Carl-Richard

Btw, a good way to notice the language gamey nature of psychology is to open up a book on personality disorders and see how often the author refers to the problems of so-called artificial comorbidity, overlapping diagnostic criteria and other grey areas.

Just look at how many languages there are. Which one is the best one? See how it's kinda the wrong question? When you choose a language, you're given certain rules that you must follow in order to make sense (grammar, logic). However, what you're saying only makes sense relative those rules (Spanish only makes sense to Spanish speakers). The meaning is confined within that framework. That is what is meant by relative truth. It's true relative to that framework. Psychology isn't exactly a language by any strict definition (I'm using it as an analogy), but it's a language game: it uses symbols and rules for sorting them together. Also, all of this happens through the conceptual thoughts of humans. However, spirituality is about going beyond thought, concepts, symbols, rules, language, relativity; to discover what is true independent of anything else (not relatively true but absolutely true). So there is no problem with doing psychology while being spiritual (I'm in fact a psychology student). But just know that when spiritual people speak about "Truth", they mean something else than what you can learn conceptually (any "-ology"). It must at the end of the day be learned experientially. Also, being aware of the fact that psychology is a language game makes you a much more sober psychologist.

It's not true in the same sense that Spanish isn't true. It's a language. This is essentially the relative/absolute conflation. Psychology deals with relative truths. When you speak the language and other people can understand you (it "makes sense"), that's relative truth. Spirituality deals with the Absolute. It's true regardless of which language you speak.

Just reading and God ?

I had an insight when reading about memory consolidation and PTSD treatment methods, and how it relates to the progression of one's meditation ability and the decrease in self-referential thoughts. It has been established that memories exist in a fragile state during recall in a process called "reconsolidation", which means that memories that are being recalled are always prone to being changed or even erased. This has been used to treat people with PTSD by giving them a drug that blocks the stress response (not MDMA in this case, but the mechanism is much the same) and having them recall their traumatic experience. When they recall their memory without experiencing the stressful emotional component, the memory will be reconsolidated in this new emotional context, effectively changing it, which has been shown to reduce the severity of their flashbacks. Now, what does this have to do with meditation? Well, I've meditated for probably 1000 hours and I've been able to notice a progression over time and how it unfolds. What I'm claiming is that the process of recycling thoughts in meditation is similar to the stress-blocking drug treatment for PTSD. This is because you're essentially doing a technique that induces a calm state while continuously experiencing the same thoughts over and over and eventually changing the emotional relationship to each thought. "But meditation doesn't make me calm at all?". Well, naturally the source of calm goes hand-in-hand with low self-referential thoughts (psychological calm), but even if the number of thoughts were to stay the same, the technique is also inherently calming on a physiological level (be it focusing on the breath, releasing bodily tensions etc.). The technique usually works to decrease thoughts in the moment, but the question is how exactly does it do this more successfully over time? More specifically, are there any potential mechanistic explanations other than the simplistic "practice makes perfect"? This is my claim. How exactly does it work? Well, when you're in this calm state, you will have some thoughts entering your mind (obviously). These thoughts are synonymous with a spontaneous recall of a certain memory, and this memory will have to be reconsolidated in this calmer setting. Even if you feel like you don't have a calm mind, your thoughts will always be accompanied by an underlying sense of physiological calm, and the accompanying emotion will therefore be dampened or recontextualized to at least a tiny degree. It might not be true in every moment, but on average, this effect will make itself prominent and starts having an impact over time. When you do this consistently (over days, weeks, months and years), you can start to see how this can radically change how your mind processes memories, thoughts, emotions etc. What also happens as the thoughts start to feel less threatening, you'll be more able to grapple with the actual problems behind why they even feel threatening in the first place, and eventually the thoughts will have no reason to come back. This "fixing" aspect is in many ways completely automatic (sometimes the excess emotional load is the only problem), but it might also involve taking actions in the external world or just seeing things from a new perspective. For sure, the thoughts themselves can still cause you to feel a certain way, but as your practice deepens, you'll attain the ability to simply witness the thoughts without reacting to them the same way, and the reconsolidation effect will at this point start to increase exponentially. You'll notice how being mentally calm, clear and present are all synonymous with eachother, and how a silent mind and a healthy body are two sides of the same coin. This I believe is at least one mechanism behind how self-referential thoughts seem to decrease as you keep meditating (or at least one way to conceptualize it). Meditation is essentially a type of long-format self-therapy. This can also serve as motivation for people who feel they're struggling with an unruly mind and believe they're not seeing any results. According to this theory, just the mere action of consistently putting yourself in a state free of mental distractions, that is just marginally calmer compared to your normal state, will slowly but surely give you the upper hand given consistent daily practice.

