Carl-Richard

The God-realization talk has the same dynamic as the Neo-Advaita talk: it's all just pointers that don't make sense without an experiential reference point. In some sense, talking in riddles is a more consistent way of communicating this fact.

Do you think it's a joke?

The main criticism can be found at 8:46:

I'm talking about Leo.

Do you ever feel that you have trouble being understood yourself?

On that topic, even so-called good evidence is limited:

Well yeah, that hearkens back to earlier critiques. Some of it, not all of it. If you're going through the hassle to bring up studies in the first place, you better bring out the good stuff.

Also, if you're used to 10-20 minutes, it doesn't hurt to take it step by step: 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 etc.

Tell me your thoughts about how others exist and tell me how others exist beyond thought.

One sit a day is enough unless you absolutely want to do more

Continuous. The 45 minute mark is where the fun happens.

That is essentially my perception of it.

This is getting blown way out of proportion, and it's partially my fault. I shouldn't have prolonged the semantic quibble about rights. Again, all I did was balance out the equation that Axiom presented in the spirit of "do with that what you want": he presented the individual rights aspect (medical ethics, autonomy), and I presented the collective security aspect (preventative medicine, restrictions etc.; or in other words, the very reason that the entire world has decided to respond to the pandemic in the first place). I wasn't making any strong case for or against mandates. My stance is in fact that the entire equation is important, and I perhaps wrongly assumed that people would understand that. If you want to call that a vacuous, flip-flopping nothingburger of a contribution to the discussion, then be my guest. I don't get the part where I displayed lack of empathy for these people. I'm the one who said "we all have an anti-vaxxer inside of us" for God's sake

It was a big smoke screen. Yeah. Some of that is his own fault though as he apparently brought up weak studies and somebody pointed that out and he acknowledged that.

Up it to 45 minutes to 1 hour, no off days. This is crucial.

Everything disappears.

@Scholar Mr. Girl: People think you're doing therapy. Dr. K: I disagree.

For some reason, the book in my psychology of religion course opens up by presenting that distinction, and it's so badly explained. The teacher's explanation was not better. Maybe I'll ask him more about it.

They also don't let children into bars ;D

It focuses on context awareness, which starts becoming prominent at Green: the humans being is understood not by its individual qualities alone but by its relations to contextual factors (economic, social, cultural etc.). However, there is limited construct awareness (but generally higher than most of the hard sciences): in fact, contextual approaches were discovered by critiquing the individualistic constructs of the status quo (e.g. critical psychology), but it doesn't go much further than that. Construct awareness rises the more you dive into metaphysics and epistemology, which happens more in fields like philosophy/history of science, philosophy of mind and cognitive science. In other words, it's true that sociology is the study of systems, but it focuses more on real systems (e.g. social systems) rather than abstract systems (e.g. the structure, function and origin of concepts, models, theories, paradigms etc.), thus it's mostly context awareness but less construct awareness. On the other hand, one reason why for example SD is Yellow is because it more directly explains the relationship between real systems (social systems, individual development) and abstract systems (worldviews, ideology) on a meta-theoretical level (grand narratives).

And I just made a mockery of that point.

Oh god I read that as "The Loophole Snake", and I thought "ah! – what has Nahm got in store for us today?" I think it's time for me to sleep ?

If you can see something that other people can't see, have you lost your mind or are you a genius?

Please elaborate. I generally have a hard time reading your words.

You can only get so far by engaging them at their level. The main solution is more education. That is what makes an expert after all. One way you can turn yourself off from Flat Earth is by reading the history of science and making an inference based on a well-established pattern. Historically, it's been the case that those who challenged and eventually toppled the mainstream paradigm were generally experts in their field; people with world-class understanding of the paradigm they're criticizing. They also weren't met with praise from either the scientific establishment or the public in general without years of intense struggle. It's a silent movement of dedicated, fringe experts who work their asses off to improve their field. Flat Earth is not that. It's a loud and obnoxious movement of uneducated laymen and grifters. It's public contagion, not academic advancement.