LastThursday

The question of "realness" is quite a gnarly one. I'm just guesing that by objective you mean persistent and autonomous. But, I'm willing to bet there are people in your dreams and that they act independently of you: i.e. they are persistent and autonomous. You could argue that people in your dreams are random and don't hang around for long, but it's the same in waking life. That's just one example. The more you examine dreams the more commonalities you see with being awake. In the end I think it's difficult to call one real and the other one subjective. Either both are real or both are subjective. Where's the boundary between dream and awake? If that boundary is "waking up" then it's not inconceivable that you could wake up out of reality. Maybe there's no end to the waking up?

Is judgement itself "high" or "low" consciousness? Should we stop doing it? Maybe call it what it is: "good" and "bad" actions. Actions which cause suffering or actions which cause happiness or neutral actions. Phew!

Which is what? The problem here is, is that there's nothing more than dream (awake or sleeping). So what you're asking here is to explain the dream in terms of... the dream. It's not all lost though. The circularity is the answer. It's a self perpetuating system. The dream creates the dream. There's no beginning or end to it. Or if you prefer it's like zooming into a fractal; it's a self similar system. The other way to explain it is to say the dream is irreducible. In other words it can't be explained in simpler terms, it is what it is. To explain anything at all, you are effectively reducing it down to words or symbols and applying some sort of algorithm (process, calculation). Some things in reality can be reduced down, for example the theory of gravity. Other things are impossible. In general it's impossible to explain if an algorithm will produce an answer or not (look up Turing). Some things in maths are impossible to prove. And so on. Prove, explain, calculate, algorithm are all synonyms in this context. Yet another way to see it is as a groundless relative system. Imagine a system with two parts to it. There is no user manual, so the parts are not well defined, they are free to take any form they want. For example they could look like the Yin Yang symbol with one black part and one white part. But because they're not defined they can change from one moment to the next. But there are some things you can say about this system: 1. There's no gap between the parts. The consequence being that one part is the complement of the other. 2. The two parts make up the entire system. The consequence is that there's nothing beyond or outside of the two parts. 3. The system is free to take up any configuration it likes. The consequence is that it's unbounded (a.k.a. potentially infinite). The other being that it could be potentially in constant flux. 4. The two parts exist, but are not describable in terms of themselves. So now look around you. Does "the dream" fit the four descriptions above?

SIDE NOTE: All those 3 pounds of porridge must be doing something right? Otherwise why not replace it with air? Still, there are normal people living with only half a brain. There are actually 1000000000000000 connections in the brain, and one neuron for each star in the galaxy. Geek out.

@Someone here you ask good questions. Not really an answer, more of an observation: dreams and waking reality are identical manifestations. So whatever generates dreams is also generating your waking state right now. Ultimately, it's a philosophical question. I'd say the main difference is not in nature, but just in cohesiveness. Dreams are less rigid or cohesive; everyday waking reality is very strict and unbending. If you examine dreams, they are very staccato and full of non-sequiturs. Then again if you really examine waking reality, it's very similar.

