AtheisticNonduality

No, there are definite positives to be found in the psychotic, like an unraveling of all of "the lies" (as you would say) in society. But it is a limited experience, even if it is transcendent (but all transcendence is relative). It is not of an "entrenched ego" since I don't really have an ego anymore by your standards, but by my standards, I do, since the existence or nonexistence of the ego according to particular states is a problem of terminology---these problems of terminology are too common here because of inadequacies in certain Wilberian "lines of development". Your model of your enlightenment-type experiences is really awful. That's basically the point I'm trying to make. It's all based around Absolute-relative obfuscations and hypocrisies.

In that case, I'd say what you're advocating could directly cause psychosis.

Could you phrase this in terms of him being possessed by demons, rather than him being a demon himself? . . . Also, how do you believe some of the things here for which there is obviously no evidence either immaterially or materially?

@JoeVolcano I agree with how you emphasize the "experience" or "waking" aspects, but that is not the only measure of development. It also does not have to do with ego-less-ness. The psyche will identify with something higher than the human self (mind / emotions / body: a definition drawn from here), and we may call that the Self; though it will (should) still recognize and remain understanding the lower aspect. The whole "the self is an illusion" is nonsense. Either what that statement means is that the self is just one object among others and no longer recognized as a subject, in which case the self still exists but just as an object; or it means the self is part of "Maya" or "the lie" or the illusory nature of all of reality, in which case the statement is nonsense since it applies to all other possible options besides the self (and is therefore relatively meaningless). Or otherwise, what you mean is you keep the self in its current recognition and add to that the higher sense . . . etc. . . .

Some people experience insanity and madness while losing their mind without taking anything.

No, these ideas have validity because of their objectivity, the fact they are patterns of imagery that correlate with the instincts exactly, demonstrably.

@RMQualtrough The "neutral monism" is obviously achieved by Nothingness, since Nothingness is the only thing formless enough to be compatible with all forms (either mental or physical) and unite them all.

These are strange blanket statements that don't cover the scope of either word.

The Nothingness creates the mirages, is them.

He's also threatened to slice me with a katana before.

@thisintegrated ^ "ENTP"

I Love you too. I like being a devil and giving you a hard time, but the amount of appreciation I have for the work (and insanity) going on here is undefinably vast. It is Love.

What really gets you is when you feel nostalgic for something that hasn't happened yet, as some people say.

He won't anymore. In case you haven't noticed.

I'll probably write something more thoughtful tomorrow, yet until then . . .

@DefinitelyNotARobot Being naked is probably normal for him, though the eating ice cream and acting "ungrounded" are not.

@Sine Usually the internet to me seems to be a place devoid of any real support or intimacy or concern. Everything is always too deep in the digital landscape of wires and electricity and white screens. But then there are certain incidents like this one where a genuine emotional stir happens and a real connection becomes possible. It's interesting to me.

Hitler shot himself to not end up like Mussolini. Caesar got stabbed to death by displeased senators.

This is true, but it's not an exact comparison. Something more apt would not be Hitler says 2 + 2 = 4 but instead Hitler says society purity matters. The second statement even might still be true, but the connotations (certain behavioral patterns) are still there.

@Sine Yes, definitely one part of me sees the cosmic pseudo-nihilistic "laughing at existence" that he seems to have and the elevated sense of absurdity/profundity mixture and wants to just respond with levity and a complete abundance of laughter. The other part of me is concerned that he has lost his mind (at least temporarily) and is at risk of bringing harm to himself. If he did something regrettable, I'd feel bad about acting non-seriously. But I'm sure he'll be fine.

????????????

I have a quote or a few that could work for a possible 4 Quad video. You know the model (AQAL) uses subjective, intersubjective (that which involves multiple subjects), objective, and interobjective (multi-object) aspects of reality, though you could see the singular subjective as primary and ultimately supplanting all the others. This is Aurobindo on pg. 532 of The Life Divine, which you could skim, since this is where Wilber developed the model from in the first place, such as:

@RendHeaven Aurobindo summarizes your view well as: "Since the knowledge of the One is Knowledge and the knowledge of Many is Ignorance, there can be, in a rigidly analytical and dialectical view, nothing but pure opposition between the things denoted by the two terms; there is no essential unity between them, no reconciliation possible. Therefore Vidya alone is Knowledge, Avidya is pure Ignorance; and, if pure Ignorance takes a positive form, it is because it is not merely a not-knowing of Truth, but a creation of illusions and delusions, of seemingly real unrealities, of temporarily valid falsehoods. Obviously then, the object matter of Avidya can have no true and abiding existence; the Many are an illusion, the world has no real being. Undoubtedly it has a sort of existence while it lasts, as a dream has or the long-continued hallucination of a delirious or a demented brain, but no more. The One has not become and can never become Many; the Self has not and cannot become all these existences; Brahman has not manifested and cannot manifest a real world in itself: it is only the Mind or some principle of which Mind is a result that thrusts names and forms upon the featureless unity which is alone real, and being essentially featureless, cannot manifest real feature and variation; or else, if it manifests these things, then that is a temporal and temporary reality which vanishes and is convicted of unreality by the illumination of true knowledge." And yet: ". . . the later exaggerated idea of absolute separation from the true truth of Self and Spirit, of an original illusion, of a consciousness that can be equated with dream or with hallucination, did not at first enter into the Vedantic conception of the Ignorance. If in the Upanishads it is declared that the man who lives and moves within the Ignorance, wanders about stumbling like a blind man led by the blind and returns ever to the net of Death which is spread wide for him, it is also affirmed elsewhere in the Upanishads that he who follows after the Knowledge only, enters as if into a blinder darkness than he who follows after the Ignorance and that the man who knows Brahman as both the Ignorance and the Knowledge, as both the One and the Many, as both the Becoming and the Non-Becoming, crosses by the Ignorance, by the experience of the Multiplicity, beyond death and by the Knowledge takes possession of Immortality." This is The Life Divine pg. 508.

I take full responsibility for the existence of space lol

@thisintegrated This guy @RendHeaven thinks there's a difference between the Absolute and the relative. Also he hasn't even attained Emptiness yet. He does not believe in time, thereby causing him to not believe in space, which is nonsense. You could say be or because both points in time are the same, or both points in space are the same, therefore an ultimate change never truly occurs. Yet, a change does occur. Space and time exist. Any of this spatiotemporal denialism is just a semantic failure, or self-contradictory.