Carl-Richard

This is to take an utopian perspective on models. Yes, when models get more complex, they don't follow simple linear relationships. That is to be expected. With that in mind, there is a strong argument to be made that he never actually settled in Green. He stuck his head in, took a look around, and backed out. If you wanted to make a strong case against SD, show me a person who has been firmly planted at one stage for say 20 years and suddenly regressed down (not as a result of something like a cognitive impairment or an apocalyptic societal change). Even if you find some anomalies, that doesn't necessarily have to impact the overall utility. Paul Feyerabend realized this.

By saying that though, you're actually asserting that Elliot has an epistemologically informed perspective on what his models can and cannot say about reality. I don't know which model you're using to get to that conclusion, but I don't vibe with that.

Explain.

What the hell are you on about man?

Try explaining anything without using a model.

If you're not trolling, show me a model that gives an aesthetically perfect description of all of reality.

I mentioned a bucketload of reasons.

Stop thinking you're an introvert.

I see two opposing perspectives here: 1. there are apparently examples of enlightened mystics with backwards beliefs all thoughout history, and 2. the non-dual realization does obviously lead to a change in a person's overall values (I heard of one guy who turned from republican to democrat basically overnight). I would say that both of these observations can be reconciled by recognizing the relativity in each case. "Backwards beliefs" is of course more prevalent in an ancient cultural backdrop, so you should expect the change of values in one time in history to be comparatively less "progressive" than a later time in history. The change is finite and gradual: you don't become a complete saint, atleast not overnight. So if we were to take a completely theoretical perspective, then there is no problem with an "enlightened nazi". However, the odds of that in today's world are obviously very slim. Nevertheless, I don't see how Wilber is really falling short here. Did Wilber ever claim there are actual enlightened nazis? A "theoretical possibility" is exactly that because there doesn't have to be any real-life examples.

Imagine if he had continued from where he left off a couple of years ago when he dabbled in psychedelics, openness, feminity etc.. It's that strong masculine underbelly of his past that has kept him from going all the way into green. Everything: his former career as a strongman, the impact from his upbringing (the admiration for his dad), and obviously the youtube persona that was a result of all that, and the subsequent backlash from his fanbase (and probably his dad aswell). Hulse is a study in ego-backlash, and the power of survival and ideology.

1:10-3:46 "I wanted truth". "The world is relative".

Credits to The_Alchemist for finding this picture: Perfect illustration of the differences between Yellow vs. Orange, Kuhnian philosophy vs. logical positivism, revolutionary science vs. normal science, scientific genius vs. popularizer, paradigmatic vs. formal operational cognition, epistemological awareness vs. blindness.

Perfect illustration of the differences between Yellow vs. Orange, Kuhnian philosophy vs. logical positivism, revolutionary science vs. normal science, scientific genius vs. popularizer, paradigmatic vs. formal operational cognition, epistemological awareness vs. blindness. Mind if I post it in stage Yellow examples thread with your name in the credits?

You're in the stage where you're trying to grasp the truth with your mind, which is inherently confusing. You must instead ground yourself in experience, become the thing you're so confused about. It also doesn't hurt to learn the finer distinctions between the relative and The Absolute. Nihilism, as a result of learning about nonduality, only happens when you're trying to appropriate The Absolute (non-duality) within the relative (duality), by trying to fit an infinite object into your finite mind. I've tried to boil down this fallacy in another thread which I hope doesn't make things more confusing :

Stay in school, don't do drugs

You still have prarabdha karma to burn through . Realization doesn't wipe the slate completely clean. It only doesn't complicate it further.

Karma is not about justice in the western sense of the word. It's more about Newton's third law of motion: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's much more mechanical than you think. In that sense, you only ever get what you "deserve" because that is all that could ever be.

Have anybody tried establishing a connection across dreams? Like people could condition themselves to call another person who is also dreaming while waiting to pick up the phone. Apparently, the DMT space is often shared by close friends who are tripping together, so I don't see how the dream space couldn't follow the same rules.

Why this fascination with poverty? Look ahead, not behind

This is some impressive non-dual fencing action

So let's call this motivation then

I initially wrote this down somewhere else, but I think it could serve as a helping hand for new people on the forum who aren't too familiar with non-duality, God, The Absolute, relativity etc.. Here I'll mainly present what I like to call "the Relative-absolute fallacy", which is in my opinion a very fundamental problem behind a lot of confusion around spiritual questions. It's obviously a well-known concept by most people here already, but I think it can beneficial to formalize it for some people: Similar to Ken Wilber's "Pre/trans fallacy", which is about conflating pre-rational views with trans-rational views, the Relative/absolute fallacy is about conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective. This is the main source of confusion in the forms of spirituality that deal with the implications of non-duality (Oneness). An alternative name would be "the Dual/non-dual fallacy". Non-duality is most widely known through the conceptualizations of the eastern mystical traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism, but it has been known by mystics from all types of religions through the ages. There are generally two levels to the fallacy: 1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This applies to pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example: For example, Jesus' descriptions of God's non-dual qualities in the Bible are interpreted through a dualistic lens and conceptualized as an external being that is separate from its creation. Non-duality posits that God is infact not separate from its creation, and therefore you are God. 2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This applies to (aspiring) trans-rational people (people who emerge out of a rationalist mindset and adopt a spiritual mindset). A common example is to think that because nothing really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters (or everything matters equally), but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems. "It's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective. One way to know when you're stepping out of The Absolute and into the relative is the moment you start discriminating and creating preferences in a deliberate manner: hurting other people > not hurting other people; nothing matters > everything matters; me > other people etc.. What can you do to avoid running into this trap? Well, truly the only answer is more spiritual practice (and careful use of psychedelics). However, a good rule to have when you're confused about something would be to ask yourself whether you're conflating the relative and The Absolute. Remember that these things can only be "understood" in a trans-rational sense, through direct experience, not merely through deduction. Rationality on its own is not sufficient to grasp the significance of non-duality, but these tools can hopefully still help to clear up some confusion when trying to deal with the conceptualizations of non-duality

Wake up, eat, class, eat, heavy weight training (every other day) or reading, eat, read if lifted weights, eat, time off, sleep. or Wake up, eat, heavy weight training (every other day) or reading, eat, read if lifted weights, eat, time off, sleep.