undeather

"Character flaw" - lol. I think your heuristic around "becoming wise" is a bit off. Reeves is full of bias and it's painfully obvious once you have a real conversation with him. He is not interested in truth. He is interested in getting people to agree with his paradigm, that's all. There is no humility in him. Even if you come up with a really good counter-argument, he wont give you an INCH if it contradicts his worldview. I remember a certain individual getting banned from his deathproof-forum because he disagreed with TJ on a core subject . But then, instead of being aloof about it, he made a 90 minute long video SHITTING on that guy in the worst ways possible. Calling him names. Calling him an "ugly loser". A "Jewish Rothschild-scum". This was in 2020 and he did the same to Leo. Is that how a wise person would act in your estimation? Sadly he deleted all his youtube-videos some time ago. Because otherwise, I could show you all the double standards, lies and outrageous promises he made in the past - of course non of them became reality: 1) He once claimed he invented a "helmet" that could raise IQ, never delivered anything (even though you could pay a ridicolous sum of money to get into the alpha-phase) 2) He lied about his education 3) His self help course never released ..and so on He is the perfect example of why a large quantity of experiences won't make you wise per se. It's the integration and the contextualisation that matters. TJ scores very low at those and I am afraid that he will never make the jump. He too far gone. As Carl Jung said:"Beware of unearned wisdom" - and I think he hit the nail on it's head there. I would never consider myself wise because that's exactly this self-elevating behaviour which contradicts the premise in it's essence. I try my best to not fall into my flaws and biases and so far, my life has been pretty amazing. Now, he seems to have a fulfilling family life (I am still friends with him on facebook) and that's great. I don't wish him any ill. Maybe he grew up and came back to reality a bit since his daughter was born.

TJ is capable but definitely not wise. I was part of his deathproof-university curriculum couple of years ago. He is a textbook narcissist. Can't handle criticism. Banned everyone who disagreed with him. It was the worst and most unreflected meeting place for EVERY conspiracy theory imaginable. He believed in EVERYTHING. He even split up with his closest ingroup because of some ridicolous argument. I was banned because I questioned his 5G-Covid "proof" - I wasn't even combative, just asking critical questions. This guy is utterly insane - smart, but maniacle. Great case for how far some charisma can bring you in this world. Undeniably conscientious when it came to working hard, but far - FAR from being a person of wisdom.

Yeah..but that's exactly what I said. Read my previous post. You CAN to some extent intuit what a person is like - but it's also pretty unreliable in many cases. A ruthless but charming psychopath will appear extremely likeable/charismatic to most - even though the actual intent might be completely different. No amount of self-knowledge will help you in this case. Just look at Ted Bundy for example - lured his victims with his personality. Dictators are no different. The more I know about somebodies life, the more I can estimate the level of integrity displayed by a certain individual. 5 years ago we renvovated our bathroom and found an offer which was almost to good to be true - we met the guy in charge and there was nothing off about him in general. Seemed like a solid dude with his own artisan-startup - nothing shady, very knowledgeable and straight to the point. Before I signed the contract, I decided to google his name - and it was then when I found out that this guy has been scamming people left and right. He had multiple charges against him and was basically already in prison. Lesson learned: Sometimes you just cant make positive OR negative claims about someone based on the limited information or intuition you are percieving.

Human beings are NOT simple. Thats a gross oversimplification. The brain in vat, acting out calculated expressions of an emergent psyche is a well known but largely disproven hypothesis from oldschool behvaiourism-folks like B.F. Skinner. In fact, one of the main arguments in the last century of psychology-reserach was exactly what you are trying to say here: You can predict how people operate based on a very limiting set of drives/fears and similar factors. It failed spectecularly. Human beings, so it seems, are just way more complex than we thought - if not to say - combinatorially explosive. Now, I am not going to deny that there is a certain element of truth in that. There are definitely patterns which we can kind of intuit and it's directly correlated with the amount of self-knowledge we have gained up to this point. I understand the essence of your point but it's not nearly as reliable as you think it is. FBI negotiators are terrible at predicting human behaviour. This is a well established subject. Despite the popular appeal of body language or vocal queues, no study has uncovered any single behavior that accurately reflects whether a person is for example lying. Again, there is some truth to the negotiator who free's hostages throguh smart arguments - there is psychology which can influence odds, but it's again - just not very successful overall. The phrase “Know thyself” is not originally from Socrates. It is a quote inscribed on the frontispiece of the Temple of Delphi and has very little to do with how other individuals operate. First and firemost it's a process of understanding the self, development of the same and society for the overall benefit of the individual and others. If Socrates was here today, he would use some sort of socratian dialogue to sort out this situation - not some semi-deductive heuristic you are proposing.

