I've been starved of Soul food since Ken stopped giving interviews. These interview sections are most welcome. I'm constantly reading his work, but it's great to see, and hear the man himself explaining things. Thanx dudes, much gratitude.
... initial, "true-awakening", illumination, or, enlightenment, is only a beginning, to the never ending story. It's usually triggered by a profound or traumatic event, followed by denial, or a very strong urge or desire to not want to face or accept the mystery, conundrum, or contradictory moment, because it goes counter the conditioning processes of our socialisation that demands EVERYTHING to be logically sensible, hence, that heavy emphasis of our early and latter training we are all subject to. For it is almost impossible to describe an esoteric experiance, except in esoteric terms; and to anyone who hasn't had it themself, it's goobeldegook. That will set you apart from others you are familliar With, and it can be a very lonely position to be in, etc ...
I like Ken. The first 5 minutes of this video accurately describes my own experience on April 24, 2019. My "waking up" was spontaneous, I wasn't doing any spiritual practices at all, but I had recently been tapered off some meds a couple months prior. I just got out of bed like any other day (it was a Wednesday) and then, snap! Instant conscious connection with the universe. That intense bliss lasted for two months, then I slowly drifted back down to reality. But what I didn't realize is I had never felt real joy before that day. Real joy comes from knowing you're not only at home exactly where you are in time & space in this universe, it's also knowing your presence is necessary for this moment to exist at all.
Integral is more than the greatest framework of reality by a billion miles. Once it is understood, it becomes a new operating system for the human being
Kens looking good lately... very interesting interview never heard Ken speak so freely before... He usually goes more towards talking about the model... I feel like he should do Rogan now...
Hes face in this video is bit blown out and you would need step a bit down exposure to see hes face like in real life cuz your eyes do it automatically
I really don't care if JP didn't sound 'integral' enough. He's done so much good in terms of putting out a fundamental truth that he deserves our praise. The problem might well be that some people are overcomplicating things. I think the most evolved people on Earth keep it simple. I have no idea what 'Orange' or 'Green' values are and it really doesn't matter, I don't think.
We live in an intricate complex society, comprised of people that view life radically different from each other... even when living in the SAME HOUSE. Diving deeper into "Spiral Dynamics" helps to simplify and identify what's at the core of situations... ,personal stuff as well as world events... If you are curious at all... follow that curiosity, the rewards are great every step of the way. People who are heavily situated in Red, Orange, and Green, are too wedded to their particular viewpoint to even attempt to understand. They truly believe that their own point of view is the only valid one. If you find value in connecting the dots, to understand mankind's patterns as they unfold, check it out. You really need to be transitioning to "Yellow" stage (next stage above Green) to even show genuine interest. Wilber didn't originate Spiral Dynamics, but he revised and developed it (in a good way). The original version uses (some) different colors to represent human stages of development, but doesn't contradict Wilber's version in essence. Good luck.
I treat life as a great play/tragedy/pantomime put on purely for my own enjoyment and amusement. I find it is a very liberating way of looking at things.
Nice. It puts you in the center of the universe, where everything revolves for you and around you, which is anyway how we already perceive existence, only that we don’t embrace it, but we sort of try to live double standardly - on one hand the “I” which observes and experiences the world around it, on the other hand it is just a cog or particle trying to fit in according to the laws of society and world - this creates perpetual tension and conflict between two opposing, contradicting views and perceptions. So by sticking to the former, which is being experienced more directly, authentically, and even practically, it smoothes out life for you, makes it more bearable.
Meditation is to establish calm -- in pursuit of the still -- ( the in between ) . A reference point of alinement . This can give way to intuitive frequencies .
An interesting detail about Jordan's awakening is (initially) realising he was split in "two" is that the "other self" that eventually fell away and died was the one being criticised. He then realised that HE was the critic, or the inner-critic rather. This is quite different as many spiritual traditions insist that the 'inner critic' is the wrong one that needs to be killed off/silenced. Any thoughts anyone?
Ancient Future I don't know if Jordan really said that but if it's wright I see a contradiction too. The one inside who criticizes must be the Ego and of what I understood the Ego is the fake self and it's the one who is going to disappear after death.
I'm not absolutely sure about Jordan Petersen but I think he's so highly intellectual that he hasn't branched into his spiritual area sufficiently in order to make sense of the deeper realm to himself ..... not yet at least! I've been meditating for over 40 years and only in the past 7 years learned about my inner critic and intuitive self so I haven't been a fast learner! When I've meditated sufficiently, my intuitive self has emerged more easily and the rising wisdom has been wonderful ......but without sufficient meditation, it seems that the inner critic emerges and 'bites' in. Ive mainly just observed my inner critic and found that it comes from somewhere in my past and from a person I wanted to believe in so, on realising that, now when I hear 'it' I'm more inclined to ignore. The critic is a bullshit. or dusfunctional, opinion really but it's a teacher about yourself too, so I think Jorden Petersen really needed to go deeper instead of dividing himself in 'two'. On observing 'it' within myself I discovered that the 'inner critc' is really my inner voice saying that my mind has absorbed a bullshit belief so when my mind 'says' 'that's rubbish' it ceases to have power over me and fades off. That's what I've found. The meditation is important though, keep coming back to your focus, as that's when your wisdom filters through on the higher frequency. I've found the learning process to be a bit two steps forwards, and one step back, to be honest!!
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. ~ Laozi
I had this experience he is referring to, Satori. Didn't know that is what it was called but it did change my life. I made a series called "Journey through meditation" that explains what I experienced and how I perceived those experiences as they happened. If you do stop by and watch it please be patient and watch through as I do make quite a few mistakes that I correct later in the series. Peace and love.
@@lantawon12 So what would I need, to be able to speak to others about my personal path to enlightenment? I cant tell my story without talking about me to some degree lol. Im not sure if talking about me is an "enlightened characteristic." But if it leads others down the road of enlightenment then I guess it is. Anyways sorry you are not interested brother, peace and love.
ive been following Alan Watts,Sam Harris and Jordon Peterson.. and I never heard he said anything closer to this... in his debate with Sam Harris , Sam tried to bring up this subject, but Dr Peterson couldnt comprehend what Sam was trying to say.. but I am sure Sam ,with with his meditation and psychedelic experiences has experience this non-dual,non-selfness..
Could be that his spirit is well integrated with his physical self so he's does it instinctively, living it, instantiating or embodying the spirit without the need to practice it?
@@AshikaUmanga Part of the human condition, being spiritual in a human body, Light living in a dense physical environment.... goes with the territory..... it's through the cracks where the Light gets in. The darkness is where you find your true answers to the life experience, imho.
Yeah, I also would like to see both in a conversation rather than Ken just commenting on him, though that's interesting too. Ken likes to analyse and abstraction though, so you have to leave him that pleasure I guess - it's easier to do when not face to face.
I felt similarly and would add Pope Francis and Jimmy Carter and, in past times, George Washington Carver, Helen Keller & Eleanor Roosevelt. Not that they were allowed to lead, but influence.
WHEN THE FUCK IS KEN GOING TO BE ON JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE!? The integral model has never been needed more. EVERYONE please try to get the word through however you can to get Ken's work into the mainstream as much as Peterson. That would be enough to create the 2nd tier TIPPING POINT of the next step in social development
Why further feed Rogan's ego? He has relavent guest 2-3 times a year. Its an entertainment show for the masses. Those who seek find the teacher. That is not Rogan's modus operandi.
What if economic and social factors are the best way to explain the prevalence of individuals accessing higher stages of development? Awareness contracts around a threat.
He keeps saying growing up and waking up are "just not deniable." That's his problem right there. From the beginning of his explorations, he believed these states and the interpretation of these states. He can't deny their validity because he is too busy reinforcing his belief in them. Furthermore, the idea that everybody has some truth is a green assumption, not second tier. The second tier assumption should be that truth is multifaceted and there are many truths depending on the context, but there are also falsehoods and delusions down in first tier, and they must be ferreted out.
That is so well said and structured. I was having similar thoughts but not as well ordered as they’re written here. Even using the word “truths” seems illogical, as truth should be an axiom, a given, as singular and universal, not a matter of private preference. Maybe he means “glimpses of truth.” I would say on both a practical and humane level, making someone at an orange level feel absurd and stupid, without recognizing the genuine need or fear they are expressing, or the unique intelligence any individual can contribute to the whole, is not a great way to actualize satori or unity or cooperation in saving this biosphere or democracy, etc. Socrates spoke to each person kindly within the level he perceived that they operated, and “educed” from each the innate wisdom he felt could be born from all.
I just heard the other part of this interview called “who are the 2nd tier thinkers” and he explains what you are citing, as the problem with green level thinking in fact. The multiplicity of “truths” they see, without integrating them, when there’s just one huge cosmic reality. So he is speaking of “truths” in this Peterson discussion as coming thru the eyes of a 1st tier thought…i think.
@@lizafield9002 I think there needs to be a clearer break from first tier to second tier. Tier one has the unquestioned belief that human beings are lacking and flawed. Until the supposed tier two people question that belief, tier two will stay contaminated by tier one.
It's so sad to see how his own-build house of cards falling apart. Two decades ago this stuff sounded sophisticated to me, all the integral categories, levels, labels, colors etc...now it sounds more like a bunch of creepy neologisms from a pseodo intellectual impostor.
It does sound like that but I suspect he's trying to articulate concepts that he identified whilst in a different level of consciousness to that which he is in now.
