Is Consciousness a Miracle?

[UnbornTao]

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

A conversation between a spiritually illiterate person and an academically illiterate person 😆 That is unfortunately the best the mainstream can come up with at the moment. It's a start, but it's a quite clumsy clash of worldviews rather than an insightful dialogue. If you want the latter, you need more fringe people like John Vervaeke, Bernardo Kastrup. They can use words that Pinker brings up like "phenomenal vs. access consciousness" (and beyond) while also not beating around the bush when it comes to mysticism.

Yeah, for the sake of the debate it'd be useful, and yet all of those factors are irrelevant when it comes to grasping what's being talked about. An illiterate monk may know what consciousness is, science is indirect, and no amounts of debating will make a difference in your experience.

What are these debates for?

Edited November 14, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Yeah, for the sake of the debate it'd be useful, and yet all of those factors are irrelevant. An illiterate zen monk may know what it is, science is indirect, and no amounts of debating will make a difference in your experience.

What are these debates for?

Ideally, they help facilitate communication between different worldviews. The problem with this conversation was that there was a language barrier, so the two camps couldn't meet each other properly. Wouldn't it be good to have people who can translate well across the different worldviews? That is the purpose of people like Bernardo Kastrup, John Vervaeke (and hopefully me some day): tying together the knots of spirituality and science. Again, truly good translators are not mainstream, so current attempts look futile, but at least attempts are being made. (You could argue more promising attempts at translation have been made by people like Jon Kabat-Zinn, the creator of "Mindfulness-Based Stress Therapy", but these were highly reductionistic, spiritually sanitized and culturally appropriated versions).

Edited November 14, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

On 14/11/2023 at 1:34 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Ideally, they help facilitate communication between different worldviews. The problem with this conversation was that there was a language barrier, so the two camps couldn't meet each other properly. Wouldn't it be good to have people who can translate well across the different worldviews? That is the purpose of people like Bernardo Kastrup, John Vervaeke (and hopefully me some day): tying together the knots of spirituality and science. Again, truly good translators are not mainstream, so current attempts look futile, but at least attempts are being made. (You could argue more promising attempts at translation have been made by people like Jon Kabat-Zinn, the creator of "Mindfulness-Based Stress Therapy", but these were highly reductionistic, spiritually sanitized and culturally appropriated versions).

Got it. 

Setting that aside, my gripe is that pretty much no one seems to know what it really is. Sadhguru might "know" as he's presumably enlightened. Other than that, the fact that only direct consciousness makes a difference should be insisted upon. Without it, what are we doing? Having fun debates and producing useful studies perhaps but hey, why not focus on personally grasping the thing first? Neither spirituality nor science apply in this domain, only direct experience does, after all.

But I agree that a lot of good work can come out of these efforts. At the very least, they're entertaining for the viewers and everyone else involved.

Edited November 15, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Other than that, as the pain in the ass that I am, I'm going to insist on the direct consciousness stuff. Without it what are we doing? Having fun and entertaining conversations, producing useful research and studies perhaps, but hey, why not focus on personally grasping the thing first, right? Neither spirituality nor science apply in this domain but direct experience. 

Let me be ironically extremely non-dual with you: I don't believe in the distinction between personal work and collective work when it comes to spirituality. In the end, it's all just spiritual development. You can be just as stuck in your spiritual development "going it alone" as when you are in a group.

In fact, I believe it's even more likely that you get stuck doing it alone. Consider why virtually every super-genius in history received aristocratic tutoring from an early age. Consider why the people who "go it alone" have already been heavily acculturated in some spiritual worldview prior to "doing the real work". Consider why you're here and not in a cave somewhere.

The only people who didn't receive any external influences that seem to be relevant to their awakening are one-in-a-hundred-million saints who were born awake. Even Sadhguru, a supposed "spontaneous awakening" person, was taught how to meditate at an extremely early age. The direct experience didn't come "despite" that. Him being taught meditation wasn't for nothing.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[An young being]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Let me be ironically extremely non-dual with you: I don't believe in the distinction between personal work and collective work when it comes to spirituality. In the end, it's all just spiritual development. You can be just as stuck in your spiritual development "going it alone" as when you are in a group.

