Psychoanalysis What The Fuck moment.

[BurnedOut]

“I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother sitting by the bank of a swimming pool, that was also a river. In real life, she had been a victim of Alzheimer’s disease, and had regressed, before her death, to a semi-conscious state. In the dream, as well, she had lost her capacity for self-control. Her genital region was exposed, dimly; it had the appearance of a thick mat of hair. She was stroking herself, absent-mindedly. She walked over to me, with a handful of pubic hair, compacted into something resembling a large artist’s paint-brush. She pushed this at my face. I raised my arm, several times, to deflect her hand; finally, unwilling to hurt her, or interfere with her any farther, I let her have her way. She stroked my face with the brush, gently, and said, like a child, “isn’t it soft?” I looked at her ruined face and said, “yes, Grandma, it’s soft.”​

 

[BurnedOut]

I am not stoned.

 

[Rook]

@BurnedOut

 

[Rook]

im stoned btw

 

[Puffy]

As am I - let’s listen to the Residents together.

 

[Rook]

As am I - let’s listen to the Residents together.

wicked >.<

is should re-get their other songs, they whacky af

power's been going off six hours a day for more n week now here, and tonite my internet is dyyyying, cant even load forums props. imma roll n smoke a joint and play vtm bloodlines for 1:20 mins till blackout XD


have a good one ; )

 

[Puffy]

As am I - let’s listen to the Residents together.

wicked >.<

is should re-get their other songs, they whacky af

power's been going off six hours a day for more n week now here, and tonite my internet is dyyyying, cant even load forums props. imma roll n smoke a joint and play vtm bloodlines for 1:20 mins till blackout XD


have a good one ; )

That’s very specific. Alright let me make you a playlist of weird ass music

 

[Cognisant]

Alzheimer's is one of the few remaining utterly terrifying things that we are all but entirely powerless to prevent or oppose.

Imagine if vampires were real and not in the fun sparkly way or the dark but still cool WoD way, I mean actual undead monsters that exist only to kill and feed. Alzheimer's is way more terrifying than that, at least with a vampire you can try to flight back or flee, at least you know you're safe during the day, at least if you become one yourself your friends and family will know it's not really you.

Alzheimer's can get you anywhere at any time, your brain could be dying right now! And it won't just kill you, that would be too dignified, no it makes you a burden on your family as it slowly withers you away. Imagine having your ass wiped by a spouse you no longer recognise, imagine being constantly terrified because you have no idea where you are or what's going on. Imagine having to watch as someone you love and look up to being reduced a retarded and infantile state as apparently their very soul is eroded away.

It's the indignity of it that's the worst, I'd rather kill myself, if I was diagnosed with Alzheimer's I wouldn't wait for it to progress I'd take myself out as soon as possible.

 

[Daddy]

Here he is having a meltdown over a Twitter ban. And he really hates Elliot Page apparently, lol (who as far as I'm aware doesn't even know him). And he's a PHD in Clinical Psychology, yet always seems to feel strongly that his opinions matter more than those that disagree with him. Strange guy.


And people worship this guy like a Father/God figure.

 

[washti]

He's got his neural system rekt. Just compare with any video before hospitalization in Serbia.
His dream is simple fear of getting senile and seems right to have after what he came through.

 

[BurnedOut]

His overengineered videos consisting of rehearsed body language and speech reminds me of those fake scam gurus. Here is another cunt who is exactly like Jordan Peterson. These guys are a case study in psychology which expose the stupidity of the masses rather than the person perpetrating against them:

 

[Puffy]

Agreed on Sadghuru, had a similar feeling about him. In general within the spiritual community I’ve noticed that the real teachers and masters tend to not call attention to themselves, are a lot more obscure and work in much smaller orbits.

Chances are if a spiritual teacher reaches that level of notoriety and fame there’s something a bit fishy going on. If that kind of level of money and fame is important to someone the probability is that it has more of an egotistical than a service motive. Not exclusively but it’s hard to keep yourself balanced while being adored by that many people and not get corrupted in the process.

 

[Hadoblado]

Wouldn't the enlightened want to share their enlightenment?

 

[scorpiomover]

I don't know why uou guys take all this stuff so seriously.

The guys who take all this stuff seriously, are the sorts of people like on this thread:

Shinzo Abe | INTP Forum

I can't wait till you all tell me that you've read that Elon Musk is Trump's love-child and they're both Betelgeusians planning to take over the Earth, so they can demolish it for a hyperspace highway for the Vogons.

 

[Puffy]

Wouldn't the enlightened want to share their enlightenment?

I intended my prior post as a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't presume there's no exceptions. Like I've never heard of anyone digging dirt on Thich Nhat Hanh for example and he seemed to have a positive reach through his fame. I think it boils down to what their motive is for having a big platform really.

The problem is that there's a lot of people who want to appear as enlightened or as a teacher, as it's an easy way of getting lots of money and attention from people. So fame and big money can lend itself to that trap.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't know why uou guys take all this stuff so seriously.

The guys who take all this stuff seriously, are the sorts of people like on this thread:

Shinzo Abe | INTP Forum

I can't wait till you all tell me that you've read that Elon Musk is Trump's love-child and they're both Betelgeusians planning to take over the Earth, so they can demolish it for a hyperspace highway for the Vogons.

Weird flex but okay.

I intended my prior post as a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't presume there's no exceptions. Like I've never heard of anyone digging dirt on Thich Nhat Hanh for example and he seemed to have a positive reach through his fame. I think it boils down to what their motive is for having a big platform really.

The problem is that there's a lot of people who want to appear as enlightened or as a teacher, as it's an easy way of getting lots of money and attention from people. So fame and big money can lend itself to that trap.

