Carl-Richard

Why do you pretend that experience is not absolute?

He has already addressed these criticisms a while ago. Mr.Girl is late to the party.

Ok I'm not going to preach to somebody who it has obviously not worked for.

That's actually a prescription

It's not even that. In his interview with Ruper Spira, he claimed that 1st person experience ("introspection") cannot tell you anything about how the universe works

All opinions, thoughts and beliefs are similar in the sense that they're spoken, but not in what they're referring to (either experience or conjecture). There does exist absolutes in life, and opinions can be based on absolutes, just like opinions can be based on the denial of absolutes. "Existence exists" is one such absolute, and it's directly tied to the absoluteness of non-duality. It's just that some people have mystical experiences and some do not. Does that mean that some people's experiences are valid and some are not? Not at all. This is exactly why non-dualists are so adamant about saying "you need to have the experience for yourself", because it's indeed only your experience that is valid. Is that supposed to be a correction? The mystic makes the distinction between experience and conjecture. The religious fundamentalist doesn't. The mystic will agree that all conjecture must be approached with humility. However, what cannot be approached with mere humility is the baseline fact of one's own existence; the fact that existence exists for itself, by itself, not separate from itself. To be in denial of this fact is also to fail to differentiate between experience and conjecture. I'm just trying to point you to your own experience. The words are besides the point. Sit down, close your eyes and try to notice if you can experience "cheese" and "milk" as something else than just a thought.

It's called expressing an opinion. Consciousness of the nature of self as not being separate, which not coincidentally correlated with flow and 5x mental productivity (Jamie Wheal, 2013). If we assume that meditation is about undermining the sense of separateness (like Sam agrees with), then having beliefs that conflict with this process (i.e. materialism) is not going to be productive. There is a reason why there are mantra meditations like "I am not the body, I am not even the mind." Even though these are just words, they have an effect. Likewise, beliefs are the linguistic bedrock of the psyche; they affect how you think and feel, how you speak and even how you see. The reason a mystic is more certain in his stance than others is because he is living it. It's not a matter of belief. From his perspective, there are beliefs that overshadow the truth, and holding a belief, even with humility, is not more virtuous than telling the truth. Sam should agree with this. He wrote an entire book about lying AND spirituality. Cheese and milk are nothing but thoughts, and so is your separate self

He dabbles in it, but again he is restricted by his materialism. This is very evident in his podcast with Rupert Spira.

Changing your beliefs doesn't mean you'll have a mystical experience, but if you have a mystical experience, your beliefs will change.

Do you not think beliefs have an effect on your mind? Believing that you're separate from the universe actually reduces your consciousness.

1:13:52 - 1:18:00 When somebody asked him what it feels like to lose your sense of self, it sounds like he hasn't had any deep mystical experiences, which explains his materialism (either that, or he intentionally gave the most dumbed-down, skeptic-friendly sales pitch of meditation in order to not scare anybody away). It seems like he is stuck at the mainstream conception of mindfulness, of treating meditation as a disposable band-aid for excess neuroticism throughout the day ("It punctuates the problem."), not as an existential rewamping of your life.

Addressing conflicts head on can create a period of temporary stability, whether through coercion, mutual agreement or compromise.

Sounds good. In my experience, as the gradually mind quiets down, thoughts not only becomes less frequent but more brief, subtle and non-linear. It goes from syrup to air. There are various degrees to it and can be mistaken for a thought-free state when contrasted with a previous state. Once the mind alters its trajectory to align itself perfectly with complete silence, there is an instantaneous, undeniable shift in consciousness, as if the brain is lifted outside of the skull, and I enter a state of purgatory between terror and bliss. I've yet to fully let go into that bliss.

I have a serious respect for Jordan's academic work. His understanding of the evolutionary relationship between perception, cognition and narrative is really worth trying to wrap your head around. It can broaden your understanding of how your mind constructs reality based on survival, of how language and culture is formed, of the various stages of human cognitive development etc. It's true that he tends to ramble a lot when he isn't constrained by somebody who can actively engage with him, but Lawrence Krauss is able to keep that in check here (he deliberately read all his work to prepare for this discussion and served as a critical but charitable mediator for the audience). I highly recommend this video if you want to challenge your perception of him:

What he says on YouTube regarding psychology (his academic work) is top-notch, solid stuff. What he says on YouTube regarding politics I disagree with. I just think you have a weird definition of academia, that's all

I view these as identical. Am I wrong?

The h-index is literally the definition of academic excellence, as in how influential your work is in academia (publications and citations). Just say you disagree with his political views or epistemology or whatever.

Bruh he was one of the most prolific researchers in his field and got cited out the wazoo even before he got internet famous. The average h-index score for any publishing scientist is 10. He had an h-index of 51 in 2019. A score of 62 is the average of Nobel prize winners.

Rough estimate: seconds, minutes, hours, days?

SD has a cultural dimension, and every culture has aesthetic expressions, e.g. music, art. What do Yellow people generally listen to?

Quickly made a rough overview over some different systems thinkers and the circles they're associated with. A lot of it is interconnected somehow (click on the picture if you have trouble reading): I tried to add just enough people to make a decent representation of each category and limited green arrows to across categories (I figured it's easy to make it into a mess). The direction of the arrows denotes the place from which someone or something draws inspiration or is affiliated with in a subordinate sense. For example, many people draw inspiration from or are somehow associated with Game B, and Game B draws inspiration from fields like Deep ecology. You can help me find more categories and people to add under them if you'd like

Here is my re-telling of Daniel Schmachtenberger explanation of some of the factors that lead to the transition from "the First Game" to "Game A" (don't remember which video):

It's an inevitable aesthetic once you try to condense it down to art. "Wholeness" and "regeneration" are systemically sound constructs and simultaneously sound like hippie jargon, because that's the truth. The hippies are intuiting something and the systems thinkers are articulating it.

How long do you think they disappeared for?