 

Learning about Spirituality from sources outside our mind is an important process in maturing as a spiritual person. While it is not necessary for those who seek awakening, it is important for those trying to understand it and everything else about the universe. It is better to not understand it all, if we don't have an open mind, as restricting ourselves to a certain group of beliefs or teachings of a particular guru is dangerous. When it comes to awakening as an experience, hinduism states that it is possible to obtain it through intellect alone, while the other ways are doing and being good willed, being devoted to any god through prayer or through meditation. In my experience, a combination of meditation towards breath or a god of your choice, intellectual work, being heart centric and having an open mind will provide the greatest development spiritually.

[UnbornTao]

22 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Let me be ironically extremely non-dual with you: I don't believe in the distinction between personal work and collective work when it comes to spirituality. In the end, it's all just spiritual development. You can be just as stuck in your spiritual development "going it alone" as when you are in a group.

In fact, I believe it's even more likely that you get stuck doing it alone. Consider why virtually every super-genius in history received aristocratic tutoring from an early age. Consider why the people who "go it alone" have already been heavily acculturated in some spiritual worldview prior to "doing the real work". Consider why you're here and not in a cave somewhere.

The only people who didn't receive any external influences that seem to be relevant to their awakening are one-in-a-hundred-million saints who were born awake. Even Sadhguru, a supposed "spontaneous awakening" person, was taught how to meditate at an extremely early age. The direct experience didn't come "despite" that. Him being taught meditation wasn't for nothing.

Contemplative efforts can occur in a group setting, too. But in this domain, it is the case that you are the one who must get it even if assisted by others and regardless of circumstances!

Who is going to get enlightened now? You.

Not talking about non-duality nor spirituality, to be clear.

What's absolutely true now?

Grasping this personally is the priority.

Edited November 15, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Contemplative efforts can occur at a group setting, yes. Those can be useful. In this domain, however, it truly is the case that you are the one who must get it, even if assisted by others, and regardless of circumstances! Who is going to get enlightened now? You.

Not talking about non-duality nor spirituality, to be clear. What's absolutely true now? Grasping that personally is the priority.

You are not separate from other people. And I'm not being facetious by referring to non-duality again. I mean in a systems theory kind of sense (e.g., your mind is very much a product of your environment). Also, it's not the person that is supposed to grasp anything (maybe you're using "person" in a broader sense). Grasping will happen irrespective of a person or people. Still, there are external indicators of whether grasping is likely to occur or not, and that can be related to the person or people surrounding that person. But then again, there is nothing special about the person (singular) in this case. On the contrary (and I'll make the point again): external indicators are much more likely to occur in a place with many people. And that is why spiritual people gravitate towards other spiritual people. You can't help but unite with other people in the search for existential union.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

Quote

Still, there are external indicators of whether grasping is likely to occur or not, and that can be related to the person or people surrounding that person. But then again, there is nothing special about the person (singular) in this case. On the contrary (and I'll make the point again): external indicators are much more likely to occur in a place with many people. And that is why spiritual people gravitate towards other spiritual people. You can't help but unite with other people in the search for spiritual union.

What do you mean by external indicators?

I'd say no because it is direct and sudden, it either happens or not. One can be open, focused, etc., but there's no "recipe" nor method. It's a fact that enlightenment depends on you. You can be around people, but it doesn't change the fact that it is you who wakes up. Monks and contemplative people are usually solitary types, their commitment is to truth. By what you say, it sounds like you might be looking to being part of a community. That's good and it's useful to clarify what one is doing and why.

Edited November 17, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

19 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What do you mean by external indicators?

For example meditation, hanging around spiritual teachers, reading spiritual texts, etc.

 

19 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I'd say no because it is direct and sudden, it either happens or not. One can be open, focused, etc., but there's no guarantee nor method.

