Carl-Richard

The issue is you want to point to individual cases and paint like an intuitive picture of "surely this would be very very reasonably true", while the legal system, in the case of the death penalty, has always and probably will always use concrete standards and rules that can be applied to each case individually. If you can't provide that, we can't know whether your intuitive idea of a legal system is even possible or if it doesn't already exist somewhere. The job would be much easier if you could say "yes I would vote for the death penalty in this country with this legal system". Right now, your position is essentially "I'm somehow not satisfied with current legal systems and would want a better one but I don't know how". And that makes it harder to say how much you would "accept" innocent lives being lost (we already know you do accept them with "basically 100%", as basically 100% is not equal to actually 100%, unless you want to walk back that statement). And no, Breivik or Columbine is not 100% (unless you have an argument for that). At most close to 100%. I'm just trying to explore whether you have thought through your point to any significant degree. Because if you accuse liberals of not being serious about serious crimes, I would expect some serious thought into the policies for such crimes. If you don't have that, you're perhaps not being very serious. At least "no death penalty under any circumstance" is a clear policy position.

I walked outside in the rain some days ago and then the day after, I had the Stinky Shoe awakening. Really annoying "facet of the Absolute" to awaken to. I honestly believe you have two facets of "awakening": transcendence (emptiness, pure being, Oneness) and immanence (love, bliss, kundalini, energy). Whatever else is simply new ways of self-inquiry to tap into such states (or simply having an intellectual understanding of a phenomena). You can imagine yourself as a big balloon stretching out infinitely and have the "Infinite Balloon awakening" or imagine the thing that existed before you were born and have the "Pre-Natal awakening" or where you will be after you die and have the "Post-Mortem awakening", or you can realize that these are ways of self-inquiry (the conceptual mind throwing rocks at itself to make it crack) to induce the experiences of transcendence and/or immanence. Omniscience / omnipresence / omnipotence are different conceptual rocks to throw against yourself to make the veil fall. I personally think a pointer which Leo said once was incredibly effective for me and which you could classify as an omnipotence pointer: "you are creating everything". But the place it lead me, I didn't identify as fundamentally different than where I was lead when I heard and grasped the "you don't exist" pointer. I was just lead there in a different way. As @Eskilon said, omniscience and omnipotence (and I would add omnipresence) are ultimately one; it's just you can look at them from different angles. And then you of course have stages of Enlightenment, but that's essentially an interplay between the two facets and baseline integrations of those.

What do you mean by normie? If they are curious, I would already classify them as "not normie". In any case, I would say whatever comes to mind. One line of thinking I like is making somebody try to imagine/remember where they were before they were born. And that that thing before they were born has always existed and will always exist and it's fundamentally what they are, what they always were and what they will always be.

I did watch it. https://rupertspira.com/blog/if-awareness-is-the-witness-of-experience-doesn-t-this-imply-duality/ The problem with "normies" getting it is not as much in what is actually said. It's mainly in getting an interest or intuition about what it's pointing to, of course beyond the language, and then wanting to pursue that. And then it's using the right language (whatever may work, which can vary from person to person) to induce that understanding. "Language", "thought", "belief", "concepts", etc., these are basic words that can help equally in pointing towards that which arises before and is fundamentally independent of those things.

I mean it's pretty standard guided self-inquiry.

S is always on my mind.

The spiritual concepts are stories that are meant to lead the conceptual mind out of its self-absorbed slumber and to look outside itself, where the self itself is seen through as just a story, and where the stories that lead it there are also seen through as just stories. Spiritual concepts are a trap drawn by the pen and for the pen of the conceptual hand that holds it, to see how the trap was drawn by its own hands, and how the hands are drawing themselves (as in Escher's Drawing Hands).

Over time, I feel like I've gone through like 50 different ways of trying to tell through language that solipsism is language. It has really become a hobby of creative thinking at this point. "Ah, a new day, another day of trying to say that solipsism is language in a new way". This was one of the later ones, notice the level of desperation in creative thinking:

Now apply the same to solipsism: "characters", "me', "others", "experiences", "no experiences", is language. What do you have without language? 'This'. The moment you start talking about other people and their experiences or lack thereof (which is what people tend to do with solipsism), you are in language. If you want to simply be grounded in just "this", no such language arises.

I just watched this video and it's the most perfect example of what I'm talking about. Somebody coming across something they find is meaningful and doing that to their best ability. It's a combination of having the right background, the right happenstance, the right feeling, whatever it is. You can see she is just glowing and outpouring with energy and meaning for what she is doing. She really found something worth pursuing. That's what you find when you find something you feel called to do. You become this fire hose, this superconductor of life and inspiration.

At least popcorn is a plant food and whole food :,)

5.6 Sol summary (link) of "CCTV on Trial: Matching Video Images with the Defendant in the Dock": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224946256_CCTV_on_Trial_Matching_Video_Images_with_the_Defendant_in_the_Dock And there are real examples of cases where wrongful interpretation of video evidence has lead to wrongful life without parole convictions (rather than death penalty as those states had abolished or de facto abolished the death penalty): for example, https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/13464; https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/12431; https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/13020. Anyways, you seem to think it's acceptable in principle when you say "pretty close to 100%", as it would mean that innocent lives would be lost given enough time. But we can keep exploring the numbers just to map out the magnitude. Any other things than "catch a tape of someone" you have in mind?

@MuadDib Can you not spam irrelevant things?

