Ges

I also received exactly the same but without any points. It say it's a pre-warning warning. I think Phil realized something.

Jordan Peterson understands the necessity and importance of hierarchy in nature and human society. It's inevitable, no matter how much you might dislike it. An adult will never be equal to a child, just as a monkey will never be equal to a spider. There are higher beings, and it would be wise to acknowledge this. Wisdom itself is a higher form of experience. And this coin can never not have sides, it can't exist without those sides. The sides are literally all that makes the coin a coin.

With 2 sides. Welcome to non-duality. LMAO! 😂 It's a psychological thing, not possessed by any particular entity. And thought exists, just not as a material object. It's a different form of experience, like smell and taste. It exists.

Just so that we're on the same page: Transcendence. So when duality is transcended, it doesn't magically disappear or go away. It just gets recontextualized into the bigger picture of oneness, which is otherwise known as non-duality. It's an enhanced version of duality so to speak because it takes context into consideration. With this recognition comes context-awareness, which is a special trait that only tier 2 people possess.

@Phil I've already laid it out a couple of times. Feel free to ask if you feel there's unclarity in my communications.

I can't. See, the point you're making is that there's no duality without non-duality. And I'm not disagreeing with that at all. All I'm saying is that there's no non-duality without duality. You literally can't say non-duality without saying duality. That's the paradox. Non-duality both includes and transcends duality. It does not exclude it. The whole contains the parts, and the parts form the whole. Non-duality is just the first ever glimpse of the whole.

I agree in part, because I don't understand this entirely. I agree to what I understand. Can you elaborate? Particularly on out/insourcing judgment.

That's literally what I'm doing and you're avoiding. I keep engaging with you on every point, and you just keep responding very robotically, with denial and dogmas such as below. Seriously, at this point, Chat GPT is more human-like than you. It can if it wants. Do you want?

As I think about it, I think that the content of the paradigm also affects how hard it's going to be to break out of it. So yes, like you said complexity is one factor, which is more contextual. And now I'm adding the content itself. It matters what your beliefs allow and don't allow. When I was Muslim, Heaven and Hell were the thing that kept me sucked in the most. Once I stopped fearing hell/desiring heaven, leaving Islam became as easy as cake.

Of course. And yet, there is. In Zen, this is referred to as the gateless gate. It's the final step on the path. Once you pass through it, there's no going back, because now you understand the secret of creation.

But notice, when you say non-smoking, you're implicitly admitting and innocently implying that smoking exists, albeit somewhere else, namely outside the paradigm. So just because the paradigm claims that it lacks something, it doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. Though to be fair, non-duality doesn't actually claim that, it's just a common misunderstanding among most seekers/teachers. The answer is in the question, literally, not so to speak. Please take a look at the Yin-Yang symbol. The entire circle is non-duality, and the intertwined black and white inside of it are duality. You and Phil apparently have a belief of lack of duality. But it's just that, a belief.

It is both oneness and secondness at the same time. You said earlier that: { “Thoughts” would be secondness, let alone a you which thinks / a thinker, or a finite entity which could be “inside” “something”. }. Secondness and duality are synonyms. Please read that statement out loud, preferably in front of some kids. They'll help you get it. That's the paradox. The very word "non-duality" includes and does not include the word "duality", both at the same time. You're just way too focused on the exclusion, while we are pointing to the inclusion without denying the exclusion.

It's pretty easy to see that thought is a duality, but can you see that it's also non-duality at the same time?

You think non-duality is not a thought, that's the paradigm you're locked in.

Sophistry. More on the same topic.

Nobody likes destroying their castle of sand. Especially the more time and effort they've put in it. It's too much investment to throw away. It's way more comfortable the way it is now. And beautiful!

@Phil I'm sorry man, but everything you've written is just more evidence of paradigm-lock. @Joseph Maynor No harm done, man. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure I deserved it somehow, as I have a history of trouble and I can be difficult sometimes.

Thank you, Joseph. And ditto. Can I pull a neo-advaita on you here, though? Just for fun and to showcase that we both get it and understand the underlying truth behind it. I learn from you and other people. I also learn from everything that I interact with, whether animate or inanimate. In one sense, I have no originality whatsoever, because everything I have or demonstrate comes from the other, I don't invent nor create anything from thin air, it all comes to me on its own (even my own mind is not mine and I don't invent my own thoughts). Yet, in another sense, and at the same time, that's what originality actually is. It's the combination, acceptance, and integration of the other into the self. There's no original without the unoriginal. Leo has a blog article or video about this, I think it's called requisite variety, if you're interested or recall. At the same time, here's the caveat, unoriginality only serves to enhance originality. So paradoxically, the more we integrate of each other and the world, the more original we become. It's that poetic and magical. Literally. On the other hand, if we suppress or deny one or the other, it only diminishes our ability to express our own originality, which in turn reflects on others poorly as their originality will necessarily decrease because we're not as original as we can be. It can be horrible. Thank you for this, too. I like your definitions, they were right on time. I recently had a dispute with a "stupid, and kind of crazy" someone in real life, and I thought I might need to sever our relationship permanently. Reading this now, I'm reconsidering, and more on the side of patching things up, as both emotional and relationship mastery are ideals that I aspire to. I would say that I (have become after much work) am better at emotional mastery than at the relationship one, and by large. There's a lot of room for improvement for me in this area.

Because you're speaking from outside the paradigm. It flies over his head, it just doesn't make sense to him, like at all. Anyone at tier 2 can see this clearly without the shadow of a doubt, and anyone not paradigm-locked inside neo-advaita can at least glimpse it. Very good post. I would say it's the typical case of repressive/religious upbringing and the traumas/shadows that come with it, except this time it's not Blue, but Green. Much of this no-self stuff is just denial and self-hatred in disguise of love. I shouldn't love myself (the ego), so let's just pretend I (or it) don't exist to begin with. It's fueled by shame, that loving oneself is bad and sinful, it's just ridiculous. And by extension, others don't exist as well, and they don't deserve love either. Oh wait, we can make room for loving others, but only if they stop existing, those selfish idiots. By the way, Phil does not have emotional mastery. Rather, he is neurotic, and probably has a couple of OCDs. You can see the passive aggression everywhere in his communications, and you can see it in his latest outbursts, no masks are ever sustainable. Not to say he's not good, he's great, but could be a lot greater.

I just don't see any point in playing that game anymore. Like I said, Truth is the most absolutest of self-interest at all costs. I am absolutely sure of that and will simply practice what I preach.

@Phil Yes, yes. As always. Just lol.

Sooooooo, after all this time, I guess I've grown up a bit. I can see some of my previous blindspots and shortcomings, which no longer exist, which is great! Anywho, I've been living life away from internet communities for the past year or so, and I plan to continue living this way. I guess just this one-off day, and I'll go offline again. I love my life! Happy as fuck, and can't complain. Though, I'm not suggesting that this detox has anything to do with my current state per se, but just to state the facts.

@Phil Sorry for derailing the thread. I'll be out soon.

@Joseph Maynor Hey dude, missed you too. I typed the letter "c" in my browser's search bar, and it auto-suggested this site. I went on and read some random stuff and noticed that my name was mentioned once or twice, so I thought I might drop in and say hi. Not surprisingly, your insights are as sharp and delicate as ever, even when they fall on deaf ears. Just keep on doing your thing, man. You're brilliant!