And you are overly mystifying this, when there is nothing, in particular, to mystify it so much about.
This is pretty simply clear and straightforward if you want to look at its human mind core. 
Paper currency, and now digital currency, was historically first pioneered and invented by the mercantilist-colonialist nations of today, later inherited by them in their transition to capitalism during scientific-industrial modernization progress to ease, simplify, make more efficient, and rationalize their transactions amongst themselves and the rest of the world (an easier more cost efficient social convention if you will) and value anchor their trading goods and services based on demand, rarity, cost and difficulty in acquirement in their exploitation, extraction, refinement, production, assembly, acquisition, extortion or plundering across their own continents, colonized lands or the great unknowns of the scientifically underdeveloped or undeveloped parts of the world - of course, the actual precise microeconomics and macroeconomics of this in economics are actually more complicated than that (and I haven't actually passed an economics course yet to explain it accurately, precisely and properly) but this is a layman's easier to understand gist of it if you just look at it from a historical point of view, whilst not holding unto any convenient, borderline deliberately naive ahistorical illusions about the seeming randomness and specialness of money grounded in some kind of mystifying, just randomly and happenstance agreed upon etherial collective agreement or covenant. 
It's easier to propagandize and marketize to people what their wishes, desires, wants, and needs should be via some sort of currency as an easier way for them to make them come true, realize and acquire them and henceforth have a much larger pool and basis of people to exploit, use and extract surplus value from via its manipulation.
Marx compared the inherent value of money to a sort of fetishized idolatrous religious object, its value and worth being exclusively drawn from people's exclusive belief in its inherent specialness, scarcity, and borderline magical properties to materialize their needs, desires, and wishes into a tangible reality (if I remembered that one precisely and correctly ).
The fetishistic power of money, or any sort of currency. That's what's only magical there to it, people's ability and readiness to be willfully, collectively agreed fooled, and deceived to it in order to find an easier route to fit in and increase their feelings of self-worth, self-value, status, and importance amongst other conformists and normies in society in their chosen self-preservation and survival route and the willingness of other's to exploit these base needs and desires for their own benefit, social and material advancement.
Try accomplishing that with just labor vouchers, for example, not much prestige. mystification and symbolic power coming there with that, is there? Look, John, I acquired 100 labor vouchers on my social account yesterday for that successful pitch of my blueprint on the instant self-cooling mechanism suggestion for the solar panels of the solar-powered self-propelled and self-driving Maglev mass-produced public utility cars on the collective design team board, ain't I the swagger - lol .
These things have emotional imprints because of the emotional effort involved in them and the intimacy of said emotions in such, and carrying over the residual effects of that as well in the collective subconscious mind of the previous generations.
A mass mechanical and mechanized totalitarianism and rigid, collective idolatrous state funeral is the precise opposite of that said intimacy and deep self-reflection of emotions involved in that - it is a deliberate mass psychosis induction on the part of people governed over how they should and ought to suppose to feel on the passing away of one of those that ruled over them and how they ought to remember them, think and henceforth feel about them afterward after they have passed on the torch to the next one from that said ruling caste - it's an exercise of total ideological manipulation (henceforth emotional as well) on a mass scale involved on the basis of appealing to collective induced identities based mostly on feelings and needs of belonging via nationality in order to ensure the safety of the current hierarchical social order, status quo continuity, and ideological traditionalism is not broken down in this brief interlude crisis and legitimization vulnerability period when it is most at risk to be questioned, rebelled against and replaced with, once the collective emotional gaslighting spectacle and ritual is over and gone for a brief moment and period that is vowed through an underlying hanging air of fear and doubt in the background that comes with self-deluded conformity and in denial of the factor of existence of coercive, repressive state ideology and social ostracization mechanisms of the maintenance of such in it.
The Christian absolutist monarchs of the past that ruled over on the basis of coming from hereditary bloodline aristocratic ruling houses over their state religion Ancien regimes you mean, that were supposed to be inferred the divine right to rule over 'their people' from God himself on the basis of wearing a golden, jewelry filled crown that was supposed to symbolize their honoring of God's Son sacrifice and pain for humanity by now replacing a self-sacrificial mocking crown of thorns of pain with a golden, idolatrous one of glory as Christian believers that are now self-entitled to rule over and still keep 'their forcefully converted flock' in check.
A golden crown worn by a pre-selected and chosen king, queen, or person is a very materialist, overt hierarchical order oppressive power symbol epitome of bastardization and perversion of early Christian spiritual and humanistic teachings of the inherent equality, value, and worth of all human beings on the basis of all their souls being one with God in a community that comes with state-institutionalization, weaponization, and ideologization of religion as a moralistically gaslighting absolutist pre-requisite and justification of un-checked rule and domination of a select few in any given land or country.
Btw, modern Christmas and Easter as it is practiced today in most Western and non-Western nominally Christian countries was in fact a crafted assemblage of appropriated of earlier practices borrowed from pre-Christian Paganism, earlier Christanity and was (re)invented in the modern form that it mostly takes today first by traditionalist and nationalist ideologues for the purposes of state legitimizations through nationalism and traditionalism back in the early to late 19th and early 20th centuries in the Victorian and Edwardian periods of the British Empire for those same monarchies lol, in order to further legitimize and stabilize their rule at home and overseas as based on notion of existing 'long traditions', create an atmosphere of conformity, loyalty and civility around it and ritualistic traditions among the masses in the British Isles and across the Empire and its colonies in order to further ensure the continuity of the existing social order there as is, create a basis for ritualistic social-cohesion around, said long-running religious traditions and export it to other Christian states in Europe and elsewhere across the oceans also interested to create new myths, rituals, and traditions to stabilize and ideologically legitimize their rule at home back as well as Christian state religious states as official state sanctioned holidays - by incorporating also these old, revised borrowed Pagan rituals and traditions from various Pagan pre-existing religious cultures and their speculated rites in their corresponding tribal pre-Christian proselytizing and pre-nation state areas - I didn't make this up this was well documented and explained how it works in the seminal work and book 'Inventing Traditions' in the Early Modern and Nation-State period by historian Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger.

