Joshe

The truth-seeking narrative is cope. What you call spirituality is just preference-driven consciousness training. The only difference between a spiritual teacher and a psych patient is which direction they train their consciousness in. One aims at love, hits love and calls it truth. The other aims at threat, hits threat and calls it truth. Both trained consciousness in a direction. Both arrived exactly where they pointed. Both claimed discovery. One gets a retreat center, the other gets a prescription. lol "Seek, and ye shall find." How does this insight get so little attention? Go looking for rocks, find rocks. Go looking for love, find love. Go looking for threat, find threat. Go looking for God, find God. Go looking for meaninglessness, find meaninglessness. Ask this community what spirituality is for and they'll say equanimity, peace, love, presence. Interesting how these just so happen to be things they desperately want. People rig the game so that winning = getting what they wanted all along. When they hit the target they're aiming for, they call it "discovery of reality". "Seek and ye shall find" is not a strategy to acquire something. It's a fucking warning😂.

Good questions. Thank you! Yes, ultimately, from the absolute level, this distinction doesn't exist. Obviously, creation and discovery are the same thing from the absolute. But here's the thing, I believe a lot people here are playing a relative game while claiming an absolute position. These folks were the intended audience. So yes, this entire exploration is about epistemic accountability in the relative domain (where they actually reside), even if they claim otherwise. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone here, but most. --- I'm not saying all perspectives are equal or that there's no truth. I'm saying: how do you know you've found truth rather than constructed something and labeled it truth? If you construct long enough with the goal of "discovery", there is a mechanism where you forget that you've constructed all that you have, and then new "generations/constructions" feel like "discovery" because of that forgetting, and you call them "absolute truths" because it feels like making contact with reality because you have forgotten all the accumulated constructions. And what happens is these newfound constructions get mistaken for discoveries, and are very often then used to build a spiritual ego and hierarchy. This is a deep mechanism I'm talking about here. It's not just "bias". It's akin to how a virus enters the cells, replicates, hides itself, resists antibodies, goes dormant when antibiotics are administered. Just like how that is a very complicated process, so too is this. It's not enough to say "Oh, you got a virus" or "Oh, you're biased". If you don't understand the mechanism, calling it "bias" doesn't help you see it in yourself. You have to see it. And when you see it, it will die. No more spiritual ego, no more hierarchy. Or at least, significantly diminished. There's actually a lot more to this than I've mentioned here. I've been working on a "8 Steps from Worm to God" piece that I might drop when spiritual egos start irritating me again. lol

It's called consciousness. You should look into it sometime. 😝 IDK if you know it or not, but you operate from a fixed definition of spirituality. I think what you call spirituality is "spiritual religion". What I call spirituality is consciousness itself. "Spirituality" is to be in "spirit" - to be aware in consciousness. There are all sorts of "spiritual practices" you can do while in "spirit". My entire position was constructed by being very aware while in consciousness. The process of forming the position was spiritual. But I don't practice spiritual religion, as of yet. One could argue that my OP, which examines how consciousness generates experiences, is more spiritual than you memorizing "love is the first knowing", lol. Do you know how ignorant I'd have to be to think it is literally the "entire" community? If this is the best critique you got, I don't think you're engaging seriously.

You've successfully baited me! If you have zero recollection of this original knowing, how could you ever verify that you're "returning" to it rather than constructing something new and labeling it as a return? We don't have to go down this road, lol. I've got shit to do. Edit:@Natasha Tori Maru Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dismissive. I'm just burned out from work and everything. I shall return.

Good catch, my bad. Enjoyed the back and forth and always interested in your perspective.

@Natasha Tori Maru Yes, I'm aware. LambdaDelta said it wasn't in his vocab.

Hmm, let's check: "One of my 4-hour long videos is worth 2 years of academic study." "You will understand reality deeper than 99.99999999% of anyone who has ever walked the Earth." "I am literally offering people Immortality." "My work is better than science." "Okay, idiot. Have it your way." "You are a fool." These are just a few receipts from his recent blog posts. Does this sound like someone treating their spiritual project like a mere preference? If you think yes, you really do need to dive into bias 101. This is someone who believes he's offering Immortality, understands reality deeper than virtually every human who ever lived, and calls people idiots and fools on the regular for not seeing it. If you can't tell after all these years that these and thousands more receipts add up to something far more than "benevolent teacher", I'm genuinely at a loss. For the record, I don't dislike Leo - we're all just humans and I have my own faults - but I'd rather see clearly than protect an ego. P.S - I know he has provided you with a spiritual justification for his arrogance and so that's where your mind will likely want to wander, but that's just more cope.

