r0ckyreed

I have watched your videos on death and memento mori. Is this a practice that you still do or find value in doing even after you have deconstructed death?

War! Huh! Good God Y’all! What is it good for!? Absolutely nothing! War! Huh! … Do not fight for what you hate, promote what you love. The best revenge is to not be like the devils.

Yes. The question assumes a tree exist without being seen. If this is the case, then it follows that the sound exists without being heard.

What is the highest stage of moral development? Disclaimer: Please don’t answer with “morality is a social construct and does not exist.” That is a foolish answer because you contradict yourself. If you are breathing, alive, and reading this, then you have a bias for this illusion called life. Morality is inevitable as long as you have a bias to live. If you do not care about morality, then you are a devil, and I only care about God and living as closely to the Goodness of God that I can. This is one thing I think is missing from Actualized.org teachings. Leo gives metaphysical insights about God but just because you awaken does not mean that you transcend devilry and being a devil. In addition, please do not respond with just "Selflessness." Or that "Morality cannot be conceptualized by a theory. Goodness is beyond any human theories and conceptualizations." These kind of responses do not help human kind to develop morally. Without a map, you are essentially trusting the masses to be able to know how to sail (which they do not; otherwise, we would not have any more horrendous crimes). So, we need to value and contemplate moral theories because they can help people become moral and construct a more conscious society. You will have a theory of morality regardless of what you believe, so might as well construct a positive and conscious one. What is the highest stage of moral development? How should one live? What is the highest goodness, virtue, and morality that humans can aspire to? What is the highest stage of moral development? There are many models of morality. Kohlberg defined 3 levels of moral development: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Within the 3 levels are 6 total stages: Stages of Moral Development (Kohlberg) Preconventional 1. Obedience and punishment - Good and bad is linked to whether or not we get punished or not. A person at this stage is not motivated to be good for its own sake. They only care about avoiding punishment 2. Self-interest - Morality at this stage is motivated by self-interest. “What is in it for me?” In psychological/ethical egoism theory, all morality is argued to stem from this stage. A person at this stage only does what is good because it serves their self. They are aware of punishments and consequences but the difference is that in this stage, a person will act despite known punishments as long as it is in their self-interest. Conventional 3. Interpersonal/conformity - Morality at this stage is motivated by “what others think of me?” Good and bad is viewed as whether other people will approve of your behavior or not. 4. Authority and maintaining social order - Morality is motivated by valuing authority and maintaining social-order or status-quo. A person at this stage will act despite what “others think of me” to maintain social-order. Morality at this stage is higher than conformity and what “others” think but more about “upholding rules to sustain a functioning society.” 5. Social contract - Morality is viewed as a social contact as opposed to strict absolute rules. At this stage, rules are evaluated on whether “a rule truly serves all members of society.” Postconventional 6. Universal ethical principles - At the stage, morality and rules are valid only if they are grounded in justice. Morality is guided by justice and our own inner-compass as opposed to self-interest and social conformity. The highest moral principle is compassion. A person at this stage believes that people should learn and understand all perspectives. A person at this stage may ask “What are the abstract ethical principles that serve my understandings of justice?” Source:https://sproutsschools.com/kohlbergs-6-stages-of-moral-development/ Other moral theories include: Ethical Egoism - Psychological egoism is the view that human nature is ultimately selfish and all behavioral are always motivated by self-interest. - Ethical egoism is the view that something is moral as long as it is in accordance with one’s own self-interest. If it goes against one’s own self-interest, then the action is viewed as morally wrong. Virtue Ethics - Virtue ethics view moral virtue as central to ethics. It is essentially about cultivating “virtuous habits.” It is a quest to live a life of moral character. - This view of morality is “character-focused.” -- "How should I live?" - An act is bad is deemed to be morally wrong if it makes our character morally inferior or unvirtuous in any way. Deontology - Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of “following rules to distinguish from right and wrong.” Ethical actions follow “universal laws.” - “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” - Kant - Unverbalizable laws include: Don’t lie, Don’t steal, Don’t kill, etc. - It is about doing your duty to following these rules and not about consequences. - An act is good as long it is following the unverbalizable rules. - Deontology essentially views individuals as “ends” rather than “means.” This means that individual agents are intrinsically valued and not instrumentally treated as “chess pieces.” - Actions are inherently good and bad. - Operates off of the Golden Rule - "Treating others the way I would want to be treated." Utilitarianism - Utilitarianism picks up on the flaws of deontology and focuses on the consequences of an action – what that action produces in the world. - Utilitarianism views moral goodness as any action that produces that most good in the world. - Utilitarianism is focused on providing the most goodness and well-being to all of society despite the actions leading up to it. - Utilitarianism, in the traditional sense, essentially views actions and individual lives as chess pieces in the game of chess. The ultimate goal is to have peace for all involved and that might mean making sacrifices to win the war. - Actions are not inherently good or bad, as long as it brings about the best result. Here is my question to you: Which moral theory is the highest that we should aspire to? If the moral theory is not on the list, feel free to make your own up. My thoughts on this are that I think we should all aspire to be Deontologists and Virtue Ethicists. I used to buy into utilitarianism because it seemed like a very attractive theory to our pragmatically minded society. Our society has a result-based mindset. For Deontology, I think it is wise to have established rules that can be universalizable. To me, Deontology is similar to social contract theory, but it goes much deeper. Social contract theory focuses on the rules, laws, or “contracts” dictated by a society. Deontology has imbedded in the theory of a larger duty beyond what a society deems as “just.” Deontologists will act on maxims that are universalizable and will act despite of what a society may think. For instance, a society could be a social contract that makes racism justifiable, but a Deontologist has a deeper duty to treat all humans with fairness and compassions because they are seen as intrinsically valuable. Moral actions are intrinsically valuable to a Deontologist. The issue with Deontology is that it focuses on rules and maxims that are universalizable. But our whole is becoming so diverse that the whole notion of having a rule that can be universalizable can be seen as folly. However, the closest maxim that I find to be anything close to universalizable is the Golden Rule of treating others the way I would want to be treated. This Golden Rule will apply to Virtue Ethics as well. I feel like Virtue Ethics and Deontology are connected. The main difference is that Virtue Ethics is focused on character development, whereas Deontology is focused on the social aspect of moral duty to uphold universalizable rules. The issue with virtue ethics is that it makes morality about character development. This may seem good on the surface, but there is a bigger issue of what determines whether a person is morally developed or not? How can morality be based solely on moral virtue if most of society may never reach the highest stages of moral develop? Virtue ethics seems very self-centered. I personally go back and forth between virtue ethics and deontology. One of the reasons why I like deontology is because it highlights that a “good life” is one that is lived by “good principles.” But I guess, you could argue that a virtue ethics individual could also be a deontologist in their own ways or vice versa. But to me, morality is deeper than any one individual’s character. Morality to me is about being in alignment and integrity with one’s own principles for living a good life. A virtue ethicist may ask “how should one live?” A deontologist may ask “What is my duty?” What principles do I need to follow?” Flaws to virtue ethics is that it seems self-centered on character development, as opposed to societal development. I guess that you could make the case that character development is the foundation for all other development. Unfortunately, not everyone is so privileged to have access to the highest education to have equal accessibility to developing themselves morally, you could argue. In addition, virtue ethics can also be unclear about what to do in ethical situations and dilemmas. What virtues do you use in a situation? Is it better to be honest or be beneficent, etc.? One thing that I do like about virtue ethics is that it focuses the moral development of our personal character. The issue is that it can be unclear as what is most virtuous or what is the most ethical? But I guess you could say that with all moral theories.