There is no doubt in my mind that Tate is or was involved in many shady/unethical business enterprises over the years and there is an appropriate amount of criticism to be dealt there. However, reality is just more nuanced than that and it's quiet astonishing how fast some individuals recoil to their tribalistic, black or whtie tendencies as soon as his name gets mentioned. To be clear, I personally DON'T think that Tate is a valid role model for younger generations. I have criticized him before, his views on women are regressive and his take on mental health is, if not complteley wrong, then highly partial at minimum. The fact is that none of you know him. You dont know his "real" intentions. You just dont. You might think you do, but you dont. If you cant see this, then you need to work on your sensemaking ecology. All you have are clips, some long form podcast episodes and a tiny amount of objectifiable facts. Everything else is filled by your projection and lack of critical thinking/research. Now if you judge him from the limited amount of information we have, then you can't come to either concluson. There is shady shit but also likeable stuff. He could be a dark triad narcissist OR he is just stuck at a certain level of conciousness which he acts out coherently. It's funny to me that Leo, a guy who has to deal with constant misrepresentation all over the internet, cant quiet grasp the scope of the situation. If you comb through all the accusations against Tate in the last months - anything from rape, human trafficking, misoginy or simply being an asshole, then none of them really hold up to scrutiny. It's mostly exaggerated, taken out of context or made up completely. In fact, there are reports of women AND men who have met or even worked for him - and you know what...almost unanimously they paint a picture of a man who acts respectful and generous among his fellow human beings. I get this impression too to be honest - he doesn't seem like a very hateful man. He does not act agressive when challenged. He seems to be a man of integrity. Now let's get to "Hustler's university" - it's cringe to be honest. All those "get rich"-courses kinda are. But is it a scam? I really dont think so. There is content on there and if you are a complete noob at this kind of stuff, then you might get some decent value out of it. 50$ a month for a course is definitely not a scam - I mean just look at all those proclaimed self-help gurusor "coaches" popping up all over the internet right now. 997$ for a course, 300$ for a two hour coaching session, 5000$ for the whole package..... by whom? Mostly nobodies. I cant believe I have to defend Tate - but most discussions about him are just incredibly one sided and that's wrong. Throughout the last week, I silently observed and read through some posts and this forum and reddit - it's just so obvious that both sides, the haters & the fanboys, mostly act from a emotionally hijacked paradigm. He is heavily centered around a stage orange/blue level of conciousness - and if you want to criticise his views, then this is where to meet him.

Mineral sunscreen (zinc oxide/titanium) > chemical sunscreen solutions (which are most) I personally love La Roche Posay Anthelios, although it's a quiet expensive product.

This is an excellent question. Dont' let any anthropologized conception of "dreaming" dictate what is or isn't possible. The notion of dreams inside dreams has been one of the most consistent metaphysical axiom in many of our renownded mystical traditions and teachings. There are no impossibilities in the infinite dream. I think the most integral point of view is that there is SOME cosmic game going on which includes seperation to a certain point of conciousness, reincarnation, between-lifes and a general telos, Of course you can never prove this but there is preliminary data from OBE's, NDE's & reincarnation studies. If you are interested, I can recommend the book "LSD and the Mind of the Universe" to you. It's an ridicolously interesting piece of literature which goes into these question in a honest & smart way.

