Carl-Richard

You're justifying being uncivil with calling civility a human bias, but uncivility is just as much a human bias. It's just a more pathological form of human bias. If you've fully unshackled yourself from your human bias and are able to choose how to behave when interacting with fellow humans, why choose the pathological option?

It's depends on your epistemic criteria. If you take what is immediately known as the only valid epistemic criteria, you'll be more likely to conclude that there is nothing else than that. If you on the other hand take include the soundness of observations and logical inferences like you do, you'll conclude that there is probably something else than what is immediately known. The problem the "immediate experientialists" have is that we don't use daily language that way, which is why they end up sounding insane when they have to deny basic things like the existence of other people, or a past and a future, at the same time as they're saying things like "you will understand this once you awaken", which contains the very concepts that they're trying to deny. This is made even more confusing when people disagree about what the immediate experience actually entails (how it functions), or how to talk about it, but of course, the most confusing thing is when these people don't acknowledge that they've merely chosen an arbitrary epistemic criteria while claiming that they're absolutely correct in all cases. This is like you say obviously not true, because what about including the criteria about things you don't immediately experience (the unknown)? This is why it's important to qualify your truth claims by stating your starting assumptions, unless you like coming off like a closeminded fundamentalist.

(Just a late-night rant): Destiny never fails to give me the uncanny valley creeps when he starts trying to justify his views on animal ethics. It makes me question his integrity in general, how he can so confidently hold on to something that is so contorted and vile. Actually, you know how libertarians say they're against the government but then go through all these mental gymnastics that just ends up producing something equivalent to a government in the end? That is how I feel about Destiny's "ethical egoism" framework. It's not grounded in what it says it's grounded in. It tries to artificially cling on to a set of presuppositions (egoism) while it handwaves the true underlying values (care for others). It's not even psychopathic, just autistic: anti-social in both senses of the word, lacking in emotional awareness, and a surface level sense of integrity ("consistency"). An overemphasis on consistency is just a tool for hiding a complete lack of grounding, the true meaning of integrity; full self-transparency and having integrated all the relevant aspects or faculties. Destiny is lacking in his emotional faculties, and that is guiding what he considers to be relevant, which explains his psychotic philosophy. This is basically the whole problem: he tries to make egoism compatible with a society that is not based on egoism, hence the mental parkour.

Well don't.

No.

Yet here you are — making distinctions between awareness, visual appearances, sound and physical stimuli.

I came up with a little song about vitamins while I was sick (please bear with me). It goes like this, but I'll replace the word "vitamin" with "solipsist" for this special occasion (please imagine Zack de la Rocha singing it to a funk metal beat, really enunciating the single letters): Feel free to insult me

Holy shit that is some Sam Hyde shit lol

You can point to exceptions, but when you get to furthest ends of the extremes, the exceptions get rarer. That is what I said. The demeanor has to do with their quality as a person. That is what I said. True.

Easy: one entails transcending your limited egoic struggles, the other entails screaming at people because of your limited egoic struggles. But again, these are gliding scales (as I said, it's highly generalized; "newly awake" is still "awake").

Because I don't believe awakening to be a symptom of psychosocial pathology.

I'm really not denying the underlying message he is trying to communicate. I'm mostly concerned with how he is going about it (the aesthetics and the ethics). I'll repeat my two main prescriptions here: 1. if you're going to make distinctions, make good distinctions or don't make any (a.k.a. solipsism is wack). 2. If you're going to help people, actually consider their needs and not just your own (a.k.a don't call people idiots).

I'm going to sound like an absolute dick-o here, but be careful taking spiritual lessons from somebody who has openly stated that he awoke just over a year ago. A year in spiritual time is nothing (that is not a non-dual joke, but a literary device) ;D I'll give you my highly generalized but very frank take on things: the most awake people, are not here. The most awake people who are here are not obnoxiously loud about it. The newly awake people are very loud and/or unstable and/or confused. Everybody except the newly awake people don't like it.

I'm referring to the activity of transcending your humanity

It's one of those cool cross-cultural things you can engage in

I doubt you make a distinction between perception and consciousness, but I'll say it anyway: Your bubble of perception is an illusion. Perception is limited human bias. Consciousness is beyond your bubble of perception.

8 threads a day?! I post like 3 threads a month ? It's obviously that which people are reacting to. Creating a thread makes you the center of attention, and you usually harp on the same point over and over again. Besides, if you want to talk about deception, insisting on using averages is exactly that, as it evens out the nuances

But you have to be careful when you say that, because "God" and "ego" are not the same concept. After all, you're calling them different things.

But you see, you're making distinctions between the personal and the transpersonal all the time yourself, e.g. "you don't see" vs. "God always sees". I'm just pointing out this distinction in the realm of choice.

See the progression from thrash metal to djent

Two days ago, after travelling with a plane, I went on an evening walk, and I noticed I wasn't wearing enough clothes, but I figured "meh, I haven't been sick for a full year, and I'll only be walking for 10 minutes, I'll be fine". Then I woke up the next day with a sore throat. You know what I will not do again? Take evening walks without wearing enough clothes. Now, did I choose the entire causal chain of the universe that lead up to the point of me going on that evening walk and being a bit daring with my health? Of course not. That was God's will. But can I choose to not do that in the future? Yes of course. Or to make it even more clear: I both did and did not choose to take that underdressed walk, and I both will and will not choose to not take such walks again. Again, these are different notions of choice. You can say that one encompasses a more contracted personal level, while the other encompasses a more expanded transpersonal level.

Both of your guys' perspectives are valid. You're just getting caught up in semantics. It's true that you do have some degree of control (one notion of control) over what happens to you, and it's also true that everything is God's will and that nothing is in your control (another notion of control).

That's from the perspective of your current life. You'd be surprised how easily you can adapt to new habits if you just try. I believe there are virtually no limits to what you can get used to.

It's the threads.

Because of your human conditioning and bias ?