Carl-Richard

I'm not enlightened because I fear it too much ?

I think I have something in this ballpark, more specifically about construct validity and internal critique within a field (as opposed to critique from the outside). There is this book on personality psychology that goes into why trait models like Big Five are preferred over typology models like MBTI. It basically boils down to the fact that statistically speaking, people generally don't fall into different "types" of personalities (introverted, extroverted etc.) but rather that these qualities follow a normal distribution in the population. If the traits instead followed a bimodal distribution, then that would be more in line with a typology model. In other words, very few people are extremely introverted or extroverted (most people are somewhere in the middle). The trait model says that you can be either high or low in a trait instead of being simply either/or, which seems to be a more accurate representation of the data. This is a specific argument that the book mentioned about why typologies are generally not well-received in psychology. Now, there is no reason to dispute the actual facts of the matter, but here are some few observations: 1. Most people when operating in the world, don't use statements like "I'm a person high in introversion". They will most likely say "I'm an introvert". Therefore, it doesn't really matter which type of model you feed people, because you'll most likely end up with a typology description either way. 2. Some MBTI personality tests do infact give you a statistical distribution of a trait, and the type you end up is then simply reverse engineered from those numbers (if you're 60% introvert, you'll have that as your type). Therefore, at the end of the day, it's only a difference in description and representation. If you were to describe something typologically while using numbers that don't follow a bimodal distribution, that doesn't actually negate the numbers. It's only a different description, less accurate yes, but a valid description nonetheless. In my own opinion, as long as you're aware of these things, you should be able to say "I'm high in introversion" AND "I'm an introvert" based on any model (typology or trait). Given the same data, it shouldn't really be a cause for concern. Even if typologies were somehow inherently less equipped with dealing with reality than trait models, I still embrace the "let a hundred flowers bloom" approach, because I ultimately see science through an utilitarian lens and not the absolutist "science=truth" lens

A personality disorder is generally defined as when a specific trait starts having a detrimental impact on your life. The way that is determined may seem highly subjective, but there might exist some specific ways to measure that aswell (I'll get back to you in a month or so when my professor has given a lecture about it ). Regardless, people with NPD will of course score high on trait narcissism, but high trait narcissism doesn't necessarily mean you have NPD.

"Talk, talk, it's only talk."

NO! Neither are yours or anybody. We're talking right now. Talk, talk, talk. It ain't it, so stop this nonsense already.

I can type anything and I'll get a non-dual deepity back. I guess I've found a woke sentence generator Try to write anything else than non-dual bs. If you can't, you have a mind virus. This is not awakening.

You're conflating group level and individual level analysis. Personality traits are individual traits that are generalized across different contexts. Political ideology is group- and context-specific. Narcisissm is on a spectrum. Individuals with traits like high confidence, charm and charisma may score higher on the narcissism than somebody low in those traits, but you have to see it in combination with the other traits (lack of empathy etc.). This is the difference between somebody like Obama and Trump.

If you really understood the implications of what you're saying, you wouldn't keep getting lost like this. Non-dual verbal diarrhea is not a sign of being awake. Word salad is not a virtue.

Why fear what you can't control? Btw, there is a tendency to conflate positive aspects like high charisma and confidence with negative aspects like narcisissm.

Because that is what politics is about, what society is for.

You're the epitome of conflating the relative with the absolute.

Have you ever faced the death of your own prime identification mechanism? It ain't no joke. "Being" and "accepting" only exacerbates it. To truly stop it from happening, you must fight it hard. However, it's ultimately a fool's errand, because you're essentially fighting yourself. You're denying what "is". Accepting is of course also the better solution, but sometimes it can feel like it's not the right time.

Look man, in order to communicate properly, you have to engage in relative concepts. Everyone here is conceding to that point by using words (whether consciously or unconsciously is beside the point). By consistently invoking non-dual doublespeak, you're only making it harder for yourself and other people to understand you. What you're doing here is syntactical self-immolation, non-dual wankery, and ironically egoic autofellatio (I just did it aswell).

Well, you said this: You're saying Sam Harris doesn't exist. How can brains exist when Sam Harris doesn't exist?:

@K Ghoul RIP Chuck <3 Have anybody ever tried whistling to microtonal songs? Here is your challenge:

@Mason Riggle If non-duality was a worm, it ate your brain. That is the real reason why you keep saying it doesn't exist

It might seem unpleasant right now, but you'll get used to it over time. Atleast now you know what it's all about. Maybe if you don't like it, take some time off to figure out why you're reacting this way and how you can fix it.

Like I said, you can pretend like you're a mind inside a body and after a while the fear might seem to disappear. However, it never "really" disappears. It really just moves to the background as you momentarily get caught up in limited identification.

You're experiencing the absoluteness of consciousness. From that perspective, I'm not real. However, "persons" still exist in a relative sense. You are a person, I am a person, but ultimately we are one.

This is enlightenment. Ta-da. You have two possible outcomes: either you learn to live with these changes and keep on meditating as an enlightened person, or you stop meditating and pretend like you're not an enlightened person. I experienced what you're experiencing and I ended up doing the latter, but it's really painful and I don't recommend it.

He has always been saying that. That riff about materialism having no proof is a consistent part of his repertoire. Sam seems to concede that their disagreement is merely a semantic difference, but he still wants to use this convoluted materialist language and doesn't see the primacy of consciousness in establishing so-called 3rd person, intersubjective, empirical, scientific truths. He somehow wants to separate all that from consciousness, but it's impossible.

Anesthesia removes the "contents" of consciousness: sensations, perceptions, time, space, objects, concepts etc.. Those are all "changing" aspects of reality. Consciousness is unchanging. It cannot be moved/removed/changed. Again, normie tiny brain vs. big brain definition.

He is using the normie small brain definition of consciousness while Rupert is using the big brain chad definition of consciousness. This becomes very clear when they start talking about anesthesia.

You have to let go of your fear of insanity, unreality, death, non-existence.