Or you can contemplate truth for yourself and question direct experience itself rather than off-shooting your own authority to someone else. Other minds is like saying there is an other God.

And what do you do after you wake up? How does one be the most moral and virtuous human being? Waking up has nothing to do with morality and virtue. Not sure I understand how disintegrating moral values makes one moral. If you don’t value something, how can you embody that? Yes of course. That is what morality is about. The question is how to reach the highest stages of moral (justice and compassion). Justice and compassion are relative. Do you mean justice and compassion in a Kantian, Deontological sense or in a utilitarian sense or what?

https://realization.org/p/jed-mckenna/who-is-jed-mckenna.html

How can you possibly know other minds exist? Notice that other minds are a belief and no belief is true. Solipsism and service are not incompatible. You can still care and relate to the "world" and "others" despite Solipsism. I can be lucid in a dream and realize others are my imagination, and I can still relate to them, be of service, and be a hero in my dream or in a video game. If I can be a hero in video games or my dreams, which are Solipsistic, then nothing is stopping me from being a hero right now. All the best <3

Of course. The fairy tale of Truth (which is a falsehood) is easier to understand, conceive, and believe than the Truth. We are all in Plato's cave and Leo is trying to tell us through analogy, concept, and metaphor how to unshackle ourselves and experience The-World-Beyond-The-Cave. No guru, teaching, or concept can get you out of the cave. All concepts about The-World-Beyond-The-Cave such as the river, water, and truth are all stories that are passed down from caveman to caveman.