On the contrary, it's not inferior at all. I never thought it was, never said it was, and never implied that it was. Of course it's convenient to call it a meaningless distinction, because if you look at it closely, your 40+ realizations will be reduced to a hobby, no more significant than a grandma knitting a quilt. You guys think you're climbing to the heavens but you're climbing a horizontal ladder laid in the grass. I'm not knocking that, just like I wouldn't knock a grandma for knitting a quilt. What I'm knocking is the ego game and hierarchy this community is blind to. People think they're chasing after "Truth" because it's their "top value". But as said from the outset: for those most entrenched in this community, this is a cope that allows you to exist on a higher plane relative to everyone else. That higher plane is what you really want, not truth. It's nowhere near as simple as you "just want to know what is true". If I were a true actualized member, I'd say something like: if you haven't realized this obvious self-deception yet, I feel sorry for you and I hope that one day you will be able to see the truth, because right now, you're lost in ego games and time is running out for you. Stop acting like you're too cool for school and go watch the ripping the fuck out of your ego series. But I don't talk like that because it's demeaning and I don't have a need to put myself above others. Setting that aside, either the hierarchy is based on something real or it's an ego game. One of us is wrong. This entire community unconsciously assumes "absolute this or that" is discovered rather than generated. If I am right, this would obviously be one of the MOST significant distinctions this community could make. But of course it would collapse the hierarchy, so it won't happen.

Leo disagrees. But I agree with you.

I get the sense you're deep into solipsistic idealism, and I'm not negating any of that, but those metaphysics don't escape this mechanism. I've tried. You said Love wasn't even in your vocabulary until Leo introduced it to you. Then, after enough inquiry, you found it. That's the exact generative process I've been describing: accumulation -> iteration -> render. The concept preceded the finding, because that's how consciousness works. It accumulates and iterates on pre-existing stuff to create something new. Have you ever analyzed what a realization is and how they come into existence? If you analyze the chain of events and the relevant accumulations/iterations that involve a realization, you can (or at least I can) see the primary links of the chain that led to it. Even if you fail to see the chain, the chain is there. If you analyze those chains, you'll realize the realizations are never "discovered" - they're generated. A few questions: 1. Has this idea ever crossed your mind? 2. How does one distinguish "I found what was always there" from "consciousness rendered what I aimed at"? 3. If it turned out that your 40+ realizations were generated rather than discovered, how would that impact you? lol, this is literally the best video you could have pointed me to. Here's the opening quote: "There are no facts, only interpretations... except for my deepest realizations, those are absolute facts." Maybe you guys should rewatch the video and see if you're applying your principles consistently. Lastly, this pattern of assuming I need to be educated on basic shit is annoying and arrogant. The video you pointed me to is so basic I couldn't make it past 15 mins. I figured that stuff out in my 20s through simple observation of reality. Didn't need books, a talking head, or pen and paper, lol. The difference is I didn’t merge my knowledge with my identity.

I think you see one of the main points at least, so thanks for that. The fact that you can get on a spaceship and go look under rocks on Mars and find stuff there, I'm not sure how that is "most loving or "perfect". For me it's magical and wondrous, but I'm careful what I import. I could see how someone might inquire into it with "love" as a hypothesis for why such things are possible (and I have). But I think that would be a choice to frame it that way, not a discovery that it is that way. And if you did discover it and experience it as such, how could you know you didn't just train your consciousness into it? This thread isn't about me though. It's about deconstructing spiritual ladders.

