Have you ascended yet?

What does Level -∞ look like?

Level 5 is probably the closest to being "objectively correct" based on our current scientific understanding of the universe.

this. is that the point?

Basing your beliefs on /pol/ redpill jpegs

You mean the entire opposite. Its the most subjective

>Still stuck in ontotheological categories
>Ascended

Self is obviously a meme, spread by Western "I am a special, unique snowflake" thinking. You're just the sum of your biology and external experiences. The silly part is jumping to the comical nihilism conclusion. You (in a practical sense) still have the opportunity to affect the external circumstances to a point and doing so, makes life more enjoyable in the end.

>self awareness, crystallising as a concept that can be held hey updated across time, the most ubiquitous and by far transformative and powerful feature of human consciousness
>a western meme.
WEW.

Where did "self awareness" creep into this? Based on context it's obvious we're talking about the "self" as some disconnected, firm entity. An ice cube floating in water or some shit, while it's closer to couple drops that are next to each other at the exact moment. The former idea is massively pushed in the West.

Pretty clever post

Good point. It is subjective in that we each create our own meaning to existence. I know it's not ""objectively correct"" but I still think it is likely the most rational of the bunch.

So basically a complete lack of any critical thinking skills.

qq
How do you think you could have self awareness and memory without that leading to an enduring self concept?

Why would that be a problem? Enduring doesn't imply that it's rigid and not easy affected by external factors. It's enduring enough for "you" not to wake up, not knowing what the fuck is going on, assuming there is some kind of routine.

Is the last tier just the dogmatic windbag tier?

Jesus wasn't enlightened.

4
Wherever I am, I must also rape

Siddartha believed in Hindu pantheon. He wasn't either. They both have some pretty good teachings though. Jesus' stuff is a bit more circumspect on some points for sure though.

I dont think they're really comparable, they taught intrinsically different things in intrinsically different environments. I mean, Buddha Sakyamuni taught for 45 years and the pali canon takes up a shelf, Jesus taught for what, three? Not saying that you have to accept one as superior to the other but I don't understand why people compare the two so much tbqh.

I'm not arguing against any of that, I'm arguing against the notion that self concept is merely a meme.

>he thinks stage -1 is incorrect
My sides.

They were both revisionist figures for their religious traditions. They also both had very humanist teachings, which was very new to religions which had previously been almost wholly focused on the "holy other."

>ego loss
>ascension
>delusional dream
>higher world

spooks my boy, all spooks.

0 is the objective patrician tier.

haha the highest tier is new age college girl "we're all, like, one" ideology

>Highest level isn't a recapitulation of the first stage.
Shit chart, m8

Seriously.
>through miracle you will achieve the highest plane and look beyond the mortal coil
so cliche, op.

Can you expand on this?

Whereas I can identify with "Level 5," I still see death as the ultimate end (not suicide, just death,) and fear it.

By your first post did you mean self-destruction or destruction of self?

Drifting away from the main discussion, I plan on cryogenizing myself as soon as I get an uncurable disease or have nothing else to live for (Currently I live for money, essentially, as I set my end goal on making as much money as possible because money is the only thing that truly matters, regardless of your state of mind or belief.)

> I still see death as the ultimate end (not suicide, just death,) and fear it.
Read the greeks, especially Plato's Phaedo.

I think he was talking about ego death, not literal death. So avoid ideologies that see ego death as the end state, rather than a process by which the ego is destroyed and then rebuilt even better than it was.

To add to that, it's not about destroying the ego, it's about strengthening the fuck out of it and then using it in service of a higher purpose than itself.

Should I read anything first? Or just jump in head-first?

I can buy it on my amazon and get it in 16 hours.

I understand now, thank you. In my opinion ego is extremely important for one to respect himself and consequently find a reason to live where there's none.

Read it online.

>All knowledge is based on faith

anyone want to expand on this or recommend some authors

Thank you, user

I have ascended. I recently made a post on /x/ describing my profound revelations.

>can't comprehend
everything with only experiencing 4 dimentions

where is communism?

>exists
>thinks subjectivity is bad

Level 3

All of that is trashetic memeshit.
5 is only there for teenagers, the rest is just as trashetic.

Has anyone here ever talked to any Level 1s?

You should. It will expand your mind just looking in their eyes and realizing how fucking little is going on. Full disclosure I dated one so.

Make fun of fedoras or whatever but I'd take those guys over a Level 1 any day holy shit.

Objectivity doesn't exist, teenager. Science and understanding do not exist. There is no universe.
>rationality is good
Nice meme you fucking adolescent.
'creating meaning' is absolute frogshit trashetics.

Christ is the absolute antithesis to Humanism. Do not fucking compare Him to that disgusting, heretical ideology.