@Bufo Alvarius Love your posts man! Keep them up! I totally love this. This Solipsism question totally tells you who is full of shit and who is woke. Do Jed McKenna next or do Eckhart Tolle or whoever you can find. Keep it up man. <3

Nice. I totally agree with that. I believe morality should be centered around selflessness and the highest love possible. It sounds like utilitarianism but utilitarianism seems to conflate love with utility. Yeah. There is a lot of overlap for sure. I think subscribing to a holistic approach is a good idea. It can help you cross-reference and see the bigger picture. The only flaw I see with the holistic approach is that it can be very overwhelming with a lot of different maps of the same territory. But in moral situations, multiple perspectives are needed in many cases.

I always admire how direct Leo is. I aspire to be more direct in my own life. Rupert Spira, Eckhart Tolle, and these other gurus now seem like a facade to me. It is all a mind game. They are just bullshitting themselves and “others.” It just amazes me how deep the ego goes in convincing people they have awoken when they really fell more deeply asleep. Edit: Of course, I am imagining these false gurus and their “awakenings” and their self-deceit and facades to keep myself asleep.

The Big Bang never started.

There is no source. Reality is INFINITY!!!!! <3 There is no source. Reality is INFINITY!!!!! <3 The Universe is not a deterministic machine, it is a mind full of infinite freedom and intelligence. Where is determinism in the present moment? Notice that there is no cause and effect in direct experience. All cause and effect is more concepts and imagination about past and future. Peace <3

I have had similar thoughts as well. I have had the objections of "why meditate when I can contemplate" or whatever blank you want to fill in. I have taken a break from meditation, but recently, I felt called to do it, and it amazed me how it made me feel just to sit in silence and become reality. I recommend you read the book The Mind Illuminated . It is a great book and guide to meditation. True meditation has nothing to do with achievement. I think it is more about the attitude you bring to your meditations. The first problem is treating meditation like a chore. Meditation needs to be seen in a different light; otherwise, you will be always at a battle with yourself. I personally meditate not as a "goal" for enlightenment, but I meditate to develop my mind and happiness. Meditation helps me to be in alignment with actuality and helps me to prepare for and deal with suffering. I have ultimately realized that meditation and contemplation are not as different than I have once thought. Contemplation (thinking and inquiring about reality) has become most natural to me, but meditation challenges me to be more disciplined and find and cultivate inner-happiness as opposed to external-happiness. Real meditation is being with reality for no purpose or reason. Meditation is like dancing. There is no reason for dancing other than pure enjoyment and self-expression. Contemplation to me is about investigating reality to find out what is true, typically through thinking. But ultimately, this is your decision on what you think is best relative to what you want in your life. I have found that meditation has made me much calmer and relaxed, and I use meditation more for psychological growth. The key is to enjoy whatever you are doing. If you do not enjoy your meditation practice, then stop doing it or find ways to make it more enjoyable. Do things that elevate your consciousness and not lower it. Sometimes what we think elevates us can be the thing that lowers us. But in my experience, what has elevated me or lowered me had more to do with my mindset than a specific activity per se. Good luck.

