Carl-Richard

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.

@KH2 ?

Can you give me an example of any human traffickers at all?

@PenguinPablo No need to be disrespectful.

What is a "human trafficking type"? Any examples?

Yes, because those are different tribes.

I've dipped my toes into cessation many times, and it scares me to death I haven't had a God realization though.

Oh yes. LSD makes you see :>

?

No two people are alike, but two people who live in an isolated pre-agricultural tribe will be very much alike each other, and the type of disagreements you're thinking about would probably not occur. So the defining causal moment that lead to the phenomena in question could certainly be the invention of agriculture, as ridiculous as that sounds.

One tribe, one opinion. Many tribes, many opinions. It's a very materialistic analysis, but the way we got there was essentially through the discovery of agriculture, which allowed for a more complex division of labor. Resources accumulated, tribes grew and clashed, civilizations formed, and the different labor forces developed their own little worldviews and opinions on things. The skilled workers got their opinions, the academics got their opinions, the politicians got theirs, etc.

The keyboard solos in this one are TRANSCENDENT

Division of labor.

Definition of rape: "something ugly people do" ??? The nuanced and sophisticated redpill worldview: everything in the world can be explained by sexual market value.

I talked about this many months ago, but I think it goes back to his fixation on science, specifically the stage models from developmental psychology, which all contain linear or "progressive" assumptions (Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Erikson, Fowler, etc.). There are so many of them that you'll undoubtedly be very tempted to make it center stage of an integrative framework.

Another day, another non-duality lesson ? Let's not derail the original topic.

Thank you, and you as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_stage_theory

You don't ask it to write your thesis. You ask it for sources.

THIS! That's what I did when I had a really really really unexpected ego death on weed, and also one time when I felt a bit anxious on LSD. The rush of endogenous opioids gives you a moment of "everything is going to be ok", and it can definitely bring down any type of anxiety or paranoia. You can also notice that it clears out your visual field for visuals for a while (at least on a low dose).

Science doesn't settle metaphysics. You should try a different kind of inquiry. The body is a perception. Perceptions come and go. The only "thing" that is not impermanent is the thing that the perceptions are occuring within. This thing is not a body, it's not a human, it's not alive, it's not dead, but it's the essence of You.

Yeah. That's what those emotions are for. What would be un-spiritual would be to aim for a way of life that leads to nothing but those types of emotions.

*laughs in Niemann*