Carl-Richard

They could be at the right moment in their life where they are open to a non-dual epiphany and whatever they seem to be doing in their life doesn't really seem to be making them feel fulfilled anyway and they make that connection. The transition to non-duality is always in a sense orthogonal, so throwing it at almost all and any situation could be warranted based on that point alone. I discovered non-duality when I was extremely dysfunctional and you would've probably argued I needed some kind of standard psychological intervention/teaching instead (and I was actually looking in that direction prior to that), but that didn't seem to change the fact that my life became quite different after that point.

Sometimes the best advice is the one you didn't think that you needed Again, you're assuming a lot about each individual situation. Non-duality can be quite helpful. Or else he probably wouldn't have spammed it at seemingly every opportunity he could. I personally like to pretend that entertaining people's delusions about them asking the correct questions that deserve an answer is a worthwhile game to play most of the time. But some don't.

Haha woah 🫨

Non-duality is in this weird in-between position in that it could be simultaneously very helpful and not depending on how far you want to go for it. And it can actually help with quite a few many things. That's why you can throw it at things endlessly. And that can be annoying if you're not receptive or you keep seeing it being thrown at people and they're not receptive. It's not like there is a Search function on the forum or you can look through Nahm's posts on his profile or anything. He has over 20k posts, surely you'll be able to find one problematic thing that you can support your "suffering" argument with.

Yes, Ulax gave a hypothetical. But we're talking about Nahm's actual statements, correct? So maybe we can talk about some of those. As for the hypothetical (and I'll show you why hypotheticals alone aren't always so fun), I actually don't think that hypothetical would be the biggest sin depending on the situation. If there were 10 'practical advice' comments and then Nahm turns up and drops a non-dual bomb (n-bomb), I probably wouldn't care very much, depending on how it's done of course. And we're actually assuming getting a job is necessary and that having a non-dual epiphany and perhaps joining a monastery is out of the picture. Sure, again, it can be annoying that it doesn't seem to directly answer the question, but that's 'annoying'.

Ulax giving that hypothetical might've been Ulax's point but when I interpret you p-hacking in your discussion tree, that's highly annoying for me. I didn't even address his point so I don't know what you mean by "intellectually analyze your way out of". Hypothetically, you can give non-dual advice in a way that is harmful, yes. Anything particular you had in mind?

What a p-hacked statement. The initial statement was "giving life advice". Now you're assuming they're in some kind of dangerous and unstable situation, when "life advice" also obviously includes things like "should I say this on a date?" or "should I buy this non-stick pan or this other non-stick pan?". You're loading emotion into the argument and now you made it seem more significant than what it was initially when you brought it up. If you want to talk specifically about that particular scenario (giving non-dual advice to "suffering" people), feel free to pull up actual quotes and we can judge rather than you playing a p-hacking game for your amusement.

And what's your position on the issue?

There is saying non-dual things in response to asking for life advice, and then there is actually giving bad life advice. If he did give non-dual responses when people were asking for life advice (and I think he did that), yes, I think that can be annoying. What is even more annoying though is having a real life practical back and forth with a person and then they suddenly jump to non-duality for some reason, or they try to delegitimize your argumentation by using non-duality. I believe Nahm was benevolent in this way, in that he didn't use it as some defense mechanism or escape hatch in an argument. He just genuinely from the get-go reminded you of the non-dual perspective and left it at that. And it's not like he pestered you with it constantly in a thread, was my impression. He would usually leave a comment, short, sweet, and that would be it unless someone engaged. The way things are done is sometimes just as or more important than what exactly is done.

I predict your definition of "religious people" is not very well thought through.

Elliott will now look up two statistics and three quotes.

Thanks Freddie Mercury. Oh wait, you're on my ignore list 🫢 🤫

"Yo ego is reacting to this post yo" ✌️🫱🫲🫰👏🙌🦆

Alien grass? Show us where the alien touched you. We'll meet the alien and touch base. Being social, grounded? What about being alien, elevated? A Lion can be an aLien if you wish hard enough. Wish on an alien star on an alien planet.

This form of argumentation is called meta-argumentation and it never addresses any substantive points being made but only goes for describing general traits and characteristics that can apply in a thousand different situations. I don't engage with that because it's not engaging with the conversation in any meaningful way that I can learn more about this particular situation rather than hearing things I've heard a billion trillion times before.

Well then 'heil Hitler bitch' I'm a full on Nahmzist ✋️

The only friend I made along the way was an imaginary friend with Down's syndrome telling me it's ok to be dumb in a forum filled with absolute drooling reta- I'm sorry: schizotypal otherwise mentally functionally average thereabout outstanding citizens of a 'not-a-cult' i.e. a 'new religious movement' which is the same as a cult but you will get banned if you say it's a cult. Last time I use the word "cult", I swear, swear on my cult-Bible. Plz no ban mr. Leonidas. And yes: warning to not talk about the contents of the video and use your mind too much because you will risk ending up as a banned member of the non-****/NRM forum. 🤐 And I'm actually being serious about that; read the last PSA thread.

When Sapolsky says schizotypalism => cults, everybody cheers. When I say it, everybody loses their minds. And if you say it now, you will get banned. Funny situation we've gotten ourselves in.

Take 1mg of copper and you'll feel like an unstable twig. Not sure if that makes you feel like a woman. Copper is associated with increased estrogen levels and lower testosterone levels. Zinc is the opposite. By the way, don't overdose on copper, it can be toxic.

I got more value from Nahm's post than anybody else on the forum. I was shocked when he was demoted.

There is a pre-trans way of critiquing science, as with anything. Both pre-trans with respect to your own knowledge of the topic and also the people you're labelling as supposedly stupid. Many people think all religious people are stupid. Yet you'll discover there are smart religious people and that it's more that stupid people are stupid. That can come from deepening your understanding of religion or just finding people who are not "stupid" and are religious. You can also find stupid atheists, as well as smart ones. Same with science. It's easy to label all scientists as stupid once you get a taste of something else. But then you might discover that there are scientists who share your understanding and that those who seem stupid are stupid people in those clothes. "Scientist" in the sense of "scientism" is not the same as "scientist" in the sense of "scientist". Just like a religious person is not the same as a dogmatic literalist fundamentalist who knows no alternative. Try asking what Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, Rupert Sheldrake, think are the limitations of science. They are scientists, yet I will confidently bet they will give an answer that is not just on par but 10x better than Leo. If you don't know something deeply, you don't know its full limitations. You can be blind to it by immersion, of course, but even granting that, these people I listed I will bet you a lot of money dwarf Leo despite that. You can spend 20 years contemplating what are the limitations of a wooden structure like the Kon-Tiki and you will miss all the knowledge you'll only get from sailing it across the Pacific, or heck simply getting an education as a carpenter that can build it.

Anyone wanna join my new religious movement (NRM) thread? It's not a cult (That's a joke, the thread doesn't exist 😃).

Dw babe, I understand. 🏃 Specifically "babe" as pronounced in this clip:

51% of scientists believe in God and/or an universal spirit or higher power. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ "But scientist doopid" 😛