Carl-Richard

That could be expressed through genes. Statistically speaking, yes, but not necessarily. Most traits are polygenic in nature, especially complex traits like personality or general cognitive functioning. Two different genes from mom and dad which didn't add much giftedness in isolation could end up creating a lot of giftedness in the child. Also, just because someone is spiritually gifted doesn't necessarily mean they will be into spirituality, so you might not even know that someone is spiritually gifted in such cases. You first need to be turned on to spirituality and then at least do some practice to see results, unless you're extraordinarily gifted. Look to virtually any spiritual teacher and you'll see that they've practiced a lot.

I'm just trying save the guy from the vortex of mindless jumping into the absolute perspective every time somebody discusses something of substance. "I think people are born with different trait–" "nobody is born!!!" I'll concede to your idealist absolutism and rephrase my prior statements: Short version: I believe that some appearances in consciousness that we refer to as "taking a shit" correlate with other appearances in consciousness that we refer to as "feeling good". Long version: If the appearance that you call your body were to stand inside my bathroom while the appearance that I call my own body were to take a shit, you would be able to see a large chunk of that shit, but you would not be able to see a large chunk of what I'm feeling while taking that shit. This underlies the idea behind calling the shit "matter" and calling the feelings "consciousness": there is a distinction between how two those types of appearances generally operate, but nevertheless, these appearances seem to correlate (because when I take a shit, I feel good). The same logic applies to appearances that we call "genetics" and appearances we call "awakening". We largely refer to genetics as "matter", and we largely refer to "awakening" as "consciousness" (or a shift thereof), and of course, the things seem to correlate (as different people awaken at different levels of practice, meaning there is something else driving their propensity towards awakening, and the most obvious answer is genetics).

But these things seem to happen, never mind their fundamental nature. How do we explain these things? An illusion is illusory, but the illusion still appears as something. I'm interested in that appearance. So how do you explain the fact that it seems that some people awaken much earlier along their spiritual journey than other people?

When I take a shit, I feel good. Matter correlates with consciousness. Q.E.D.

They correlate with consciousness.

Yeah, show us the way, Jesus ?

I don't see any rumination here at least. He seems to have moved on. It protects his girlfriend.

Will is genetics.

It believe it's a normal reaction, not necessarily an universal one. I don't believe you're normal ?

Weed messes with your memory in a weird way, so it's not surprising to experience amnesic effects. Serotonergic psychedelics are more clearheaded and profound.

How do you explain somebody who is essentially born enlightened and awakens really early in their practice?

Emotions are highly necessary. Venting about them is also necessary.

An emotion is not a thought ?

Ok.

@lxlichael If you just believe, or certainly if you actually can, outdo a four-time world champion kickboxer in a "no rules" fight to the death, I would say it's very probable that you are a psycho. But sure, spam 20 paragraphs to prove otherwise.

He argues that if a choice is determined by what you call "yourself" (which he defines as your 1st person experiences of your tastes, desires, intentions, etc.), then that is what free will is, because free will is when a choice is determined by you. You can argue that all choices are only partially determined by you, as transpersonal forces will also impact your choices, but even then, he cites how Schopenhauer identifies a transpersonal Will which underlies all of reality (and which also underlies "your" free will). This makes sense, because Schopenhauer thinks all of reality as "mind", i.e. that which constitutes your 1st person experience. So if free will is when something is determined by mind, then reality as Mind is Will.

Well, you do strike me as a psycho ?

He is also a four-time world champion kickboxer.

If it truly affects you emotionally and it becomes overwhelming, then certainly no. Other than that, a lot of the forum is low quality entertainment and self-harm. All people engage in it to some extent, so you have to get it from somewhere, though it's good to become aware of it from time to time. I think the worst part is getting complacent with behavior that you despise, as a sort of co-dependency with the larger space. If you get used to not calling it out, people can take advantage of that in your daily life.

What?! ?

Bro, there is no "inner cause". This is a normal ape response to normal bad ape behavior. It's not deep, it's nothing to psychoanalyze about. He came here to vent and it seems like it's over and dealt with. If he starts having nightmares or writes a list of homicidal fantasies, maybe then you can roll out the armchair, but this is not that time.

So you're not able to name one human trafficker, let alone describe what a "human trafficker type" is like? That makes your statement that he doesn't strike you as a human trafficker type not hold a lot of weight. I get it that you were going just based on your feelings, but I'm just pointing it out.

If we step on the pedal hard enough, of course. To even question the shape of the Earth contains a lot of cultural assumptions. What is "Earth" to a pre-agricultural tribe? The local environment? Do highly mobile tribes have a different concept of Earth than more sedentary ones? Do they have a concept of "planets" as differentiated from other celestial objects? Do they consider the Earth a planet just like the other ones in the sky? We didn't really do that before the 16th century after advanced developments in mathematics and astronomy. To even have advanced mathematics requires at least a writing system, and that is not a given either. Even in the modern world, if you're raised by Flat Earthers, it will take a lot of exposure to other cultures before that can be challenged. Even so, you see that it's still just culture, just a larger variety. Besides, if the culture is pervasive enough, experiencing a larger variety will likely never happen (an obvious example is the materialist paradigm). But sure, if humans have a capability of rationality that transcends culture, then surely the individual variation of this matters, and also, having a variety of cultural influences can create a synthesis which is more in line with this rationality, as you're able to do cross-references. If you don't have anything else to contrast your current culture with, you'll just take the blindspots as a given, and you'll stop questioning them. At this point, individual factors will generally start having a bigger effect on the differences. So the key for people to come into more agreement is to expose oneself to different cultures and viewpoints while following one's sense of rationality. Even when people do that, it might not amount to much. Rationality might actually also be the biggest hurdle. Even people who consider themselves rational are, if not completely unaware, at least painfully ill-equipped with their irrational drives and biases. Andrew Tate comes to mind (he is also well-travelled).

Post-hoc mental gymnastics aside, you'll still get mad the moment you find out that somebody sexually assaulted your girlfriend, unless you're some kind of alien robot. How you process that anger is of course up to the individual.