Many things appear sudden when looked in isolation from a larger context, but by closer inspection, it all looks highly interconnected. Just because something is complex doesn't mean that nothing is correlated with anything. The problem with pinpointing the exact causes of enlightenment is more a problem of determining exactly when it happens than what causes it. For example, you don't exactly know when a burning building is going to collapse, but given enough time, it becomes increasingly likely that it will collapse. And when it collapses, you can be pretty sure that it was the fire that caused it to collapse. There are many ways to stoke the fire of enlightenment, and even though the realization might appear sudden, there are many things that likely feed into it.

 

19 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

It's true, enlightenment depends on you. You can be around people, but it doesn't change the fact. You wake up. Seems like monks and contemplative people are generally solitary types, their commitment is to Truth. By what you say, it sounds like you might be looking for something else, like being a part of a community, etc. That's good, but it's useful to clarify what one is doing and why.

I don't think it's the person that awakens, so I don't see what is so holy or sacred about the person. Individualistic spirituality is a highly deceptive Westernized notion of spirituality (deceptive in the sense that it's easy to conflate the realization itself with the means of realization). Just because the realization is beyond "people" quite generally, doesn't mean that the methods should be. The realization is also beyond the person, not just people. No method is sacred, only the sacred is.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:46 PM, Carl-Richard said:

For example meditation, hanging around spiritual teachers, reading spiritual texts, etc.

Such realisation can occur now. My argument is that that's pretty much how it always goes for individuals, what precedes it (intense focus, contemplative effort, brutal openness) may help in the relative domain but is rarely significant because realization is a sudden leap in consciousness. It seems like it always happens out the blue.

I experienced what I'd call a no-self insight as I was walking my dog. What seemed to help prior to that experience was being open and wanting to know my nature. But surely I wouldn't create a method of dog-walking as a promise for people to get nearer to awakening. 

Ultimately it is always direct. You can work decades and decades strenuously and not get it and get it in an instant as was the case with Ramana, for example.

You are you. External is indirect and not needed. No reason to think it can't be grasped now. Btw, I'm not saying that it is probable, just pointing out that it is possible. Or that going solo is somehow better or more special. I'm saying grasp it by whatever means and methods you and others invent, as long as you get it. Otherwise this chatting and debating goes nowhere.

Quote

Many things appear sudden when looked in isolation from a larger context, but by closer inspection, it all looks highly interconnected. Just because something is complex doesn't mean that nothing is correlated with anything. The problem with pinpointing the exact causes of enlightenment is more a problem of determining exactly when it happens than what causes it. For example, you don't exactly know when a burning building is going to collapse, but given enough time, it becomes increasingly likely that it will collapse. And when it collapses, you can be pretty sure that it was the fire that caused it to collapse. There are many ways to stoke the fire of enlightenment, and even though the realization might appear sudden, there are many things that likely feed into it.

Impeccable logic, but not true in this case. This absolute matter isn't relative nor a process. There's actually a method, which is direct consciousness, and it isn't a method.

Quote

I don't think it's the person that awakens, so I don't see what is so holy or sacred about the person. Individualistic spirituality is a highly deceptive Westernized notion of spirituality (deceptive in the sense that it's easy to conflate the realization itself with the means of realization). Just because the realization is beyond "people" quite generally, doesn't mean that the methods should be. The realization is also beyond the person, not just people. No method is sacred, only the sacred is.

"Person" points to a distinction between the individual you and another. It is up to the individual --you-- to get it. That's the gist of what I meant by person. 

Going solo can be challenging in many ways. One way you can mitigate this obstacle is by being ruthlessly rigorous and honest with yourself. "What am I actually conscious of"?  In my case, it's not hard to see that I don't know who am I, even though it is mostly a superficial sense. We tend to pretend like we know, which is pointless and counterproductive; it is more ignorance.

What is is prior to perception, interpretation, and cognition. The depth and implications of this claim must be personally and profoundly contemplated.

Edited November 24, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

On 18.11.2023 at 1:24 AM, UnbornTao said:

Such realisation can occur now. My argument is that that's pretty much how it always goes for individuals, what precedes it (intense focus, contemplative effort, brutal openness) may help in the relative domain but is rarely significant because realization is a sudden leap in consciousness. It seems like it always happens out the blue.