The dominant, ideology in the west is neo liberal. The ideological issues Peterson is concerned about on college campuses would be more properly framed as the prevailing right - wing orthodoxy finding a new point of control to shut dissenters up. Peterson is guilty of double think. There is a peculiar idea that universities are left - wing institutions, when in fact they are hierarchies for the training of a certain social strata for their role within the workforce. Some of us ain't daft.
I see Peterson as acting from beyond green, I have a couple of videos trying to show how Peterson us an integral thinker and how he is more so looking back on green with constructive criticism, sometimes perhaps harsher then needed but he's acting as a father figure to green in some ways. I see this coming from an integrated mind set and one that has already avoided all of the pitfalls of Green and is now trying to help green navigate around those by identifying the traps of postmodern thinking.
Talking to red, offers rules to set their life up talking to blue who think they are post modern, offers personal freedom talking to orange, explains why an uncaring/psychopathic orange or red dont get as much out of life talking to green, explains how orange isnt just evil talking to yellow, so the whole world is interconnected right?
I have tried getting my head around the work of ken wilber numerous times over the years that I have directed my study in the world of theoretical spirituality. Nothing ever sat comfortably with me. Now every bit of common sense about me rebels against this kind of shit. Sorry, the word just popped out there. As for my understanding of Jordan Peterson... Pah! For the life of me, all this leaves me stunned.
Do you find value in using the Integral map of the world to develop more compassion and understanding in humanity? I do. If you dont, then I understand why this model would not sit comfortably with you. In my personal experience, it has deeply helped me be more authentically loving and compassionate of those who dont have my world view, or my values.
@@kiutpi If it works for you, my friend, I wish you all the best with it. I personally can't get my head round Ken Wilber's work and I am no fan of reactionaries like Jordan Peterson.
I'm not blind to Wilber's point. By labelling Green - a stage, instead of - an absolute, the way Peterson effectively does, he's witnessing from a higher level of consciousness. That's a given. However there's somebody that plays Wilber's game much better than he does... Dr David R Hawkins. He can come from the Dalai Lama's place of all loving/all forgivingness without surrendering his common sense by calling a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel, so to speak. What I mean is... He keeps it "street" or "real", and NOTHING about Ken Wilber comes across hands-on or REAL. Respectfully he seems to inhabit an unassailable abstract ivory tower.
we the good people need to wake up, and retaliate in the process of awakening your conscious of immortality is your divine power no remorse to those people in your way......reclaimed what's yours and it's yours forever to hold we the good people, created equal by the creator.....your life is your freedom ......teron
But he ONLY focuses on the pathologies of green. And through his talks, I know that he’s aware that there is a good and bad to all sides. I just don’t understand why he never supports the « other » in knowing that.
@Future Thinkers 22.00 onwards - "....so what we're looking to see right now, is some way for this kind of awareness to become more widespread, because the data for it, the evidence for it is overwhelming." "....there's a staggering number of extremely competent researchers that have evidence to prove it..." Could you cite some of the above research/evidence? Cheers
Before I even watch this, my opinion of Jordan Peterson has been that he's a pontificating egomaniac, enamoured with his own intellect. I used to watch a show on Canadian TV called The Agenda, a public affairs program. Occasionally they'd have Peterson participate in a panel discussion on one topic or another. What struck me about him was the way in which he'd dismiss any opinion that wasn't in lockstep with his, especially if it was a woman's opinion. He'd dismiss it with a perfunctory wave of his hand as if to indicate it wasn't even worth consideration. I also saw him telling a class of impressionable students that people with autism hate neurotypical people. I'll watch this video and see if it changes my mind about him in the slightest.
I agree. J Peterson is a misogynistic, climate change denier who believes white privilege is a myth. How can anyone but the truly ignorant listen to this blowhard?
3:36 i don’t like or use the word ‘experience’ as this implies a separate self ‘experiencing. For being Awake there is no longer a separate self experiencing!
I get the impression Dr. Dree here loves talking around & about things without ever having a real discernible observation that can help people. Peterson is the first intellectual who pushed back against the destructiveness of postmodernism and the deliberate confusion being spread by identity politics. That's no small thing. The pushback started with him.
Peterson isn't the first intellectual to push back against post-modernism, he just happens to be the first intellectual you've heard. There can't be any way you actually believe that, right? Plus I don't think he even knows what post-modernism is. I'm sure his Jungian woo is useful for people who have never had a thought before and need some help to get the motor running, but he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when it comes to politics. I won't go into it very deeply but just as a broad example of how shallow his position is, let's explore what 'post-modernism' is. A shaky categorisation to begin with as it can refer to multiple different movements as it is direct 'modernism' also refers to a number of developments whether you're talking about philosophy, art, psychology, literary theory, architecture etc. Despite this let's go with the definition that Peterson insists on putting forward, that post-modernism is the belief that grand meta-narratives that make sense of the world are impossible, and that people have to decide on a belief system/s that works for them. By lumping in Marxists, such as Deleuze, in with post-modernists, Peterson proves he has little to no idea what either term means. Marxism is the belief that history follows a strict dialectical process and that all economic value is ultimately based on labor. Clearly stated beliefs about how the world works that follow a consistent meta-narrative. You can be a structuralist like Jameson and describe the post-modern condition we live in where it is hard to determine what path to take, but if you look at the facts and study history you will ultimately find that the materialist dialectic and the labor theory of value are correct. It is categorically impossible to be a post-modernist and a Marxist at the same time. In fact, I challenge you to find any strict Marxist that doesn't have some choice words on what they think of 'post-modernists' like Foucault and Derrida. Peterson, on the other hand, does not justify his belief in God, Christ and the Resurrection in any kind of empirical, rational or analytical way. He says he chooses to believe for pragmatic reasons. That he can only justify his belief through personal choice rather than through any claim of objective fact would appear to me that he recognises the post-modern moment we live in and that he has decided to buy into it, choosing to believe what he wants to. I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with his choice, I also study the New Testament and pray occasionally as i gives me some peace and I feel I gain something out of it. But it is super irresponsible of him to either blatantly lie, or preach confidently about something he knows nothing about, to a large swath of misguided, impressionable young men. It is clear that his own belief is much closer to being in line with his own representation of post-modernism than any Marxist's. I'm not saying Peterson has no value as a public figure, he clearly has helped kick-start a lot of young men's desire to find a sense of purpose and meaning. I just think you shouldn't be buying into the first opinion you hear whole-heartedly just because it justifies your own prejudices. The world is a complicated place, we're over exposed to information. We don't know what to believe. Everyone feels like that. Getting mad at things you don't understand doesn't solve anything.
did I miss something? Maybe it was in another video? the subtitle is "Full commentary on Jordan Peterson's interpretation of awakening process." I didn't hear that detailed anywhere. Moreover, as far as I know, Peterson has not interpreted anything akin to awakening. I've heard him talk about celestial visions and infinite indescribable consciousness, but he has never detailed awakening with a 1st hand encounter of non-local awareness and the total insubstantiality of self. Please share links to other videos of yours. merci:)
I'm from the intellectual dark web, I found it after I had woken up and Jordan helped my week blue. Now this time upon a stable foundation, I'm working on my green. Obviously, I was anti woke but I saw wokeism as woke mimicry and heavily shadowed wokeism.
he's talking about experiences. is there "overwhelming evidence" that people have experiences? Of course lol. Is there "overwhelming evidence" that any of these experiences are universally valid and anything other than a personal experience? Of course not. The need to try and prove things, particularly in the spiritual realm, is neurotic behavior of the ego. Just let go.
Agree. To me we are kind of in a system and culture that praises ego, worships ego, and tells us to have any worth or value to the system (it's members) we need to engage with ego, produce stuff and prove stuff even when we make no claim, just simply do things differently. That is understandable if you are writing books, doing podcasts or otherwise making these claims, as that is engaging with the neurotic behavior in the first place. It is not understandable that our culture for the most part is not accepting of even a position of simply not engaging, not actively preaching which we would ought not to do if choosing not to entertain the neurotic ego behavior. My one wish for our widespread Western (all I know, maybe more wide spread) is that there is room for and acceptance of a position of not engaging with ego.
Jared Dunlop I think that’s the problem with people like Ken they are very subjective and view “waking up” as a n experience to be had that changes the person, an event, He is a somebody. Same with Peterson. They both intelligent articulate driven men, they have very strong opinions and articulate them very well but they are not humble or compassionate in the way that people lwho have really got to a stage of seeing how it our own self referential view of life that Keeps is engaging with the world as separate needy individuals. Those that know do not speak those that speak do not know.
If it really was 'undeniable'...everything would change. The simple fact is...it is very very very deniable...which is exactly why so many people are able to do exactly that. Maybe some day it really will become 'undeniable'. Unfortunately, this is not that day.
"The meditative state... hunters." Interesting... I think you have a point here. What exactly do you mean by "those who had the luxury of looking for God"?
Luxury had nothing to do with it. It is within human beings to wonder, gazing into the unpolluted night sky and know there is a creator power. Witness ancient drawings, symbols for energy, other dimensions, etc. Ancient man didn't live in a vaccum. Cro Magnan may not have had as much a sense of wonder as Neanderthals, but each progression to Homo Sapiens Sapiens curiously looked deeper into the non-physical world. Whether that happened through evolution or genetic engineering (by unknown sources, beings of the higher realms?), that we don't know and Im not sure that matters. What matters is where we are now. We humans have the capability of overcoming aggression and further developing compassion. Some seek that and some have it thrust upon them (Eckhart Tolle for example).
