RendHeaven

@LastThursday Good insight.

This is really tricky. Of course "observation" is included within Aristotelian contemplation - without observation, there is no "thing" to contemplate about. But I don't think he stops there. He could not say half the things he says if he really let go of his mind. At some point, the mental chatter begins, and he starts to categorize. Any time "the mind" "acts," thinking occurs. In the very definition you've given, contemplation is equated to the mind acting. "A thing" can be finite and exhibit an infinite amount of states, lmao (thereby not being finite) All these distinctions are just so preposterous. This man walks up to reality with a big phat sharpie and actually thinks his lines matter. It's amazing.

Yes, but note that Aristotle's Prime Mover is credited only for setting the universe in motion, not for creating the substance of it. So really, it doesn't have full God status. He has no direct experience of it - it is a figment of his imagination. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the Prime Mover somehow has a love for contemplation and knowing itself - through thinking. So actually, Aristotle is still paradigm-locked into thinking that thoughts are the only way to have knowledge. Though he calls the Prime Mover indivisible, he does not fathom that it is literal absolute infinity. In the same book (or was it the Physics? Can't remember) he draws the distinction that a conceptual infinity exists, while an actual infinity cannot. Bah. Lost in concepts. Of course, if I said this to an academic, he would call me arrogant and get defensive. These are really tricky grounds. Regarding direct experience, you either get it or you don't. Aristotle simply did not get it.

Honestly, even "small glimpses" are really impressive considering how philosophers tend to be hyper-intellectual. In a weird way, being conventionally intelligent is actually a hindrance if your goal is to have awakening experiences. Too much mind stuff. Nonstop. The delusion tends to run so deep that in most cases, the basic (relativistic) distinction between thoughts and awareness is never made. I mean, try telling Aristotle that you could understand something without thinking about it And for them to have glimpses of oneness despite this delusion? That's actually pretty cool.

Unlearning goes so, unbelievably deep. You can unlearn and undo your whole life in the service of Truth. I wonder if Dr. Nicole is aware of this.

"Physical external objective reality." When you're really conscious, it becomes seriously laughable. Not in the sense that you immediately realize that "everything is imagination!" (No, I'm nowhere near Leo levels of awareness haha) But rather, you can get in touch with the raw mysteriousness of what is. And you see how you explain away the mystery as "here I am looking at these objects" Just utter nonsense. But then we always somehow slip and forget, and "physical external objective reality" appears self-evident once more. It's so absurd. And funny

Parmenides was also famous for asserting that oneness is all that is, but I suspect he might have been lost in fantasy land. Despite asserting that all is oneness, he still insisted on certain distinctions: E.g. "object/subject," "perceptible/imperceptible," "truth/falsehood," etc. It seems to me that either he didn't take his own distinctions seriously (and understood their limitations), or he only conceptually grasped oneness. It's hard to tell. But overall, he's in the same boat as Heraclitus.

Have you studied pickup as if it were a skill? Like piano or tennis?

A girlfriend will never fulfill you But you need to experience it first to come to that conclusion. Me telling you is insufficient. So stop theorizing about what could be, and take the necessary action steps to get a girlfriend. It's actually very simple. All of your excuses are fantasy. There are plenty of free resources online.

@mandyjw @Serotoninluv @TrynaBeTurquoise All brilliant insights. What an attitude! You do realize you are inquiring about the nature of all of REALITY? At least, that's what an honest inquiry of love leads to. This is the ultimate undertaking. If anything should be approached with humility, it is this.

If you've got a YouTube channel, respond with a link! I'm really interested in seeing what kind of creative things this forum is up to specifically in the field of video. In order to not violate the "NO SELF PROMOTION" clause in the Guidelines, I want to state that I'm requesting specifically YouTube channels for legitimate research reasons. This thread isn't here for anyone to talk about whatever the heck they do, nor is it here for people to incessantly talk about themselves. It will also help enormously if you guys can add some context to your YouTube link. For example: What is the channel about? How does it relate to your life purpose? Etc. I'm making this thread really for personal reasons (I want to see what it looks like when serious self-actualizers post social media content), but I also imagine it's a great way for everyone to give and receive value. Don't be shy!

Can astrology predict events for the future? From certain perspectives - yes it can. From other perspectives - no it cannot. It tends to be inconsistent, so critics will say it is useless. And yet, it does get some things correct, so believers will flock to one-off instances to validate their worldview. The wise thing to do would be to keep your mind open. Refrain from breeding an emotionally charged opinion: Don't bother engaging with the "Astrology is the Truth!" camp, nor the "Astrology is bullshit!" camp. Try adopting an impartial stance and see where this leads. Engage with it when you are inspired, but don't defend it like your baby.

P.S. This is what I'm referring to. Accept that most people will never, ever see what you're trying to show them. Similarly, accept that you will never "make" people see anything. They will see it when they are ready. So rather, focus on you. Rephrase your purpose into becoming someone who is able to open the eyes of those around you, not because you "made" them do anything, but because they were inspired by your mere presence. Leo's recent blog post is a perfect example: https://www.actualized.org/insights/the-highest-purpose Notice that his purpose is about what he will become. Not about what changes he will "make" in the people around him.