What is it wrapped around though?

1. If the universe is finite (not infinite), there must be a border that limits and contains the universe: ( U ) 2. However, if we assume that the universe contains everything that exists, it must also contain that which exists on the other side of that border: U( U )U 3. If you say that there doesn't exist anything on the other side of that border, then that other side is not limited by any border, and therefore that other side must be infinite, because there is nothing that limits it: ...UUU( U )UUU... 4. If instead any other side of any border is always limited by another border, there has to be an infinite amount of borders: ...(U(U(U( U )U)U)U)... 5. Therefore, the universe has to be infinite either way, with or without borders, because the universe is all of it: U = ( U ) + U( U )U + ...UUU( U )UUU... + ...(U(U(U( U )U)U)U)... In reality, the border is only something you draw in your mind. There are no borders in reality. There is only U

It's not completely satisfying though compared to how I imagine it in my mind. I've always wanted to see it being explained using high-end video animation (like in the style of space documentaries). I guess this could serve as a blueprint for that

When I watched this I actually feared that their minds might explode. I feel like it's almost insulting to crush somebody's worldview like this.

Chop wood, carry water. People have different skills and natural inclinations despite being enlightened.

He always gets away with it, you kidding me?

That would be healthy green. Unhealthy green is when the critique of the excesses themselves become excessive ("we don't need science", "we don't need work" etc.).

I believe anatomically and physiologically we skew towards starchy foods (amylase enzyme, teeth, digestion), but it's somewhat an ill-formed question as we're omnivores capable of eating most things except cellulose. Health and longevity is however not wholly congruent with structural/evolutionary adaptation. Natural selection mainly cares about producing babies.

I think you're actually spot on. If I were to make inferences based on my own experience, I think chronic pain or other somatic issues can greatly impede your spiritual progress. Physical health is a crucial part of mental and spiritual health.

Sleep expert talks about one of the benefits of sleep as an "emotional first aid" and uses exactly the same theory as I've done here: memory reconsolidation and stress-reduction. The level of noradrenaline in the brain drops to zero during dreams, which allows you to reexperience and reconsolidate memories from the waking state in a softer emotional context. (the stress-reducing drug I was referring to earlier also works on the adrenergic system; Tom mentions MDMA as well): 10:38 - 17:10

Notice how he willingly concedes to a wide-reaching aspect of a Green idea and then critiques the excesses: 4:09 - 6:33:

Causation is a way to describe relationships between things. Just don't forget that reality is not a description of things and you're fine

Verbatim sounds like that recent hit piece on JP.

That's why I asked

Just curious: do you like Jordan Peterson?

"What is this nazi, bio-essentialist, phrenology-esque rating system?" ?

Sure, giraffe comments aren't my cup of tea either, but I don't think the bitterness is the main thing that turns people off from the videos. It has more to do with how your deepest beliefs are being questioned. The attitude is just the nail in the coffin and something for your ego to project on. People can handle bitter people just fine when they agree with them. Just open Destiny's or Vaush's Twitch chat ?

I wouldn't be so dichotomous. I'm INFP and I have no problem with this. It's more about how fragile your ego is.

If that is all it takes to discourage you, you've come to the wrong place lol That kind of belittlement is nothing in comparison to what is in store for you here.

I don't actually get this critique.