Momma Llama “God” is only a word and a concept. This “thing” or all encompassing presence exists beyond words and concepts. It can only be known through direct experience
the intellectual dark web is integral people who just haven't read Integral theory. The moment Ken i asked to be a guest on Rogan's show will be a moment in history that could see the tipping point happen. Ken ism't just an Integral theorist, he is someome who will have no equal in this regard in any of our lifetimes
I've never really watched much of Joe Rogan, but it would be an interesting match for sure. Also a debate/conversation between Ken and Peterson would be amazing. I think it would really help get Integral Theory more known among the masses. I also think many implicitly already know much of Integral Theory, but it needs to be made conscious and explicit to have a more fruitful dialogue and impact on society.
With respect to Rebel Wisdom, but especially ‘Fully David’ , the token frontman, indeed the main partner, one cannot get away from the tainted quality that is the hallmark of its brand, namely this petty and insolent boy who failed and continues to fail, to ever obtain the perfectly tailored gift for him under the tree. For some unshakable reason, my subjective experience with his presenting gestalt, without fail, sees a seething level of entitlement that invokes a visceral reaction akin to making my skin literally crawl.
Jordan Petersen is awakened? For real? He makes some great points, but he's not connected to the universe as you may think. If we really want empowered change, we must look beyond currencies that put prices on our heads. Any worthwhile currency must be based on the work of the people, and on regarding this as a true exchange of energy, that currency must be free to use: no tax, fees, costs. Add to this a ‘bank’ that pays for education and infrastructure, and we have a currency that values creating experiences to empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible. BUXXB
Jordan Peterson's speaking is overtly defensive and enabling of patriarchy, hierarchy, identity and right/wrong thinking (as opposed to cause and effect thinking). Jordan speaks as if a right way of thinking and gratitude is superior to an in depth look at how you became the way you are being. This behavior is consistent with a mind that has fragmented into an identity and shadow in reaction to dominative and unsupportive social conditions coming from a patriarch (father and fear-based mother) . It appears that Ken has a blind spot predicated on his relationship with his parents and thereby speaks as if the cause of Jordan's behavior does not exist.
Jordan recurringly and adamantly communicates that there are archetypes/rules/emotional-boundaries that must be honored/immutable/hidden. This behavior is consistent with an infant/child developing survival strategies around a predicament of not being able to reconcile, that the person they depend on for care (father) is also a threat. As a strategy to try to reduce their stress the child accumulates decisions to be an enabler of the parental figures poor mental health, immaturity and abuse of an imbalance of power. Jordan uses Biblical stories to distract his mind and validate his identity. The sacrifice of Christ for example is symbolic to Jordan of his being a sacrifice of himself to being a scapegoat for his fathers emotional limitations.
WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT! Somebody who has a real trascendental conscious spiritual experience, shift 360 degrees and after that that person will never be talking like Peterson does again because that's a very limited understanding and comprehension of the self EXISTENCE , I KNOW BY OWN EXPERIENCE
If jordan peterson is awake he sure holds a lot of resentment and attachments for an enlightened being. This is not someone who embodies or exemplifies a being radiating love and understanding. More like a fraud.
Thats because Jordan is a realist.He knows evil exists in the world and we all have a shadow/dark side.A fraud is someone who only thinks love and beauty exist.I'm not being rude just adding to your comment.
0canadiens81 Since when does Peterson profess to being an instrument of enlightenment and love? He does talk about the shadow, struggle, suffering. His own struggle. Never heard him suggest he’s faultless or enlightened.
To be fair, i sometimes wonder myself whether JBP is a bit unbalanced to the extent that his political zeal is bent against the "left". However, that may perhaps be rationalized in his view because of what seems to be a political zeal in the other direction dominating a academia, such that he sees himself playing a role that moves academia toward balance in that respect. Secondly, warning against wickedness and/or foolishness isn't necessarily indicative of resentment. In the Dhammapada, the Buddha often mentions "the fool" and his behavior, seemingly for edifying reasons. "The wise man shows you where you have fallen, and where you yet may fall. Invaluable secrets!...Let him chasten and teach you, and keep you from mischief. The world may hate him, but good men love him."
Believe it or not there are better thinkers around than the eminent Ken Wilber. James Hillman is one. David Bohm is another. Peterson's genius is the practical applicability of his ideas stemming from his role as a clinical psychologist. Ken Wilber is "a beautiful thinker", but it's largely abstract analytical ideas. There ain't too much pragmatic value within his insights.
Ill check out your 'better thinkers" thanks. but as far as I understand it, wilber isnt trying to fill in all the details in the first place.. but rather to look for new ways of organizing human knowledge.. the filing system may not itself offer much in the way of "There ain't too much pragmatic value within his insights" but as far as I can tell. it isnt really meant to fill that role in the first place. as it so happens I can tell a rather compelling story 'we humans do love our stories' that thinkers like wilber have had tangible and lasting benefits for me personally with regard to my daily quality of life. so i for one still enjoy learning about various 'largely abstract analytical ideas'
He definitely uses a lot of intellectual concepts and ideas to point to there inability to describe the true nature of reality. A map is not the place it depicts only a description of it. Hence the thinking aspect of human cognition will never comprehend ultimate reality only label it. All objects are relative truths that which is aware of this is the ultimate truth. 🙏
I think Wilber's ideas particularly have value for fellow individuals who are abstractly and intellectually inclined but also on a spiritual path or interested in that dimension. So it's a rather niche group and many might not understand how any value can be found within something like Integral Theory. I've found it helpful in the way that the world and all the various belief and value systems people hold - and how they play out on a larger scale - become more understandable. The chaos and diversity gains some structure and coherence and inner logic. It's a system concerned with organising more than anything else, as it seems. So it is helpful in giving a clearer picture of the world and the place of the human being within it. It is paradoxical in a way - laying out a whole rather abstract theory full of categorization and labels with the end goal to transcend all of these workings of the mind. As mentioned before, it's a map and the map is not the territory. It's a pointer to the in itself unspeakable truth. And I think that's beautiful. So if you have this intellectual inclination you can't really help it. You might as well somehow make use of it. As Ramana Maharshi said, you can use a thorn (knowledge) to remove another thorn (ignorance) - but eventually you have to discard even that one. It's easy to get caught up in intellectualisation but it can also be helpful up to a certain degree. I'm wondering too though if it's just comforting to the Ego that likes certainty, but you have to work with what you've got.
Ken Wilber's orienting generalisations will always miss out on the nuances of situations. A good example is his mention of the "post-modern extreme left orientation" denying some Orange values like free speech. He fails to see the difference between free speech as a legal concept and practice (this can be regarded as LR in Wilber's AQAL framework) and free speech in a culture (this can be regarded as the LL). They are different. When a leftist group acts to de-platform a particular speaker they are acting from the LL. The individual has the protection of free speech from the legal perspective, but they aren't protected from the socio-cultural consequences of that free speech. This is especially true if the individual is promoting harm or exclusion of other groups, particularly minority groups. Of course, leftist groups can sometimes get too reactive, much like the immune system in our bodies get hyper reactive to any perceived pathogen when something may not actually be a pathogen. This doesn't invalidate the importance of de-platforming it just means groups who do it may need to become more less sensitive and more discerning with how they apply the principle.
Most people on the extreme left would be more than happy to deny free speech on both a cultural and a legal level. However, in the United States, at least, they simply have difficult hurdles to overcome on the legal level, so they attempt to become doubly oppressive on the cultural level.
@@janso7979 ah see, I believe you aren't making the distinction between free speech and hate speech. People on the far left only care about deplatforming hate speech. They are not against free speech.
@@johncodeinaire137 Inherent in the idea of free speech is the risk that many people will find certain uses it is put to "hateful". Every tyrant is willing to allow "free" speech as long as it stays within the bounds of what the tyrant considers "good" or "not hateful". Mao or Stalin would have been for "free speech" in the sense that you support it. You can try to make the argument that free speech is a bad thing and should be restricted in a just society, just don't try to claim that you are for free speech when you aren't. The left is very much against free speech and will push well beyond simple deplatforming if they ever gain enough power to enforce their will.
@@janso7979 I believe YOU are making the argument that free speech is a bad thing and should be restricted and then you are projecting that onto me. I'm not making any such argument. Nowhere have a made a case for free speech being good or bad in principle so please stop making up stuff on my behalf and then claim that I said it. Thanks! Once again I'll bring up my original point. There's a difference between legal protection of free speech and the social consequences of free speech. Free speech is protected by law in the USA but that doesn't mean different groups in society will accept all forms of that protected speech. They can and do act against it such as the free speech that is hate speech.Those that break the law when acting against those who practice hate speech can face lawful sanctions of various sorts. How do you think I support free speech? And how do you think Mao or Stalin would support it? "The Left" doesn't exist in any useful meaningful way. You can simplify if you want, to make it easier for you to understand what is going on. I do that myself at times. It's useful. But it's not the entire picture. This "The Left" that you bring up is made of a diverse bunch of groups with varying politics with many differences in scope, aims, practices, beliefs, etc If you are talking about the political mainstream The Left in terms of the Democrats being Leftish relative to the GOP then even that is fraught with misunderstanding b/c there are right/centrist/left even there.
