thisintegrated

As I always say.. ENFPs and ENTPs are both "debaters". The difference is ENFPs debate with their Fi, while ENTPs debate with their Ti While I mostly agree with this, I'm confused why the "single lines of logic". Nothing linear about Ti. ENTPs are divergent / non-linear thinkers. wtf.. I thought I was the only ENTP on the forum??? You're the first one I've encountered after years of being on here.

This I highly doubt. I don't see anything unique about such an experience, it's just extremely extremely rare. You may want to read Robert Monroe's books to get an idea of the kinds of existences that are out there. But I look forward to a clearer explanation of this experience. Clearly something profound. I've talked about this before. It's "a" god, like from any polytheistic religion. Not "the" god, but the manifestation of eternal/divine qualities which can be considered as a God. Questions for @Leo Gura: Why a mouse? Is this just your human mind's interpretation of its form? Is "mouse" just the closest translation you have of it? Is it a mouse in terms of size / importance / place in food chain or what? You've said before that the reason for our ordinary human existence is that we'd quickly get bored of having everything we want. However, you say: "The immense delight that it takes in moving its body is matched by an immense delight in its own linguistic and mental gymnastics", which kinda sounds like it's having an orgasm every time it turns its neck an inch. Doesn't this contradict what you were saying before? Why wouldn't it get bored of moving its body? If it doesn't get bored of this, then why don't we all just kill ourselves and join it in this endeavour? Why don't we all just move our bodies for all eternity? Did you get a sense for other such aliens? Were you able to become other aliens, even for a moment? Did you find any answers to questions you have here as a human? Be it about aliens on Earth or reality in general? What caused this experience to happen in the first place? What is this trickster stuff you talk about and why are you interested in it?

It's all the same thing in the end, so a distinction isn't strictly necessary. It's only useful when talking about practicalities. A peak experience on drugs is the same thing you seek through spiritual growth. The goal of spirituality is to live in an acid trip 24/7, and taking drugs is good for that. How do you grow spiritually? You have experiences that shape your thinking, and that's what drugs do. Integration happens from repeated exposure and acceptance of experience, drugs simply increase the rate at which you're exposed to experiences. Perhaps you meant that Leo seems to have a good awareness of reality, yet doesn't seem very loving/spiritual like Sadhguru? I think that's mostly just personality/culture and lack of integration. The most spiritual, awake, loving person can be an asshole stock trader or whatever. The reason Sadhguru seems so happy and loving isn't because he's "spiritual" or "advanced", he's just a random eccentric guy from an extremely ESFx culture. What's your point exactly? That Leo should focus more on spiritual growth rather than psychonautics? Or that most of the psychonauts/INxJs on the forum haven't integrated anything? There isn't really any direct way of doing spiritual work. If you're living life then that's as spiritual as it gets. Taking a shit is as spiritual as meditating, doing self enquiry, or doing chakra work. You can't really isolate "spirituality", only random "non-spiritual" stuff like drugs, or anything really. But besides general "experiences", drugs are one of the few "meta" things you can focus on, so spiritual communities sometimes make that their focal point. How else can people talk about spirituality? Talking about their fears/feelings? Talking about yoga? Well all that is fine, but drugs and altered-state-of-consciousness experiences that can provide God-level insights are a more direct and interesting way to explore and discuss spirituality.

The interviewer.

Putin is a crazy, senile old fool, as can be seen in his decision to blow up the pipe. vs Putin blew up the pipe so noone gets the idea to try to overthrow him and seek international recognition / legitimacy by offering Europe to turn NS1 back on. That's the difference between Fi and Ti. With the second one, where is the Fi? Go ahead and find it for me. Night and day difference, idk how you still struggle with it.

