Scholar

Are you agreeing with Ralston here? To me it seems like a dumb take, especially when one day we will most likely just plug in and be insta-"enlightened". It seems to me like Ralston has created a duality between world and mind, action and awareness, which is simply not there. Isn't enlightenment just a specific Isness?

You do realize that it being the warmest August on record means that it was the warmest world-wide, not in every single location on the planet. That's not how climate works. You are confusing local weather with climate.

Would you include people themselves too, who actively deny climate change, or just the industries as a whole? Do you think there should be consequences for people who consciously acted in their self interest despite knowing of the impact they have on the climate?

I don't think we are claiming that we are aware of the Truth, just that we are aware of the path. I am in no rush to reach the ultimate Truth, I enjoy discovering stuff on the way. If I just went full non-dual instantly I wouldn't be having the insights I am having. This particular topic I thought gave the opportunity to try to communicate valuable insights into the unfolding of duality. I think, whether Leo wants to or not, people cling to his frameworks. They do not have the awareness, so all they have is the framework. They would say Framework "Idealism better than Realism" while not recognizing the underlying mechanisms at play. And recognizing, being aware, of the magic that is happening right at the interplay between dualism and non-dualism, so to speak, is just amazing. Why would we not talk about that? Being unaware of it is in my opinion "one step further away" from Truth. You can have insane experiences just by questioning or looking at some of the fundamental aspects of Isness. I feel like it's different from ego-work, but it is still very valuable, because it gives one a glimpse of the magic, if one can truly see it. To me often it feels like we are being rushed, we are being forcefully pulled towards "Truth", and I think then we get a lot of people talking about stuff they never themselves discovered. I prefer a more natural evolution, a path that is filled with curiousity, not a need to be at the finishing line as fast as possible. I had the best progress personally whenever I would blend out the knowledge I have about non-duality, and when I would just follow things that I was actually curious about.

That is because the only meaningful thing there is is meaning, one part of Creation is Meaning. Nothing matters and Nothing matters. Nothing redness.

You can also say "Reality is an infinite world". World and mind are the same, there is no difference whatsoever. You just prefer using the word "mind" because you have preconcieved notions attached to mind and world. It stems from how you looked at the WhatIs prior to awakening. For example, you had a conception of consciousness in relation to brain in relation to world. Fundamentally, you could have framed it simply as whatisness or worldness. It's literally the same as framing it as mind, just calling it a different name. To use the word mind without it's relation to worldness is as arbitrary as using the word world without it's relation to mindness. In the end it's simply whatis, it has nothing to do with what people understand as mind or world.

What I speak of is not Truth, it is different from it, but it is still mind blowing if you were to recognize it. Also, the way you frame everything is only one way to frame it. Saying "You are it" is thought, saying "Everything else is finite" is thought. Redness is not Finite. Redness is Redness. Redness is absolute. The problem here is that you still confuse your sense of meaning and value with different dimensions of Isness. Awakening is as meaningless as Redness is. However, Awakening can manifest meaning. But so can Redness. If you have never truly recognized Redness for what it is, and for how impossible it is, you will obviously not see what I mean. Reducing everything to the most core non-dual Truth and denying dualistic truths is in my opinion a trap. What you are doing here is basically like going to the surgeon while he is operating, telling him that he cannot capture Truth because it is mystical. In what world is that helpful. Every single person here is aware of the concept of Truth Leo has been teaching us, and how to get to what it is pointing at. It's not helpful to just spam it as if it was a solution to every conversation we are having here.

