Oeaohoo

Actualised videos remind me of something Wittgenstein said about Bertrand Russell: His episodes on metaphysics, epistemology and ontology (“What is Truth/Love/Integrity/etc?”) are often very captivating, but some of his social, political and historical analysis is so mediocre. I think this is because Leo’s thinking style is very self-derived and logical, which is great for analysis of interior experience but not so much for the collective situation. In “Spiral Dynamics” terms, I also think being a product of America gives Actualised a heavy one-sided bias against “Blue” in favour of an over-emphasis on certain aspects of “Orange” and “Green”. Episodes that had a significant impact on me:

Just think of the jokes these kids will tell each other: Q: “Why did the woman cross the road?” A: “What’s a woman?”

Yes, wouldn’t want to get caught in the hook of Truth and Reality! If anything is a social construct, it’s social constructivism.

Haha. I would say reducing half of humanity to a “social construct” is the real sexism! “Hey baby, I know you don’t exist and you’re just a fabrication of patriarchal society, but do you wanna come over tonight? I bet your imaginary pussy would feel beautiful on my oh-so-real male cock!” Sorry, just messing around; after all, isn’t that what the internet was made for? What do you think of the following: And this?

Ah, but all of that adaptive evolutionary biology involved sensory experience of the world external to the brain! We could go go back and forth like that forever because, like you said, it’s a snake biting it’s own tail.

What a pointless response. I notice you clipped off everything that I asked! Maybe I’m not the only one one working hard to avoid things…

I like this question so I’ll give it a go. Yes. A healthy society needs to have a clear idea of what it values. It needs to be capable of making clear distinctions between insiders and outsiders, friends and enemies. The enforcement of these distinctions might occasionally provoke conflict but greater and graver conflict is sure to ensue in the end from failing to make them. I think that one of the most fundamental utopian delusions of our time is the attempt to transcend favouritism. We could call this “the liberal delusion”, or for Spiral Dynamics fans “the Stage Green delusion”, or maybe just “the postmodern delusion”. To be clear, we could create a society in which favouritism was minimised, but it would require a radical shift in mentality. This delusion, however, is pedalled by people who are often far more identified with their limited human self-identity than any people of the past were. A society which practised a healthy favouritism would still be able to reach out and help others in need. Ironically, the denial of favouritism has produced forms of it that are very one-sided and unhealthy. Favouritism is reflected in biology because it is intrinsic to existence. To exist is to “stand apart”, to be separate, to be a limited and partial being. For such a being to be itself and not something else it must (at least at the most fundamental level) prefer to be that thing, otherwise it would be something else! It is as necessary and important as existence itself. I think we all know what the cons of excessive favouritism are. If anybody has forgotten, a Hollywood movie or a chat with one of your progressive friends can surely remind you! Say goodbye to the world! You could never eradicate favouritism from the world because it is intrinsic to existence. In a virtuous and noble society, however, favouritism would be understood as nothing more than one of the infinite faces of God.

How is that obvious? Women are not merely a human phenomenon, there are female animals of many species. Why was this social construct chosen and not another? Even the term woman might not have merely social origins. Have you ever deeply contemplated the origins and nature of language? Why is it that in so many languages the phonetic roots “ma-“ and “sh-” are associated with woman whilst “pa-“, “da-“ are associated with man?

Careful! That’s not quite what this shows. The original input comes through the senses from the external world; this input is then formalised by the brain into a predictive model; then future input is only necessary to adjust this internal model. There is some truth in what you say, though, in the sense that the brain is already hard-wired to make these predictive models. Reality is an Ouroboros but by definition the brain is only a part of that snake!