Thinking is generating a new thought you've never had before.

@UnbornTao
T'is. 
Beauty being subjective...
What is it in you that strikes you with a perception of "beauty", and how would you describe that beauty?
E.g. an overwhelming feeling of wonder, awe, harmony, balance, equanimity, reassurance/comfort, carefreeness and so on. 
And, whatever comes up for you, what might the counterpart in your lfe/being be, that it strikes a note with, and what might that mean? 
If flicking the strings of life, creating resonance within the body of the instrument, there needs to be characteristics of that body, whose make up, shape and composition, allows for certain reverberation to take place. 
You're making me genuinely curious 

@UnbornTao racial bias is common across all cultures when depicting Jesus. You can look for Chinese Jesus for example. The goal is to make him more relatable by not only changing his color, but also his ideology. Jesus is essentially boiled down to whatever the culture at the time deems desirable.
This includes the belief that Jesus was a laissez faire free market capitalist. In communist countries Jesus is depicted as a man who would make up a whip of cords and use them to chase your animals out of a temple while yelling "do not turn my father's house into a marketplace" and scattering your coins.
 An interesting observation is that the belief that we are living in the biblical end times has been a false belief for thousands of years. 10 million Americans still believe this because so long as the belief is held in the present it is unfalsifiable. Basically, the belief that the end of the world is tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow is the day aliens decide to blow up the earth.

