Carl-Richard

😂 There are actually so many times he has had this super confrontational and reductionistic attitude of like "no, it's actually just this, and if you disagree, you're just being ignorant and unreasonable, and that's fine, we're all human sometimes" about a wide range of topics, it's like a character trait at this point.

I attended this one live:

Interesting point? What was it? 🙈

🤣🤣🤣

That's like four levels of logical error at once. My head.

I have nothing against breatharianism. I have something against how you defined the levels. As for the legitimacy of breatharianism, even within a materialistic paradigm, you can have increased efficiency and behavioral modes within a system that would lower requirements for things like food. For example, if you have a very low resting heart rate, you are generally calm and not very stressed and you do things in a very consciously aware and streamlined way (like when practicing "active mindfulness"), I wouldn't be surprised if you needed only half of the food of somebody else of a similar size. The one time I spoke on the radio, I was starving a few hours later, probably due to the adrenaline. And definitely if you add on top of that a very "inactive" lifestyle where you maybe only sit and meditate for 12 hours a day (which certainly if you're in a samadhi, is also the most efficient way of "resting"), you probably don't need much of anything for days. And let's also not forget that somebody who weighs less of course needs less food by default than somebody else.

Even in that situation, I would probably not present something undigestible to someone. If someone is able to digest something, it should be obvious. But maybe it takes practice. I remember I used to always talk about whatever I was interested in without considering almost anything about how the other person related to it (which is actually described as "autistic thinking"). Then I deliberately spent a long time trying to only talk about things that were highly relevant to the other person's interests (and skills and capacities). Now I'm very acutely aware of how someone will handle something when talking to them. And over time, as I run into people who do exactly the opposite (and some who are indeed actually autistic), it becomes more clear that this is exactly what I did and that it worked. Yeah, duh. The only time I've talked about idealism with someone else is when we were in each other's company for a couple of hours.

Bumblefoot is the most natural, forward-moving (dynamically) and intuitive-feeling guitarist I've come across. Everything feels like he just instantly grabs it from the ether with no plan or thought. So many guitarists make it into a neurosis. This just flows effortlessly. No pretense, just presence.

Don't. Keep yourself as simple as possible and you'll fail at even that. EDIT: I only read the title. If somebody asks me "what do you think about sexism?", I don't know how to answer that. I don't think it's a question you usually get asked (feel free to expand on what you were actually asked). It's more the case that you talk about something and the topic of sexism comes up and they spin their story and then you just give a thought related to it. It doesn't have to be "the deepest most amazing" view, that's not what pops up in my mind. When you usually talk to people, your mind naturally tunes in to their level, unless you feel some kind of drive or compulsion to share something else. And if you do and they look at you sideways, it was probably not for the right reasons. In a conversation, the focus is really always on what the other person needs or wants or thinks. If you present something way outside their wheelhouse, you're not really tuned in to the conversation. Just do whatever "feels" right. If it feels icky to present them with some odd view you have, don't.

Whaaat?

A.k.a. intermittent fasting. Soylent drinkers and protein shake enthusiasts rejoice. So does anyone. I would say step up the definition game for this one.

Glimpses of awakening. Keep going and they will happen more frequently until you can't stop them from happening. Then you'll see if you can really handle it. But then it's also too late.

Weed addiction is much more sinister than addiction to caffeine or nicotine.

What is a physical law? Here is an insight I had about gravity (an "original" insight): People often say gravity is not a force but an acceleration. But when I jump off a 10 foot diving board, I don't feel like I'm accelerating as if I'm sitting in a car that is pumping the gas (there is no feeling of inertia). I just feel like I'm weightless, in free fall. But still, my speed relative to the ground is increasing by the second (m/s^2), so I am indeed "accelerating" relative to the ground, but there is still no feeling of inertia. So what is more accurate to say is that when you're falling towards the ground, the ground is accelerating towards you rather than you accelerating towards it (but that is also not accurate if acceleration requires inertia in some part of the system, because the Earth certainly doesn't experience inertia either in that case). And now I just realized that the reason they say gravity is not a force is for the same reason that I experience inertia in the car but not when jumping off the diving board: When you are acted upon by a force (which can be expressed as "Force = mass x acceleration") and it causes you to move, you experience inertia. But you only experience inertia when moving relative to your own reference frame ("inertial frame"). The fact that you experience no distinction between the ground accelerating towards you and you accelerating towards the ground when jumping off the diving board, is because they are equivalent with respect to your reference frame. And not coincidentally, The Equivalence Principle states "there is no difference between an accelerating frame of reference and a gravitational field". So when accelerating due to a gravitational field, it's actually your reference frame that is accelerating, i.e. the thing you use to judge whether something else is accelerating, which is the same as experiencing something else accelerating towards you. Holy shit Einstein is a genius.