@Danioover9000 What do you think? @IAmReallyImportant gave an answer above, emphasising the genetic aspect of womanliness. The only problem I have with this is that the study of genetics only emerged quite recently and ironically coincided with the rise of feminist ideology! However, the physical and hormonal differences that create the feminine character that everybody recognises as a “woman” are determined by genetics so I think this still holds true. I would say that a woman is a manifestation of the feminine polarity of existence. This includes: abundance, receptivity, passivity, power (Shakti) and potency (in the literal sense of “potential to be”), conformity (in the literal sense of “complying to form”, as form is a key attribute of the masculine polarity), materiality (from mater, the mother), seduction and illusion (Maya), and so on. The physical differences are all simply the material expressions of these metaphysical traits. This is why I insist that postmodernism is a radical negation, inversion and even perversion of Truth. It denies that there are archetypes and forms which are eternally true and which everything material is only a manifestation of. It is a unilateral denial of transcendence in the name of immanence. It denies what the Corpus Hermeticum called the “Things That Are”, and so is also a denial of Being in the name of mere becoming.

I agree but it doesn’t matter too much here. The important question would be what makes certain times better for spiritual progress than others. Even if spiral dynamics is a relatively dumb model, it still might help answer this question.

@Michael Jackson 93 is the number of Thelema and “Love Under Will” in the original Aleister Crowley’s teaching. 93 is an abbreviation of Crowley’s core teaching (‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’) so members of the O.T.O would often greet and dismiss each other with a simple “93”. Forgive me if you already knew this!

Yes I agree with you but to me this is the basic problem of postmodern society. It is not limited to Leo’s teaching or Actualised. The purpose of initiation and ascetic practice in older society - the Kenosis or “emptying out” of Christian esotericism, the pursuit of the ultimate state of Fana or “annihilation in God”, together with the heavy emphasis on Submission and becoming a Slave of God (Abd) in Islam, and even the catharsis that Plato taught was attainable through the study of Mathematics and Philosophy, to name a few - was to prepare the initiate for the reception of the deepest truths. Any remaining karma and limited identity will be inflated drastically by the proximity to God, so it is generally necessary that this is purified early on in the spiritual journey. The saints, sages and whatever else you want to call them of the past were aware that any given religion or social order is a very limited expression of ultimate truth, but they didn’t go around trying to subvert them; they understood that for most people customs and traditions are necessary. Even in the rare cases in which they deliberately blasphemed the social order (like Al-Hallaj in Islam, the “crazy wisdom” teachers of late-Vajrayana, and even Christ to a certain extent), they accepted their punishment as fully deserved. After all, to confuse the esoteric and the exoteric is a form of blasphemy. Today, however, there is no initiation, and “we live in a society” has been an ironic meme for quite some time! Everything is a mess, the masses hate secrecy and don’t know what is best for them, and the usual spiritual laws which would attract the disciple to their master are broken, so the only way to distribute spiritual truths is to make them readily available to everybody and hope the idiots who will misunderstand them just pass you by!

I have found that to a certain extent this just happens naturally. Once something transcendent has awakened within you, it has a way of burning through (or, you could say, forcing you to burn through) the remaining threads and shreds of your limited identity. Like Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:

Something tells me this thread won’t last long! Theories like this always strike me as a confusion of metaphorical and literal reality. The elites are space alien reptiles is absurd taken literally, but it makes a bit of sense metaphorically: they are above us and have different interests to us (space), they serve their own in-group interest over the interest of the people under them (aliens) and they are cold-blooded and ruthless in the pursuit of their own self-interest (reptiles). I can believe that the people you mention are massively negatively-oriented because how else could they lord over such a negatively-oriented world? Doesn’t mean they are aliens, though! Can’t you be an evil human?

Scriabin’s Fifth Sonata! Watch out for the volcanic opening.

Hahaha, ([a-z]|[α-ω]|[0-9])*\+ coming soon!

Love this. “Women, eh? They’re all the same: tits, pussy, and always playing little miss sissy!”

Brutal! I don’t think an abortion this late is legal in many places so all of this seems a bit abstract. Personally I don’t think there’s any good answer to this question. Every sperm is a potential life so technically every man is a mass murderer. Even a women will inevitably not use many of her eggs. You could say that it is only a potential life when the sperm and egg are fused but then it’s not like it could immediately leap out and become a self-sufficient person. It largely just depends on the preferences of society. I will say that I find it very silly when people today rhetorically claim that removing abortion is taking away a “woman’s reproductive rights”. After all, the only reason there are easy ways to get abortion today is because society has developed to such an extent. Therefore, if abortion is bad for society, society should have the right to take away a thing which it alone is providing (not that it necessarily should). Like most progressive ideology, it is totally parasitic on prior developments and cultural decadence.