I experienced what I'd call a no-self insight as I was walking my dog. What seemed to help prior to that experience was being open and wanting to know my nature. But surely I wouldn't create a method of dog-walking as a promise for people to get nearer to awakening. 

And then I can flip it on the head and say that every single significant non-dual experience I've had, the circumstances surrounding it was always indicative. Even the time I awoke on an airplane, or during an university lecture, or during my very first proper meditation session (i.e. situations that seemed like they happened out of the blue), I can always point to some set of factors that definitely had a positive contribution (and significant ones at that). These factors can be practiced and replicated across different individuals, times and situations, and meanwhile I agree that the realization itself always has an element of spontaneity to it, that doesn't mean the fire doesn't weaken the building.

Besides, "being open" or "wanting to know your true nature" is a certain relative behavior that can also be indicative, and it's likewise not the same as the realization itself. If you want to be truly amethodical and "direct", being closed and not wanting to know your true nature should be equally as conducive to the realization, something which I've actually confirmed myself by the way. I was not at all consciously focused on "knowing my true nature" (which is just an idea in your mind by the way) in any of the aforementioned awakenings. They were simply cases of the right things coming together at the right time. There was no personal investment in the process that was unfolding. Additionally, I've been vocal about how the realization has been intruding on me despite me being actively resistant to it, further disproving the absolute role of "openness" in awakening. So there doesn't seem to be just one factor that you can reduce the realization to, and any such factor is not the realization itself.

In summary: what you present as the sole factor is firstly not direct, and secondly one of many factors.

 

On 18.11.2023 at 1:24 AM, UnbornTao said:

Ultimately it is always direct. You can work decades and decades strenuously and not get it and get it in an instant as was the case with Ramana, for example.

Again, one in a hundred million saints.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

On 11/10/2023 at 8:18 AM, UnbornTao said:

Reality is a fucking mystery.

Actually, it’s a mysteryacle. 

[UnbornTao]

On 23/11/2023 at 4:39 AM, Carl-Richard said:

And then I can flip it on the head and say that every single significant non-dual experience I've had, the circumstances surrounding it was always indicative. Even the time I awoke on an airplane, or during an university lecture, or during my very first proper meditation session (i.e. situations that seem like they happened out of the blue), I can always point to some set of factors that definitely had a positive contribution (and significant ones at that). These factors can be practiced and replicated across different individuals, times and situations, and meanwhile I agree that the realization itself always has an element of spontaneity to it, that doesn't mean the fire doesn't weaken the building.

Besides, "being open" or "wanting to know your true nature" is a certain relative behavior that can also be indicative, and it's likewise not the same as the realization itself. If you want to be truly amethodical and "direct", being closed and not wanting to know your true nature should be equally as conducive to the realization, something which I've actually confirmed myself by the way. I was not at all consciously focused on "knowing my true nature" (which is just an idea in your mind by the way) in any of the aforementioned awakenings. They were simply cases of the right things coming together at the right time. There was no personal investment in the process that was unfolding. Additionally, I've been vocal about how the realization has been intruding on me despite me being actively resistant to it, further disproving the absolute role of "openness" in awakening. There doesn't seem to be just one factor that you can reduce the realization to, and any such factor is not the realization itself.

In summary: what you present as the sole factor is firstly not direct, and secondly one of many factors.

I said certain things seem to help in the relative domain, not that there are necessarily factors involved. "Indicative" is an interpretation and a distinction made in the relative domain. Everything except direct is stuck in a world of relativity. It's analogous to waking up from a dream; whatever is done within it is done within it, and isn't the waking up. I'm being pedantic, the realization itself is what I'm referring to.

The mind wants to replicate direct consciousness, inventing a way to capture it. Unfortunately this goes beyond the mind's job. Next time, you attempt to reproduce what your mind think happened before it -- the interpreted factors and conditions -- and it doesn't work. This basically means that you can't find yourself. Wherever you look is the domain of experience, it all occurs in experience. And somehow awakening, a sudden leap in consciousness, can happen.

What the mind does with the realization isn't the consciousness itself. This is a tricky thing to recognize, I'm coming from intellect here.

Quote

Again, one in a hundred million saints.

