LastThursday

For the record:

Is consciousness self evident? When I use the word "consciousness" what is really happening here? In fact what is the relation between a word and reality? A noun or abstract noun represents something in the real word. We could say a noun "represents", "stands for", "points to", "references" something that isn't language based. There are exceptions. The word "adjective" is a noun that just points to other words, but these are few. When we use the word "table" for example the word itself refers to an object with four legs and a flat surface to place things on. Unfortunately, I'm using words here to describe what words point to! Nevertheless, you and I agree well enough what "table" refers to so that it becomes useful to use the word in everyday speech. People appear to be autonomous (have their own minds) and seem to share this thing called reality. So if two people are sat at the same table, they can both agree that "table" refers to the object they are sat beside. Because both people are using the word "table" there is an implicit mutual assumption that they are both experiencing something similar. And even if we're not experiencing something similar, then it is good enough to navigate the world and communicate effectively with each other. If any misunderstanding arises (because they're not actually sharing the same experience), then this becomes apparent and one person can correct their words. In all this it should become obvious that if a person is autonomous and has experiences, then whatever that experience is is not directly available to us - otherwise we wouldn't need to use language. The only thing available to us is their communication of their ongoing experience. The communication can be verbal or non-verbal, but we are always once removed from another person's direct experience. Language is a type of shorthand. What a "table" means is a very much simplified version of someone's actual experience. A table isn't just a flat surface and four legs, it has colour, shape, texture, made of wood or plastic, height, size and so on. Again even the attributes of a table are simplifications of actual experience: the colour of a red table depends on it's materials, how it was painted and ambient lighting and on and on. We very easily get confused between the descriptions of language and actual first-hand experience. We see a "table" as a self-evident truth about the world. If someone were to question you and say "what do you mean by table?", you may well reply "don't be silly, it's a table, you know... table?". However the actual experience of what is referred to as "table" has infinite variations of space, size, lighting, context and other non-language elements. An object could even temporarily become a table if we decide to place our coffee on its flat surface. This really highlights the fact that "table" is simply pointing to something, what it points to can be temporarily redefined. If words are so loose and flexible, then what does the word "consciousness" refer to? Woah hang on, isn't consciousness an absolute experience being experienced by autonomous human beings? Isn't Mary or John over there conscious? Don't they know that they're conscious, and what "consciousness" refers to? Isn't it self evident both they and I are conscious? Even if we drop the act that others are conscious (because we can't know directly), surely we know that we are conscious? Of course! But we are conscious by definition. What I mean by this is that we agree that "consciousness" refers to something (because all nouns do this), but we are completely free to choose what it refers to, and we are free to redefine what it refers to at any moment. So consciousness isn't self evident. Until we learn the word "consciousness" we don't possess it. We don't experience a "table" until we learn the word.

Learning is like looking at the lake and seeing the shimmering reflection of the sun in the water - maybe it causes you to look up? Maybe when you look up you are so enthralled by the Sun that you miss the Moon. If I was in a dream, I would have fun and see what was possible.

Materialism is an emergent property of consciousness. The only small quibble is that "consciousness" is in the same category as "electron": a thought form that neatly explains the phenomena of experience. You could say consciousness is everything or God but that just shifs the blame on to the word "everything" or "God". The elephant in the room is that consciousness is inexplicable: it cannot be described in its fullness. Materialism is at least explicable and suprisingly useful. If consciousness cannot be communicated then how do we then agree between ourselves that consciousness is the bedrock of the world? Or do we take a leap of faith?

Now make huge progress without pickup. To paraphrase @aurum change up your strategy: level up.

