Carl-Richard

But why?

Did you at one point get to a place where you also had no thoughts and emotions? Seems like an odd in-between state to be in.

Well, you can say that, but it seems like human thoughts and emotions tend to co-arise with some sort of localized embodied experience, e.g. having a sense of a body, of being somewhere in space relative to other objects, of experiencing these things changing through time. It seems very unlikely that you will experience thoughts and emotions for example in a state of samadhi where you're no longer localized or embodied. Those things seem to disappear in those states almost definitionally.

Everything exists within God. But if emotions can be said to exist and humans can be said to exist, then human emotions can be said to exist within human egoic bubbles. The question is whether human-like thoughts and emotions only exist within these human egoic bubbles or whether they exist outside of them as well, sort of like a white bearded man in the clouds looking down on Earth.

In the first sentence, God is anthropomorphized. In the second, God is objectified. Whichever you prefer. I thought about making the sentences the same, but I just left it like that for some reason. Maybe it happened because God "thought" this was a lesson that was needed (that God can be made both being-like and object-like and still be God) 😉 By the way, I usually prefer objectifying God, as there is to my knowledge little evidence that God thinks and feels like a human "by itself" so to speak, although I won't discard such a possibility. God as "an empty field which's excitations are experiences" is a description I like.

If you guys need even more spoonfeeding than I've already provided, here are my approximate heuristics for that post: for the pro list, I just went by gut feeling and then constructed the list of attributes afterwards. Then for the con list, I also went by gut feeling and then wrote down at least one flaw with their speaking style, starting with Peterson because he was mentioned earlier. Maybe I could've included all the pro people in the con list. But that's not what happened.

He essentially said he is an idealist in that video (materialist "at heart") . And how would you know he hasn't done a shit ton of psychedelics? Have you seen his haircut in some interviews? 😂

It's true that we have more opportunities to create a sense of belonging than ever before, but 1. it either doesn't seem like we're taking advantage of it, as loneliness is at an all time high in the West, or 2. we are taking advantage of it, but it's only creating a shallow sense of belonging, one that doesn't resonate deeply with our innate capacities. For example, we may have hundreds of Facebook friends, but do they actually know you? Do you actually know them? Which interests do you share or have you actively shared with them? What kind of interactions do you have? Are they part of your environment in any meaningful way? Not to be crass, but it's similar with internet forums, YouTube comment sections, Instagram reels, etc. These are not generally deeply meaningful environments of authentic connection, not just because of their low attention span and information impoverished nature, but because they're online and often anonymous. There is no face-to-face, embodied, emotional connection, which is a part of our innate capacities as probably ALL humans to engage in these things. The type of vision I suggested at the bottom of my original post mostly alluded to finding places where I can express my intellectual, ethical and spiritual values and competencies which are individual to me as a person, but I also suggested actually in the same sentence that the same principle applies to all of what we can call human life, things that we all share. Whatever we call being human, that is what we have to cherish in some way. Some of those things require societal change, others you can manage yourself. You always start individually and maybe you can build a community (like Leo did here) that lays the groundwork for the larger change you want to see. But that again takes vision and effort, and maybe it takes sacrificing parts of yourself to something greater. But that can also be incredibly meaningful. Anyways, I'm rambling.

Consciousness is fundamentally boundless, infinite, spaceless, timeless. But it helps to imagine it like empty space stretching infinitely in all directions. Within that empty "space", experiences may arise, for example a chair sitting in a garden under a big tree on a warm summer day. The experiences mentioned in this particular scene probably don't contain an egoic identity. For example, the chair doesn't recognize itself as a chair. It doesn't perceive the world through sense organs; it cannot see beyond the garden, let alone see at all in the sensory sense of seeing. Yet the chair still exists as an experience in the mind of God (Consciousness). Now, if you place a human in that chair, they will tell you that they recognize themselves as a human, distinct from the chair, distinct from the garden. And this largely depends on their sensory organs. For example, when they feel the chair touching their butt, they're saying it touches "them", because they're identified with the boundaries of their sensation, and the surface of their skin is a particularly strong boundary. Also, they will tell you they can see beyond the garden, but they also can't see infinitely beyond it. They can only see as far as their sensory organs (in this case eyes) allow them, which is of course very limited. And sensory organs are limited in many other ways (e.g. you can't see the back of your head, or the backside of an object while looking at the front). But God experiences it all. So what is the "external world"? That's a tricky question. Most humans will tell you that the external world is what they experience through their senses, but obviously, their senses only give a limited view of what they're experiencing, so maybe it would not be accurate to call that the external world. In addition to the sensory organs being limited in this more obvious sense, we know that your sensory experience is not a static or infallible representation of whatever your sensory organs are measuring. There are visual illusions and failures of perception that indicate that our senses are processed through various perceptual systems before being presented to our individual experience. So whatever we experience through our senses also depends on our individual mind, which further challenges the notion of calling our sensory experience the external world. But again, God experiences every experience. Would it be more accurate to call God the external world? Maybe. If God is the container of every experience, and we feel inclined to call our individual experiences "windows" into the external world (granted their limitations), then God is the perfect candidate for actually being the external world. The trick is that God is also your individual experience (because again, God is every experience).

Again, not solipsism as defined in the videos.

