Carl-Richard

I literally had this exact thought some days ago. I visualized it as a continuum from something like naive realism to naive skepticism. People who've just recently discovered spirituality, or did so very young, often jump all the way out to the naive skepticism side of "the mind is all illusion, you can't know anything, it must all be thrown out", and maybe later they will re-integrate some aspects of the earlier rationality more in the center of the continuum. The asleep sheeple are of course stuck at the naive realism side , but general construct awareness (irrespective of mysticism) can also move you out to the center. I think somebody like Bernardo Kastrup is a good example of doing the gradual path of construct awareness (no sudden jumps), which eventually ended up in mystical territory.

Bernardo Kastrup. I know about JP's stances on MBTI. I don't think that is what I'm implying ? LOL. The guy has two separate PhDs (got the last one in under a year) and has studied Jung for decades. Whatever phases exist in that realm, he is way past it. I just think it's interesting that the big boy Jungians I know about (basically just JP and Bernardo ?) do not seem to be very excited about cognitive functions or MBTI.

@Yarco Many young people think enlightenment is about them. They're trying to shoehorn it into their desire to be someone, or to feel safe; lower level desires in disguise. So they will either get stuck in that game of spiritual ego and spiritual bypassing, or they will have to backtrack and re-establish that foundation which they deeply desire.

@thisintegrated He has written a whole book on Jung's metaphysics, but I've never heard him talk about cognitive functions out of the maybe 5-6 interviews I've watched ?

It's tricky, because intuition has a processing component which relies on current and past events, and states of your body and mind (perceptual data and even abstract reasoning), which can be regarded as contextual. However, the subjective experience of an intuition doesn't seem to be subject to one's volition (it's like a feeling or perception; it just happens), meanwhile logic and abstract reasoning is felt like something one is doing. So in a way, intuition relies on preconceived notions just like logic, but in a passive sense rather than an active sense, as it's not directly subservient to the will of the ego as it's happening. You can't unsee an intuition, just like how you can't unsee an apple in front of you (unless you're in some superduper altered state), but you can use logic selectively to serve your own egoic needs (be it unconsciously or not), like picking out a line of argumentation that is the most favorable. I didn't feel like it ?

@zurew I think that intuition is generally less biased than logic, as it involves perceiving something rather than judging something based on preconceived notions (very Jungian of me ?), but it can certainly be inaccurate. The fact that it is inarticulated and feeling-based makes it less corruptible by the scheming part of the ego. Intuition can in a sense only become biased in its adulturated form after it gets processed and interpreted by the rational mind.

It also relies on constructs of thought, which rely on ontological primitives (irreducible assumptions about reality), which most people either are unaware about, take as undeniable facts of reality, or are unwilling to question. From this perspective, logic without construct awareness looks just like what dogma looks to logic: "blind leading the blind", "pawns in somebody else's game".

Last night, I tried to sleep when I wasn't tired, and that is when I usually enter samadhi states. What seemed to trigger it this time was remembering how somebody described their transition into stable non-duality (which I'll tell from my perspective): "the character of Carl-Richard was gone most of the time, and started arising by itself, outside of my control." It really helps to use your own name. So it's not just surface-level thoughts, but also the core sense of identity, that arises and vanishes from moment to moment, but it usually goes unnoticed (your mind fills in the gaps). However, when that reality is investigated and seen for what it is (accepted while also being in the right state), then grace happens. That said, there is really no method for grace, only for bettering one's state. I'm just telling you how it might happen.

@thisintegrated How would you type Bernardo Kastrup?

I was intentionally looking for a good Bernardo Kastrup video, and I think I found the best one:

The dissolving of karma.

Sources: the 1%

By cringing.

Meditation. I was completely taken off guard because Leo said that everybody sucks at meditation in the beginning ? My notion of awakening was pretty shallow, so I thought it was some other thing. It felt like I was going to disappear forever and never come back, so I jumped up in fear and stopped the meditation.

19.

I want a test that tests the reliability of your own self-assessments. Strange loop

Rational Ability = 40 / 50 Rational Engagement = 49 / 50 Experiential Ability = 43 / 50 Experiential Engagement = 37 / 50

You don't become less spiritual by writing walls of text ?

@funcool Don't need caffeine for that

That is not very concrete. Here is an example: How does a car move? 1. By burning fuel. 2. By the oxidation of hydrocarbons. 3. By converting the potential chemical energy of gasoline into kinetic energy at the wheels. 4. When gasoline is injected into the cylinder and mixed with air and ignited, it produces an explosion that rapidly expands the gases in the confined cylinder. Thus the four-stroke process is compression, ignition, power, exhaust. The piston is consequently driven downward by the expanding gases in the power stroke which exit the cylinder through an exhaust manifold in the side of the cylinder. The movement of the piston drives the crank shaft down, and this drives another piston up in its cylinder, where it repeats the process of compression, ignition, power and exhaust. The spinning crank shaft turns the heavy flywheel at the rear of the engine. The flywheel is cut with teeth so the starter motor can turn it over and start the engine. The flywheel is connected directly to the gear box which enables the driver to select the ratio of the engine speed to the drive speed. The gear box then connects to the bar of the drive shaft, which spins according to the speed of the selected gears, which in turn is connected to a split differential that allows the driving power to drive the rear axle. The rear wheels, or in the case of front-wheel drive cars, the front wheels, are driven by the rotation of the axle. The turning wheels in turn move the car. Which explanation is detailed enough? If 4, why does that satisfy you? What if I said there exists a 5th explanation?

How detailed of an explanation do you have in mind?

It's ironically enough a very Christian interpretation of karma, equating it with sin (that there is an objective moral code whereby you're judged by an ultimate authority). Karma as conceived by the Hindus is much more subtle than that. It's more akin to a law of nature, like cause and effect, than a mystical scoreboard for good and bad actions. Now, it can still explain why so-called bad things happen to bad people. For instance, repeating an action many times makes it more likely that you'll do it in the future (strengthening of synapses, cognitive schemas etc.), so doing more bad stuff will make you more bad over time, and this influences how you respond to events and how other people respond to you (which also tends to be bad).

What do you think karma is specifically?