Carl-Richard

You have to admit that what you're saying is only a matter of perspective.

Absoluteness denotes that there is no opposite. It's all good.

What is a mystical experience?

You must have been tormented with existential questions for your entire life before you're able to accept that possibility.

I'll echo my sentiment that it's a good introduction to SD, even if it's a bit inaccurate in places. It's accessible, well-made, and to the point. It will probably bring more people over to Leo's videos, so I don't really see any downsides to that. If there was one thing that could be made more clear is how the model oscillates between individualistic and collectivistic stages and how this is uniquely expressed through each stage. However, I could see how adding too much complicated lingo could subtract from the accessibility aspect. Man I just had a wild thought: what if a YouTuber with the production style of someone like CGP Grey or CrashCourse made a SD introduction video? Ah gawwwd?

Sit with your eyes closed and feel.

Intermittent fasting, restricting masturbation, getting enough sleep, meditation.

I apologize for my formulation being overly complicated. Let me try again: You're scratching at something that appears to be a paradox and a self-contradiction, but that is only from the perspective of the mind, because the mind only sees relativity. The point I'm getting at is that the world is simultaneously rich in differences while at the same time being all the same. It all depends on which perspective you take (the relative and the absolute). The absolute is only accessible through direct experience.

What is the quality of those hallucinations?

Principle is survival.

Stop hurting yourself. Relax. Give up.

I think everyone has a whacky phase where you're getting accustomed to the new reality. How whacky depends on your prior cognitive development. If you're Tier 1 when stumbling across awakening, you want to share your insights to everyone without understanding that people 1. don't care and 2. think you're crazy.

Got a little bit of the same vibes. Green is misunderstood in general. The video works well as a general introduction to the model. You shouldn't expect a detailed walkthrough from a 25 minute video.

Great video. A little bit corny explanation of Turquoise though.

Sometimes it's just best for simplicity's sake to not circumnavigate the rules to accommodate a single person.

Also don't forget that there are only so many ways to arrange words in a finite sentence

Just because he is orange doesn't mean his points are invalid.

How?

I also shuffle between INFP and INTP according to cognitive functions (all my tests are basically dominated by Fi, Ne and Ti). It makes more sense because they have the same auxiliary and tertiary functions (xx > Ne > Si > xx). INFP and INFJ share zero similarities in cognitive functions. INTP and INFJ share two functions (Ti, Fe) but they're all in different places: INTP = Ti > xx > xx > Fe INFJ = xx > Fe > Ti > xx Try taking a test that measures cognitive functions directly.

The box of "do you think it's really important? don't people put themselves in a box when they say i'm such and such"

You just put yourself in a box right now, believe it or not

It's not easy to say much about which is the "most" conducive outside pure speculation. However, let's assume that this personality type must atleast exist among those who are interested in spirituality. Run a MBTI poll on this forum and you'll have your answer

Tell me how conservatism facilitates higher spiritual processes.

How do you know that? From an absolute perspective, you can only experience yourself. There are no "other people". From a relative perspective, you can start to divide this oneness (yourself) into separate parts (self and other), and then you can start to talk about your perspective vs. other people's perspective. These perspectives are obviously different, and the point isn't to which degree they're different. Just the mere fact that they're different means that they're not the same. If two people sit down and each draw a picture of the same flower, the two different pictures are not the same picture. Does this mean they're 100% not the same picture? In a sense, yes. They're two pictures, not one. The real question is "what is the flower?". Well, you can't define the flower in an absolute sense. It's a result of an infinite groundless process. From a relative perspective, they're not seeing the same flower, or they are experiencing the same flower (relatively speaking). From an absolute perspective, there is no flower, no pictures, no perspectives.