Carl-Richard

Then it's definitely possible. The trick then is to elevate your consciousness to the point where you notice every attachment you have and how it creates a feeling of resistance. Once you encounter the resistance, you have the choice to keep resisting or let it go. Of course you always have that choice, but generally, you are unaware of the resistance, so you unconsciously keep resisting, or you don't want to let it go. Another subtle trick is that you eventually have to let go of the techniques you use to elevate your consciousness. There is no enlightenment with attachment to enlightenment (techniques or otherwise). The simplest way to do this is to meditate for select times during the day and that is your only practice. Then when you enter states of no mind, you let go of the practice. It doesn't matter if you use focused techniques, devotional techniques or self-inquiry. All of it causes some form of resistance if you're attached, and it's a big magic trick you have to pull off to get off at the right time and land in enlightenment.

Tech-death / progressive metal anthem.

Are you willing to let go of everything? Are you willing to let go of your life as a human being?

Do it. I'm serious, this will solve your problem eventually if you keep at it. Your problem currently is you're not thinking in longer than single sentences. Just look at the responses you're making and the original post you made. They are almost exclusively single sentences. Out of 59 responses in this thread, you made two responses that were 3 lines long; all the others were 2 lines or less. You don't get to understand these complicated things through single sentences. You need to sit down and systematize your thinking through writing. Start with 10 sentences, and if it doesn't get any clearer, make it 20, or 30, or 40, until it starts to get clearer. It's virtually impossible to find contradictions in your thinking if you can't think for longer than a sentence. So what is existence? How does existence relate to other similar concepts? How does existence relate to the body?

I agree, and that is what makes him an ex-president of the United States. If he was not incredibly ruthless and confident, he would simply be above average IQ. And I believe he is above average. You simply don't achieve the things he has achieved without being at least above average IQ. Maybe that says more about IQ than anything else. Even Chris Langan will be quick to state the limits of IQ. It's simply the speed with which you learn and process things. It says less about how deeply you learn things, or how complex your thinking is, or how wise you are. Exactly. Knowledge ≠ IQ. Certainly, IQ helps you to gain knowledge, but some are just surprisingly unknowledgeable despite their IQ. I know many people like that. IQ is not the same as being intellectually interested.

Maybe watch the video and find out

Bliss and IQ are correlated

Ayo, I just applied the MTS to a macro level theory (about motivation in organisms; Self-determination theory): Competence: what are the innate competencies of the organism? Autonomy: how does the organism optimally exercise those competencies? Belonging: where are the competencies optimally implemented in the physical world? Also, this is a juicy quote from a paper I actually had to read once: https://www.albany.edu/~ron/papers/marrlevl.html

"Dan Koe is a cool dood". That's about the level of engagement you had before we got the freight train of a substantial discussion. But I apologize :,(

Not long ago, I started to realize how much having the right knowledge matters for how people perceive you with respect to intelligence. And it really opened my eyes about what might be possible to achieve if you simply pursue something. College professors have a lot of knowledge that make them seem smart, but they might not have that much higher IQ than somebody else. Trump has a relatively high IQ but dogshit political knowledge. And he needs to have a high IQ to be able to spew that much bullshit that quickly 😆

This is how we solve your problem: Please describe in minimum 10 sentences what your idea of existence is. Here are some questions to help: what is existence? How does it differ from other similar concepts? How does existence relate to the body? Go.

I'm not asking you. It's a rhetorical question. I'm saying the fact that bodies die means your belief in the immortality of the body is wrong.

Then why the fuck does your body die?

Show me a physical body that has existed forever.

Ironically, you would have the benefit of jumping into our train wreck of a discussion on metaphysics in the other thread that got derailed. But I'll save you the hassle and just give you the summary: You can have the idea of something (the "what"), or the structure of something (the "how"), or you can have it manifested in physical form (the "where"). For example, you can have the idea of a body, or the structural blueprint of a body, or an actual body in human flesh right in front of you that you can see and touch. Now, you could indeed say that the idea of a body, or even the structural blueprint of a body, is eternal. It's beyond space and time. It's only when you manifest it in the flesh, in physical stuff, that it becomes not eternal. So the idea of the body, or the structural blueprint (the immaterial form of the body), is eternal, but the physical manifestation of it is not. Makes sense?

Formlessness is eternal. Form is not. You're just wrong.

Then why do bodies die? You know people die, right?

My guy, your body is not immortal. What is so hard to understand about this?

Your human form is not all of existence.

Your human form has not always existed.

Form is created.

When Langan says "physical reality", he means the spatio-temporal aspect of reality. It's what a set of observers would roughly agree is present, for example a chair in a room. He is not a physicalist. He does not place spatio-temporal entities (e.g. atoms or quantum interactions) at the bottom of reality. What's inside of reality? Is math real?

Honestly, just reading some bullet points on tips for academic writing could be sufficient. Our professor gave us this amazing list. I would have to fire it into Google Translate through.

Yeh. Speaking of clarifying, I just severely clarified the monstrosity of a post from earlier. I decided to conclude that Wilber's Four Quadrants probably could stretch down into the micro level (e.g. atoms), which made mapping it on to the tripartite structure much more straightforward. After all, the Interior-Individual quadrant clearly stretches down to individual perceptions and sensations, so why not the other quadrants as well?

You dared standing up to Jordan Peterson interviewing himself on his own podcast? 😯 Jking. I understand it's strictly speaking a tangent to the topic (whatever can be said for a topic consisting of a one-sentence question with an obvious answer), but.. the guy literally talked about structure vs. content 🤔 But sure, I can create another topic if I get the urge to dump more paragraphs. However, imagine somebody posting the topic "does Peter Ralston watch Leo?" and watch it devolve into a discussion on solipsism 😆