Comparison requires a scale. The scale can be absolute or relative (scientifically speaking), the only difference being is if you anchor the scale at a point or not. The scale is one dimensional. In other words a scale is an ordered set of distinct values or numbers. The orderliness of a one-dimensional scale gives you two things. The first is from any point on the scale you can go in any of two directions. The second is that you can measure the distance between two points. Ok, so enough of that Euclid's Elements style of explanation, what use is this? English has a number of relative comparative terms: better, worse, best, worst, more, less, fewer, most, least, fewest. And you can sort of indicate the size of the comparison by combining these words: most worst and so on, or using the "much" adjective. When using these terms English implies that there is a one-dimensional scale behind the scenes. For example when I say "Fridays are much better than Mondays", implictly I might be using a "happiness" scale, and comparatively on this scale Friday makes me more happy than Monday. We can see how the implict scale is not stated in the statement. If I said "Fridays make me happier than Mondays", then the scale is being stated. Even though the happiness scale has no units, we do intuitively know that there are distinct levels of happiness and that these levels are ordered in some way relative to each other. What happens when we apply these comparative words to people's attributes? We say something like: "Women prefer taller men". The word taller being the comparative word here. The scale here is given by the word "prefer", i.e. there is a preference scale that women in general have. So, given two men a woman (in general) would give preference to the taller of the two. We're playing word games here, because the preference scale is really quite abstract and non-specific. Preference is not an absolute scale that all women posses. No, instead each woman may base her preference on a further set of factors: attractiveness, agreeableness, confidence and so on. Indeed each woman may well place a different emphasis on any number of factors to come up with a "preference". To say "Women prefer taller men" completely warps reality. It says that only height matters, it says that only comparative height matters, it says all women only care about height, and it says nothing about what prefer actually refers to. Do the women prefer for sex, or marriage, or having fun or friendship or what? These are dangerous types of statement, precisely because they simplify reality so much as to be non-representative. They are actually false. Comparative statements imply a one-dimensional scale, but almost nothing about human beings can be measured this way. Every way you can categorise a human has a multiple set of dimensions or no dimensions at all. For example take hair colour. I make a bold statement: "I prefer redheads". But hair colour is not one dimensional. There is no scale for hair colour, there is just some arbitrary zone for "redhead" based on personal judgements. Equally for skin colour and tone: what is black? It's not one dimensional. By one measure we all have melanin in our skin, we're all black or more accurately shades of brown. Even for more definite human attributes such as height or weight, these are just arbitrary things to focus on. There's nothing special about being 5'7" or being taller than the average male or just being taller. There's a million other (probably more useful) attributes that could be focused on. So why are comparitive judgements so rife? Because being "better" socially confers advantages: more access to resources and more love (note the comparatives I've used here - apply the same arguments to the words "resources" and "love"). And being "worse" has the opposite effect and no-one deserves that. Comparative judgement is completely a mental construct designed to control people, like that other ubiquitous one-dimensional scale: money. Be aware of when you use it against people and stop bloody doing it.

@cookiemonster I like this. I've had too many instances where I've wished for something and it became reality. It's good to have a model for it, even if just to clearly see what might be going on and get a handle on it. I should journal about it, but I'm going to put my own thoughts about manifestation here instead. Don't take this to be either for or against your ideas, they're just my own ideas: Reality is a leaky abstraction. It seems like reality is a solid thing with rigid rules with no room for magick and manifestation at all. A pendulum swings dependably because the falling weight imparts energy to the clock's system. But quantum physics is pure probability, there is hardly any certainty at all for very small particles of matter. When you drive a car for example, you're mostly unaware of the machinery that makes it work, you simply press the pedals, change gear and swing the steering wheel around. This is reality, you're mostly unaware of the machinery of reality. It's worth being aware that belief is also part of reality. Sometimes your car breaks down and you become very aware of its innards, and that the abstraction of "car" has many layers to it. Sometimes the mechanics of the car intrude into reality: the lower level abstraction leaks into the higher level abstraction. So the everyday notion of reality - all the normal stuff that happens - is just one layer of abstraction. But stuff leaks: light behaves weirdly in certain situations, static electricity deflects water and so on. So scientists build up elaborate models and stories to explain the leaky abstractions. But scientists are only interested in certain aspects of reality and manifestation isn't one of them. To understand manifestation you have to look at the source of reality and belief. Firstly, belief is part of reality, it's not separate from it. So the source of belief is the same source as for reality. Seen this way it doesn't seem unusual that belief is linked or correlated with reality because they both came from exactly the same source. It's like twins having the same tastes, it's not that twin A is in telepathic communication with twin B, it's that they both have the same parents and upbringing. Belief and reality are siblings. Reality leaks abstractions constantly. I'd go so far as to say that reality probably has an infinite level of abstractions. Another phrase for leaky abstractions is: weird shit happens. Reality seems mostly normal because we're only ever looking for or expecting normal things (pressing pedals and changing gears). But as soon as we really pay closer attention we realise that weird shit happens all the time and that strangely it's linked to what's going on inside our heads. The real question is, is are we in control and can we learn to control it? Or is it up to source what happens and we're helpless automatons?

Exactly @Gianna. One is just a number, and it's too easy to get lost in numbers and feel cut off. Nonduality and complete connection is everything. You are everything, everything is you. There's nothing more wonderful.

Duality is disconnection and separation, deep down we want to reconnect and become non-dual again. Knowing that you're alone and wanting to connect to others are both working towards the same thing. You can have both.

