Carl-Richard

Adventurer YouTubers — ISFP (FiSe)

Models only work some of the time on a majority of people. Eric Weinstein explains this extremely well in relationship to IQ models and modern education models:

Every time I've experienced something like this I've proved myself wrong. Perception is not an infallible process. One time I bought some potatoes here in Norway called "Mandel" (meaning "almond"), and I swear I saw that it said "Mendel" with an "e" on the package, not "Mandel". I knew they were called something like that, but I wasn't too sure about the spelling. A little backstory: I had just been reading about Gregory Mendel, one of the fathers of biological inheritance, who was known for breeding different strains of peas in order to study this. So I made the associaton that he might have been breeding different strains of potatoes as well. The thing is that upon closer inspection, the package didn't just say "mandel" but also "melne" (meaning they easily crumble). Those are very similar looking words, and add the fact that the package was crumpled, I must have seen something resembling "Mendel" (crumpled "melne") and filled out the blanks based on my prior experiences. There are so many psychological models I could go into that explains this, but you get the gist.

That is why you should only listen to PhDs in psychiatry who are also psychotic... or should you? ?

You can only serve as one piece in a string of events.

If you're joyful, you can't help yourself but to express that joy somehow. That can come off as "oh he is so motivated, striving, passionate, determined" but you're really just very joyful. If you're not motivated by lack, cultivate some joy in your life, not for the sake of motivation, but for the sake of joy.

Do you desire truth? What if boredom is trying to show you what is true? ?

I hope you know that this phrase is the biggest meme in the Destiny community

There is no separation

Now you're being carried away by the absolute/relative conflation. I don't have anything against Allislove or Nahm bringing up the absolute perspective as an answer to your question, but you should know that the very second you asked your question, you started operating in the relative, and that is why I went there as well. Allislove and Nahm are just trying to reel you back in while I'm the devil who is willfully engaging in the illusion of separateness. In an absolute sense, there are no distinctions; no rocks, no animals, no people; no enlightened beings, no unenlightened beings. But in a relative sense, there are rocks, animals, people, enlightened people. You could say you're indeed aware of this distinction, but please choose one or the other instead of jumping back and forth.

Fear of insanity is just one of many fears you have to work through.

When I used to meditate, my body would start to ache at around 45 minutes and that is where most of the progress happened. I say push through unless you're afraid you're hurting yourself.

Animals are sentient, present, aware, conscious, but so are unenlightened humans. Humans are also "sapient" (wise beings capable of thought). Rocks, trees, animals and humans are being. However, enlightenment is when being shines through the prism of sapience, or when the illusory nature of thought is illuminated by the light of being. Animals, rocks and trees aren't sapient and therefore not enlightened.

Stop it. About animals, Breakingthewall said "they simple are", and you answered "That is enlightenment". Does that not apply to rocks?

Is a rock enlightened?

Nature is low consciousness. People have to stop falling for these fallacious naturalistic arguments.

Then why should he listen to you?

I think what he is talking about is the good old Advaita trap., a.k.a confusing the absolute and the relative

You were born with an inquisitive mind that needs meaning and purpose, so you have to learn how to deal with that. Some people just have less going on up there so they don't seem as affected by it. But you'll also notice how easily riled up they can get over nothing in particular. There are pros and cons of being a meathead.

Eric Weinstein also has his own wiki with a lot of contributions to systems thinking: https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Main_Page

Good example of why ENFP and INFJ are considered a best match; the dance of divergent and convergent intuition (Ne and Ni). Ne takes one topic and connects it with other topics in a movement of expansion, and Ni takes those topics and strings them all together into a narrative. Then Ne uses that as a springboard to other subjects and the cycle continues. This is the essence of the dialectical movement (constructive and complementary discourse): divergence and convergence, elaboration and condensation, analysis and synthesis, fragmentation and integration.

Keywords: facets, aspects, center of gravity, continuum. Stage Orange isn't exclusively defined by atheism. Atheism/theism is just one facet that can be arrived at through different pathways (Red can also be atheistic). It can be affected by other facets like cognition, spirituality, aesthetics, morality etc. For example, your friend might have Orange cognition and morality along with some aspects of Blue/Red spirituality and aesthetics. People adopt beliefs and identities all the time that seem to deviate from their center of gravity (nobody is just one stage but instead a shaded continuum). For example, there is currently an Orange fad about simulation theory: the idea that the universe was created by immensely powerful beings outside of our world. Sounds eerily similar to traditional monotheism don't you think? There is an obvious monotheistic aesthetic to the theory, but it's nested within a techno-materialist metaphysics (which arguably makes no difference when you're already conceding to the creator aspect). There are many examples of Christian apologists with a deeper knowledge of philosophy and logic than most atheistic philosophers (stronger Orange cognition but maybe more Blue spirituality/morality). Look up the debate with Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. Harris abandoned the debate format midway and derailed the discussion into a pathos-fueled activist tirade. Not very "science, facts and logic" of him

If I managed to predict exactly when my microwave is done 86% of the time, that doesn't tell me anything about my predictions about aliens. Even if I made predictions about aliens with 86% accuracy, the problem of induction states that a prediction can never tell you anything certain about the future. Current predictions don't tell you anything certain about future predictions.