Xstream

Showing all content.

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Be careful with all-caps titles on here. It’s in the guidelines I think.
  3. yeah my plan is to flesh it out here and then we spam Kit Fine and get him to do zoomcalls with me
  4. I would use it to accelerate my survival. Call me selfish but first I want my survival to be taken care of before proceeding.
  5. It is February 28. at 7:00 am and I've found it. I did not sleep. I needed the answer and I got it. This is not clickbait. I'm now more convinced than ever that ontomodality can provide the answer to all the most important questions of the universe and I just figured out the first and most important one which is: How did it all begin? The argument is very logical which surprises me tbh. I did not expect that it would be possible to answer this question logically. Are you ready? Maybe put some coffee into your mouth since you might need something to spit out. Also, maybe give yourself some time to move into the state of not knowing and loosen your egos grip on your current worldview. I just googled and found out that there exist a philosopher who proposed this named Kit Fine who called it fragmentalism which is fitting. However, it seems he did not find the fragments. THE ANSWER 1. At the beginning there was only the Absolute. It has infinite aspects but no differentiation between them. 2. Then, suddenly, something separated itself from the absolute. This is the Fragment. 3. This Thing must necessarily have at least these seven aspects of the Absolute: 3.1. Impulse, Difference, Temporality, Spaciousness, Wholeness, Interaction, Simultaneity. 3.2. Proofs of 3. and 3.1 by contradiction: 5.1. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Impulse. If it didn't have Impulse, it would lack the necessary impulse to separate. Q.E.D. 5.2. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that Fragment does not have the aspect of Difference. Without Difference, separation is not possible. Q.E.D. 5.3 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Temporality. Without Temporality, the sequence "not separated, then separated" would not have been possible. Q.E.D. 5.4. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Spaciousness. Without Spaciousness, the Fragment would not have anywhere to separate into. Q.E.D. 5.5. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Wholeness. Without Wholeness, the will and the difference would not have anything to hold on to for the separation. Q.E.D. 5.6 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Interaction. Without Interaction, all the aspects of the absolute could not have interacted to help separate the Spirit. Q.E.D. 5.7 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Simultaneity. Without Simultaneity, all the aspects could not have interacted at the same time which is necessary, since no subset of the seven is able to make a separation as shown in the previous proofs. Q.E.D. This seems to imply that reality=idea=matter=spirit=consciousness which is hella satisfying and just straight up combines all the existing respected metaphysics. So we have Buddha=Platon=Upanishads in one compact formula lol. Why fragment=idea. All 7 are pure concepts, yet they produce matter, since: Why fragment=matter. Contemplate why matter would not be able to exist without any one of these. Why fragment=spirit. The way I discovered the fragments, is not by observing matter but by observing consciousness and neurodiversity. All the neurodivergencies and all the personality structures seem to be a combination of these 7. I think it can be proven that there can be no mind outside these 7. Try to contemplate this. However, in contrast to matter, consciousness seems to be able to "turn off" these aspects and merge with the absolute, which is what enlightenment is. I think one possible next move is to formulize it more narrowly into mathematics, but it might be the case that 1. 2. and 3. are axioms that can only be intuitively true. I will also research Kit Fine. If this is legit, we might have to spam him with emails lol.
  6. What you’re describing is clarity within a unreal framework, not sanity itself. Seeing more clearly through illusion is still seeing illusion. Staying longer in a non-dual state within experience is still a state, and states come and go. You’re describing refinement of perception inside a hallucination, not the end of mistaking it for reality. Sanity can't be a continuum within insanity. That will be like saying there are degrees of sobriety while still drunk. You can be less confused, more functional, more insightful etc. but as long as perception is still structured around presumed separation, vulnerability, and time, the underlying premise hasn’t changed. What does admit degrees is stability in clarity, but not clarity itself. The recognition of truth is wholly binary: either the false premise is operating or it isn’t. What varies is how consistently that recognition is not interfered with afterward. So yes, there can be many experiences, insights, and refinements, but sanity itself is nothing to do with progressive accumulation. It’s the absence of an underlying mistake. Don’t approach it asymptotically; you either stop making the same error, or you don’t. Sanity within insanity is still insanity, just better lit.
  7. @Carl-Richard almost done

