Reciprocality

Good point, and i will agree, psychology can only by means of the scientific method do so much, to ultimatley call it by a name of "diagnosis" does me no harm, but i think as you may allude to that psychology should take some responsebility not dogmatizing everything which strike their first instinct "less then ideal". For many may find it tyranizing. But again, the diagnosis as i read about it seem relatively simmilar to my experiences.

1. Obviously, 2. Yes, 3. First sentence: yes, second sentence: do not see the relevance, 4. first sentence: what does that mean? second sentence: what? I think i will give up on this dialogue, unless you read and respond to that which is written in previous comments. ? Edit: if we only speak past eachother that is also fine.

Okay, so then i need to first say how i see enlightenment. I think the metaphysical implications of turquoise enlightenment are plausible, but i do not believe those implications still, neither do i have disbelief of it. What i do believe is that the epistemic parts about it is valid, so that a man indeed in his enlightenment are radicaly more conscious then other people, especially in those peak moments. Aswell do i believe that these non-dual trips filled with sensations of infinite love etc. will be of immense value to humanity in the hundreds of years to come. Now to the question: i think these states of mind can be achieved without meditation and pshycodelics (to lesser extents), but radicaly rare. Still i would not believe that those experiences neccecitates the many conclusions i have seen for example Leo draw. But again, many of which i find plausible and not contradictory to my own believes. (but i can obviously not now believe everything which i do not find contradictory to my believes hitherto, or rather: non-contradiction do not neccesitate knowledge nor believes)

That were a typo, meant the opposite 'Synchronical', which i define as: "that which can be said about a specific accidental to its relational past and future" (Here Hume and some other empericists would claim that relation can never really be said to be but a mere "connexion" . If it were NOT accidental to the specific's past and future i would call it a subset within a diachronical 'whole', or rather simply diachronics. If reason were to be itself synchronical i would claim that the road from there to justifying reason as something MORE then that which justify emotion, would not be far. But than again, it could be that it is such only by proxy of being yet another emotion as you elaborated on above. Yes indeed it is under-appriciated, and ufortunatley those of us who do sense these things may not be adequatley verbaly proficient so to make explicit sense of it to themselves, non less communicating it to others. Its great that you saw a new angle to the issue, if i myself could be said to have a passion it is for those trees which have been "hidden" all along and suddenly become clear as day.

Finally! And i agree! Everything you said is right on, but i still want to give philosophy all that i have, and why i raised the question if reason could be itself a "synchronical" sensation, and why i see all philosophy and reason as mere incentives to justify emotion. : D Thank you for the respone, appriciate the depth! Edit, i would not see it as the "mistake" of philosophy, the mistake would rather be to the extent one have too high expectations of the utility by which philosphy and reason can justify emotion.

@Michal__ Seeing that purple people indeed do not have red in them how come purple people fight? How come Chimps fighs? Its dominance, a hierarchical structure, and i can sure tell you those chimps are not red. To reconcile this you find mma (in its act) far more primal, and indeed it is, for its the instincts making us survive millions to hundreds of millions years prior to any "red". Now that is the specifics of the act, with regards to the generals of peoples consciousness it would be fallacious to from there deduce them being of any specific consciousness. The professionals COULD be a group destributed primarily around the red end of things, but evidence have shown tendencies to quite the countrary. Some people usage of SD in this thread shows how corrupted such models gets pretty fast. I seek integration of my animal instincts, for in all our lives they are undermined to extreme extents as means to civilization, this is what the model can help a man with.

Yes, you've got it Paul! But what remains is a conclusion, a belief. Eternal recurrence is a derivative of your realization, what do you think about that?

Should try Sam Harris instead, you may need to settle with mere thought experiments, but who knows what may come of it.

Thank you lots, and yes that it indeed could be. You know the reaction you have when someone say something incredibly random? Something not relatable at all? The sensation feels like that reaction, only it FEELS like everything is that "randomeness". And usually it dies of in the matter of seconds. It is very intense.

go for it!

An honest and sincere confrontation seems in its place, i plan on moving out myself, but the time do not seem quite right. Maybe it is smart as Pretty_India adviced: to wait if of?

Okay, well i only wonder because generaly when words are being used absolutely, regarding percieved 'all encompasing' truths, i get sceptical. Simply due to lack of contrasting elements, almost like one is taken by some spell.