So you don't believe God exists, right?
>NO, I think God may or may not exist.
OK, what about concepts like truth or justice? What are they founded upon?
>Science and the law duh

I'd take this any day because there's a minimal appeal to logic there. A true level 1 will not respond to even basic logic, because everything they say is ineffable. Even attempting to question them is a personal insult to them. Trust me I lived through this hell. I would marry an ugly Fedora in a heartbeat over a hot Level 1.

Also I'm not talking about intelligent Christians who read Aquinas and Plantinga. I'm talking about the kind of person who lives their life based on an invisible emotional 8-ball that can never in any way be questioned or investigated in any way.

Fedora atheists are the most correct though. There's no way to prove your senses are being tampered with, and even if they are, they are constantly tampered in the same way so scientific method still works best.

the idea that 'science is inherently unverifiable' misses the point of science. not sure if this helps u

>logic is good becuz i sed so
Back to /r/eddit
Wrong. You cannot prove anything you've said. At least take yourself seriously enough to be consistent.
You only assume it works because you presuppose it.

Care to elaborate on why logic isn't "good"?

I know the kind of person the dude you're replying to is talking about. He has a point. Those people can be insufferable

>the point of science
t. every ideologue ever

Thanks I'm honestly just venting about a personal experience I had that still shakes me. Like the utter impossibility of getting through to someone you care about.

Also that dude is clearly using logic himself and is arguing and questioning so he's fine in my book.

Insufferable to an ideologue worshipping a mind meme

>getting through
As in forcing your ideology onto them? You don't care at all.

You're giving me flashbacks. Honestly.

Good, I hope they blind you, tool.

:' (

I bet you're a smelly dumb teleiophile scum, too. Fag.

I can't be with you anymore. No one's ever treated me this way.

so every 18+ is level 5 philosopher?
for the smug freshman bashing this whole chart seems pretty freshman philosophy to me

Not my fault that you like disgusting adult women. You see, I'm not like other girls, I'm a man.

How are 5 and 6 contradictory viewpoints? I probably subscribe to both.

I agree with the others that 1 is the most pleb because at least -1 is internally consistent. 1 makes me want to beat somebody with a philosophy 101 textbook.

Infinite tier is just some woo nonsense.

Yeah I mean levels 3, 5, and 6 on this chart don't even contradict eachother. This just seems like a chart of philosophy 101 insights.

waaaaaah muh logic
Philosophy is for children.

>How are 5 and 6 contradictory viewpoints? I probably subscribe to both.
Because you're a stupid teenager.

The problem I have with these lists is that you can effectively jumble them up however you want to suit your view of the world. A Deist could just as easily invert the list and claim they have moral certitude. A nihilist or agnostic could rearrange the list to support their own beliefs/lack thereof. So it's basically just an egowank for the OP and a few likeminded souls.

On the off chance you are being sincere;
how do you KNOW that "There is no universe."
if "understanding do not exist. [sic]" ?

Not a truth-statement

True, but the list also needs to be controversial so that OP will get lots of (You)s from all the discussion.
I would argue that the order of the list is not as important as how debatable it is.

t. non ascended

>Not a truth-statement
can you elaborate?

Just to clarify, are you saying that the statement:
>There is a universe.
Is not a truth-statement / logical truth?

Jesus isn't the only important figure in Christianity you dumb proddy

God I'm so stupid. Obviously the statement
>There is a universe.
Is a scientific fact, not a logical truth.
Now my retarded shitposts are in the archive FOREVER.

This

You retards really have no clue of biology, do you? Huemans are just animals, there are objective observable truth, though our greatest crimes are as insignificant as all our kind acts and goodwill. the post-Darwinian world shows us humans are just animals though animals with varying traits and characteristics, that there are no constraints and we can shape the world in our desire as much as any other animal is 'in control' of their destiny, so while it is all meaningless we have the power to change our ecosystem towards one which common sense morality would see as 'good, rational, peaceful, just' though things like eugenics and killing people of lesser stock. You also cannot call this edgy, because remember what I said...is the tiger edgy for killing its prey? NO

*protestants are just animals

what is wrong with 1 exactly?

>ego is important for the ego to respect the ego

>behaviorism is the best -ism

You can't know nothing.

kek

you ever read any philosophy of science? no? yeah, i can tell

what does writing 't.' like that mean?

Level 0 Master Race.

>no longer have self-hood
>still refers to self as "I"

>ultimate self denial tier
>come with me before its too late
>with me before
>me
what a fucking charlatan

It's like a signature.

t. guy replying to you

Savage

No, it's a value-statement.
Facts don't exist.
All wrong
In greentext, it's a signature of the person being replied to.

Level 7: I'm eating from the trashcan and I'm liking it.