@Leo Gura You won't know that until you read it.  For me, it has caused a deep reexamination of the way my mind works and the way I think.  Like other lenses, it brings clarity to processes that were "blurry", and then allows contemplation to reintegrate that clarity into the whole.  It does this profoundly.  The mind (and heart) of a Turquoise polymath is nothing to be sneered at--I often spend an hour on 5 pages.
Yes it's based on neuroscience and philosophy, AND it isn't.  It's left AND right.  It's experience AND concept.  It's beauty AND logic.  It cuts to the heart of holism and its relationship with integration and separation, and does so using the tools of both analytical thinking and metaphorical and lyrical and even poetic shades of understanding, and then integrates them.
Not many on this forum can challenge you intellectually, but I can.  And I'm telling you this book would help your work and help you contemplate more deeply, as you DO have blind spots (as do we all).  
Just because you enjoy contemplating "ultimate" reality, it's important to also remember there is (and isn't) a distinction between the absolute and relative.  Enlightenment and beyond points towards "truth", but the relative is also part of (and the whole of) that truth.  Paradox collapses both, and it is precisely that collapsing that this book brings much-needed light to.  I actually don't think McGilchrist is enlightened, but it doesn't matter because he's so close within the relative that there are exceptionally few points of confusion, and that's where you need to bring your own experience to the table anyway.  This is worth the time and investment, and any argument that "you don't need it" is just self-deception and fear of introducing ungrounding elements into your "view."
Live where you fear to live.
 - Rumi

Don't play language games with me. I'm talking about the human being, the subconscious and the instincts and the archetypes and the spectrums of emotion, the symbolic intelligence in all its qualitative and quantitative forms, the higher lights of awareness. Absolutely none of that---or at least no real percentage of it---can be evaluated, delineated, and copied by observing some of the external patterns it gives off.
Even if the AI recorded every single action a human has ever made, it would not be able to predict what the genius humans would do. If you fed it every single painting that has ever been painted, every single idea that has ever been fashioned, it would not be able to attain the same results as the pool from which those paintings and ideas came from. It would have impressions and mimicries of small trickles coming from the pool, but it would never be able to possess the same capabilities---unless it, again, actually became a real organism like us, actually got to our level of complexity, which is not happening anytime soon or even in this century.

Cause I care profoundly about truth and consciousness, I don't carry emotional trauma, and I didn't fill my mind with all the human bullshit that a lifetime of socialization creates. I also have few human attachments and few conflicts of interest.
The more you take human matters seriously, the more invested you are in it, the more painful awakening will be. Cause everything human is built on BS. Even human spirituality is BS. Even Buddhism, Vedanta, nonduality -- it's all basically BS designed for fools.

Help people question their assumptions and worldviews. -> Socratic Method
Help them to break their ordinary patterns of seeing the world; making insights, forming new patterns. -> Shamanism
Just being high conscious yourself and being a good reflection for them.
Help them to see beauty in things. Point out beauty to them.
Help them to see the interconnectedness of things.

I think Freud's work was brilliant. However, nowadays its outdated, imo. I think there are better things to do in the realm of depth psychotherapy like IFS style parts work approaches, and somatic approaches.
The issue with stage orange work only is that you can't break/ change unconscious cycles effectively. And, for example, if you want to have intimate, healthy relationships you often have to make changes at the unconscious level.
 

It's a bit useful but you can find much better models and teachings.
The question is what's worth your time studying? Don't waste time on low-yield material. There is too much good material out there these days.

Story Education:
Story by Robert McKee The Anatomy of Story by John Truby The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler Music Education:
Music Composition 1 & 2 by Jonathan Peters
Music Theory by Jonathan Peters
Art Education:
Art Fundamentals by 3dtotal Publishing The Illustrated Story of Art by DK