  8. Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

    Rafael Thundercat replied to Leo Gura's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-407 Man, you said a lot of things. To check all you said directly is not a easy quest.
  9. I am a 25 year old single male who has never been in a relationship. I have been fallen into the trap unrequited feelings for women over and over again. I have read Models by Mark Manson , Dating essentials for men by Dr. Robert Glover which were helpful. However, I have approached those women in real life but was rejected by them - some actively ignored me while for some others I found that they had a boyfriend. From the place that I am coming I think that I am not the only one who has been here as my Dating journey hasn't even begun. Leo's blog post on - Women can't satisfy men makes perfect sense here but I haven't broken out of that fantasy practically but intellectually yes. As a matter of fact I need to take personal responsibility for moving on from those rejections and finding someone as well as satisfying myself on my own. However, the question remains that how can I distinguish between mature form of love and one-sided/unrequited or limerent love and not fall in the later ? Also, I have been inactive from posting on the forum from a while and I have learned the following about women,dating :- .Women value assertiveness ,emotional connection more than looks which is non-obvious for us men since we value good looks a lot .Pickup as well as naturals who teach you confidence are a good source of learning since confidence not only helps you in dating but also in other areas of life .Getting to know a woman no matter how beautiful or less beautiful she is far more important than physical attraction since relationships are influenced by personality more than just purely physical traits .No matter how many women reject you there will still be another one out there who will like you so prioritising those women who treat you decently is a sign of mental stability and longer term happiness rather than chasing those who seem attractive but treat you rudely
  10. Fix everything
  11. I would do a tl;dr on it on an online forum. Pls 👉👈🥺
  12. @gettoefl I do envision a continuum of sanity where you can see more and more clearly through illusion and to stay in a non dual state for longer. Of course there are degrees of enlightenment, and many aspects of truth to be revealed. It's not so binary and simply as you are trying to make it. Let's just try to stay open minded about it, and not just say "it's impossible" which is an unfalsifiable claim. It will surely have to redefine what we mean by sane, making a new paradigm that shows that sanity is not so simple and normal as we thought.

  13. Amazing debate on morality

    zurew replied to enchanted's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    Good quality debate but TK made some mistakes and Destiny wasn't really prepared to challenge things because he never seriously engaged with philosophy. First you can just reject one of the main premise of TK's argument that there is a shared set of moral intuitions/seemings across all people. This is an empirical question that isn't substantiated and even if it would be, his claim relies not just on current times, but in past times as well (and I dont see why we should think that people in the past had a shared disagreement about torturing people for fun for instance). He also confused meta-ethics with normative ethics and he confused intersubjective with objective. Moral antirealists can have the normative ethics position that torturing kids for fun is bad without them needing to have any moral realist meta ethical position. And people having a shared set of moral intuitions is consistent with moral antirealism. When it comes to his evolution argument 1) People already accept that evolution is true, so they can just use evolution to explain why people have shared moral intuitions (if they have, again this wasnt substanstiated by TK) without them needing to affirm any extra propositions that they dont already believe in. So its not like they are forced to inflate their worldview by affirming that evolution is true. 2) TK didnt make any supporting argument and he didnt substantiate how it follows from evolution being optimized for survival that people dont have truth tracking cognition at all or how they dont have reliably truth tracking cognition. He needs to show whats the actual inconsistency in saying that evolution selects for moral intuitions that are good for survival and evolution also didnt select against people having reliably truth tracking cognition. 3) Even in the context where we go with the position that evolution does completely undermine truth-tracking cognition, even in that context the conclusion isn't that evolution is false, and isn't that evolution didnt select for moral intuitions that are optimized for survival; The conclusion is that if evolution is true, then we are epistemically undermined, but that is consistent with evolution being true. Even in this case his argument would be a pragmatic argument at best that would only show how accepting evolution leads you to not being able to justify your worldview (But again, not being able to justify your worldview isn't the same as your worldview being false). He used the abductive move where he searched for the best explanation for accounting for a shared set of moral intuitions. The issue there is that when it comes to abductive reasoning, you gonna have different theoretic virtues that you will look for and by him affirming that there is a moral structure out in the world, he needs to inflate his ontology by adding extra entities that moral anti-realists dont need to affirm to account for the same facts. TK also begged the question against dialetheists. Im not even sure if he knows that there are philosophers who take the stance that there are true contradictions. This is unfortunately typical of scholastics, that they for some reason think that classical logic is above everything else and they think that there havent been any progress made in the discovery/creation of new logics since Aquinas. TK also dodged the question about the God moral question (implying that the scenario is unintelligible when thats clearly not the case). He couldn't even entertain that hypothetical even though in the Bible you can actually find at least one instance where God wants people to do something that would go completely against most modern people's moral seemings and intuitions. I am referring to God ordering the Israelites to genocide the canaanites (not just adults, but their children and their animals as well).
  14. Good analysis on the topic Seems like 20 cities and military assets were hit Kharg island(where most of the Iranian oil goes through) is not shut down yet. This is the biggest violation of the wars powers act in US government history.

