Carl-Richard

Hahahaha I'll be watching :)))

As an overarching point, I agree. It's a bit idealistic. However, at least in the discussion with Vaush, it's more complicated. The reason they picked the topic of pedophilia was really only because he and Destiny had just discussed the other topics they had to choose from a bit earlier. He also knew that Vaush had already 1. expressed well thought-out opinions on pedophilia, and 2. had made statements which he actually disagreed with (statements in favor of "ethical child porn"), so he expected to enter the conversation as the guy with the anti-pedophilia stance, but instead Vaush did a 180 and gave a vague PR statement to save his ass ("well that was only a spicy way to critique socially acceptable types of unethical commodity consumption..."). Then the whole thing ended with Vaush misinterpreting a joke and kicking him off etc. It was all just a trainwreck really.

I've watched quite a bit of Mr.Girl by now, and there is no way he is intentionally trolling, at least not in the 1-to-1 conversations. He might come off that way, but it's actually just radical honesty. People are simply not used to somebody who doesn't excessively virtue signal when making ambiguous statements in ethically edgy conversations. He doesn't only talk about pedophilia either.

All my friends have done a bunch of psychedelics, and they're still materialists.

It's kinda spread out, but this is short and sweet: 3:09 - 3:24 He tends to only mention his past in passing, so you have to watch some of his stuff to get the whole picture. Nevertheless, you can quickly tell that he has a good understanding of Green. I like this one. It displays some of his Green literacy (and it's funny ):

I meant that she is a modernist (based on the fact that she identifies as a conservative). Mr.Girl is a metamodernist. The difference is that he has a much more insider's understanding of Green (he has been through it), which becomes very clear when you listen to his story. My point is that many modernist ideals coincide with metamodernism, something which gets lost in postmodernism.

Time is experienced through the change of form. Form and time vanished – experience did not. Experience of absence is not absence of experience. Sam's problem is that he doesn't have a subtle enough understanding of consciousness.

Haha thanks What do you mean by that?

Awareness has a formless and timeless dimension. People confuse awareness with wakefulness and awareness of form (inter-subjective sensory phenomena; sights, sounds, smells, sensations). Anesthesia is therefore analogous (but not synonymous) to deep sleep: awareness without wakefulness.

Don't push people to do drugs

God damn I actually knew most of those. That's what you get for taking a social psychology class

That's exactly it.

She is doing a version of the Mr.Girl thing (creating dialogue between opposing views). Not saying they're equal, but it shows how metamodernism is in many ways a re-integration of modernism. Like Jamie Wheal says, the conditions for Game B were actually set with the founding fathers. They were just never properly implemented. "We're are not here to honor the dead, we're here to re-commit to the promise."

Why do you pretend that experience is not absolute?

He has already addressed these criticisms a while ago. Mr.Girl is late to the party.

Ok I'm not going to preach to somebody who it has obviously not worked for.

That's actually a prescription

It's not even that. In his interview with Ruper Spira, he claimed that 1st person experience ("introspection") cannot tell you anything about how the universe works

All opinions, thoughts and beliefs are similar in the sense that they're spoken, but not in what they're referring to (either experience or conjecture). There does exist absolutes in life, and opinions can be based on absolutes, just like opinions can be based on the denial of absolutes. "Existence exists" is one such absolute, and it's directly tied to the absoluteness of non-duality. It's just that some people have mystical experiences and some do not. Does that mean that some people's experiences are valid and some are not? Not at all. This is exactly why non-dualists are so adamant about saying "you need to have the experience for yourself", because it's indeed only your experience that is valid. Is that supposed to be a correction? The mystic makes the distinction between experience and conjecture. The religious fundamentalist doesn't. The mystic will agree that all conjecture must be approached with humility. However, what cannot be approached with mere humility is the baseline fact of one's own existence; the fact that existence exists for itself, by itself, not separate from itself. To be in denial of this fact is also to fail to differentiate between experience and conjecture. I'm just trying to point you to your own experience. The words are besides the point. Sit down, close your eyes and try to notice if you can experience "cheese" and "milk" as something else than just a thought.

It's called expressing an opinion. Consciousness of the nature of self as not being separate, which not coincidentally correlated with flow and 5x mental productivity (Jamie Wheal, 2013). If we assume that meditation is about undermining the sense of separateness (like Sam agrees with), then having beliefs that conflict with this process (i.e. materialism) is not going to be productive. There is a reason why there are mantra meditations like "I am not the body, I am not even the mind." Even though these are just words, they have an effect. Likewise, beliefs are the linguistic bedrock of the psyche; they affect how you think and feel, how you speak and even how you see. The reason a mystic is more certain in his stance than others is because he is living it. It's not a matter of belief. From his perspective, there are beliefs that overshadow the truth, and holding a belief, even with humility, is not more virtuous than telling the truth. Sam should agree with this. He wrote an entire book about lying AND spirituality. Cheese and milk are nothing but thoughts, and so is your separate self

He dabbles in it, but again he is restricted by his materialism. This is very evident in his podcast with Rupert Spira.

Changing your beliefs doesn't mean you'll have a mystical experience, but if you have a mystical experience, your beliefs will change.

Do you not think beliefs have an effect on your mind? Believing that you're separate from the universe actually reduces your consciousness.

1:13:52 - 1:18:00 When somebody asked him what it feels like to lose your sense of self, it sounds like he hasn't had any deep mystical experiences, which explains his materialism (either that, or he intentionally gave the most dumbed-down, skeptic-friendly sales pitch of meditation in order to not scare anybody away). It seems like he is stuck at the mainstream conception of mindfulness, of treating meditation as a disposable band-aid for excess neuroticism throughout the day ("It punctuates the problem."), not as an existential rewamping of your life.