I'm not scrambling for higher ground or to see the nature of reality more clearly. But if I were doing that, I would admit it was a preference and not some cosmically significant mission. I wouldn't put myself or my mission on a cosmic pedestal. That's YOUR game, not mine. The point of this entire thread was to make clear it is A game - one people are choosing and importing cosmic significance into it. You've built a palace and called it the most important palace. The second point of this thread was to highlight the ego mechanics that defend that construction. You can't see you've constructed your entire frame. You think you're outside all frames. And I'm the one who can't see? You imply there is only one way and that I'm getting lost in finding it. What makes you so arrogant to say such a thing? The hidden assumptions in these statements alone reveal your specific errors and ego, which I'm happy to elucidate if you're interested. I've labored pretty hard to dismantle these ideas, and I can't do it. So, with arms wide open, I welcome anyone here to. If this post was confusing, it's most likely because the ideas herein are absolutely dangerous to a spiritual ego. If you thought I was merely talking about "bias" or some such other simple ass idea, that was likely your ego protecting itself. Your spiritual identity's days will be numbered if you see what I'm saying here. @Leo Gura You think you have the key to the universe but there is no key - only doors we imagine into existence. And you have imagined an impenetrable fortress of cosmic significance. Your throne is actually a chair lol. And that's ok. "Awakening" is just a form of tourism. Scrambling for higher ground is a mere preference - a quest for exotic mindscapes - not very different from a traveler's quest for exotic landscapes. The only difference is in the feeling. Neither is more significant than the other. Your holy mission is a cognitive hobby. Tadaaa! Deconstruct that shit bro. This doesn't reintroduce nihilism. It just makes you have less ego. Could be your next level up lol. As always, I'm open to any of my ideas being wrong.

Would you say "truth relies on no frame" is a frame?

@Natasha Tori Maru If it filters experience and shapes what you find, it's a frame. You didn't invent surrender, deconstruction, etc. Where did these ideas come from? You encountered them. You liked them. You engaged with them. They accumulated. And now they're dominant in your reality. Did you simply discover what is true about reality or did you flesh these things out until you saw them in high-definition? Even if it's some of both, the mechanism is still a frame. This is not to say the frame doesn't comport with reality, just that it is a frame. The mechanism that got you more in line with reality is a frame. This is also not to say you can't experience without a frame. It's to say the moment you recognize it as frameless, you've framed it. And the moment you say "I have no frame", you're saying that from a frame. What's more, the more serious you are about having no frame, the more entrenched in a frame you are. You can claim your frame comports with reality. You can claim you prefer it. But "I have no frame" isn't an option. Also, I'm not speaking from authority here - this is the first time I've unpacked my intuitions on this topic this much, so I'm open to correction. If you're trying to figure out what I'm getting at with all this, it's: If you discovered truth => you have access others don't -> hierarchy, authority, "others will understand when they go deeper". If you fleshed out a frame until it became dominant -> you trained into a preference -> others could train into different things -> no special access, just different orientations/preferences. In other words, your truth orientation isn't special. I'm trying to collapse hierarchy. The whole spiritual authority game depends on "I discovered what's actually true." Even if the frame comports with reality, you can't know it does with certainty. So, if accepted, the implication is humility is mandatory, certainty is a mistake, and "I see what's real" is almost always bullshit. I feel a portion of this is like preaching to the choir but hopefully there is something new.

A different tact with AI-assistance: --- The frame that says "I have no frame, I just want truth" is the hardest one to see. It's the final boss. Most frames are visible enough to question. "I'm a Christian" - you can see that's a frame. "I believe in materialism" - you can see that's a frame. You know you're standing somewhere. But "I just want truth" or "I have no frame, I just see what's real" - that one hides itself. Because it looks like the absence of a frame. It feels like neutrality. It presents itself as the thing you get after you've removed all frames. So you never question it. Why would you? It's not a position - it's just "being honest" or "seeking truth" or "seeing clearly." But it is a position. You selected "truth" as your orientation. You preferred it. Experiences reinforced it. Accumulation happened. Now it's invisible. The reason it's the "final boss" is because every other frame can be seen and dropped. But the frame that says "I drop frames and just see truth" can't see itself as a frame. It's disguised as the solution to frames. It's the one that survives every other deconstruction - because it looks like deconstruction itself. So you strip away belief after belief, framework after framework, and feel like you're getting closer to raw reality. But the thing doing the stripping - the orientation toward "truth" - is never examined. It's the last one standing, pretending it's not standing anywhere. --- If you seek "reality without frames", you will find a state of consciousness that feels like "reality without frames". This is universal.

