Carl-Richard

Notice how both words describe the relationship between atleast two separate parts or entities. Then notice how all words do this to some extent (hot vs. cold, up vs. down, in vs. out, short vs. tall, rough vs. smooth etc.). All these have their own flavor or quality. There is an untold amount of relationships like this in reality, many of them overlapping. One word can also only approximate the extent of each relationship. That is why you can have many words for something similar, and you can keep adding more and more depending on the level of investigation. That is why native people north of the Artic circle have 50 words for qualities of snow. But even this doesn't capture the full nature of snow. No word can do that.

I get this if I try to fall asleep on my back. I have been sleeping on my stomach for half a year now.

For sure. I have my qualms about the theory as well (which may also stem from pure ignorance)

Why?

Persistent baseline non-duality (I initially hesitated to write that, idk why), meaning ~95% of the time (or when blood sugar is stable). It's essentially when you stabilize around the most basic experience of no self. So-called "awakened people" stabilize right below that threshold and may dip in and out ("awakenings"). This is still just the most basic level. There are deeper levels (various maps and disciplines have described this), and in some sense, it's infinite.

Persistent baseline non-duality. All other definitions are bleh

Really insightful.

ehhh

Haha tell me about it, growing up with my mom who is ESFJ. She also divorced my dad who I think is INFP as well

Nice.

How many have you read so far?

@Hansu I think young guys mistype themselves as INTP a lot, especially with a surface understanding of MBTI. I thought I was one, but now INFP makes so much more sense (although some of my tests show Ti).

Perspectivalism doesn't abolish distinctions. It instead puts distinctions into a larger context. You're still able to perceive hierarchical order (infact it's this ability that gets refined). The differences in scale and style of different perspectives are more readily recognized (global meta-perspectives vs. local micro-perspectives). It seems like you want to bring Blue up to the same level as Green. You can't. However, you can extend the same level of consideration for each stage. That doesn't mean you treat them the same, but in considering each stage, it brings you on a level above both. That is essentially what the Tier 1 perspectives are lacking: discernment between considering a perspective and adopting it (and not just posturing it like Orange but actually embodying it in practice).

Society. My definition explains for example why Leo gets lumped in with schizophrenics even though he is not that (willingness vs. ability). Also, don't forget that I'm generalizing (it's a spectrum). Schizophrenia is a spectrum as well. I'm saying that the tendency is that it makes you less able (as well as inclined/willing) to conform.

PropagandaU ?

Maybe, but if you're struggling to lose weight, maybe cut the potatoes. As an example, potatoes have almost 3x more carbs than broccoli. What about eating those carbs in broccoli and see how satiated you'll be in comparison?

In theory, yes. However, diet is mostly about finding what's practical. Everybody knows the theory behind weight loss (calories out > calories in). The problem is how to do it in practice. Some foods are easier to gain weight than others. Try eating nothing but carrots and you'll get my point. One facet of health is about getting just the right amount of each nutrient. Even though the carbohydrates in potatoes aren't exactly poisonous to your body, it's very easy to get too much, and that is unhealthy. So in that sense ("in theory"), it's not really so much about what you eat as how much you eat. But then again, eating the right types of food helps with that "in practice".

It makes you gain weight if you eat too much

In an absolutely infinite universe, all distinctions collapse. Then, the only "a priori truth" (true in all cases) that could exist is "there is existence, reality, oneness": any differentiation within this "whole" is either local (i.e not true for the whole) or merely assumed (postulated without evidence) and thus not "a priori" . If the universe is absolutely infinite, there is no such thing as pseudoscience. Magic is real, elves exist, gravity is reversed.

Experience: making runescape private server videos 10 years ago using windows movie maker

The problem with solipsism isn't that it's narcissistic; it's that it's not narcissistic enough. If the solipsist dared to collapse all distinctions and claim it all as himself, then he would go full circle and realize that there is no longer a self to be narcissistic about ??

Confusing non-duality (the Self is the only thing that exists) with classical solipsism (the small self is the only thing that exists) is literally just the relative/absolute fallacy. Non-duality says the Self is the only thing that exists — the small self doesn't exist. There are no people, including yourself. End of story.

The inverse of sociocultural conformity (willingness), compatibility (natural inclination) and functionality (ability). In other words, are you unwilling, not inclined, or unable to conform? Then, from the perspective of the sociocultural environment, you are considered insane.

There is also variability of your own system that can cause averse reactions. Keyword: "long break".