@@johncodeinaire137What did I say which indicates that I'm in favor of restricting anybody's speech? Perhaps I shouldn't make any assumptions about your own particular beliefs, so I'll try to keep the discussion more general. The legal protection of free speech that you refer to is an orange value. Orange doesn't make a distinction between "free speech" and "hate speech". To orange, protecting "hate speech" is precisely the idea behind "free speech". I remember that back as recently as the 90s the ACLU used to go to court on behalf of the KKK. "I will defend to the death your right to say it." The different groups you mention who will not accept many forms of protected speech are not generally in support of that orange value. The majority of those people would love it if free speech weren't protected by law, but, at least at this time, they don't have the political authority to make any substantive changes to the law, and thus focus on using social pressure, deplatforming, "cancelling", getting people fired, etc. as a means to try to stifle people's free speech by extra-legal means. Some of them will also resort to physical violence, as in the case of Antifa, although this is limited by the fact that they can indeed by held legally liable. Yet trying to get someone fired for some tweet they made years ago is doing a form of violence to them, a form of violence which is beyond the scope of law enforcement. Many people would love to be able to imprison, or worse, "racists" or "homophobes" or "hatemongers", but at the moment they must satisfy themselves with lesser measures. We initially used the term extreme left instead of just left, and that's perhaps better. In any case, Happy New Year and I wish you well.
He's not a charlatan, I will grant him that. He believes what he's saying, but that doesn't make it better. He sounds like a rambling hobby philosopher.
ive heard him talk about psychedelics (peterson) but i havent heard him use the term "waking up", and he still gets in silly arguments with young women...he is also very defensive of the capitalist system....I just find Peterson a bit baffling, not sure what the fuss is about. Most of the things ive heard peterson talk about have been said better by others.
What is the point of color coding and inventing classifications for this type of subject matter? Why? What could possibly make this guy think this was a good idea? He just added another layer of complexity to a subject matter that is already relatively complex. I can see why this did not catch on with any real staying power.
Helps to organise thinking for one, but more importantly it makes you aware of other quadrants of thought and experience you have have had less experience with. So I'd suggest it promotes openness and integration, and that seems self evident.
@@73split I have heard of that before (no need to be patronising), but every book you've probably read had a beginning, middle and end, complete with chapter and possibly verse. The point is, that all knowledge worth knowing and passing on, has structure and hierarchy. Ken Wilber knows what he is doing, he's ensuring certain knowledge is encapsulated to be more readily transmitted to others and future generations.
@@zapper82 no he is not. Again, he is adding complexity where none is needed. It’s totally unnecessary and does nothing but make a convoluted mess out of a relatively simple subject matter. Frankly that’s just stupid and counterproductive:
Maybe...if you were more open minded, Ken...you might see that the poor uneducated latino lady who maybe cleans your house has mystical experiences of knowing God when she goes to her local pentecostal Church....hence this spirituality you talk about may be a lot more widespread than you imagine.
I don't agree with him that wherever meditation was invented, it was invented to know God. There are non-theistic forms of meditation that do have a soteriological agenda. In the classical Patanjalic Yoga, meditation is meant to let the self (called puruSha) rest in its own nature, free from its seeming entanglement with prakRti or matter-stuff (roughly). Although pAtanjala yoga acknowledges the existence of a special soul named the Lord (Ishvara), in the yoga sutras this soul is only intended as a sort of guide towards reaching the final goal of meditation, which is nirvikalpa samAdhi. It's the later vedanta teachers that linked this thought with realization of Brahman or Godhead. In fact, yoga's sister philosophy, sAmkhya, explicitly aims at nothing more than eradication of suffering. This doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a deity. Note that Yoga/Samkhya also don't subscribe to the notion of relative and absolute truths. They are very much realists. Everything you see here is real - it's just a transformation of a primordial "nature-stuff" called prakriti. The effects are no less real than the cause. Vedantins later combined this idea with that of the two levels of truths quite likely taken from Mahayana Buddhism. In Buddhism too, meditation is intended to quieten the mind, from where you can experience for yourself the true nature of phenomena through insight. Here too there is no mention of God. Buddha famously rejected the notion that there could be a permanent substance such as souls or God at all. His discovery was that there was no such thing that served as the basis for all phenomena. Everything instead is dependently originated, with the phenomena itself "reified" into being through a mere ascription.
Omg, I cant believe that, for all his study and practise, Wilbur actually peddles two such falsities, namely that: - The purpose of Zen is to have Satori, and that the purpose of yoga is to find god. Jessus fucking hell. He's completely missed the point of both Zen and yoga. Satori is merely a means, a gateway to beyond it, as is yoga. And yoga WAS NEVER about finding god. It ys an atheustic ohilisophy. Ever Bhakti Yoga and the worship of guru as god, are means beyond themselves to the transcendent Oneness which then becomes a further means back into service towards mankind, hence the Boddhisatva tradition. Both Zen and Yoga plus Tantra, and Samkhyr amd Adwaita were/are simply about the PROCESS of evolution of consciousness in and of itself. NO GOALS WERE SPECIFIED. They were PROCESSES. And yes, along the way, Satoris and Samadhis (ie, realisations, note the plurality) would be encountered and then intended to be transcended *beyond themselves*. Once you realised you were just a part of the Oneness ... what then? Baba Muktananda used to say that Shaktipat initiation was just the beginning. The real work came after that ... to integrate that into the whole of yourself. My own guru used to say "Fine, you MAY HAVE such experiences by whatever means, but pay them no importance. Just get on with things with that knowledge in daily practise and work". Omg, what a dunce. So caught up in his professorial ego to invent some grand new Theory of Everything to leave as a legacy of his own greatness. Wilbur USED TO BE a great interpreter of the great traditions until he decided he could invent (read synthesise) something greater out of his own mind. Talk about self-deluded.
@@nueythepyasuwan So well said. Just one microsecond on "the other side," if you will, is enough to replace or transcend what the 3D body-mind takes for reality. I contrast them as reality vs Reality - both co-existent, but the mind doesn't/can't access Reality so if we're mind-centric, we're the ones locking ourselves out. At any rate, it makes life a lot more enjoyable, that microsecond. We see almost nothing of the eternity/infinity that is. ~♥~
Sita Rainbow I mentioned nothing of the “microsecond.” It seems you experienced too. It’s that split second when reality opens up and “the scales fell from my eyes” moment. I experienced it as ego shell cracking a bit to let the light in. Kinda like a baby chick hatching from its shell. This experience has been written about throughout time and in so many ways. I’m sure most everyone has read about it. But until you (that is, any typical person) experience it for yourself, you cannot relate and it all seems so mystical and make believe. Reality is bigger than our ego concept of it.
@@nueythepyasuwan Yes, you have clearly experienced it, too. Whether we say "split-second" or microsecond, it's pointing to the same thing - which we each experience in a unique way, lol. ~♥~
Can’t stand this man, his voice, his body language and his easy listening preaching way. Perhaps he could give himself some authenticity by assuming his identity.
On Rogan he had a strict diet of water, salt, meat and pills. The latter he conveniently left out. His daughter was still drinking alcohol. They're charlatans.
Must give Jordan credit for beeing so brave as he is . I like him a lot ❤ And I do love Ken Wilber
I've been starved of Soul food since Ken stopped giving interviews. These interview sections are most welcome. I'm constantly reading his work, but it's great to see, and hear the man himself explaining things. Thanx dudes, much gratitude.
These videos are like gems that I’ve located at a garage sale or thrift store. I thank you guys for sharing.
... initial, "true-awakening", illumination, or, enlightenment, is only a beginning, to the never ending story. It's usually triggered by a profound or traumatic event, followed by denial, or a very strong urge or desire to not want to face or accept the mystery, conundrum, or contradictory moment, because it goes counter the conditioning processes of our socialisation that demands EVERYTHING to be logically sensible, hence, that heavy emphasis of our early and latter training we are all subject to. For it is almost impossible to describe an esoteric experiance, except in esoteric terms; and to anyone who hasn't had it themself, it's goobeldegook. That will set you apart from others you are familliar With, and it can be a very lonely position to be in, etc ...
If Jordan Peterson sat down with Ken Wilber we would be getting somewhere
Agree! Especially if Peterson was a no show.
I like Ken. The first 5 minutes of this video accurately describes my own experience on April 24, 2019. My "waking up" was spontaneous, I wasn't doing any spiritual practices at all, but I had recently been tapered off some meds a couple months prior. I just got out of bed like any other day (it was a Wednesday) and then, snap! Instant conscious connection with the universe. That intense bliss lasted for two months, then I slowly drifted back down to reality. But what I didn't realize is I had never felt real joy before that day. Real joy comes from knowing you're not only at home exactly where you are in time & space in this universe, it's also knowing your presence is necessary for this moment to exist at all.
Always nice to read stories like that in the comment section, and in general. Makes me smile each time :)
thank you for sharing 🙏
Integral is more than the greatest framework of reality by a billion miles. Once it is understood, it becomes a new operating system for the human being
good to see ken wilber active again
Thanks for inviting Ken Wilber! Long-time no see, glad he is back.
Kens looking good lately... very interesting interview never heard Ken speak so freely before... He usually goes more towards talking about the model... I feel like he should do Rogan now...
That would be interesting, but I feel like ken is too unknown by the mainstream to go on rogan
time for rogan yes
Hes face in this video is bit blown out and you would need step a bit down exposure to see hes face like in real life cuz your eyes do it automatically
I really don't care if JP didn't sound 'integral' enough. He's done so much good in terms of putting out a fundamental truth that he deserves our praise. The problem might well be that some people are overcomplicating things. I think the most evolved people on Earth keep it simple. I have no idea what 'Orange' or 'Green' values are and it really doesn't matter, I don't think.
I agree with Clive, keep it simple, this man is over complicating the issues.
" I have no idea what 'Orange' or 'Green' values are and it really doesn't matter, I don't think." Fascinating.
We live in an intricate complex society, comprised of people that view life radically different from each other... even when living in the SAME HOUSE. Diving deeper into "Spiral Dynamics" helps to simplify and identify what's at the core of situations... ,personal stuff as well as world events... If you are curious at all... follow that curiosity, the rewards are great every step of the way.