Reading isn't enough for being more enlightened (small e). How is it possible to read several hundred pages of a book and retain all that information? And even more importantly how can you put that new information into action? How can you, when faced with a novel situation, think back to that particular piece of wisdom you read about and use it? The answer is you can't - not easily. So is consuming a large number of books worth it at all? What actually happens when you read a book? When reading, the words on the page generate sensations in your imagination. If the words are good they will generate novel arrangements of sights and sounds in your mind's eye. To that end you may have spontaneous realisations, or insights, and some of these can be long lasting. But most will be forgotten. More importantly than the words themselves is the overall gist or direction of what is being said. Most times if the writer is good they will guide you through their thinking, and if it clicks this can stick around long enough in the memory to be useful. Other times you have to think for yourself and go meta and try and understand what is being pointed to. Arguably thinking for yourself when reading will be more useful long term. One of the things that happens when you read many different sources of material, is that broad themes start to emerge. So you go beyond the style and content of a work, and realise that there is commonality with other stuff you've read. This is the most useful feature of reading. For example it may take 300 pages to explain how a nuclear reactor works, but the gist is that it boils water, to make electricity. That tidbit of information is really what you will remember. One useful thing to do is take notes (not for me personally!). The essence of note taking is precisely that condensing down of information into tidbits you can remember and use in future. There are myriad ways to take notes. But I wouldn't say it was useful to just summarise a book as you go, but actually put down the insights you believe will be useful to you in future. The main thing with notes is to re-read them. If realistically you're not going to revise your notes, then there is an argument for not bothering to take notes at all. If this is the case then you will need a good memory! What should you do with insights? You shouldn't just collect them to show them off. You need to actually embody them and use them day to day. If you have an insight that to attract someone you must first love yourself, in itself is no good, if you don't in fact try and love yourself. There is a gulf between just knowing something and actually embodying it, that takes work and often rote learning: if X then Y, if X then Y, until it becomes automatic. That process of embodying knowledge is actually the end goal of reading. It should be 80-20 or even 90-10. 10% reading, 90% trying to embody. It takes effort. Personally, I don't read many books, and I've never been a good note taker. But I do consume and think about vast and varied quantities of knowledge, constantly, and some of it sticks. And I can see myself changing over time as I embody these new insights and I'm better off for it.

I'd say it's less about acceptance or liking and more about judgement. You are judging yourself against some internal standard that you've built up over time. Maybe as you say it started in your teenage years. But reaching back to being 15 and trying to work it all out is fruitless. I'd say work on being less judgemental about yourself in general. Easier said than done I know. It's more of an attitude than anything else. Can you lead life without judging?

Here's an exercise to try: Imagine making love to yourself. Bear with me, this is not some narcissist's wet dream, I'm not that way inclined. It all starts with loving yourself. There's a lot of talk in self help about loving yourself. This is probably something to do with some sort of symmetry which goes like this: how can you genuinely love others if you can't bring yourself to love yourself first? It's walking the walk so to speak. So sure, you can chant affirmations every morning and perhaps this acts as some sort of proxy for a loving mother. But it's weak sauce in my opinion. What about something with more kick in it? For those visualisers and touchy feely types why not lie down, close your eyes, put on some mood music, and then let your imaginary alter come into the room and join you with intent. The alter's intent is to literally make carnal love to you. If you're not into imaginary gay sex with yourself, then you're not ready to really love yourself. One notch down, would be to imagine yourself as the opposite sex and let your mirror alter play ordinary you. Approach. Kiss. Work out who goes first. Let the alter unbutton your blouse, let yourself fumble with their belt. Keep kissing. Press bodies, let breast and muscle collide. Be vigorous if necessary: you should feel something, if you're turned on just give into the pleasure of it, if you're turned off keep going anyway. Get naked, let your mind's eye find a comfortable position and start the heavy petting. One way to improve the experience is to match your imaginary mirror self with your every move. If you touch their behind, they will touch yours and so on. Again, feel into it. Feel the hands, the breath, the contours, the unpleasant bits, the pleasant bits, all of it. Explore your alter as much as possible. And let them explore you, and go to places you would rather not. It is only your imagination after all. Make love. Make love. Make love. Afterwards, make note of anything that came up. What surprised you? What repelled you? What did you like most? Would you go on a second date? Love thyself properly.

And two strengths combine to create a bigger strength. Naturally, every relationship is completely unique. Some of them may be a joke, others challenging, but some are beautiful. Relationships are largely improvisation anyway, they shift from day to day and change slowly over time. There's so much to learn. My mantra now is that if a relationship stops working, be polite and civil and move on. Many relationships become a joke because they're past their sell-by date.