I asked "if" that was the case. You're not making it easy when you're not explaining what you mean. Here is a good faith argument: empirical observations are presumably by all reasonable philosophical inquiry less than 100% certain (we can discuss that if you disagree). Therefore, all legal proceedings are less than 100% certain, and thus all death penalty convictions are less than 100% certain and given enough time will inevitably lead to the death of innocent people. Is this an acceptable risk to you?

@Joshe Sugarcoat seems to have some T going on (not "that kind" of T, you know what I mean 👀). When I identify a strong Fi user, I see them making assertions without using many connective prepositions like "because", "as", "therefore", because that is how logic is expressed (connecting different things explictly through linguistic structure). I could point out three examples of this on the forum, but they likely wouldn't appreciate it as "being logical" is generally seen as a virtuous thing. Intuitive Fi users in a discussion will often suggest possible conceptual interpretations that could be conceptually rich and possibly valid, but they will less often justify them or again explicate them in connection to other things that could be relevant in the discussion (and they can often end up being quite irrelevant to the discussion overall; it's just something that they "thought about" because they value it and they want to share that).

If you're insinuating I have dementia and I'm not following the discussion and that I should re-read the entire discussion instead of you answering a simple question, I respectfully decline the offer. Do you think the death penalty killing innocent people is acceptable or not?

Yup that pic is equivocating reproduction with sex. Clavicular cares a lot about sex. And as if one person represents the rest of society. That's what we call a schizopost.

I think basically all questions about solipsism on this forum evaporate when you realize it's a model, a conceptual framework, and not absolute. People have a misplaced importance to it, like it's some undeniable metaphysical given. It's not. The absolute is reality is One. Saying anything else becomes a way for the mind to confuse model with reality. If you want to start talking about characters within the One, you're presupposing separation. If you want to talk about "happenings" (one happening vs another), you're presupposing time. And if there is a happening over here and over there, you're presupposing space. You can talk about these things, but you're already way inside model making, inside the relative. And then you can start to ask "what is the best model?". What is the best model for explaining or understanding what is happening granted separation, time and space? That's what solipsism (which is a bad model in this case if you ask most people) is about. That's what frameworks like analytical idealism, constitutive panpsychism, or just physicalism/materialism, is about.

No, you're just being elitist about the term (lovely trigger word that is). It's a fact that you will play more dissonant if you don't know squat about scales, about consonance vs dissonance, etc. (music theory), and that undue dissonance is not preferred (and that's generally what is meant by the colloquial "works according to music theory": how dissonant it is). Of course a jazz nerd will reject the colloquial "works according to" (which is born out of mostly consonance-hugging classical music and perhaps pop music). They feed on dissonance. They break with almost the entire concept of "works according to". Jazz is like "how dissonant do we want to go right now, and is it done in a cool artistic way or an accidental clumsy way?". You said it yourself: you have 12 notes that can be played to any chord, and they exist on a spectrum of consonance vs dissonance for a given chord. You just have to choose them in a way that sounds cool, in a way that makes your ears happy and your audience clappy (and there is theory on this too which you went into, not an expert on this of course).

Nightly dream characters might be real. Mic drop. People with dissociative identity disorder report having different alters being present as dream characters in the same dream, and afterwards, each alter reports experiencing that dream from different perspectives (each alter reports this when the person is awake and they're currently in control of the person). So who knows: maybe all dream characters are dissociated alters? The difference between nightly dream beings and normal beings is the latter seem more consistent than the former (you see them more regularly and their behavior seems to have some long-term consistency / coherence over time). But perhaps nightly dreams could be a bit like sitting on a train and getting off at a station for a few minutes then jumping on the train again. The relative shifting and short-lasting nature of the experience doesn't necessarily prove that the place you're visiting is not real (or that the characters within it are not real). It could be just that you're on a short visit. And if the characters in the nightly dreams look quite exactly like characters in "real" waking life (they look like waking, breathing, walking, talking humans), what other justification do you have to call them not real? If you ignore materialist fantasies like "they're inside your brain", I don't see many options.

How did the voices start (how was your experience the first time you thought you were hearing voices)? Did you become curious about the voices? Did you try to "investigate" them?

Haha pure blues solos sound so weird to me now after only listening to jazz and prog for so long. Like sitting inside a tight cab ("wot, u british bruh?" — no, just foreign). There is a similar kind of transition that I remember hearing for the first time and thinking ("that surely can't be standard"). (Happens at 2:23, but start earlier for context): By the way, I think a reason the Eric Clapton song works is because after the transition, they "warm you up" with a simple two-chord progression that is not really dissonant for a bar until they drop the weird chords. It's like your brain has had time to switch and then the weird chords become pleasantly surprising rather than intolerably dissonant. Another way to use dissonance in a "pleasant" way (in a solo) is with few quick dissonant notes dispersed around many consonant notes. It's like there is an equation for "offensiveness" of dissonance where volume (amount of dissonant notes relative to consonant ones) and time (time between dissonant notes) factor into it.

I actually haven't listened to much of the less well-known songs on that album, and now I realized the first half of that song must have inspired the beginning section of this song so much (the descending/ascending melodic dual guitars): Also, a good example of strategic use of dissonance in one of Marty's smaller solos in that song you linked (the ending note).

😁 @Joshe @Natasha Tori Maru But what about the F's? 🤔

If you have to only choose one type, you do it for me 😆