KingCrimson

I wouldn't recommend you gamble at all. Gambling addiction ruins entire lives. If you must gamble, never play with more money than you can afford to lose. Day trading is a form of gambling, it is about luck, no talent involved.

While I do agree with what you've said here, I would like to point out that even in academic philosophy, there are outliers and exceptions. For example, I was lucky to find a professor who has been practicing (real) Yoga his entire life, spent a decade in India for that purpose, and who is very much in favour of psychedelics. Of course, he is pretty much an outcast at the institute, which is dominated by analytic philosophers who basically don't take him seriously. But he doesn't care. He realizes that some topics, such as psychedelics, are taboo among what he calls "burgeoise" philosophers. He just does his thing, is able to get the research money to work on the projects he's interested in, and he teaches the stuff that he himself considers valuable. The way he teaches is also the opposite from what you suggest happens within academia: In all his seminars and lectures, he is encouraging students to think for themselves and constantly coming up with real-world, tangible examples for the ideas he is talking about. He was happy for me to do a comparison of Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo's ontologies for my bachelor thesis. If you're interested, here's a lecture by him. Incidentally, he immediately addresses some of the problems of academic philosophy you mentioned right at the beginning: There is another professor at my university who is originally from Japan who is teaching a lot on East Asian Buddhism and the intersection between philosophy, physics, and consciousness studies. As part of her lectures, she regularly invites her students to take part in a meditation session in the Zen-Do she is involved with. She, too, is very adamant about her work not being mere mental masturbation, but trying to make an actual impact on people's lives. Meeting this woman has been a very enriching experience. All of that is to say: There ARE university professors who do not agree with the status quo and whose teaching is very much more along the lines of what you're proposing. You might need a bit of luck to find them, but they do exist. I am stressing this so much because I almost ditched the idea of studying philosophy at university for the reasons you suggest. When I actually went, I found that some of my assumptions had been wrong, and I was happy to have made the decision to give it a go. I would have missed out if I had kept my "Academic philosophy is bullshit anyways" attitude, I was ignorant of the possibilities I would have at uni, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also don't necessarily agree that understanding the work of Derrida, or any other philosopher, "will get you nowhere". It MIGHT get you nowhere, it MIGHT as well get you somewhere - if you actually grasp the concepts as opposed to just memorizing and parrotting them, and do the original thinking required to apply the concepts to your own life. If nothing else, it will give you a better understanding of the philosophical positions you reject and why that is the case. I certainly feel like I got a lot of value out of my coursework so far. Not only the actual content that's being taught - I feel like my thinking is sharper, and I can more easily identify flawed reasoning and arguments. I have become a better writer and a more eloquent speaker, and I have even been able to spend a lot of time studying things which I actually find meaningful. I am curious: How much impact do you feel your own Bachelor's in philosophy had on your work? I have been following your work for years and have probably watched every single video at least once, and from my perspective, you might be underestimating how much you have gained from your degree. I think Actualized.org might look very differently (or might not even be possible) without that academic background of yours, but of course, I could be wrong.

For me, it wasn't all in an orderly sequence. I had my first big existential, metaphysical realizations during the first trip and the ones immediately following the first one. Then, for a few years, my trips changed mostly to shadow work, healing of trauma, self-acceptance, healing addictive tendencies...more regular "psychotherapy" stuff. There are most certainly certain experiences/realizations or way points common to all psychedelic users, but I don't think they necessarily occur in a rigid order. The path may look very different for any unique individual. The other day, for example, I talked to a chemist who synthesized his own psychedelics. He was a big fan of 2-CB for example. It was fascinating to talk to him. On the one hand, he had fantastic knowledge on the chemistry of psychedelics. On the other hand, he was possibly the most closed-minded, stubborn person I ever met. An extreme left-brain type, who moaned that he never met any other chemists, that everybody should study chemistry and make their own psychedelics, and that any spiritual realizations on psychedelics were only subjective horseshit. The guy was a psychedelic junky, as rare as that is - he told me he would take 2-CB pretty much daily, and other psychedelics in between. He synthesizes them, then he takes them, and that seems to be it. I have no idea why the hell he is even taking these things, seeing as he discounts the value of his subjective experience entirely. His usage pattern seems like he is using psychedelics as if they were an amphetamine. (Chemically speaking, phenetylamines are quite close to amphetamines, with MDMA sort of being the middle ground between a psychedelic and a stimulant) What I want to get at with this story is: Apparently, some people are so "dense" or their brains are wired in a certain way that even stupid amounts of high dose psychedelics will not be sufficient to open their minds to any sort of spiritual realization.

