Carl-Richard

Your perceptual system is based on approximations, and your cognitive system evolved out of your perceptual system. There is no getting around it. To live without assumptions requires infinite knowledge. You can't survive with that as a finite being.

To become a resource and not a liability, in all domains.

Thinking.

Mysticism and ontological idealism are useful for determining the structure of mind. Psychology is a science and delves into the content of mind and how it behaves.

The Norwegian prime minister in the blue shirt and grey hair. The Pride parade in Oslo, 2019.

How long have you meditated for and when was your first awakening experience?

You'd be surprised. It's basically why I started posting regularly on the forum (to purposely distract myself from spontaneous ego death). It's been 2 years and 1 month today.

I did back when I thought I wanted enlightenment I like to whip up some Sadhguru or Spira from time to time, but I also like to keep up with current events

It's more accurate to say I watch Destiny and Mr. Girl and those who talk to them I seldom watch the Majority Report and David Pakman. I no longer watch Vaush and Hasan. I feel they're too ideological.

and given a coherent framework

You're assuming that the 10% would answer the same thing

OK, let's say 1000 vote and that only half of them have a complete understanding of MBTI (granted there is such a thing). It's the same problem. There is no option to sort out the wheat from the chaff. When people don't agree on what they're voting on, the data becomes meaningless. It's like giving out a questionnaire with different questions each time and then trying to make out a pattern. My point is about the process of "I apply the theory myself, it makes sense to me, therefore it works". That process has flaws to it, and some of them involve cultural biases. Like you've said, people have different levels of understanding of MBTI, and all I'm saying is this is also influenced by your surroundings. You can also say there are different "types" of understanding of MBTI, which further complicates things.

You don't watch Twitch/YouTube politics? He basically started it all.

- filtered through your own mind. It's a dodgy website where people don't even agree what an ENTP is. If 10/10 voted the same type but gave 10 incommensurable answers for why, then that tells you nothing. But you don't know that, which is all I'm saying. Jung's clinical patients were not cross-cultural, and your experience (like Jung's) is not universal. Cognitive biases are notorious for being involuntary and unconscious. Peer reviewed journals, statistical methods, standards of validity and reliability etc. Despite all that, there are still subpar articles being published every day (and excellent ones being rejected). It's not an unknown phenomena of scientists tinkering with the numbers to further their own careers. People are also invested in maintaining the current paradigm (their careers and worldviews). Even for the mightiest of geniuses, toppling that is an uphill battle.

All Glink needed to say is that it's an atypical drug (meaning it doesn't work like other hedonic drugs), and that porn is arguably more similar to hedonic drugs than psychedelics. Though, I don't think he knows very much about drugs by the way he talks about them ?

I've also gone through the same process, and it's one of the reasons why I've been so insistent on focusing on the empirical side of things here. The whole premise of applying the model to see if it makes sense is highly questionable. It relies on so many assumptions, it makes your head spin. For one thing, it relies on nothing but your own mind, which is a product of your genes, your environment and your unique life story. Even if similar people agree on something, their environment is often shared and limited by cultural biases. Your mind's existence is wholly dependent on self-interest, emotional desires and survival needs, and is prone to biases of belief, data selection, and flawed reasoning, memory, perception etc. Even the scientific enterprise with its multiple-party oversight and structured methodologies, struggles to keep all of this in check, so to assume that you yourself are transparent enough and responsible enough to hold yourself to account, well that's rich!

Once something gets destigmatized enough, it starts getting seen as edgy or cool, and then over time, it just becomes normal. Another example of this is skateboarding. It went from being outright illegal to being edgy, and today it's normal.

That's great! Now you don't have to walk it alone

I read that one as sarcasm ?

It's a nice way to come off as a weirdo

1.5 hrs in, I actually prefer listening to Mr. Girl's dry materialism over Glink's butchered explanations of spirituality. The way he phrases things is so clumsy and dull. What Glink is grasping at is what I've articulated in Intrinsic Health (IH), but I believe he takes it too far when he says any amount of porn is bad for any person. From the IH perspective, Mr.Girl's stance of not repressing your fantasies or sexual urges is actually an important and necessary starting point, and then over time (given the right focus and techniques), you'll naturally evolve (a.k.a "burning karma") to not prefer high levels of stimulation by refining your sensitivity. If you're repressing parts of yourself, you're denying your full potential/expression/unfoldment/development, and it's extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated (it's focused on future outcomes – "what I want later", rather than immediate benefits – "what I want now"). Doing what you want/crave is not what is "bad". It rather depends on what is being craved, and what you crave will change as you develop, and you can only develop through affirming your cravings.

You're talking about the West. Look up gender fluidity in Hinduism. Echoing Roy's point, even homosexuality was considered a psychiatric illness by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973. And that's only homosexuality.

Same with aging. But that doesn't mean aging won't affect your physical body.

How did you arrive at this?