Andreas

Member
  • Content count

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andreas

  1. Yes God is real because Leo says so. And Spiderman is real because my cousin says so. I guess there is a reason to why they tell you to stay of drugs. Yes. And some people make a good amount of money from this spaghetti.
  2. How would it make sense to have 1 ball and add 3 and have the sum total of balls be 4? How would you choose to categorize that? How do you differentiate Truth and truth? What makes something absolute and something not? If there is truth, how come there be no truth from the perspective of Truth? How come there be truth at all? How do you know that you have the perspective of God if you do not know that you do not know? How is the idea of God’s perspective possible if there is no way to know if someone has the perspective of God? Your statement is wrong because I disagree with you and I am right. I am right because I have a higher level of consciousness and you can not understand that because you cannot know that you cannot know. Achieve the state of my level of consciousness and you will understand that you are wrong. If you disagree with my statement then that is simply because you are deeply unconscious. I can for this reason continue to ignore your arguments. You see that? He says so. So therefore it’s true! I mean, ‘true’. Well maybe not because that doesn’t make sense. Well this is akward. It’s probably because both of us are just to unconscious or closeminded to understand ;D Aha! You see that? I was right! Oh wait.. maybe not. Oh well it’s probably because I need to work on myself and get a higher and better level of consciousness
  3. How come there be a distinction between Absolute and anything not fundamental if there is no true distinction? How can you make up 2+2=3? Why would distinction be something that could be included in something that cannot have a distinction? Il know what..? There is nothing that can be true and nothing to be wrong, so what would I know? What qualifies as an ‘Absolute’ truth? What is the non-existen distinction between the non-existent wrong truth and the non-existent true truth? Then how can I know that if it is not true? How can I know that I indeed am at this deluded level of being and not just think I am because I can not know that I can not know that I am deeply unconscious? If there is no wrong, how is it not correct to say that you are wrong? And how does that statement not conclude as right if there is no conclusion of right? And how does that statement not conclude as wrong if there is no right OR wrong? What is right here? Nothing? So how is that not true? How come? Because I disagree with your opinion? Im sensing a pattern here.
  4. You have still not answered any of my questions. My first question was HOW 2+2=4 is not true. Answering that with it is a relative truth is not explaining strictly how 2+2=4 would not be true. My second question was HOW come the absolute highest value be truth if there is no truth? Answering that with you do not understand because you do not understand that you do not understand is also not an actual answer to my question. It would have been an answer to the question «Do I understand absolute truth by this definition..» My third question was HOW can you know that there is no right and wrong if there is no right and wrong? Your answer to that was that I cannot know that you can know because I am deeply stuck in my ego and I do not understand that I do not understand and that is the precise reason to why you are in reality, right. But how is that so if nothing is right? And if nothing is wrong, how is it not wrong to say that you are wrong? My fourth question will be why do you insist that I am deeply unconscious if that statement in itself cannot be right?
  5. Yes of course I am unconscious because I disagree with your opinion. Stigmatization is not an argument. If you are so developed and understand all of this, why can’t you answer even one of my questions?
  6. How would the statement 2+2=4 not be right? How come the ‘highest’ value of the ‘most developed’ stage be ‘absolute truth’ if there is no truth? If there is no right or wrong, how come your statement that there is no right or wrong be right?
  7. Norway, Sweeden, Denmark and France.
  8. You can try chronic meditation like you would at a retreat. If you lose focus on work just go back to meditation. If your ego gets tired of being abused in such a way it will want to go back to studying. This creates a lot of focus if you do it correctly. Because you will eventually be too scared to not focus because that means abuse of the ego or mental pain.
  9. What's the limitation here? I don't see how being a "lone wolf" is better than connecting to people. Can someone explain? Can't you just understand people and have them understand you and still think about the world? Don't stage yellow people start a family?
  10. I hate religion. Especially when they try to stigmatize you for not believing or brainwashing small children. The arrogant ones annoy me the most. There is nothing wrong with spirituality but religion is just pure irrationality and madness. When is this going to end? They break down societies by starting wars. How do you deal with religious groups emotionally and stop being distracted by them?
