Carl-Richard

"You" as in the big Self, not the small self. There is only one Self.

Bro, absolute vs. relative statements.

How is that working out for you?

Specifics brah

Even after watching that, I would say Copeland is still more demonic-looking in real life

I just want to thank Leo for introducing me to Thomas Kuhn 4 years ago as it prepared me for writing about him on the Examen facultatum that I took before christmas . The tools that exist on Actualized.org just makes studying feel like a breeze in general, not just philosophy.

True true. Still, praise the toolmakers

LOL wtf

Yellow is the unlikely marriage of radical relativism and unbridled pragmatism. It's like taking the crippling self-awareness of an anxious neurotic and combining it with the stability and charisma of a visionary leader; the openness of an artist and the precision of a scientist; the ability to wield inclusivity and discernment independently across different contexts. The examples of these types of contrasts are endless. A paragraph doesn't serve it justice. Self-awareness is used in different ways, most prominently the colloquial "negative" form of self-awareness that is contrasted with having a positive sense of self. This concept includes what I call "phenomenological self-awareness" that is being muddled by self-referential thoughts ("I/me/my-thoughts") that carry a negative emotional tone. Phenomenological self-awareness is purely the recognition of being, also simply called awareness, qualia (it's the awareness of the big Self rather than the small self). Standard western philosophy prefers to simply call it qualia, because it generally doesn't make the distinction between "Self" and "self", unlike non-dual spirituality that is influenced by eastern philosophy (calling it "self"-awareness then arguably becomes more appropriate). You could also say that these tendencies in spiritual circles to use self-awareness in a more a loose sense could just be a case of colloquialism rather than the explanation in the latter paragraph (or both). Standard western definition of self-awareness would simply be the ability to access information about the small self (your earthly identity), which essentially measures the level of self-referential thoughts and metacognition in an individual. The first google search result for "self-awareness" shares a striking similarity to the MBTI's cognitive function of Fi (introverted feeling): "Self-awareness is the ability to focus on yourself and how your actions, thoughts, or emotions do or don't align with your internal standards". Maybe that is why many INFPs are so colloquially self-aware and socially awkward

Kinda disanalogous when he is also telling the monkey not to shoot himself or other people. Despite all the information out there, some people are reckless and only learn it the hard way. I mean Destiny the twitch streamer dropped 10g of shrooms on his first trip ever thinking he could handle it, and he struggled with the repercussions of that decision for months. So even relatively smart people can run into this trap. No matter how much information is out there, the only thing that saves you in the end is humility and generally being careful.

He has had mystical experiences both with and without psychedelics, but he gets stuck with the framing. It all gets clouded by intellect and fear.

I think that Green can serve as a ramp that leads you to non-duality. He is reluctant to go up that ramp. Green's more feminine and proto-holistic qualities unlocks key mystical aspects involved with emotional embodiment and opens up that deep intuitional longing towards unity. There is a reason why New Age spirituality is a Green phenomena.

But muh western values

You say that but at the same time you're falling into the trap of framing and inferences.

You just did though : Subject vs. object, you vs. other.

I think it doesn't matter as long as you treat them like you want to be treated yourself (as a person who is experiencing). Besides, the feeling you get from interacting with other people is deeply meaningful and is in itself a proof that something is being shared. At the end of the day, it really boils down to framing. Do you want to frame the truth of the absolute oneness of experience as a singularity of complete isolation or as a singularity of complete unity? The trick is to see the perfection in both of them.

I think it helps to use the absolute/relative distinction (You/you): Only You have access to "absolute experience", because there is only You. However, from a relative perspective, there does seem to exist other relative experiences other than your own relative experience (your experience of being a separate self; "you"), but it also seems like you don't have access to some aspects of these experiences. This is of course based on different degrees of inference rather than direct experience, but everything in the relative domain is anyway based on inferences. After all, the absolute is nothing else than direct experience, so where does that leave the relative? (rhetorical question). In other words, the way you're infering the existence of external/separate objects (as an example) is fundamentally the same as the way you're infering the existence of external/separate experiences. You could argue that the "degrees" of inference are different, but both of them are nevertheless "not true" in an absolute sense.

You integrate it by living it

To use tricks and techniques during the day as a hot-fix/band-aid might be better than doing nothing, but unfortunately in the long run, it will most likely not lead anywhere, or infact be detrimental. Techniques that you can just do on a whim whenever you feel like it will inevitably create more compulsive thinking patterns. It's truly unfortunate, but in my experience, long-term results are gained from sitting down and focusing all your attention on one practice at the peak of your daily energy levels, and then simply going about your day while not using up any of your attention on spiritual techniques to "train your awareness". Awareness is a seed that grows. Growth requires rest. You can't really beat a plant into growing faster.

Etymology is hard

Step 1: Smoke weed 3-4 times everyday for a month straight. Step 2: Stop cold turkey. Step 3: Enjoy your dreams.

@Husseinisdoingfine Look around you: science builds great stuff. It can build better stuff. It still has room for improvement. That is the main critique.

YES

The hilarious irony here is that you can also use that point to boost your ego. Infact, every argument or action in general can be used that way. I know you're new to it, but if there is one job Leo has excelled at is teaching people on this forum about the limits of SD. The vast majority of people here have heard this point a hundred times over, therefore you mentioning it just makes my ears bleed. To beat this ghost of a horse completely out of existence: every statement ever is based on concepts and constructs that are limited in their applicability, so mentioning that fact ad nauseum, especially in a place like this, especially when it's not a central part of the discussion, has in virtually all cases zero benefit. About consciousness and infinity, absolute infinity must contain all possible limitations per definition. "Levels of consciousness" is therefore not a contradiction to infinity. Contradictions are also not a problem for infinity, because it must also contain all contradictions. A contradiction is just one perspective clashing with another. Infinity contains all that.