Yes; on the other hand, just a guy who got his nature. It shows the nature of the realization, and that it is possible.

"If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?" - Dogen.

Edited November 25, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

57 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I said certain things seem to help in the relative domain, no factors involved. "Indicative" is an interpretation and a distinction made in the relative domain. Everything except direct is stuck in a world of relativity. It's analogous to waking up from a dream; whatever is done within it is done within it, and isn't the waking up. I'm being pedantic because the realization itself is what I'm referring to.

I know. But when conceding to speak about something (relativity), and assuming that you're doing it for a certain preferred outcome (relativity), whether or not that outcome if fully understood, all of this is relative, so might as well embrace it. If you can speak about something at all, it's also possible to speak about it in detail.

[UnbornTao]

On 25/11/2023 at 3:33 PM, Carl-Richard said:

I know. But when conceding to speak about something (relativity), and assuming that you're doing it for a certain preferred outcome (relativity), whether or not that outcome if fully understood, all of this is relative, so might as well embrace it. If you can speak about something at all, it's also possible to speak about it in detail.

Sure, still we shouldn't consider that activity as anything more than jerking off, ultimately. More than giving a description of it to ballpark one's mind is silly. What's there to say? Unless for entertainment purposes, no use in that. Throw away what you've got of it, it gets in the way. Nothing is the best place from which to come at this matter; unfortunately we've got less than nothing -- convictions, conclusions. preferences, opinions, ideals, knowledge and assumptions. These are more ignorance.

Edited November 27, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

At some point, anything more than giving a short description to try to point the mind is just silly. I don't think speaking in detail about enlightenment is useful except for entertainment purposes. What's there to say?

For example, "go meditate". Meditation is not useless if you want enlightenment.

Let's get concrete: my first awakening happened during my first proper meditation session. As I was sitting, I became progressively more relaxed, my mind became more and more silent, and then those effects maximized and it felt like I was going to disappear if I kept going. I then opened my eyes and saw myself hovering 2 feet above my body. Then I looked up to the ceiling and started floating/melting upwards towards "heaven"; a level of bliss I had never encountered before. Then I jumped up in a panic as I did not expect that. Ever since that day, my mind has never been the same: it has always been extremely silent relative to what it used to be.

Are you saying the meditation I was doing had nothing to do with the effects I was experiencing at the end of that meditation session? Do you not see how the effects at the beginning of the session and at the end exist on a continuum?

Edited November 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

For example, "go meditate". Meditation is not useless if you want enlightenment.

Let's get concrete: my first awakening happened during my first proper meditation session. As I was sitting, I became progressively more relaxed, my mind became more and more silent, and then those effects maximized and it felt like I was going to disappear if I kept going. I then opened my eyes and saw myself hovering 2 feet above my body. Then I looked up to the ceiling and started floating/melting upwards towards "heaven"; a level of bliss I had never encountered before. Then I jumped up in a panic as I did not expect that. Ever since that day, my mind has never been the same: it has always been extremely silent relative to what it used to be.

Are you saying the meditation I was doing had nothing to do with the effects I was experiencing at the end of that meditation session? Do you not see how the effects at the beginning of the session and at the end exist on a continuum?

It happened because it happened, and you happened to be meditating. No matter the circumstances, individuals have gotten who they are. Get that. In any case, I'd make sure to clarify what that was, it doesn't sound like an enlightenment but perhaps a shift in state, a dramatic and unusual one. The effects are the effects, don't make stuff up. Meditation is aimed at healing by controlling the mind and such, its purpose is not absolute banana. Contemplation is intending to grasp what's true now. It shouldn't be confused with a method, though.

It's like wanting to catch the bus: you want to be at the bus stop when the bus passes by.

It is preparing yourself to get it, so to speak; being there when the show starts. That's an analogy for contemplation.

[Carl-Richard]

23 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

It happened because it happened, and you happened to be meditating. No matter the circumstances, individuals have gotten who they are. Get that.

Again, a method can be useful even if it's not always necessary. How do you explain the sense of progression and coherence from the beginning of the meditation session to the end where the awakening occurs? If what happens during the meditation doesn't matter at all, why is meditation the experience of getting more and more relaxation/bliss and awakening the experience of hitting a threshold of relaxation/bliss?