People who are heavily situated in Red, Orange, and Green, are too wedded to their particular viewpoint to even attempt to understand. They truly believe that their own point of view is the only valid one. If you find value in connecting the dots, to understand mankind's patterns as they unfold, check it out. You really need to be transitioning to "Yellow" stage (next stage above Green) to even show genuine interest.
Wilber didn't originate Spiral Dynamics, but he revised and developed it (in a good way). The original version uses (some) different colors to represent human stages of development, but doesn't contradict Wilber's version in essence. Good luck.
Clive Richardson: So you have no idea what he's talking about but we're suppose to take what you say seriously? I see.
I treat life as a great play/tragedy/pantomime put on purely for my own enjoyment and amusement. I find it is a very liberating way of looking at things.
Nice. It puts you in the center of the universe, where everything revolves for you and around you, which is anyway how we already perceive existence, only that we don’t embrace it, but we sort of try to live double standardly - on one hand the “I” which observes and experiences the world around it, on the other hand it is just a cog or particle trying to fit in according to the laws of society and world - this creates perpetual tension and conflict between two opposing, contradicting views and perceptions. So by sticking to the former, which is being experienced more directly, authentically, and even practically, it smoothes out life for you, makes it more bearable.
Meditation is to establish calm -- in pursuit of the still -- ( the in between ) . A reference point of alinement . This can give way to intuitive frequencies .
An interesting detail about Jordan's awakening is (initially) realising he was split in "two" is that the "other self" that eventually fell away and died was the one being criticised. He then realised that HE was the critic, or the inner-critic rather. This is quite different as many spiritual traditions insist that the 'inner critic' is the wrong one that needs to be killed off/silenced. Any thoughts anyone?
Ancient Future I don't know if Jordan really said that but if it's wright I see a contradiction too. The one inside who criticizes must be the Ego and of what I understood the Ego is the fake self and it's the one who is going to disappear after death.
@@jean-marclamothe8859 check it out. It's on youtube.
I'm not absolutely sure about Jordan Petersen but I think he's so highly intellectual that he hasn't branched into his spiritual area sufficiently in order to make sense of the deeper realm to himself ..... not yet at least!
I've been meditating for over 40 years and only in the past 7 years learned about my inner critic and intuitive self so I haven't been a fast learner! When I've meditated sufficiently, my intuitive self has emerged more easily and the rising wisdom has been wonderful ......but without sufficient meditation, it seems that the inner critic emerges and 'bites' in. Ive mainly just observed my inner critic and found that it comes from somewhere in my past and from a person I wanted to believe in so, on realising that, now when I hear 'it' I'm more inclined to ignore. The critic is a bullshit. or dusfunctional, opinion really but it's a teacher about yourself too, so I think Jorden Petersen really needed to go deeper instead of dividing himself in 'two'. On observing 'it' within myself I discovered that the 'inner critc' is really my inner voice saying that my mind has absorbed a bullshit belief so when my mind 'says' 'that's rubbish' it ceases to have power over me and fades off. That's what I've found. The meditation is important though, keep coming back to your focus, as that's when your wisdom filters through on the higher frequency. I've found the learning process to be a bit two steps forwards, and one step back, to be honest!!
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. ~ Laozi
wilber recognizes that. he doesn't make any claims otherwise. integral is a map of relative reality
Naming gives rise to the ten thousand beings.
Being and non-being come from the same source,
They are all mysterious and profound.
I had this experience he is referring to, Satori. Didn't know that is what it was called but it did change my life. I made a series called "Journey through meditation" that explains what I experienced and how I perceived those experiences as they happened. If you do stop by and watch it please be patient and watch through as I do make quite a few mistakes that I correct later in the series. Peace and love.
"Let's talk about me" is not a characteristic of enlightenment.
@@lantawon12
love me
touch me
feel me do
I love me
because I am you
@@FatherOFavs Word soup tastes delicious to the word chef.
@@lantawon12 Ah! So you see that our world is a linguistic construct too? ( They don't call it 'Spelling' for nothing )
Let's cook :)
@@lantawon12 So what would I need, to be able to speak to others about my personal path to enlightenment? I cant tell my story without talking about me to some degree lol. Im not sure if talking about me is an "enlightened characteristic." But if it leads others down the road of enlightenment then I guess it is. Anyways sorry you are not interested brother, peace and love.
Great video thank you for posting
Bliss is cellular yes an extraordinary deep sense this is true. 🌈😊🙏🇳🇿💖
Great thank you for this!
ive been following Alan Watts,Sam Harris and Jordon Peterson.. and I never heard he said anything closer to this... in his debate with Sam Harris , Sam tried to bring up this subject, but Dr Peterson couldnt comprehend what Sam was trying to say.. but I am sure Sam ,with with his meditation and psychedelic experiences has experience this non-dual,non-selfness..
You are an Integral thinker friend
Could be that his spirit is well integrated with his physical self so he's does it instinctively, living it, instantiating or embodying the spirit without the need to practice it?
@@lesleyelalami2562 then why did he have a episode of severe depression?
@@AshikaUmanga Part of the human condition, being spiritual in a human body, Light living in a dense physical environment.... goes with the territory..... it's through the cracks where the Light gets in. The darkness is where you find your true answers to the life experience, imho.
@@AshikaUmanga Because he's human, not God. Spiritual energy in a dense physical body. Ask him? LOL He'll have an amazing response.
Oh Ken ...
long time no see . 🙏
No shit my colleague died of brain cancer like over a decade ago
have to admit anyone who listens to J Peterson looks like Anthony Bourdain right now
Loved this!
Does Wilber ever engage in conversation with the people he comments on or just stick around the periphery so he never can be challenged?
Yeah, I also would like to see both in a conversation rather than Ken just commenting on him, though that's interesting too. Ken likes to analyse and abstraction though, so you have to leave him that pleasure I guess - it's easier to do when not face to face.
When he asked about how many world leaders know about these truths I was tempted to propose the Dalai Lama and probably the king of Bhutan too.
I felt similarly and would add Pope Francis and Jimmy Carter and, in past times, George Washington Carver, Helen Keller & Eleanor Roosevelt. Not that they were allowed to lead, but influence.
WHEN THE FUCK IS KEN GOING TO BE ON JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE!? The integral model has never been needed more. EVERYONE please try to get the word through however you can to get Ken's work into the mainstream as much as Peterson. That would be enough to create the 2nd tier TIPPING POINT of the next step in social development
Exactly. It's more than needed today.
Why further feed Rogan's ego? He has relavent guest 2-3 times a year. Its an entertainment show for the masses. Those who seek find the teacher. That is not Rogan's modus operandi.
What if economic and social factors are the best way to explain the prevalence of individuals accessing higher stages of development? Awareness contracts around a threat.
Ken Wilber looks like dracula with a good fashion sense, sounds like Yoda, and thinks like Hermes Trigmigistos.
What de did he mean with “keep on going like the meta modernists” at about 8:18? Anybody know what his views are on metamodernism?
He keeps saying growing up and waking up are "just not deniable." That's his problem right there. From the beginning of his explorations, he believed these states and the interpretation of these states. He can't deny their validity because he is too busy reinforcing his belief in them. Furthermore, the idea that everybody has some truth is a green assumption, not second tier. The second tier assumption should be that truth is multifaceted and there are many truths depending on the context, but there are also falsehoods and delusions down in first tier, and they must be ferreted out.
That is so well said and structured. I was having similar thoughts but not as well ordered as they’re written here. Even using the word “truths” seems illogical, as truth should be an axiom, a given, as singular and universal, not a matter of private preference. Maybe he means “glimpses of truth.” I would say on both a practical and humane level, making someone at an orange level feel absurd and stupid, without recognizing the genuine need or fear they are expressing, or the unique intelligence any individual can contribute to the whole, is not a great way to actualize satori or unity or cooperation in saving this biosphere or democracy, etc. Socrates spoke to each person kindly within the level he perceived that they operated, and “educed” from each the innate wisdom he felt could be born from all.
I just heard the other part of this interview called “who are the 2nd tier thinkers” and he explains what you are citing, as the problem with green level thinking in fact. The multiplicity of “truths” they see, without integrating them, when there’s just one huge cosmic reality. So he is speaking of “truths” in this Peterson discussion as coming thru the eyes of a 1st tier thought…i think.
@@lizafield9002 I think there needs to be a clearer break from first tier to second tier. Tier one has the unquestioned belief that human beings are lacking and flawed. Until the supposed tier two people question that belief, tier two will stay contaminated by tier one.
It's so sad to see how his own-build house of cards falling apart. Two decades ago this stuff sounded sophisticated to me, all the integral categories, levels, labels, colors etc...now it sounds more like a bunch of creepy neologisms from a pseodo intellectual impostor.
It does sound like that but I suspect he's trying to articulate concepts that he identified whilst in a different level of consciousness to that which he is in now.
@@pc2753 so in essence, he sounds dumb but you're trying to preserve his image of high intellect.
@@flytrapYTP no. I just think that just because I don't really understand it, it might not be complete bollocks. Just like anything complex.
The dominant, ideology in the west is neo liberal. The ideological issues Peterson is concerned about on college campuses would be more properly framed as the prevailing right - wing orthodoxy finding a new point of control to shut dissenters up. Peterson is guilty of double think. There is a peculiar idea that universities are left - wing institutions, when in fact they are hierarchies for the training of a certain social strata for their role within the workforce. Some of us ain't daft.
Peterson isn't capable of grasping that.
