Carl-Richard

Is the experience he had not an enlightenment experience? This is what I told you to watch: "[...] and it transformed me; it turned me into something far more than I normally was [...]" "[...] it was as if an offer was being made to me that I could be like that from now on permanently [...]" "[...] I wouldn't belong in the world anymore [...]". You guys treat JP like he is some mentally deficient fundamentalist Christian. I haven't seen such a strong collective bias against anyone else. That's just your internet Advaita bias; that enlightenment must be talked about through some quasi-Hindu lens by some ex-atheist-turned-spiritual.

???

I'll sign under that ?

For example, is routinely ending your posts with "but who knows, maybe I'm just bullshitting myself" an elegant way of communicating? Is routinely contradicting yourself like "it doesn't exist, but..." an elegant way of communicating? What are you really trying to get across by doing that repeatedly? That we should be skeptical of our beliefs in general? I mean sure, but one time is sufficient. What about instead of doing that, when talking about a concept, and when it's relevant to do so, you lay out the specific limitations of that concept using straightforward and non-neurotic language? Quantify the skepticism, don't just reduce it to a mantra.

@AerisVahnEphelia I just prefer to speak in a way that is in line with how people generally speak, and if there is a misunderstanding, then you can explore that through conversation. Then the misunderstandings themselves are also more easily resolved. And people do generally speak as if things exist. The problem is not when people speak like that. The problem is when you misunderstand the depth and conceptual nuance behind things. I'll entertain the idea that what people call "skepticism" is just when you are stuck in a certain inelegant and uneconomic language game (but of course with sincere intentions to criticize naive realists). Then, as you become better at communicating your skepticism, you naturally become a pragmatist, or a skeptic who dares to engage in all sorts of language games (including the realist one) and giving caveats when necessary.

Yet it exists to describe when you're creating non-sense. I got a suggestion: Most things exist relative to some set of assumptions. So it's generally much simpler to start by saying that things exist, and then you can choose to state the underlying assumptions if that is needed for clarification. Then you avoid the laborious process of repeatedly contradicting yourself ("it doesn't exist, but it's just a way to..."). For example: You: "Atoms exist". Them: "But atoms are only a fiction!". You: "Yes, that is true. Atoms exist relative to a certain interpretation of modern physics". It's easy to over-complicate things using skepticism.

Bro you're literally me from 10 years ago; viewing everything through the lens of pharmacology/physiology

Leo said he doubts that he will even understand the question that I wanted OP to ask him, due to a lack of conceptual understanding (e.g. he would answer something like "the Enlightenment is the intellectual revolution that happened in Western Europe in the 17th century"). Of course he is not actually enlightened.

It doesn't just refer to autism (or ADHD). Yes.

That's not what Leo means

Nuh-uh. Norway currently has a male prime minister But Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Estonia and Lithuania (i.e. most of "Northern Europe") currently have female prime ministers.

I guess if WW3 happens, blame Scandinavia?

The arrow of causality definitely goes both ways.

And the Barnum effect isn't?

I've played guitar since I was 11, so sure. I think of it as being on the "psychosis spectrum". Almost all the symptoms seem to fit me to some degree, although it's become milder over the years.

Why don't you watch the first video I linked?

Not autistic, not ADHD, but maybe a little schizotypal.

Another one: He likes to talk about it in general terms like "spiritual/religious experiences" that don't just address one tradition (because that is what psychologists do; I've read that literature myself). But I'll see if I can find him talking about "enlightenment" as in the Buddhist conception of it. Nevertheless, I think it would be highly strange if he is clueless about that. Here:

It's as if you guys think that enlightenment as a concept is somehow endemic to the internet Advaita community. Well-read openminded people like Jordan Peterson are some of the most likely people to have heard about it and seriously entertained it. Watch the last few minutes of the video I posted. He is quite explicitly alluding to the idea of enlightenment.

I remember around 10 years ago, I was watching a program from my own country called "Mesternes Mester" ("The Master of Masters"), a competition where top athletes from different sports compete against each other in different challenges. I had a pretty strong reaction to finding out that they used different weights for men and women for some parts of the competition, even though they were all competing against each other. Their intention was obviously to make it fair, but it still seemed unfair to systematically penalize the men in some of the challenges, because there are possibly other challenges were women might be better in some way which would not be corrected for. It just seemed to destroy the point of the competition, which was to show which of the athletes were the "best of the best". Anyways, the first point is that the notion of fairness is fundamental to the concept of competition. If there are rules set, and you start messing with the rules, you destroy the competition. Secondly, you don't have to rigorously define what a "man" or "woman" is to determine what is fair. You can just judge by people's reactions (like 15 year old me). And what do people generally think of as unfair in the context of transwomen in sports? Well, it's when somebody who is obviously physically stronger as the result of having been born male, enters a competition made for females. Again, you don't need a deep philosophical discussion about sex and gender to see that. And it is about what people think. A competition is when people come together and agree on what is fair. So if you want to create a competition for big-brained, socially conscientious, trans-inclusive liberals, you can go do that. But that is not the world we're currently living in. I'm not saying that is how the world ought to be. It's just how it is. Nevertheless, generally speaking, you'll destroy most people's idea of fair competition by letting transwomen compete in women's sports.

Let's see what he answers.

You think a fruity psychology professor who has done psychedelics, has personally had sober mystical experiences, talks about the power of the mystical experience, and has studied different world religions, doesn't know about enlightenment? I think that is just cynical.

"Is it possible to be enlightened like Buddha or Jesus, what does it entail, and have you met any of these people?"

You have to start somewhere.

I'll wait for the miracle cure with zero possible side effects invented by some AI