Yeah it's funny. The mantra of "direct experience" is repeated over and over again here as if we're not having direct experience at all. As for words, it's like this: after you read War and Peace what are you left with? Was it just words or actually the direct experience of imagination? Words and their stories serve to prime the imagination, that is their utility. Words themselves are just hot air and ink. It's all absurd insofar that all acts are fundamentally meaningless. But that's ok. Relying on meaning as a crutch is also absurd.

Oh absolutely. But that was my original point with @BipolarGrowth. You can't just denigrate the stories, they're part of consciousness too. And my reply to you was metaphorical too.

@Aturban I have. The juxtaposition of Alan Watts and food is irresistible. But Alan Watts is wrong in saying that the human form is the outliers from the splotch of ink. We are the ink itself, the source.

@BipolarGrowth you are right. The Big Bang is a metaphorical phrase fronting a complicated coherent scientific story (I can type it, but I can't say it quickly). Naturally, it's coherent because scientists threw out all the incoherent bits. But why throw out the baby with the bathwater? It's obvious that whatever consciousness is (I don't really like the word), it is full of structure and meaning, it's not just some random mess. That immediately begs the question: why all that structure? So we need a good story to tell. The story for better or worse is still in consciousness, it becomes part of the structure. My own out-there opinion is that the scientific Big Bang is simply the reflection of the Big Bang that is us. It's like this: why are we here, because of XYZ. So in essence we are the seed on which the crystal of existence grows out from. We (consciousness) in the present moment are the ultimate effect of all those causes. If we follow the chain in reverse effect, cause, effect then scientists conclude one cause. This doesn't seem surprising to me, one effect (consciousness) from one cause. All this cause and effect duality is in fact false however. You could say it's all just one effect or one cause or a causeeffect. That means nothing ever started and nothing ever ended: ergo, we ARE the Big Bang itself. The Big Bang is right here and now.

I've never been one for schemes for understanding life. My sister was very much into Tarot when she was younger, maybe she still is. I never understood the appeal. I think this reluctance stems from two sources: being comfortable with the mystery of life, and not wanting to be tied down by faith in a particular system. I learned early on that life was freer and more fun if you didn't live it rigidly. A lot of New Age thinking is about systems for understanding life and I get that a lot of people find solace in that. The mystery and unknowable nature of reality can be too much for a lot of people. People need certainty, control and stability in their lives - a grounding for existence. There is of course no such thing, which is why exposing yourself to the harsh glare of reality can be terrifying. There is a sense of vertigo as we look into the groundless abyss of reality and we shy away from it, instead clinging to our systems and rituals and beliefs. Of course to continue living in this reality there is a constant fight against entropy, by using the weapon of energy. Otherwise known as survival. We have to keep intact the machinery of our bodies by constantly taking in chemical energy and having big brains to avoid all sorts of dangers. So in order to keep on existing in this particular reality we have to ground ourselves in survival. So like it or not survival is the informal ground of existence. Naturally, being humans nothing is simple. Survival is so intricate and nuanced that most of us don't even realise we're doing it. When you walk that well trodden path across the park instead of taking the pavement around the edge, you are practicing energy conservation: survival. When we're scared to confront the boss because we're unhappy with him, that's survival: the potential loss of employment could directly impact our ability to survive. We are totally beholden to our instinct to survive, so much so that we would rather lead a mediocre and lacklustre life than upset our survival chances. We are forced into ways of being by Entropy herself. But again being humans nothing is simple. Against the ground of survival we are also spiritual beings. We believe in fanciful notions of something greater than us; magic; systems of divination; knowing what can't be ordinarily known. This is in complete contrast to survival; there is an inbuilt friction in our natural makeup. We become sad and despondent precisely because a part of us knows that there's more to life than pure survival. So which part is truer? If there is a system for living life it's this: spirituality and survival. It's not one or the other. If we authentically want to be human we have to intermingle the two and not be ashamed of it, this is our true nature. We should strive to unleash our potential as spiritual beings, but also unleash our potential for being skilled survivalists. Both go hand in hand.

@Aturban you are the Big Bang and you are at the centre of it. Everything is because of you.