Those were anti-recs, but ok 😛 But again, they can be good speakers in other areas. Both Daniel and Jordan have blown my mind many times, and that wouldn't have been possible if they weren't exceptional communicators. I just highlighted their weak sides.

I don't know what you're referring to or what that means.

I'm not saying solipsism is something you should aspire to "become directly conscious of" (if that is even a thing). I'm saying solipsism is ultimately a distraction if you care about becoming directly conscious of non-duality. Solipsism, in the way I'm talking about it here, is a conceptual idea, and it has nothing to do with non-duality, neither as a conceptual idea, nor as the thing in itself (certainly not as that). You can of course choose to call non-duality a type of "Cosmic solipsism", but it is very distinct from the type of "egoic solipsism" that is usually talked about around here and in the culture at large. You can watch the videos that OP linked if you want to understand more about that distinction.

Tell me what you think about this. He strikes me as the definition of "direct".

He definitely is. Don't get me wrong: the "opposite" list is not that bad overall if you ignore what I put in the parentheses. They can be pretty good in other areas, and that definitely applies to Sam Harris. So I just find his use of metaphors and analogies a bit excessive with respect to actually getting a point across, but it can be fun to listen to as well (same with the Weinsteins or Terrence McKenna). I used to listen to his videos and podcasts all the time when I was like 15-18 He also just tends to draw his answers out a lot beyond what is meaningful (it's a bit self-indulgent in a way), it's a bit hard to explain. That's just a feeling I have.

That's a highly contentious one 😂 David Chalmers Bernardo Kastrup Robert Sapolsky Rupert Sheldrake Noam Chomsky (And although I hate to say it): Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson. — little fluff, straight to the point, avoids jargon unless completely necessary (and explains it when necessary), properly paced, good flow, clear and well-conceived tried-and-tested thoughts, well-rehearsed, concerned about things that are meaningful (in their own ways). The opposite (although they're not guilty of lacking all the points above) would be: Jordan Peterson (at times, speaks in convoluted paragraphs). Eric Weinstein (and Bret Weinstein at times; both use a kind of poetic, flowery and academically technical language; pretty difficult combination). Daniel Dennett ("philosophy ate my brain"). Sam Harris (uses way too many analogies and thought experiments). Daniel Schmachtenberger (has very peculiar interests which affects his language, and his mind goes 15% faster than anyone else). Terrence McKenna (too flowery and "out there", but he is fun to listen to generally). Ben Shapiro (15% too fast, other than that he is pretty good). Chris Langan (jargonitis). Curt Jaimungal (mild jargonitis, sometimes odd word choices and pacing).

Good. Now, that's not solipsism 😉 (if you agree with the definition of solipsism in the videos you linked). And it's one thing to say those words, but it's another thing to fall to your knees and cry because you got hit so hard by the reality of such a realization.

Wut

Stumbled across this one. Pretty remarkable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08 (YouTube doesn't allow embedding). (@Scholar I will answer you when I have time, don't worry ).

Omg new Aristocrats album coming February 16th 🤩🥳

How do you know that / who is he?

Solipsism, Advaita or Ajata never entered my mind when I first took the step into non-duality. But after I took that step, I started to see those aforementioned constructs for what they are: constructs. But sure, there are degrees of construct awareness within the realm of constructs. It's just that stepping outside all constructs is the only true step towards non-duality. If non-duality is approached in any other way, it's just another construct.

If your endpoint is true non-duality, I wouldn't say solipsism is the first step. It's more like a step backwards. It's not actually a deconstruction. It's a construction; a fantasy, a dead end. Any conceptual idea is a step backward, even ultimate skepticism, the seemingly most bare-boned position there is ("I can't know anything"). Because it's still just a conceptual idea. With respect to non-duality, Actuality itself is the only step forward. Now, if you want to stay within the conceptual realm, these would be my steps (more epistemological than ontological): realism -> skepticism -> pragmatism -> meta-theory. I wrote a thread about it some years ago (and the various pitfalls associated with them): Here, you can notice that each step becomes less restrictive and more expansive, as a result of each step countering or "deconstructing" the former. But each step can make the mistake of naivety, of essentially clinging to it like a dogma and creating a contracted and inflexible version of it, and that the mature perspective requires developing a nuanced grasp of it. Only adopting a conceptual idea of non-duality is similar: you don't have the right grasp of it but instead you cling to it like a baby on a tit.

😂

https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=e-Research (It's an undergraduate article, but at least this passage is well-written). I think this makes a lot of sense. If you're talking to someone who comes off as unreasonably rude, who doesn't seem to care about your opinion, who scoffs at your arguments, who says you're stupid, etc., then it's probably not just that they don't care about your feelings, but it's likely that they're actually not able to put themselves in your shoes. Hence, they don't just lack empathy, but also openmindedness. Again, I think this makes a lot of sense. What do you think? () Here is some other research on the topic: "Similar Personality Patterns Are Associated with Empathy in Four Different Countries" "Associations between Medical Student Empathy and Personality: A Multi-Institutional Study" "Empathy and big five personality model in medical students and its relationship to gender and specialty preference: a cross-sectional study" "Relationship between empathy and the big five personality traits in a sample of Spanish adolescents" "Associations between empathy and big five personality traits among Chinese undergraduate medical students"