Carl-Richard

You can say that your woo-woo detox is an experiment and that you don't believe that it works before you've empirically verified it for yourself.

"I just wanna play guitar ?"

There are things we usually refer to as non-assumptions in daily language that rely on conceptual constructs, e.g. "statements of fact" (conclusive analytical or synthetical statements). If you want to deconstruct language and concepts, then sure, it's all just assumptions. However, recognize that there are different levels of analysis, different degrees of assumption. The statement "the sun will rise tomorrow" contains a different degree of assumption than simply "the sun rose today".

My INFP Fi is screaming in agony ?

This is called being young. All young people have some things they're better at than others, because environments like school include all kinds of people with different personality types. When you get older and start pursuing your interests, your environments get more specialized and you start seeing more like-minded people. Then you realize that you're not really that special.

If the Abrahamic religions didn't drift away from mysticism, this wouldn't be a problem. The concept of "faith" stems from the denial of the direct experience of God.

"Who in the fuck cares whether you call it a semantic circlejerk or whatever. So you can convince them that you are right? That you know what's reaaally going on here? Oh fuck off. What a semantic circlejerk, waste of time."

You'll need an infinite amount of countries. For example, anti-vaxx leftists don't get along with anti-vaxx right-wingers etc.

You have to specify what kind of question you're asking. "Why?" can mean a million different things.

Is that not an assumption?

This thread is getting ridiculous. Just look up the definition on google.

Did you know that you can save your favorite posts so you can read them later? It's the bookmark function! I wish more people started using it so I could read what people think is the best stuff on the forum (from yourself or other people). This is essentially me asking you to do that (make them public of course) Here's a challenge: what is the most mind-blowing post you've ever read on the forum? Bookmark it! Then post the link to the post below for us to see

There are no objects, just change. There is no change, just being. There is no being, just isness.

LOL what a nice thought that is

He is talking about spotting narcissism, not being a narcissist. To spot narcissism, use feeling and intuition.

You can't use past events to make absolute statements about future events. This is called "the problem of induction", formulated by David Hume (1711-1776). You can use past events to make probabilistic statements about future events, but not absolute statements. The statement "the sun will rise tomorrow" is therefore only an assumption that is likely to be true.

Don't get hung up on words.

You still want to minimize the overall amount of attachments, especially the ones that are broad and cause frequent thoughts. "I need to meditate given any chance" is such an attachment. Attachment to spirituality can be crippling, and some are worse than others. Maybe if you're in a persistent thought-free state. Thoughts arise around attachments. It's unavoidable. That happens because you haven't decided yet. Uncertainty breeds questions. Be decisive: don't observe (or do). Growth happens during rest.

@Gesundheit2 On a second thought, definitions might be good for relatively simple things like corruption. I was thinking more about describing more complex things things like fields or sub-fields of psychology. I think corruption (in the moral/legal sense) is a combination of dishonesty and exploiting an authority position. Definitions also tend to collapse when trying to categorize objects. For example, what is the definition of a chair? There are many things that you would want to categorize as a chair that is hard to fit into an universal definition.

Your definition assumes a system of law, but is it specifically modern law or any system of rules? Can a tribal leader be corrupt? Are the rules implicit or explicit? Can a person be corrupt with respect to personal relationships? (social/moral codes).

Definitions don't accommodate nuances well. Examples can help with that. If I were to "debunk" your definition, I would give an example where the definition doesn't apply.

High-intensity exercise can put you into transpersonal states if you're already inclined towards those things. But so can cooking food, or just sitting.

There seems to be a synergistic relationship no doubt. My dad becomes a somewhat holistic thinker when he is manic even though he isn't conventionally "spiritual" (doesn't meditate). He talks about the arbitrary and relative nature of arriving at and deploying interpretative frameworks ("are we actually just drawing connections that don't exist?"), the importance of presence ("being, here, now"), that the knowledge of the world is evolutionary and progressing exponentially etc. ("our kids know so much more than us").

So you're saying if you push a ball a certain way, it will fall a certain way. What if not all balls are the same? Does a balloon fall like a golf ball? Let's use me as an example: my dad has bipolar type 1 and my mom is not diagnosed with anything. I could make a good case for my early childhood to early adulthood being much more stressful than my dad's ("stressors"; life event predictors of mental illness), but I didn't get diagnosed with anything, even though I'm supposed to have some of his genes. The vast majority of people with psychotic illnesses get diagnosed before they're 20. Not coincidentally, my life was the most stressful at 20 – my life was shit, but no diagnosis. Now I'm 24 – still no diagnosis. I'm not going to lie though, I would probably have ended up with something if I kept spiraling down, but I was lucky. Still, my dad's life was not nearly as shit as mine if we look at the presence of stressors. That could just be a reductionist analysis though. Maybe there are some deeply seated traumas that nobody is aware about.

The body is happening within experience, not vice versa. You cannot not have an experience. Here is a challenge: try having an experience, and then try not having an experience. Can you find the difference?