People tend to have more than one motive even if they're unaware of it, and it's hard to disentangle them from one another even when you're enlightened or w/e. Even if you are above worldly desire, you still have a dopaminergic system. What your brain produces is more like a democratic process, claiming an absence of desire is like saying there are no Republicans in America because Biden won.

It follows that there's a silent voter base in even the most advanced guru's brain, not powerful enough to command explicit agency, but enough to sway the motives of the central executive from time to time.

 

[Puffy]

I don't know why uou guys take all this stuff so seriously.

The guys who take all this stuff seriously, are the sorts of people like on this thread:

Shinzo Abe | INTP Forum

I can't wait till you all tell me that you've read that Elon Musk is Trump's love-child and they're both Betelgeusians planning to take over the Earth, so they can demolish it for a hyperspace highway for the Vogons.

Weird flex but okay.

I intended my prior post as a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't presume there's no exceptions. Like I've never heard of anyone digging dirt on Thich Nhat Hanh for example and he seemed to have a positive reach through his fame. I think it boils down to what their motive is for having a big platform really.

The problem is that there's a lot of people who want to appear as enlightened or as a teacher, as it's an easy way of getting lots of money and attention from people. So fame and big money can lend itself to that trap.

People tend to have more than one motive even if they're unaware of it, and it's hard to disentangle them from one another even when you're enlightened or w/e. Even if you are above worldly desire, you still have a dopaminergic system. What your brain produces is more like a democratic process, claiming an absence of desire is like saying there are no Republicans in America because Biden won.

It follows that there's a silent voter base in even the most advanced guru's brain, not powerful enough to command explicit agency, but enough to sway the motives of the central executive from time to time.

I agree that everyone is made up of black and white. And I also agree with you that someone can have simultaneous motives of making money and helping people. But I find it hard to see how motive isn't relevant?

For example, the video is making the claim that Sadhguru ignored legal procedures and constructed in an ecologically sensitive zone, pushing out the local elephant population. A young student calls him to account on it, and he threatens them if they proceed he will sue them. That is dissonant with the idea of him self-proclaiming to be a saint, so either he's lying and being insincere to his followers or he's taking advantage of the power of his spiritual status to do harmful things that others can't get away with.

If someone's primary motive is power and money that will guide them to different decisions than someone whose primary motive is to serve. You can serve and make money, but if your primary goal is to help others that probably wouldn't lead you to lying to people, endangering wildlife, or ruining young people's lives?

 

[Daddy]

I can't wait till you all tell me that you've read that Elon Musk is Trump's love-child and they're both Betelgeusians planning to take over the Earth, so they can demolish it for a hyperspace highway for the Vogons.

You can't prove it's wrong though.

 

[Hadoblado]

I agree that everyone is made up of black and white. And I also agree with you that someone can have simultaneous motives of making money and helping people. But I find it hard to see how motive isn't relevant?

For example, the video is making the claim that Sadhguru ignored legal procedures and constructed in an ecologically sensitive zone, pushing out the local elephant population. A young student calls him to account on it, and he threatens them if they proceed he will sue them. That is dissonant with the idea of him self-proclaiming to be a saint, so either he's lying and being insincere to his followers or he's taking advantage of the power of his spiritual status to do harmful things that others can't get away with.

If someone's primary motive is power and money that will guide them to different decisions than someone whose primary motive is to serve. You can serve and make money, but if your primary goal is to help others that probably wouldn't lead you to lying to people, endangering wildlife, or ruining young people's lives?

I don't really believe in primary motives, or at least think they're a lot softer of a category than they're treated. I'm not a person who pursues hunger OR thirst, I'm someone who pursues both at different times and to different extents.

The guru is someone with a worldview they want to share. The social skills they use to spread their message don't come from nowhere and neither do their drives. Each pilot of a doctrine is human first.

Any successful guru with an audience only need be as honest as their audience demand of them.

For some, it's really obvious that drives other than vision play a part:

Spoiler

I guess I'm dismissive of placing gurus on a different level. They are humans with human needs who play a role that serves them and sometimes others. They might have achieved certain states that elude others, but everyone's experience is different and there's nothing intrinsically more true or valuable in what a guru does whether it's enlightened or not. I'm less defending this specific guru and saying I distrust the guru "institution".

 

[scorpiomover]

Weird flex but okay.

I do not know what you mean by "flex".

What is weird, is how so many people seem to swallow whatever the media tell you, without questioning it.

People tend to have more than one motive even if they're unaware of it, and it's hard to disentangle them from one another even when you're enlightened or w/e. Even if you are above worldly desire, you still have a dopaminergic system. What your brain produces is more like a democratic process, claiming an absence of desire is like saying there are no Republicans in America because Biden won.

It follows that there's a silent voter base in even the most advanced guru's brain, not powerful enough to command explicit agency, but enough to sway the motives of the central executive from time to time.

Yes, and it can be hacked, as long as they play on your egotistical desire to be portrayed as intelligent, capable, moral, etc.

You can't prove it's wrong though.

If someone claimed your best friend committed murder, how would you go about proving it's wrong? Do you have a video for every second of every year of your best friend's life?

 

[scorpiomover]

I guess I'm dismissive of placing gurus on a different level. They are humans with human needs who play a role that serves them and sometimes others.

Then why treat them as if you put them on a pedestal and then are tearing them down? Would you tear down a regular human?

 

[Hadoblado]

What is weird, is how so many people seem to swallow whatever the media tell you, without questioning it.

You just crapped on this thread, the Taoism thread, the Shinzo Abe thread... Just because you're not interested in something doesn't mean other people shouldn't be.