Nope. What does booty mean? It used to mean loot, now it also means backside. Words change. Even the way words are said change - just listen to American English and British English, they used to be the same at one point. Language is constantly changing. If words had fixed meaning we would all be speaking the same language. Words are spiritual only if you think they are. We don't, Jacques Derrida did. It just so happens to be useful for understanding language. My religion is irrelevant to the discussion. My question is, what is really your intention behind watching Leo's content? Is it just to criticise and look for holes in his explanations? Or is it to open your mind?

We all appreciate a good looking male who owns their masculinity (men and women included). What do we enjoy about men? What characteristics turn you on? What should men project to entice women?

There is nothing to do except grieve for the loss. It will take some time so be patient and gentle with yourself. After that, at some point, you will realise that you don't need validation from anyone to be great. Validation is just love by another name, and fundamentally love only comes from one place: you.

If you have already achieved everything desired of you by society, what's left to do? Society's excitement if you will, is lowest common denominator glory. Get a partner, get married, buy property, have children. With the currency of all that being work for as much money and time and prestige as you can muster in a lifetime. It's seems obvious that a Western meritocracy earns its living by comparing ourselves to each other. You do well by simply being better. It's a blantantly obvious way of being no? What about those folks that aren't better, what to do about those people? Ignore them, put them down and make sure they're not included: segregate them out of your social circle. So much for Stage Orange capitalism and betterism. The neurotitism of Western society is that you have to have or obtain certain few certain attributes to be considered worthy of being included and recognised. If you want to see the origin of this idiotic notion look no further than the ancient Greek aesthetic: Where else does the idea of muscular Alpha males stem from? It's an inescapable Western paradigm. The only thing that's changed in over 2000 years is that they preferred curly hair on their heads rather than baldness. Obvioulsy, I find myself ascribing to this ancient idotic aesthetic. If I could click my fingers and become any one of those ancient statues and flex those biceps I would in an instant. That's how inculcated I am in so called modern culture. What's left to do? Everything. Eschew those pesky Greeks, rid myself of everything that makes you want to conform. Even being "yourself" is old hat. What's left is just understanding deeply what the fuck is going on. Why am I "I"? What is an "I"? What in the hell happened between being a bewildered babe and a bewildered middle-aged man? I could probably spend another lifetime dissecting it all to no avail. This seems like real modernity 2021. No. I've already achieved everything wanted of me by society. It's time to say "fuck you" to society, it has nothing more to offer me. Instead I chose to go my own way and to own my very beingness. To be just to be and not be neurotic about it: to just be a non-muscular God.

48. Do you actually have a point?

Yeah made my list of people for openings(what kind?).Served me well. Good training I guess. That's a non-sequitur if ever I've seen one. Man, you speak in riddles.

@sethman good to hear. What was your takeaway from the Jacques Derrida video then?

@intotheblack Because they're misogynistic whining manchilds. Obviously my comment is not productive and possibly inflammatory, but it does make me feel better.

Don't be daft there are no "right" words. Right according to whom, you? Watch this video for an explanation as to why - it's only two hours long:

@fish what are you saying? This forum is more delicious than an Italian ice cream parlour.

You have nothing to prove. Let people believe what they want to believe, you can't please everyone. In fact, just stop talking to the neighbour, that will give a stronger message. Obviously be civil, say "hi" if you bump into them but keep it to a minimum.

The normie force is strong within you. Only your thoughts are going round in circles. Why not aim to escape from the prison of your thoughts? Meditate regularly. Walk in nature. Learn to play an instrument. Have sex. Do something out of the ordinary. Therapy probably won't help, it's just more thoughts. But I'm no therapist.

And that explains precisely nothing. Leo's audience needs explanation, he's not preaching to the converted. Explanation takes lots of words. Leo has to convice his audience of what he's saying. The more esoteric the video, the longer he needs to explain things, which is why his videos have got longer. What you're saying is like saying that War and Peace should just be ten pages long, because most of it is fluff. Yes, maybe, but then you lose all the nuance and guts of the story and all the juicy details. You should be able to focus for a few hours on anything without it being a problem. Here's a short video for you:

Ah yes, love. We all need love me included. It's not a bad need to have, but it is a need that never seems satisfied. There are so many ways to trigger it within yourself. Where we go wrong is to think too narrow: "I will only feel love in a relationship with this particular person". Love is everywhere in many different forms.

Is it though? Some of us seem to be drawn to creating our own thought prisons: no free will, solipsism, no self, illusion of reality etc. We get a melancholic thrill from it. And we use it to stop ourselves going any further into the scary unknown.