Carl-Richard

Your "conscious" or articulated mind is. There are also "unconscious" or inarticulated aspects of the mind, i.e. thoughts that have yet to be ("preconscious"), or structures that will never arise in the form of a conscious thought, but which nevertheless have an effect on your mind ("the Unconscious", karma etc.). If you prefer, the Unconscious can be stretched out to include all of the universe; transpersonal aspects, not just personal aspects. In that case, by some nondual poetic beauty, the Unconscious becomes synonymous with the mystical conception of "Consciousness", or "phenomenal consciousness" in philosophical terms.

It's possible to get to a place where you prefer eating healthy, not mainly because of some long-term health outcome, but because you appreciate how healthy food makes you feel on a bodily level. I call this Intrinsic Health.

Go for a hike in nature. You want to have as few restrictions on your free movement as possible. I would only trip inside if all the other people in the house are 100% in on it.

Aesthetically/poetically or analytically/intellectually? Until then, this is my entry (for both) ^

... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/ Intentionality explains why you can't read my thoughts, or feel what I'm feeling, or see what I'm seeing. These are the contents of the personal mind; perception and cognition. Under metaphysical idealism, the personal mind also occurs within the larger transpersonal mind ("Consciousness"), which is what I'm calling "phenomenal consciousness". In a more metaphorical language: the personal mind is one of the ways that God hides from itself in order to explore the limited world of form.

Do you have a theory? The good musicians I know are a mixed bag.

Haha thanks That was the intention. Somebody called it a kiwi, and I can't unsee it ? I eat kiwi almost every day and the grocery store I go to is also called Kiwi ?

Yes, but which point are you making? He described an experience which I've had hundreds of times while completely sober and perfectly functional. Am I just psychotic? ?

Again, this would be to conflate phenomenal consciousness with intentionality. Under metaphysical idealism (your framework), these two concepts are very different. Whether AI possesses inner mental states or not is a question about intentionality, not phenomenal consciousness.

@TheAlchemist Now combine that with my post ?

It's hard to appreciate how big the universe is and how vast a grain of sand is. Infinity flows both ways.

Epistemic — relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation. Naivety — innocence or unsophistication. Pitfall — a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty. Here is my rendition of the most common approaches to knowledge and their pitfalls. Usually, one leads to the next: Naive realism takes things at face value believes in one's conditioning lack of introspection It's the default mode for most people and is the most naive framework. It tries to label the world accurately, but it fails to become aware of its own constructions. These people think that their view of the world is like looking through a clear glass window, and that people who disagree with their view is either stupid or insane. When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism: Naive skepticism skeptical of most claims to knowledge extremely self-critical hyper-exclusive relativism The naive skeptic is skeptical of all labelling of reality and is pulled down by cynicism and unconstructive behavior. They discard everything that isn't patently self-evident. An example is a person who goes into a philosophy seminar and asks "how do you know that?" until they get kicked out. Seeing through naive skepticism will usually lead you to pragmatism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive pragmatism: Naive pragmatism "everything goes" lack of criticism hyper-inclusive relativism There is an openness to all views, but there is a lack of structure or hierarchy, and it therefore struggles to prioritize different claims to knowledge. For example, it will easily place an equal sign between pseudoscience and science (e.g. "astrology = physics"). Seeing through naive pragmatism will usually lead you to metatheorism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive metatheorism: Naive metatheorism takes a wide perspective has a systematic approach to knowledge becomes lost in its own grand theories subtle realism The naive metatheorist is open, critical and also realistic, and tries to synthesize a coherent system which integrates many types of knowledge. The pitfall happens when one becomes a bit too optimistic about the universality of one's theories. You start believing that because a theory is "meta" and is able to zoom out across large perspectives (cross-paradigmatic, cross-cultural etc.), it somehow escapes or transcends the limitations of your own cultural and paradigmatic conditioning (i.e. the things that made you arrive at those conclusions in the first place). An example is believing Spiral Dynamics to be the infallible word of God. That is of course a bit naive, and the way out is to counter that impulse with the earlier lessons of skepticism, and remind yourself that the better the model, the easier it is to get lost in one's own constructions. Who is not naive in any way? One who has experienced all of these pitfalls first-hand, but who doesn't let that fact curb their ever-expanding thirst for knowledge, and who doesn't pretend that naivety is something one can ever transcend. Did anything I just wrote sound familiar to you? Be honest

Or sometimes one and sometimes the other. I wouldn't get so hung up on the particular words in this case, as long as you understand the flavor of the concept I'm trying to communicate (i.e. the different pitfalls that people usually fall into after having newly discovered those particular epistemic frameworks). That's just the pragmatist in me speaking ?

Good musicians.

By distinguishing between thought and being. In the thread I linked to, the more I became aware of that distinction, the deeper I went into selflessness and timelessness, which feels exactly like death. This shouldn't be surprising at all: it's ego death! — the "you" that you think you are is literally dying (ceasing to exist). The phenomenal/experiential/conscious ego is just a habitual activity of thoughts drawing upon a string of memories. Seeing thought for what it is breaks the spell of compulsive thought ("awareness alone is curative"), and no experience of thoughts = no experience of memories (when/what/who) = no experience of time or self.

Your reaction and resistance to the feelings is the delusion. The raw feeling or experience of dying is not. The raw experience of time disappearing is not. What do you think ego death, no-self, "The Now" is?

I don't want to say "I told you so", but that was the truth you thought you wanted. It's not easy. Transcending the mind is nothing short of losing your mind. And we're in the same boat. There is a reason I stopped doing meditation and psychedelics.

@UnbornTao I'll echo Kuhn. Thank you!

At the top, I said it's usually like that, but not always. I should've maybe reiterated "usually" with every introduction to the next system, e.g. "When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will eventually usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism:" For example, a naive skeptic doesn't necessarily have to evolve into a (naive) pragmatist. They can just become a more reserved skeptic (which in a sense is a budding pragmatist). You could think of a skeptic and a pragmatist as relativists with just opposing levels of inclusivity, i.e. "excluding almost all knowledge claims" vs. "including almost all knowledge claims", and different justifications for that inclusivity (certainty vs. utility). The pragmatist is a level up (at least in the eyes of a metatheorist) in the sense that they can include skepticism within themselves, while the skeptic will shy away from that tendency. The naivety is mostly about how much you stumble in the attitude or approach to each framework (e.g. being too extreme, lacking nuance, using it as an ideological weapon etc.). You can observe naive skepticism a lot on this forum, e.g. every time somebody uses non-duality to steamroll any type of discussion. The implication is always "this doesn't matter — just awaken". That is what is naive. It ignores a huge part the "meaning" aspect of spiritual growth (the "means" to grow), e.g. a nuanced approach to epistemology.

You forgot about some of the pitfalls, which is the point of calling it "naive x". For example, a realist doesn't have to be a naive realist. It's the difference between something like a 14 year old militant atheist and John Vervaeke (although his worldview is also much more complex than that).

Naivety is both.

I eat half a kiwi almost every day, seriously.

I'm experimenting

No problem https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/

@Jannes This is against forum guidelines.