 

[BurnedOut]

Enlightened people don't automatically have the drive to share their enlightenment. If they end up having one, they shall work quietly and not charge tickets for concerts or charge you money to go on a dirt bike ride with a guru. Enlightened people don't engage in continuously bombarding others with barnum statements and they are not interested in LiFe CoAcHiNg because you cannot teach someone to live their life. All you can do is make them more aware and giving people obvious truisms is not going to make them any better. Enlightened people will simply write down their thoughts for posterity and they go unnoticed until their work is published. Frauds like Sadhguru, Sandeep Maheshwari and others of their ilk are a scam.

 

[BurnedOut]

Then why treat them as if you put them on a pedestal and then are tearing them down? Would you tear down a regular human?

Because it is always fun to pull the wolf's garb while they are giving their best speeches. When the wolf stands naked, it is a shitshow that everybody loves watching.

 

[Hadoblado]

Enlightened people don't automatically have the drive to share their enlightenment. If they end up having one, they shall work quietly and not charge tickets for concerts or charge you money to go on a dirt bike ride with a guru. Enlightened people don't engage in continuously bombarding others with barnum statements and they are not interested in LiFe CoAcHiNg because you cannot teach someone to live their life. All you can do is make them more aware and giving people obvious truisms is not going to make them any better. Enlightened people will simply write down their thoughts for posterity and they go unnoticed until their work is published. Frauds like Sadhguru, Sandeep Maheshwari and others of their ilk are a scam.

A key difference between mahayana and theravada buddhism is their "guruistic altruism". Theravada seeks to escape samsara. Mahayana will stay to help support others out.

Who is more enlightened? Those concerned for their own enlightenment or those who extend the fruits of their spiritual labor to others?

 

[scorpiomover]

What is weird, is how so many people seem to swallow whatever the media tell you, without questioning it.

You just crapped on this thread, the Taoism thread, the Shinzo Abe thread... Just because you're not interested in something doesn't mean other people shouldn't be.

I'm very interested in all of these threads. But I'm not seeing much in the responses that would count as interesting:

1) JP has a sex dream about his mum. Freud would probably start talking about JP's libido urge. Jung would probably start talking about his mother archetype. But the posts here seem to be suggesting that he's having a senior moment and that people who preach enlightenment are probably full of sh*t. So let's ignore analysing what he's thinking and just go back to our humdrum? WTF?

2) On the Taoism thread, I asked WHY the OP raised that particular issue right now. What exactly is driving him to discuss it? Has he been reading about it lately? Is there something in his life that is making him think about Taoism more? Did he read something about Taoism that he never knew before? But the response is "Oh, I just wanted to share". WTF?

3) I didn't even write on the Shinzo Abe thread. But even there, the longest-running Japanese PM of all time, is shot, AFTER he left office, AND unlike lots of cases where politicians get shot, this time, the shooter is successful. But the posters think it's Moonies with Guns? WTF?

I feel like I'm on a forum with ESFJs who prefer dressing up in a gimp suit to having an honest intellectual discussion.

You guys are INTPs, and way smarter than this.

What's going on here?

 

[scorpiomover]

Then why treat them as if you put them on a pedestal and then are tearing them down? Would you tear down a regular human?

Because it is always fun to pull the wolf's garb while they are giving their best speeches. When the wolf stands naked, it is a shitshow that everybody loves watching.

Yes, if they are a wolf, and they are giving their best speeches. But this is more like when the wolf has given his WORST speech, ever, and now everyone wants to watch the sh*tshow and say how the wolf has shown his true colours.

If you want to pull on JP giving his best speeches, by all means, talk about his "12 rules for life", and why so many young men are so confused about life, that they think that an ivory-tower professor has more that is practical to teach them, than your working-class car mechanic.

 

[BurnedOut]

I feel like I'm on a forum with ESFJs who prefer dressing up in a gimp suit to having an honest intellectual discussion.

What kind of discourse are you presenting? You don't even make any threads and still you have the gall of shitting on everybody and calling them ESFJs and whatnot despite the fact that MBTI was debunked thousands of times on this forum itself wherein ZenRaiden's thread you literally dropped turds in the name of justifying MBTI. This is a forum not a fucking international summit. We are not diplomats or heads of states. We all have a professional life and everybody here comes here because of want of some discourse that is not gate kept by academicians and hence nobody really judges anybody for making any kind of thread. Nobody here has the time, motivation or energy to write academic papers.

By your logic, the Greeks were morons and dumbfucks for engaging in discourse of any kind. The world generally lacks discourse and discourse itself is a beautiful thing because there is not a specific need of any discipline or requirements that are dependent on your domain specific knowledge. We debate ontologically using argumentation and not go out to perform controlled experiments and post the results here. People who want to have an intellectual discussion usually end up having it. I have personally debated with you several times and I don't think it was a waste of time but it is pretty clear that you want to be belligerent for no other reason than your experience and age.

 

[scorpiomover]

Enlightened people don't automatically have the drive to share their enlightenment. If they end up having one, they shall work quietly and not charge tickets for concerts or charge you money to go on a dirt bike ride with a guru. Enlightened people don't engage in continuously bombarding others

I agree that enlightened people aren't going to make trivial statements.

with barnum statements

Having watched "The Greatest Showman", not sure that Barnum was not an enlightened person.

and they are not interested in LiFe CoAcHiNg because you cannot teach someone to live their life.

Life COACHING is about doing more than teaching. It's about COACHING. Like how a football coach gets his team to train until they are good enough to win the championship.

All you can do is make them more aware

So the enlightened are going around making us all "woke"? The Buddha isn't enlightened, but Hillary Clinton is enlightened?

and giving people obvious truisms is not going to make them any better.

From what I gather, enlightenment seems to be mostly about focussing on obvious truisms, because those are the truths that apply so often, that the more you focus on them, the more your life changes to be consistent with truth and reality.