He makes an emotionally charged assertion, and then remembers he has to sound impartial and so often turns it into a question the last second. "They're sham referendums ......is that how you see them?" "So in their minds it's okay to blow up the west if they don't share these wonderful values?" He tries to mock Russia because it goes against his Fi. He uses language in a way which communicates his own views. With every talking point of his he tries to reach some emotional conclusion. He expects his Fi to be validated after each questions "so the Russians are bad, yes?" "so Putin is stupid, yes?". Even when talking about strategy or facts, it's always about getting to some emotional conclusion. An INTP or something would be much more interested in the strategy itself, or the possible outcomes, or the specific weapons used, or the details in logistics. An ISFP is just interested in knowing how to feel about the situation (Fi), who's winning (FiSe), and who will or should win (Ni). And yeah, he's funny cause SFs aren't expected to be so direct. ISFPs are hard for most people to understand. They don't really fall into any basic category. Too cold and selfish to be a feeler, but too warm and caring to be an intellectual.

Infinity contains everything. Our reality is stable as we have no awareness within anything that's not stable enough to exist. But even within a stable reality there should be some sort of collisions and interactions with other-dimensional elements. I already know an answer to this, but only within a couple of models. Wondering if there are other perspectives.

From what I've gathered, they're basically the same thing. Turquoise, or whatever's the highest stage you can imagine, is most easily summed up as awareness, and awareness is essentially love, as if you're unable to love something you've not come to the full awareness of what that thing is. It's also an evolutionarily necessity as only nothing exists without love. So really all stage descriptions and all models are unnecessary if you can simply somehow measure love, as that should tell you everything. I had this idea as I've noticed that the most impressive people seem to love everyone the most easily and quickly; and also judge the least—due to empathy and understanding on multiple levels. But maybe willingness/ability to love isn't the same as depth of love, which may be a better benchmark here.

lol, very true.

So I manifested a new gf, and all it took was like a day. Got everything I could've possibly wanted, but now that I got it the excitement maybe has worn off just a little. It seems no matter what I manifest it's never enough. I'm wondering if I'll ever be satisfied in a relationship. I manifested money with zero effort. Manifested a literal 10/10 model fwb, and all that's left is to manifest a car, for which the process has already begun without any input from myself. The fact that I'm generating my own reality couldn't be any more obvious. I've even manifested the awareness to answer all my own questions. I already know my own future and how it'll feel. It feels so good, so euphoric knowing how perfect everything is, yet also so lacking in fulfilment and satisfaction as it's all within arm's reach but just not quite.

Bigger than 5

Already had that. I think it's good to try to find balance between our love lives and sex lives. Unhealthy for one to dominate completely. I only really do long distance relationships so that totally doesn't apply to me, lol. I did, but it's pointless. lol, I'm not without my lower chakras. I've just been ignoring them for a while. You're advising to transcend sex. Not sure that's a good idea. As humans, we shouldn't try to reshape our nature and live only in our heads. Yeah.. that's basically my perspective. If monogamy is so great, why not have multiple monogamies? I think the only real argument against polygamy is that humans are very limited in their capacity for love, and so resources are best spent on a single person as it will result in a deeper, more fulfilling bond. But I do think that perhaps sex should be separated from love. Men are evolved to need not only love but also sex, so limiting yourself to one sex partner is unnatural. That's pretty much how I've approached this. But I always come back to the same person in the end. 1. For humans monogamy is likely more natural, but it's a more recent evolutionary adaptation. Monogamy is egoistic and selfish, as you're trying to ensure the propagation of your own genes, so it's something only an advanced species like humans would intentionally engage in. If we were stupid animals we would be polygamous, but we're not. 2. With deep love it's possible to actually only be attracted to your one partner as all others pale in comparison without the love component. tfw very high libido.

Nice, I'll be there in December. But for such hardcore drugs Netherlands isn't the best place. You'd want South East Asia or Columbia or something.

Wait.. you guys only post sober?

They're genuinely interested in other people and always have questions to ask each other. That's pretty much it. Just talk to other eToro traders about stocks

Well put. Exactly what I was trying to say.

YouTuber is Green. He complains about Sadhguru as Sadhguru is Turquoise and beyond their understanding.

That's silly.

lol

Indeed.

A fine specimen indeed. Poor communication.

Perhaps. But I think he agrees deep down.

Green discovers spirituality, and so identifies strongly with it and takes it seriously. Turquoise doesn't treat it as anything special. Turquoise is so rare that there aren't many stereotypes for it.