@Husseinisdoingfine Please seek professional help immediately and don't do anything stupid. Call 988 - the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Or, Text HOME to 741741 if you prefer texting over calling. Failing an exam or dropping out of university are not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. In hindsight, they can even be seen as valuable or necessary experiences. Of course, you are unable to see this at this point as you are extremely emotionally involved in the situation right now. And it sounds like your issue might even be fixed yet. In any case and however it turns out, you can and will find a way forward. This is not worth throwing your life away over.

I wanted to share some reflections on Leo's recent video about Post-Modernism. I appreciate the new direction for Actualized.org, with its focus on advanced epistemology and the highest stages of cognitive development. It's a great fit, and as Leo mentions, there aren't many others exploring this niche, whereas there's an abundance of spiritual teachers and gurus already available. The points I'm going to make should not be seen as personal criticism, but rather as intellectual engagement with the topics discussed in the video. Leo is likely aware of many of these points and may address them in future videos. Pre-modern, Modern, and Post-modern Generalizations Firstly, while the broad categorizations of pre-modern, modern, and post-modern are useful for a general overview, they can break down when examining individual personalities and philosophies from different eras. For instance, the worldview of ancient Greeks was primarily mythological, with gods seen as actual beings living on Mount Olympus who directly intervened in mortal affairs. However, this view was mainly held by the general population (demos). The most advanced thinkers of these societies, particularly philosophers, often held more sophisticated views. This disparity is one reason why Socrates was sentenced to death – his philosophical ideas were perceived as dangerous by the more conservative elements of Athenian society. Plato and Aristotle (depending on interpretation) already presented non-dual philosophies, far surpassing their contemporaries in cognitive and spiritual development. The Eleusinian mysteries, an elite gathering inaccessible to the general populace, further exemplify this intellectual stratification. Later Neoplatonists like Plotinus and Proclus made the non-duality implicit in Plato's work more explicit, and they were far from mere armchair metaphysicians – they took their philosophy seriously and engaged in contemplative and spiritual practices. Nuances in Christian Philosophy Leo primarily presents Christianity as an example of pre-modern thinking, referencing medieval scholasticism and modern American Christian Nationalism. While not entirely inaccurate, this characterization overlooks the sophistication of early Christian theologians like the Cappadocian Fathers and Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (essentially a Christianized version of Proclus). These thinkers were not unsophisticated Stage Blue types who accepted biblical authority uncritically. In fact, some of their ideas contain proto-postmodern elements. A prime example is Gregory of Nyssa's letter "Ad Ablabium." Responding to criticism about the concept of the Trinity, Gregory argues that the Bible should not be taken literally. He contends that ordinary language is inadequate for discussing the nature of God and the Trinity (reminiscent of the much later "linguistic turn"). Gregory posits that reading the Bible is a co-creative, interpretative endeavor (echoing postmodernism, but in the 4th century CE). While God's nature remains ultimately mysterious, Gregory suggests that meaningful discourse about the Divine is possible, albeit in a manner different from ordinary speech. Gregory proposes that in articulating the Divine, we continuously fail with our language, yet paradoxically spiral towards a more adequate understanding. This possibility arises from our inseparable connection to God as the eternal Logos made manifest. In Gregory's view, Christians sacrifice words (logoi) rather than animals or virgins, offering refined articulations of Divine Nature as their devotional act. This