Carl-Richard

I will define crypto-materialism as follows: Consciousness is fundamental (that is, Cosmic, Universal, Trans-personal consciousness is at the bottom of reality) Minds (i.e. personal, private mental states) do not interact non-locally or psychically (or their interactions are soelly bound by physical mechanisms) Subtle energetic phenomena (not easily measured by physical instruments, e.g. spirits, auras, spiritual energy) are not real: they are mental projections on the same level as thoughts and "hallucinations". They are private phenomena that cannot be co-verified by separate observers The crypto-materialist adopts a mostly idealist ontological primitive, where consciousness makes up the formless foundation of reality (emptiness, awareness), while in the world of form (phenomena, events, objects, processes), they hold on to the epistemology of materialism. In the world of form, reality supposedly works as if reality is physical, local, Newtonian, mechanistic. Information doesn't travel in mental space, only rests within it. The irony of course is that despite the ontological primitive being consciousness (and not atomic billiard balls or the quantum mechanical equivalent or whatever the cutting edge of physics postulates), somehow they believe the "products" of this primitive follow the laws of a non-consciousness or physicalist universe. The crypto-materialist has likely not yet opened their mind to all the possibilities that exist within a universe made of consciousness and has likely not actively sought out counterevidence to their existing view. Maybe your dislike for "New Agers" is based on some unchecked assumptions 🤔

Hmmm. How much of it is beef and how much of it is rice?

"Esoterify"... "esoterify"... "eso-terify".

I don't do drugs 😌

The freaks still ate food.

I don't feel like you answered my post.

I guess that includes Peter Ralston. "Genetic freaks" is a thought terminating cliché. All people go on a path. The path of devotion is a thing.

I was waiting for this comment. The choice of words for that video was perfect for the type of thought terminating clichés we "true spiritual people" all love so much

LOL. Go hug Amma.

How do you explain cardiac arrest NDEs where the brain has for all intents and purposes zero metabolic activity? Where is the physical mechanism there? How do you explain OBEs? Where is the physical mechanism? My general personal experience of psychic phenomena is that they happen to me. I generally do not set an intention for them to happen. I think this is how it generally happens for most people. Even for "psychics", their control is limited. Once your ego becomes too involved, you lose sensitivity to these phenomena. It's no surprise supposedly nobody has won the James Randi challenge (but even there, apparently Randi has refused many to participate). Here is an interesting experimental study on telephone telepathy (by my man Rupert Sheldrake). Try to find a physical explanation for this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252380718_Experimental_Tests_for_Telephone_Telepathy

You can be an enjoyer of "physical laws" without being a materialist or crypto-materialist. It's just whether or not you believe there is something more than the mere physical going on. Essentially, do you believe psychic phenomena are at least plausible (and are not always explainable by physical mechanisms)? As a starter, "physical mechanisms" would be whatever a standard physicist, biologist or chemist would consider "real" in their area of study (e.g. atoms, molecules, five sensory organs).

I don't see any ultimate conflict between mind and Mind. Between complex thoughts, there can be profound moments of silence. But you're right, I'm currently prioritizing mind. That is intentional. My entire existence on the forum was initiated by a non-dual awakening that I couldn't handle. I started using my mind in an act of desperation. And then I decided pursuing science was a way to "grow up before waking up". And five years later, here I am, using the forum as a way to sharpen my mind by expressing my thoughts as clearly as I can. And if I had stopped doing that, I would probably not be here as often.

I touched a tree right after sprinting, and it felt like my energy got sucked in, like the tree was a black hole. It felt empty, still, peaceful. Quite psychedelic experience. And as I was walking back and thought about what just happened and how it was quite psychedelic, I remembered the dream I had last night where I was picking mushrooms just on the road I was walking on and which I got high from touching the mushrooms. And then I thought "ah, what a psychedelic experience indeed". I thought about how Bernardo Kastrup thinks single-celled organisms are conscious, and then I thought then also trees must be conscious (they are also made of cells, they are organisms, they metabolize, they have a "bodily boundary"). And when in this highly energized state, it felt like the tree was conscious, touching it was like touching the arm of a person. I even felt embarassed for violating its autonomy afterwards. I then thought I understand tree huggers now, but I also thought they are like unhinged pleasure seekers violating people's autonomy for their pleasure. I also thought I was downloading some ancestral energy from the earth.

He seems to fit the term of "Liberal Christian Universalist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism

I think you're underselling how little of a "hard Christian" he is. He seems to use it merely as a spiritual tool, just like you use meditation. He just likes Christianity a lot and engages in the practices. It's like you liking focused attention meditation a lot. Now, that "instrumentalist" approach doesn't have to make him "not Christian", just like it doesn't make you not spiritual (New Age spiritual in my book).

Not sure what you mean. Of course. An exclusivist is not an inclusivist or pluralist/universalist.

This is a rule probably many Christians follow, but not all. If people call themselves Christian and they do tangible Christian stuff, that seems reasonable. It's not like the term doesn't describe anything. It describes something they do which is Christian. There are words for these different types of Christians (as well as the other models I've alluded to): exclusivists, inclusivists, pluralists/universalists. https://munsonmissions.org/2019/01/15/chapter-5-models-of-ird-part-1/

What does that mean? I call myself spiritual, I do spiritual things, you can say it's my identity, but it's not my only identity. He calls himself Christian, he goes to Church and sings songs, prays, goes on pilgrimages. It's his identity, but it's not his only identity.

Rupert Sheldrake. Here he also mentions many other examples of (sometimes leading) Christians thinkers like him ("Christian perennialists"): My bachelor advisor (and others at the faculty, particularly the guy who had us in philosophy). There is also a model (and others) that describes these types of Christian/religious people ("Second Naivete"): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-021-02367-2 https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/287180?lang=bi It's basically another formulation of the Wilberian pre-trans distinction.

Why? Such Christians exist, just like there exists closeminded New Agers.

Well, now I told you, so now you know. I have no idea what you just said.

And let me guess, those particular people you are referring to are not very openminded, nuanced, capable of taking multiple perspectives, critiquing frames, seeing the whole picture, familiar with non-duality, all the good stuff you like, and that if you were to find a Christian who possesses these qualities, you wouldn't have much of a problem with them?

Where did I say I present it as anything more than belief?

Sober? 😆 Haha. One time when I sat in the sauna at the gym, a guy stepped in and started meditating. And my thoughts stopped. Normally I'm much more prone to mind-wandering, maybe partially because that is what most people do in the sauna. That made me much more aware of how you can pick up thoughts or lack of thoughts from others (even though I already knew "transmission" was a thing, this experience made it palpable with respect to thoughts specifically). And I believe sometimes I do pick up specific thoughts from others (in the sauna and otherwise). One time in a lecture, we were about to go overtime into the break, and I had a distinct thought form in my mind associated with "break" (I don't remember how specific it was), and immediately as that happened, the most extroverted and spontaneous person in the class asked "aren't we supposed to take a break now?". That literally felt like I picked out the thought as it was forming in his mind (or maybe the class' mind) before he vocalized it. And my mind is usually very silent and focused on the lecture, so when any seemingly unrelated thought pops up, it's very noticeable. Another slightly annoying thing is that when I'm in a class where people don't seem to grasp the subject very well, I can feel it, and my mind keeps trying to take the perspective of the person that doesn't understand. So I have to parallel process their perspective and my own 🫠 Gives new meaning to "you're as smart as the people you hang out with" 🤣