lmfao

@kieranperez Sounds like you already might be in an existential crises

The keyboard jihad will never end. Now if you'll excuse, me and my keyboard are about to go destroy some egos and open some third eyes. I'll become the zen version of Ben Shapiro.

Take this free bump

Disclaimer: I am no way shape or form advocating physical suicide. I know this might sound like a silly question and I feel as though the answer won't be known till I do work, but I'm asking it anyway. I feel like it's starting to hit me that this whole Enlightenment stuff is serious shit. Whenever I talk about Enlightenment there's a tendency for me to compartmentalise stuff and forget I'm talking about the nature of all existence and reality itself. I remember I was meditating yesterday and had just a few moments of clear perception. It freaks me the hell out because it was like I was never there. I'm just feeling scared now after that experience. It felt extremely beautiful to me yesterday but right now I'm just freaking out for some reason. My mind is just racing with the thought "I don't want to die" and I'm just having a existential crisis. I'm wishing I never did any of this meditation or consciousness work in the first place, because it's making me think that I can delude myself into thinking I'm alive but I've always been dead and have just been an empty void. I feel like I'm going insane. I'm just feeling a wave of negativity. I know that the way I'm phrasing it is silly and unuanced but I'm just curious about people who are completely enlightened (if such a thing is 100% possible). Are these people like talking corpses? All these words can come out their mouth and it looks like they're alive, but they're really dead?

@Butters Populism is a hard term to define. Imma just refer to far-right, very heavily anti-immigration conservatives as populist. Bear in mind that in order for us to say whether a point of view has merit or does not have merit, we are invetibaly bringing in our egoic standards to the conversation. That's perfectly okay, I just feel the need to preface it around these conversations because there exist people who will never see beyond the illusion of ego because of their absolutist beliefs about reality (and topics within reality like morality for example). A couple of years ago I watched quite a few videos by the Anti-SJW community so I feel as though I understand populists. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Anti-SJW ideologues acted as a bridge to far-right ideologies. It was from this I grew an interest in the alt-right and why it is they had such irrational beliefs. I'm ethnically Pakistani and I live in England. There are a sizeable chunk of populists from lower class families around in the fringe political parties. The thing is, populism just seems deeply rooted in ignorance and tribalism. What happens is that you very heavily "otherise" another group of people and fail to recognize that the people in that other group are humans just like you. If you're someone who has strong ideological values about religion and culture, seeing another race which has a different culture and religion will very heavily trigger you. Also, populism a lot of the time is just a fear of the unknown. And also there's just resentment which a populist has due to their egoic filter interpreting inequality and unfairness in situations where there is none. Imagine you have your narrow minded view of the world of how things work and how they ought to be. Coming along are these groups of people with different values to you. But you're an ideologue who cannot see relativism. You're stuck in black and white thinking when it comes to morality and culture. Hence you just are hostile to these other groups of people. In order to protect itself, the ego will form ideological groups in order to meet their needs and also in order to try and change the world in the way they see fit. This change might involve gassing Jews at the extreme end of the spectrum. I don't think there's much merit in populism, at least when we compare it to other common world views.

This video popped up in my YouTube feed so I'm just gonna link it. Green is very common among the "bourgeoisie" and you can see it everywhere with many YouTube vlogers. Right now, most of the green that you get in the western world is to be found among liberals. A significant portion of Liberal journalists are green, although with some of them you get orange-green. Green isn't as common in old people as it is in younger people. Tradional Conservative values very heavily demonise green. There's a mini culture war between blue/orange and orange/green and you have ideologues on both sides of the conversation which just makes political discourse just a big load of bullshit. Everyone just wants to prove they're right.... ------------—---------------------------- When it comes to personality traits around green, I don't think it's simple to understand. It seems to me that liberal green types tend to be higher in "openness to experience" than conservatives and also tend to be higher in "agreeableness". However, I do not think that both the traits "openness to experience" and "agreeableness" have to be high. I think that as long as just one of traits is high for a person they're more likely to be a liberal. This explains to me why you get ideological liberals low in "openness to experience" who are intolerant towards other viewpoints.

I was meditating today, and recently I've been more frequently reaching more higher consciousness states (even though earlier today I was freaking out in contrast to how I feel right this moment). I feel as though I exist in a moment which has no cause. It just is. I don't know whether to use the word eternity or infintesimally small to describe it. When I'm at a peak high consciousness state, I start to see through the illusion of perception and words. The existence of any perception or the existence of any thought requires time, but if time doesn't exist for you then how can reality/perception exist for you? When I'm in a high consciousness state, the word "cat" doesn't exist but when I'm in a low consciousness state the word does exist. Sounds, sight, touch, its as though none of these exist when I'm in a high consciousness state. It's as though thoughts, concepts and words don't exist. With that being said, the fact that I still make this thread is very funny. I don't even know why I'm making this thread, in fact I don't know anything. I find things so strange, hence the title of this thread. When someone meditates, does yoga, self-inquiry or whatever, you can start to feel deep in your bones that THE INSTANT you try to grasp or hold onto something that something has gone and/or (dissappeared) /(changed form). And once you are aware of that, the only possible reaction you have is to just give up clinging and be happy about the whole thing. Because the whole thing makes no sense whatsoever and so when you're shown such absurdity (I mean nothing negative by the word "absurdity", positive if anything) the only reaction you can have is to just give up clinging and laugh, you know?

