Carl-Richard

And without mothers, no janitors. No millionaires, no billionaires, no Steve Jobses, no Jeff Bezoses, no Elon Musks. Women make the market, the men just grow it.

You described it as a contradiction. That was what I was contesting. Presenting a strangeloop as a contradiction is a choice (be it deliberate or indeliberate). It's not necessary. No. Calling something that is not absolute absolute does not happen as a result of logic or reason. "Multiple absolutes", "multiple Gods", is simply a failure of communication. As is what you said right now. We're already conceding that by talking. I know you probably didn't intend it, but this is identical to a certain naughty word: narcissist gaslighting. Your statements, Leo's statements, are perfectly logical, perfectly precise, all up until the equivocation part. And you want to come off that way. You want to come off as logical, clear and precise. That's why you make a video. That's why you're speaking to me using logic right now. But then, when I point out the contradiction, the error in logic, the equivocation, you suddenly revert to "every statement about God is imprecise". As if every statement you make is imprecise. As if every mistake I point out is actually the mistake. Suddenly it's all completely flipped. It's the same with "that's just a mental projection you're making". Yeah, like every statement you're making.

It gets paid less because it's less marketable. When your profession deals with "things", that's more fungible, more quantitative, more scalable. When it deals with people, it's less fungible. Money is fungible. More things = more money. Motherhood is not very marketable, but it's qualitatively very valueable.

Any fruit for me is deliciously sweet. So I technically start my mornings with dessert.

WHEN YOU REALIZE SOLIPSISM

Balding people who lift 🫡

Were you actually wronged, or did you make a mistake and you didn't own up to it? How "justified" was your anger? I approach emotions like What is the purpose of the emotion? Emotions have a direction, they point you towards something. What do you achieve by expressing the emotion, and is it best achieved by expressing it? If anger arises, does expressing the anger best solve the problem? And while I say that, you should be morally sensitive, not a pragmatic sociopath, but also sensitive with respect to yourself, not just being a doormat. What you'll find if you express emotions in line with their purpose but also in line with your morality, they will arise shortly and then subside. They did what they came to do and you tried to do what is most right.

I've maybe contemplated something once. The rest of the time my mind just spews connections. The times I've "contemplated", it was actually just entertaining cognitive dissonance and being unwilling to let go and realizing I was trying to force something that wasn't a well-formed thought. If something is a well-formed thought, you can't help but to express it. If you can't seem to express a well-formed thought, let it go, it will come back better.

The gym is a spiritual practice 💪 A jail is a monastery 🧘

It can happen without the use of symbols. The experience itself is what is communicated, is what information is transferred. Information can be transferred, communicated, and the information can be an experience. For example, an emotional state from a person is transferred as an experience to another person. There are no symbols involved there, simply a transferring of that emotional state. The emotional state can be a symbol, for example anger being "stay away", but when the anger is transferred and felt, what is felt is the thing itself (granted perceptual limitations), not necessarily a symbol for something else. When a bird chirps and another bird understands and performs the action that the chirp referred to, is that not a case of symbol use? The chirp is a symbol used for suggesting a performed action. If not symbol use, what is language, and how does it precede the transferring of information (communication)?

It's not. It's when you jump levels and you get back to where you started. It does not necessitate equivocation or a logical error. That's a choice you're making. You can always choose to make the steps in the strange-loop explicit so an equivocation doesn't happen. No. The absolute includes everything, including the relative. The relative is a sub-set of the absolute. The absolute is the superset. God is the superset. See how you can choose to avoid equivocation? It's a purely linguistic choice, but it's a choice that increases clarity, that doesn't equivocate. And I'm saying that multiple absolutes defeats the concept. You can choose to be logically consistent in your words, even though reality fundamentally isn't. If you stop holding your words to logical consistency, then anything flies, and you're down the rabbit hole of thought disorder and things that people want to lock inside hospital walls.

It's one thing to concede that God cannot be ultimately communicated. It's another to communicate it badly. You've chosen the way of logic and concepts, but you shoot yourself in the foot. Its like if you want to communicate truth through vibes and energy transmission, but you use a plastic figurine rather than yourself. I can appreciate a strange-loop when it's actually a strange-loop and not an euphemism for equivocating or being incoherent. When you say "if God is absolute, but it breaks itself into 'multiple absolutes', how can God be absolute?", you're just looping, not strange-looping. "God is the absolute and the absolute can divide itself into the relative, and then the relative can recognize itself as part of the absolute again". That's a strange-loop. "Multiple absolutes". That's a contradiction. I literally said that. I just said what I feel based on the current information.