  15. Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

    integral replied to Leo Gura's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    The last part im confused with, most people naturally gifted at communication/social skills have nothing to do with truth. Trumps only skills is in the social domain. Youtube is filled with "master" communicators who have no sense for anything. (Ben Shapiro)
  16. https://www.superstock.com/cdn/990/Comp/990-3001.webp
  17. I just got some sleep and my paranoia is better. Okay so this theory which I call "the Fragment" (wip name) is a mathematical proof that gives all the conditions that had to interact at the same time for the possibility of the existence of something. I don't know if it is correct but it sure as hell is beautiful. I think I will post a sketch of the proof later. For a proper proof, mathematics might have to be invented first. I'll contemplate more about it and try to tear it down
  18. I think you’re pointing at something important, but I frame it a bit differently. What we usually call “sanity” is already defined inside a massively distorted framework. By that measure, most people agree with one another and function, but that doesn’t mean they’re close to seeing reality clearly. In that sense, what passes for normal is already deeply muddled. Indeed, the world we collectively navigate is unstable, contradictory, and oriented around threat, competition, and death; and we take all this as given rather than questionable. Sanity, as you suggest, really is about seeing reality accurately. But I'd say it doesn't come in degrees the way intelligence or emotional regulation does. It’s not a matter of being more or less sane than the average. It’s a radical shift in orientation: either perception is filtered through fear, defense, and assumption, or it isn’t. Mixing clarity and distortion cannot produce partial truth; it just produces similar distortion that feels a bit convincing. That’s why I don’t think sanity is something that can be meaningfully quantified or measured on a continuum. Any measurement system is itself being built from the same assumptions it’s trying to evaluate! The problem isn’t lack of data; the issue is the lens through which data is interpreted. What is required then is willingness, which means a readiness to question one’s own interpretations rather than reinforce them, and to allow a different way of seeing to replace the familiar one. That shift doesn’t add information; it removes interference. And when that happens, clarity will not be incremental; rather it is immediate! So I agree that sanity is central to metaphysics, but I’d say it’s less about ranking minds and more about whether the mind is defending its story or willing to let it all go.
  19. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVSun2Fjp6L/?l=1
  20. Well there is no reference of 5 times prayer in the Quran. Prayer is something universal you have it with Hindus you have it with Buddhists, Jesus Christ told the people to pray. Prayer is a means for people to devote and put their their lives to the higher power, to the absolute God, (if you dont think God exists at all, and that everything is a coincidence, I woner how you made 13.000 posts on this forum). Prayer is can also be a good mean to kill your ego and is certainly a good way to be grateful for what you have instead of wanting more and more like a greedy ungrateful person, of whom we have plenty on the planet. The Quran says there is no duty to follow the religion. So nobody has to become obsessive about anything. You can be a Sufi and use Islam as a mystical form of reaching higher states of Consciousness, which is what Sufis are regularly doing, they receive visions of the prophet and its followers, his daughter Fatima. I heard Sufi stories already its as real as you can imagine. And they do unimaginable stuff to their bodies, like pushing a sword into ones head who is in an out of body experience. The basis for their mystical Experiences is Islam, not a psychedelic drink or something, but chanting praise to Allah in a very repeated manner while they dance alongside that I went to a holy Islamic Shrine in Iran once, and felt a deep sense of peace when I was extremely anguished, where did that sense of peace come from? If you follow Islam, like a lunatic, obsessive person who only lives his life to read through that entire book, of course you become nuts and think even breathing will get you to hell, but use commong sense, be well grounded in Wisdom and be a person of reason as Surah 3:/ quoted above says and understand the context of its appearance and its necessary hell references that were needed to bring order into a barbaric population.