Many people are stuck in low consciousness of their own will. When you approach them with a solution, they'll reject it. This rings true for even the shallowest parts of personal development such as pickup. Something as deep, radical, and counter intuitive as seeing the magic of life is going to be REAL tough to execute as a vision. What are you going to do, preach to them? "Hey, look around you! Everything's beautiful!" Yeah tell that to the guy who just had a divorce and lost his job, he'll probably punch you. That's not to discredit your life purpose, and I'm not telling you to give up. In fact, we have almost identical life purposes All I'm suggesting is that you dig really deep and be realistic: The magic of life? Who the fuck cares? Nobody! Prepare to be ignored, ridiculed, and hated on. Even beyond that, even if you found "your tribe" of people who are actively seeking a more conscious life, what will you say to them? "Wake up! Here it is!" Yeah as if, lol. Don't expect preaching to be effective. This is where you'll have to get really creative. If you plan to become a speaker, become so articulate, charismatic, and fluid that you can evoke deep emotions in your crowds. Become well-read. Know philosophic theory forwards and backwards, all the while being mindful of its limitations. Don't tell people about the magic of life; show them. Embody it. Furthermore, don't limit yourself to one form of expression. Magic can be found in art and music (and everywhere else). It's a matter of how good you are at bringing the magic to the surface. Keep all this in mind as you move forward

In theory he's dead on (haha). The next step is to take it beyond theory with direct realization and embodiment; is that what you're encouraging with this statement?

I mean the photo haha

you want to "make" people see things they don't want to see? Good luck~

Counter-intuitive!!

I've noticed this change in the past year. Keep it up

@Marinus I have this sneaking suspicion that you're mirroring Leo...

Yes, I've seen it. Leo shared it to open our minds to the possibilities. Most people would reject "Machine Elves" immediately.

I would personally never give touching as advice until it's established that this is a person who is comfortable in their own skin. A genuine smile, combined with a genuine laugh combined with genuine touching is killer. A forced smile, a half-laugh, and a rigid, rehearsed touch is disgusting.

@Richard Alpert I mentioned the moon as an analogy. But, since you ask, the answer is "I don't know." And if you were really honest, that would be your answer also. Notice, RIGHT NOW, that in your direct experience, you do not perceive anything "behind" you. Now, if you were to turn around, you might say that what was "behind" you is now visible. And once again if you turned back to your original orientation, "behind" is once again invisible. Where did all the forms go? "Well, they're behind me!" Nope. That's a mental map you constructed. Do you understand that? For all you know, what's "behind" you might physically cease to exist while you are not aware of it. When you turn back around, it spontaneously materializes. Now, I'm not saying that's what actually happens. What I am saying, though, is that there are gaps in your certainty of reality and you fill them with thought stories. What happens to the forms behind you when you do not see them? Well, you imagine that they continue to exist while not being observed. Key word, imagine. You have no way of verifying this. In order to imagine this, you literally invent "you," "perceptual field/vision," "objects," "space/location," and "time." I am telling you that these things literally do not exist. So what does exist?? Imagine this (lol): Let's pretend "direct experience" is like a a big canvas. The forms you see are paint on that canvas. So as you turn around, the paint changes. In fact, as you live life, the paint is constantly changing. The whole process is so mysterious that you, that being the curious little cat you are, you MUST explain it to yourself. So what do you do? You start calling the paint "objects." When the paint changes, you tell yourself that these are different objects that are being perceived by you. In doing this, however, you lose sight of the canvas. You only see the paint. Try to get in touch with the canvas. The experience as it happens prior to your mind projecting all sorts of conceptions. So once again, Notice, RIGHT NOW, that in your direct experience, you do not perceive anything "behind" you. Your direct experience is your direct experience. The canvas regardless of the paint. Now, if you were to turn around, you might say that what was "behind" you is now visible. Your direct experience is your direct experience. The canvas regardless of the paint. Turning around does not change this. And once again if you turned back to your original orientation, "behind" is once again invisible. Where did all the forms go? No, they are NOT "behind you." And if you are adamantly going to insist that they are, at least admit that you are imagining it and that you are taking a blind leap of faith. The "external world" is NOT obvious. It is NOT common sense. If you were really really really honest, when I ask, "where did all the forms go?" You would say "I don't know." And not knowing, my friend, is both the starting point as well as the whole journey.

Finger pointing to the moon, my man Ofc the finger ain't the moon. Shiva's analogy here is clearly tailored toward someone locked in materialism, thus it is a partial truth. You can't bust out anekantavada on a materialist, they will reject it immediately (not that anekantavada is any more "truthful" than any other partial truth, necessarily. Very twisted, tricky stuff.)

Wow, this is a gem! Sadly, I get this feeling that materialists will still insist on "hallucination!" to maintain their worldview of "brainz>everything else!!"