When people criticize you for using clear, unequivocal and conceptually detailed statements when explaining non-duality or God, the extreme version of that is using unclear and equivocal statements on purpose. That would be my pick for what qualifies as "fake spirituality". It fundamentally boils down to conflating the intellect that points with the truth that is being pointed to. Being a shitty pointer is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Being a shitty user of language is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Unless your every utterance is a mere Zen stick for shaking up somebody's preconceived notions, using unclear and equivocal language is the opposite of being intelligent, the opposite of being virtuous. It suggests some underlying pathology or attachment, or something that needs to be protected, or simply ignorance. Which again is not new. You're probably waiting for the lizard video as well? I want you to radically evaluate the charity you extend to people's claims, the charity you extend to people claiming they're radically special, to people claiming absurd things that they have not backed up. This is what Leo wants for you.

"Strange-loop" is an euphemism for "superfluous". Can God be absolute and multiply itself? Yes. Can God create multiple things that don't know each other? Yes. So what is new here? The trouble lies in treating the things that are multiplied as their own absolutes, which is contradictory (as "absolutes" is relative). What you're actually pointing towards is the concept of the unknown, of postulating something outside what is known. If you're God and you know yourself as the absolute (empirically, through direct experience), you can theoretically postulate something (hypothetically) outside of that. But if you approach it rationally, for something to exist outside of God is antithetical to the concept (it's also ironically a kind of human neuroticism that gives birth to the entire exercise; a thought, hypothesizing, putting up a boundary, a limitation, often about the unknown and its associated fears). You might not know for sure whether the absolute you experience is indeed truly absolute, but rationally, the absolute has to be absolute. Rationally, God has to be the one true God. So the Infinity of Gods thinking essentially just entertains the unknown as a hypothetical while equivocating around the concept of God. If you want to cut the fuzziness and just get the bare points: yes, you can entertain the unknown as a hypothetical, but empirically and rationally, God is still the one true God. I think it essentially is. Aliens are not private property. But hey, I'm open to be absolutely blown away. The common thread through all high-dose, breakthrough, alien encounter trips, is "I communicated with and downloaded an immense intelligence that I have no way to communicate or even remember fully, but I know it was awesome". I think that's what this is.

I think this is exactly what telepathy is, but also empathy, or generally feeling, being the thing that is being communicated. When I feel what you're feeling, it's not a linguistic interpretation, it's a synchronization, a tapping into our shared being. And if you're sensitive, or your self is very expanded, you can't help but take it all in, because that is what is; it is your experience. If I were to use some Sheldrakian terminology: when the field of your mind becomes more receptive or it stretches out far enough, more things become part of that field, not necessarily just thoughts, but often experiences, because all experiences fundamentally take place in the same field.

No.

No, that's just your idiosyncratic definition of the word. What is usually meant by "witness" is beyond subject and object, not limited to relations. It's that which exists beyond all the subjects and objects and witnesses all of them.

It's worse. I think the thoughts are superfluous. You can have an "unoriginal" thought which is straightforward and not all fat and no meat. Infinity of Gods to me is "if God is infinite, did you know we could have infinite cakes too?". And I'll be like "yes, infinite cakes, sure. Anything else I didn't already know?". Alien consciousness I suspect is something like "I took DMT and I realized there are intense levels of awareness and intelligence beyond our own", which is not even just literally what Terrence McKenna has said, but it's virtually the a priori of psychedelics gnosis. Psychedelics do virtually only increase consciousness. And we're supposed to be amazed when somebody says we can discover radically elevated levels of consciousness and radically different states of perception and thinking on them? Beyond human perception? Yes, dUh.

Lol, Infinity of Gods is "God is infinite" with extra steps. Alien awakening has not been laid out. But my feeling is it sounds like a standard DMT trip report with extra steps.

My reaction was with respect to the forum. But also, show me one independent thought.

As we all know, the pinnacle examples of health are methheads, competition-ready steroid-abusing bodybuilders and anorexics who routinely die in their mid-40s.

Look at it go. Exactly what I said you said. Me: "I think bread is edible. Do you think bread is edible?" Breakingthewall: "I think bread can be digested and have its nutrients extracted by the stomach." Me: "Yeah ok, but do you see how you said the same thing?" Breakingthewall: "You just don't seem to understand me". Me: "What if I told you I could define the word 'peanut butter" in 10 different ways? Would you see it then?" Breakingthewall: "Peanut butter is a mixture of peanuts, oils and other additives". The reason why you seem to disagree so much, why you keep responding with blocks of text to everything, why everything seems to loop and no conversation gets resolved and it all continues forever, is because you're not conceding your frame (ironically clinging to your frame, or just not considering the other frame), and sometimes the frame is the only issue.

No, I just think you could fix those problems if they happen regularly and they're not conducive to healthy living standards. That requires getting involved with who is responsible.

You do the same language game with "consciousness": you say consciousness cannot be absolute because it requires perception of a thing, and perception of a thing is relative. But you're just getting hung up on the word and missing the concept that is being communicated. I can give you 12 definitions of consciousness right now. If I did, would you then answer each one with "no, consciousness is x"? At that point, maybe not.