The way how to "get" this is by going in some weird sense "meta". It's like there is the conceptual (the realism/the idealism) and then there is the Conceptual. The Conceptual is more of part of the way reality is perceived rather than merely how we are thinking about. It's like the "structure" of reality, even though that might not be a fitting word. It just has to make click, and once it does, you will get so frustated because people just won't get it. You will be pointing to it but they will confuse your words, operating on a different level of analysis. I got to this point by questioning and inspect the most common sense things there are, like roundness. What is curvature? Actually inspect, look at the existential nature of curvature. What the hell is it? How can it even exist? What is the feeling of roughness? What the fuck is it? Do that with all things you call perception, and at some point everything will reverse. That which you have framed to be perception is actually the substance. It is literally existence, it is literally reality. And it is impossible, it's literally impossible. Think about some of the senses you have. Taste, Vision, Hearing, Feeling. Notice how radically different the. How absurdly weirdly different they are from each other. I mean, how different is Feeling from Vision? It's like impossibly different. What if you never had vision? What would that mean? And then it will strike you, holy fucking shit, there are literally infinite "senses". And that which one calls senses is LITERALLY what reality is made of. There are infinite more "senses" that are completely different from all the senses you are experiencing. They are all so radically different as each of your senses are to each other. So foreign you could not possibly imagine. That is literally what reality is (atleast as far as Maya goes). It is fucking insane. This kind of realization will blow your mind, you will get a real sense for how fucking weird reality actually is. It is so weird, one cannot comprehend it. Once you see this you will immediately know that everything you were telling yourself was bullshit, this is beyond thought. You will get a really spooky sense of how impossible this is. What you viewed as most common, as most self-evident, what you thought to be so insignificant that you did not even notice it before, it will now seem like magic. Whatever is the cause is beyond all comprehension, it is beyond all intelligence. To create the color red takes as much intelligence as to create all of the universe. Intelligence is really the wrong word, it is almost insulting. Calling it Infinite intelligence is limiting it. It's more like Incomprehensible Creativity. I mean how can it possibly do this? How can it create Redness where there has been no redness prior? From what did it create Redness? How could it create, from something that was not redness, Redness? This is insane, it is literally impossible. Think about it, when you create something, you need parts. You need to take the parts and develope something from these parts. But you cannot create Redness from parts, because you would require red parts to create redness! This is what this Creativity can do, it can Create beyond limitation. It can create so radically that it can create things that are uncreatible. It can create that which cannot even be imagined. Ask yourself, how could you possibly imagine a completely different sense without ever having experienced it? This is what is happening, even though it is impossible. Then there is an aspect of interconnectedness. Look at the rawness of these senses, of these dimensions of realness or isness. Look at how what is going on is completely, insanely, hilariously ridiculous. How in the fuck can there be THIS? Chairs, trees, cakes, pebbles, moons, literally anything. It's fucking insane, it literally is insane. It's the weirdest thing ever, and we take it completely for granted. We don't even question it. How come we can explain the motion of the universe with math? It's fucking magic, I mean literally. Math is magic, just like redness is. The fact that all of this is so interconnected, the fact that there can be understanding, that there can be logic and everything else. It is magic, I don't know what else to call it. Look at the physicist, the philosopher, the biologist, the surgeon, the plumber, the computer scientist, the prostitute, the artist, the musician. Look how deeply immersed they are in creation. If they were to stop and reflect upon what is going on, they would know that reality is impossible. That music is impossible, that physics is impossible, that nature is impossible, that philosophy, plumbing, computers and sex are all impossible. They are literally magic. And yet, none of them believe in magic. They ALL study magic for a living! It is fucking hilarious, it is a cosmic joke. Each and every one of them literally studies magic, they make a living off magic, yet none of them believe in magic. The greatest magic trick is to be so immersed in magic that you do not even recognize it anymore. Somewhere along the line of these realizations you will recognize naive realism, beyond it's mere conceptual framework, is much like vision or feeling simply one dimension of reality. And it is an important one, as it allows for this to happen. It is not understanding, it is literally a way reality expresses itself so as to play in the way it does. We wouldn't be talking if the magic of naive realism wasn't part of our "perception", or in other words, if it was not a dimension of Isness. Think about it, how can a cat operate in world if there was no difference between world and cat? For catness to be there, there needs to be worldness. This is different from non-dual work, as it is more of an recognition of duality. It is not about understanding Duality, but about the Substanceness of Duality. Once you really see the magic, you will not even need to doubt the most common sense view of reality anymore. The scientist discovering the outside world? Sure, why not, it's all magic anyways. Discovering this feels like that:

No. What-Isness Consciousness = What-Isness Materialism = What-Isness Both the idealist and the realist confuse ideas with What-Isness. You idea of consciousness has a huge load of crap attached to it, much like the idea of materialism has a huge load of crap attached to it. However, both of them are What-Isness. My entire point is that you "Idealist"/"consciousness" framework is just as valid as the "realist"/"materialist" framework. This is what you cannot see, because you have attached you notions of consciousness to whatisness. You still believe in subjectivity, in experience, in consciousness. But these notions are as misguided as the materialists notions. What is is simply what is, they are not consciousness nor material. However both consciousness and material are the same, Whatisness. Stop assuming that I am ignorant and consider for a second that you might be missing something here. You idea of consciousness is not What-Isness. The idealist is just as "wrong" as the realist when he is not enlightened. Idealism and Realism are just two ways of looking at that which is. But both the idealism and the realism are PART of Whatisness, they are not above it. The realist, even prior to enlightenment, cannot point to anything but Whatisness. EVERYTHING that can be possibly pointed to IS and MUST BE whatisness. There is no exception. The realist, whether he is conscious of it or not, cannot talk about anything beyond whatisness. Therefore the realist is pointing to Whatisness. His description of the material is pointing to a SPECIFIC aspect of whatisness. This is fucking mindblowing, it's literally magic. The unconsciousness is WHATISNESS, it cannot escape it. This is the genius of the magic that his happening. The materialist cannot point to anything but whatisness. And yes, the materialist is pointing to something very important. If you go truly Meta on this, you will realize that the materialist has literally created and altered reality, he has literally created truth. It's fucking insane. Just that it's not the materialist that is making the magic happen, because he is part of the magic. If you believe the materialist can believe that there is something other than consciousness, than your notion of consciousness cannot be whatisness, meaning that whatever notion of idealism connected to consciousness you believe in is necessarily delusional. Consciousness is everything, even the concept of "outsidedness" is consciousness. And the concept of outsidedness actually exist! It is so important and fundamental that we would not be having this conversation if it wasn't there. It's just as real as anything else you believe in, literally. Just consider that I am pointing to something profound here. Reflect on the "You cannot point at something beyond consciousness", and reflect upon what the materialist actually means when he talks of consciousness. Also do the same to your notion of consciousness. I am telling you, there are minds to be blown, it will be wonderful. We are not arguing semantics, I am pointing to something that will blow your mind if you see it, I promise you. Again, if you believe someone can believe something being "beyond" consciousness, then your notion of consciousness has nothing to do with Whatisness. You need to reflect on that, I promise that if you do, you will see what the realist is doing. It is fucking magic, literally.

The problem with calling it idealism is obviously that you seem to put some validity into that framework, as if it was revealed as truth after Enlightenment. What you call Idealism, you might as well call Realism. Why name it idealism?

I don't think what you are doing here is fair. You are reframing what we are talking about. This conversation was specifically about the frameworks of Idealism vs Realism and which is more rational to adopt. I don't believe any of the two can be more rational to adopt, because they cannot be grounded. It is faith in either case. And in the case of enlightenment, both of these frameworks become the same, they become descriptors of the absolute. From that perspective the realist is failing to recognize that when he talks about material, he cannot talk about anything but consciousness, because consciousness is being itself. The realist cannot be anything but an idealist, that is essentially all there is. This reframing is important because realism is actually amazing. At that point realism and idealism are just two ways of looking at the same thing. However that still has nothing to do with the original conversation. You can't just take idealism to mean enlightenment, how is that fair?

When I say that you do orange or green things, I don't mean that you are orange or green, but that you are using these aspects of the spiral. I don't care what stage you or me are at, all I care is about what was being said. I think absolutistic relativism is a problem that a lot of people on this forum have, where everything becomes relative and they basically just use that to justify their positions or undermine the positions of others. I don't care whether they are blue, turquoise, yellow or red. There is a balance to be found between acceptance and passion, and while it is preferable to embody both, I don't think that we can go around and give that advice to people who simply are not at the stage to be able to do so. I do think your perspective is valuable, I just feel like we shouldn't take it so absolutistic. In the end, whatever will help progress is where we need to be.

First: It is not nitpicking. If you cease to create a framework, you will recognize that Idealism and Realism are the same from the perspective of What-Isness. They are both basically descriptors and aspects of whatisness. They are, in essence, themselves two dimensions of Whatisness. In my opinion your prefence of Idealism over Realism is due to a fundamentally ignorance of what Realism, from the perspective of higher consciousness, truly is. I would recommend some of Ken Wilbers work and his 4 quadrant models. Grasping it might help you understand what I am doing here. I refuse the notion of experience and subjects. I know very well what these words are marking, but that has nothing to do with the validity of Idealism vs Realism. In the "eyes" of Isness, they are both the same, literally. Second: I don't think anyone who believes in materialism will find the argument of using OC to establish the existential nature of existence convincing. I don't see how that is rational. Please don't move the goal-post of this topic, it was specifically about Idealism being the more rational position to assume, not which position is in the end true or not. Third and Forth: I don't know what to respond to, I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't believe in necessary truths of any kind, because the source is irreducable. I am not here to defend realism, but to show that neither idealism nor realism contain Truth, but that they both are part of Truth and that both have useful applications. Don't forget that realism is not merely a mental framework that people came up with, it is literally the way reality is perceived by humans. You cannot escape it by just adopting idealism. If you do escape it, the impossiblity of realism will blow your mind. It literally is magic, and it is happening right now, despite you creating fancy frameworks to deny it. @Consilience Alright, if you do not want to engage with what I am saying then I guess we can leave it at that.

Read the what I responded to the other guy. I am not an epistemic realist nor an idealist, to me both positions are essentially ungrounded and in the deepest sense non-sensical. You are viewing idealism from a materialistic lense, as you have a notion of experience, which in itself contains a seperation between What is and Subjectivity. You are attributing to What Is some sort of Experiential Nature, which is unfounded. If you let go of this distinction however, both the notion of idealism and realism become two aspects of What Isness. They will both become equally redundant. A Realist simply can make a distinction between the contradictions and groundless axioms in the most existential realms, and claim that these contradictions only occur there. Sure it's groundless to assume that, but it is just as groundless as assuming anything else. This is the very problem with your Idealism framework, you refuse to admit that you have created a framework that is just as unjustified.

Firsty, the problem is that you are already framing it in a way that is unsubstantiated. You already claim that "What is" is experience, not "world". Why is "What is" not direct world? Where does the whole experience framework come from, how is it evident that anything is experience? It is what is there, how come you are able to make claims about what that which is there is? Secondly, why is occam's razor relevant in this? Why is it a good tool for establishing the existential nature of reality? Occam's Razor, after all, is a rule that was established from empirical data based on a materialistic framework of reality. We are operating far prior to that, far before we can even get to establish whether occam's razor is a valid way of establishing truth. After all, occam's razor is not some sort of divine rule, it is simply a principle that seems to be useful in investigating the likelihood of something to be true or not. We are talking about something that goes far prior to the phenomena of the world in which this principle was established in. If we go by this standard, then ultimate solipsism is what you should believe in, completely devoid of any framework whatsoever. After all, by claiming that there is direct experience rather than simply what is, you are adding parts to your theory. How do you substantiate that there is such a thing as science or materialists if by OC it is more likely that it is all simply what is, a groundless dream? And how do you substantiate the existence of OC, when once it is out of direct experience it cease to exist, because after all there is nothing outside of direct experience? Just not thinking about OC means it doesn't exist, therefore it could not possibly be a principle to follow. Infact, any principle you will establish will only exist and be valid as long as it is an object in experience, as it could not exist anywhere outside of it. How do you get passed these issues?

I know the video abrakamowse, but I think it is far from an indepth philosophical analysis of naive-realism. If you were to show this to a philosopher who does not reject Naive Realism it will hardly convince them of the opposite.

You have been posting your critique not under some militant vegan post, but in a thread where we had a very civil discussion about veganism and it's effects on the environment specifically. I don't see that as very helpful, and I do view it as a knee-jerk reaction. Again, stage green excessive relativism can very very harmful and that is what I see in the way you are communicating your message, especially because you are doing so in an environment which was the opposite of vegan "extremism". The loving, accepting and understanding "non-vegans" is an approach that is effective but limited. Again, to me this is the stage green "trying too hard to find consensus" pitfall. There are many, many people who the "loving and accepting" approach does not work at all, infact they will ridicule you for it. Look at examples like Vegan Gains who had a huge impact on getting stage orange people into veganism with his very offensive and quite militant approach. Sure it will not convince everyone, but it will convince a very specific type of person who will certainly not be convinced by some lovey-dovey approach. Don't forget that stage orange will ridicule stage green no matter what. The more "loving and accepting" you get the more like a foreign entity you will feel to them. A huge thing about getting to a new stage in spiral dynamics is that it requires relatability to the new ideas. A person who is between stage orange and green will have a much easier time to convince stage orange people of veganism than some stage turquoise monk who accepts and loves everyone. They don't vibe with each other, their energies are far too apart from each other. This is why someone like Joey Carbstrong can get really good results with prisoners and criminals, because he himself was part of that. If he transformed into a stage green hippie, he wouldn't be able to relate to these people at all. Again, in my view you are showing signs of stage green pitfalls, not of systemic stage yellow understanding. What do you understand to be a militant vegan? Do you have examples? Is it really a big problem in the vegan movement? What if you are biased in the way you view and accept progress? Maybe you simply dislike the different approaches and because you are less familiar with them you do not see the effects they can have on convincing others? Don't forget that the "militancy" or the more radical views can have different effects than just convincing "non-vegans". It can also be a great tool to mobilize and create movements. But I urge you to once more reflect upon whether the "militant vegans" really are as big of a problem as you seem to be indicating, and whether or not most vegans will not agree with you anyways.

First we need to establish which axioms have to be taken on faith contrary to the position of idealism (or from a position that talks about directness of experience and so forth). Does idealism possibly require it's own axioms to be held? Where exactly is the contradiction between naive realism and the tools of rationality? Why is actual direct experience the most objective point of view, and how does it falsify naive realism?

Then why do you have a problem with Naive Realism?

What you are showing here is a stage orange, multiplistic point of view. Live and let live, freedom of choice, everyone should mind their own business, disguised as a stage yellow perspective which does not actually contain a lot of love. From a perspective of universal love, we will accept the ego-mechanisms in the vegan movement if they are necessary for a transition into a world of less suffering and less environmental destruction. We will accept cultural clashes because we recognize it is part of a natural evolution and transition into new cultural norms. Relativizing the perspectives to the degree you do does not create progress, it hinders progress. Identity and ego are needed and a vital part of cultural transitions. The world will not go from stage orange to universal love. What will be required is a universal identity, that identity will not allow the exploitation of animals as much as it does not allow the exploitation of human beings. Again, if you were truly consistent, you would have to accept that human beings are being murdered, that we should be accepting of the lifestyle of serial killers. You are not, you are using this stage yellow facade to justify a lifestyle which contributes to harm and suffering, which contributes to egoism and selfishness. Creating a strong identity towards animals is a step towards a universal identity, it is a required, it is something we need to build upon so one day we can truly let go of it. Stage yellow will recognize this, stage yellow will use the tools needed to help the world transition from orange to green without demonizing the perspective of stage green, which is what you are currently doing. The perspective of stage green is that it is wrong to kill animals for the reasons we currently do. From stage green, the exploitation of animals is not a personal choice, it is not a choice of lifestyle, just as much as human slavery is not simply a "point-of-view". Human slavery is discrimination, it is causing suffering, it is viewed as injustice. It is not merely viewed as another valid perspective to see the world. Without the strong ego attachment towards all of the human race, we would have never abolished slavery. We would have continued to keep black people in chains. What you are doing is the opposite of stage yellow. You are not accepting and loving towards the perspective of stage green. You are putting them down, you are viewing them as lower than your "universal love" perspective. You view your perspective as correct and more useful than theirs. "No vegans, you have to calm down, you have to be like me. You have to be accepting of meat eaters. You have be loving and patient." Yellow would see the value in the ego attachment of vegans towards animals. It would see that it is a necessary step towards the continuing abolishment of needless suffering and death. You would seek to encourage green, you would praise someone like Earthling Ed for his empathetic approach, instead of making statements about movements you seem to only know of by the presentation of stage orange critique of it. Vegans are in most cases are very empathic and understanding towards meat eaters, but due to our compassion towards animals we cannot value the perspective of the meat-eaters as much as the perspective of the animals. Our more universal compassion does not allow us to stand by and be satisfied with the status quo. Fundamentally, the meat eaters are directly undermining the perspective of other beings. They are directly contributing to suffering and death that can be avoided. I think your current position is more of the pitfall of excessive relativism of stage green than it is systemic stage yellow understanding. Veganism is growing rapidly, I think currently they are doing a very good job. By your understanding apartheid should have never been fought against because "Love and understand everyone". That is not how the world works, don't project your higher point of view onto others, especially when it might not even be a "higher" point of view.

Can you demonstrate how Occam's Razor is useful in this case, and how it leads us to assume Idealism to be more likely?

Why do you think believing in idealism is more rational than believing in naive realism?

He is not a vampire, he is just anti-science and is digging his own grave. The sad thing is that his daughter has convinced the entire family to go carnivore, and his mothers kidney cancer certainly did not benefit from a diet that is heavily burdening on the kidneys. Gojiman actually made a good response to the whole carnivore thing they are doing, and why they probably are struggling with eating vegetables: But Jordan Peterson and his daughter think they know better, they are spreading dangerous misinformation to thousands of people.

I-ness is a very specific thing. It is identification. It is a very specific form and dimension of reality. I is not all there is, "all there is" is "all there is". There can be something without anything that is "I". Nothing belongs to anything. All dimensions of reality are irreducable. Any mental framework is based on contradictions such as "X=Y". Notice how you are doing that, and how you are seeking to do so. You ask what something really is, where something really is coming from. All you really need to do is hold still and look at that which is. WYou still believe that "Coming from" is something else but a limited dimension of reality. Inspect "coming from-ness".