I want to create a thread with resources on how to become more cultured. Please share your ideas, insights, and resources on what it means to be cultured and how to become more cultured.
Here's my attempt (These lists merely serve as a starting point. Many works of art that you love might not show up on any of these lists):
Step One: Consume culture:
Movies/Shows to watch:
Top 250 Movies - IMDb 101 Greatest Screenplays 101 Best Written TV Series Books to read:
One Million Ratings! Goodreads.
100 must-read classics
The ten best Shakespeare plays of all time
Music to listen to:
The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time 100 Greatest Classical Music Works Games to play:
Best Video Games of All Time Paintings you should know:
Most Famous Paintings in Art History Of All Time Ranked Top 101 Greatest Paintings of All Time Sculptures you should know:
26 Top Famous Sculptures of All Time Buildings you should know:
50 Iconic Buildings Around the World You Need to See Before You Die Step Two: Create your own lists.
What do you like? Refine your taste. 
Step Three: Contribute.
A cultured person isn't just a consumer. He's also a creator.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal is to become a Renaissance man, a polymath:
"Humans are limitless in their capacity for development. This is expressed in the term Renaissance man: people who seek to develop their abilities in all areas of accomplishment: intellectual, artistic, social, physical, and spiritual."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A cultured person carries himself well:
Great at the art of conversation Great social skills Great communication skills High emotional intelligence -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of cultured people: 
Leonardo da Vinci
George Lucas
J.K. Rowling
Joseph Campbell
Terence McKenna
Alan Watts
Carl Jung
Adyashanti
When you find a work of art that you love, find out more about how it was created. Study the creator and his body of work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who has served as the Saudi intelligence chief and as ambassador to the United States has suggested that the kingdom might consider producing nuclear weapons if it found itself between the atomic arsenals of Iran and Israel. In 2012, it was confirmed that Saudi Arabia would launch its own nuclear weapons program immediately if Iran successfully developed nuclear weapons. In such an eventuality, Saudi Arabia would start work on a new ballistic missile platform, purchase nuclear warheads from overseas and aim to source uranium to develop weapons-grade material.
Officials in the U.S. alliance believe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have an understanding in which Islamabad would supply the kingdom with warheads if security in the Persian Gulf was threatened. A U.S. official told The Times that Riyadh could have the nuclear warheads in a matter of days of approaching Islamabad. Pakistan's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Naeem Khan, was quoted as saying that "Pakistan considers the security of Saudi Arabia not just as a diplomatic or an internal matter but as a personal matter." Naeem also said that the Saudi leadership considered Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be one country. Any threat to Saudi Arabia is also a threat to Pakistan. Other vendors were also likely to enter into a bidding war if Riyadh indicated that it was seeking nuclear warheads. Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have denied the existence of any such agreement. Western intelligence sources have told The Guardian that the Saudi monarchy has paid for up to 60% of the Pakistan's atomic bomb projects and in return has the option to buy five to six nuclear warheads off the shelf.
In March 2018, the crown prince said if Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon, "we will follow suit as soon as possible". This prompted U.S. Senator Ed Markey to comment "nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia is about more than just electrical power", implying Saudi Arabia was interested in nuclear power to gain the skills to be able to develop weapons. This potentially reduces the probability of a nuclear deal with the U.S.
In May 2018, Al Jazeera media reported the statement from the former director of Al Arabiya TV, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, who wrote in the Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper an article while accompanying Prince Mohammed bin Salman on his recent visit to Washington that no one can confirm if Saudi Arabia is capable of building a nuclear weapon yet. However, the news former director has pointed out that Riyadh owns uranium materials in its desert, and has adopted a plan to extract it within 2030.
In March 2019, Donald Trump's administration approved a deal allowing Saudi Arabia to access to nuclear secrets through the U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, with an approval known as Part 810 authorizations. Although it doesn't allow to access equipment required to process Uranium, it allows the 6 companies involved to keep their authorization be withheld from public release and evading the Congress about the information shared with the Kingdom.
It was also reported that Saudi Arabia did not sign up to halt the enrichment of uranium, reprocessing of spent fuel and neither signed the 123 Agreement with the United States.
Saudi Arabia constructed a facility for extracting uranium yellowcake from uranium ore with the help of China. According to a western official, the facility was built near the remote town of AlUla. Saudi Arabia has signed the most limited safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
On 17 September 2020, The Guardian reported Saudi Arabia of being in possession of enough uranium ore reserves to produce 90,000 tonnes worth of uranium. It stated the finding on the basis of the reports compiled by the Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology (BRIUG) and the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), in association with Saudi Geological survey. As per the reports, three different deposits in the central and northwest region of the country were reported to be potential for the extraction. The disclosure reportedly increased concerns regarding Riyadh’s aggressive interest in developing atomic weapons program. In this report geologists identified some reserves near the controversial Neom megacity development are and estimated that Saudi could produce over 90,000 tonnes of uranium from three deposits."
And also one should keep in mind that:
The Trump admin almost immediately withdrew at the beginning of their term from the JCPOA agreement with Iran for monitoring, capping and containing their uranium enrichment processes at their nuclear research facilities for development of possible weapons grade uranium compatible for nuclear warheads and their payloads, upon assuming office. As if they knew how the Saudi officials and their regime said they would respond in that case if Irans nuclear development program resumes no longer bound by any international legal mechanism enforcement and oversight agreements with some tinge of shared authority, legitimacy and control and being effectively now mostly uninhibited henceforth and that they [the Saudis] would be searching rampantly for needed more advanced nuclear tech for swift development of their own nuclear weapons program to keep the pace or have the advantages over the Iranian one, triggering, finding an a excuse and precursor for another fueling of a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East - by doing this needless further antagonization move to create a rushed manufactured, artifical demand for such [weapons] in order to profit-off of personally by getting involved in it directly as a facilitator of such [backdoor deals] by possibly using shady, corrupt private backdoor insurance dealings, understandings and agreements routs. 
This is what I speculate with my limited available information and by connecting the dots using some common sense logic and my limited knowledge of the existence of potential prior vested interests and conflict-of-interests involved in this case and prior dealings that this current mainstream popular perception of a major US national scandal and controversy is all most likely maybe about. 