Former actualized.org admin and spiritual teacher who mainly focused on neo-advaita/no-self teachings Leo demoted him because he lost touch with reality: https://imgur.com/3WKAELm He then quit the forum and started his own

I am not going to write a lengthy response again because this discussion is hopeless anyway.- Look, if you find peace in that teaching - then I feel sincerely happy for you. From what I have read so far, you seem like a person who went through enormous suffering in his life and I can empathize with that. As I already outlined before, neo-advaita and other hardcore no-self paradigms are of course valid in that particualr sense, but also lack the necessary nuance and anti-reductionistic element which is so crucial for a higher order persepective. Again, I already outlined this before so I wont repeat myself. Peace brother

I know someone who volunteers for a spiritual emergency hotline and she once told us that a huge portion of their incomming requests are directly related to neo advaitan teachings and teachers. You get really angry when hear those stories and that's why I adopted a zero tolerance policy towards this ridicolous approach. There is this certain essence of being rhetorically disarming, a fundamentally built-in feature of the neo-advaitan paradigm - which makes it almost impossible for a spiritual novice to find the dents and shortcommings of the teaching at large. It really takes a shitton of relentless study, deep inquiry and personal experiences in the liminal n0-self space to find the higher order truths the more integral traditions have always been talking about. For someone who comes to a spiritual teacher to seek help with their immense existential suffering, there is just no chance. You either are lucky and get through, or you will end up more fucked up after the process. If you whole teaching can be summed up as:"You dont exist. There is no one experiecing anything. Nothing matters. Nothing to do. Nothing to know", then this should raise a red flag. And if someone comes around the corner with an actual, challenging question - then you can always came back with the good old "Who is asking the question?". It literally does not take more than this to become a teacher since EVERYTHING boils down to those "truths". Obviously there is truth in the paradigm, this is not what my critique is about. Clearly, there are many teachers who had incredibly awakenings in their life and this is just the way it manifested in a teaching. The pathology gets baked in when there you use your insights as some form of absolute truth claim and can't accept that "enlightenment" seems to be a more heterogenous process after all. This is so painfully obvious, yet somehow there still seems to be so much ego and personal investment involved in those teachers when you tell them.. (I wonder why ) Neo advaita is for me the jungian shadow of the tantric path to enlightenment. Alright, daily rant over!

Yes, you didnt research properly. Whats painfully obvious is that most teachers (especially eastern ones) will give sometimes contradicting views on free will, depending on which teaching you are looking at. This makes this whole issue even more problematique... Maharshi is a hard spiritual determinist but also teaches the path of jnana' (knowledge) for increasing your relative freedom - but then he also talks a lot about free actions and the resulting karma... Aurobindo says that free will of the individual is the co-creating force of spirit and therefore relatively real (You are not "different" from "it") - but he also says something different in other scriptures.. Yogananda: progressional (evolutionary) free will and absolute free will in the search of god - but also talks about you as an individual soul having free will.... Nagarjuna & buddhistic views in general: https://philarchive.org/archive/REPRBT Lainer: Multipolar levels of choice... https://www.marcgafni.com/a-model-of-integral-scholarship/ All this confusion everywhere and then my own insights from, for example, psychodelics - which defintiely tells me that there is a relative form of choice and that we are somehow responsible for our deeds & actions here in this existence ..but that at the same time, somehow, everthing is perfectly determined and fine as well... This all led me to the simple conclusion: Free will vs determinism is a dualistic concept, it's always both and neither - live is if and forget about this stupid question

To be clear, I never said that Veganawake is a bad person. He is clearly stuck in a certain paradigm, but without a doubt a lovely individual who wants the best for his peers.

The rhetoricical approach kinda reminds me of Nahm's downfall ..if you guys are familiar with him (at least Inliytened1 is)

Sure, bot those are some pretty famous ones whose teachings are quite easy to reserach.. ..which is an inherent premise of his question

Ramana Maharshi Adi Da Sri Aurobindo Rumi Paramahansa Yogananda Meister Eckhart Nāgārjuna Pythagoras Mordechai Lainer of Izbica Jesus Laozi Just to mention a few different masters from different traditions - and they all can not help but to disagree with each other This is why we should all show some epistemic humility when it comes to those questions.