Wtf. In which universe do you live?
Jordan Peterson's Spiritual Awakening = XANAX
I see Peterson as acting from beyond green, I have a couple of videos trying to show how Peterson us an integral thinker and how he is more so looking back on green with constructive criticism, sometimes perhaps harsher then needed but he's acting as a father figure to green in some ways. I see this coming from an integrated mind set and one that has already avoided all of the pitfalls of Green and is now trying to help green navigate around those by identifying the traps of postmodern thinking.
Talking to red, offers rules to set their life up
talking to blue who think they are post modern, offers personal freedom
talking to orange, explains why an uncaring/psychopathic orange or red dont get as much out of life
talking to green, explains how orange isnt just evil
talking to yellow, so the whole world is interconnected right?
Petersons funny as
and heres my over simplification of the guy
I have tried getting my head around the work of ken wilber numerous times over the years that I have directed my study in the world of theoretical spirituality. Nothing ever sat comfortably with me. Now every bit of common sense about me rebels against this kind of shit. Sorry, the word just popped out there. As for my understanding of Jordan Peterson... Pah! For the life of me, all this leaves me stunned.
Do you find value in using the Integral map of the world to develop more compassion and understanding in humanity? I do.
If you dont, then I understand why this model would not sit comfortably with you. In my personal experience, it has deeply helped me be more authentically loving and compassionate of those who dont have my world view, or my values.
@@kiutpi If it works for you, my friend, I wish you all the best with it. I personally can't get my head round Ken Wilber's work and I am no fan of reactionaries like Jordan Peterson.
amazing
I'm not blind to Wilber's point.
By labelling Green - a stage, instead of - an absolute, the way Peterson effectively does, he's witnessing from a higher level of consciousness.
That's a given.
However there's somebody that plays Wilber's game much better than he does...
Dr David R Hawkins.
He can come from the Dalai Lama's place of all loving/all forgivingness without surrendering his common sense by calling a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel, so to speak.
What I mean is... He keeps it "street" or "real", and NOTHING about Ken Wilber comes across hands-on or REAL.
Respectfully he seems to inhabit an unassailable abstract ivory tower.
Hawkins books are self help bullshit for hippies, while Ken Wilber is a true investigator of Conciousness, go read both and come back.
@@OsvaldoBayerista I have and some people use "self help" in the pejorative sense. I don't.
we the good people need to wake up,
and retaliate in the process of awakening
your conscious of immortality
is your divine power no remorse
to those people in your way......reclaimed what's yours
and it's yours forever to hold
we the good people,
created equal by the creator.....your life is your freedom
......teron
Maybe JP didn't talk much about healthy GREEN was because he focused on the pathologies of GREEN.
But he ONLY focuses on the pathologies of green. And through his talks, I know that he’s aware that there is a good and bad to all sides. I just don’t understand why he never supports the « other » in knowing that.
@Matejko108 I haven’t seen all of his talks but everyone that I’ve seen, he talks about the downsides
What if we thought regulate instead of deconstruct?
@Future Thinkers 22.00 onwards - "....so what we're looking to see right now, is some way for this kind of awareness to become more widespread, because the data for it, the evidence for it is overwhelming." "....there's a staggering number of extremely competent researchers that have evidence to prove it..."
Could you cite some of the above research/evidence? Cheers
Before I even watch this, my opinion of Jordan Peterson has been that he's a pontificating egomaniac, enamoured with his own intellect. I used to watch a show on Canadian TV called The Agenda, a public affairs program. Occasionally they'd have Peterson participate in a panel discussion on one topic or another. What struck me about him was the way in which he'd dismiss any opinion that wasn't in lockstep with his, especially if it was a woman's opinion. He'd dismiss it with a perfunctory wave of his hand as if to indicate it wasn't even worth consideration. I also saw him telling a class of impressionable students that people with autism hate neurotypical people. I'll watch this video and see if it changes my mind about him in the slightest.
My opinion also of Jordan Peterson. Glad to have this confirmation.
I agree. J Peterson is a misogynistic, climate change denier who believes white privilege is a myth. How can anyone but the truly ignorant listen to this blowhard?
@@1LaOriental Beats me. Ken's enthusiasm for him is embarrassing and is a blemish on the integral community.
I so appreciate and agree with your comments here. Well-stated!
JP is an amazing human
3:36 i don’t like or use the word ‘experience’ as this implies a separate self ‘experiencing. For being Awake there is no longer a separate self experiencing!
I get the impression Dr. Dree here loves talking around & about things without ever having a real discernible observation that can help people. Peterson is the first intellectual who pushed back against the destructiveness of postmodernism and the deliberate confusion being spread by identity politics. That's no small thing. The pushback started with him.
Stephen Carter Wilber wrote Boomeritis decades ago. Great read for a clear articulation of The pathologies of postmodern consciousness.
Peterson isn't the first intellectual to push back against post-modernism, he just happens to be the first intellectual you've heard. There can't be any way you actually believe that, right? Plus I don't think he even knows what post-modernism is.
I'm sure his Jungian woo is useful for people who have never had a thought before and need some help to get the motor running, but he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when it comes to politics. I won't go into it very deeply but just as a broad example of how shallow his position is, let's explore what 'post-modernism' is.
A shaky categorisation to begin with as it can refer to multiple different movements as it is direct 'modernism' also refers to a number of developments whether you're talking about philosophy, art, psychology, literary theory, architecture etc. Despite this let's go with the definition that Peterson insists on putting forward, that post-modernism is the belief that grand meta-narratives that make sense of the world are impossible, and that people have to decide on a belief system/s that works for them. By lumping in Marxists, such as Deleuze, in with post-modernists, Peterson proves he has little to no idea what either term means.
Marxism is the belief that history follows a strict dialectical process and that all economic value is ultimately based on labor. Clearly stated beliefs about how the world works that follow a consistent meta-narrative. You can be a structuralist like Jameson and describe the post-modern condition we live in where it is hard to determine what path to take, but if you look at the facts and study history you will ultimately find that the materialist dialectic and the labor theory of value are correct. It is categorically impossible to be a post-modernist and a Marxist at the same time. In fact, I challenge you to find any strict Marxist that doesn't have some choice words on what they think of 'post-modernists' like Foucault and Derrida.
Peterson, on the other hand, does not justify his belief in God, Christ and the Resurrection in any kind of empirical, rational or analytical way. He says he chooses to believe for pragmatic reasons. That he can only justify his belief through personal choice rather than through any claim of objective fact would appear to me that he recognises the post-modern moment we live in and that he has decided to buy into it, choosing to believe what he wants to. I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with his choice, I also study the New Testament and pray occasionally as i gives me some peace and I feel I gain something out of it. But it is super irresponsible of him to either blatantly lie, or preach confidently about something he knows nothing about, to a large swath of misguided, impressionable young men.
It is clear that his own belief is much closer to being in line with his own representation of post-modernism than any Marxist's. I'm not saying Peterson has no value as a public figure, he clearly has helped kick-start a lot of young men's desire to find a sense of purpose and meaning. I just think you shouldn't be buying into the first opinion you hear whole-heartedly just because it justifies your own prejudices. The world is a complicated place, we're over exposed to information. We don't know what to believe. Everyone feels like that. Getting mad at things you don't understand doesn't solve anything.
@@unnunn12 - Peterson is an unconscious postmodernist with an unresolved shadow of dogmatic tribalism.
He makes ultimate truth sound weird and mysterious and it isn't as far as I know.
Ultimate Truth is Timeless=God
Relative truth is perspective&timebound=human
did I miss something? Maybe it was in another video? the subtitle is "Full commentary on Jordan Peterson's interpretation of awakening process." I didn't hear that detailed anywhere. Moreover, as far as I know, Peterson has not interpreted anything akin to awakening. I've heard him talk about celestial visions and infinite indescribable consciousness, but he has never detailed awakening with a 1st hand encounter of non-local awareness and the total insubstantiality of self. Please share links to other videos of yours. merci:)
I'm from the intellectual dark web, I found it after I had woken up and Jordan helped my week blue. Now this time upon a stable foundation, I'm working on my green. Obviously, I was anti woke but I saw wokeism as woke mimicry and heavily shadowed wokeism.
I’ve never seen JBP say this. Does anyone have the link?
Peterson's supporters are always claiming he says or means all kind of things without evidence to prove the claims.
he's talking about experiences. is there "overwhelming evidence" that people have experiences? Of course lol. Is there "overwhelming evidence" that any of these experiences are universally valid and anything other than a personal experience? Of course not. The need to try and prove things, particularly in the spiritual realm, is neurotic behavior of the ego. Just let go.
Agree. To me we are kind of in a system and culture that praises ego, worships ego, and tells us to have any worth or value to the system (it's members) we need to engage with ego, produce stuff and prove stuff even when we make no claim, just simply do things differently. That is understandable if you are writing books, doing podcasts or otherwise making these claims, as that is engaging with the neurotic behavior in the first place. It is not understandable that our culture for the most part is not accepting of even a position of simply not engaging, not actively preaching which we would ought not to do if choosing not to entertain the neurotic ego behavior. My one wish for our widespread Western (all I know, maybe more wide spread) is that there is room for and acceptance of a position of not engaging with ego.
Jared Dunlop I think that’s the problem with people like Ken they are very subjective and view “waking up” as a n experience to be had that changes the person, an event, He is a somebody. Same with Peterson. They both intelligent articulate driven men, they have very strong opinions and articulate them very well but they are not humble or compassionate in the way that people lwho have really got to a stage of seeing how it our own self referential view of life that Keeps is engaging with the world as separate needy individuals. Those that know do not speak those that speak do not know.