Go further. Now, think about the worst case scenario of never driving a car again and never living your life without succumbing to fear. Negative visualization helps us to prepare for the potential realities of adversity, and it also helps us to be grateful for what we have. It is kind of like a nightmare. You can think of dreams as "negative visualizations" that give us the simulation to face our fears. Think of negative visualizations like that. The first step to facing fear is imagining it to happen. For instance, I had a dream that my sister died. I experienced all the emotions of crying and grieving. When I woke up, I still had my tears on my face, but the tears were of joy that it was "just a dream" and that I still have time with my sister. I am grateful for the nightmares because they help me appreciate life more. EDIT: Thank you so much! You have helped me articulate better that the true worst case scenario is not death, but rather, it is living in fear and not living up to our potential. Fear can be our prison or it can be our path to freedom. The other side of fear lies our salvation. Hell is fear/suffering and Heaven is Love/Peace. That's the point. If we avoid and deny our suffering/fears, it makes it even more difficult to deal with in the moment when it is actually happening. Remember, it is a simulation to face our fears. That is also another purpose of meditation. It is to learn how to deal with suffering and fear and to overcome it and be in alignment with peace, love, and unity. You have to know how to use this exercise. That's the thing. This exercise is not about perceiving the future as negative. It is about giving yourself a simulation to face and overcome your fears. Having imagined the worst case, you are able to live your life for the best case. After you imagine you failing at something, you are more prepared for the potential reality. But the main flaw with this exercise is that most people stop at the worst case and dwell on that. They then do not see beyond the worst case to what could be the best case. The key is not to dwell on the negative but to deconstruct it and reframe it as a positive. Keep going further. For me personally, when something bad happens, I try to view it as a way that the Universe is teaching me something about Love. If something bad happens, I try to look for the lesson. I typically do not do this negative visualization as much. But I often use it when I am feeling stressed in the moment. I just think about the fact that I am going to die and that it is better for me to live for Love and not to live in fear and be trapped in my own prison. I would much rather die striving to live for my deepest Love and in alignment with my purpose than to live in fear, never living up to my full potential. But in the end, we all work differently. This exercise may not be beneficial to you. If that is the case, then that is good because now you can move on, knowing that you have learned more about yourself in the process. You got this. <3

@RevoCulture Thanks! I am trying to be a writer/author! Maybe one of these days! Have a wonderful rest of all of your days! <3

Solipsism in the metaphysical sense is the view that only one's own mind or self is all that exists. Solipsism in the epistemological sense is the view that the only thing that can be known is your own mind and perceptions exist. According to this article https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Distributed_solipsism, Distributed Solipsism is the idea that the self is distributed amongst all individuals. Therefore, Distributed Solipsism assumes that there are other bubbles, but those other bubbles and experiences are the same self experiencing through different forms of parts of itself. Those who reject metaphysical solipsism prefer to subscribe to Distributed Solipsism. In fact, a lot of spiritual teachings are in alignment with Distributed Solipsism. I know Alan Watts, Rupert Spira, Eckhart Tolle, etc. All those gurus teach that everything is One, and we are all parts of the Universe experiencing itself through all different forms. The Universe is essentially the stage from which it experiences life through all the different characters and actors on the world's stage. However, the point of any inquiry is not to find what is comfortable or witty. The point of contemplation is to find out what is actually true. What is actually and absolutely True? When you think about it, the only thing you have ever experienced in your life has been your own mind, which includes all of your perceptions, sensations, thoughts, visual field, auditory fields, sensory fields. This field of experience that is happening right now is all that can be known to exist. All other hypotheses about other bubbles or fields of experiences are occurring right here in The Field of Experience. Notice that I do not say that this field is "yours." The Field of Experience right now is what actually exists. Any ideas of self or other are always secondary. The Field of Experience is primary. Everything else is secondary and occurs within what is actually primary. Distributed Solipsism assumes that there are other experiences or minds which can exist outside of The Field of Experience. Metaphysical & Epistemological Solipsism are stating what is the case. All that has ever been experience or exists is This Field. What does it mean to say something exists which cannot be perceived? Existence = Perception There has only ever been One Field of Experience. If there were multiple Fields or Bubbles, where are the boundaries of those Bubbles and other Fields created in? If dream characters had their own bubbles and fields, where would those fields and bubbles be occurring in? This Field/Bubble Right NOW!!! Notice that the Field is entirely Headless. The head becomes the whole world. The Field is space for everything to exist. This Headless Field is like the world of Skyrim or dreaming. It is the screen/space for all characters and worlds to be created. There is no external world to Skyrim or dreaming. All worlds, characters, etc. are occurring on the Screen/Field from which all of reality is projected. My other post on Plant Consciousness and Solipsism pointed to this very problem that I had been tackling with: How do I distinguish between subjects and objects? Where are the other Fields and minds? If a human has a subject or consciousness, then what makes a human body have a subject and a rock/plant body not? Where is the line drawn for consciousness subjects and non-conscious objects? Everything in the Field of Experience appears as space, objects, colors, sounds, smells, etc. It is all ever-changing objects that are occurring in the Field. When I look at a rock and a human being, what is the difference between the two? How do I say that a human being is a subject but a plant, table, or rock is not? The objects may move like a puppet from the Field's point of view, but all inference of there being an experience behind a human object is the same as inferring there is a rock subject behind the rock object. This is like the whole Invisible Gardner argument that atheists use to theists. If there is a Gardener that is completely invisible and can never be known or verified, how is that any different from there not being any Gardener at all? Likewise, the assumption is made that there is a mind, experience, bubble/fields, or other subjects inside the human and animal bodies that we see but how is inferring that there are other subjects or other Fields/Bubbles any different from there not being any other subjects at all? The only thing that can be verified is that This Field Exists. All other spaghetti monsters, china teapots, and Invisible Gardeners are all additional jumps, stories ("explanations"), and add-ons to this Field. This Field cannot be explained by anything. All explanations are secondary to the Field. The Field is Reality/Existence Itself and all concepts/stories/explanations will always be secondary and not primary. Even the belief in Solipsism is just another concept. Absolute Solipsism is what remains after you burn everything that is false into the fire. Now, stop imagining Solipsism and go out there and do the work to deconstruct all your beliefs and falsehoods until Truth remains. Jed McKenna and Leo are alike in that both of them see the nonsense in spiritual circles. Jed and Leo realize that hardly any spiritually "enlightened" guru is actually awakened. If you do not plan to take psychedelics, I highly recommend the practice of spiritual autolysis that can be found in Jed's books. I also recommend Douglas Harding's Headless Way! Hope that helped to answer all questions about Solipsism.