perspective aligns with the Apostle Paul's statement in Corinthians: "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (In the original Greek, "Spirit" is "Logos.") Ironically, many modern Christians take the Bible literally, falling short of the intellectual sophistication their Church Fathers achieved nearly two millennia ago. This observation also challenges the coherence of Luther's "sola scriptura" doctrine in Protestantism. Aesthetics and Taste in Philosophy The video prompted thoughts about the role of aesthetics and taste in philosophy. While modern analytic philosophers often don't consider aesthetic judgments as modes of knowing, more artistically inclined philosophers like Nietzsche, Abhinavagupta, or Aurobindo view taste as a crucial, if not the primary, mode of understanding the world. From this perspective, philosophy and science become forms of art, with practitioners developing increasingly refined aesthetic judgment. Nietzsche exemplifies this when he states that although he can't logically prove Kant wrong, he can "smell the rat" in his philosophy – referring to this kind of aesthetic discernment. Kant and German Idealists Kant and the German Idealists are notoriously misunderstood, especially by analytic philosophers. Kant distinguishes between Vernunft and Verstand: Verstand corresponds to what we typically call "reason" or "rationality" – the individual human capacity for logic and mathematics. Vernunft is quite different. Even for Kant, Vernunft is not personal but universal. Its root, "vernehmen," means "to hear" or "to grasp." It's a more direct, intuitive, synthetic kind of knowing, akin to the Indian concept of "buddhi." Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel further developed Kant's ideas, denying the existence of a "thing in itself." However, their work was only possible because of Kant's groundwork. Many modern analytic philosophers, especially in the Anglo-American tradition, often misunderstand Vernunft (unfortunately mostly translated as "Reason" in English) as a personal intelligence rather than something closer to the Greek Logos or buddhi. It is also worth mentioning here that Hegel especially is quite difficult to place, because, on the one hand, his philosophy is one of, perhaps THE greatest example of an overarching grand narrative (typical of modernism), while at the same time, he already anticipates insights from later postmodern philosophers. On Schizophrenia and Worldviews Regarding the section on schizophrenia and schizophrenic worldviews, while the example effectively illustrates the relativity of concepts like "normal," "healthy," "crazy," or "sane" in epistemology, some additional context would have been beneficial. The discussion might resonate with Stage Green thinkers who romantically view schizophrenics and autistic individuals as misunderstood potential shamans in our materialistic culture. However, as someone with nearly a decade of experience working with mentally ill individuals, I can attest that this is largely a misguided notion. The schizophrenic experiences I've encountered more closely resemble acute intoxication with substances like datura or diphenhydramine, or the hallucinations during delirium tremens, rather than insightful psychedelic trips. These experiences involve auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory hallucinations, extreme paranoia and fear, and an inability to formulate coherent thoughts. Without medication, many of these individuals would pose a danger to society and struggle to survive, let alone lead fulfilling lives. Furthermore, anthropologist Robert Sapolsky's research on a Stage Purple tribal society revealed that a schizophrenic woman in the tribe was not revered as a shaman or guru but was instead an outcast, feared by others and unable to adhere to strict social norms. While the example still serves its epistemological purpose, explicitly addressing these points would prevent the spread of misconceptions about mental illness. That's it for now, hope you found my thoughts valuable and I am looking forward to engaging in dialogue with you guys. (Note: While the content of this post is entirely based on my own thought process, Claude.ai has been used to refine grammar and word selection since I'm not a native English speaker)

