r0ckyreed

Peter Ralston goes into it in his book on why Now only exists. The past and future are conceptual in nature. They are images in the mind occurring in the Now. Time is nothing more than the conceptualization of change occurring Now. Now is all that exists.

That isn’t about Existential Time. It is about investments. I’m talking about answering the question: What Is Time? Of course, I don’t need Leo to make a video. I can contemplate it myself, and I have already come to some insights on the matter from my contemplations. I just see it is a core missing part. When you contemplate what is time? You are run into the question of what is Eternity.

So for instance, Peter Ralston discussed time in his book. He went into depth on it. But basically he says Absolute Existence and Now are identical and that Now is all there is. Any truth is always about Now/Existence. Now is not an infinite string of moments but is One Eternal Moment imagining past and future. He says that Now is eternal and change is occurring in the Now but our minds conceptualize time out of it to make sense of reality. I just notice that there is no specific video or teaching about time from Leo Gura. He has one on impermanence but not on time.

It’s not wrong per se. God refers to The Infinite and that was what Ralston was pointing to. He just avoids that word.

I finished reading the book. It was overall really good. His writings and communication are deep and direct. Some things though that he gets wrong is he doesn’t advocate calling Existence God, he doesn’t address why Existence should be called Consciousness. And he seemed to use physicalist arguments to argue for the non-existence of the ego. In addition, he did not go deep into Absolute Beauty/Love. But I loved his writings on time. I think contemplations on time are what is missing from actualized.org. I really enjoyed the book and would recommend it. So many great exercises. In some ways, his communications on Existence make more sense than actualized.org. Peter Ralston still holds the idea of an external world and other minds. But he just calls it Consciousness instead of “external world”.

I miss the old font

I’m almost done with the book. I will post my full critique here when I’m finished. He is starting to break the matrix near the end of the book

Yeah. He keeps going deeper into Physicalist explanations. Nothing wrong with it per se. It is a different perspective.

He explicitly states consciousness is caused by brain states. That what you are is a body and mind doesn’t exist. Idealism would say the opposite.

Peter Ralston is a physicalist. I’m 3/4 done with the book, and he is making physicalistic arguments. He basically says consciousness is a byproduct of the body/brain. Anybody else get this vibe?

Soaking.

Another contradiction in Peter Ralston’s teaching is the assertion that mind doesn’t exist. It’s funny though because he is using his mind to claim mind doesn’t exist.

While in school, I remember correcting my math teacher a few times from mistakes he made. Even the great professionals make errors and aren’t exempt from deception. Had I of not have questioned and followed blindly, I would have learned improper math. Not sure what your point is or what you’re trying to accomplish with that comment.

Peter Ralston also claims that all experience and understanding is relative and not absolute. He also seems to have very materialistic answers to questions, saying that the brain is the source of all experience and that there is only body and no mind.

Leo’s deconstructing rationality series was pretty good. Now, I think is a great time for Leo to make a video on Absolute Rationality. Reality is structured in an Ontologically Tautology. Therefore, there is an Absolute Rationality/Logic that goes along with that realization. The Absoluteness of Rationality was something that was missing from Leo’s series or was maybe another series on its own. What do you think?