Carl-Richard

Wake up, eat, [class, eat, gym, eat, read,] chill, eat, sleep. or if no class Wake up, eat, [gym, eat, read,] chill, eat, sleep. or if no gym Wake up, eat, [class, eat, read,] chill, eat, sleep. or if no gym or class Wake up, eat, [read, eat, read,] chill, eat, sleep. Everything outside the brackets stays the same. I always keep the schedule.

Yeah I'm pretty divided on it. I like the authenticity as a general trait, but he often expects way too much from the other person. Though I think he has realized that he needs to be more smart about it in the future.

which is a statement that is not compatible with ontological materialism, hence we've finally reached consensus.

Bernardo Kastrup calls this mental dissociation (from his ontological framework of analytical idealism), which is the creation of individualized mental perspectives (the experience of being tied to a particular identity, localized in time and space). In other words, it's not that the substance of mind did not exist before biological organisms, but it's rather that the bubbles of dissociation wouldn't have formed yet. Dissociation is also just a byproduct of form (differences). You can experience formless reality through meditation where your bubble is no longer defined, which is an indication that mind exists beyond form, beyond time and space, beyond your bubble. You can also look to dissociative identity disorder, which is where Kastrup got the idea from, where one's perception of self and reality can get severely altered: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/

If matter is defined as that which is not mind, then by definition, no. If you instead define it as an aspect of mind, then sure.

Is Jordan Peterson Green then? Just kidding

Again, I'm using the ontological definition of matter: "The word matter is derived from the Latin word materia, meaning "wood", or “timber”, in the sense "material", as distinct from "mind" or "form".[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_matter The idealist position is that once you have experience (mind/form), you don't need to invent a new substance called matter for things to exist, because experience is existence. I experience Sam - he exists. This is getting circular.

Do you know about any Green online figures?

You were confusing the concept of form and matter, and I pointed out the distinction. I didn't mean to say that matter exists.

We already went over this as well. The materialist says "material stuff is not mind stuff" and vice versa. It's true that so-called material stuff and mind stuff are used to refer to different types of phenomenological experiences (e.g. seeing a table vs. thinking about a table; the former being a so-called experience of matter, the latter an experience of mind), but from an idealist's perspective, these experiences are made out of the same fundamental substance, namely experience itself, or mind, qualia, consciousness etc.

We already went over this.

I've read that quote before. He is not ignorant of the possibilities provided by different views, but when he is pressed, he capitulates to materialism.

Well... did you really?

That's online Green I agree with your points, but generally when we speak, we speak comparatively while using single word abstractions. It's just the case that Vaush and the boys are more Green in comparison to other online figures, and we say also "Green", not "50%/30%/20%" of whatever stage they're truly at. You always evaluate and represent data based on something else (a contrasting example, an icon or objective standard), and there is always room for a more detailed analysis. There is also a selection bias in that we tend to highlight some domain over others in different contexts.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

...ok

It's not ridiculous when most people spend all their waking (sleeping) life outright denying it. The dream of life is not trivial like the dream of night.

Matter is something that is not mind. That's the entire materialist conundrum. They literally invented the mind-body problem simply by defining matter. It's actually ridiculous In your own words: can you not dream of a wooden chair?

No. I think it's a Spira made out of mind that buys things. Spira is a formed being (he is not formless), but form is not matter.

I believe that all experiential phenomena, whether it be conceptions or perceptions of Sam Harrises or Rupert Spirases, is all mind, yes.

Oh stop it. He was selling materialism, and Spira didn't buy it. Am I selling materialism to you now?

I think this is more useful for people who struggle with embodying empathy and sensitivity

Do you see that speaking is different than confronting?

Don't tease me like that . At least mention some of the concepts you had in mind.

Well let's say both of us started confronting Rupert Spira by saying "surely you must agree that 1st-person experience/introspection can't tell you anything about the nature of the universe" (which Sam did), that would surely be a bit more indicative of a materialistic bias than merely talking about it.