If it really was 'undeniable'...everything would change. The simple fact is...it is very very very deniable...which is exactly why so many people are able to do exactly that. Maybe some day it really will become 'undeniable'. Unfortunately, this is not that day.
The meditative state was discovered during extended stalking by hunters. Later it was adopted by those who had the luxury of looking for god.
luxury? sounds like someone who doesnt know what you have to give up...
In the end it’s worth it though, so...
"The meditative state... hunters." Interesting... I think you have a point here.
What exactly do you mean by "those who had the luxury of looking for God"?
Allen Emersonn - Actually hunter gatherer societies had more free time than agricultural and industrial societies do.
Luxury had nothing to do with it. It is within human beings to wonder, gazing into the unpolluted night sky and know there is a creator power. Witness ancient drawings, symbols for energy, other dimensions, etc. Ancient man didn't live in a vaccum. Cro Magnan may not have had as much a sense of wonder as Neanderthals, but each progression to Homo Sapiens Sapiens curiously looked deeper into the non-physical world. Whether that happened through evolution or genetic engineering (by unknown sources, beings of the higher realms?), that we don't know and Im not sure that matters. What matters is where we are now. We humans have the capability of overcoming aggression and further developing compassion. Some seek that and some have it thrust upon them (Eckhart Tolle for example).
What is the deal with the lights flickering? Pay attention to the background. Weird.
Ken Huge Brain both physically and metaphysicslally is sucking up the energy in the room making the lights flicker. Pay attention to it, LOL😂
Wish color system is this?
I just made a video about my spiritual awakening 🤓 love all my little spiritual smarties!!!
Ken Wilber on the reason yoga was invented; “..it was invented to discover God”
Mm 7
Momma Llama “God” is only a word and a concept. This “thing” or all encompassing presence exists beyond words and concepts. It can only be known through direct experience
Jordan Peterson legend ❤️
If Jordan Peterson is spiritually awake, I don't want any of that.
Hes not. Dont worry
@Nun, Gina12345 I'm too non-dual for heaven ;-)
It depends what you mean by spirtual awake. :)
19:08 The Great Scare!
the intellectual dark web is integral people who just haven't read Integral theory. The moment Ken i asked to be a guest on Rogan's show will be a moment in history that could see the tipping point happen. Ken ism't just an Integral theorist, he is someome who will have no equal in this regard in any of our lifetimes
I've never really watched much of Joe Rogan, but it would be an interesting match for sure. Also a debate/conversation between Ken and Peterson would be amazing. I think it would really help get Integral Theory more known among the masses. I also think many implicitly already know much of Integral Theory, but it needs to be made conscious and explicit to have a more fruitful dialogue and impact on society.
With respect to Rebel Wisdom, but especially ‘Fully David’ , the token frontman, indeed the main partner, one cannot get away from the tainted quality that is the hallmark of its brand, namely this petty and insolent boy who failed and continues to fail, to ever obtain the perfectly tailored gift for him under the tree. For some unshakable reason, my subjective experience with his presenting gestalt, without fail, sees a seething level of entitlement that invokes a visceral reaction akin to making my skin literally crawl.
Jordan Petersen is awakened? For real? He makes some great points, but he's not connected to the universe as you may think.
If we really want empowered change, we must look beyond currencies that put prices on our heads. Any worthwhile currency must be based on the work of the people, and on regarding this as a true exchange of energy, that currency must be free to use: no tax, fees, costs. Add to this a ‘bank’ that pays for education and infrastructure, and we have a currency that values creating experiences to empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible.
BUXXB
stealing from portishead... nice one
Jordan Peterson's speaking is overtly defensive and enabling of patriarchy, hierarchy, identity and right/wrong thinking (as opposed to cause and effect thinking).
Jordan speaks as if a right way of thinking and gratitude is superior to an in depth look at how you became the way you are being. This behavior is consistent with a mind that has fragmented into an identity and shadow in reaction to dominative and unsupportive social conditions coming from a patriarch (father and fear-based mother) .
It appears that Ken has a blind spot predicated on his relationship with his parents and thereby speaks as if the cause of Jordan's behavior does not exist.
Jordan recurringly and adamantly communicates that there are archetypes/rules/emotional-boundaries that must be honored/immutable/hidden. This behavior is consistent with an infant/child developing survival strategies around a predicament of not being able to reconcile, that the person they depend on for care (father) is also a threat. As a strategy to try to reduce their stress the child accumulates decisions to be an enabler of the parental figures poor mental health, immaturity and abuse of an imbalance of power.
Jordan uses Biblical stories to distract his mind and validate his identity. The sacrifice of Christ for example is symbolic to Jordan of his being a sacrifice of himself to being a scapegoat for his fathers emotional limitations.
Enligtment of what of materialism and racionalism?!
WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT! Somebody who has a real trascendental conscious spiritual experience, shift 360 degrees and after that that person will never be talking like Peterson does again because that's a very limited understanding and comprehension of the self EXISTENCE , I KNOW BY OWN EXPERIENCE
If jordan peterson is awake he sure holds a lot of resentment and attachments for an enlightened being. This is not someone who embodies or exemplifies a being radiating love and understanding. More like a fraud.
Agreed.
Thats because Jordan is a realist.He knows evil exists in the world and we all have a shadow/dark side.A fraud is someone who only thinks love and beauty exist.I'm not being rude just adding to your comment.
0canadiens81 Since when does Peterson profess to being an instrument of enlightenment and love? He does talk about the shadow, struggle, suffering. His own struggle. Never heard him suggest he’s faultless or enlightened.
Peterson says that he had an awakening experience and he talks about ancient religions and how they tie into his awakening experience.
To be fair, i sometimes wonder myself whether JBP is a bit unbalanced to the extent that his political zeal is bent against the "left". However, that may perhaps be rationalized in his view because of what seems to be a political zeal in the other direction dominating a academia, such that he sees himself playing a role that moves academia toward balance in that respect.
Secondly, warning against wickedness and/or foolishness isn't necessarily indicative of resentment. In the Dhammapada, the Buddha often mentions "the fool" and his behavior, seemingly for edifying reasons.
"The wise man shows you where you have fallen, and where you yet may fall. Invaluable secrets!...Let him chasten and teach you, and keep you from mischief. The world may hate him, but good men love him."
Believe it or not there are better thinkers around than the eminent Ken Wilber.
James Hillman is one.
David Bohm is another.
Peterson's genius is the practical applicability of his ideas stemming from his role as a clinical psychologist.
Ken Wilber is "a beautiful thinker", but it's largely abstract analytical ideas.
There ain't too much pragmatic value within his insights.
Without the theory, I would not have understood practice.
Ill check out your 'better thinkers" thanks. but as far as I understand it, wilber isnt trying to fill in all the details in the first place.. but rather to look for new ways of organizing human knowledge.. the filing system may not itself offer much in the way of "There ain't too much pragmatic value within his insights" but as far as I can tell. it isnt really meant to fill that role in the first place.
as it so happens I can tell a rather compelling story 'we humans do love our stories' that thinkers like wilber have had tangible and lasting benefits for me personally with regard to my daily quality of life. so i for one still enjoy learning about various 'largely abstract analytical ideas'
He definitely uses a lot of intellectual concepts and ideas to point to there inability to describe the true nature of reality. A map is not the place it depicts only a description of it. Hence the thinking aspect of human cognition will never comprehend ultimate reality only label it. All objects are relative truths that which is aware of this is the ultimate truth. 🙏
I think Wilber's ideas particularly have value for fellow individuals who are abstractly and intellectually inclined but also on a spiritual path or interested in that dimension. So it's a rather niche group and many might not understand how any value can be found within something like Integral Theory.
I've found it helpful in the way that the world and all the various belief and value systems people hold - and how they play out on a larger scale - become more understandable. The chaos and diversity gains some structure and coherence and inner logic. It's a system concerned with organising more than anything else, as it seems. So it is helpful in giving a clearer picture of the world and the place of the human being within it.
It is paradoxical in a way - laying out a whole rather abstract theory full of categorization and labels with the end goal to transcend all of these workings of the mind. As mentioned before, it's a map and the map is not the territory. It's a pointer to the in itself unspeakable truth. And I think that's beautiful.
So if you have this intellectual inclination you can't really help it. You might as well somehow make use of it. As Ramana Maharshi said, you can use a thorn (knowledge) to remove another thorn (ignorance) - but eventually you have to discard even that one. It's easy to get caught up in intellectualisation but it can also be helpful up to a certain degree.
I'm wondering too though if it's just comforting to the Ego that likes certainty, but you have to work with what you've got.
Ken Wilber's orienting generalisations will always miss out on the nuances of situations. A good example is his mention of the "post-modern extreme left orientation" denying some Orange values like free speech. He fails to see the difference between free speech as a legal concept and practice (this can be regarded as LR in Wilber's AQAL framework) and free speech in a culture (this can be regarded as the LL). They are different. When a leftist group acts to de-platform a particular speaker they are acting from the LL.
The individual has the protection of free speech from the legal perspective, but they aren't protected from the socio-cultural consequences of that free speech. This is especially true if the individual is promoting harm or exclusion of other groups, particularly minority groups.
Of course, leftist groups can sometimes get too reactive, much like the immune system in our bodies get hyper reactive to any perceived pathogen when something may not actually be a pathogen. This doesn't invalidate the importance of de-platforming it just means groups who do it may need to become more less sensitive and more discerning with how they apply the principle.
