Carl-Richard

I don't think it's an interesting question. I would rather know which stages you're working on integrating. For me it's been Blue for the last few years, and lately I've started on Red and even Orange (certainly more Orange the next couple of years).

Ted Kaczynski

The methodology itself might've been conceived through an intuition on the part of some genius many years ago, but the application of it is different. It's like following a recipe for a pizza. When you made your pizza, you didn't conceive the recipe through your intuition. You just followed the recipe, and the result is a pizza. When it comes to "scientific objectivity", it's the very application of the methodology that makes it objective, because it's not your methodology, and the very reason you're using it is so that you can filter out your biases. Sure, choosing a particular methodology involves a bias, but choosing a methodology is implicit in the "scientific" part (there is no science without it).

Ok, but you surely agree that relying on a structured scientific methodology is different from relying on say intuition to arrive at a conclusion? So the scientists in question have found a way to eliminate some (but not all) of their subjective influences on the situation, in so far as they're able to get generally the same result irrespective of who is doing the observation/experiment. "Scientific objectivity" refers to that thing.

What do you call it when different scientists repeat the same experiment under the same conditions and get the same result?

I'm hinting at repeated observation and experimentation. The more you're able to establish regularities, the more you want to call it objective. That said, scientific objectivity is never absolute. Science is always embedded in a context, and its objectivity can only be judged relative to that context. This applies to every level of the scientific process: methodology, data collection, data interpretation etc. For example, you could claim that Spiral Dynamics has established certain regularities of human development, but within the constraints of its metaphysical and methodological assumptions like psychological essentialism and developmental stage theory, the data collection constrains of WEIRD bias and Clare Graves' essay methodology, the data interpretation constraints of thematic analysis etc.

I feel more and more that the attempt to translate across realms (from experience to language) feels inherently dissatisfying. It doesn't give justice to the experience, and it corrupts the language. On the other hand, when you're working purely within the realm of language (like in philosophy or science), you maintain some sense of stability and coherence with the rules of the game. With non-duality, it feels like you're actively trying to break the rules and almost desecrate them. I feel at some point, if you value the precision of language (certainly of that found in analytic philosophy and science), you sort of have to choose one: will you speak the language of precision and rigor, or will you speak the language of non-speech and metaphor?

They can also be thought of as extremes on a continuum. Ego <---------------> Reality The ego is meta-cognitive structures built upon cognitive structures, built upon perceptual structures, built upon consciousness (reality). The longer you go to the left, the more you want to call it ego. The more you go to the right, the more you want to call it reality. However, "in reality", they're interconnected (non-dual; not-two ).

How does the human observer discover what is objective?

Just posting this here because it's my favorite Camel song and it doesn't exist on Spotify anymore ?

I'm exceptional

It finds regularities in nature.

Who?

It's also important to know the exact limitations of your lenses

Good discussion on ADHD.

Logic is an assertion.

Exactly ?

I guess I was expecting a rational reason rather than a spiritual reason.

There are reasons for specifically dismissing MBTI, but they don't have anything to do with experiences of no-mind. If anything, an experience of no-mind should make you dismiss all mind. No need to single out MBTI.

That would be spiritual bypassing, but ok.

Did he give a particular reason why?

What I meant is that the assertion doesn't make sense. However, the main point is that you cannot assert what can or cannot be actualized by virtue of merely asserting it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. We agree.

@bambi ^If this was not intended as a way to defend MBTI against the fact that its standardized measurements are subpar compared to other theories, then that was a very unfortunate way to word yourself when considering the context of the OP posting this video as a part of a string of defenses for MBTI. If you were indeed missing that context, then that can explain the disconnect we're having.

Rather than saying there is no state of affairs that could correspond with that assertion, I would say there is no way to make such an assertion. The limitation tells you more about the assertion than the reality.

Reality creates minds which are able to think in logical terms. The thing is that the concepts "snow" and "frozen" and the relationship between them don't truly exist in reality as independent things. They're the product of minds capable of logical reasoning. Logic can make sense of certain regularities of perception, but the sensemaking is not the thing that is being made sense of. It's also possible to perceive things that don't make logical sense, certainly during altered states of consciousness. In fact, this is actually going on every single moment of your waking existence, because you can't make sense of it all.