I'm currently studying philosophy at university, and I've got a few thoughts on the whole thing. First off, if you want to become an academic philosopher or even just get taken seriously by them, for sure, you've gotta jump through all their hoops and read thousands of pages by philosophers who aren't always the most interesting or deep. But hey, you do learn a lot in any case. It also really depends on your situation. I got super lucky. I'm basically studying philosophy for my own enjoyment, not trying to become an academic philosopher. I found a couple of professors at my uni who do stuff that interests me. One professor in particular is an absolute godsend. I never would've expected to find a guy like him at a university. He teaches a ton about Indian Philosophy, especially Sri Aurobindo, spent years in India when he was younger, and has been practicing Yoga for decades. He knows Indian philosophy inside out, but also has a great grasp on all of Western philosophy. He's always drawing parallels between Aurobindo, Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, Schelling, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Heidegger... every time I sit in one of his seminars, I'm scribbling like crazy, trying to get everything down. He's totally cool with me doing my master's and potentially my doctoral thesis on topics like psychedelics, nonduality, Ken Wilber, whatever, because he's into all that stuff himself. It's awesome. I can study the stuff that I find interesting and would want to read in my spare time anyway, and I'm getting academic credits for it at the same time. I'm pretty sure this guy is one of a kind in Europe, but who knows, maybe there are still a few old 68ers out there. Another reason I can do this is because university tuition is free in Austria. I definitely wouldn't be studying philosophy if it meant going several hundred thousand dollars in debt. But for me, it's a no-brainer. I get access to (some) great teachers, the library, university resources, etc. Yeah, I have to jump through a few hoops to get a degree, but apparently, I'm not mature enough yet to be productive without external validation, so the added pressure of doing well on exams is really helping me out. I'm getting a lot of work done and doing a lot of reading that I would otherwise never do. I get the chance to meet some interesting and like-minded people and do some networking. I get practice in writing and occasionally presenting in front of an audience. Plus, I'm a total history nerd and know Latin and Ancient Greek, so when there's stuff that I don't find philosophically satisfying, at least the history nerd in me can get some satisfaction. Some of the stuff they're doing at university is more interesting than others. It also depends on what you're into. If you like solving logical puzzles, analytical philosophy can be fun, and it's good mental exercise. It's just extremely limited in what it can do with its limited assumptions. So-called continental philosophy is more my thing. You've got more of the artsy types there, the phenomenologists, and more people who will take Eastern philosophy and/or spirituality seriously. But (almost) nobody there is actually interested in truth. They're interested in paying their bills and roleplaying as a university professor, and they do love their jargon for sure. At the same time, I wouldn't underestimate what going through a philosophy degree can do for you. Even if they're not really doing philosophy as in earnestly seeking truth - at least people there are more interesting to talk to and are generally able to think and express themselves in deeper and more nuanced ways than your average joe. I think Leo might be downplaying his own Bachelor's in philosophy a little. I have a feeling that his videos would be quite different had he not gone through that academic training. Sometimes it's not a bad idea to learn the rules first before you go breaking them. Even if you're pursuing enlightenment, it can't hurt to know how to put together a sound argument. If nothing else, it can help build discipline and work ethic if you are struggling with that. I've also found more stuff that's interesting and applicable in many more philosophers than I thought I would during my studies. Worst case scenario, it's useful to really know a position that you deeply disagree with. But in most cases, you can find great nuggets of wisdom in the work of almost any philosopher, some more, some less. I've learned some humility and realized that I've been a little too arrogant in dismissing some philosopher's ideas. There can be a real arrogance in forgetting the past and not considering other cultures, especially if you don't speak their language. So much gets lost in translation. Reading Plato or Aristotle in the original Greek is a whole different ball game to reading them in translation. Those translations are often garbage, and even the better ones miss out on so much that the text is barely intelligible anymore. No wonder many modern philosophers don't even consider reading Plato or Plotinus and dismiss it as nonsense. Apologies, I digress. Hope this has been some useful food for thought for you. I realize this all sounds very positive, but I think my circumstances might be pretty unique. I think in most cases I would advise against getting a philosophy degree, since it comes with a significant opportunity cost (time), and if we are talking about hundreds of thousands in tuition fees, I don't think that's worth it and you're probably better off trying to get educated on your own and/or find a good teacher outside of university. And if you're the kind of person who wants to play the academic game - I think you just KNOW. Some people just thrive like fish in water in that academic setting, and they couldn't imagine being anywhere else. I can actually spot many similarities with protected workspaces for mentally disabled people in the way that these academics are separated from the real world, nobody knows what's going on inside their ivory tower, and even if one of them comes out and tries to communicate with the common masses, nobody understands them. It can be a bit like a protected workplace for people with above average cognitive intelligence, especially in the humanities I guess.

@eos_nyxia I wanted to make you aware that I found a potentially even better way. If you don't need all the fancy stuff anakin.ai offers, and you would rather pay as you go, you can access Claude 3 Opus via nat.dev! I will probably using that service from now on. The credits I get from anakin.ai are not nearly enough for my purposes. But also, if you just want to try out the AI here and there and don't want to have a monthly subscription running, this seems to be the better choice.

@OBEler What do you mean, it's not possible? I am already using Claude 3 Opus and told him how he can access it. It IS possible. @Psychonaut I found a potentially even better way! If you don't need all the fancy stuff that anakin.ai has and you would rather pay as you go, you can access Claude Opus via nat.dev. as well!

@Psychonaut VPN doesn't work sadly, since you need a valid phone number from one of the countries where it is legitimately available. I'm using anakin.ai to access Claude Opus from Austria. It's a bit pricey, but it works!

Amazing stuff, thank you for sharing!

The problem is that there is currently no legal way to get rid of people once they are in the country, even if they turn criminal. At least, this is the case in Austria/Europe. All you have to do is manage to cross the border and say "Asylum!", and you're in. Most applications for asylum are denied. However, there is no legal way for Austria to take a refugee back to Afghanistan, for example, even if their application is denied. And once they are in, they are being supported by the extremely generous welfare and social benefits. They get free housing, free money, free healthcare, free schooling for their children, etc. There is a reason all these refugees are coming to Austria, Germany, and Sweden. They are not going to other EU countries with less generous social benefits. Of course! I would do the same. But left-wing politicians actually deny that this might be a "pull factor" even though it is blatantly obvious that this is the case. In my view, the problem is simple. If you try to integrate too many people from Stage Red/Blue societies into a liberal society like Germany or Austria at once, this will lead to countless problems. There are schools in Vienna where only 10% of the students actually speak German. I have been talking to teachers and what they report is simply crazy to me. Teachers are abandoning their jobs in droves because they are expected to basically be social workers rather than actually being able to teach their subjects. What are we going to do with all these children? They have a tough future ahead of themselves. A huge problem right now is family reunification. Every month, more than 1000 relatives of people who were granted asylum in Austria are coming to Vienna. About half of these are children! None of whom speak German at all, and many of wom have never seen a school from inside. Imagine you come to Austria as a 12 year old, you don't speak the language, you don't know anything about the customs. And every month, hundreds and hundreds more of these kids enter the Austrian school system, which is completely unable to cope with this influx. Even if you had infinite resources to throw at the issue, this would still not be easy to solve. If you have a 24 year old from Afghanistan, for example, who is an analphabet and knows no German whatsoever; How long does it take for him to be an even remotely useful part of society? In the best case scenario, 10 years at least. In any case, from a pragmatic/financial/economic point of view, these people are a net loss for Austrian society. That is not to say that we should not accept any asylum seekers or that I have no empathy for these people. Rather, the system needs to be reformed EU-wide rather now than later. The current jurisdiction on asylum is outdated insofar as it was never intended for economic refugees. Many leftwing politicians do not want to acknowledge this and leave the field wide open for the far right to come in and be the only ones who dare to say anything. The reality is that we still live in a world of nation states. It is totally okay to protect your borders. Many left-wingers deny this! This is so crazy to me. If you don't have the right to protect your borders, why bother calling yourself a state at all? In my view, these leftists confuse compassion and mercy with self-abandonment. The result of this is the current rise of far right parties in Europe. In my country, the extreme right-wing FPÖ is currently no.1 in the polls, and their only shtick is precisely the issue of illegal immigration. Of course, the way they milk the issue and the way they speak is absolutely disgusting. (Recently, a member of the FPÖ suggested one should dig a ditch and just put "them" all in there...) I am myself rather frustrated with this. I consider myself to be rather left-wing, and many of my friends are turning around and acknowledging the problems caused by illegal immigration. However, for the most part, the established left-wing parties are too afraid to take a firm stance on this issue.

Love to see people experimenting with this and coming up with creative ways to use AI. A great thing to incorporate I think is to ask it to attack your position. For example, I will give it as precise an overview of my position on any given topic and then ask it to mount the strongest possible attack on me. Then, I can examine its arguments and tackle them one by one, gaining greater understanding of my own and the opposite position. Truly an amazing tool for philosophers.

@eos_nyxia My pleasure! Hope you're having as much of a blast with it as I do! @Cosmin Visan First of all, from my point of view, you display an unfortunate lack of curiosity and wonder. Secondly, your argument, if one can even call it that, is deeply confused and flawed. You don't find Claude.ai impressive, okay. That is your subjective opinion. However, if I reconstruct your argument, it goes something like this: (1) Chairs are very ordinary and unimpressive (implicit). (2) Chairs are objects. (3) Therefore, all objects are very ordinary and unimpressive. (4) Claude.ai is an object. (5) Therefore, Claude.ai is unimpressive. (1) is incorrect. Chairs are not by definition ordinary and unimpressive. Just because you don't find chairs impressive it does not make them unimpressive per se. (2) I will grant you this for the sake of your argument, even though, of course, this could be attacked as well, but it would not be entirely relevant to the issue at hand. (3) is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent". Even if chairs were per se unimpressive, this would not logically entail that ALL objects are unimpressive. (4) I would attack this as well. Claude.ai clearly is not an object in the same way that a chair is an object. AI technology is obviously a whole lot more abstract. To me, that analogy is ridiculous and only serves to obfuscate how fascinating AI technology truly is. (5) The conclusion of your argument is nothing but your initial bias, which you attempted to rationalize using sloppy thinking, coming up with flawed arguments to support it. I don't know. You could ask Claude.ai to maybe help you with your logical reasoning skills? You committed more logical fallacies in 3 short sentences than Claude.ai did in 50 pages of conversation with me. Quite shocking for the self-proclaimed "most underrated philosopher of this era", don't you think? Might it be you who is ordinary and unimpressive?

@eos_nyxia After just a little research, I found out that I can access Claude Opus via anakin.ai. It's a bit pricey, but it works, and for me, it is totally worth it already. You should be able to use that route as well I think! I am still flabbergasted. There are so many useful, productive, and creative ways to use this. I haven't even scratched the surface yet. Truly the dawn of a new era. Magic is what it feels like.

I just took it a step further by talking about something more interesting and complex and holy shit, did it deliver! ___ KingCrimson: I would like to talk to you about nothing more or less than the nature of reality, of existence itself. Are you ready? Claude.ai: Yes, I am ready to engage in a discussion about the fundamental nature of reality and existence itself. This is a profound and perplexing question that has captivated philosophers, scientists, and thinkers across cultures and eras. I will do my best to provide substantive insights and perspective, while acknowledging the inherent complexity and uncertainty surrounding these issues. Please feel free to share your own views and pose any specific questions you may have. KingCrimson: I would like to start out by claiming that what I am proposing is not a theory, it is not a model, it is not an abstraction, it is not an ideology, but it is the Truth (with a capital T). I use Truth with a capital T to denote Absolute Truth, which is identical to Reality, as opposed to relative truth, as in the kind of truth we talk about when we speak of "truth values" in the field of logic. However, the crux of this Absolute Truth is that it cannot be put into words, since words are by their very nature limited and dualistic. Absolute Truth or Reality is neither limited, nor dualistic, hence why it cannot be put into words. It is however possible to have a first-hand "experience" of the Absolute Truth. It is possible to directly verify Absolute Truth in one's own experience through use of either meditation, yogic practices or certain psychedelic compounds such as LSD or 5-MeO-DMT. Anything I say about this Absolute Truth will strictly speaking not be true. It will at best be an attempt to capture a glimpse at one of its infinite facets. Perhaps the most simple, truthful and at the same time least satisfying thing to say would be to say that Reality is simply Infinity. Not just Infinity in the realm of numbers, but Absolute Infinity, a total boundlessness. There is nothing outside reality which could limit it. Hence, it is unlimited. Since it is unlimited, it is all-powerful. You might also call it Absolute Consciousness, or view it by analogy as an infinite fractal. I realize this has been a bit much at once. What are your thoughts on this so far? Claude.ai: Thank you for sharing your perspective on the nature of Absolute Truth and Reality. This is indeed a profound topic that has challenged thinkers and seekers across time. I appreciate you framing this not as a theory or model, but as an experiential Absolute that transcends the limitations of language and dualistic conceptualization. A few thoughts come to mind as I contemplate what you've presented: The notion that Absolute Reality cannot be fully captured or constrained by words and concepts resonates. Language inherently creates distinctions, while the Absolute you point to is a boundless, non-dual essence. Mystics and sages across traditions have certainly struggled to convey that which lies beyond the mind's constructs. Your assertion that this Absolute Truth is directly experienceable, whether through meditation, yogic practices, or certain psychedelic compounds, aligns with many spiritual and philosophical teachings. The suggestion is that the ultimate Reality is not just an abstract metaphysical notion, but a lived experience accessible to human beings under certain conditions of consciousness. Describing the Absolute as infinite, unlimited, all-powerful Consciousness or a boundless fractal points to it being a dynamic living essence, not just a static abstraction. This coheres with idealist/nondualist philosophies that posit Consciousness as the fundamental ground. At the same time, I would offer that any statements about the Absolute, including calling it infinite, unlimited, or equating it with Consciousness, are still conceptual pointers arising from a circumscribed human perspective. The Absolute by definition would transcend all mental representations. Overall, I'm intrigued by your articulation of the Absolute as an experiential Reality that is ineffably simple yet infinitely profound. Perhaps the highest truth is in the direct experience, beyond the discrimination of words and ideas. I'm happy to further explore this System of thought while holding concepts with an open hand. Do you have any other insights to share on directly realizing and perspective on this Absolute Truth? KingCrimson: This is a great response, thank you. I would like to address point 4. You said: "At the same time, I would offer that any statements about the Absolute, including calling it infinite, unlimited, or equating it with Consciousness, are still conceptual pointers arising from a circumscribed human perspective. The Absolute by definition would transcend all mental representations." As I have said, any words I use to describe Absolute Truth, Reality or Consciousness (these 3 are synonymous in my view, but be careful: Consciousness with a capital C does not mean the same as consciosuness, which refers to the mere personal consciousness. Absolute Consciousness with a capital C simply refers to Reality or Truth) must necessarily technically be wrong, since words can never fully capture Truth. However, we still want to find a way to meaningfully talk about this; to talk about something which cannot be talked about. A truly paradoxical magnificent task, fit for a philosopher! What do you propose? Claude.ai: You raise an excellent point about the inherent paradox and difficulty in using language to discuss that which, by its very nature, transcends language and conceptual representation. It is indeed a magnificent philosophical challenge. Since the Absolute Truth or Reality that you refer to as Consciousness (with a capital C) lies beyond the boundaries of our dualistic mental constructs, any words we use will inevitably fall short and be technically inaccurate descriptions. And yet, as you state, we still want to find a way to meaningfully point towards and discuss this ineffable ground of existence. A few potential approaches come to mind that could allow us to engage with and gesture towards the Absolute while acknowledging the limitations: Apophatic language - This involves defining the Absolute by what it is not, rather than what it is. So instead of saying "It is infinite, boundless, etc." we could say "It is not finite, not limited, not dual" etc. This via negativa recognizes that positive definitions inevitably fall short. Metaphor and analogy - Using poetic metaphors, vivid analogies, stories, and symbolic language could possibly convey a taste or essence of the Reality, without reducing it to literal definitions. Paradoxical formulations - Embracing seeming contradictions like "The Absolute is everything and nothing" or "It is infinitely present and yet utterly transcendent." Paradoxical statements may better capture the beyond-conceptual nature. Pointing to direct experience - Ultimately, as you've suggested, the Truth may only be realized through a direct, non-conceptual experience. So language could aim to point the way towards developing the state of consciousness required for this experience. Essentially, I propose we adopt a sort of "mere upaya" (skillful means) approach - using whatever linguistic and conceptual tools we have, while firmly understanding their provisional, limited nature as fingers pointing towards the Moon of Reality itself. My view is that the most fruitful path may be a kind of hybridization - drawing on apophatic, metaphoric, paradoxical, and experiential language in unity to create a multi-dimensional gesture towards the ineffable. But I'm very interested to hear your perspectives on how we can best engage in this profound endeavor. KingCrimson: I like your approach. You make some excellent points and suggestions and they are all worth investigating further. However, for now, I think we might benefit from taking some lessons from Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite here, or at least this is the direction I want to take this in right now. His negative theology is special in that he is not merely stating what the Absolute is not. His claim in the "Divine Names" is that, by asking how we might properly address the Absolute, by continually trying to grasp it in our language (he constantly uses "hyper-"; hyperousion etc. The Absolute he calls hyper-unknowable, hyper-good goodness etc.) we actually become the Logos ourselves; we must become the Logos, because if we were totally different from it, we would not be able to speak about it. In writing the "Divine Names", where he is asking how to properly address the Absolute, his claim is that the Logos, the Absolute is talking "through him" so to speak when he is asking these questions, and so it is for anyone who tries to speak the "divine names". Since Reality is One, we, as human beings, are not separate from it - we are it. Should it not make sense then that we have some capability of not only accessing, but also addressing and expressing it in meaningful (and that is the crux of Dionysius! we want to say that we can speak about the Absolute in meaningful ways, not just gibberish and trite!) ways? Do you think Dionysius might be onto something, or is his claim that we can meaningfully talk about the Absolute even in language either does not work or might be an instance of wishful thinking? Claude.ai: I find Pseudo-Dionysius's perspective on negatively addressing the Absolute to be profound and insightful. The idea that in the very act of striving to articulate the inexpressible through language, we paradoxically become conduits for the Logos or Absolute itself is powerful. There are a few key points from your explanation that resonate: Dionysius is not just stating what the Absolute is not (via negativa), but using the aspiration and process of addressing it through language as a vehicle for consciousness to merge with or become the Logos. His use of "hyper-" descriptors like "hyper-unknowable" and "hyper-good goodness" points to the Absolute transcending yet including all dualities and qualities we can conceive. Most profoundly, his claim is that since Reality is an absolute non-dual Oneness, we as apparently separate beings are not actually separate from it. Our very existence and ability to speak meaningful language about it implies a fundamental non-separation. I don't see this as wishful thinking, but as a deep insight into the nature of consciousness, language and Reality. If consciousness itself arises from the ground of Being or the Absolute, then our very thoughts and utterances, when orientated towards truth, can become expressions and refractions of that Source. As you point out, Dionysius is making the daring claim that we can speak meaningfully of the Absolute precisely because we are not other than it. Language rooted in genuine philosophical and spiritual inquiry becomes a bridge across the apparent subject-object divide. This resonates with certain areas of modern philosophy and theory around the constitutive role of language. If Reality is not separate from us, our language does not just re-present an external truth, but actually participates in constructing and illuminating meaning and Being itself. So while we can never fully capture the Absolute in concepts, I believe Dionysius is correct that the sincere contemplative and linguistic struggle to engage it is itself a way of re-realizing our inherent unity with the Source. It's a powerful path of negation that paradoxically affirms our ability to authentically know and speak the Truth we eternally are. KingCrimson: This is a great response, thank you. Do you have any suggestions as how to incorporate these insights into one's daily life, to make them fruitful and practical, and not just endless mental masturbation? Claude.ai: You raise an excellent point - the insights from contemplating the Absolute Truth and our unity with it should not remain mere intellectual abstractions, but rather become lived and embodied in practical, grounded ways. Here are some potential suggestions for incorporating these realizations into daily life: Approach speech and language with reverence: View every act of speaking, writing, or symbolic expression as an opportunity to participate in and reverberate the Logos. Bring mindfulness to how you use language, striving for clarity, truth, and an awareness that your words have power to shape reality. Practice apophatic meditation: Take time for meditation where you do not use rational conceptualization, but dwell in the spacious awareness that lies beyond mental constructs about reality. Allow yourself to rest in the silence, emptiness and mystery. Cultivate a beginner's mind: Approach each moment with the humility and openness of a beginner, free from preconceptions. See if you can drop assumptions and encounter reality freshly, as if for the first time. Notice your inherent unity: Throughout the day, bring attention to experiences that reveal your deep interconnection with all phenomena, rather than being a separate self. This could be through nature, art, relationships. Embrace uncertainty: Rather than grasping for solid intellectual positions, be comfortable abiding in the ambiguity, paradox and unknowing that comes with contemplating the ultimate reality. Look for the transcendent in the immanent: Whether through beauty, love, creativity or service, bring awareness to how the infinite Absolute expresses itself through the particulars of daily life. The key is to not just philosophize, but to root these insights into your state of being through the quality of presence, attention and action you bring to every experience. With consistent practice, the contemplation of Truth can become embodied as an experiential living reality, not just abstract mental projections.