Is that a clever Regex reference to LGBTQ+? Like it! Interesting, you have inspired me to watch it. Well, I was actually talking about the subject of this thread more generally. Never mind.

Sorry to obfuscate the matter with such peripernetical abstrudicating pomposities! Only the first little bit of what I said was an argument against the movie, and only about its questionable origins. I was just pointing out how silly it is that progressives claim to be all about “love” and “unity” when they can’t even get each other to agree on something as basic as what it means to be a woman! I imagine I will agree with most of it but I don’t know yet. I just wanted to know why you thought it was eye opening!

It didn’t occur to me earlier but Milarepa is actually a great example of negative early-life experiences ultimately causing great spiritual progress: In his early life he was involved in a family feud and ended up falling in with a black magician, who helped him to curse the enemy side of the family. The curse killed all of them and so incurred a tremendous amount of negative karma on him. He had to spend the next 10 years diligently resolving the negative karma he had accumulated, which culminated in his awakening. A story of redemption, as is only fit for a barbarian age such as his and ours! The trouble is that we now live under the “Church of No Salvation”…

Personally, I'd break a leg to get something up and running! You never know, becoming quadriplegic might be a real call to arms...

I heard about this. It was released by The Daily Wire though, pretty lame normie-Con organisation. I'll probably check it out anyway. What did you find eye opening about it? To me, the simple combination of the endless proclamations of all mankind finally together in a unified field of "one love" and "one world", whilst simultaneously there is such little consensus on the most basic facts of human existence, tells you everything you need to know about the present situation. It is all just the narcissistic nihilistic anarchism implicit in all modern secular ideologies fully unveiling and unleashing itself.

Yes, of course the knowing of God's fundamental nature must always be beyond all limited constructs and contexts. As far as the corruption through expression, I do agree that this is inevitable whatever mode is chosen, but I think it is worth pointing out that there are many other modes of expression which are much less corruptible than language: visions (like you said, and which are often not only strictly visual), Mantras, Mandalas, Yantras, Music and other non-verbal arts, and many ancient languages have a quality which is symbolic in a way which transcends the limitations of pure conceptuality. To me this is why postmodernism could only ever have arisen on Christian ground: Christianity is one of the only religions not to have a sacred language associated with it. Christ spoke in Aramaic (a corrupted and colloquial form of Hebrew mixed in with other Semitic dialects) but, at least to my knowledge, even today after the recovery of many long lost Gnostic texts, none of his original Aramaic survives. Even the Hebrew Gospel is actually a translation from the Greek! This among other things gave Christianity a one-sidedly "logocentric", analytic, speculative, detached and theological character, devoid of some of the potency of pure metaphysical symbolism which is often conveyed through a sacred language (Sanskrit, Zend, Arabic, Hebrew), which has inevitably rebounded in the modern methods of deconstruction. How else can you communicate? If everything is One, surely there can only be associations? It's interesting to me that you agree that language has shifted from being an implicative and associative medium to one which is explicit, and that these older forms of communication are therefore more amendable to expressing the deeper truths. Like you say, this is the Fall into duality and reflective self-awareness. I guess this is why you also refer to these deeper truths as being rooted in the "archetypes" and the "collective unconscious", implying that what all of this represents is a sort of collective emerging out of the swamp of pre-consciousness and awakening to consciousness itself (or "meta-cognition"). To me this also implies that time must be in a certain way if not cyclic (as I was saying in my other thread) then at least circular or Ouroboric: in the beginning is total unconsciousness; then there is a progressive development into consciousness (this being the "fall") and then a gradual reascension into superconsciousness; in the end is total superconsciousness. What do you think of this? Does this fit with whichever models you find to be most truthful? Haha, that's OK, all made sense to me. Also, my Stage Blue side can't help pointing out, congratulations on 6,606 posts! Here's a song to celebrate such dark omens: