SOUL

Leggo my ego....

This is problematic, too. Suggesting it's an illness like cancer which further demonizes people and actually perpetuates racial bias. Let's seek to transcend it, not just flip it around or change the roles of it. We can attempt to expose it and resolve it without creating another obstacle to overcome in doing so.

I ate so many mushrooms that even my ego believed that it doesn't exist.....and tripped out at the realization.

We're all stage brown....haha

Peace in knowing there isn't TRUTH... it's all bullshit, just ask Leo, he'll tell you.

You have awakened and are now enlightened to the endless conceptual 'truth' beliefs of self anointed 'enlightened masters' who point a finger at other's ideas and chastise them as 'beliefs'. Hehe

That's all brown. Although, what is something to be aware of is the effect of having a 'moral law' duality mindset on our well being. Does it cease self suffering and lead to well being or not? Everything else is just brown.

You are stuck in stage brown Oh yea, stage brown for sure. Baha

What? That makes no sense, where did I say it's only due to corruption? That's rubbish man, I said no such thing, haha. No, it just means ratios are all over the place and there are many variables that contribute to them. Pareto aint no Fibonacci or fractals but people wave it around like a magic wand on anything they want. See? Haha. Hey, whatever man, 70-30 or 80-20 that's close enough, right? Any numbers work for Pareto if there's a point to be made, huh. Those dam lazy leftist ants!

I prefer not to view it as two 'sides' because that is a dualistic mindset but many people do including JP and they frame their morality in a theological duality of good and evil. The one side wants to be intolerant of others diversity of just being who they are and call those others evil as they call their own belief good based on just belief and maybe some book. That strange part is this side for many centuries have perpetrated intolerance by demonizing, ostracizing and terrorizing any others motivated by just their belief against those who didn't believe as they do. They still want to so this and do whenever they can. That's kind of what bigotry is defined as, is it not? All the other 'side' wants, the ones they think are evil and want to discriminate against is to not be called evil and be discriminated against. They just want to be who they are without discriminating against others because of anyone's belief. Is that bigotry? Are those 'two sides' even equivalents? JP is trying to wrap that ancient theological duality in the political clothing of ideological opinion to obscure that it is belief based bigotry. Mixing in scientific sounding anecdotes to lend an air of objectivity to the metaphorical stories sort of like creationism for pop psychology. He keeps on perpetuating the faux theological duality that creates bitter vitriolic divisiveness.

It isn't 20% of the ants do 80% of all the work, it's that 20% of the ants are working at a time... but they mostly all do work, not just at the same time. It's not that 80% of the ants do nothing at all and live off the other 20% so he's distorting the fact to fit his belief paradigm and his propaganda. As far as property ownership and income distribution that isn't only 20% working or willing to own land while 80% are not, it's an example of a small percentage of people manipulating the system to their own advantage and to disadvantage others. It doesn't imply that the 80% aren't working hard, just that they aren't getting paid as much for their labor and is a result of the previously mentioned economic and societal manipulation. Similarly that crime breakdown isn't an accurate reflection of how it plays out in reality. Out in the real world it's 20% of the people who get prosecuted and convicted or crime because of social influences, not that only 20% commit crime. There's plenty of people who don't get convicted of crime but surely commit it. Steal food to feed your family and go to jail, steal the wealth and homes of millions get a bonus and a bailout. The Pareto principle is most relevant in randomized circumstances not ones that are purposefully influenced even if those similar ratios are found. It may be that this principle is the reason ants randomly express their work patterns that way, but JP's conclusion about the fact is flawed and application of it equally erroneous. There definitely is something to it in some distributions but there are countless other examples of distributions that don't fit those ratios but since they don't fit aren't included because they don't confirm the idea of the principle, not that they don't exist. This is one of the reasons I view with skepticism whenever it is invoked without other variables considered like JP and others do. It's just confirmation bias. But yes, of course, completely ignore his repressive ideology propaganda in favor of focusing on a small 'fact' one thinks proves him 'right' so then implies everything he bases it on is 'right', that's the JP defense mechanism of his minions. So, 20% of the people spread 80% of the bullshit and 20% of his words are fact, 80% fiction.....lol. Only 20% of the time it fits the Pareto principle but 80% it doesn't. Heh

This is a belief. Diversity is universality. How would you enforce this policy of non-initiation of force on a society? What if someone doesn't want to comply with volunteerism and wants to compel or coerce others, how would you stop them? This is debatable. There is no authority to judge 'non-dualism' and 'spirituality'. Seems more like you just adopted other people's ideas from videos, books and debates and didn't form your own. Keep delving because this 'libertarian utopia' ideology you've adopted from others is problematic and unrealistic.

Then why does he worship at the psychological alter of and preach a regressive ideology as a universal 'truth' for everyone?

You are being too generous to him when he wouldn't be as generous with you and isn't as generous with those he views as ideologically different from himself. He's more like 5% fact, 5% generic self help trope and 90% ideologically driven propaganda. He takes a little fact, a little common sense and then distorts the fact and advice to fit his belief paradigm preaching that it is the 'truth'. As an example he cites a study about a variety of ants that showed that only 20% of them are working at a time. He then distorts this fact to suggest that this is like how in humans only 20% produce everything and the 80% who don't do anything are evil cultural marxist commies who want to take the hard work of others and redistribute it. Yes, only 20% of ants are working at a time because of efficiency is actually fact but how he uses it is a distortion of what really is taking place that he weaves into a narrative to support his ideological propaganda. He's mastered the 'contemplative academic' posturing which he uses to disseminate his regressive belief system as you have correctly identified about him. He constantly does this with animal studies and behaviors by distorting and transferring them to his ideology about how he believes that humans should be living. He popularity stems largely from him tapping into the emotional and mental vulnerability and anxiety of people who want a societal paradigm that had previously entitled them in it that now is changing.

I like both of those guys but how they discuss topics is so different. In Rogan's environment they don't unpack ideas and explore them because as soon as something is touched upon it's only superficially addressed. Then he bounces from point to point superficially and it winds up on Kardashian's ass talking more about that than the meaningful topic. Brand does explore topics a bit more but he's so magically minded and metaphorically inclined that the topic always gets turned into a psychedelic referendum on the universe. So these two in a conversation seems like it's follow the bouncing ball all over the place but then trying to suggest it's some 'universal truth'. Entertaining sure but goes nowhere.

That's the nature of expanding consciousness, so that awareness is present in the moment even while the monkey mind is occupied with daily work. Yes, it's easier to do it with simpler tasks and as the tasks grow more complex it can happen that awareness gets distracted from presence and collapses into getting consumed by the mind's tasks. Exercising consciousness in a way that allows awareness to stay present in the moment and the monkey mind's tasking gets consumed by presence so it is lifted into an awakened expression. Instead of the monkey mind distracting away awareness from presence so it gets consumed by the veiled expression of the unawakened.

Do you realize you and enlightenment are full of shit? It's all bullshit.... just ask Leo, he'll tell you.

So what makes the moral objectivist's morality objective? Just saying it is doesn't make it so. Science doesn't provide an objective morality so using it's objectivity as a guide is still subjectively applied. Any number of discussions found on youtube will clearly show there is no universal interpretation of the facts provided by science that offers an objective criteria to derive morals from so is relativist. Few moral objectivists will rely on science and instead say their 'God' or religious book provides the standard for it. So, then, which 'God'? Whose book? Which parts of who's book since some do claim it's only part of the book that's the right standard. Some even say it only applies to just some people in certain circumstances and differs depending on those circumstances. So both science and religious beliefs give relative standards for morality, then how can we even begin to apply it? From this it is that all morality is relativist and it is simply someone trying to impose their own morality beliefs on others. There are no objective morals so JP or anyone else is just ignorant or hypocritical in their assertion they are morality objective.

Oh look, another JP thread where his haters and cucks come out in droves which is like every time he's mentioned ever. I avoid his stuff not because of the content or ideology but because as I listen to him I can feel the conditioning oozing out of him filled with intolerance and misery. So even if he has valuable insights in his words, it's bathed in monkey mind suffering that makes it an obstacle to bringing well being.

According to what the topic starter says about enlightenment, they themselves aren't enlightened. Circle complete.

"I am enlightened.......ask me anything" Haha!

That's me when I come to this forum...haha

Liberation is freeing awareness from the attachment to self identity... although it is as simple as it sounds but it's not as easy as it is simple. Hehe

In my experience liberation didn't come from insight. The body creates a sense of self and that is expressed in our psychology as self identity. Don't think it does? Smash your toe really hard and find out if you feel it, I bet it does. That shows the body is creating a sense of self without you having to do it, it's spontaneous. Does your mind recognize it as your toe and not the toe of someone else? This is through the mind's psychology attributing it to you and not someone else, it's creating self identity without you having to do it, it's spontaneous. The body spontaneously creates a sense of self identity... it's a naturally occurring phenomena. How can one trust the 'insight' that is filtered through self identity as genuine if one has no experience of liberation and is still attached to the self identity? This forum and spiritual communities are filled with people going in circles of insight and understanding without even freeing themselves in liberation.

There is no inattention, that's part of the false perception of duality. Awareness is aware, it's just a matter of what is the awareness/attention on? Is it on being present or is it on all the self identity/movement stuff?