Carl-Richard

I bypassed my impulse to criticize the destruction of the words

I know how to hit notes, but I don't have the balls to sing.

Haha. I have the Bergen dialect by the Westernmost coast. It's one of the most hated dialects I personally think the Stavanger dialect is the worst one. One of my teachers in middle school had it and I would imitate it all the time

Well, you never know with these spiritual people and their group meditation sessions, energy checks and trauma dumps. All it takes is a slightly charismatic person who thinks highly of themselves and deals arrogantly with pushback, and a couple of submissive followers who encourage their convictions, then add a couple of drug-fueled spiritual experiences in the mix, and boom — you have a doomsday cult that believes negative entities are out to destroy the world. I've seen it happen with my own eyes and I'm seeing it happen again That is not really a hypothetical. Sometimes the bots are right. No, I think that is what you think.

Whaat?! Even very South from very North?

But do you notice the change as they move along?

It's a shame you view it like that. I view it as authentic expression and willingness to learn. Quick and snarky replies, that is what really fuels endless debates.

It does inadvertently sow discord. Having an isolated cell like that unavoidably creates gossip and an "othering" of the larger whole, and like @something_else mentioned, the internal dynamics of such a cell (e.g. high social cohesion and information flow) makes that more likely to happen.

The more time I spent in "The Journal", the precursor to the Discord, the more I felt that the forum was going downhill. I don't think that was about the people I was talking to as much as the tendency towards a shorter format and more casual topics. The most enjoyable thing about this forum for me is spending a long time formulating my thoughts as best as I can. If I want to be social, I go talk to actual people.

Ain't that what they say about repressed aspects of oneself: it remains the same age as when it was repressed? ?

Pure flow.

@Someone here Gz dude

So I would say there is a difference between mapping out an ontology that makes sense (or being skeptical of such attempts) and directly grasping whatever the ontology is describing. The mapping part or the skepticism part is a human thing, and it's something we can't stop ourselves from doing, but it doesn't change the fact that we're somehow doing the mapping. That "doing", whichever way you choose to map it, eventually traces back to formlessness, and it's unavoidable. The amount of layers you have to trace back is of course contingent on our human inclinations, but the final layer isn't. How can you directly grasp the final layer? Again, by stripping all the human layers from yourself, removing the body, the mind, thoughts, perceptions, time and space. That process is necessary because the human and its activities (i.e. what this is) is distracting itself with the world of forms.

Skepticism aside, which ontology makes the most sense to you? In other words, if you had to bet on one using whatever criteria you'd like, which one would you pick?

Of course it precedes logic. It's not the logic that justifies it in the final equation. It only makes it more convincing. You must grasp it directly by going through the process of divesting yourself of all forms, of all limitations (and again, "you" in this case is formlessness, not the limited human form). Again, what you're treating as "something else" is what formlessness is. It's the necessary criteria for all things. It's not contingent on anything, because it's the thing that makes contingency possible. To postulate "there might be something else than formlessness" doesn't make sense, because it too would be formlessness. Again, "something else" only makes sense when something is limited. Formlessness is not limited. The only way you get to your position is if you use your limited human mind to produce a conceptual thought that says "what if?" At that point, you've departured from dealing with the issue directly (which is to grasp it directly). You're smuggling relational assumptions into the equation by assuming human qualities and pretending that it's a valid part of the inquiry. It's really not. The human part is the thing you must see through.

The only thing I need is studies. If you don't have the ideas, you're studying in the wrong field ?

@Tyler Robinson It is, because it probably won't give me citations of studies in APA 7th format.

Now I want to create an obscure internet spirituality iceberg with Sam Harris and Joe Rogan at level 1 ?. (Joe "have you heard about DMT?" Rogan and Sam "have you heard about meditation?" Harris ?). Level 2 could be Eckhart Tolle, Sadhguru, Terrence McKenna, Alan Watts, Ram Dass (world famous gurus). Level 3: Rupert Spira, Leo Gura (youtube famous). Level 4: BATGAP, Martin Ball, Jan Essman (small youtube channels). Level 5: Rali from Naked Reality (dead youtube channels). Level 6: some weird shit.

What I'm saying is that you can't create multiple dimensions without first starting with one dimension. That one dimension is formlessness. For anything to be outside of our dimension, it must already be made out of the same stuff that we refer to as direct experience (or the most fundamental aspect of it; formlessness). To say that the most fundamental aspect of this allegedly inaccessible thing is actually inaccessible to us, is false. Only if you make that thing a form, it can become inaccessible to another form. Formlessness cannot be inaccessible. It precedes all relational qualities.

Having to approve every post you make is so cringe.

@AtheisticNonduality Inspect element this ?? Anybody want to hear story time from what happened to Rali's discord cult 4-5 years ago? The beginning of the story goes exactly like this^

Again, you're treating direct experience as if it's something limited. Limited by what exactly? My body? My sense organs? My brain?

The wisdom of childish innocence.

Sam Harris on half speed sounds like a bad trip.