Carl-Richard

This is like straight out of Actualized.org :

Do you ever doubt yourself and think you're just a filthy little orange man who is deluding himself?

How do you know this? What if he is just basic?

I've had both the thing he is talking about and night terrors, and they're not the same.

The thing is that they actually do talk about this, but the words don't capture the gravity of the situation. "Ego death", "death of the self", "spiritual death and rebirth" very much feels like physical death from the perspective of the ego. The trick to avoiding that trap is to directly see how it's only from the perspective of the ego, but it requires being brutally honest with yourself.

Me too. The difference with me is that it happens everyday when I'm awake.

Learn to embrace it. It's a free ticket to enlightenment.

On a second thought, I don't think the holistic vs. reductionistic thing was a very helpful or accurate description :P. I was mainly contrasting the common mystical "justice" perception of karma with the word commonly associated with causality ("mechanism") while using it more as a metaphor than an accurate description, in order to create a guiding image.

Don't get stuck on materialistic terminology. It's a holistic mechanism, not a reductionistic mechanism. Karma isn't reducible to single units of measurement (e g. Newtonian forces), but it describes causal "trends".

Many atheists claim that they don't make any claims about reality (lol), but rather that they're just unconvinced and need to be provided with enough convincing evidence. This is a trick of syntax that is trying to mask the fact that they want everything to be done on their own terms, which is in thread with their underlying claims about reality, namely claims around verificationism and empiricism. One of their main claims about reality is "we ought to use verificationism as our primary methodological device for evaluating truth claims". They will counter this by saying that it's a self-evident fact that verificationism is directly congruent with truth, but that is just not true at all, and is also a claim about reality

Tier 1 inclusion: "We're inclusive, and if you're not inclusive, then fuck you!" Tier 2 inclusion: "We're inclusive, and if you're not inclusive, then we'll try to fix that."

Paradigms, my friend.

I don't know where you're getting that from and how you're being any different.

45:55-47:03 That is some profound shit coming from a boxer.

Interesting how Mike Tyson can say stuff like "no, you ARE God" and everybody think it's alright, but when Connor Murphy comes out saying the exact same things, everybody starts losing their shit

All these reactionary right-wing movements and toxic masculinity go hand-in-hand.

I would hesitate to apply a SD stage to a place in history where that stage generally didn't exist, especially if it's two or more stages removed from the cultural backdrop. The individual is always in a transactional relationship with the environment, so even if they are starting to push the edge, there is always something that keeps them back. A stage also doesn't really have any solid ground to grow on if it's more than 1 above the mainstream of the society, because revolutionary thinking is more or less always grounded in a reaction to the status quo. That is why the stages took such a long time to evolve, because they ultimately require a gradual change on the societal level from one stage to the next.

LOOOL How is "feminism phase" a non-ideological non-category?

My dad is green as a bean. My mom is much more orange. They're divorced

Not necessarily. Many people simply wake up accidentally or through divine grace. One example is devotional bhaktis in India. They could be a cultural wreck for all you know. Even then, their progress in cultural awareness is of course relative to their culture. Cultural values don't simply come out of nowhere. They're passed down through social interactions (social constructs). Modern cultural values are a result of trillions of these interactions throughout history. "Human" is a social construct that could mean a plethora of different things depending on the culture. Likewise, the impact of the insight "I'm not human" could have just as many different outcomes. This is nevertheless peripheral to enlightenment, because it's beyond concepts. It could provide a meta-perceptual frame to an existing cultural perspective, but it cannot suddenly manifest a completely new and complex cultural structure out of thin air.

The illusion is endless.

That movement would only be possible if those worldcentric values are already accessible in the cultural environment, and even then, there are additional factors that could prevent those values from being adopted. Seeing through mind doesn't remove you from the laws of nature. You could argue that there is, but only within a very strict framework compared to the naive perspective of "enlightenment cures everything". The journey from ethnocentric to worldcentric required thousands of years of sociocultural evolution. Unless you're willing to argue that enlightenment comes with some kind of cultural download package from the spiritual ether, you shouldn't expect those values to just suddenly manifest within the mind of a person.

Yep

One way to look at it is that enlightenment doesn't wipe your hard drive. It just runs a defragmentation on it.