Wow

Now I'm actually unsure if you're actually Max. I'll stop derailing the thread now ☺️

100% Mr. Girl.

You're like Mr. Girl with conduct disorder.

He had one intrusive thought.

No. Absolutizing, dichotomizing, catastrophizing, Blue thinking destroys your life relatively speaking.

It's said that 1-2% of the population is Tier 2. Let's say you stumbled across this forum 6 months ago and you started learning about Spiral Dynamics, and now the concept of Tier 2 seems to make a lot of sense to you. It seems very wise and noble and all that. That said, you only started learning about the model 6 months ago. Advancing through a stage takes decades. Let's say you have spent 5 years on this forum and Tier 2 seems to make more and more sense to you and you notice that your understanding of it has deepened over time. Still, advancing through a stage takes decades. And maybe you realize that there is more to come and that you maybe didn't understand it all that well before when you had just learned about it. People on this forum come from all over the world. Let's assume you're at the stage where 40% of the world population is at, the most populous stage: Blue. That's still an optimistic estimate; "being average". You can be either above or below that. But let's assume you are above that: Orange is 30% of the world population. If you are not below that, it seems increasingly likely that you are within Orange. Put in another way: 90% of the world population are in or below Orange. Now, if you are above that (if you are Green), you are in the top 10% of the world. Let's assume that you, an average guy, is in the top 10% of development in the world; a true Greenie. Phew! Now... are you a part of those who just recently stumbled onto Green, or are a truly mature, deeply steeped, aged and refined Green? Did Green even seem familiar to you when you first learned about SD, or was it something "those other people" did — those "hippies and New Agers" — and that you had to "go back and integrate it" in order to "transcend it"? Maybe Green is something you have to grow into for the next decade? "Who knows?" Anyways, there are probably fewer numbers on that, but let's assume that out of the top 10%, the first 6% are new Greens while the top 4% are mature Greens. So, let's assume you are at the top 4% of development in the world. Now, and really only now, do you have a realistic chance of "stumbling onto" Yellow and truly resonating with it in such a way that you will develop towards it in actuality, and not just adopt a low-resolution, stereotyped, Temu.com version that everybody can parrot off after reading the first Google Images result they see of those graphs made by Wilber and maybe some knock-offs neatly explaining the model. And that's you developing towards Yellow, which yes, takes decades. Maybe in a decade, you are truly in the top 1-2%, in Tier 2. Unless of course, you were always in the top 1-2% and Yellow made perfect sense to you, Green seemed almost boring because of how familiar it is and the decades you spent there, Orange is of course perfectly integrated into your bones, having had a long career within that world, and of course Blue lies at your very foundation. If this does not sound familiar, if you have the even slightest doubt that you are a "Tier 2 thinker", most likely, you are not. "But how can that be possible? Tier 2 seems so cool, I can speak the language, I can list off the qualities, I can parrot the talking points, I know the authors, I even do psychedelics". Well, while that might be true, and while that might even help you develop, anybody else who has known about these things for 6 months, or well, read that fancy Google Image graph, can do the same things. The starting assumption that anybody should have; despite how many Actualized.org videos you have watched, despite how many hours you have spent on self-development, despite how intellectually curious and open and intuitively and holistically-minded you think you are as a person; is that you are not special. And to say that is not pessimism, because you can give whatever complicated sounding argument for how you truly understand Yellow, and it will change nothing, because I am willing to bet you have virtually nothing to show for it. Virtually nothing in the real world reflects it. It's only on paper, only in ideas, not integrated, not a part of your environment, not a part of your daily work. And if it is, good for you, but even then, you can have the 6-month Temu version. Even if you disagree with the specifics or indeed think that I'm too pessimistic, this has become more clear to me as I've met more people and spent more time in different places: that these ways of thinking that many call "Tier 2" are firstly nearly everywhere if you just know where to look (e.g. in many places in academia), that people are able to take on these ideas and present them clearly when you would otherwise want to say "oh but you're just a normie", that when people come across these ideas and start to wield them, they do not change much, it's mainly the words that change and maybe some learned behaviors that ChatGPT could teach you in a 5-bullet point list. True development is not about words, not about regurgitating talking points you have memorized, not about how many videos you have watched or even books you have read (although they can help), but how much you have lived. Life is where development happens; the theater of your mind and anything else is secondary.

I want a Stage Beige jungle shaman that believes she is Coral and tells me assertively that I'm Orange and should work on my income streams.