Enlightened people will simply write down their thoughts for posterity and they go unnoticed until their work is published.

Like Georg Cantor and George Boole?

Frauds like Sadhguru, Sandeep Maheshwari and others of their ilk are a scam.

SOME people are obviously going to be scammers. But not all people are scammers, or everyone in the Buddha's lifetime who listened to the Buddha would have been scammed. If that had happened, people now would only be interested in some Buddhist manuscripts that remained hidden until now.

 

[BurnedOut]

Life COACHING is about doing more than teaching. It's about COACHING. Like how a football coach gets his team to train until they are good enough to win the championship.

What are you going to do in life coaching? Give me an example. What is there to 'life coach' when most of the literature on practicable positive psychology is obtainable via textbooks and internet? Why do you want to spend money to see a fake baba instead of learning to read body language or learning to communicate effectively which is definitely going to help you? Why do you want to go to a life coach when you are having a tough time than go to a psychologist and seek therapy? Is there any research that compares life coaching to therapy? Turns out there is. Life coaching works for a few hours at the most and a few minutes at the least. I am going to make a thread exposing a similar cult. I am interested to listen to your views.

From what I gather, enlightenment seems to be mostly about focussing on obvious truisms, because those are the truths that apply so often, that the more you focus on them, the more your life changes to be consistent with truth and reality.

Would you tell a Indian layman defaulting on his loans and being laid off during a pandemic that Money Is Not Everything? Would you tell a single mother who is trying to make ends meet that she is simply not mindful of her life? Would you debate about verses in Bhagwat Gita or similar joke books like the Bible with a person who's lost 2 people in the pandemic to the coronavirus? Telling people truisms does nothing because it is a truism. Telling people that money does not matter is only valid advice when you already have tonnes of money to sustain yourself. Telling people that God wants them to suck cocks of corporate whores without complaining is valid advice when you have a job in the first place. The obvious truisms require a context to occur. And tell me good sir, how do you plan to imbibe these individual narratives in your grand narrative of 'life coaching?'

So the enlightened are going around making us all "woke"? The Buddha isn't enlightened, but Hillary Clinton is enlightened?

The enlightened never tried to make us all "woke" in the first place. They simply wrote their literature and said their words and moved on. It is on you to interprete and understanding their ideas and tinker with your individual narratives so as to test the various behavioural frameworks offered. Being enlightened is a personal process and not a mass one. Anybody who believes the latter is a dickhead and we have plenty of those in the world to milk and bilk.

SOME people are obviously going to be scammers. But not all people are scammers, or everyone in the Buddha's lifetime who listened to the Buddha would have been scammed. If that had happened, people now would only be interested in some Buddhist manuscripts that remained hidden until now.

Buddha was not a scammer firstly. He asked his followers to accompany him and not simply listen to his sermons. They formed sanghs and weaved their beliefs with the ones Buddha provided. The ones who did not follow ended up behaving like sods at the end themselves and the ones who were greedy for intellectual platitudes plagiarized him left and right. Buddha never charged money nor took people on bullock cart rides in the name of salvation. He was pretty clear that the 8 fold path cannot be achieved by simply living the life as is

 

[scorpiomover]

I feel like I'm on a forum with ESFJs who prefer dressing up in a gimp suit to having an honest intellectual discussion.

What kind of discourse are you presenting? You don't even make any threads

I have tons in my head. But I consistently get the impression that people aren't interested.

and still you have the gall of shitting on everybody and calling them ESFJs and whatnot despite the fact that MBTI was debunked thousands of times on this forum itself

It's an INTP forum. If you think it's humbug, why not go to a Big Five forum?

If you stay for the posters, do you think that people who used to believe in things that have been debunked thousands of times, say much more erudite things than anyone else? In that case, I guarantee you'll much prefer the Flat Earth forums.

wherein ZenRaiden's thread you literally dropped turds in the name of justifying MBTI.

If I thought MBTI was rubbish, I wouldn't want to be on a forum for INTPs.

This is a forum not a fucking international summit. We are not diplomats or heads of states.

I expect more political BS from those people.

We all have a professional life and everybody here comes here because of want of some discourse that is not gate kept by academicians and hence nobody really judges anybody for making any kind of thread.

Then I expect MORE open-mindedness here.

Nobody here has the time, motivation or energy to write academic papers. By your logic, the Greeks were morons and dumbfucks for engaging in discourse of any kind.

Socrates' jibes were interesting.

The world generally lacks discourse and discourse itself is a beautiful thing because there is not a specific need of any discipline.

Then by all means, discourse.

We debate ontologically using argumentation

Where's the ontology? JP has a weird dream, so he's crazy? Where's the ontology about that?

All writers about enlightenment must be scammers. Where's the ontology in that?

Not saying that there isn't any ontology in such a topic. But I would at least expect that someone says "It is in the nature of discussions about topics like enlightenment, that they attract more and more scammers, until the majority of what you read about enlightenment has been written by a scammer."

That would follow on to an observation that "anything worthwhile attracts people wanting to make money out of it, and that selfish motives are stronger than unselfish motives, until eventually, the majority talking about that topic would be writing for selfish motives."

But that would apply to everything, especially to things that attract more people nowadays, like science and Big Five.

and not go out to perform controlled experiments and post the results here.

Nothing wrong with stating your personal observations, is there? Like your anecdotes? By all means, share your observations and your anecdotes. Tell me about your homeworld, Usul.

 

[BurnedOut]

I have tons in my head. But I consistently get the impression that people aren't interested.

That's your fault. There is a bigass button clearly asking you if you want to make a new thread. Despite years of forum's existence, you give this bullshit.

