charles1

Thank you all ! That's some great material to work with !

Hi ! I would like to practice more Open Mindedness, to escape the wormholes in the sea of knowledge. ( I discovered new conspiracy theories today and I am horrified that I could be deluding myself in the same way, which is probably the case ) But it's not always easy to find what I'm close-minded about alone and I need your help. With "Hot" subjects, it's easy to feel your closeness ( ex: when I was trying to open myself to the possibility that this political statement is true : "The Free Market is good for society" ), but often, Close Mindedness hides itself. Could you post some outrageous (true or false, I must not care) statements down below ? And don't go too hard on non-duality, I think diversity is the key there. Thanks !

Hey there, I have simple question : After a bit more than a year of meditation (between 30min to 1h a day), I enter a mindfulness quite quickly when alone in silence. But, the moment I go out of the room, talk to other people, work... every hint of mindfulness suddenly disappear. As if increasing the amount of objects to be conscious of prevented me entirely from keeping the higher level of consciousness. So, How to adapt the practice to everyday life ? Must I simply keep trying and keep failing until it works or is there is any trick or advice that could be useful for that purpose ?

And I will. I know how gratifying it is to be conscious now, it's no longer faith in the fact that it will change my life. It is currently shattering my entire value system... and I love it !

In the last Actualized.org video, when Leo asks us to be open-minded about the fact that all evil is imaginary I stayed stuck How is that imaginary ? How could that be imaginary ?

I have been indoctrinated into a : "All the Paranormal Field is a Scam" ideology. I've been a fervent follower of modern skeptics for some time and thus, many things in the Actualized.org forum and videos creates (awful) contradictions in my worldview. I haven't read much about the Paranormal because I tend to look at the reputation of writer ( I know it's a mistake but there is so much bullshit is personal development... ) and all paranormal researchers are demonized by the scientific community ( that's epistemologically logical ). In a Nutshell, I'm kind of trapped. But I want to get rid this overpowering Self Bias. I want to question the paranormal as much as possible : Truth can be questioned as much as you want. If it is true, then it might resist my questioning. So I'm looking for the most solid proofs of Paranormal events. I don't want to lose time reading shaky studies that couldn't transform my worldview and even reinforcing it. Can you please post links the 3 MOST EYE-OPENING STUDIES ( NOT AUTHORS ) YOU KNOW OF ? Thanks in advance ( sorry for my english if I make mistakes, I'm french )

That's what I fear indeed... Maybe... Maybe not. I don't know so I'm not gonna ditch science like that and maybe ignore an entire field of study of reality. Why would I believe you more than scientists ?

When you first start studying philosophy, one of the first notion you'll learn is Spinoza's "conatus" , which is a term meaning basically that a being is always trying to persist in being such a being. And I can't help comparing it to homeostasis, survival and eventually even self-bias since Spinoza noticed that judgement were secondary to desires i.e. the Ego. But, I'm sure he only glimpsed a part of those concepts. Since I'm more a student of philosophy than Non-Dual teachings, I wonder : what did he miss ? What are the nuances of survival that philosophers never catched ? ( Maybe just because of not being able to overcome the self-bias of being a philosopher ) And may you link some of the best post on Survival and Self bias ? It would be great for a pittyful and extremely biased white man upper class Western Society newbie like me...

That's a pure phenomenology. Or even idealism. Berkeley said : "being is perceiving or being perceived" ; And you say there is only one perceiver ... so the only thing he perceive is all what is... Make sense. So the process is : starting as a baby thinking that the only thing that is , is yourself and what you see ; losing that feeling when you grow up and need to survive into the world ; doubting all with pyrrhonism ; realizing that you're God ; and then, coming back to the first step but with this knowledge. Is my analysis right ?

I've read almost on the books on the preview page of Leo's Booklist and I'm starting to wonder whether I should buy the entire list. There is no doubt those books are wonderful. The Road Less Traveled ; Mastery ; The 4 Agreements... are mind-blowing books. And I bet the list is full of other books as wonderful. But it is a selection. Leo's selection. And I have no guaranty it is unbiased. Although I want to truth Leo, I can't. I can't take that risk, even if I think it is real low. In fact, I can't even say to be epistemologically honest that the risk is low. The truth is I DON'T KNOW. But I also know that I will inevitably lose time by reading my own selection. That's the price to pay for intellectual unbiasedness. Conversely, I know that if I don't buy the booklist, I will be subjected to my own biases : I won't be willing to read any Witchcraft books, paranormal books and that's maybe as problematic. Leo's booklist will make me read on some topics I would have never dare to explore, and will force me to be adventurous. But then again, It is a epistemological submission to Actualized.org , which is precisely the biggest trap out there for me. I'm asking for help, and guidance, especially from former pyrrhonists out there. And Leo, how did you do ? How did you balance the authority of your sources with your own biases ? Thanks in advance, even if I will not give full credit to your answer ! ( sorry for such epistemological care but i haven't yet cured myself from the fear of delusion )

