Carl-Richard

I was gifted Sadhguru's Inner Engineering by a guy in university first year. He just happened to buy it because he was interested in engineering and thought "inner engineering" sounded cool. I read it a bit, until I had to put it down because I was getting insta-awakenings just reading it.

Mhm. Why is "word" a separate word if it can be used to describe multiple words? The distortion is a result of the partiality. The fact that my perception is limited distorts my perception of reality. The fact that my preference is for one thing over another distorts my relationship to those things. The fact that I hold an opinion over another distorts my relationship to either opinion. Bias just tends to be used more often in cases where the distortion is so obvious or normative that it becomes seen as negative. But bias in itself is ubiquitous and part of our limited existence. Saw this before I came on here: Merely having the thing and being excited for it can distort someone's perception to the point where they think they could be biased.

Holy shit he got absolutely blasted right there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias Hence a preference is a bias, perspective-taking is a bias, opinion is a bias, perception is a bias, etc.

Klein Eleventh, Kleintober Seventh. See I can also be a dad.

Bias is inherent in perspective-taking, in having an opinion, in the very act of perception.

Lack of collaborators, allies, identity with a larger movement. Creates insularity and lack of feedback. Also limits reach. And one-off interviews don't count.

dafuq does homelessness have to do with Ethan Klein

I have a feeling antidepressants may have contributed. There is a thing about SSRIs leading to affairs, but there is not really data on it.

Pop music that only sing about partying and drinking are also Stage Red. It also tends to be incredibly simplistic musically (e.g. Black Eyed Peas "I Gotta Feeling" or Rebecca Black's "Friday"). Metal music that sings about gore (e.g. Cannibal Corpse) is also Red, but some metal music with gore lyrics is also relatively complex musically (e.g. Necrophagist, Suffocation). So again we can distinguish between aesthetic (and expression) and actual cognitive complexity. Even if I wanted to write a classic brutal death metal album, I would still be the cognitive complexity I am. My relationship to the music could be perhaps also ironic or nostalgic rather than a honest/authentic expression of the values in the music. More classic examples of Red in music: lyrics about sex and women in 80s hair metal (e.g. Guns and Roses "Welcome to the jungle", essentially every Whitesnake song). Satanism in music, e.g. some early "black" metal (Venom) and thrash metal (Slayer), death metal (Morbid Angel), Norwegian black metal (Mayhem, Emperor, etc.; some of these people actually killed people and burned down churches so you could say they lived the expression of the values). Most of the honest expression of Red you see happens in teenage years (which is where the examples you've listed and also my examples tend to originate from). You could say teenage years (in the West) is a time where you're authentically Red-Blue and being encouraged by the surrounding society to transition to Blue (authentically) while downward-assimilating code from that society (Orange and Green). People who are seemingly jumping from Red to Orange might actually only have adopted a simplified version of Orange consistent with their cognition and true code at Blue or so. True authentic expression of Orange might happen later (or earlier depending on what kind of person you are). That's also an explanation for the "Red-Green conflation" phenomena I've described before: teenagers downward assimilating Green code ("just be free yo") to fit their Red true code and cognitive complexity.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

I have the habit of going on a 10-minute walk after every meal, and if I don't and I sit down and try to work, I'm all over the place, complete chaos lord, can't gather my thoughts, jumping tasks, can't commit to a task, can't find a structure to follow. I think many people with ADHD symptomatology could actually be helped by simply lowering their blood glucose after a meal. The idea that kids get hyper after eating sugar is perhaps not such a big myth. Imagine what you think is an illness could just be about feeding your body carbohydrates and trying to fight the impetus you've created for moving your body after putting it in such a state. Blood glucose and adrenaline are essentially parallel processes. If you think you're restless because it's just innate to your genetics, maybe first try to calm down your nervous system by stabilizing your metabolism.

So you're saying you don't know the distinction between a pointer and what it is pointing to?

