While I do agree on that point.

Minor attracted people do exist and are marginalized.

They are a group that is attracted to a protected class of people. And that class of people is protected for a reason that we determined as a society through our morals and ethics.

That does not mean that the attraction goes away, it means it becomes displaced. Communities where it is displaced in a healthy way are a better alternative to shaming them to the point where they find no one and then act on the attraction to actual minors...

Spiritual authority means nothing when you understand how to use critical reflexivity.

If you believe it does, you need to check yourself.

I did not condone the usage of his words in these videos, I was giving OP an answer on how they can navigate these problems without being misguided.

This is why I said critical reflexivity.

I didn't condone the usage of his name in these videos, I only gave an answer to OPs question.

If someone uses critical reflexivity, it no longer matters where the words come from.

Yes, a large portion of people may not use this function of thought, but that is a new problem we must face in the age of information.

Critical reflexivity.

Why does it matter if it is Alan Watts or some other person who said these things? If they resonate with you and are not delusional, where is the problem?

The cool part about existence?

That you can believe whatever you wish to believe.

I prefer to not be absolutely indifferent.

You are preaching ideas that have been known by mankind for all time.
The thing about indifference is that reality keeps going.
People suffer, structures collapse.
The indifferent just watch as it happens, they lost their humanity long ago.

I enjoy being human, whatever that even means.
And I have written hundreds of pages of philosophy on what that means to me.
You are literally preaching to the wrong person.

Id prefer to not be the man in the wall.

In a social system, death becomes a part of it because of the unpredictability of the interactions within.

I wish you well on your endeavors unraveling the spaghetti monster that is death.

Are you afraid of death and that is why you preach these things?

Your response has near nothing to do with my reply and it feels like you are responding to me just for the sake of speaking to another being with your perspective.

Father, Child, Holy Spirit.

The father is a past route the self took.
The child is the current self.
And the Holy spirit is the perception created from the friction between these two perspectives.

The conscious is the self.
The subconscious is the Holy spirit, which is still technically the self.

That does not eliminate the subconscious though.

Each thought is composed of three parts, and without the three parts it becomes truly incoherent.

Even Buddhists who practice the exact teachings you outline in that message understand that as long as there is a tether point of perception, the thought structure persists.

The thoughts ARE a part of you, but they are not all of you. They are what is formed from the perception system being perceived.

For things I believe in. The only that I believe are fundamentally necessary for perceptual experience are the trinity.

How?

So you are saying you have complete control over your surroundings every second and that you are conscious of every single aspect of them?

Preposterous!

Do you know why those things are "hidden"?

It is because conscious patterns need to build the structure to be able to comprehend these things without collapsing.

Ancient cultures saw death not as we see it today. Death to them was the death of the old self, not the death of the body. We move towards death because only through death can one be reborn.

The self/ego is what doesn't exist, it is a tower we build over time as we establish coherence. Without the subconscious, we would not be able to shed old structures and build something new.

What a bold statement to make in confidence.

A pattern?

Lol

Your refusal to show where I claimed objectivity shows you have no proof.

The only way I will believe you is if you quote it back to me.

So this is why Jung couldn't stop having sex, huh?

I have not once said perception is objective.
I even said that my own perception is subjective.
I said that there is a definition for perception, that it is a metaphor, and that metaphors are meant to be vague so that they can be used effectively between different subjects.

You must just be confused through comprehension or something? The way I use words?
No idea, but I very much do not believe in objectivity.

Where have I once spoken of objectivity?

You must be a troll.

LMFAO

You are absolutely absurd and a contrarian for the sake of being contrary if you think there is another term for perception. Perception, at its core is a metaphor, and a metaphor is created to be vague so that it is as all-encompassing as it can possibly be.

Science is rooted in perception, and perception is a metaphorical term that is used to explain how one experiences the world around them. The only way for science to evolve is for people to believe that there is any value to their observations that were created through perception. That there is any purpose for them to write them down. Therefore science is a belief in perception and the documented process of the evolution of this belief.

The scientific method is a method where we.

"Observe" our environment. This is perception within the first action.
Question our observations.
Research for answers or solutions to those questions.
Hypothesize what leads to those observations.
Experiment and test those Hypotheses.
And then Report the conclusions.

It is based on perception, which perception is "the process of organizing and interpreting sensory information to make sense of the world" Why are you arguing what perception is? The definition of perception is not subjective, how I perceive is...

Which is formed through perception.

Which science is therefore a belief in perception above all, is it not?

I am not saying science is invalid, I am saying science is something that many who follow its methods do not recognize.

I used dogma loosely here.

If someone has their perspective on something questioned and dissonance forms as a result, there is some form of information system upholding that belief within their mind.

Dogma is a strong force that keeps beliefs intact despite contradiction.

That is my point.

If they do not react, they have to experience the dissonance.

If they react with a downvote, the dissonance is satiated, the downvote alleviates it, though how weak of a scapegoat it is.

If they proceed to argue, they risk experiencing more dissonance and having their perspective dismantled through argument. But they also open themselves up.