Next scenario: I was on a plane on my way home from a vacation, and I decided to listen to music while breathing deeply and sitting in an extremely upright posture (my brother can vouch for the "extreme" part: he commented on it). Again, it was progressively building up to it, and maybe 45 minutes into it, I entered such a blissful state that a part of my mind eventually said "oh shit, I'm dying!". I quickly opened my eyes and tried to grab my water bottle from my backpack, and the most bizarre experience of my life happened: it was quite literally as if somebody else was moving my body and picking up the bottle for me and opening it. That is when I realized "oh shit, this is it". Then I looked out the window and saw the plane was about 10 seconds from landing, and then I was overcame by an immense wave of warm nostalgia and the realization that "this is where I have always been and where I always will be". I was about to shed tears of joy, but then I had to distract myself with the fact that I was on an airplane that had just landed. After that experience, I started having spontaneous awakenings.

Now, would any of that have happened if I instead had opened a magazine, sat with a crouched posture and with shallow breathing (as I had done for the previous flights that summer)? As for the spontaneous awakenings after that, would they have started happening at exactly the same time if I didn't do what I did on that airplane? If "no" to either of these questions, are the "methods" involved in these scenarios not at the very least predictive?

 

23 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

In any case, I'd make sure to clarify what that was, it doesn't sound like an enlightenment but perhaps a shift in state, a dramatic and unusual one. The effects are the effects, don't make stuff up.

Well, the core "lesson" I got from that "change in state" was identical to all the other dozens (maybe hundreds) of awakenings I've had: "this is it". If you don't want to call this awakening or something that points to enlightenment, then at least invent some other term for me. Hell, even today with my covid-induced brain fog, I tapped into that experience again while listening to music and working out. It's gotten rarer over the years as I've (ironically) stopped meditating regularly, but it's still fundamentally the same experience: complete immersion and merging with reality, a lack of sense of distance between things, lack of sense of time, separation, "being the center", doership, self-concern.

 

23 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Meditation is aimed at healing by controlling the mind and such, its purpose is not absolute banana. Contemplation is intending to grasp what's true now. It shouldn't be confused with a method, though.

Meditation (for me) is just aimed at Being. It's a method, and an useful one at that. Contemplatation can also be a method that is useful. And just like any method, it might not be necessary for invoking the experience in question, but it can invoke it.

 

23 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

It's like wanting to catch the bus: you want to be at the bus stop when the bus passes by.

It is preparing yourself to get it, so to speak; being there when the show starts. That's an analogy for contemplation.

Or lighting the fire and waiting to see when the building collapses. See, you do value method, just in an extremely constrained way. If you truly didn't value method, you wouldn't suggest contemplation as a method. And again, it is a method, because you can get the realization without contemplation, as I have, in fact in both experiences detailed in this thread. I can keep going on detailing my experiences. This virus isn't exactly making me concerned about brevity.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[An young being]

I would say an intention or curiosity or desire to know who I am or who God is will push us towards a direction that helps us to know about the truth. The tools may be different, what is necessary is to be in flow with our being. One way or the other, it will lead towards the truth, but going against the flow and ignoring the tools coming towards us may push us away.

[not-a-faerie]

On 11/10/2023 at 8:56 AM, Socrates said:

they just filled junk in their mind and ended up projecting their models on reality instead of EXPERIENCING what IS.

I definintely view the same thing, that thoughts and emotions are mind stuff and we can instead view them as transient and opposing from presence and mindfulness. but they are people who find meaning in search for the patterns of the world we walk through. a lot of people seem to call this junk and I feel like it is more just distraction and they're allowed to pursue it for their own interests. IDK but I like to let people do as they do, although I guess I feel horrified when I hear of abuse and damaging misconduct. But then I don't seek to remove thoughts and emotions from my experience, only to understand that it is not the reality I can verify as true, and to see it understanding that people are flawed and at best morally grey. I don't complain that the water flows down the river I guess. 

 

Watching the video though, looks interesting.