Hahahahahahahaha.....

What on God's Earth are people? First things first. Why do you identify so heavily with people? Why not place your trust in cats or magpies? Second things next. How is it possible to even recognise a person? Are we born with a template of an "average" human imprinted into our DNA, which then expresses itself in the intricate connections of our neurons? Or if it is indeed a blank slate, then how do we first distinguish the form of a human from all the other noise in our environment? Puzzling. There is of course the blindingly obvious template of our human bodies. But arguably the most important feature of a person is her face. And yet we have no idea what our own faces look like; so the self-template idea is a bit shaky. But I wouldn't say it's without merit. We can at least see everything below our shoulders. That should be enough to provide a template for what to look out for in our environment. Still, it's problematic. For one how do we learn to distinguish between "our body" and "all the other stuff" in the first place? You see how relative all this knowing is? How would you get enough of a grip on knowing, to distinguish both yourself and other people from everything else in consciousness? Third things last. You could flip your viewpoint and just accept the relativity. So that it's not possible in actuality to distinguish people from everything else and from you yourself. Instead You is a hybrid entity. You are both you and them (and everything else including the cats and magpies). After a while it makes perfect sense, but You have to let it sink in. Everything in Your experience is a chaotic mess, but the one thread linking all that mind boggling consciousness is that it's Yours. You are the common denominator for all experience. Every person, every cat, every black and white bird and blade of grass goes through Your filter and your prejudices and interpretations. Yours. You. You are the ground in all the relativity. So for every boss that irritates you, every mother that treats you like a kid, every brother that loves and hates you and every friend that doesn't want you to change, there is a You behind them. You not separate from them. You are them. They are you. There is no template and there is no blank slate. There is only You.

:: language didn,t originate :: :: the production of sounds for the purposes of communication # coevolved like our tongues and vocal chords :: the one thing that all languages have in common are that humans speak them with tongues in their heads :: speech is part of a system along with tongues # vocal chords # and brains :: tongues and vocal chords are part of a system with faces and windpipes # and on it goes until the entire human organism is involved :: :: if the tongue evolved to improve the chances of ingesting food # then it also evolved to improve the chances of speaking :: it doesn,t take a linguist to see the survival value in efficient communication between members of a close knit community :: just as it is impossible to say when the first human hand appeared [[ because each successive hand was only minutely different from the one before ]] # it,s equally impossible to say when the first word or sentence was uttered :: no # a word is inseperable from the non=language sounds that humans make # where each successive generation,s sounds became more and more wordlike over the entire evolutionary history of humanity :: :: the structure and nuance of language is as intricate as the %bandwidth% of the tongue # brain # human system allows :: and # language is an intricate part of the human system :: future language will evolve into ever more complexity and efficiency # until that is we no longer need to speak to survive ::

There's only one person who can actually answer the question. Perhaps when he's more established and understood (I'm hoping), it won't be so much of an issue. I liked the authentic nature of the videos, but I do question the utility aspect - other than to prep you for what to expect - I mean it's not as if you can experience what he is experiencing: you have to do that for yourself.

It makes me wonder what is a thought in the first place. I mean are emotions and thoughts separate or not? Also if you speak out loud, instead of talking to yourself, is that a thought? If you take notes, are the notes thoughts in physical form? Anyway. It depends on the type of activity. If I'm thinking about design for a project or trying to solve a maths or computer problem, I'd say that's nearly entirely visual with no internal chat. From that I get a sense (not really a feeling) of how things fit together and work. For playing and reading music, my fingers do the thinking. It's more like my fingers "think" and then I get the auditory and tactile feedback of the instrument to tell me how play next. I read music badly, but again there's no internal chit chat, just looking and playing. However, if I'm rehearsing for an upcoming situation (because I need to get my facts straight) or presentation, there'll be a lot of internal chat as I go through imaginary dialogue over and over again. If I'm writing, I put the words down and then read them to myself to make sure it sounds good and it flows well. So, a bit like an auditory sound check. But there's a kind of visual thinking which goes on as well, with punctuation and word length and word choice. For an activity like computer programming, thoughts are wordless (you can't speak code!). They kind of just arise and I just type then test. It's a bit like speaking, but without words. For other situations where I don't have enough information or when in social situations it's mostly just thinking by feeling my way in the moment - like an intuition. But I couldn't really describe it in any way.

