Carl-Richard

And experience is the ontological primitive of reality. This becomes clear in the non-dual mystical experience. Again, did you say you've had it?

According to a Pew research poll, 49% of people in America has had what they would consider a religious or mystical experience, and 30% of them were not affiliated with a particular religion. I think if you're brought up religiously and are prone to mystical experiences, it could amplify your affinity with the traditional framework (because it's the path of least resistance), but if you're non-religious, you would try to find a framework which best captures the pure experience, which would usually be the New-Age forms of spirituality (which draws on Advaita, Buddhism, etc.). There are so many ways to interpret Christianity and religion in general, so many beliefs to omit or fixate on, that you can always somewhat mold it to fit your mystical experiences. Rupert Sheldrake is an example of a person who has a particular affinity for Christianity despite having had mystical experiences and having travelled to India.

He literally said between the 8th-12th.

@Tahuti He said he rented a hotel for several days. Maybe he is busy going at it still.

I or no I, I've had it. There is no me = I am everything. Same shit, just different ways of speaking.

I treat it as a synonym to consciousness as an ontological primitive, but many people (including me in the past) think of it as something like attention and a muscle you can train with spiritual practice.

You're speaking of "direct experience" as if it's a limitation. It's not. Something can only be limited in the realm of form. For example, I can't read your thoughts or see the back of my own head, because that is the limitations of these forms. But that doesn't mean that formlessness is limited. Formlessness is what makes something "be", and its potential is unlimited. It's the ground of all things. When I "experience" formlessness in a mystical experience, that is not me as a human creature experiencing formlessness. That is me as formlessness temporarily divesting myself of the limitations of the human form and seeing myself as I have always been and always will be. The body that I experience, the thoughts, the sense of existing in space and time, disappears, but I still exist, because those things are not essential to me. My essential nature is unlimited, ultimate and absolute. There is nothing inside or outside of me. Only when I take a formed existence, you can speak of limitations.

It's not accessible to it. It is it. It is isness. Whether isness is accessible or not does not change the fact that it is. This isness is in its most fundamental state boundless formlessness.

Well ok. I don't see the point of a "thing in itself" if it's not even a thing Again, I think the "thing in itself" concept is very humancentric and is bound to the reality of form (perceptions, qualities), in that it thinks of knowing something as being an embodied creature that looks out at the world and perceives a thing (subject-object), and then it postulates "what if we can't know the thing in itself?". Knowing formlessness is just being it. The question of whether you can know it or not doesn't even arise. So you're saying that something could be inaccessible to boundless formlessness? If you say something is inaccessible to something else, you're in the world of form (differences, qualities), so it doesn't really add up.

Kant was talking about principles that organize our perceptions, i.e. the reality of form. I'm talking about the reality of formlessness.

I wouldn't call it "the ultimate reality" but the most fundamental reality. Can you get more fundamental than boundless formlessness?

I guess you haven't had a non-dual mystical experience? I've experienced my body, my thoughts and sense of space and time literally disappear, and the only thing that was left was pure existence. Pure existence is not an abstract idea. It's the most concrete thing there is.

The content is limited and finite, the context is unlimited and infinite.

Distinguish between form and formlessness, relative and absolute, perception/cognition and consciousness, content and context.

Same answer for why you can't feel when he pinches his arm.

Can I have a tl;dr? ?‍?

I believe the saying is confusing Red for Green. Red co-opts and takes advantage of compassionate Green ideas and institutions when possible.

@BipolarGrowth Same ?

@thisintegrated If you keep posting AI generated shit everywhere you go, I'm going to ban you ?

Find out which type of insecure attachment style you have and work on assessing those specific problems.

I still have no idea what to do.

Some researchers describe the trend in Norway along with secularization as "religious complexity" (Furseth et al., 2019), which among other things includes a reduction in traditional and collective forms of religion and an increase in new individualistic forms ("spirituality"). So if the general trend in the world is increasing secularization, you could expect the same trend.

So the material I used came from a 2020 study which was a replication study of a 2005 study. In the information sheet of the survey, the researchers provided a very vague definition of the term religion, asking the students to take an open interpretation: "beliefs, practices and feelings that can be expressed either institutionally or personally". Then they were asked to rate their religiosity along a 7-point scale, and the free text answers were the people who didn't want to answer it in that way. The free text answers would certainly be different if instead of a 7-point scale of the term religion, the question instead provided alternatives like "spiritual", "agnostic", "Christian" etc. However, such a question wouldn't be a replication of the 2005 study, and replication studies over long periods are interesting for establishing patterns of change. My analysis will be able to provide useful information for interpreting the results of the 2020 study, because if the perception of the religion term has changed (and not just their level of religiosity), that could possibly impact the results as well.

He brought a net to the Alex Jones interview ("Net" for "Netanyahu") and started perfoming a puppet show.

No self feels like dying and being born at the same time. It's that level of profound.