ttm

Perhaps not. Ok, what do you mean by this? Reality does not exist so results don’t exist? I didn’t pretend definitions are consistent. It seems that you don’t understand me any more than I understand you. Of course definitions differ, and with abstract concepts like intelligence, many (most) don’t even have a definition, they just have a collection of situations where they have heard that word used, and from that get a feeling ”it’s something like something, I don’t know”. Now you just sound like Leo, that is kind of ridiculous. It’s cute when people get so attached to their conceptualization of their insights. But yes, yes, I know, all is one so there’s no difference between construction worker and scientist. Both are consciousness and consciousness is infinitely intelligent. Sure, why not.

It may be easily concluded that there are differences, but not that the difference would be in amount of bullshit. I would bet that >99% of horoscopes in mainstream media would be generic bullshit even if they had gazed at stars for years. I haven’t heard any reasons why it would’ve been in any other way 2000 years ago. What is actual astrology and how it is applied?

That’s pretty much anybodys relative point of view of intelligence. That is also your relative point of view of intelligence. Even if you try to deny it. Or what term do you nowadays use in relative human life to refer to that? Even if you avoided using term intelligence altogether, you would still easily understand what others are talking about when they use it. Even if you insisted that ”no, no, intelligence means totally different thing, everyone is equally intelligent!” I’m pretty sure you’re intelligent enough to understand that if same problem is given to ”more intelligent” and ”less intelligent” people, ”more intelligent” people solve it better. Even if, they process it differently. Which lead to different results. Not everyone. There are definitions to which most people agree on. That makes words useful. Even if you have defined intelligence to mean only ”the intelligence of existance” or some such, it does not make it more ”right” definition. You are just using that word differently (you refer to different thing with it) than most people, and it is as arbitrary choice of word. For that reason I used word little instead of none, although I’m not totally sure that it really explains anything. I mean, I understand what it points to, but it is what it is, and I’m not sure what practical benefit there is to label it. Can you give few practical examples?

Ah, okay. You sounded like you knew something, it would've been interesting. I would also be surprised, if you studied the history of Astrology deeply and could find something verifiable. Something which we could reliably differentiate from belief system. But of course, whatever may be the case, it still can be interesting. I think you mislead you reader bit there, using that word. Btw, why do you think anything should or would be self-evident? And how it is self-evident to you that something that happened 2,000 years ago was self-evidently something special, while you admit that you don't have any knowledge what it even was?

Of course it's relative. And because everyone is "equally wise from an absolute standpoint", those terms have little practical usage outside of relative context. From "absolute standpoint". In relativity / practicality they are. As arbitrary as any other. Dumb person resembles intelligence as much as a smart person only when you are using term intelligence to refer something else than it's common usage, which refers to cognitive capabilities of a person. Why there would be sadness from this? I don't recall experiencing that. I would imagine that many scientists understand that, and use the term 'intelligence' in a relative context, knowingly that they do not refer to anything absolute. Of course there's difference. The difference there is relative capacity of processing information or some such. Is your realization here that words are always arbitrary and relative? Or are you speaking specifically about intelligence / wisdom? What's the practical benefit you got from this?

No it didn't, I just wanted to understand better where are you coming from. You started your question with that. And if starting point is realized to be false, it could resolve all questions that are based on it completely. For example, "I know that he stole my money, but where has he hidden them?" You can see what happens if he actually didn't steal them. But, maybe it's not the case here, I just asked.

How do you know that?

Why don't you share the information? Where and what exactly is that "something very interesting"?

Perhaps I try to listen to his podcasts for more info. He did a shitload of 5-MeO-DMT, so it's interesting to me what have happened and whether or not he himself thinks that it had something to do with psychedelics. Those are not exclusive things, it also may be that both are true. Also, dangers differ from substance to substance. There are confirmed deaths from research chemicals like bromo-dragonfly and *-nbomes. I don't know if there is any research on those effects in as regular use as many here would consider ok, as it is not so common for people to use them so often. There's a lot of (at least anecdotal) evidence that regular and long term but infrequent (few times a year) usage does not seem to do much harm for otherwise healthy person. That of course doesn't mean that it couldn't be unhealthy to do them constantly. Still, that is totally different and separate question from whether or not there are people who got enlightened by psychedelic usage.

What do you mean by this? I tried to Google him, but nothing relevant to this came up.

I did wonder whether wk197 was referring to those kind of lines. Somewhere Watts also spoke something like "self cannot do anything to get enlightened". But, either I misunderstand badly what Watts meant by those, or what do you and wk197 mean by "self improvement" (or "against"), but I don't view those as "against self improvement". Those things were specifically about meditation/enlightenment and addressed more the question "who is getting enlightened?". And even then wasn't "against it", as in "one shouldn't meditate" or "one shouldn't do anything to improve himself", but more like "if real meditation happens, self is not the doer there."

What do you mean with ignoring here? I mean, how exactly are you ignoring them? If it's just not contributing to some conversation topics (for example, I've noticed that a lot of people enjoy having laughs from insulting other people, I tend to be quiet on those conversations), there's nothing wrong with it. If it's "ok, my friend calls and he needs help, but I can't stand his/hers this and that, so let it go to the voice mail.", it can be different story,

That is normal, but not necessary. That also may have something to do with misunderstanding happiness. As long as happiness means "getting what I want and avoiding what I don't want", it will be struggle. I personally don't fight for it. I enjoy my life, even if it has nothing fancy about it. Although, to exist is in itself kind of awesome thing to do...

Attachment to words can lead to that kind of behavior. Even if target words for that attachment are "God" and "Love". You use words enlightenment and awakening there as interchangeable, but someone else might differentiate those, for example, in a way that awakening means "realization that you are not what you thought you were" and enlightenment as "realization of what you really are". Neither of you would be any more "right" or "wrong", you just use words differently. Your participation in that word game is as pointless as of anyone else.

What do you mean by this? I mean, how exactly he was against self improvement / what did he actually say which made you conclude that?

Yeah, that judgement part sucks, but there's not really much one can do about it but let'em judge. Or show them that you can handle your life even with weed. Does that "no way to work in 'regular job'" mean that you have to start smoking right away from morning? If that's the case, then it's of course more difficult. For the cost part: you know, it's weed, literally. It grows anywhere. Seeds can be obtained pretty easily. If you don't want lamps and tents in your apartment, throw them outdoors in the summer.

From her previous sentence I would presume that she meant that if a substance is used to avoid handling issues, issues will not be handled. Be it weed or alcohol. Of course weed is more "healthy" substance to abuse than alcohol, but I don't think that wasn't denied there.

When I said "I studied that subject", that included reading a lot of those Answers in Genesis arguments, but also reading a lot of counter arguments to them, sorry for not being more clear about it. I feel the same way as you in that I have no interest in debating or trying to convince someone who has already decided that there is and will not be any evidence against his/her current beliefs. I still enjoy having a conversation about it, evolution is fascinating subject to think about.

You don't want to have a conversation about it, but only to preach? Then I'll pass, thank you very much. Yeah, I think most of us here can easily agree with this. How can you tell that "right" and "wrong" aren't just computations they come up with from nothing? Traffic lights don't know the difference between green and red light, but they still don't compute that green is red and red is green. If that analogy makes any sense. In any case, I don't understand how any of that does have anything to do with evolution. What conclusions your theory makes about evolution? Or do you dismiss evolution just because you're convinced that all is not what it seems?

As if "cut the shit and enlighten already" wasn't unhelpful enough on it's own, expressing it like that it makes it totally backwards, as mind starts with an answer "ok, I have to realize I'm god" and try to fit experiences to match all the stuff that it thinks god means. If you want to give unhelpful advice to concrete real life situations, at least make it something like "focus on awakening to what is true of you".

Psst! Don't tell anyone, but it's because when spirituality level reaches a specific state, beard starts to grow on it's own. Except for Adyashanti. And Rupert Spira. And Peter Ralston. But those are the exceptions.

If you want comments about some specific counter arguments, I can take a look if you give link or two. But if you have already decided that no evidence will make any difference, that would probably be pointless - I studied that subject for a good while and pretty much stopped as it started to seem that no one had anything new to say about it and discussions started to go around circles. I'm still interested in hearing what exactly you meant with those statements (2. and 3.)

My method does not work if you want to keep your notes attached to the information, but I keep track what YouTube videos I have watched by looking at the bottom of the thumbnail: there's red bar which shows how much I have watched. For example, I attached image, which shows that I have already watched How fear works and the power of Letting Go, but shamanic breathing technique is still waiting.

Theory of evolution does not suggest that we evolved from apes, but that we and apes evolved from common ancestor. Evolution does not decide anything, and so it didn't drop the ball. It is a process, not an entity. We are wearing clothes, because we invented those before environment had killed everyone who didn't grew fur back. I don't understand this question. What are you asking? What do you mean by this? I don't understand how this even is a question, but morality is a big part of survival of a species of social animals. Basically, if we didn't learn to co-operate, jaguars would have eaten us.

What do you mean by "my position"? I do not recognize having any "position" here. I read a question "can you give me an example of a psychedelic induced enlightened person" and answered that perhaps him. I'm not sure what "fully enlightened" means, or how it differs from "partially enlightened". If you answered my questions about what do you mean with "enlightenment", I could understand your question better. But, I'm not one of those here who get behind Leo and promote psychedelics as an instant magic pill for enlightenment, if you refer to that with "my position". Yeah, I personally agree to what you said in your first post: psychedelics are tools, not magic pill. Even if they produce non-dual experiences, without other work (and/or amazing luck?) these experiences very quickly degrade to stories and believes. Although, there could be reasons, why there does not seem to be more enlightened psychedelic people, even if psychedelics were a magic pill. For example, the illegality of drugs and general attitude to them can be too much of a barrier for many people to start advocating them.