I agree that was the appeal but I think it's unlikely the usual deliverables were young girls, so I'm not sure I'd call everyone who indulged depraved. My guess is Epstein mostly kept the young ones to himself and only offered them to his acquaintances when they showed interest. I'm guessing people like Musk and Gates didn't partake in the super young ones. Gates may have. Trump seems the type, but who knows.

Notice Epstein had the ability to disarm young girls and make them feel comfortable. He had that same ability with all the high profile adults he lured into his world. He was charming. The common perception of those that met him was “ I like that guy”. You probably would have felt the same if you met him and didn’t know him. Epstein was a social genius. He built a network of high profile acquaintances and earned their trust and confidence. Sent them thoughtful gifts, did them favors and solved their problems. He was the con man Trump always aspired to be. I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy never forced anyone to do anything, but used smiles and fun times and what seemed like genuine goodwill and light-heartedness to open them up and bring them into his world.

A buddhist takes psychedelics and finds buddha nature. A christian takes psychedelics and finds god's love. A Leo follower takes psychedelics and finds infinite consciousness and solipsism. 😂 All 3 find snow in Antarctica.

Nice!! Gonna have to take some time with this.

@Cred I think "truth-trackers" or TSPs can often self-regulate through analysis itself, possibly as a result of high Need for Cognition and competency in using cognition to self-regulate. High NfC + high competency = analysis is soothing. Truth-tracking is the regulation. TSPs regulate through analysis, so we go straight there. Non-TSPs need to regulate before analysis, so they stop somewhere we don't need to. I'm not so sure they avoid truth-tracking because they prefer validation. It seems more like truth-tracking doesn't regulate them, so they reach for whatever does - which could be validation, but also venting, presence, reassurance, etc.

This has been a very common theme in my life as well. Someone comes to me with a problem and I end up caring more about solving it than they do. But the thing is, their brains aren't structured for my world. Trying to bring them into it is understandably uncomfortable, the same as it would be for me to come into theirs.

Very interesting stuff. This belongs in my obsidian vault. Definitely a factor in the anxiety. We come to see our natural responses are detrimental to social cohesion, which causes stifling, so we adapt by staying silent, walking on eggshells, becoming resentful, etc. All we want to do is truth-track and deliver but there is very little demand for it. We've essentially opted out of the social games and just want to get down to business. Yes, there's a sort of courage and confidence in myself or something. Like, anytime I've been deeply sad or depressed (which is rare), there is literally nothing anyone can do or say to console me and I'm agitated when they try. I don't want hugs, talking, presence - I just want to be left alone to deal with my problem. I'm curious, how many actual people do you know who fit this profile?

I'd be careful. Notice you found exactly what Actualized.org told you you would find. You sought Leo's teachings, took a dissociative, and found... Leo's teachings. You said you used to think Leo's advanced insights were "airy fairy" but now you "fully understand" them. Is it possible you just trained yourself to see them? How would you know the difference between discovering reality and having your mind reflect back what you've been feeding it? If someone absorbed a different teacher's framework for years and took DXM, is it possible their trip would confirm that framework? You had ideas about solipsism already in your head. You had tried to make sense of them. Then, you altered your consciousness with a chemical and the intent to "see something". More simply, you had concepts, added a drug, and got those concepts back in experiential form. Consciousness is very plastic and fluid. It can do this with anything. Just something to keep in mind.

Of course not. The issue is when people dress it up as "discovering truth" rather than "I trained toward states I value and got them." The first one creates needless developmental hierarchies, levels of awakening, on an on with the hierarchies. Always arguing over what or who is deeper, more awake, more true, etc. - without realizing the hierarchy itself is a preference, not a discovery.

🤦‍♂️HOW did you get there? You practiced. You read. You learned about surrender. You liked it. You oriented toward it. You tried an failed. You tried again. Over time, the effort became less visible and started feeling effortless. This is "training". You didn't just wake up one day into it. After you found it, the training disappeared - which is exactly what I've been saying. I think this might hit a little too close to home for you. No offense, but you don't know wtf you're talking about. I never stated "truth" is not for me". I said something like I'm not currently optimizing for spirituality. But you don't know how far I've already come. I am very humble/cautious in what I claim to know regarding spirituality. I don't make grand claims such as yourself and I sure as hell don't blindly adopt framework terminology that will skew my view. Don't let this fool you into thinking you know something about my spiritual development.