If I thought MBTI was rubbish, I wouldn't want to be on a forum for INTPs.

So if your username is scorpiomover, I should be mocking you for not moving scorpios right? Similarly Instagram should never have allowed pictures from user's gallery because it is 'insta'. Similarly, snapchat should consider of snapping pictures and chatting separately and not using pictures as a chat. Similarly, the world should have been a better place but it is not. Your belief in MBTI is your fault and MBTI is something nobody takes seriously here except for you. I have destroyed your arguments umpteen number of times and I can destroy them a million times more. You tell everybody else to sod off and yourself believe in something that people like JP will promote.

Socrates' jibes were interesting.

Socrates was also terribly wrong about sophists who have made significant contributions to Western Philosophy. Have you heard of Parminedes? He shat on them because they were more famous and he had another excuse to shit on them because they charged money. Give me a logical critique of all the sophists Socrates barks about. There is none. Because they were the ones who started the concept of discourse before Socrates was born.

Nothing wrong with stating your personal observations, is there? Like your anecdotes? By all means, share your observations and your anecdotes. Tell me about your homeworld, Usul.

Observations aren't experiments. And anecdotes are not data but since our world is material, our sense organs can be given the benefit of doubt of not imagining phenomenon that are tangible. I do share my observations and so do others. And you have clearly misconstrued my entire stanza about gatekeeping intellectual discussions.

 

[scorpiomover]

Life COACHING is about doing more than teaching. It's about COACHING. Like how a football coach gets his team to train until they are good enough to win the championship.

What are you going to do in life coaching?

I had some life coaching a while back.

Give me an example.

The life coach gave me a self-hypnosis process to get me to think more positively. Something like "think of a beautiful beach. Think of the things you want up some steps. Now, slowly, climb each step, while thinking you're getting closer and closer to your goal." Any time you're feeling down or de-motivated, run through the scenario.

What is there to 'life coach' when most of the literature on practicable positive psychology is obtainable via textbooks and internet?

I've been taught a lot of practicable positive psychology in therapy. Trying to do that stuff in my life. Most of my recent criticisms of posts on this site comes from that training.

Why do you want to spend money to see a fake baba instead of learning to read body language or learning to communicate effectively which is definitely going to help you? Why do you want to go to a life coach when you are having a tough time than go to a psychologist and seek therapy?

Maybe for the same reasons as people get a personal trainer?

Is there any research that compares life coaching to therapy? Turns out there is. Life coaching works for a few hours at the most and a few minutes at the least.

Interesting, because more people seem to be in therapy than ever. Are rates of mental illness going down? Are there LESS young men who try to kill themselves and a bunch of others in the process, compared to 20 years ago?

I am going to make a thread exposing a similar cult. I am interested to listen to your views.

By all means. I'd love to talk about that.

From what I gather, enlightenment seems to be mostly about focussing on obvious truisms, because those are the truths that apply so often, that the more you focus on them, the more your life changes to be consistent with truth and reality.

Would you tell a Indian layman defaulting on his loans and being laid off during a pandemic that Money Is Not Everything?

That is what practical positive psychology says he should think, as that will make his problems much easier to bear, and far less likely to go into a spiral of depression.

Would you tell a single mother who is trying to make ends meet that she is simply not mindful of her life?

That is what practical positive psychology says he should think, as that will make his problems much easier to bear, and far less likely to go into a spiral of depression.

Would you debate about verses in Bhagwat Gita or similar joke books like the Bible with a person who's lost 2 people in the pandemic to the coronavirus?

That is how people used to handle losing their entire family in a plague, without also wanting to kill themselves, because they miss their family so much that they can't bear to be without them. Telling them that "They're not gone. They're just in the next room. You'll see your family later." gives them consolation and hope, and a reason to keep living.

Telling people truisms does nothing because it is a truism. Telling people that money does not matter is only valid advice when you already have tonnes of money to sustain yourself. Telling people that God wants them to suck cocks of corporate whores without complaining is valid advice when you have a job in the first place. The obvious truisms require a context to occur.

This is all what practicable positive psychology teaches.

 

[Rook]

@Puffy

 

[scorpiomover]

I have tons in my head. But I consistently get the impression that people aren't interested.

That's your fault. There is a bigass button clearly asking you if you want to make a new thread. Despite years of forum's existence, you give this bullshit.

I'm in recovery for depression and anxiety.

If I thought MBTI was rubbish, I wouldn't want to be on a forum for INTPs.

So if your username is scorpiomover, I should be mocking you for not moving scorpios right?

That is why I chose my username, because I'm a scorpio, and it's about ME moving about more.

Similarly Instagram should never have allowed pictures from user's gallery because it is 'insta'. Similarly, snapchat should consider of snapping pictures and chatting separately and not using pictures as a chat. Similarly, the world should have been a better place but it is not.

Instagram's gallery refers to pic that were previously instantly taken and uploaded.

Your belief in MBTI is your fault and MBTI is something nobody takes seriously here except for you. I have destroyed your arguments umpteen number of times and I can destroy them a million times more.

You can try. But I discovered MBTI 30 years ago, and rejected it then. I only changed my mind, due to coming to THIS forum, reading the posts of INTPs writing on "You know you're an INTP when..." and finding that I did 99% of what was said there, but was totally unlike the rest of the world 99% of the time.

Since then, I have taken an empirical view to MBTI. If the internet says something is true about INTPs, but people who call themelves INTPs don't do it, then it's not true about INTPs. If people who call themelves INTPs do something consistently, then it's true about INTPs.

You tell everybody else to sod off and yourself believe in something that people like JP will promote.

I perfer practicable personal psychology.

Socrates' jibes were interesting.

Socrates was also terribly wrong about sophists who have made significant contributions to Western Philosophy. Have you heard of Parminedes? He shat on them because they were more famous and he had another excuse to shit on them because they charged money. Give me a logical critique of all the sophists Socrates barks about. There is none. Because they were the ones who started the concept of discourse before Socrates was born.

Discourse was around long before the ancient Greeks.

Besides, all I said was that his jibes were interesting. I think that people can learn from anyone. Socrates' questions about beauty pointed out that subjective standards of beauty can still be perceived by the subject as objective, and yet still be subjective.

Nothing wrong with stating your personal observations, is there? Like your anecdotes? By all means, share your observations and your anecdotes. Tell me about your homeworld, Usul.

Observations aren't experiments. And anecdotes are not data

You were the one to state that you weren't going to conduct lots of scientific experiments. So if you don't do that, what else can you say? Just quote lots of studies that you've never done yourself, and have not verified to check if you understand them?

but since our world is material, our sense organs can be given the benefit of doubt of not imagining phenomenon that are tangible. I do share my observations and so do others. And you have clearly misconstrued my entire stanza about gatekeeping intellectual discussions.

Gatekeeping intellectual discussions means using standards to throw out any views to the contrary. Saying "it's an anecdote" is saying "Nothing is acceptable to even think about, except for whatever is considered offical science, which must also be accepted without question and also never thought about."

If I thought like that, then no-one would have anything to say except for scientists, and no-one would have the right to ponder on what scientists say except for scientists, and then I would have nothing to think about at all.

 

[BurnedOut]

You can try. But I discovered MBTI 30 years ago, and rejected it then. I only changed my mind, due to coming to THIS forum, reading the posts of INTPs writing on "You know you're an INTP when..." and finding that I did 99% of what was said there, but was totally unlike the rest of the world 99% of the time.

I already have. You did not provide a single practical usage of MBTI and that is where you lost. You failed to prove Jungian theory as being applicable in real life. And funnily enough the researches on MBTI (Masculine Blokes' Tortuous Ideology (Oh why? Because despite the progress of women and their prevalence in every domain of man, MBTI erroneously keeps categorising them as 'feelers (feminine)' because of their cultural behaviour which is unrelated to their 'feminity')) end up measuring everything that Big 5 state to prove its own validity.

 

[BurnedOut]

Gatekeeping intellectual discussions means using standards to throw out any views to the contrary. Saying "it's an anecdote" is saying "Nothing is acceptable to even think about, except for whatever is considered offical science, which must also be accepted without question and also never thought about."

It's an anecdote is a valid source of data and has been for eons in the field of humanities. Humans basically established society by 'anecdotal observations' when those anecdotes were analysed to be representatives of tangible phenomenon. Science itself is based on anecdotal evidence which is complemented by mathematical and statistical models. In your opinion, Quantum Mechanics is pseudoscience then.

Don't forget that the generations that came after you were exposed to the ideas of postmodernism and the importance of individual narratives. The ignorance of 'anecdotes' is what caused colonialism and other modes of systemic domination to perpetuate. Ideas about white supremacy and similar poppycock were based on the denial of 'anecdotes' of other collective and individual 'anecdotes'. You might have lived in a world full of ignorance and lies and so do I but you forget that the internet when used properly is a source of debiasing because it exposes you to others' 'anecdotes'.

 

[Puffy]

I agree that everyone is made up of black and white. And I also agree with you that someone can have simultaneous motives of making money and helping people. But I find it hard to see how motive isn't relevant?

For example, the video is making the claim that Sadhguru ignored legal procedures and constructed in an ecologically sensitive zone, pushing out the local elephant population. A young student calls him to account on it, and he threatens them if they proceed he will sue them. That is dissonant with the idea of him self-proclaiming to be a saint, so either he's lying and being insincere to his followers or he's taking advantage of the power of his spiritual status to do harmful things that others can't get away with.

If someone's primary motive is power and money that will guide them to different decisions than someone whose primary motive is to serve. You can serve and make money, but if your primary goal is to help others that probably wouldn't lead you to lying to people, endangering wildlife, or ruining young people's lives?

I don't really believe in primary motives, or at least think they're a lot softer of a category than they're treated. I'm not a person who pursues hunger OR thirst, I'm someone who pursues both at different times and to different extents.

The guru is someone with a worldview they want to share. The social skills they use to spread their message don't come from nowhere and neither do their drives. Each pilot of a doctrine is human first.

Any successful guru with an audience only need be as honest as their audience demand of them.

For some, it's really obvious that drives other than vision play a part:

Spoiler

I guess I'm dismissive of placing gurus on a different level. They are humans with human needs who play a role that serves them and sometimes others. They might have achieved certain states that elude others, but everyone's experience is different and there's nothing intrinsically more true or valuable in what a guru does whether it's enlightened or not. I'm less defending this specific guru and saying I distrust the guru "institution".

Sure thing, I can appreciate why you'd be mistrusting of it.

If it helps to understand where I'm coming from. I know first-hand that these practices can have very strong effects on someone. It's basically like taking psychedelics. Except the practices have permanent lasting effects. Without knowing the science, I'd imagine they must have an effect on someone's neurochemistry.

This can go wrong in a number of ways and it's usually because people rush ahead without a teacher, try practices out for themselves, do it wrong and mess themselves up. Like regardless of how you interpret it this can become someone's daily reality from practicing certain forms of yoga wrong: https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Kundalini_syndrome#Symptomatology

Even if you look at this from a purely materialistic perspective and it's all just chemicals in the brain, etc. There's value in there being people whose navigated the spaces this opens up to someone, whose aware of the dangers and how to mitigate them, so that they can safely guide someone through a similar process.