I feel like my consciousness is ascending to the 59th dimension by reading all of this wokeness

@Shiva I'm don't think it's "processing power" that humans have over AI. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/computers-vs-brains/ I see what you mean I think it just might be the case you're using the wrong term. What human brains do possess however is an extremely complex structure with each part of the brain being well connected to other parts. The brain may not be able to send data ("data" is an extremely hard to thing to quantify, hence I haven't gone into detail about this because I'm ignorant on the specifics) at the same speed of a computer but the brain sure has complex infrastructure to do so.

It's especially annoying if the leg numbness isn't detected until you stand up because by the time you've stood up you've already fallen over.

@non_nothing Thank you for the answer. @AlwaysBeNice Good reminder @Joseph Maynor dies but doesn't dissappear? Sounds interesting. @Leo Gura I just watched your video, it was pretty good. @Scholar Beats me.

@Leo Gura thank you for advice, I just hope what I'm feeling will pass. I'm just gonna try my best to remain mindful. I can tell my mind is going crazy a strong, irrational thought story. Seems like the "dark side of meditation" has just ambushed me.

@winterknight @winterknight @winterknight Are you a talking corpse?

Me trying to stand up after meditation:

I think what I'm about to say is tangiantial to what the OP is referring to but I'll say it anyway. From my experience, there are two ways you can lose your sense self. In a high consciousness state is obviously one way. However, if you've ever sunken into an extremely low consciousness stage you'll still have a sense of self but it will be the case that your psyche is filled with so much shit that you can't tell up from down and so you'll be suffering despite you having a hard to grasping your sense of self. I think back to many times I've binged TV, porn, video games and lost myself in the process. You lose track of time as you are hooked in the addiction. Even though I had lost myself in some sense, all that had really happened is that my consciousness sunk so low I never even noticed a ego! But this ego stilll generates massive suffering.

@VioletFlame I wonder as well what demons Jordan Peterson has. One thing which might be revelant is that he had severe depression in the past which makes me feel bad for him. Random thought, but Jordan Peterson reminds me a lot of my dad. My dad was raised and born in Pakistan, but was very well educated and moved abroad. Even though he's intelligent and has become much more open minded since he first moved to the west, at the core of his psychology is unshakeable blue which can't be gotten rid of. And I think this story of having unremovable blue in your psyche is a story true for millions and millions of people on this planet.

@Serotoninluv I can't remember which exact post it was, but I remember you were wondering about the appeal of Jordan Peterson. I find him appealing now, just less so then I did before. I really liked @Joseph Maynor 's post on liking half of what he says and not the other half. For one thing, Jordan Peterson is an intellectual. Logic is very appealing and fun to listen to for many types of people, including myself. And here's another thing to consider. Irregardless of spiral dynamics (well SD can be linked to his message around the point I'm mentioning in this sentence but I'll discuss it later), Jordan Peterson just asks people to take responsibility for their lives and get their shit together. And this is very appealing for young men, particularly young men who've found themselves in my situation. I understand his demagraphic because I feel I can relate to them. Introverted, nerdy, intellectual, semi-autistic teenagers who feel lonely, depressed and miserable. Jordan Peterson gives what appears to be a solution. Whilst the origin of the philisophy and much of the philisophy itself behind his advice is regressive, there are indeed some very positive aspects of his advice. Alright, so imagine the demagraphic as I have described it in the above paragraph. Jordan Peterson realises this problem in the current youth, but on top of just asking people to find their life purpose and passion in life he adds on ideological baggage. He thinks that passion and life purpose cannot be found in the absence of objective meaning. But if I just replace every instance for which Peterson refers to "objective meaning" with the concept "subjective meaning" I find myself liking Peterson a lot. Because people in the demagraphic whom Peterson is targeting do indeed need to get their shit together and pursue what they find subjectively "meaningful". You can take good pieces advice from his 12 rules for life book. One thing that you might find interesting is that the demagraphic I described for Jordan Peterson already have huge blockages to green. Men in general tend to have blockages to green, and so it is that among a certain subset of men you'll find the homosapiens who have the hugest blockages to green.

@Emerald I think you might be on to something when you say that Jordan Peterson's monologues are an excellent way for people to connect the dots. I think @Outerand @Matt8800are correct in saying that Jordan Peterson is right in his criticisms of his political opponents. After reading a lot of this thread I can't help but feel that too much of this discussion is comes from a spiral dynamics level of analysis. Not every human tendancy, belief, interest, hatred is best explored by referencing spiral dynamics over and over again. Spiral dynamics can be useful because you can point towards a specific stage when descring something, and the good thing is is that these stages have already have a lot of theory behind them so when you point to a stage you are backing up your point with lots of theory. My problem is that I think people on this forum treat spiral dynamics as more tangible and concrete than it actually it is.

I can't help but feel that this question is like asking "tits or ass" and the answer to the question is always "both"

Ooo lala this thread looks juicy with 456 posts.

Seems like TV can be used for good sometimes lmao: If you haven't already listened to Alan watts, just know that he had a TV series uploaded to YouTube on top of the other audio recorded lectures of his. ------------------------------------------------------ I accidentally embedded this video and can't get rid of it.

@Leo Gura Yeah boi @Strikr you flatter me @SoonHei I like your way of thinking @Rilles spot on dude @Flammable at least you get what I mean. You articulated it well when you said time is happening in a meta-entity.

Even if you don't believe in the following perspective, entertain a Newtonian world view ( sometimes called "newtonianism") or a better way of phrasing it might be to say that I'm asking you to just entertain certain aspects of Newtonianism. I think that certain aspects of Newtonianism and science as a whole are pointers towards a wholistic, SD stage turquoise view of the world. My explanation might be long winded but I'm just putting it out there to try give my overall point some weight. Imagine the universe to be an amalgamation of matter [matter has recently been discovered to be a form/expression of energy] and energy (kinetic energy, potential energies,"light energy", etc) shuffling through space and time. Not only have matter and energy been found to be connected (e.g. Increasing kinetic energy of an object increases the objects mass), but the motion of matter through space has an impact on the rate of change of time. E.g. People moving quicker will have time move more slowly for them relative to people not moving so quickly. Consider the three natural sciences: biology, chemistry and physics. If we are being reductionist we can say that biology is the obersevation and study of complex phenomenon in the realm of chemistry (cuz humans are just made out of atoms and energy), chemistry is the obersevation and study of some of the complex phenomena in physics, and physics is an attempt to observe the natural laws governing reality. In simpler terms: biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics. Everything is physics from this point of view. Suppose that there exists these laws of physics. Everything is an expression of these laws, and everything has some sort of relationship with every other thing. Another way for you to consider interconnectedness, notice how whenever we write these physics equations, a single variable (e.g. The algebraic letter "x" that we write in an equation is a variable) is completely defined by a number of other variables. E. G. E=mc^(2), F=Gmm/r^(2). Even if the existence of physics equations are formed by creating dualities in reality these equations are still pointing towards the universe just being a single entity composed of a vast number of interconnected parts, and these parts have no meaning and substance to them in the absence of every single other part in this single system. How else could you create these equations? It's a physicists dream that there exists a hypothetical equation describing the exact state of the universe, with this equation needing the input of every single conceivable variable. Because every single variable is important. The atoms in the cup in front of me has create a gravitational field which extends to infinity in every single direction. The EXACT, EXACT position of every single tiny, tiny particle of mass in this massive, massive universe plays a role in determining the exact state of this universe. All these trillions of objects have their gravitational fields interact with each other and we get a resultant, impossible to model, single gravitational field across the entire universe. Not only are there gravitational fields. Electric fields, electromagnetic fields and there's also the strong nuclear force fields and weak nuclear force fields. Each of these fields are as complex and amazing in determining the exact state of the universe as gravitational fields. So looking at science, we can get an awe inspiring view of reality. We have a chaotic, complex universe in which everything is trading information (e.G. trading information through the various force fields I mentioned earlier) with every other thing and every single thing only has meaning and definition relative to every other thing. You as a human are constantly being bombarded with information and data from the universe around you, and this information and data becomes you. ----------------------------------------------------- You don't have to read this second section here, it's just a random tangent. Read if you're interested in physics. I'm finding it extremely hard to articulate what I'm thinking here with the right words because converting images and intuition to words is very difficult sometimes. In my second paragraph I used the phrase "rate of change of time" which some of you would have noticed something funny about. I think that physicists don't phrase it the way I do but I think that anyone familiar with calculus will know what funny thing I'm curious about. You'll be wondering, rate of change of time with respect to what variable exactly? When we use the phrase "rate of change of x" we are usually referring to the derivative of x with respect to time. But time itself is the variable we are trying to see the "rate of change" of. Let's suppose that I'm moving super fast and you're moving super slow. For every single second that passes for me, two seconds passes for you. What I'm extremely curiuos is, what is the thread that connects these two situations? If one second passes for me, two seconds passes for you. There is a correspondence between us. I wonder if this points towards time being nested inside of some higher variable and it is this higher variables which can allow the simulatenous existence of two different situations which have time flowing differently. Like ponder, how is it that time is flowing differently? The rate of flow of some variable is usually measured by using time. E.g. Velocity is the rate of change of displacement with respect to time. The rate of change of most variables is taken with respect to time, so I wonder how it is that we can find the rate of change of time itself. Fuck, this is hard to word.

@Outer I liked that video, old people can be cute sometimes lol Edit: You know, I was supposed to be meditating just now but whilst trying to meditate my mind just got randomly obsessed with a thought I had about science and so I just has had the uncontrollable urge to type all this shit LOL.