So much of neo-advaita, as revealed by many of your quotes, can be seen as a stunted form of spiritual development in only emphasizing the deconstructive via negativa or "negating way." It's sophistry and suffers from a chronic compulsion to always absolutize everything onto an “ultimate” or “final” truth-level of discourse, From the standpoint of traditional vedanta, the goal is to realise the "self" in it's true essence, not to repulsively deny it. "I am that I am" is not a "believe system" - it's a direct experience. Precisely because the ego, the soul and the self can all be present simultaneously, we can better understand the real meaning of no-slf, a notion that has caused an inordinate amount of confusion. It does not mean the absence of a functional self (that’s a psychotic, not a sage); it means that one is no longer exclusively identified with that self (which is a function of mind). Believe systems dont affect but can definitely REFLECT reality. Every thought you ever experienced can be categorized as more or less true. You can think that you are the world best tennis player or an extraterrestrial entity from the far off planet Yonex19 and that would be wrong of course. However, the thought of "I am not my thought" or that "all seperations are fundamentally not really real" - is correct. True unity includes oneness and seperateness. You want to be nobody, everybody & somebody - nowhere, everywhere & somewhere. Everything else is just a finite lense you are looking through.

If your non-dual paradigm doesn't contain duality, then it's a dual teaching all along. Infinity, by definition, must express all multiplicites to be infinite. If you label something as "more" or "less" real, you are creating a subtle duality. Nothing can ever be an illusion - for what is there otuside of "one thing" to judge this illusion? All this self - no-self paradigm is an echo chamber to begin with. It's both and neither. There is a divine will, eternal and infinite, omniscient and omnipotent, that expresses itself in the universality and in each particular of all these apparently temporal and finite, inconscient or half-conscient things. The human being partakes of this free will because it is in fact not separate from the eternal. You are "it". You are "god". It's always both and neither.

The truth is that you experience free will/choice every day and all the time. It feels like you can actually choose between pizza and salad - gym or couch - or which career path is the best for you. It feels like there are degrees of conciousness in your decisions, meaning that you can understand your motivations and psychological patterns behind them. It feels like a choice to overcome your fears and do the things you actually long for in life. It feels like a sandbox game. It doesn't matter if free will truly exists or not. You live as if. And no, you haven't figured this one out. I used to think that as well, but that's nonsense. Boiling everything down to these neo-advaitan no-self platitudes is just so boring - but people will repeat them like they are caught in some epistemic echo chamber. Nobody in this forum really knows the full answer to those questions. The funny thing is that the free will vs determinism debate is highly dualistic in nature - which why a simple yes or no answer simply cant be the case. As you study the teachings of enlightened masters from different traditions, you will gradually realise that there is not one final answer to this question. They disagree with each other a lot when it comes to free will, so I think it's smart to remain agnostic and just live as if.

You definitely can! And you can do it through a crypto based asset. A multilayer, decentralized operating system (like EWT) will bring unique advantages you wont get anywhere else. The crypto-market exists and it's here to stay - so why not use it's influence to leverage positive change in the world? I do hold a pretty decent share of their tokens since I truly believe in what they stand for. EWT is already working with different energy market operators (for example in australia https://medium.com/energy-web-insights/australian-energy-market-operator-partners-with-energy-web-on-project-symphony-a-future-proofed-c3e48390d338) - so things are happening. And if they are doing great, the environment will benefit and so will my bank account! Win-Win situation right there.

Before I started my career in medicine, I used to follow many of the renowned youtube-"doctors" and health personalities for years. Yet once you really become sort of an expert yourself, you gradually realize how terrible and short sighted most of the advice you get actually is. Berg is, in my opinon, no exception - in fact, he is one of the worst in the industry. He makes ridicolous claims based on shitty evidence and bro-science. When the mainstream system is lacking the holistic view, then pseudo doc's like Berg lack the integrity and scientific know-how to support their medical paradigm. It's audience capture & financial interest at the bottom of it. Nobody who actually has a clue takes him seriously. This doesnt mean that is always wrong - of course not. Some of his videos are actually pretty interesting.

I think you threw the baby out with the bathwater. There are definitely smart & reliable ways to invest into crypto-currencies. I know this is the case because my best friend is a professional crypto trader who has been consistently making money off the crypto market for years now. He knows the technology from the inside to the outside, spent hundreds of hours theorycrafting his own investment plans and even programmed his own crypto-bot, which passively makes him around 20k a month. He has done the work and now he reaps the rewards. Most people lose money because they want the quick cash grab and dont really know what they are doing. I guess you could make the argument that investing in a digital currency provides no net positive for our society at large, but even there I would partially disagree. It depends a lot in the projects you are supporting. If you look at it from a spiral dynamics perspective, most crypto-currencies are based at a deep orange level of conciousness and are therefore highly problematique for many well known reasons (for example proof of work conseus mechanism and it's enviromental impact). Yet if you look a bit further, there are also many projects which try to leverage the power of the crypto market to do good in the world. One example would be EWT (Energy Web Token), which is highly involved in the accelerated decarbonization of the global economy (https://www.energyweb.org/). It's not some black or white question and it depends highly on the given context.