1) You need to have a solid library already built of great music. Create various playlists of your fave music for various moods. Dancing, high energy, low energy, erotic, jazzy, lyrics, no lyrics, ambient, etc.
2) When it comes to watching movies, just watch whatever YOU want to watch. Watch things you are genuinely interested in. You should have a collection of movies, shows, and documentaries already pre-loaded so you can quickly browse through to find whatever catches your fancy.
All of the above should be familiar to you like the back of your hand, so you don't have to think or decide about anything.

Deep Simplicity (chaos theory) and Infinity and the Mind (infinity in many varieties)
GEB is great for understanding fundamental pure math ideas about the limits of logic, and it's certainly a Yellow book, but it is rigidly materialistic and misses the very heart of nonduality despite bumping its head into over and over.  He even has chapters on Zen and just can't grasp consciousness to save his life and tirelessly confuses it with mind.  I wasn't as impressed by this book as Leo, it was mostly cute cleverness and a whole lot of work.

I read this book after becoming conscious of the fact that the root cause of most of my self-destructive behaviors was boredom. I might come back later to edit these notes or add more to it. I still haven't added into these notes the benefits of embracing boredom, which are wondefully described in the book. These notes are helpful to contemplate so you can become aware of the subtly different ways that boredom can arise. In the opening of each chapter in the book there are also many nice little quotes that are good for contemplation.
"The power of boredom - Why Boredom is Essential to Creating a Meaningful Life" by Mark A. Hawkins
What is boredom?
Boredom is the lack of any stimuli (internal or external) that is engaging Boredom is the space that allows us to see through all the distractions of our modern busy lives and into the true nature of our existence (an empty space full of potential) Boredom is life’s workspace. A place and time when we can examine our lives Boredom is a survival instinct that tells us to keep working towards improving ourselves, according to societal norms and expectations Boredom is a dark basement. It can be scary when you open the door and a bunch of creepy things can be in there, but deep down there’s a treasure Boredom is the fear of the self. The self that doesn’t live up to expectations Boredom is a spiritual practice Boredom is meditation Boredom is the absence of diversion Boredom is the discomfort of restlessness As soon as you feel a twinge of restlessness, stop and do nothing Boredom is the mother of the creative act Boredom is a never-ending spiral of personal and philosophical discoveries that can be used to create a great life Types of boredom
Situational boredom: mild form of boredom when we are doing an activity that we don’t really feel like doing (like sitting in a boring class or doing repetitive work) “Full” boredom: felt when we get tired of doing a particular activity. This type of boredom is eliminated by moving on to another activity that engages us. “Empty” boredom: felt when we’re doing nothing (waiting to go to a party, waiting for a game to start on TV, waiting at the dentist’s office) Intense “empty” boredom: when there’s nothing to do in a long period of time (like weekends when there’s nothing to do, lazy Sundays) Existential boredom: very common in our society. It is bubbling under the surface of all our activity “Full” existential boredom: when we are busy with our lives, but there is very little that interests us or engages us about it (aka. going through the motions of life, being on a hamster wheel, there being no point to any action, withdrawal of meaning from everything in our lives in a negative way) “Empty” existential boredom: the most painful kind. Linked to depression, anxiety and destructive behaviors. Felt a lot in retirement. Sunday neurosis: the free time that we have worked so hard all week for becomes too painful. Here, we actually want so badly to go back to work because it will distract us from the nagging feeling that something is missing. Society's view on boredom
“Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” Boredom can be associated with laziness, lack of direction and even criminality Socially acceptable addictions (escape from boredom)