  11. Yeah even trying to talk about how to have a discussion will get twisted into falsehood. All for survival. I think it’s important to try to expose this problem generally. Because it is a really deep problem in this site and society in general. Might be worth to shot a video on the topic. It hinders our collective growth.
  12. Well from my perspective it looks like what you are trying to describe is that any disagreement someone has is a strange loop. «I think you are wrong because I am right and you think I am wrong because you are right» Depending on what character you choose you will get a different percieved truth. My point is that if one of them believed that 2+2 is 3 then he would break logic (not transcend logic) and objectivly be wrong. He doesn’t know he would so he would need help to understand why he is wrong through mathematical arguments provided by the second person. This can be very hard to do when 2 people are egotistical and cannot differentite the ‘looser’ which would threaten the ego’s survival. This is where what I call toxic femininity emerges. That’s the problem I am trying to point to. It’s not who of us is right because we really don’t know that. It’s how we figure that out. It is important that once one get to a higher level of awareness that they don’t develop a shadow. Not all people who disagree is closeminded, egotistical or anything.
  13. I think it’s true. It’s up to you if you agree with me or not. Your meaning can be right for you. Wrong for me. That’s true. If I believe that 2+2 is 3 and you believe it’s 4 it doesn’t mean that 3 is just as right as 4. It just means I believe it’s more right and you believe it’s wrong. 2+2 is obviously not 3 so you would be right here. And I would be wrong without knowing im wrong.
  14. No I am not. That is not what I was referring to. I disagree on your statement that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I might be wrong here absolutely. I don’t believe I am wrong but my argument is not about who is right and who is wrong. It’s about how we draw a conclusion on that. What I call toxic femininity. This is especially important when it comes discussions with between people of power and people with less power: - A child and a parent - A socalled witch and the accuser - A student and a teacher - A psychiatric patient and a psychiatrist - A corrupt judge and an innocent man charged with a crime
  15. You see what you are doing here is indirectly stigmatizing the people who stigmatize yourself. And what I am doing in this post is stigmatizing you. What you can do in your next post is stigmatize me and this can go on forever. What I am proposing is focusing purely on the facts. You don’t need to engange with people like that. Focus on what’s objective not make assumptioms and strawman people. Focus on the evidence you are talking about and convince people through reason. I personally don’t believe what you do about inequality but you can convince me otherwise, with evidence. This is what I call toxic femininity. Toxic femininity is when the focus is less about what the person is trying to say, but more about how the person is expressing his opinion. It’s when it is emotionally dificult to admit you are wrong. I guess this is what’s trying to be modelled in Spiral dynamics with the tier 1 and tier 2.
  16. No we are not both right. I get what you mean though, but I disagree. For example flat earthers and regular people. One group is right and one IS wrong. Some perspectives are more true than others, and those are in return easier to defend which makes us all evolve. Giving criticism to rationalism, using any type of stigmatization (indirect or direct) to a person or something a person says or even muddying the waters with interpretations of epistemoloy just tells me that a perspective is harder to defend. Here is an example: «I believe X about Actualized.org because of Y» «Question that belief, this is the devil» This is not only stigmatization, but also weaponizing epistemology. If you actually break through all of these defences you will either recieve threaths, anger or simply be ignored as an attempt to stigmatize you even further. I am currently writing a book on this to how this relates to psychiatric patients and there is a lot of overlap.
  17. Not in itself, but when you put it all into context it makes perfect sense.
  18. I know your post was supposed to make us seem stupid and all, but it actually backfires and just makes our points even stronger.
  19. Pewdiepie talking about Platos philosophy for 50 minutes
  20. What are you talking about? He is basicly saying "You are wrong because you are stupid. And you are too stupid to realize you are stupid so I can't help you." This is pure stigmatization and cultish behaviour. Giving criticism to this is totally valid. Don't think professors do that at Harvard. That is, bully their students into believing what they feel is true. What you are trying to do is put a strawman on him with an incorrect context in order to defend your ideology.
  21. What if it is your own mind that is unopen to new perspectives? Just a thought..
  22. It's really cool though. You see the true power of your ego in front of your eyes. I guess this is what happened thousands of years ago and turned into religion.
  23. That's good. I am aware that you and Leo are not "two identical peas of the same pod" as well. What do you feel is getting funny?
  24. Well again, that is your opinion. My next opinion could be that there is no truth to that opinion.