My opinion is that it's a matter of balance. Ideally Leo would be able to publicly document all the facets of spirituality, not just philosophy and meta-physics, but the physical nuts and bolts, the day-to-day process. Documenting the process of an enlightenment experience for example requires nuance. Videos like this can be interpreted in wildly different ways and some of them are very negative. On a human level, it must be difficult to take a high level of criticism for something you've put love and effort into. But also there needs to be a balance between utility (is the video useful for others), entertainment (does it bring in revenue for his business), documentation (is it breaking new ground), expression (embodying and showing others what you teach). If the balance is wrong then I wouldn't blame Leo for not wanting to continue with these sorts of videos. There are other ways to teach.

What is attention and focus? Attention is what leads us. Some of that attention is innate like being intensely gripped by anything to do with people. Some of it learnt like being excited by the latest console game. All our decisions and motivations are governed by attention. And we try to manipulate attention so that we can shift into newer more elevated states of being. Procrastination, motivation, desire are all driven by attention. Most of our attention is uncontrolled and uncontrollable: that's our humanity, our curse and our blessing. We are mostly attentive to what our ape biology wants. The fraternal twin of attention is focus. If attention is the grip then focus is the strength of the grip. Focus can expand and contract, be tight or be wide, intense or light. When we lose ourselves in a film, our focus is warped into the world of the plot. When we're in the zone or in flow, our focus glides without friction. When we're threading a needle our focus is at a pinpoint. If attention leads, focus keeps us there. But focus is also the the thing that remembers and forgets. If we focus in the right way we can forget who we are whilst playing Bach - and when we stop, we remember ourselves again. Focus allows us to slow down and sleep and dream, focus snaps us back when we wake up again. Focus is the ultimate superpower. We and the world only exist when our focus says we do. What happens when we reduce attention, when we meditate for example? Then focus is let loose. We start to notice it wildly fluctuating, growing and shrinking, constantly in motion. Our attention chases it, instead of focus chasing attention. But eventually it can be tamed and it becomes still. Only then does it start to seep into everything, colouring all of our attentions with the same essence. That essence of serenity, calmness, bliss, beauty and love.

The answer lies in working out what a @Someone here actually is. Because your solipsism springs from there. Even if one day you "woke up" and found yourself experiencing two people's consciousnesses simultaneously - that only tips the probability scales, it doesn't answer the question.

Two times spring to mind: I quit my job of seven years, without any sort of plan and lived off my savings. If I were to do it again, then I would definitely have a plan or a purpose for doing it. All I did was burn through my money and in the end I had to go work again! I booked a flight half way round the world to New Zealand, booked a hostel and went. No plan and a small rucksack: one long sleeved shirt, one short sleeved shirt, thin walking trousers you could turn into shorts, thick walking trousers, a pair of boots, a pair of flipflops, some underwear, toiletries. I had a ball, met a ton of people, regained some of my youth back and did some amazing things (bungeeeee). It was exactly what I needed at the time.

I know it's probably a very broad question and maybe the answer is no. But there's this middle ground between pure survival and pure spirituality that isn't discussed much here. It seems like it boils down to two things. There are systems for living: minimalism, twelve rules, religion etc. etc. But there are also ideals: pursuing happiness, caring for the environment, being grateful and so on. But to me these all feel contrived - surely there isn't a one-size-fits-all way to live? What should be the aim for living both as an individual and as a community? Should there be an aim for living or should it just be free and unguided? Is it just a pix and mix of ideas to suit your situation? What do you think?