Maximo Casas

@Natasha hey Natascha, Notice that I Wrote „I See a lot of People“ and Not „you all idolize him“. look at your Reaction: Why do Even bother writing this? Maybe it Contains at least a grain of truth in you?

Hey consilience, interesting. I Hope all of you Unterstand that my topic and Post is Not backlashy to Leo in any way. I just pointed out that this phenomenon exists and we should Not Fall for it. My appeeciation is as high as my appreciation for your post ?

Hey TrynaBeTurquoise nice Name Boy the way I did Not say that all on this Forum do it. as I Said in the Post I know that i feel attachment to Leo somehow. I just Pointed out that if you do it Then work on that. funny thing is that somebody who got triggered by the Topic will Show His attachment By Maybe Posting under this Post i dont mean you just in general

I see a lot of people idolizing @Leo Gura. I see it in myself and I just freshly saw it on other Forum-people. This reminds me of this "problem" a Zen Master has (as stated by Alan Watts) to properly evolve his students: Student has to do what master says and learn and then in the last part the student needs to transcend the master. The obvious problem is that the student starts to cling to his master. Why do we build up this shit? Let's drop that now. Leo is just a person like you and me. He ain't a fucking saint. He ain't the next Buddha, yet. We are not his "following" and we will not build a fucking church of nondualistic Gura-sophies. There's NO cult to follow. There's no person to follow and there is no "you". Kill that clinging before it lays eggs! Maybe you: "How? It's easier said than done..." I got a cure for that: The truth is: HE DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT US DOING THIS IDOLIZING STUFF. If we don't stop idolizing, it could be that we put ourselves in big trouble in the long run, when we have to transcend all "masters" we met on our path.

Yes, sounds "logical" (xD). This shows that some part of me is kind of a seeker still. Love it, this concept just disintegrated by your post.

Does Goodness and Love include Evil and Hatred somehow? Aren't all good things part of bad things as non-duality defines it as Alan Watts poetically states? If the universe is infinite (I know I will try my psychedelics sooner or later ) there must be as infinite intelligent evil as infinite intelligent goodness and love or is the infinity = Goodness and love? Confused.

I think he does, he understood what you said to him. That the "evil" Stalin is also just a demonizing thing but maybe/probably (I don't know shit what the fuck is going on in his head) HE KNOWS that Stalin and Trump are a necessity to see a "complete" universe. The only issue I see here is that you are proposing one paradigm to be "the best", the one which fits in most. I think as @Leo Gura stated in Understanding how Paradigms work that paradigms have to be dropped, have you seen this video? If yes, drop yours too! Dropping everything is a "narrative" I see on the Channel Actualized.org . The Real Issue: It feels like you want to start a cult out of this idea, because you believe in the paradigm you "found" or "created", but it's just a paradigm and not "truth". I don't know yet what truth is, but probably not this paradigm you proposed, even though it includes a lot of what Leo invites you to experience.

Wow, so we'll overwrite the definition of intelligence one day. Seems legit to my ego, that we will include the contextual property of it into intelligence itself. So it turns out that everything is intelligent, even Trump, even Stalin and everything and everyone. Any kind of intelligence is part of that. This post opens the mind to stop even more criticising everybody! The materialists, the dictators, the fundamentalists, even "me" as I am not fully awake to non-materialism or non-paradigm. Do you have a Video on the topic to free oneself up of all paradigms (Maybe in the video "understanding how paradigms work"?)? -> Nevermind, I found out: It's in all Videos about non-duality, Why brains not exist and how paradigms work.

I will start: Meta Contextual Intelligence (abbreviation: MCQ)

Context of post: While watching the Video "Understanding Recontextualization": Leo pointed out at the end, that Gurus give advice based on the context of their advice seekers. Based on the Context the seeker is in, he gives the next step of personal growth for his personal context and could be able to give different people with the same exact problem a contrary advice. Leo described it like a knowing, a sort of experience about contexts a guru has towards his students. Idea: So, this is a new field of "intelligence" (like emotional intelligence or the IQ in general) that is going to become more significant as more and more people are going to go into turquoise/yellow states of consciousness. We will find a word/term for that "intelligence" that a guru has about contexts. First, I wanted to propose in advance the term "contextual intelligence", but as stated on this website: There is already a contextual intelligence. In one sentence, the contextual intelligence is defined by "Contextual intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge to real world scenarios and situations." It's kind of similar because the guru has knowledge about something and applies it to real world scenarios. BUT the important difference is, that he looks at the individual worldview and context of the student and gives him advice based on that. A "classic" contextual intelligent person would give to the different persons with the same problem the same advice even though it perhaps doesn't fit the context of some person. The guru does not do that. So we obviously will distinguish these two contextual intelligences: Contextual intelligence and... ? Oh there is none(!) until today: Now it is your turn to propose a new word for this kind of guru-contextual-intelligence or gcq! Let's go!

Yes, exactly. As Leo stated in the spiral dynamics videos that it's estimated that blue is about 40%, orange 30% etc. in the entire world that's why it fits into the other model. 2,5% in general world population.

Nothing. That's just a subdivision line. The lines just indicate the proportions of the model.

While watching spiral dynamics Videos, Leo pointed out that there is kind of a balance between progressives and more conservative stages. Then somehow this model of Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Adoption curve came to my mind (or should I say the aperture I & you experience this life? xD): Rogers Model is about Product or market innovations but fuck that conventional thinking lets cross it with spiral dynamics: I don’t know if anybody noticed the “correlation” of those models and we can see, that (maybe) the psychic evolution is slowed down and this is made by nature/god/whatever. When we combine Spiral Dynamics with this model, we see that the bigger chunk of blue and orange balances the progressive/innovative chunk I placed turquoise and yellow onto: Right now as stated by Leo Gura (in the Spiral Dynamics in-depth-but-superficial Videos): We need this slowing down by “lower” stages or else, as Leo said, we would go into big trouble, but staying in the stages is also big trouble in the long run. So we need to evolve anyway. Life is change. Clinging is just a phase. Temporary illusion. Here is maybe an funny/interesting thought I encountered while writing this post: We can shift the stages and get some idea what it was in the past and what is going to be in the future: “Past”: “Future”: Even further “Future”: Of course: All credits go to Everett Rogers and the makers of the Spiral Dynamics Model I do not own any of the pictures used. And: yes I imprinted my name onto the pictures #justanotherorangeaspectofme