to be who you are if you get down to it. What are you? Are you your name? Really question what you are, also question what other is and what reality is. All these spiritual ideas sound juicy but we must not put the cart before the horse.

    Dude, THIS is not your direct experience. You're just a Leo cultist.

  7. Posted

    2 hours ago, Leeo_SA said:

     

    How could it be possible that I know that?

    I would have difficulty explaining it without you objecting, because it goes against the spiritual dogma that "the present moment is the only thing that's real".

    But I'd say just try to approach the truth from all perspectives, and that solipsism isn't right because you can also view everything as outside you, not inside.

  8. Posted

    13 minutes ago, cetus said:

     From the movie Dune, Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam questioning Paul Atreides 

    Q: How do you see future events before they happen?

    A: I have visions.

    Q: Do all your visions come true?

    A: No. But I know which ones will. 

    * I've never forgotten that scene because it's so accurate.  

    very good quote

    I'll remember it from you, not the movie.

  9. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Leeo_SA said:

     

    When you start with solopsism, you need to be 100% truthful: You never ever experienced something outside from yourself, outside form you perception. Do you understand that? EVERYTHING around you could be fake. EVERYTHING. The only thing you can be 100% sure is, that something (you) is perceiving.

    No, he's done that. He's just realized it's not true. He's realized The Absolute is not limited to that at all and never could be.

    You could know that stuff exists outside of your current moment, given that the current moment ten years ago is a different thing, is a different emanation.

    And through paranormal means you can directly connect to other people's bubbles of experience.

    Quote

    EVERYTHING around you could be fake. EVERYTHING. The only thing you can be 100% sure is, that something (you) is perceiving.

    No, it exists in a context.

  10. Posted

    @strangelooper You are right. Leo was just very stupid on this issue. You could say in The Absolute "neither solipsism nor non-solipsism is true". 

    Solipsism is a wrong belief caused by the belief you have a physical body, or the delusion your current bubble of experience is the only thing in relative reality when relative reality obviously has more stuff in it, so any spiritual experience gets wrongly interpreted and perceived to be "ultimate" by the level someone's at.

  12. Posted · Edited by The Crocodile

    19 minutes ago, zurew said:

    Also I dont know why "naturality" is brought up, whats the relevance of what is natural and what is not? Its a loaded and vague term and it is often times used either in a meaningless way or it is used in a loaded way where it is assumed that everything that is natural is automatically good.

    Case closed. Socialization being "natural" does not mean humans require it.

    Quote

    So when a given data can be accounted for by multiple different hypothesis , how do you disambiguate between them and how do you check which one is the case?

    A rock you're looking at is not a hypothesis. God is not a hypothesis.

    Quote

    Yes really, there are multiple people who claim to see spirits and some of them are absolutely miserable.

    If the reply is that those are not real psychics then thats not gonna be interesting because thats just gonna beg the question. 

    There may be anomalies. Someone can have anger or sadness while experiencing real magic, but there's an underlying bliss always. It's not the suffering endemic to how people live nowadays.

    The type of magic I mean they'll be gazing off into fully visible other realms, energies, and be in a totally heightened nonlinear perception that includes this one as a single perceptual point. Not that they're "visualizing" or fantasizing spirits. That's the distinction.

  13. Posted

    2 hours ago, zurew said:

    Thats one hypothesis, but there can be a lot of other hypothesis that can explain the data of "seeing spirits" without concluding that it was natural incliniation. 

    It's not a hypothesis.

    Quote

    Because seeing spirits is compatible with being miserable and with suffering. 

    Not really, suffering is a result of not having real magic.

    The modern state of socialization is not natural at all to humans.

  17. Posted

    41 minutes ago, zurew said:

    What do you base that claim on? It seems to me that a person growing up totally by themselves would be just as likely (if not more) to get obsessed with survival and to not care about spirituality at all.

    They would be able to perceive other worlds and entities, because they never would have "grown out of" their monster under the bed or Santa Claus phase, nobody to decondition them from it. And they would have less of an internal dialogue, so their perception would be less stunted and less limited.

    The survival we had hundreds of thousands of years ago hunting, exploring, and camping is actually more conducive to seeing spirits. Because you're not fretting over all the horrible personal problems you have in your life and grievances with society, you're not pretending to understand reality using the intellect or science, you're just existing and discovering things. You just go into the forest, and the forest spirits are there.

  18. Posted

    https://www.dacapopress.com/titles/al-jourgensen/ministry/978030682464

    In it he talks about how he was having sex with a girl in a wheelchair and started squeezing her coloscopy bag. Also having sex with ostriches.

    @Leo Gura You have to get this book.

    The origin of the group's name is uncertain. One story claims that the name was the result of the original lineup participating in a night of extremely heavy drinking which resulted in a bar owner throwing the drunk group out and calling them a bunch of "revolting cocks."

  20. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

    Yes, it's probably possible to survive and "thrive" as a retarded non-verbal savage.

    Dude, you seriously need to turn off your internal dialogue. Like right now. Too noisy. There are post-human stages without internal dialogue. If you removed the internal dialogue you would go into a post-human state of being, and would too have superior understanding of what the human and pre-human even are. Nonlinear perception is better.

    That's why I said if a child grew up without being socialized out of mystical and magical experiences and without being lineated into a single fascistic perception, the child would be gazing off into other realms and interacting with entities and energies which are of a far superior plane. And there's no contradiction between this and human psychology and human biology.

    Quote

    Ramana Maharshi, who's writings culminated in a famous book with the foreword written by Carl Jung, is retarded?

    I don't think he wrote much. You're probably wrong and thinking of something somebody else wrote about him.

    Quote

    Sadhguru, who runs one of the largest voluntary organizations on the planet, is retarded? Ok.

    Yes. He's a conman and a scumbag, and a pretender.

  23. Posted

    1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

    And those children are being brought up in a warm, prosocial home with loving parents that feed them and teach them how to speak, walk, etc.

    Humans do not need to know how to speak.

    And sorcery could be very cold, to someone that values "a warm prosocial home". That's just how it is.

    Quote

    But they will be retarded. Show me a retarded yogi.

    ramana maharshi sort of

    I would say sadhguru but he doesn't count as a yogi.

  24. Posted

    51 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

    Try putting a baby out in the forest by themselves and see if they become yogi.

    Many children have magical and mystical experiences but are conditioned out of it.

    If a child grew up on a planet with no other humans or animals they could probably only become a yogi, because they wouldn't have anybody to condition them out of their natural capacity for perceiving unacceptable things.