There is this thing called "theory of other", just because you know that you did not know does not mean that others know that you did not know.

I do not quite get the meaning of your question with regard to the experience. And to the degree i understand it it is rather absurd haha, you ask me if i can validate the "possebility" of my previous experiences being (neccesarily something else then the experience) in retrospect, by means of intuition? I can tell you that IN THE MOMENT, it were a feeling of disbelief, a sensation that "holy shit how is the uniserve even real" i would name it a detachment of sort.

I see you have missed the mark but i think you may get back to track after this. Indeed i could be attached, attachement is a reflection of identity, if i need MMA to be me then i am attached. If i need anything at all, indeed, i will be attached. To know actions to be a choise so when it comes to it one can easily let it go is detachement. When i eat in the moring i do so out of attachement, when i crave for sex i do so out of attachement, now it may also be a physical craving beneath and prior to identity, but so is violence. As explained already, not the red and orange incentives, but the beige. Now, that is evolutionary the case. .. Unless one argue for turquoise enlightenement (which you probably do not), attachement is not itself that which needs avoidance, but indeed the content with regard to the specific action and modalities. The totality of MMA culture is not the least bit what we will find value in discussing, most your point with regard to it are rather self evident. In our civilized society we neccesarily undermine our anger, beneath it we undermine our physical proclivity to test when something becomes to violent, that is great with regards to the ultimate goal of public demanor and a functioning public square, obviously. But in a discussion regarding truth i care to lesser extent of utility. I am yet to see a Russian Systema practitioner at 155 lbs kill Khabib, non less winning in a fight with him, but guess what? I would not believe it, although being radicaly openiminded to it happening. Now have you seen it happen, or were you a little bit attached? You see? Missing the mark, now try again. : ) I can add that "MMA" has within it all martial arts, i refer not to the sport, but the meaning of the words (edit: if i were unclear about that, that is on me). I wonder whether you in retrospect are able to see how conclusive you are, on so very thin layers of premises?@Danioover9000

Is it documents regarding legality directly, or between the mma leagues and its fighters? For the former seems rather retarded.

fantastic!

I will certaintly say that death is absurd, alot like 2 times 0. One idea you've had in a video is that death is to get blown out into the universe in infinite direction withn infinite velocity in infinite short time, this i find plausible. But non the less a death, you say there will simply follow an experience, this do not negate "death". It can only negate death if what one NOW are experiencing when alive is the same as when dead, perhaps that is your idea. But at the same time you are also "merely" a human with an ego. Fack, gimme some of that toad.

Beautiful, and thank you alot for the response. Of all alternatives to MMA BJJ have been my favorite, and within MMA the grapplers have been those i enjoy most fighting. The extreme violence is a seperate fascination for me, but elsewise to by means of some very specific techinques take out someone without hurting them is truly something in its own right. If you have done it for a year i presume you would be able to take out 95/98% of the western male population, have that given you a confidence boost? And accidentaly to the previous question, does it feel good to know you truly can defend yourself? Ego i believe, would be no issue for me, the adrenaline boost though that is another monster. I would only be interested in a well cutomed gym if it came to it, and do think the bell curve is as it is everywhere valid in also this area. You speak of physical discomfort, would you mind being a little bit specific?

Its amazing that you even use words. Edit: you know, language, sentence, grammar, syntax. Amazing.

I mean, if you want to reign war on logic i applaud you, but do it with the cards on the table, there can be no halfway "contradiction is an issue when i say it is".

Nope, that is according to Nahms logic which seems rather off. A beautiful floating contradiction you are sir, peculiar. I understand you are awake and that i respect, but please come down to earth so we can agree on the very foundation to your own disagreement, hehe.

Lenin and Stalins Gulag, you want red? Well there you have it! : )

You validate causation by claiming that causation is limiting, by using any words at all you validate causation as a means of language, a means is itself a causation. The mere wanting of an example validate the neccesity of causation, its self evident. So therefore claiming causation as an absolute limit is at best an insane act, but to claim some causation within a relative domain to be of a certain limit (with the connotation in your wording) could potentialy be turthworthy or of utility.

In an absolute sense? Or with regards to specifics, since your comment would in an absolute sense be its own negation.