I think my answer to this ethical altruism conundrum is that we don't just value the sheer quantity of human life or even alleviating human suffering, but we value things like music, art, and we need different people to do different things to make society go around. We need air traffic controllers, train station workers, nurses, physicians, academics, politicians, etc. Even people who suffer, value music, art; they might go to those things to alleviate their suffering, and if you take that away from them but you assure their life through Malaria prevention, you might have made their life less worth living. So what to do?: Do what you feel called to do. A person who feels called to do something, who feels motivated to do it, will do it better than somebody else who does not feel as motivated. And that way you will contribute greater to that part of the world you choose to contribute to. If you feel very called to donate money to Malaria prevention programs, do that. If you feel very called to find a cure for cancer, do that. Charity is a way of using your time on something you think is valueable. So use your time on something you think is valueable. "But can't you donate like 5% of your savings to Malaria prevention and save a big chunk of lives that way and still do what you feel called to do?" Well, yes, but what about other programs like water sanitation, cancer prevention, other disease prevention? "Just choose one that has a high life-saving conversion rate". Well, why do you ought to use 5% of your savings on initiatives with high immediate life-saving conversion rates and not say finding a cure for cancer or just landing a recording contract?

Uhm ok. So don't be so concerned about what I think (?). It is. Ok. You did a simple equivocation of "actually, if I redefine what you mean by 'talking about', you're wrong!". I don't think that's worth responding to. You clearly know the difference between a pointer and what is pointed to. No need to play equivocation games.

Based(?)

Me sharing my opinion about what words I think are useful for teaching in which situations shouldn't lead to a crashout where 1. you call the holder of such an opinion not awake or "clueless" by virtue of holding it and 2. feeling like you're being personally persecuted. I will of course react strongly to that (especially the former), as it seems entirely unwarranted and rhetoric devoid of substance (like asserting "you're wrong" without explaining yourself). I hope @cetus understands this and other moderators.

Yeah. Did you think anything different? You have a way of argumentation I call "assertion, no explanation".

My personal preference in this case is in line with my understanding of how reality works. Or who the tool is used on. Or what context these people regularly inhabit. It's fine that you don't see how culture can inform any decision. That's just not how I play. I don't create a binary and assign blame either/or. I just also acknowledge culture has an impact on how teaching occurs. That it has zero impact is structurally the harder position to argue. Of course whether you act on it is again up to the degrees and boundaries you feel comfortable with.

Low consciousness (if we can use that begrudged term), like the rest of society. The normal distribution of clankers to insightful peeps is about the same here as most places. So nothing is really wrong, it's just you can have wrong expectations about what the forum is and should be.

As for posting a video people should watch, this was once posted by @Mellowmarsh but for some reason the page it was on no longer exists. It deals with the subject of philosophies and convenient fictions in relationship to the absolute. I disregarded it as obvious when it was first posted but when I look back, like the podcasters, I can see that I wasn't always in the same boat and that it was due to a development (particularly my education in university, both due to the actual courses and the timing of when I took them, which fortunately helped me touch on those topics perhaps more directly than most). I remember I once refrained from talking about solipsism exactly because I knew that most people probably wouldn't have had that same development but at some point I just stopped caring much about that. It also goes into the common pre-trans conflation that @AtmanIsBrahman likes to make about me: that because I like to be rigorous philosophically, I must not know what I'm talking about or I'm "stuck in rationality", ironically in response to a post where I'm calling out the limitations of rationality.

"We've seen a big increase in thefts around this neighborhood, is there perhaps time to do something about it?". — "But what about the increase in insurance fraud?" We'll tackle that too. I have a hierarchy for dealing with fuckedness; I've spoken about cases where I don't use the word "God" for example. I would in fact claim many people on the forum use solipsism to have the ultimate form of metaphysical self-copulation.

Our buddies over here will point you to the basic spirituality videos you perhaps have watched 10 years ago.

You can disagree with the arguments for why it's culturally fucked, no problem. It's not an "I'm right by logical necessity" kind of argument. It's a "is your cup filled beyond the brim with this or can you stomach it"? It's perhaps more a political argument than anything. "We've seen a big increase in thefts around this neighborhood, is it perhaps time to do something about it?".

The religion of Leo goes way beyond solipsism, we all know that. I've made my case for why solipsism is culturally raped, you can address those points if you want. If you disagree that it's a word and not the literal Absolute, you can say why. And if you disagree that worm-brained Absolute-relative conflation behavior circles that very word as exemplified by this thread and perhaps the magnum opus of "solipsism disproves veganism" (real thread), you can say that as well. Whether or not you personally like to use the word as a responsible adult with half a brain is up to you.