Carl-Richard

I'm hinting at repeated observation and experimentation. The more you're able to establish regularities, the more you want to call it objective. That said, scientific objectivity is never absolute. Science is always embedded in a context, and its objectivity can only be judged relative to that context. This applies to every level of the scientific process: methodology, data collection, data interpretation etc. For example, you could claim that Spiral Dynamics has established certain regularities of human development, but within the constraints of its metaphysical and methodological assumptions like psychological essentialism and developmental stage theory, the data collection constrains of WEIRD bias and Clare Graves' essay methodology, the data interpretation constraints of thematic analysis etc.

I feel more and more that the attempt to translate across realms (from experience to language) feels inherently dissatisfying. It doesn't give justice to the experience, and it corrupts the language. On the other hand, when you're working purely within the realm of language (like in philosophy or science), you maintain some sense of stability and coherence with the rules of the game. With non-duality, it feels like you're actively trying to break the rules and almost desecrate them. I feel at some point, if you value the precision of language (certainly of that found in analytic philosophy and science), you sort of have to choose one: will you speak the language of precision and rigor, or will you speak the language of non-speech and metaphor?

They can also be thought of as extremes on a continuum. Ego <---------------> Reality The ego is meta-cognitive structures built upon cognitive structures, built upon perceptual structures, built upon consciousness (reality). The longer you go to the left, the more you want to call it ego. The more you go to the right, the more you want to call it reality. However, "in reality", they're interconnected (non-dual; not-two ).

How does the human observer discover what is objective?

Just posting this here because it's my favorite Camel song and it doesn't exist on Spotify anymore ?

I'm exceptional

It finds regularities in nature.

Who?

It's also important to know the exact limitations of your lenses

Good discussion on ADHD.

Logic is an assertion.

Exactly ?

I guess I was expecting a rational reason rather than a spiritual reason.

There are reasons for specifically dismissing MBTI, but they don't have anything to do with experiences of no-mind. If anything, an experience of no-mind should make you dismiss all mind. No need to single out MBTI.

That would be spiritual bypassing, but ok.

Did he give a particular reason why?

What I meant is that the assertion doesn't make sense. However, the main point is that you cannot assert what can or cannot be actualized by virtue of merely asserting it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. We agree.

@bambi ^If this was not intended as a way to defend MBTI against the fact that its standardized measurements are subpar compared to other theories, then that was a very unfortunate way to word yourself when considering the context of the OP posting this video as a part of a string of defenses for MBTI. If you were indeed missing that context, then that can explain the disconnect we're having.

Rather than saying there is no state of affairs that could correspond with that assertion, I would say there is no way to make such an assertion. The limitation tells you more about the assertion than the reality.

Reality creates minds which are able to think in logical terms. The thing is that the concepts "snow" and "frozen" and the relationship between them don't truly exist in reality as independent things. They're the product of minds capable of logical reasoning. Logic can make sense of certain regularities of perception, but the sensemaking is not the thing that is being made sense of. It's also possible to perceive things that don't make logical sense, certainly during altered states of consciousness. In fact, this is actually going on every single moment of your waking existence, because you can't make sense of it all.

Let's say I divided people into two types: winners and losers. You can only be one type. Is this a good model? Well, personality psychology as a field has generally come to the conclusion that so-called "type theories" (typologies) are generally bad models, because when you try to make a standardized measurement for them (i.e. a personality test), the tests simply end up not being valid (testing what they're actually supposed to test) or reliable (giving the same results over different times). The Big 5 solves this by being a trait model (each trait exist in all people, and you get a 0-100 score on each trait). You can argue that it makes the model ugly, but the test for it is at least valid and reliable. The problem when you don't have a standardized measurement is that anything you try to establish becomes highly prone to bias. This is why for example psychiatrists only give you a psychiatric diagnosis after they've given you a long and proper standardized test.

The MBTI test sucks, so you're implying that all personality tests suck.

@bambi Clarify what you intended to say then. That's what I did like 5 times.

Remember that logic is just logical reasoning; mind activity. It deals with limited identities which are projected onto reality by your logical human mind. A logical impossibility would just be a contradiction to that process. Reality as it is in itself has an unlimited identity, and it's not a projection of your logical human mind. As a bit of a side point, if you want to call other aspects of reality a projection of your human mind, then that projection goes much deeper (e.g. on the level of perceptual structures instead of higher cognitive structures). Logical reasoning is a very abstract mind activity, and it's certainly not fundamental to reality.

All logic starts with the law of identity ("a thing is itself, as distinct from something else"). Ascribing or projecting onto something an identity, ascribes it finitude. So infinity is already beyond the realm of logic. As all identities and all logic are fundamentally projections, a logical impossibility just describes a type of negation of those projections. Infinity doesn't intrinsically negate the projections per se. It just doesn't limit itself to such projections.