Carl-Richard

I will define crypto-materialism as follows: Consciousness is fundamental (that is, Cosmic, Universal, Trans-personal consciousness is at the bottom of reality) Minds (i.e. personal, private mental states) do not interact non-locally or psychically (or their interactions are soelly bound by physical mechanisms) Subtle energetic phenomena (not easily measured by physical instruments, e.g. spirits, auras, spiritual energy) are not real: they are mental projections on the same level as thoughts and "hallucinations". They are private phenomena that cannot be co-verified by separate observers The crypto-materialist adopts a mostly idealist ontological primitive, where consciousness makes up the formless foundation of reality (emptiness, awareness), while in the world of form (phenomena, events, objects, processes), they hold on to the epistemology of materialism. In the world of form, reality supposedly works as if reality is physical, local, Newtonian, mechanistic. Information supposedly doesn't travel in mental space, it only rests within it. The irony of course is that despite the ontological primitive being consciousness (and not atomic billiard balls or the quantum mechanical equivalent or whatever the cutting edge of physics postulates), somehow they believe the "products" of this primitive follow the laws of a non-consciousness or physicalist universe. The crypto-materialist has likely not yet opened their mind to all the possibilities that exist within a universe made of consciousness and has likely not actively sought out counterevidence to their existing view. Maybe your dislike for "New Agers" is based on some unchecked assumptions 🤔

kek

Most claimed originality is rather uniqueness. You didn't create it, but the way you express it, it's yours. It's rare to get such topics in spoken long-format video, with high production value, and by somebody who knows how to speak clearly and actually make themselves understood, without superficial or roundabout stuff (except the Infinity of Gods video, of course 😉). As for "Alien consciousness" or "Leo's deepest awakening yet which cannot be communicated" etc., nothing has been said there, nothing to say there.

And what does aligned or unaligned behavior look like? Does it have any ramifications or distinguishing qualities?

"But the Queen is the strongest Chess piece, but ultimately, the Queen must submit to the King, because the King is the Top G 😎👇👆"

That's just what happens. You know how a child with behavioral misconduct can throw a tantrum over the smallest things? Is that a structure you can "align" with? Is the alignment process you're describing completely devoid of any structure itself, or does the behavior of an aligned individual look like something?

The ego goes deeper than conceptual thought. It's an entire mode of being. It's a mode that can be switched off. In that sense, it's very illusion-like. Where is the mode? Is it more accurate to say that the mode is like a pattern that arises and less like a discrete thing with definite boundaries?

Brain-experience correlations aside, brain explaining consciousness is completely incoherent. Ions and fluids floating in and out of barriers (neuronal potentials) => the experience of sounds, colors, sensations? Nothing is explained there. It's like explaining the weather by saying the word "atoms". At the very most, it's the most vacuous shell of an explanation.

That's an assumption and a half.

Are you able to see how something can be real in one sense and an illusion in another?

@Someone here y u do dis

The jury is still out on anything being the case except the fact that reality exists. Reincarnation is not the radical baseless claim materialists and crypto-materialists make it out to be. Half-assing awakening can make your life better, but going all the way means giving up your life (as you currently know it). If you're fine with being nothing, being love, being openness, go there.

You are not the body, you are not even the mind. This is not to deny these things, but to go beyond them. Spirituality is about going beyond your humanity, not going against it.

I think talking to many women as friends helps to understand that the women you're talking about in the thread are mostly a sub-section of women, and that if you talk to men, you find a similar sub-section mirroring them. I don't have many female friends per se, but I have been in psychology for many years which is dominated by women, and you inevitably have to talk to them 😝

I'm saying death doesn't grant you lasting awakening, because you quickly go back to sleep again (granting reincarnation, which we are already granting, because life is you reincarnating moment to moment). I would claim everybody has had small moments of awakening, but they quickly go back to sleep, so it mostly doesn't even register. The profound moments of awakening are those that last a bit longer and that cause a kind of transformation or shift in perspective and an opening to what is possible. The "awakening" at death is similarly only a relatively small one, and it will quickly end. If you want lasting awakening (enlightenment), you have to aim at it, be it before death or after death.

Text no sense makey.

Truth is being revealed to you right now, but you go back to sleep, same as will happen at your death.

@OBEler Do you have many female friends?

The best description I've heard for enlightenment is becoming lucid within the dream. The dream doesn't disappear, your body doesn't disappear, your mind ultimately doesn't disappear, but you simply wake up within the dream, and the dream keeps going. Waking up is realizing that the dream character you thought you were, and the reality you thought were real, was an illusion, a kind of story, an intoxication. The only thing that is real is the dreamer. The dreamer is infinite being, creating the dream and the characters within it. And waking up from the dream, while continuing to dream, that is what the enlightened person is doing.

Damn it, it was Wittgenstein, not Heidegger. Wrong German-speaking philosopher. Language got me there, heh. Maybe because I'm not fluent in Western philosophy, or German 🫠 That's what I think when I think about how Wittgenstein's use of the word "language game" means something quite different to how I use the word 🥵 That's itself a language game (in my use of the word) 🥵🥵 😏 👉

I recently talked to a friend who studies philosophy and he started talking about the famous Liar Paradox: "this sentence is false". I replied saying there is a conflict between the context and the "text", in that we assume that sentences are to be taken as "true" when interpreting them (the context), but when the content of the sentence conflicts with that assumption, an apparent paradox is created. Then he started talking about Heidegger's concept of "language games" (e.g. "pen!" meaning something different depending on what action it's referring to, or what game or context it's happening within).

How OP described women (some of it), is how I would describe "normie women". But you also have normie men: they mostly talk about sports, their job, taxes, videogames, movies, things like that. Even there, we could say the men have a slightly higher "NFC", as they're mostly talking about "stuff" (and how stuff works, which is more abstract) rather than relationships (and usually their own, which is more concrete). But the stuff they're talking about is not very "high openness" stuff. And you can very quickly make talking about relationships a highly cognitive endeavor.

My mom is very open and curious and can talk with me about intellectual as well as spiritual things, be it medicine, brain science, meditation, and just random shit my mind throws out. She is also very feminine, very caring, loving, cares about people. My mom's husband, is extremely masculine; he gets shit done, he says things as they are, he is immensely forward-driving; but he has seemingly zero interest for the things I mentioned above. He literally said one time (a bit lowkey) when we were talking about random stuff at dinner, "what use does this have?". What you're referring to is openness to experience. I've never heard openness being described as a mostly male trait. To the contrary.

No, that's called ego backlash 😁

Yas. But even in liberation, there is refinement, in terms of outward behaviors. That's where the different karmas come in (and the difference between enlightened jerks and saints). And you of course have ending bodily incarnations which is a different kind of liberation. Liberation in this life is "jivan mukti". Liberation from all life is a step up. Compulsive thoughts about yourself virtually disappear. I gave the caveat with 5%, because Gary Weber reports those thoughts booting up again when his blood sugar drops. But he reports being able to use thoughts for problemsolving. But even there, he talks about a lessening of thoughts (he gives the rider and the elephant analogy; that most thoughts about problemsolving is like a secretary reporting what is happening, but the real action happens underneath, and often you don't need that reporting for problemsolving).