Carl-Richard

He literally said between the 8th-12th.

@Tahuti He said he rented a hotel for several days. Maybe he is busy going at it still.

I or no I, I've had it. There is no me = I am everything. Same shit, just different ways of speaking.

I treat it as a synonym to consciousness as an ontological primitive, but many people (including me in the past) think of it as something like attention and a muscle you can train with spiritual practice.

You're speaking of "direct experience" as if it's a limitation. It's not. Something can only be limited in the realm of form. For example, I can't read your thoughts or see the back of my own head, because that is the limitations of these forms. But that doesn't mean that formlessness is limited. Formlessness is what makes something "be", and its potential is unlimited. It's the ground of all things. When I "experience" formlessness in a mystical experience, that is not me as a human creature experiencing formlessness. That is me as formlessness temporarily divesting myself of the limitations of the human form and seeing myself as I have always been and always will be. The body that I experience, the thoughts, the sense of existing in space and time, disappears, but I still exist, because those things are not essential to me. My essential nature is unlimited, ultimate and absolute. There is nothing inside or outside of me. Only when I take a formed existence, you can speak of limitations.

It's not accessible to it. It is it. It is isness. Whether isness is accessible or not does not change the fact that it is. This isness is in its most fundamental state boundless formlessness.

Well ok. I don't see the point of a "thing in itself" if it's not even a thing Again, I think the "thing in itself" concept is very humancentric and is bound to the reality of form (perceptions, qualities), in that it thinks of knowing something as being an embodied creature that looks out at the world and perceives a thing (subject-object), and then it postulates "what if we can't know the thing in itself?". Knowing formlessness is just being it. The question of whether you can know it or not doesn't even arise. So you're saying that something could be inaccessible to boundless formlessness? If you say something is inaccessible to something else, you're in the world of form (differences, qualities), so it doesn't really add up.

Kant was talking about principles that organize our perceptions, i.e. the reality of form. I'm talking about the reality of formlessness.

I wouldn't call it "the ultimate reality" but the most fundamental reality. Can you get more fundamental than boundless formlessness?

I guess you haven't had a non-dual mystical experience? I've experienced my body, my thoughts and sense of space and time literally disappear, and the only thing that was left was pure existence. Pure existence is not an abstract idea. It's the most concrete thing there is.

The content is limited and finite, the context is unlimited and infinite.

Distinguish between form and formlessness, relative and absolute, perception/cognition and consciousness, content and context.

Same answer for why you can't feel when he pinches his arm.

Can I have a tl;dr? ?‍?

I believe the saying is confusing Red for Green. Red co-opts and takes advantage of compassionate Green ideas and institutions when possible.

@BipolarGrowth Same ?

@thisintegrated If you keep posting AI generated shit everywhere you go, I'm going to ban you ?

Find out which type of insecure attachment style you have and work on assessing those specific problems.

I still have no idea what to do.

Some researchers describe the trend in Norway along with secularization as "religious complexity" (Furseth et al., 2019), which among other things includes a reduction in traditional and collective forms of religion and an increase in new individualistic forms ("spirituality"). So if the general trend in the world is increasing secularization, you could expect the same trend.

So the material I used came from a 2020 study which was a replication study of a 2005 study. In the information sheet of the survey, the researchers provided a very vague definition of the term religion, asking the students to take an open interpretation: "beliefs, practices and feelings that can be expressed either institutionally or personally". Then they were asked to rate their religiosity along a 7-point scale, and the free text answers were the people who didn't want to answer it in that way. The free text answers would certainly be different if instead of a 7-point scale of the term religion, the question instead provided alternatives like "spiritual", "agnostic", "Christian" etc. However, such a question wouldn't be a replication of the 2005 study, and replication studies over long periods are interesting for establishing patterns of change. My analysis will be able to provide useful information for interpreting the results of the 2020 study, because if the perception of the religion term has changed (and not just their level of religiosity), that could possibly impact the results as well.

He brought a net to the Alex Jones interview ("Net" for "Netanyahu") and started perfoming a puppet show.

No self feels like dying and being born at the same time. It's that level of profound.

It's basically done. I'll give a little background first. So again, the idea was to find a suitable definition of the term "religion" based on the free text answers provided by some of the students from the survey (12.6% to be exact), which may not be representative of the other students in the sample or the larger population. Also, remember that this is Norwegian psychology students, studying to become clinicians (not say a research oriented masters). The method used was thematic analysis, which is used for analyzing text material (you create "codes" based on the content, then you group the codes into categories, and optionally you can group those into higher-order categories). You use the categories to answer the research question, drawing on theories and other research, and in my case, I had to figure out how each category would contribute to the definition of the term. I ended up with 64 codes and 9 categories: «organized community», «vague term», «dichotomous term», «agnostics and atheists», «religious upbringing and church membership», «spirituality», « «something else» », «faith/belief», and «Christian, christian and believer». As a side note, I saw that there was a general dissatisfaction with the religion term, and that the alternative terms provided by the students (e.g. "spiritual" or "believer") may be better alternatives for describing their identity. The definition goes something like this (I've not given my final formulation of it yet, but that's more about specific phrasing than content), and I'll qualify each sentence by certainty: an organized community providing a traditionally defined framework of beliefs and practices (pretty certain). an active and involved engagement with religious matters in the present (as opposed to merely having a religious upbringing, or merely being listed as a member of a church) (pretty certain). the term "Christian" (pretty certain). a belief in a higher power or holy figure (e.g. God, Jesus) (less certain). The contenders that were excluded based on how the students described the terms and related them to religion were: spirituality agnosticism and atheism The answer to the research question isn't really surprising, but it was very interesting how only 2 students mentioned the term "atheist", compared to 22 who mentioned agnosticism, 32 who mentioned spirituality overtly, 11 who referred to "something else" (i.e. something beyond our ordinary lives), 15 who mentioned belief in a higher power, and only 3 Christians (and 1 Mormon lol).

I don't get it. Video illustration plz