Windappreciator

They needed a logician to somewhat recognize it. If someone without such a status had told them, who knows if they had just shrugged it off. Not to deny someone without that education would have unlikely found it.

that's finer, yes.

hm, I think if were to avoid confusion around stuff like plainly having blue and not blue from which you could conclude it automatically generates the rest of colors, meaning if I am god and I give rise to blue and not blue, but not blue means yellow and yellow means not yellow, but not yellow means green and green means not green, but not green means blue and blue means not blue and then not blue means yellow again and so on(*), which I think is a rather beautiful loop, we could introduce meta structures in which these are nested. 1. We have started with one duality from which all the others automatically expanded out explosively and it doesn't matter with which one to start, because by starting any one is like starting with any other. 2. We introduce meta dualisties. For example, let's start with the notion color and not color, we are biased towards color so we zoom into color and we find blue and not blue and hence apply 1. within that frame of color and we get (*). 3. we repeat 2. for a meta duality and then apply 1. if we zoom in. the visual representation for this process would then be fractals.

Aaah classic, you eliminate paradox by establishing a limit for yourself to view that paradox. typical rationalist move.

Here is the thing. You don't need to have Y here, being X automatically creates !X. When we say: "We have X and Y", we don't necessarily mean that Y = !X, but rather, Y itself is it's own duality creator. It's important to see that being X does create "not-being-Y" but it also is not Y and neither is "not-X" the same as "not-Y" or Y. So if X creates !X, Y creates !Y, however !X != !Y what this means is that you can have 2 dualities in a linear fashion, saying I am X from which follows !X and then imagine X and !X collapses into 0 and you become Y and therefore !Y and then with the use of time and memory you can construct a sequence of : I am X and !X at time 1, I am Y and !Y at time 2, I am Z and !Z at time 3 and so on.

Oh, sorry about that mate.

I mean, what is causing it? What circumstances?

Why?

You must have some sort of neurological condition.

You don't have to censor more, just an increased quality and effort in formulating ones views.

I am stunned, that is exactly my point. Please read what I have written.

And what stage do you follow from that. Those could either be orange or green or blue ( blue maybe not so much ). So we have too look for a finer distinction and not point to the common ones and say 'that could be any, we don't know'. You come off more as if you're trying to defend an original idea you had which would be broken if you were to believe this is a green stage thing.

Enjoy nature isn't either

This is good.

That is your clarification. It's a feeling associated with these pictures compared to that of what I associate with that time period. When I see people's characteristics/behaviour/values/expressions/forms I assign feelings towards it. Same for events/situations/forces and so on..

Just a feeling.

@AdeptusPsychonautica You lack understanding the thrill of understanding. Your criticism is not for the sake of compassion or improvement, you seek to keep the meaning down and conserve behaviour of ones around you to a level where you can navigate yourself as usual.

Probably green in that felt surpressed by blue at that time.

@Tetcher2 if the academic were to switch with the farmer, he would get accustomed to it in couple days, the stage blue farmer however is lost and likely will stay lost in strict distinctions about everything wrong with these academics. Hard working is not exclusive to stage blue. Stage blue has little vision for smart working also. There are studies that wilk simply overwhelme most stage blue farmers by the amount of abstraction required, the farmer will lose his mind.

You can start with loving animals.

I think the actual criticisms are not with your teachings, but with your character and some see your videos as a reckless approach. You may think about this too strategically and focused on what it will do to the image of actualized rather than embody compassion and soft heartedness. There was a good case made that many perceive you as a guru rather than a scientist, because of the way you present your insights in videos, even though that might just be a consequence because of the intensitiy. What will happen if other suicide cases occur that could be linked to actualized, even if it is not really your fault, will you be able to defend it off with PR? Maybe you would not need to much when your personality speeks for yourself? I am not sure, I just enjoy the metaphysics and philosophy. To me you never seemed like guru material, but more like a buddy. However, I do believe keeping a certain higher quality of threads on this forum will help keep things calm and align the minds of those that produe noise or sort them out and it would make a calmer impression on outsiders.

This is a good opportunity to discuss our behaviour and image to the outside world. Including that of our cult leader. Maybe we ain't that ripe?

I would welcome actual criticism.

Let us first start by defining the term Imagination as a conjuring and visual/audial perception of any form and color. In perspective, this is done consciously or unconsciously, although from the absolute always consciously (kinda sick of saying that, but it's just to cover the smartasses). In unconscious ways, what we share as a somewhat common Imagination we call that 'consensual reality', like Leo once mentioned. "I see a red car, you see a red car". Although this may not be fully consensual, then "my red is redder than yours", there still is a big perceived intersection. But there can still be differences. If perceived differences are too big, especially on the audial/visual side such that it is obviously alienated for the majority, we call it psychosis. This was for the part of the unconscious Imagination that is not consensual. Now for the conscious. You can consciously imagine something that does not break you from the unconscious Imagination as consensual reality (obviously you can be conscious of imaging consensual reality, but assuming this the case for everyone, then what is consensual and what not will only be what I haven't met yet). To that Imagination you have added feelings and thoughts. If a feeling is particularly strong, you can conjure Imaginations that still do not break your sense of consensual reality, but rather pull you parallel to consensual reality (really sick of writing that) into that Imagination where you can more vividly examine the visual and audial forms of that feeling/ you associate with that feeling. That pull can still be strong enough to have it's own real impact on you but it is not losing you to mistaking it for consensual reality.

@SoonHei This fits the blame narrative too perfectly. I am not sure as to how real this is.