Carl-Richard

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.

@Willy Phallicus My final clown show was about showing how solipsism is a word while some people make it into a metaphysical holy grail that putatively explains everything you can perceive in the universe and that any alternative word or formulation or lens is illusory untrue non-truth non-trueness. And to then respond to the assertion that the only way I would hold such an opinion is if I had no experience myself and need to go back to non-dual kindergarten and chew kitchen cloths for a few years. Don't conflate that with the other show where I tried to argue that it's a culturally raped word.

Just trying to make it blindingly obvious and underscoring the circus that is going on.

Maybe you're not yourself cognitively challenged enough to go on a 50-paragraph long logical deduction about what eyeballs and biological bodies supposedly have to do with Absolute Truth, but don't pretend like people aren't being hopelessly delusional about what "solipsism" (if it can be called Absolute) actually entails and that sometimes some clarity is in order. So then you can retract your snide "pretty sure most of us have clued in that you didnt get the message" because you're obviously way beyond that infantile understanding.

The paradigm is that Absolute truth cannot be spoken because it is fundamentally beyond language, indescribable, ineffable. Any pointing to the truth is a pointer, not the truth itself. And any paradigm that supports itself on the notion that it has to explain reality in any way based on any criteria, is a philosophy, a convenient fiction. And if that is your idea of solipsism, then solipsism is a convenient fiction. Pointing to non-duality itself, is also a convenient fiction, when the goal is awakening. Pointing is convenient for that. "Nah but actually solipsism though, don't you know you're One, don't you know you're God, don't you know you're alone?", literal white noise that doesn't address anything that was said. I responded to whether the argument becoming weaker or not matters. I did not try to justify the emotional response. It doesn't really need a justification in any case.

Did you read my post earlier?

And you would've adopted his language pre-2021 as well if you had joined then and lambasted yourself for using weirdo language today and denied yourself today as certainly not having had any direct experience because "you can just tell" by the words you use. Weaker but it doesn't matter when you're arguing against people who think having a religious allegiance to a word decides whether you're awake or not.

Leo has corrupted the entire sphere of "spirituality" on this forum ever since he kicked out Nahm and his buddies.

@Willy Phallicus It couldn't be clearer that this place is a cult than this absolute unhinged cum-guzzling behavior from the brain-vacuumed followers. "Solipsism" is a word, an interpretation, it's not an experience. Go learn spirituality basics 101 with training wheels.

There are more schools of interpreting the divine than atoms in the entire universe. Yet you're here acting like your religion is the only true one.

I've also "experienced" solipsism but I interpreted it as an egoic reaction to encountering the absolute, not the absolute itself untarnished by my interpretations and fears. You are too caught up in Leonian fellatio. I've awoken probably more than 2400 times, that is every single day or so, since I awoke spontaneously while not aiming to awaken while sitting in a lecture in university just trying to listen to what the teacher was saying. And that was after 1000 hours of meditating every single day and having awakenings essentially every day up until that point mostly towards the end. I don't need another "lecture" about how to "awaken" or "experience directly" or "deconstruct rationalism". My entire post was about deconstructing rationalism. Do you understand that?