If you're sick of repetitive spiritual content watch this

[Sugarcoat]

6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

To do this, you don't have to seek openness, but rather your internal limits. But It's important to understand that the ultimate goal is absolute openness, not emptiness, God, or anything else; this makes the work much more effective.

Limits always carry an emotional charge, a need to maintain stability. Letting go of all limits is terrifying; in my experience, the way to do it is to become aware of them.

The ultimate limit, for me, is the subject-object duality. At a certain point, your mind is completely empty but limited to the awareness of "I am." In one part, there is a center that perceives, and in another, the perception itself, which is the fact of being.

If you focus on this long enough, without any other content, at a certain point it collapses, and what remains is total openness. This doesn't mean that the mind needs to be absolutely silent, but rather that the inner dialogue becomes irrelevant.

You might think, "Oh wow, 'I am,'" but that thought lacks a fundamental ontological level; it doesn't define reality; it lacks emotional charge, it's just something that appears.

Even in total openness there are thoughts, but they are in the background, like autopilot; there is no need to silence them, just jump to the level where their meaning is irrelevant

What could give reality fullness if theres no sense of separation? Sounds it would be "empty"

Seems the "I am" - awareness state you mention, if you mean self as empty awareness in head, can be filled with thoughts and energy, and perhaps also some kind of base level neurological self-structure/mechanism, so it seems theres still individual self there but in backround somehow empty head, being the space in which all that is contained, although still charged limits yes. 

The neurological thing I mentioned seems to me unshakable (as in long term) or at least here....

Sounds chill but if thoughts are less prominent in that state, then how about emotions in the body?  If I my ask, but I know theyre different, we dont wanna live from our minds too much anyways so maybe not so reasonable to compare the two but its alien state for me so I ask

Edited 4 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The cross-referencing in science is not just a "group think" limitation; it's a way to establish accuracy. "My work is x y z, and not a b c d and e, you can read and check for yourself".

Of course there is a valid aspect to it. But let's not pretend it's all valid. There is obscuratism and pretension in it too.

All that cross-referencing is also incestuously self-serving, a mote around one's irony tower.

When Langan throws arcane jargon at you, now you know how academia feels to normies. A taste of one's own medicine

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Sugarcoat]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I've said it before: people use lack of understanding as a gauge for whether somebody is smarter than them. And then it happens that you get some people who inflate their perceived intelligence with pompous in-understandable speech, or they're just bad at explaining themselves. Jordan Peterson does something similar but also with emotional tone. It's sophism really.

If you look at someone like Bernardo Kastrup, he is very technical, but when he explains something, he uses a lot of metaphors, plain language, examples. Meanwhile when I hear Langan or Weinstein explain something, they use none of those things (or if they do use for example a metaphor, it's more complex than what is being explained), and they might even refer to other jargon or peculiar words that need to be unpacked.

Yea there is trend there

ahahhahah thought it was funny that marked part 

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

a mote around one's irony tower.

moat* Jargon check 🤓

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Moat* Jargon check 🤓

Checking the mote in thy brother's eye? 

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Sugarcoat]

On the contrary, we have the bible which if you open any random page its just pure metaphor like "thy shall ascended, the lord for whom he is called for....." (just made something up)

Is there anyone in the world who understands the bible??? Im doubting the mainstream christians that claim otherwise.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Is there anyone in the world who understands the bible???

Once you understand God you don't need the Bible.

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Once you understand God you don't need the Bible.

Tell the mainstream christians 😅

[Leo Gura]

Christainity is like jerking off to porn cartoons when you could be having sex.

But they are addicted to the cartoons and refuse to let them go.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Christainity is like jerking off to porn cartoons instead of having sex.

Lots of critique can be made yea

[kavaris]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

arcane jargon

I like your phrasing. The 'Arcané iargon*, i gotta remember that one.

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Yea there is trend there

ahahhahah thought it was funny that marked part 

"Oh so you didn't understand the jargony term I just used 🤓; have you heard about my super-duper-ultra-gauge-symmetry-12th-quasi-micro-pico-900-backflip-tripple-cork-nano-cosmo-dimensional manifold-envelope-antilope-folded-into-an-origami-figure ship-in-a-bottle analogy 🤓?"

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

My physics TOE involves a cock-in-a-bottle.

No analogy.

If you just grant me one cock-in-a-bottle, I can derive all of space-time from there.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My physics TOE involves a cock-in-a-bottle.

Tarantino's physiological cock involves itself with a toe in a bottle.

 

Most schizophrenic but logical thing I've written.

[kavaris]

Oh shyt, haha. Clever, everyone.

[Sugarcoat]

26 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Oh so you didn't understand the jargony term I just used 🤓; have you heard about my super-duper-ultra-gauge-symmetry-12th-quasi-micro-pico-900-backflip-tripple-cork-nano-cosmo-dimensional manifold-envelope-antilope-folded-into-an-origami-figure ship-in-a-bottle analogy 🤓?"

Youre kinda guilty yourself aren't ya except the down-looking on others and I guess when you write super intellectually it actually has substance (I said I guess because I cant tell for sure if I dont understand it, paradoxical loop huh). 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Most schizophrenic but logical thing I've written.

ive thought to write to you "youre the most woo woo intellectual person ive ever seen" 😂. A little similarity here

[Oppositionless]

Intellectuals, especially physicists, are woo. That's the rule not the exception . If you believe abstract math are literally real and pray to invisible quantum fields you can never directly encounter you're a magician. 

[Leo Gura]

Quantum Unicorn Chromodynamics

[kavaris]

3 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

magician

i just watched somethin on Charlie Murphy tlkin bout how he was going to the club w/ Eddie Murphy in the 80s, and he got Charlie to wear this green, sparkly bus boy lookin jacket-nd-getup. And they got to the club, nd ppl were lookin at him and his brother Eddie, wonderin.. And they ask 'em "hay, whos the cat you're with, he looks like a magician or somethin' ".

Thats what its gonna be like one day, theres gonna be these scientists tryina tell everyone bout the magic of science, inexplicably defining things - in as much as it can define. And then theres just gonna be... everyone else, whos looked at that void, like "wait, the last... 100 years, we dont really know anything still... like..."

Is that purely a technical limitation. Or is that something deeper, our inability to realize a simple truth about the inherent limitations there, and how it translates to everything, in that way of 'wondering... As, its a magiciany curiosity at that point, cause... it's, "whos that guy in the back", right?... "is he like, a magician, or Whys he got a glittery green jacket", its quite strange, in the future—in the most obvious way, where the conscious experience is then the sought after element.

Or maybe everyone will just be still scratching their head by then, ha, who knows. Maybe they will all die on the hill, before being caught exiting the search and answers from science.