  21. A Critical Perspective on Psychedelic Use

    Carl-Richard replied to Oeaohoo's topic in Psychedelics

    If I can expand on this point: Psychedelic use makes you take insights into Maya really seriously because they seem very salient and profound, because that is what psychedelics does. That is why I think Leo uses the word "awakening" for literally everything under the sun, and why he dismisses any pushback on such insights as "you just don't understand". The profundity makes it seem so special and unique that when somebody disagrees, it just cannot be the case that it's merely a disagreement but a profound lack in experience. But of course, the issue is when the insight is into Maya, that is exactly where disagreement can be had, and any clinging to it is deception and untruth. This is the unfortunate downside of psychedelics in that it makes you more prone to not just deception but profound narcissism, taking your own limited experience so seriously and dismissing any pushback on it as not worth taking seriously. "My view is so profound, that even if it's personal and limited, it's too serious to be even challenged". "You just haven't had that awakening yet". And the term "awakening" reinforces the deception because it sounds so final and "official", as if it's a stamp of truth. When in reality, it's purely untruth. This is exactly where Leo parts ways from standard non-duality (or rather completely inverts the concept). It's when you treat Maya like it's truth, when it's really not. Either you see this instantly, or you're stuck in the deception.

  22. Funnydosing

    cistanche_enjoyer replied to theleelajoker's topic in Psychedelics

    Dosemaxxing When you dosemog your friends who took less than you
  23. There's literally been a war on terror, that turned into a war OF terror - the past decades in the Middle East. Bottom line is to read the entire page (context) and not just the bottom. Israel / US seems to feel the need to dominate the region. US more so for imperialistic reasons, Israel more so for security reasons but that are maximalist in their demands and only end up making them more insecure as a consequence. That hawksih security doctrine wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the impunity they enjoy under the US superpowers umbrella.
  24. Today

  25. Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

    cistanche_enjoyer replied to Leo Gura's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    Hey guys I just found out that I can sit on my bed as if it was a chair (like on the edge, without back support) and it fits me perfectly. So no need to buy a new chair

  26. It’s Joy Yimpa 🔥🌈

    Yimpa replied to Yimpa's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Hell yeah! The performer I missed last night will be playing again in SA. I Will go alone. I got the power in me⚡️
  27. There is no stoning punishment in the Quran, that's from the Old Testament (Thora). Yes I agree with you about the cutting hands off of the thieves, but the following verse says not to do so, if they repent. I understand that more as a harsh threat to big time Thieves that steal with no remorse, like nowadays you see corrupt Politicians and Big Companies stealing money with no shame. As already said, it was a violent and corrupt and barbaric time of evil surrounding the present all the time with constant tribal wars and superstition, so its a totally different era than ours is now, you cannot compare the surrounding conditions with those of now. The Quran has countless references to Compassion and Forgiveness being way higher values than Anger and Confrontation. Sufi Scholars are also scholars and they have visions of the higher spheres and the angels and so son, like the Santo Daime people use Ayahuasca and have visions in a Christian Setting, Sufis have inner realizations and visions and Out of Body Experiences through the Islamic Lense. Here you have Surah 3:6: It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. It clearly states that some verses are very precise and are the core of the book (The verses about Justice, Compassion, Love God as Oneness of all of Existence, Helping the Poor and the Orphans, and freeing the Slaves) While other verses are elusive and those that search for trouble and have deviant hearts (warmongering people, hateful people, those that abuse the name of God to reach their power or to use their own interpretation) will abuse those verses for their sick heart ambitions. And those are the Extremists you are talking about. It clearly says that noone knows its true interpretation other than God alone
  1. Load more activity