Carl-Richard

Not an old one, but Infinite Gods. Doesn't add anything new imo.

Few days? Wot? "I don't like #metoo" = "I like rape"

Typical bully shitting on the school fruitcake

Bipolar 1. He has never talked to me about meditation or Eastern mysticism. He usually talks about business ideas, science or philosophy. My mom says he has always been a materialist atheist, and I don't think that has changed, although when I was little, he used to play Hare Krishna CDs in the car lol. He had a friend who was actually a shaman (who sadly passed away) who I've met a couple of times. His name is Arthur Sørensen. My dad got a big shaman drum from him, and one time, he played it over my head and I felt my body vibrating which was fun. I would say he is spiritually inclined, but he is not practicing any spirituality, and I don't think he ever has. He strikes me more like a Terrence McKenna than a Sadhguru (just without the weed), i.e. basically me before I found spirituality. I keep talking about it, but I spent the last 2 years trying to force myself out of a constant state of ego dissolution. My dad is not there. His mind always on. That said, he is probably one of the more empathetic and consciously attuned people I know. I have 50% of his genes after all. At one point when I was abusing weed and my life was falling apart, I experienced precursors to a psychotic break (rapid thoughts, loose associations, concentration and memory issues, slight perceptual changes), and it was the complete opposite of the mystical experience. Likewise, when my dad is in a manic state, it does not remind me of a mystical state.

Visited my dad. Shamans deploy various techniques to reach altered states of consciousness, and then they get insights which they share with the tribe. Schizophrenics live outside of the tribe. I consider myself a mystic (in the technical meaning of the term), and my dad is not one. Why are they in the mental hospital and Sadhguru isn't? Psychosis may contain ego dissolution, but ego dissolution does not contain psychosis. Agree.

That's absolutely cringe, but you're entitled to your opinion. I still gave a perfect example though ("he has never kicked anyone out of here because of his way of thinking"). Not on my watch. Ridiculous to call Nahm somebody who subtracted value from the forum.

It's a huge mistake to equate psychiatric diagnoses, which are supposed to help people with what society deems to be dysfunctional behavior, with Enlightenment. Ask yourself: does Sadhguru look like he needs help? Rupert Spira? Eckhart Tolle? The list goes on. People in insane asylums are not well. That is the one common feature across all the reasons for ending up in that place. Why is this a common question? Firstly, you can thank people who know nothing about schizophrenia, who say that in the right society, they would trained to be shamans. If they had ever read anything about cross-cultural studies on schizophrenia, they would know that these people are not treated kindly in any society. Robert Sapolsky has a good lecture on that. Secondly, ego dissolution is not a joke. It's literally the end of your life. It feels exactly like going insane, but not in the usual way where you're confused and scared. There is absolute clarity and tranquility, but it's so much that it terrifies you. A person with schizophrenia has trouble with seeing things that are not there, or thinking thoughts that don't make sense. It's not that. You're seeing things exactly as they are, and everything makes perfect sense, but it's too much for you to handle. In a sense, it's actually much more serious than going insane, because at least when you're insane, you are someone. That doesn't mean you'll be dysfunctional though.

I gave you a perfect example. I don't see why you're throwing a fit. As for the way it all went down, it was just stupid. He allegedly demoted him for not changing his language, which is hypocritical considering how Leo uses the same obfuscating and confusing non-dual doublespeak all the time. "Coincidentally", all this happened at the same time as he started saying "non-duality is not God-realization" (which he explicitly talks about in the "Nahm Demoted" thread). And now, he wants to kick out people like Consilience — one of the most clear-spoken people on the forum. I think the real motivation behind removing Nahm was to denigrate traditional spirituality so he could get to call himself the most awake person in the world. And I'm mad about it. It split off maybe 70% of the best people on here.

Nahm.

Hahaha that's not true.

NoShit is where it's at. By day 14, you'll be three inches taller and you won't need to bleach your anus anymore. It also triggers reverse kundalini awakening at some point (the descending snake ?).

Meow

Turmeric powder and black pepper.

What is your take on energy transmission? Before my fully spontaneous awakening, I used to listen to people like Rupert Spira and Alan Watts while falling asleep.

Artificial selection is a well-defined word used in mainstream evolutionary biology. You said "aritificial selection is this: (...)", implying that you were giving the mainstream definition, but then I corrected you, and now you're pretending that you didn't do that. Natural selection applies to culture. That is how it evolved in the first place. Unless you have concrete evidence, you can't claim genetics is the main culprit for their success. You can say genetics is the main culprit for something like eye color, but literacy and education is very different.

How to achieve a tangible and concrete, generally sought-after goal (e.g. success in a career, education or general project) will usually be associated with Te because other people have done these things in the past, and you're better off learning their techniques and tricks rather than figuring it out on your own.

From what I've gathered from conversing with a self-proclaimed MBTI expert for about a year (lol): Ti is when you follow logical premises to their logical conclusion ("x and y, therefore z"), and it generally skews towards premises derived from intuition as opposed to external sources of fact ("I just came up with this and it's probably true" vs. "according to this source, this is true"). Te is when you consult external facts or other people's Ti. Te and Ti play heavily on each other, and it's better to think of them as a spectrum rather than mutually exclusive. People with strong Te are well-versed in narratives and frameworks, and their vocabulary is large and precise (because they have to be careful with which framework they're operating under at which time). The pitfalls of Te are group-think, lack of creativity and lack of independent thinking/values/identity. People with strong Ti are very good at finding inconsistencies in said narratives or frameworks, but they're equally as good at defending or smoothing over such inconsistencies in others. This is again because Ti is often very situation-dependent, relying on whatever intuitively-derived premises that are accessible to your conscious mind at that moment. Also, because logical deductions like these are quick and easy to make, you can very easily dodge and jump to other premises if needed. This creates a lot of possibilities for self-deception. The pitfalls of Ti, other than those above, would be to burrow down into one's own fantasy world where your vocabulary becomes so disconnected from other people that it becomes hard to communicate. Likewise, the vocabulary tends to be lacking in precision, richness and depth. The thinking will therefore end up being either vacuous or impenetrable.

Did Andrew Tate tell you that? ?

Chill song you can fall asleep to (Steven Wilson and Mikael Akerfeldt collaboration).

?‍? How to get 26 people to show you their tits in 21 minutes:

Yes. What is the justification? To save the economy? To save the prison guards?

Watch the first 10 seconds

You're just misunderstanding the concept. Artificial selection (a.k.a selective breeding) is when a human decides using their own volition exactly who breeds and who doesn't: "this specific dog right here gets to breed with this other dog". When nature or a mate decides who breeds, it's natural or sexual selection. Natural selection means the individuals with the highest evolutionary fitness survive and reproduce. Darwin posited a system (evolution by natural selection) and articulated the constraints of that system (variability in traits, finite resources, descent with modification). "Nature", i.e. the constraints posited by Darwin, does the selection. The environment does not do the selection. The environment plays into some of the constraints, but so does the organisms. Again, we're not talking about a random sample of people. We're talking about a group of people with shared cultural values, a shared history and shared selection pressures.

I admit it's a silly argument. But why is being unreformable a necessary criteria for the death penalty? And how do you decide who is unreformable?