From what you describe, it sounds like the Stoic negative visualization technique. Imagining the worst case scenario can help you prepare and have gratitude. Ex. I am stressed about talking to strangers or presenting in front of class. If you can be aware of the worst case scenario such as I will get laughed at or I will stutter or whatever, it helps you put your fear into perspective. What is really wrong with people laughing at you? What is really wrong with stuttering or failing your presentation or test? Is that really the worst case? The ultimate worst case scenario is death, which really isn’t a worst case scenario because it is gonna happen anyways. Negative visualization helps you to focus on what you do have. If you can imagine what life would be like if you did not have something, it will help you appreciate it more. If you are anxious or whatever, focus on the positives of what you do have. You can see (most blind people envy you for seeing), you can hear, you can think, you have opportunities to love, you are alive, etc. When you put this into perspective of the example of having social anxiety, it becomes laughable. When you zoom out of your perspective and look at the world as a whole, you realize that everyone is insecure and stressed about something. You can be secure knowing that everyone is insecure. When you confront your fear of death, everything else gets put into place. All other stresses and problems are seen as petty when you zoom out and think about how everyone has similar concerns as you, and they are not the worst case. When you think about the “worst case scenarios,” it is important to look back at your current situation and have gratitude. Ex. I imagine that I get into a car crash and lose my legs. This thought helps me be more grateful for the fact that this moment has never happened. And I can enjoy my legs in the Now. It is like the movie It’s a Wonderful Life. If you have not seen the movie, go watch it. When you think about what can go wrong, you also can know what can go right. The real problem is the attitude and mindsets used to which we approach opportunities. Presenting in front of class is a test, getting in a car wreck and losing your legs is a test, losing your sight is a test. Life is always testing us. We are not grateful for what we have until we lose it. You can bypass the losing part by imagining it so you can be grateful now. Hope that helped.

Burn down your TOE and see what is left in the ashes. What is left when you burn everything down is what is True. There are no individual bubbles. Only ONE bubble.

It’s called spiritual selection. It’s like natural selection but with spiritual folk. If you don’t post productively, then what are you doing here but wasting yours and everyone’s time? Cheers.

LMFAO!!!

@Vynce How long was the total video?

I agree. The people who cannot handle it should be in therapy and not on here. I think a paywall would help because people who are not ready for it will most likely not pay. Why pay for a video that will make you worse if you can pay for a therapist to make you better? For those who are ready, they will enjoy and learn from solipsism and the misconceptions. @Leo Gura

I am honestly really bummed. This was the one video I was really looking forward to. I wish people could take a quiz or something and those who pass it could watch it or something like that lol. I guess I am just gonna have to stop imagining that there ever was a solipsism video. Leo, please consider uploading it in the future. If you feel like it is too big for us to handle, can you give us a quiz, have a paywall, or build us up to it? Don't let the children derail your work. Some of us here are adults who are ready for Truth. Let the spiritual selection take its course for those who don't want Truth. @Leo Gura