Carl-Richard

I had a vision of it while falling asleep (l actually kinda saw the thing). Kinda neat All natty brah!

Yeah holy shit the Te on that dude.

Yes, but it's flavors on the same theme. It's not going to be something completely different from teacher to teacher, but there is certainly a spectrum. For example, the most commercialized and Westernized conceptions of mindfulness (where you treat meditation as a sort of stress relief) will point to the compulsive mechanisms of thought as a source of suffering, and that lessening it is the path to a more peaceful mind. In this "tradition", there isn't necessarily even a recognition of such a thing as enlightenment, but it certainly moves you in that direction. Other traditions may have such a conception, but the cut-off point of where "you've got it" might be completely different from some other tradition (e.g. a transient mystical state that doesn't stick vs. one who does). What even "sticking" means can also be problematic (or you can reject the sticking notion altogether like Leo).

There is no reason to confine yourself to one absolute definition of anything. You just have to learn to think using caveats, e.g. "according to this framework of thought and this set of definitions, one can postulate (...)"

Anything in particular you don't understand?

I can't live without music.

Whenever I listen to this song while lifting 530lbs rack pulls above the knee (5 second hold x 10), I get so pumped up I want to tear down the entire gym like a mad gorilla 5:15-6:12 is the moment (but 4:49 for context and build-up).

Yep, that is pretty standard. I'm speculating here, but I think that is your unconscious perceptual structures throwing a fit. Your mind usually works to create a cohesive and fluid experience, but since these are dynamic functions that have adapted to certain habitual patterns, when you focus on something static for longer periods of time, your mind starts overcompensating and creating disturbances. It's kinda like how looking at something bright makes you see an inverted after-image when you close your eyes.

@Bobby_2021 "Definition" is a concept too. "Circularity" is a concept too. The type of conceptualization you're pointing to is completely irrelevant. The definition is still circular.

I'm starting to think more and more that the saying "once you get the message, hang up the phone" applies to these kinds of models. Like, let them inform your general understanding of reality, but don't ruminate on them. But that is just me being FiTe I guess

@Bobby_2021 I fail to see what anything you just said has to do with what you quoted from my post.

A dude in high school almost knocked himself out running full speed and banging his forehead into a poorly placed horizontal plank in an outdoor bike shed. He suffered a slight cut to his forehead, which weirdly enough I also had at the same time in roughly the same place (I don't remember how I got it). We kinda bonded over that for a second, looking like we just escaped from brain surgery ?

I mean, I can obviously infer that, but based on a purely analytic interpretation of what he wrote, it's unclear whether he is talking about LOA or some kind of deeper metaphysical inquiry. Maybe the most embarassing thing about this is that anybody with a tiny bit of psychology knowledge should understand how LOA works at a basic level. It doesn't require any woo-woo.

Is he even talking about LOA? The "article" is so vague that I can't tell.

Does this apply cross-culturally?

I think it's because women and transwomen generally face more social challenges than men and transmen, so a lot of trans issues tend to naturally revolve around that side of things.

My understanding of the self-ID view is that you're a woman if you identify as whatever you think a woman is, which as a general definition (in strict analytical terms) tends towards circularity. If the definition contains some explicitly defined word that limits what you're able to identify as (like "adult human female"), then it's not self-ID, thus your definition is not the self-ID view. For example, somebody who calls themselves a woman because they identify with the social roles associated with being a woman, is actually not a woman under your definition, despite self-identifying themselves that way. The reason people don't care about the self-ID view being circular as a general definition is because, again, they don't care about viewing language that way. They don't approach language in strict analytical terms. They merely use it as a tool, and tools are imperfect. Even analytically consistent definitions are imperfect in their own ways.

What is a woman and what is a female?

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently): I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.

Story behind the song:

Nope

Can you guys behave? Jesus.

With such a conservative position, we'd need a pretty radical discovery in order to challenge it. I have no idea what that would be, other than the discovery of abiogenesis and the deconstruction of the human-machine dichotomy.

True. You've simply been confusing terms and conflating different discussions.