Then once they've learned to navigate it as they did. Some of them help someone else through the same process and in effect become the "guru" to them until they don't need a "guru" anymore. That's all it is for me personally.

That's why I say it's important that a guru is sincere, if you choose the wrong guru and they're not sincere they can really fuck someone up. I would personally welcome regulation in this area. I've personally been quite lucky, but it's a real minefield to navigate.

 

[Rook]

man i'm lisytenning to dis guru vid and zoning tf out


how does a thread a about an old canadian dude dreaming bout his granny's dank moss carpet become this : p

 

[Rook]

murky elephant habiatat man on animal combat bring it on breed super lions and clone all the famous ppl and like hold gladiatoral shows, where elon musk watches his fully-grown lab progeny, his own flesh and blood, get mauled by three-headed lions mutated onto tthe bodies of rhinos and the sheeple pay big bitcoin just to watch on stream while strapped into their tesla chairs in their iHomes while the RepoDemocrat robot drones pick up the trash and vaporize anyone who exits their AmazLawn without auth.

 

[dr froyd]

of all the things you could imagine a person with alzheimers do, JP dreamed about getting her bush in his face.

yikes

 

[scorpiomover]

You can try. But I discovered MBTI 30 years ago, and rejected it then. I only changed my mind, due to coming to THIS forum, reading the posts of INTPs writing on "You know you're an INTP when..." and finding that I did 99% of what was said there, but was totally unlike the rest of the world 99% of the time.

I already have. You did not provide a single practical usage of MBTI and that is where you lost.

I'm talking about true/false. You're talking about winning/losing.

You failed to prove Jungian theory as being applicable in real life.

Funnily enough, it was from posts on this forum that described how a poster had consistently used MBTI to convince people of things, that I saw some of the potential benefits of applying Jungian theory.

And funnily enough the researches on MBTI (Masculine Blokes' Tortuous Ideology (Oh why? Because despite the progress of women and their prevalence in every domain of man, MBTI erroneously keeps categorising them as 'feelers (feminine)' because of their cultural behaviour which is unrelated to their 'feminity'))

Feeler =/= Feminine, no more than Feelers are likely to be Feral Federalists that like Fellowships and Ferromagnetism.

If women are generally considered to be Feelers and men Thinkers, surely that's coming from the general population, yes?

Instead, let us ask the general question: are people generally agreeable, or generally disagreeable?

end up measuring everything that Big 5 state to prove its own validity.

If they measure the same things, then they're practically equivalent. But MBTI came first.

 

[scorpiomover]

Gatekeeping intellectual discussions means using standards to throw out any views to the contrary. Saying "it's an anecdote" is saying "Nothing is acceptable to even think about, except for whatever is considered offical science, which must also be accepted without question and also never thought about."

It's an anecdote is a valid source of data and has been for eons in the field of humanities.

That's not what the word "anecdote" means:

Google 'anecdote'

anecdote
/ˈanɪkdəʊt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: anecdote; plural noun: anecdotes

1) a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person, e.g "he told anecdotes about his job"
Similar: story, tale, narrative, sketch, urban myth, urban legend, reminiscence, yarn, shaggy-dog story

2) an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay, e.g. "his wife's death has long been the subject of rumour and anecdote"

3) the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting, e.g. "the use of inversions of hierarchy, anecdote, and paradox by Magritte, Dali, and others"

Humans basically established society by 'anecdotal observations' when those anecdotes were analysed to be representatives of tangible phenomenon.

That would be scientific evidence.

Science itself is based on anecdotal evidence which is complemented by mathematical and statistical models. In your opinion, Quantum Mechanics is pseudoscience then.

It's easy to make mathematical and statistical models of a Flat Earth.

Physics uses mathematics and statistics extensively, because that makes it reliable, by only allowing data that is 99.9999% accurate to the theory's predictions (6-sigma correlation). The biological sciences are nowhere near as accurate, because they are not so strict about their mathematical rigour and statistical rigour.

Don't forget that the generations that came after you were exposed to the ideas of postmodernism and the importance of individual narratives.

It's MY generation that embraced postmodernism and the importance of individual narratives, especially when postmodernism and individual narratives challenged the modern left-wing viewpoint, as you can't learn much from data that doesn't point out when you're wrong.

The ignorance of 'anecdotes' is what caused colonialism and other modes of systemic domination to perpetuate. Ideas about white supremacy and similar poppycock were based on the denial of 'anecdotes' of other collective and individual 'anecdotes'.

I don't know where you got the idea that ignoring anecdotes was the cause of colonialism, systemic domination and white supremacy. Do you have proof such a claim?

You might have lived in a world full of ignorance and lies and so do I but you forget that the internet when used properly is a source of debiasing because it exposes you to others' 'anecdotes'.

I agree that the internet can be a source of debiasing. Other people's anecdotes on the internet have made me severely question mainstream left-wing views that I read about often.

 

[BurnedOut]

It's MY generation that embraced postmodernism and the importance of individual narratives, especially when postmodernism and individual narratives challenged the modern left-wing viewpoint, as you can't learn much from data that doesn't point out when you're wrong.