Society can even reward you for these addictions, among others:
Shopping Workaholism Addiction to exercise Compulsively filling our time with people Compulsive travel (wanderlust) Engagement in risky behaviors (bungee jumping, cliff diving, sky diving) Creation of drama Going on ideological “crusades” – defending a cause Limiting belief boredom reveals to us
Happiness is controlled by external events (The discomfort reveals how much we’ve been relying on external events for our happiness) The world is a competitive place (It can also be a creative place) Every moment of life should be pleasurable Also some other personal limiting beliefs which are specific to what societal ideals (or personal ideals) affect us more strongly personally Filling space vs. necessary activities for survival
Filling space: Watching TV Shopping Surfing the net Playing video games Having a couple drinks Reading Cleaning the room when it doesn’t have to be cleaned, etc. Needed for survival in the modern world: Going to work School Making food Having shelter Pursuing a goal, etc. Boredom vs mindfulness
Mindfulness: increase awareness of our avoidance of the now, bringing mind back to present moment Boredom: complete lack of engagement, a complete lack of meaning. Nowadays we must make a conscious effort to allow moments of boredom in our lives

Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of this translated into English, if an English translation even exists?
Thanks much, Acadia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5YBd8m9prQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs0vk092UN0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDg9ntSRGQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC2ZiPfwf1M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu-wFuDqZws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ1q07WHuOs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGYy_QKRS4c
 

There could be multiple factors at play.
Some people just have the wrong genetics Some people have naturally high tolerance Some people just took the wrong dose Some people need a different chemical than DMT Some people are very closedminded and not interested in deeply questioning reality Some people have a lot of repressed trauma Some people simply refuse the trip, instead creating a bad trip out of fear Some people only tried it once, which is not enough to get into proper tripping territory Various combinations of the above are possible.

Aftermatch , 3 days after ayahuasca or my first psychedelic. Channeled messages
Because every person lives from their own conscious reality and perspective every experience is gonna be subjective based on their consciousness and made up character from all the past experiences. It is highly likely that people are getting their own subjective illusionary experiences during ayahuasca and make a belief out of it for the positive or the negative, this way they're creating their own reality. Some belief examples: Mother ayahuasca, purging etc.  It seems that during ayahuasca the dream state which is another dimension by itself is coming up and can be experienced consciously while being aware. Ayahuasca/dmt also changes persons vibrations/signal and gets you closer to the consciousness itself or all that is atleast that's what it seemed to me. Now because everyone gets their subjective experience from ayahuasca it can work in a healing way in different ways, for example: Priest goes to your house and blesses
it from demons/ghosts because you fear them and they're in your belief system and in your actual reality because you are subject in creating your own reality but in another persons subjective reality or belief they don't exist. Which means reality is being created for each person differently and subjectively thanks to consciousness and this is why we can't declare people for crazy/sick if they have a dissociative reality that is out of the society norms, consciousness is into play here. Now for ayahuasca to be used as a healing medicine it simply has to affect their consciousness/perspective in a positive way. It's how you give a person a vitamine pill that you have blessed yourself and tell them it's a pill against headache that works 100% against headache effectively changing their belief and reality a bit for the betterment and healing.
 

