Carl-Richard

I don't understand the question.

Old at heart

@tuckerwphotography The intellectual darkweb is a bunch of old white dudes

The dude has taken more psychedelics than the entire San Francisco bay combined. What more do you need to know?

This video started my trajectory into doubting everything I thought I knew.

Orange to the bone.

I stopped pursuing awakening after I realized I'm a child. Now I do child stuff. Hoping to grow up soon. I made friends with a guy last year who had bought Sadhguru's book "Inner Engineering" totally on accident. He was working in a book store and he wanted to be an engineer, so the title looked interesting and he bought the book. He ended up reading half of it and then gave it to me. It seemed like he was open it, but he never took up a spiritual practice, atleast for the year that I went to school with him. He once asked me to explain meditation to him, but you know how it goes. He was obviously interested in it but his knowledge and experience was close to zero. Personality wise, he seemed like the kind of guy who would pick it up sooner or later (like me, introspective, inquisitive, interested in art and music). He and another dude we hanged out with combined could probably name every single musical artist of the last century. They would probably excel at the bhakti path (if you want to make that distinction) if they got their mind in the right place.

The materialist tries to deny that consciousness is a "new substance", but at the same time they try to hide their lack of explainations by misusing a fancy term. It's really confusing.

"Oh fuck, oh no, oh fuck, oh no..."

Let him grow.

Welcome home!

Is it a coincidence that Maya is a feminine name? I think not

Is this some sort of Bible?

If I were to play devil's advocate, there was a time in the universe's early history that not even hydrogen atoms existed. They only formed after some time when the universe cooled down. The concept of emergence posits that new forms have always and will always emerge out from pre-existing structures, and that is what drives the evolution of the universe. This is therefore compatible with the idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomena of complex computational structures, coincidentally neurobiological machines (brains). Rationalists have no problem accepting absurd statements if they've been indoctrinated into accepting them. To cross your gut-feeling in favor of your intellect is seen more or less like a badge of honor. Self-righteousness and self-bias is a deadly combination. I think a way of addressing the problem that a materialist would be more able to understand is to point out the fact that calling it "emergent phenomena" in the first place is actually just a euphemism for "non-physical" or "immaterial" (atleast in the way that they're using the word). There is no physical/causal mechanism there, only a fancy word which serves as a materialistic "God of the gaps"-argument ("if we're not sure how, then Matter did it"). If consciousness is an emergent phenomena (non-physical), then to say it's still "caused" by something physical is a contradiction, because then you would have no reason to not just call it a physical phenomena. If the physical nature of the causal mechanism was known, then you would for sure just call it physical. There is no physical evidence of such a thing; no measurements, no mechanisms. The inclination towards the word "emergent" only comes from a lack of confidence. The problem is that most materialists don't have the epistemological impetus to go down that line of reasoning in the first place, so the probability that they will be able to follow the arguments or let alone have an open mind is close to zero. To truly entangle the indoctrination of materialism takes a rigorous and thorough investigation of its assumptions and the phenomenology of experience. I have a video example of how this may look with Rupert Spira taking answers from a "trained scientist" with materialistic concerns:

Orange is pursuing success for the sake of success, money for the sake of money. Going green doesn't mean you give up all your money. It's just that your priorities change. Maybe that will lead to you becoming less wealthy, but that isn't necessarily the case.

Reality is infinite. Intellectual understanding is finite.

Would be interesting to see where he is at in a few years. Assuming he is young, he has a good shot at evolving to green, something along the lines of Joe Rogan (not peak green).

One of the constraints of the movie format in relation to yellow in particular is that the meta-perspectival nature would probably not translate well into a "message" that you would want to put in a movie, or atleast I can't imagine it catching on in our current culture.

@DocWatts Spiral Dynamics tends to get wonky when you apply it to art, especially with yellow. You can take aspects of it (like the message) and place it there, but even then it's not something you should expect to come across.

@blandana

Any examples?

Imagine that one day, they do travel back in time, but they find out that everything they knew was wrong

Well, that's on you. You're not saying much

That is one way to look at it, yes. The true "goal" though is to realize total unity, total Love, and that requires immense acceptance, trust, and surrender. Complete erradication of all boundaries, all distinctions, all separation, all resistance, all fear. That means you have to have to literally give up your own life to God. With that said, having a physical body is fine

I'm sorry that you don't feel moved by the things on this forum. If I was given one power in this world, it would be to get everybody to experience the beauty that lies right in front of their very eyes. That is atleast why I'm here: to be with other people who share the same experiences as me, the deepest experiences of my life.