Your generation also saw the illicit creation of Israel, a useless oil embargo in the '73, McCarthyism and the Red scare which was useless. Your era also saw the West basically attempting to destroy the newly found states in South Americas and other Asian countries who were trying to free from the clutches of cocksuckery of colonialism. Your era witnessed massacres by the ilk of Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the West's unsanctioned interference in emerging democracies, the birth of the crappy Bretton Woods system which basically strongarmed every country that is not neoliberal into adopting policies and economic changes that will forever sod them. Want an example? The Structural Adjustments Reforms 'suggested' by IMF to India in 1991 did not have any concrete financial results but instead cause more misery to the populace because of their motto 'Thou shall suck my cock till the end of history for I am the West, The Occident.' The public sector collapsed to a great extent and all the bullshit globalization was quietly swept under the rug after the financial recession of 2007. Your generation was responsible for it. Your generation has spawned the majority of right wing cunts that elect fuckers like Boris the bitch and Trump the slump. Your generation has witnessed and done so much bullshit to the world that nearly most of the world's ailments can be traced to the actions of your generation. Don't bullshit about knowing postmodernism. Your era was marked by financial stability because 10 years down the line after WW2, the West was actually doing pretty well and so was your country. Your generation witnessed and perpetuated the Red Scare. Your generation failed to hold murderers disguised as state leaders responsible despite having the wherewithal and the requisite international standing. Your state was the one who handed over HK to China because the 'lease expired'. Your generation and your state have dominated the middle-east because of your popular support for oil barons. Your generation caused the middle-east to spiral out of control.

I agree that the internet can be a source of debiasing. Other people's anecdotes on the internet have made me severely question mainstream left-wing views that I read about often.

Left Wing ideology is consistent with the thread of thought from the dawn of mankind - reduction of inequality. If you think the left is worse than the right, jerk off to Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and re-elect someone like Boris.

That's not what the word "anecdote" means:

Brownie points for pettifoggery.

It's easy to make mathematical and statistical models of a Flat Earth.

Please do so and also provide a comparative analysis of Flat Earth's model with Spherical Earth's model.

 

[Hadoblado]

Disagree that the internet is a net source of debiasing. I think the extent to which it increases bias outweighs the extent to which it reduces bias, and it's not close.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's MY generation that embraced postmodernism and the importance of individual narratives, especially when postmodernism and individual narratives challenged the modern left-wing viewpoint, as you can't learn much from data that doesn't point out when you're wrong.

Your generation also saw the illicit creation of Israel, a useless oil embargo in the '73, McCarthyism and the Red scare which was useless. Your era also saw the West basically attempting to destroy the newly found states in South Americas and other Asian countries who were trying to free from the clutches of cocksuckery of colonialism. Your era witnessed massacres by the ilk of Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the West's unsanctioned interference in emerging democracies, the birth of the crappy Bretton Woods system which basically strongarmed every country that is not neoliberal into adopting policies and economic changes that will forever sod them. Want an example? The Structural Adjustments Reforms 'suggested' by IMF to India in 1991 did not have any concrete financial results but instead cause more misery to the populace because of their motto 'Thou shall suck my cock till the end of history for I am the West, The Occident.' The public sector collapsed to a great extent and all the bullshit globalization was quietly swept under the rug after the financial recession of 2007. Your generation was responsible for it. Your generation has spawned the majority of right wing cunts that elect fuckers like Boris the bitch and Trump the slump. Your generation has witnessed and done so much bullshit to the world that nearly most of the world's ailments can be traced to the actions of your generation. Don't bullshit about knowing postmodernism. Your era was marked by financial stability because 10 years down the line after WW2, the West was actually doing pretty well and so was your country. Your generation witnessed and perpetuated the Red Scare. Your generation failed to hold murderers disguised as state leaders responsible despite having the wherewithal and the requisite international standing. Your state was the one who handed over HK to China because the 'lease expired'. Your generation and your state have dominated the middle-east because of your popular support for oil barons. Your generation caused the middle-east to spiral out of control.

Wow. That's a huge list of things you're blaming on a generation.

My generation is Gen X. They weren't even alive when the State of Israel came into being. So you can't be talking about my generation.

Even the oldest Boomers were only 2 when the State of Israel started in 1948, and the rest were 1, a baby, or not even born then. So you can't be talking about them either.

Moreover, what on Earth has any of this got to do with the topic? If you had a valid rational response, you'd have given one. Instead, you're resorting to demagoguery, in the form of guilt trips, and piling on a mountain of complaints, trying to overwhelm my amygdala, to shut down the reasoning centres of my brain.

If you had a rational argument to support your views, you would have said it, instead of resorting to demagoguery, and thus you believe that you don't have a leg to stand on.

Left Wing ideology is consistent with the thread of thought from the dawn of mankind - reduction of inequality.

It sounds like you think that the difference between the left and the right is the fight between good and evil.

One of the principle traits that almost every serial killer, paedophile, and mass murdering group have in common, is they all claimed to be on the side of good, and refused to accept that they might be evil.

If you think the left is worse than the right, jerk off to Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and re-elect someone like Boris.

It's ironic that you say this, because as much as most of the UK hates the Tories and Boris, the left-wing in the UK are even worse, and as a consequence, even left-wing voters don't want the left in power.

That's not what the word "anecdote" means:

Brownie points for pettifoggery.

You mean like blaming my generation for dozens of things, to distract from the topic at hand?

It's easy to make mathematical and statistical models of a Flat Earth.

Please do so and also provide a comparative analysis of Flat Earth's model with Spherical Earth's model.

In your previous definition of science, science = anecdotes + a mathematical/statistical model. So your additional demands are not required for your definition of science. SOWWY.

 

[scorpiomover]

Disagree that the internet is a net source of debiasing. I think the extent to which it increases bias outweighs the extent to which it reduces bias, and it's not close.

On reflection, having read your post, I agree.

@BurnedOut said "when used properly". So in theory, and if the world was an ideal place, he'd be right.

In practice, looking at the world the way it is at the moment, you're right.

 

[BurnedOut]

I am not gonna argue anymore.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Jordan Peterson dreams about his grandma... (audio clip) #shorts #short

This is a man taken seriously by many people apparently. This is a bit taken from his book "Maps of Meaning:The Architecture of Belief". Here's the full quot...

www.youtube.com