Carl-Richard

Did I not just tell you that this is a red herring? You're blatantly misleading people at this point. I'm again going to advise you to stay on topic:

@DocWatts That is actually hilarious. I want to watch that show now

The comment is 7 months old. That might be why you can't find it. The comment was originally "Where is your PhD in mysticism?", but I edited after he responded with the first comment. Dave has no idea what construct awareness is. It makes no sense to mention it. You can only probe for it in conversation (which I tried to do). People already get depressed and suicidal without discovering self-help or spirituality. People who pursue self-help or spirituality are more predisposed towards such problems. It would be surprising if we never saw any depressed people on the forum. If you trace MHC back towards its origins, you'll see that it's actually being taught in school as we speak. MHC is an extension of Jean Piaget's model of cognitive development, which is arguably the most famous developmental model in the world. You can read about Piaget in the undergraduate curriculum for developmental psychology. You could probably learn about MHC in some graduate program. Simple: SD tracks worldviews (value systems), and MHC tracks complexity of cognitive operations. It just happens that MHC describes more types of operations than SD describes worldviews. The operations will still roughly correlate with SD, because worldviews are very much based on cognition. Sub-metasystematic is all levels under 12. However, it's not like you only ever operate from one level. People who reside around the sub-metasystematic area will utilize 1-11 all the time. You see the same thing with SD to some extent: you don't suddenly forget all the lessons of Blue when you turn Orange. Alcohol is bad for you even in small amounts (just less bad). It's just the antioxidants that aren't bad for you. Those studies are only excuses to keep drinking wine. If you want antioxidants, eat a fruit. When I say "chemicals in red wine", I mean phytochemicals from the grapes themselves. The word "chemical" has been poisoned by common vernacular. Comparing paradigms happens at cross-paradigmatic cognition (14): connections between frameworks. Science (verifying or falsifying hypotheses) happens at formal operational cognition (10): connections between variables. Grammar correction (evaluating sentences) happens at sentential operational cognition (5): connections between words. Trying to use science (e.g. empirically verifying a statement) to evaluate the comparisons between two paradigms is like trying to use grammar correction to do science. It does not compute.

You mean how mandatory vaccinations eradicated smallpox and then lead to nazism? Yeah I remember reading about that...

Travel is not possible either because there is only HERE. There is no journey to begin with.

Explain the mechanism of travel. At the end of the day, reality is amechanical, infinite imagination. Anything is possible. If anything seems impossible, it's only because of a local, temporary, apparent constraint. If you can imagine travelling back to when the dinosaurs existed, then why can't God imagine it? If reality is nothing but appearances, you can't actually distinguish between "real" time travel and something that simply appears as time travel. Therefore, things like grandfather paradoxes, timeline discontinuity and object identity aren't necessarily a problem (although if they were, they would also just be appearances in consciousness).

If only we could have an INFJ ESTP ?

Noam Chomsky is actually the first person who comes to mind when I hear the word "articulate". No fluff in choice of words, maximally insightful. He seems to be quite deliberate about this as well. Took me 10 seconds to find this: 2:24 "If we can say things simply so that people can understand them, we should." It's one thing to approach verbal noises like art. It's another to convey thoughts concisely. Then again, language and thought are two sides of the same coin. I'm not gonna lie, I like a good mix

With JP, I feel people often confuse being articulate with being charismatic, emotional, engaging and entertaining. He is articulate, but it's not his main selling point.

So you choose definition rather than feeling. I'm just saying it's possible to choose feeling.

Based on what you said earlier about your body at 10 years old, you seem to be only making statements about form here. You treat "you" as your body (form). What about the formless you? What about the you beyond space and time? Beyond physical objects? Beyond thoughts? The formless you is unchanging. You can become directly aware of this right now. What is the feeling you get when you think about what existed before you were born as a physical body? That feeling is the unchanging, formless you.

This is because "hot" and "cold" are both related to form. Hot as form is hot, and cold as form is cold. Change is related to form, but the changeless is related to the formless. Your analogy does therefore not translate.

Opposites complete each other. How do you know what hot is without experiencing cold? Hot is when not-cold. Cold is when not-hot. One way to see how hot and cold are one is to hold your hand under the tap and very slowly turn the temperature from hot to cold (or vice versa). Try to say exactly when it turns hot or cold. You can always make a finer distinction, because the distinction is arbitrary. The distinction is only you made inside your head. It's just one large gradient of experience.

Look who is suddenly appealing to time? There is ultimately nothing that prevents what we refer to as time travel from being possible. It's only impossible if you care about immediate human shortcomings, but that is like a plant saying horizontal movement is impossible.

Change and unchange are one. Change of form happens within an unchanging, formless void. Change is dynamic because it is contrasted with something static. You can't have just one or the other. They complete each other.

Language is pragmatic.

*paging FilthyFrank and friends*

What about beards? ?

Why anthropomorphize God?

Yes. All thinking takes place in your head. That doesn't say much. Travelling from Boston to Houston is still just as conceptual as travelling from today to the stone age.

Communication and belief is pragmatic. It helps you to complete tasks so that you can survive. Certainty is a luxury. If you're distrusting what people say to the point that you dismiss all external information and let none of it inform your actions, then you're missing the point.

As opposed to travelling through space? Space is also a concept. Travel is also a concept. So what?

"Physical laws" are imagined by God. Same with "time travel". Nowhere is it written that you cannot travel through time.

I suggest not making 5 different threads about it.