Carl-Richard

Sam Sulek echoing the principles of holistic lifting vs reductionistic lifting. Moving a weight cannot be reduced down to simple commandments. You have to develop it by doing it and feeling it out. The church of science-based lifting is what bible-thumping intellectualized religion is to ass-to-grass embodied spiritual practice. And you also have to be aware of your goals. Are your goals improved mood, improved focus, is lifting something fun, do you want to maximize performance, do you like performing at your max, or are you simply about maximizing pounds of meat on your frame? Working out does not just affect one thing, people extremely rarely only do it for one thing (and ideally, you do it for everything.

What kind of degree?

What's your IQ?

Not music related, just a steaming hot man 😜

God created The Architect, but who created God? 🤔 Checkmate theists, I'm an edgy atheist now.

You can load "this" with whatever assumption you want to force a fake sense of closure that favors your perspective. But if you actually ask me, "this" might involve anything and everything that might possibly exist or could ever exist, hidden or immediate. But from the absolute perspective, I can't say one way or the other. In that sense, I'm not a solipsist.

Shut up, you have no experience. NPC speaking to me, pfffft.

Enlightenment is the strategy. Use every challenge for what it is. The loneliness you feel, that is what you need to understand and learn. How does loneliness work? What thoughts create it? What creates thought? Can you let thoughts just be what they are?

🤭😉

At first I'm like "hmm", then I'm like, "the second body guard looks directly at the first one while he is doing the supposed signal, then he looks around, steps forward, and does his supposed signal". Hmmmmm.

A bedroom separate from other bedrooms doesn't make sense in a non-dual reality. Any moment separate from any other moment doesn't make sense in a non-dual reality. Right at that point where you mention the bedroom, you jump from the absolute to the relative. Again, this is inescapable when arguing for solipsism. The absolute-relative conflation is mandatory (if you want to call solipsism absolute). Go read the rest of my last post to get this point re-iterated.

Meanwhile in Norway, Labour Party leader hugging far-right Progress Party leader after election victory (and prime minister at the end: "I haven't had the need to beat anybody; I have had the need to win trust, and that we have": https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOXiuuSipBl/?igsh=d2p4NWk3Z3k5c2w0 Leader of Labour youth party and Progress youth party joking around between shoots (probably slightly cringe if you're native English speaker): https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdbGfE3P/ Leaders of youth parties joking around during joint interview: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdbGpfWt/ Even if American politics is an absolute shithole right now, it can get better, I say from my national-identity-mediated high horse.

What evidence does Leo cite for this?

Most Schuldiner Schuldiner solo ever: 2:15-2:41

Solipsism is not necessarily true. Consciousness is necessarily true. Treating awakening as an escape will come back to bite you in the ass. Because awakening is no joke.

Just 20 seconds of staring at a wall can have a drastic effect on your awareness. But if you want deep results like awakening-type experiences, 1-1.5 hours in one sitting is the sweet spot imo (and of course practiced consistently, at least once per day).

No Sarah mentioned in the article?

I don't see the point you're making. What if the entire universe of form were to end? You would have no form. Yes, and? If you want to collapse the distinction between simultaneously and "one at the time" (essentially you create an infinite singularity), then you can do that, but then it makes no sense to say "only my bedroom exists", because it's the same as saying everybody's bedroom exists. There is no difference between your bedroom existing right now and somebody else's bedroom existing at some other time. Everything that will exist or could ever exist, exists. You seem to want to collapse the distinction, but then you also want to favor the "one at the time" one? It seems like you're almost getting it: you need to collapse all distinctions to get to the absolute. But if you want to start favoring one over the other, then you're back into the relative again.

We're in a situation here in Norway before our election where both the most Right-leaning parties as well as the Left-leaning parties claim to be in the best interest of the common man, of the low earners, students, etc. And it shows that the thing about politics is you can always tell a story. For example, the Right says that cutting the wealth tax benefits businesses which creates more jobs which reduces state expenditures which means you can decrease taxes more and it's a snowball effect. On the other hand, the Left says keeping the wealth tax means you can use that money on for example lowering employment fees which increases hiring and more people get into work which reduces state expenditures which means you can decrease e.g. the employment fees even more and it's a snowball effect. But whether one story is actually better than the other, has to be tested, and then you can decide based on the data. But the problem is that a state is not a science experiment where you can have a control group that isolates the effect of an intervention. And if you let one administration test out their politics and it fails, they will always blame something else: "ah the world economy, the war in Ukraine, the Covid pandemic". So how does one get around this? Are there indeed better arguments for keeping the wealth tax than cutting it if you are rooting for the common man? Or is the image too complex? Also, are there arguments for keeping the wealth tax "in principle", before you look at the data?

@Basman Good that Støre won then. Seems like many of the right-wing voters panicked when the far-right Progress Party were on route to taking the prime minister position had the right-wing won, so they voted Støre instead. So four more years with Labour Party but also with four smaller parties in coalition ("tutti frutti coaliation"), including MDG which I voted. MDG passed the 4% threshold for the first time which is big, as they get many more mandates that way. Also, all the smaller parties are big on green politics, so they might start moving things that way.

Justifying your laziness, that's your problem.

You lost me.

No? All of reality is not limited? Why be this flaky? A limited part of reality is in that particular configuration. The particular figuration is the limited screen of perception, Maya, a product of your limited existence, both your human existence and everything in-between. And for all intents and purposes, all you can know is it's your limited screen of perception (that's the solipsist inclination). But it might very well be that there are multiple limited screens of perception, and also a big screen co-joining all of them. Because implicit in the concept of limitation, there is multiplicity. But that's an inquiry into limitation. "All of reality" is still limitless. "But in that moment", that's the "right here" in your linguistic equation, the regressor signifying limitation. Whichever way you choose to solve it, you have to use a word that signifies limitation, or else you cannot hold on to a solipsistic argument.

He said he was too lazy to Google it. And he also wants to quit smoking 🙉 Roughly 10% of smokers manage to quit in a given year (and roughly 2/3 of adults who have ever smoked have managed to quit). Being in the top 10% of something, that's like getting a B on an exam (in my country at least). It might take some work, and it might be harder for some than others. But simply envision yourself as being in that top 10%, decide that you are in that top 10% and you will do what it takes to be there.