Carl-Richard

Then the elephant uses cognition (thought) to form the concept (duality) of "self and other". But that doesn't mean direct experience isn't non-dual. Cognition and conceptualization happens at various levels (not just human thought). Humans are just particularly good at it so we forget the oneness of direct experience. This model gives a nice overview over the range of complexity of cognition/conceptualization/behavior:

Nooo keep going please! I initially tried to somewhat make a distinction between technology (as in singular technological gadgets like the plow) and social systems (while excluding examples of the latter), but that seems futile. After all, what is technology without people? For example, agriculture is what happens when a group of people utilize a collection of gadgets (e.g. the plow) and techniques/behaviors (plowing the field, planting, harvesting), a.k.a systems of behavior in a society, a.k.a social systems. They're both in the same quadrant for a reason

The conceptualization of form (or void) is dualistic. This is called relative truth. The direct experience of form is non-dual, just like the direct experience of void is non-dual, because they're both direct experience, both One. This is called Absolute Truth. The direct experience of "a create eating food" is one process, not two. There is really no such thing as "a creature eating food" in direct experience. There is just direct experience. If you want to invoke concepts like cognition or sensory experience, then that is also in the relative realm, not direct experience.

@Fearless_Bum

"Nonverbal animals" "trees" "grow" "sunlight" "organism" is language.

Yeah. Seems like Green/Yellow technology has a lot to do with increased information flow or global connectivity. I think Wilber agrees :

@Loba It's about maintaining the continuity of the format of the thread, which is about having easy access to many examples. Share links, videos, images or quotes. For example, if you're recommending a book, don't paste all the 300 pages in here. Drop a link and maybe a quote – make it easy for people to access.

@Loba Jesus Christ don't do that again. A link will suffice.

It's like a hippie collective. If you ask someone to take out the trash, there's a chance they'll just stand and marvel at it. But yeah, I think we should stop derailing the topic

There is no debate.

@cetus Nice bag.

Let me clarify: I used to think it was a guy wearing a black hoodie with his hands in his pockets In cognitive psychology, this is called "the context effect", which is a type of top-down processing in visual perception (perception relies on information from past perceptions). We expect to see a person because it's a profile picture.

I thought it was a guy wearing a black hoodie with his hands in his pockets

There is a middle ground where people may not have experienced 5-MeO-DMT but have had other non-dual experiences where pointers like "Love" or "Infinity" or "God" are already compatible in their own way or at least make intuitive sense. Many non-dual teachers use these terms anyway.

What exactly does "making the choice ourselves" mean in this context?

Buy some undergrad education material. I read this one back when I studied biology: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Carl-T-Bergstrom/dp/0393601048

You can do both at the same time.

That's funny. I just did that an hour ago

All I said is it's potentially very dangerous.

I see. You generally want to establish a common goal with the therapist. That's central to what is called building an alliance. It's thought that the efficacy of therapy isn't really about the specific type of therapy (more for some problems than others), but rather about the alliance: empathy, increased perspective and goal-directed awareness.

I didn't make a moral statement. If you want a moral conundrum: is it better for Shulgin to use animal testing first and then use it on himself or is it better that he drastically increases his risk of potentially squandering the future discovery of hundreds of useful new compounds with potentially life-saving therapeutic/medicinal properties?

No.

It's not consistent with the implicit rule of the direction of the force of gravity relative to the tilt of the glass: Since the rules only apply after it's turned upside down, you'll always end up in this configuration /=\↓, and therefore the water will always fall out from the glass.