Catholicism never would have collected the intelligence necessary to invent a nuke. Their worldview was not compatible with science. It was an inferior organizing principle. ("inferior" meaning less capable of coordinating a collective intelligence needed to build nukes.)

You believe intelligence is such a high good, a high virtue, that it would be hard for you to see how intelligence is deeply and intricately causal with the destruction of life on this planet, and therefore the less intelligent, less destructive religions actually have more ethical ground to stand on, even though they were still fairly corrupt. 

But it's a straightforward comparison. 

Medieval "dark" ages = almost no technological progress, very little risk of blowing up the planet in any way; relatively, not inspiring, but still - kudos for keeping us from hurtling toward extinction, and at this point, we're fine with rewarding this even though it's such a "low bar"

Today = massive, exponential technological progress, nuclear war could already take us all out, but we have a number of other x-risks to worry about. And we're so identified with science and tech that we aren't willing to stop, even as we admit OUT LOUD that it could cause extinction-level catastrophe. This is worse than the Crusades by a long shot. We're not talking about sending children to war. We're talking about the end of children. Just no more children. This is worse than suicide cults that claim we go to heaven as long as we commit suicide. We don't even think what we're doing will necessarily result in heaven, and we do it anyway. We have no evidence we can upload consciousnesses at all. Or end aging and death. Or build a friendly AI. At least the Catholics were convinced a very good thing would happen by sending kids to war. We're not even convinced, and we are willing to risk the lives of all children. Do you see how this is worse than the Catholics? 

are you putting forward that something about worldviews sometimes relies on faster than light signaling?

OK this is getting close. I am saying worldviews CANNOT EVER be fast enough, and that's why the goal is to drop all worldviews to get "fast enough". Which the very idea of "fast enough" is in itself 'wrong' because it's conceptual / limited / false. This is my worst-best attempt to point to a thing, but I am trying to be as literal as possible, not poetic. 

No response can be immediate in a physical universe

Yeah, we're including 'physical universe' as a 'worldview'. If you hold onto a physical universe, you're already stuck in a worldview, and that's not going to be fast enough.

The point is to get out of this mental, patterned, limited ideation. It's "blockheaded", as you put. All ideas. All ways of looking. All frameworks and methodologies and sense-making. All of it goes. Including consciousness, perception. 

When all of it goes, then you don't need 'response times' or 'sense data' or 'brain activity' or 'neurons firing' or 'speed of light' or whatever. All of that can still 'operate' as normal, without a problem. 

We're getting to the end of where thinking or talking about it is going to help. 

I don't know if I fully get you, but you also nailed it on the head.

In such situation, I think the one weird trick would be to invent a belief system that actively denies being one. To teach people a dogma that would (among other things) insist that there is no dogma, you just see the reality as it is (unlike all the other people, who merely see their dogmas). To invent rituals that consist (among other things) of telling yourself repeatedly that you have no rituals (unlike all the other people). To have leaders that deny being leaders (and yet they are surrounded by followers who obey them, but hey that's just how reality is).

So, basically... science.

Science is the best cult because it convincingly denies being one at all, disguising itself as truth itself. 

I think it's worth admiring science and appreciating it for all the good things it has provided.

And I think it has its limitations, and people should start waking up soon to the fact that if the world is destroyed, humans all destroyed, etc. then science played an instrumental and causal role in that, and part of that is the insanity and evil within that particular cult / worldview. 

Or why can't you have a worldview that computes the best answer to any given "what should I do" question, to arbitrary but not infinite precision?

I am not talking about any 'good enough' answer. Whatever you deem 'good enough' to some arbitrary precision.

I am talking about the correct answer every time. This is not a matter of sufficient compute. Because if the answer comes even a fraction of a second AFTER, it is already too late. The answer has to be immediate. To get an answer that is immediate, that means it took zero amount of time, no compute is involved.

Is it something that your reader should be able to infer from this post, or from their own experience of life (assuming they're paying attention?)

Not unless they are Awakened. But my intended audience is that which does not currently walk a spiritual path.

Is this something that you think you know mainly because of your personal experience with pervious worldviews failing you? Some other way?

A mix of my own practice, experience, training, insight, and teachings I've received from someone who knows. 

Merely having worldviews failing you is not sufficient to understand what I am saying. You also have to have found a relative solution to the problem. But if you are sick of worldviews failing you or of failing to live according to truth, then I am claiming there's a solution to that. 

I am saying things in a direct and more or less literal manner. Or at least I'm trying to. 

I did use a metaphor. I am not using "poetry"? When I say "Discard Ignorance" I mean that as literally as possible. I think it's somewhat incorrect to call what I'm saying phenomenology. That makes it sound purely subjective.

Am I talking down to you? I did not read it that way. Sorry it comes across that way. I am attempting to be very direct and blunt because I think that's more respectful, and it's how I talk. 

First paragraph: 3/10. The claim is that something was already more natural to begin with, but you need deliberate practice to unlock the thing that was already more natural. It's not that it 'comes more naturally' after you practice something. What 'felt' natural before was actually very unnatural and hindered, but we don't realize this until after practicing. 

2nd, 3rd, 4th paragraph: 2/10. This mostly doesn't seem relevant to what I'm trying to offer.

...

It's interesting trying to watch various people try to repeat what I'm saying or respond to what I'm saying and just totally missing the target each time. 

It suggests an active blind spot or a refusal to try to look straight at the main claim I'm making. I have been saying it over and over again, so I don't think it's on my end. Although the thing I am trying to point at is notoriously hard to point at, so there's that. 

...

Anyway the cruxy part is here, and so to pass my ITT you'd have to include this:

"It's not a meta-process. It's not metacognition. It's not intelligence. It's also not intuition or instinct. This wisdom doesn't get better with more intelligence or more intuition. " 

"I'm more guided by a wisdom that is not based in System 1 or System 2 or any "process" whatsoever. "

"The "one weird trick" to getting the right answers is to discard all stuck, fixed points. Discard all priors and posteriors. Discard all aliefs and beliefs. Discard worldview after worldview. Discard perspective. Discard unity. Discard separation. Discard conceptuality. Discard map, discard territory. Discard past, present, and future. Discard a sense of you. Discard a sense of world. Discard dichotomy and trichotomy. Discard vague senses of wishy-washy flip floppiness. Discard something vs nothing. Discard one vs all. Discard symbols, discard signs, discard waves, discard particles. 

All of these things are Ignorance. Discard Ignorance."

Just respond genuinely. You already did.

I don't know how else to phrase it, but I would like to not contradict interdependent origination. While still pointing toward what happens when all views are dropped and insight becomes possible. 

I appreciate this attempt... but no it is not it. 

What I'm talking about is not the skill to combine S1 and S2 fluidly as needed. 

I will respond to this more fully at a later point. But a quick correction I wish to make:

What I'm referring to is not about System 1 or System 2 so much. It's not that I rely more on System 1 to do things. System 1 and System 2 are both unreliable systems, each with major pitfalls. 

I'm more guided by a wisdom that is not based in System 1 or System 2 or any "process" whatsoever. 

I keep trying to point at this, and people don't really get it until they directly see it. That's fine. But I wish people would at least mentally try to understand what I'm saying, and so far I'm often being misinterpreted. Too much mental grasping at straws. 

The wisdom I refer to is able to skillfully use either System 1 or System 2 as appropriate. It's not a meta-process. It's not metacognition. It's not intelligence. It's also not intuition or instinct. This wisdom doesn't get better with more intelligence or more intuition. 

It's fine to not understand what I'm referring to. But can anyone repeat back what I'm saying without adding or subtracting anything?