Carl-Richard

Describe your experience of non-doership to me in a paragraph of at least 12 sentences (your current experience and/or transition into it).

No you must barely be able to afford food and work low-wage jobs and not charge for spritual services because that makes you a con artist.

Every time I read "it's not x, it's y", my AI astma spray calls me. Here's a tip: if you want to use AI to write for you without disclosing it (which is against the forum guidelines by the way), tell it to avoid cliché AI phrases.

He was AI before it was cool.

Do you have complete non-doership?

Which question? Why that question?

Forcing yourself to sit down and think on a subject when that is not what you feel like you want to do or what is required in a given situation, just seems masochistic to me. I'm all for contemplation when it's something you want to do. Going for walks and letting your mind free, that I will highly recommend. Whether it's silent or it speaks, doesn't matter. Go for at least one 10-minute walk a day (after a meal is great for glucose control). It's good for mental health, not just getting lost in abstractions.

It does matter if they steal your stuff or sell drugs to your kids or cause a lot of noise.

What even is contemplation?

My family has a hut 600 meters above sea level in the mountains next to a smaller ex-microglacial river. When we used to fill a water tank by pumping water straight from the river, I loved the taste of the water in our tap, like you could taste the mossy flavor. It was very sweet and maybe even a bit sour. Now we use water from a spring which is different tasting, probably more carbonate-tasting, but it's probably also good water.

1 hour meditation every single day.

The whole wrongness of identification & attachment in veganism is identification & attachment, not veganism. It's the same "pre-trans" fallacy that is applied to religion. If people think "religious person", they think dogmatic, incapable of logic, narrow-minded, lack of openness. Yet they are religious themselves.

Studying breatharianism is one of those few things that the people who are able to pull it off are very rare, and those people are likely to not care about showing it to others or doing it "for the science", and the kind of controlled experiment required is so long-scale and resource-extensive and practically and technically difficult, including having to distinguish the thing itself from simply fasting which can also be done for long periods of time, it makes it an obscure subject that is essentially only for people with personal knowledge or those happy to confine themselves to hypotheses and convincing second-hand stories.

It's that it's simple and easy to identify (oil made of seeds) It's a food item that people don't have a strong preference for or against (it has a relatively neutral taste and is used as a means to an end, as a cooking accessory, more than a food you want to eat) It's not seen as strictly necessary (you can get fats from many other sources) It's tied to "you fear what you don't understand" with respect to the processing steps for making the oil (involving sometimes spooky-sounding chemicals and modern industrial processes) It's tied to "big money" capitalist conspiracies ("big food companies just want to earn money") and conspiracies of narrative control (big food companies lobbying in government, science) It's tied to the naturalistic frame or fallacy ("the processes for making the oil are not natural", "natural is better"), simple in- and out-group dynamic It's a food item that people don't know much about so they can easily adopt a new narrative and usually one that plays on weaknesses and that sticks Now, I haven't made an empirical case for or against its health effects. But notice how many things are not good for you but how some things are amplified more than others. Feel free to add more things or find a similar boogeyman.

That's a different discussion. I'm doing conceptual janitorial work. He is certainly confident telling other people they are unable to describe what femininity is when he is apparently entirely unable to do the same. Rather go on another tangent making a distinction between non-dual direct experience and personal experience which is again not relevant to the discussion, just purely pedantic "my 21st century science is the only valid perspective".

Plants stem evolutionarily from mobile single-celled organisms. They avoid noxious stimuli and seek pleasant ones. That they planted themselves on the ground doesn't eliminate their intrinsically dynamic existence, but in that form, it might need a timelapse to become apparent. But yes, we have particular fondness for more mammalian-like life with limbic systems and social emotions and we like to not cause unneccessary emotional suffering. But on the level of pure sentience, we're not at a neutral ground eating anything that is alive. Historically, yes, as they mostly lived in cultures where vegetarianism is more common. Cross-culturally is more thorny, especially contemporary Western, and it needs numbers in my opinion.

You just haven't read enough. You just haven't read enough. I did not come to a similar understanding through Ayahuasca. I've in large part read and listened to what other people have said about femininity and used my logical mind to connect the dots. Your cultural perspective is just limited; 21st century, social science. There are more perspectives out there. Emerald referred to some of them, for example depth psychology, mystical traditions, religious traditions. And yes, mystical traditions are not separate from culture either, mostly just your 21st century neopositivist culture.

I acknowledged your point: traits are different from essences from a certain specific point of view (21st century social science). It's just that this topic is not limited to that point of view so the distinction is irrelevant, unless you believe 21st century social science is the only legitimate point of view. In that case, welcome to Actualized.org. You're always free to answer the question I asked at the beginning.

If your entire worldview is shaped by 21st century social science and you can't see anything outside of that neutered conceptual landscape, sure, traits are statistical constructs which social science nerds (reluctantly) believe are the holy grail of epistemology and essences are immutable characteristics which only dumb cavemen believe in. But if you're a little more flexible than that, you see that "essences" and "traits" are just different words for "characteristics" and that you're getting your pants in a twist viewing everything through a wannabe academic lens. So what characteristics do you associate with femininity?

I think "essence" and "traits" are commensurable and you're getting caught up in a word game. Nobody is talking about "all men" or "all women" here either, that's a hallucination you brought in through your other word game (substituting "feminine" for "woman"). (Or you could call it a feminine move in that you want to include everything and are not willing to exclude things and prune down to [deduce] a single conclusion). It does nevertheless show a pseudointellectual attitude that you can't answer a single question and rather bring up words that do not matter.

One time I read a definition in a textbook of something I can't remember which gave about as little insight as what that definition did. I think it literally only gave the methodologies for how the concept was studied, no information about the concept itself (ironically a very overly masculine and lack of femininity move). But in your case, it also just shifts the information onto another concept: "woman". So now I'll have to ask you: give me a list of "woman traits".

Idk about you but when I first heard Emerald's descriptions of femininity vs masculinity it all made sense to me. It's metaphysical. It really boils down to content vs structure (there is a great paper called "Revisiting Marr's Three Levels" which you should read the introduction of). Semantics vs syntax, energy vs form, Shakti vs Shiva, the Holy Spirit vs the Logos. Some "magical thinking" is required there, yes. You can't just go by conformity all the time

What is femininity then?

Nightwalks as opposed to daywalks are more feminine, treehugging is feminine, feeling the grass at your feet is feminine. And those are things that many men are usually like "ugh, that's girly". It's a part of feminity they are usually somewhat repulsed by and less able to integrate. My father is actually someone who embodies true femininity to a great extent. He actually connects with you emotionally when speaking to you, he has a grounded and mindful energy, he is explicitly interested in techniques that promote mindfulness, but he doesn't call himself "spiritual", he doesn't really care for specific religious traditions or practices, he doesn't seem to have grand ambitions in that domain.

You desire to know, to awaken, to know the truth, to eliminate suffering, etc. You're in your ego and adopt the identity of pursuing these things. That's ok. You adopt practices, follow traditions, engage in communities, plan retreats, exchange ideas and experiences, learn frameworks and doctrines. You're religious. That's ok. You conform to your community, you trust in its legitimacy, you follow the teachers, you rank some teachers over others, you prefer some teachers over others, you take on their ideas through faith, what they're saying might be true. You're not currently awake (some of you) or enlightened (most of you), but yet you're setting your sights towards these things. You're a self-described spiritual person with a plan for themselves, you're engaging in religious traditions and communities, and you conform. That's ok. Accept what is true, deny it less, and you'll have less blindspots, less self-deception, less bias. What you deny becomes unconscious, and what becomes unconscious rules you without you being aware.