Carl-Richard

Thing about when "normal" academics use jargon, you can virtually always check the references (if it's old jargon) for more information about it, or if it's new jargon, you usually get a very thorough run-through of what it is and how it is distinct from again, older stuff, which you can again check yourself in the references. The cross-referencing in science is not just a "group think" limitation; it's a way to establish accuracy. "My work is x y z, and not a b c d and e, you can read and check for yourself".

One problem with Langan's CTMU paper is the relative lack of references. If you don't show how your work is similar (or dissimilar) to previous work (which unless you're an absolute alien on earth, you should be able to do in some way), you make it simultaneously hard to actually understand your work and it shows you might not actually know about what works exist and that you can't actually show how it's unique (rather we have to trust your word for it because you have some jargony term that we pseudo-understand when you explain it). The scientific/academic community appreciates very much if you can identify a hole in existing knowledge and clearly show how you're filling that hole. If you're just constructing an almost completely self-contained system from the bottom up with no references to outside things, don't be surprised when that lack of referencing is reciprocated.

I've said it before: people use lack of understanding as a gauge for whether somebody is smarter than them. And then it happens that you get some people who inflate their perceived intelligence with pompous in-understandable speech, or they're just bad at explaining themselves. Jordan Peterson does something similar but also with emotional tone. It's sophism really. If you look at someone like Bernardo Kastrup, he is very technical, but when he explains something, he uses a lot of metaphors, plain language, examples. Meanwhile when I hear Langan or Weinstein explain something, they use none of those things (or if they do use for example a metaphor, it's more complex than what is being explained), and they might even refer to other jargon or peculiar words that need to be unpacked.

He has a severe Fe blindspot and/or self-centeredness problem like Eric Weinstein. He values his own jargon more than ensuring he is understood. He also came off as insecure one time in a different discussion, and his past indicates he feels a lack of approval.

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

What do you mean? You think you're the only one to understand non-duality, the most basic understanding you can have about anything ever?

There are thousands of articles on such things. The reason Leo can talk about it is most definitely because he has heard somebody else, not unlikely from academia, talk about it. "The PhD factory": https://www.nature.com/articles/472276a Of course most scientists just focus on doing their science, but to think there wouldn't be people doing science on how science works, that's truly naive. As for more examples of "shooting oneself in one's own foot", try "the replication crisis", "questionable research practices". Thousands of articles on these things. Leo doesn't go far enough in critiquing science. He hasn't (to my eyes) read the scientists' own critiques of science, which go far beyond what he is talking about (partially because it often requires technical knowledge of science to engage with). Try for example "the generalizibility crisis": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10681374/

I'm saying you can notice differences by the day depending on how extreme your differences in calories are.

If you want to help them and you do, that is completely ok. If you don't help them, what is your excuse? Do you have something better to do? Are your aspirations such that they could outweigh the action when spending time/attention/resources on them instead? But why help them and not their friends? "But being helping in local interactions is something you want to cultivate". That is one factor. "But having a sense of personal respect and personal life and right to one's own life is a right you should have, and respecting other people's choices". That is another factor. The answer really is aim at things you find valueable and do what you think is right with respect to that. That might help somebody locally or it might not; it might help more in a spread out way, or more locally again. As for JP "but if you're a psychopath, you value other people's demise if it benefits you in the short term, and that's a moral problem", you should probably factor in that too.

Theory is conceptual

You should donate all your savings to Malaria prevention. It's selfish not to.

Grandrew Bate. Fraden Ceters.

BPD = borderline, BP = bipolar. If the discussion is about relationships, most likely borderline.

Watch out I'll shoot you with my dick, buddy.

So let's put this straight: a guy used piggish language to describe women and sexual relationships and it spawned 700 posts of copium. That's what you're spending time and attention on.

Gregory Bateson, Fritjof Capra.

Come. It's the density of "fooks" and "girls" in combination that has exceeded Andrew Taint territory. Next you'll call me a brokie. Spiritual forum -> still getting one's dicks in a twist when talking about kundalini exiting the lower floors.

If you can't see there is something seriously wrong with Professor Dave, I don't know how to help you. Or I do, but we have to unpack that.

Bro hierarchy and survival is not some special thing. All social systems have them. Politics, ballet, NASCAR. The guy in the reel even says this. "Science" is a special pony only because Leo has a fixation on taking a dump on it because that is how he feels special.

Not really.

Also, not trying dry fasts is by definition closedmindedness.

Bruh how do antibiotics work then? It kills your body (the microbial part of it). Chemotherapy the same. You're not supposed to "function" during a dry fast. That's the point. You're supposed to go into dying mode, that's how you kickstart the survival processes in your body. That said, I don't actually recommend dry fasting, but I see the principle behind it. A near-death experience can make you have an awakening and shake you out of a depression. Drug addicts who fall so deep into the darkest depths of depravity where they realize at the very last step that if they don't turn around they will literally die, some of them completely turn their life around. Short bursts of extreme but controlled physical exertion and muscular rupturing (during exercise) unlock genes that change your body, making your body bigger and stronger.

Sack the jester and your kingdom leaves.

Forum has never been more dead after I lost green letters 🫠 #1 perk of being mod is attention 🥲