Most people on the extreme left would be more than happy to deny free speech on both a cultural and a legal level. However, in the United States, at least, they simply have difficult hurdles to overcome on the legal level, so they attempt to become doubly oppressive on the cultural level.
@@janso7979 ah see, I believe you aren't making the distinction between free speech and hate speech. People on the far left only care about deplatforming hate speech. They are not against free speech.
@@johncodeinaire137 Inherent in the idea of free speech is the risk that many people will find certain uses it is put to "hateful". Every tyrant is willing to allow "free" speech as long as it stays within the bounds of what the tyrant considers "good" or "not hateful". Mao or Stalin would have been for "free speech" in the sense that you support it. You can try to make the argument that free speech is a bad thing and should be restricted in a just society, just don't try to claim that you are for free speech when you aren't. The left is very much against free speech and will push well beyond simple deplatforming if they ever gain enough power to enforce their will.
@@janso7979 I believe YOU are making the argument that free speech is a bad thing and should be restricted and then you are projecting that onto me. I'm not making any such argument. Nowhere have a made a case for free speech being good or bad in principle so please stop making up stuff on my behalf and then claim that I said it. Thanks!
Once again I'll bring up my original point. There's a difference between legal protection of free speech and the social consequences of free speech. Free speech is protected by law in the USA but that doesn't mean different groups in society will accept all forms of that protected speech. They can and do act against it such as the free speech that is hate speech.Those that break the law when acting against those who practice hate speech can face lawful sanctions of various sorts.
How do you think I support free speech? And how do you think Mao or Stalin would support it?
"The Left" doesn't exist in any useful meaningful way. You can simplify if you want, to make it easier for you to understand what is going on. I do that myself at times. It's useful. But it's not the entire picture. This "The Left" that you bring up is made of a diverse bunch of groups with varying politics with many differences in scope, aims, practices, beliefs, etc
If you are talking about the political mainstream The Left in terms of the Democrats being Leftish relative to the GOP then even that is fraught with misunderstanding b/c there are right/centrist/left even there.
@@johncodeinaire137What did I say which indicates that I'm in favor of restricting anybody's speech? Perhaps I shouldn't make any assumptions about your own particular beliefs, so I'll try to keep the discussion more general. The legal protection of free speech that you refer to is an orange value. Orange doesn't make a distinction between "free speech" and "hate speech". To orange, protecting "hate speech" is precisely the idea behind "free speech". I remember that back as recently as the 90s the ACLU used to go to court on behalf of the KKK. "I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The different groups you mention who will not accept many forms of protected speech are not generally in support of that orange value. The majority of those people would love it if free speech weren't protected by law, but, at least at this time, they don't have the political authority to make any substantive changes to the law, and thus focus on using social pressure, deplatforming, "cancelling", getting people fired, etc. as a means to try to stifle people's free speech by extra-legal means. Some of them will also resort to physical violence, as in the case of Antifa, although this is limited by the fact that they can indeed by held legally liable. Yet trying to get someone fired for some tweet they made years ago is doing a form of violence to them, a form of violence which is beyond the scope of law enforcement. Many people would love to be able to imprison, or worse, "racists" or "homophobes" or "hatemongers", but at the moment they must satisfy themselves with lesser measures.
We initially used the term extreme left instead of just left, and that's perhaps better. In any case, Happy New Year and I wish you well.
A correction from my pov: ww1 was caused to prevent workers of the world to get united
CMDR F. Ravelli 👌
He's not a charlatan, I will grant him that. He believes what he's saying, but that doesn't make it better. He sounds like a rambling hobby philosopher.
ive heard him talk about psychedelics (peterson) but i havent heard him use the term "waking up", and he still gets in silly arguments with young women...he is also very defensive of the capitalist system....I just find Peterson a bit baffling, not sure what the fuss is about. Most of the things ive heard peterson talk about have been said better by others.
I think it's his biblical lectures
What is the point of color coding and inventing classifications for this type of subject matter? Why? What could possibly make this guy think this was a good idea? He just added another layer of complexity to a subject matter that is already relatively complex. I can see why this did not catch on with any real staying power.
Helps to organise thinking for one, but more importantly it makes you aware of other quadrants of thought and experience you have have had less experience with. So I'd suggest it promotes openness and integration, and that seems self evident.
@@zapper82 no, it’s another layer of unnecessary complexity. You obviously have never heard of the KISS principle.
@@73split I have heard of that before (no need to be patronising), but every book you've probably read had a beginning, middle and end, complete with chapter and possibly verse. The point is, that all knowledge worth knowing and passing on, has structure and hierarchy. Ken Wilber knows what he is doing, he's ensuring certain knowledge is encapsulated to be more readily transmitted to others and future generations.
@@zapper82 no he is not. Again, he is adding complexity where none is needed. It’s totally unnecessary and does nothing but make a convoluted mess out of a relatively simple subject matter. Frankly that’s just stupid and counterproductive:
KABBALAH :)
Maybe...if you were more open minded, Ken...you might see that the poor uneducated latino lady who maybe cleans your house has mystical experiences of knowing God when she goes to her local pentecostal Church....hence this spirituality you talk about may be a lot more widespread than you imagine.
Jordan Peterson never woke up!
N
I don't agree with him that wherever meditation was invented, it was invented to know God. There are non-theistic forms of meditation that do have a soteriological agenda.
In the classical Patanjalic Yoga, meditation is meant to let the self (called puruSha) rest in its own nature, free from its seeming entanglement with prakRti or matter-stuff (roughly). Although pAtanjala yoga acknowledges the existence of a special soul named the Lord (Ishvara), in the yoga sutras this soul is only intended as a sort of guide towards reaching the final goal of meditation, which is nirvikalpa samAdhi. It's the later vedanta teachers that linked this thought with realization of Brahman or Godhead. In fact, yoga's sister philosophy, sAmkhya, explicitly aims at nothing more than eradication of suffering. This doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a deity.
Note that Yoga/Samkhya also don't subscribe to the notion of relative and absolute truths. They are very much realists. Everything you see here is real - it's just a transformation of a primordial "nature-stuff" called prakriti. The effects are no less real than the cause. Vedantins later combined this idea with that of the two levels of truths quite likely taken from Mahayana Buddhism.
In Buddhism too, meditation is intended to quieten the mind, from where you can experience for yourself the true nature of phenomena through insight. Here too there is no mention of God. Buddha famously rejected the notion that there could be a permanent substance such as souls or God at all. His discovery was that there was no such thing that served as the basis for all phenomena. Everything instead is dependently originated, with the phenomena itself "reified" into being through a mere ascription.
Omg, I cant believe that, for all his study and practise, Wilbur actually peddles two such falsities, namely that: - The purpose of Zen is to have Satori, and that the purpose of yoga is to find god.
Jessus fucking hell. He's completely missed the point of both Zen and yoga.
Satori is merely a means, a gateway to beyond it, as is yoga. And yoga WAS NEVER about finding god. It ys an atheustic ohilisophy. Ever Bhakti Yoga and the worship of guru as god, are means beyond themselves to the transcendent Oneness which then becomes a further means back into service towards mankind, hence the Boddhisatva tradition. Both Zen and Yoga plus Tantra, and Samkhyr amd Adwaita were/are simply about the PROCESS of evolution of consciousness in and of itself. NO GOALS WERE SPECIFIED. They were PROCESSES. And yes, along the way, Satoris and Samadhis (ie, realisations, note the plurality) would be encountered and then intended to be transcended *beyond themselves*.
Once you realised you were just a part of the Oneness ... what then? Baba Muktananda used to say that Shaktipat initiation was just the beginning. The real work came after that ... to integrate that into the whole of yourself. My own guru used to say "Fine, you MAY HAVE such experiences by whatever means, but pay them no importance. Just get on with things with that knowledge in daily practise and work".
Omg, what a dunce. So caught up in his professorial ego to invent some grand new Theory of Everything to leave as a legacy of his own greatness. Wilbur USED TO BE a great interpreter of the great traditions until he decided he could invent (read synthesise) something greater out of his own mind. Talk about self-deluded.
Fashionable insanity. Such silly games the humans play until they die.
Spiriteye We’re all lost in a dream that we mistake for reality until we wake up. I think it’s a gift to have it happen before the physical body dies.
@@nueythepyasuwan So well said. Just one microsecond on "the other side," if you will, is enough to replace or transcend what the 3D body-mind takes for reality. I contrast them as reality vs Reality - both co-existent, but the mind doesn't/can't access Reality so if we're mind-centric, we're the ones locking ourselves out.
At any rate, it makes life a lot more enjoyable, that microsecond. We see almost nothing of the eternity/infinity that is.
~♥~
Sita Rainbow I mentioned nothing of the “microsecond.” It seems you experienced too. It’s that split second when reality opens up and “the scales fell from my eyes” moment. I experienced it as ego shell cracking a bit to let the light in. Kinda like a baby chick hatching from its shell. This experience has been written about throughout time and in so many ways. I’m sure most everyone has read about it. But until you (that is, any typical person) experience it for yourself, you cannot relate and it all seems so mystical and make believe. Reality is bigger than our ego concept of it.
@@nueythepyasuwan Yes, you have clearly experienced it, too. Whether we say "split-second" or microsecond, it's pointing to the same thing - which we each experience in a unique way, lol.
~♥~
Can’t stand this man, his voice, his body language and his easy listening preaching way. Perhaps he could give himself some authenticity by assuming his identity.
An all meat diet. Very spiritual yeah 🤪
On Rogan he had a strict diet of water, salt, meat and pills. The latter he conveniently left out.
His daughter was still drinking alcohol. They're charlatans.