? Leo's Blog: Table of Contents ? ▶️ Blog Videos, Summaries & Interviews ▶️ ? Actualized.org on Psychedelics ?  (has all resources on psychedelics)  
Leo’s “20 Dream Killers” article. There’s an Actualized.org Textbook.  It was assembled by @Cepzeu and others.  Summaries that are in the Textbook (v2) will say: (book pg XXX). You can also check out Leo’s Personal Development Blueprint.  It covers over 100 concepts in personal development.  
      Actualized.org Youtube Episodes:
The first 200 episodes have transcripts in the video section of Actualized.org If you want to contribute to this thread, select one of the episodes that still needs a summary and post it here       Episodes:      1 - 249
      Episodes:  250 - 514

@UnbornTao I suppose that depends on where you're at, since there's many different entry points depending on what your pre-existing Frame of Reference happens to be.
If you want to learn more about how paradigms work, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a great starting point that will teach you some epistomology, and is a fairly accessible read.
For another fairly accessible book that deals with epistomology, Lakoff and Johnson wrote a book called Metaphors We Live By which deals with how our embodiment frames the ways in we learn about and interact with the world.
If you already have a basic understanding of how paradigms work and at least some familiarity with meditative practices, you may find The Embodied Mind to be highly helpful.
I found it useful primarily as a way to reframe how I would approach meta-theories. While the focus of the work is cognitive science, the basic idea is broad enough to apply to other meta-paradigms.
If you're curious enough to put in the work for a challenging but very rewarding read, Heidegger's Being and Time is probably the most useful book on epistomology I've come across. But it's also very, very challenging, and not the sort of thing one can jump into without a good grasp of philosophy.

Note: this is not a developmental model, nor is it about determining which framework is better or worse.

 
What does it do?
It shows how these different metaphysical frameworks differ in terms of the trade-off between comprehensiveness and specificity, which realms they're mainly operating under (hyper-dimensional vs. three-dimensional reality), and which explanatory constraints they're operating under (mysticism vs. naturalism vs. myth).
 
Explaining the different explanatory constraints
Mysticism
- deals with methods, metaphors, anecdotes and stories that aim to facilitate the direct phenomenological experience of God/reality, and these explanations of reality are seen as a means rather than an end. There are no general guidelines for these types of explanations, only that they aim to encapsulate the nature of God.
Naturalism
- deals with analytic philosophy, the scientific method and scientific theories. The goal is to explain a phenomena by reducing it to some other known phenomena that is compatible with the naturalistic paradigm, e.g. explaining rivers by referring to the structural-functional properties of water. The general guidelines for a naturalistic metaphysics is coherence, internal logical consistency, conceptual parsimony, empirical adequacy, and explanatory power.
Myth
- deals with metaphors, anecdotes and stories in order to explain the nature of reality. For example, God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, which explains the origin of man vs. woman. The general guidelines are specific to each tradition.
 
General -> specific, and hyper-dimensional vs. 3D human realm
The first distinction is a hierarchical one: the closer something is to the top, the more general, comprehensive, holistic, all-encompassing, and big-picture it is, and conversely, the closer something is to the bottom, the more specific and concrete it is. There is an inherent trade-off between these levels, meaning you can only have so much of one or the other, but the different levels also don't have to necessarily contradict each other (although sometimes they do):

For instance, the statement or metaphor "you are imagining everything" of psychedelic mysticism is able to encompass the experiences you encounter in the hyper-dimensional realm ("my couch just talked to me") as well as those in the 3D human realm ("my friend just talked to me"), but it seems to lack more specific explanatory power for the 3D realm. The same applies to nondual mysticism: "there is no separation" doesn't really explain the apparent illusion of separation (or at least the particularities of it, e.g. "why am I able to pick up a cat and not a car?").