So according to your own logic Razard, if you accuse someone of projection (which I have seen you doing multiple times now) - then maybe its actually you who is doing that? It's a judgement after all, isn't it? Then you go further and say "A humble man does not see arrogance"... just to perfectly explain what arrogance is from an objectifiable point of view one paragraph later...

I am sure many of you are already following his youtube-channel, but for those who dont - it's a masterclass in having an adventurous & exciting life. In todays society, where most people just exist through the hamsterwheel they call their life, its so refreshing to see this kind of passion burning bright at least in some of us. The funny thing is that this guy used to be a super insecure & depressed dude who turned his life around in his late 30's - now he is traveling to the most absurd locations, deeply bonding with people and having a good time with his beautiful, young girlfriend. Imagine having this kind of life in your late 40's and not the basic, boring, blunt experience most individuals get at that age. It reminds of alot of Osho's concept of Zorba the Buddha. Zorba the Greek is the protagonist from celebrated novelist Nikos Kazantzakis’s novel of the same title. He is personification of the spirit of life. He indulges in sensual pleasures, he dances and plays the santuri, and he does not hesitate in his exhilarated enjoyment of life. Zorba exemplifies the Dionysian passion for living as seen in his enthusiasm for women, wine,and hard work. Buddha does not need any introduction. The whole concept breathes "being in the world, but not of the world". I think his latest video (the one I posted below) is absolutely insane. I mean, who would have the balls to do that? It feels like a small heroes journey - like a archetypal pirate searching for a treasure, overcoming obstacles and finally getting to the promised land. Everyone has his own version of adventure in his life. You dont have to do what he does - but what does really excite YOU and are you willing to follow through with that? I think that's a question we should all ask ourselves more often. It's good the get reminded what crazy, fucking adventure life can be - even outside any spiritual context.

Not all nutrition science is poor and littered with biases - this is simply not the case. You are speaking nonsense. Yes, cherrypicking data and narrative warfare exists - some approaches, especially in nutritional epistemology suffer from systemic problems but this does not mean that there isnt good scientific practice that gives us valuable information about the world. And yes, I am definitely appealing to my authority. Why wouldn't I? I have studied these issues for almost a decade.... I respect people with different views when I feel that they did the necessary work to come to those conclusions - I cant respect yours, because you obviosuly defend nonsense. Also, I dont know how can say this with a straight face and then the evidence YOU bring forward is "just read the food lable bro" or "we have always eaten that - so it has to be healthy" - cant you see your own ignorance right there? It's a Dunnung-Kruger masterclass... I dont care about ethics - I still eat red meat.

I think your analysis of the problem is spot on and well written. I would love to give you a lengthy and thoughtful reply but I am super busy at the moment/for the next days. Basically, the emergence of something like an Institution 2.0, which is heuristically rooted in an integral framework, based on good faith & honest dialogues between thoughtleaders of different hypotheses and a quality transmission of the sensemaking process for the greater public. This is already happening in small circles but is nowhere near where it should be. Our current institutions lack in all these components and since we cant go any step further without them, we gotta upgrade! Also, I think we should make epistemology a mandatory subject in every school. We do not equip our future generations for the obstacles they will face in their future. In the 21th centurary, its much more important how to think than what - we all have the whole knowledgebase of mankind literally below your fingertip on your smartphone. What to do with it is the crucial question... The exponential growth of our information ecology is another issues, but I think AI will come handy one day to analyze datasets inconceivable for the human brain. I dont see any way around this and it comes again with a whole set of new problems - but yeah, thats what we are in for The thing with laymen is that even though they are not equipped to make sense of the data - most of them are NOT stupid. If you take the time and explain it to them in a rational way and on equal terms, it's actually crazy what you can achieve when no one gets captured by bullshit tribal narratives. I managed to do this couple of times when it came to vaccine hesitancy in elderly people. There is a certain percentage who are beyond any help, but thats okay too - all we have to aim for is the the majority.