On the other hand, the naturalistic frameworks are tied to conventional scientific investigation and analytical standards of reasoning, and these are more able to account for specific things in the 3D realm, like the weight of cats vs. cars, technological innovation and subsequent questions like "is AI sentient?" But these again lose some comprehensiveness, in that some things are either hard or impossible to explain:

One such example is the "Hard problem of consciousness", which has remained unsolved under physicalism (but is solved in analytic idealism, but conversely, it faces the "Decombination problem" which is solved under physicalism). However, analytic idealism seems to have a plausible solution for the Decombination problem (i.e. "dissociation"), but the research around that is still in its infancy. Mysticism has none of these problems, because again, it simply relies on metaphors, anecdotes and fuzzy concepts, not analytic philosophy and science.
 
Specific -> Pseudo-specific
On a less important note, with respect to the two "Myth" frameworks on the bottom, I denoted the tendency towards "pseudo-specific" in the sense that they're both less specific and incredibly specific compared to the naturalistic frameworks. For example, while physicalism can point to things like particles, forces and phase states to explain things like rain and fire, an animist explanation would for example be a "rain spirit" or "fire spirit" for each phenomena. Merely denoting these phenomena as "spirit" doesn't tell you much about their specific properties compared to say their chemical structure, but each explanation is in another sense incredibly specific to the phenomena.
 
Why did I make this?
Because I often see what I consider a harmful tendency towards "naive skepticism", i.e. to dismiss or deny especially analytically rigorous styles of investigation (philosophy & science). I think carefully spelling out these different levels of investigation and seeing the pros and cons in a visual way can help with that. The most important point in this respect is the naturalism vs. mysticism distinction, and that in any sort of inquiry, be it spiritual, self-help or intellectual, one should acknowledge the constraints of each framework and avoid blindly choosing one over the other.

Epistemic — relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.
Naivety — innocence or unsophistication.
Pitfall — a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty.
Here is my rendition of the most common approaches to knowledge and their pitfalls. Usually, one leads to the next:

Naive realism
takes things at face value believes in one's conditioning lack of introspection It's the default mode for most people and is the most naive framework. It tries to label the world accurately, but it fails to become aware of its own constructions. These people think that their view of the world is like looking through a clear glass window, and that people who disagree with their view is either stupid or insane.
When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism:

Naive skepticism
skeptical of most claims to knowledge extremely self-critical hyper-exclusive relativism The naive skeptic is skeptical of all labelling of reality and is pulled down by cynicism and unconstructive behavior. They discard everything that isn't patently self-evident. An example is a person who goes into a philosophy seminar and asks "how do you know that?" until they get kicked out.
Seeing through naive skepticism will usually lead you to pragmatism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive pragmatism:

Naive pragmatism
"everything goes" lack of criticism hyper-inclusive relativism There is an openness to all views, but there is a lack of structure or hierarchy, and it therefore struggles to prioritize different claims to knowledge. For example, it will easily place an equal sign between pseudoscience and science (e.g. "astrology = physics").
Seeing through naive pragmatism will usually lead you to metatheorism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive metatheorism:

Naive metatheorism
takes a wide perspective has a systematic approach to knowledge becomes lost in its own grand theories subtle realism The naive metatheorist is open, critical and also realistic, and tries to synthesize a coherent system which integrates many types of knowledge.
The pitfall happens when one becomes a bit too optimistic about the universality of one's theories. You start believing that because a theory is "meta" and is able to zoom out across large perspectives (cross-paradigmatic, cross-cultural etc.), it somehow escapes or transcends the limitations of your own cultural and paradigmatic conditioning (i.e. the things that made you arrive at those conclusions in the first place). An example is believing Spiral Dynamics to be the infallible word of God.
That is of course a bit naive, and the way out is to counter that impulse with the earlier lessons of skepticism, and remind yourself that the better the model, the easier it is to get lost in one's own constructions.
 
Who is not naive in any way?
One who has experienced all of these pitfalls first-hand, but who doesn't let that fact curb their ever-expanding thirst for knowledge, and who doesn't pretend that naivety is something one can ever transcend.
 
Did anything I just wrote sound familiar to you? Be honest