WOW, ok, I'm out for now. I'm not conscious enough to see the difference between that and solipsism

@Leo Gura How can you believe that and talk to me ? ( + the certainty I have that you're not in my direct experience and thus that I solely exist ? ) Am I imagining all this, Am i imagining that you're imagining all this ? It is useless to continue I think... can't understand it without experiencing it.

And at the same time, you're conscious of the same "Leo" avatar the "Charles1" avatar is conscious of... In the end , Who does truly exist ? LoL Thanks, the debate is over !

Fucking paradox... Don't make any sense from my perspective... If I buy into it, It means that the "Leo" character I imagine is so well imagined that he is conscious of the fact that there is only him and no Me to learn from him. ???????? And for the reader of this comment ( if I'm not talking to myself ), there is a triple paradox and the "Charles1" character is so well imagined that it images a "Leo" character that is conscious that nothing but him exist ????? ?????? ???? ???? I think I simply can't fathom it from my relative perspective.

Yep you're right. When you realize you will need to stand on the shoulder of giants, on authority, whatever you do in life, you don't have any choice but taking those risks that are potential opportunities at the same time. But the trap of ideology is never far. And I'm struggling to see how I can avoid it while at the same time not overthinking things.

Maybe... Probably even... I'm not sufficiently self-honest to say whether it's true or not. But I can't forget from evaluating the risk of being deluded by Leo. Being mindless is as dangerous as overthinking and being stuck in thought like I am. That's the solution. No need for our debate. Agreed.

It isn't about money, it is about intellectual freedom. Yes, you're right, but it's rather being sucked into any perspective. Since I am at the beginning of my spiritual journey, I hold on skepticism by fear too much, and I know so, but my subconscious won't let go. ( I'm try to ) Your point on skepticism being itself a bias is I think a great analysis. Thanks for that ! That's encouraging ! A great reminder of your video " How to discover What's True ? " I think. When you look for too much independence, you stay stuck. And you don't need to be a hardcore skeptic to not be deluded. I still can't believe you 100%, I still need other high consciousness ressources but I am now ready to take more epistemological risks, and fail more. Might buy your list in the end, once I'm done with some other books ( Bergson is a great thinker )

I've been trying to stay mindful all day long ( unsuccessfully of course ) and to catch myself when I'm lost in thoughts. But before sleep and in my dreams ( when I recall them ), I notice that I am unable to do so whatsoever. And I have even the impression that the monkey mind is more powerful than ever there, as if it was compensating for the increase in mindfulness throughout the day. How to fight against that ?

I'm not ideological about it. If I were sure, I wouldn't even ask. But I simply don't have any direct experience of how it could be otherwise. I haven't yet discovered for myself whether or not my essence is Consciousness. So I can only see consciousness as accessible through will. But I hope I will in the future ! I would ask, what changes suddenly when you realize Mindfulness doesn't require will ? What is happening in your brain ? Is it just a sudden realization ? And therefore, does meditating becomes entirely effortless thereafter ?

No, precisely, "I" NEVER witness falling asleep. I do realize I fell asleep when I wake up, but not before. You need to be conscious to be a witness, but falling asleep means losing consciousness ( not Absolutely, but relative to the Ego ). So I don't understand how I could be that which witnesses it. I'm not sure it's possible to do so and fall asleep. I'll try tonight for myself. So observing is prior to will ? but if you don't have the will to observe you don't observe... No ? If I surrender my will, I ( at my level of mindfulness ) will fall back in thoughts. I know that when meditating, you should look for "being mindful" , you should rather simply "notice what's arising without any efforts" but isn't that still an instance of Will ? Can you explain further on how do you observe without any willingness to observe ? And if you continue to observe, you don't lose consciousness, so you don't sleep ... ? In a nutshell, I don't understand how sleep can, substantially, be compatible with mindfulness.

How do you observe when you rest ? Observing requires will, and when I sleep or try to fall asleep, don't I "surrender" my will ? Keeping observing it will keep me awake, no ?

Newer videos are more holistic, more honest with the audience, more transparent. They are what he's been building up too. It is becoming more concrete. The whole serie on Politics for example is incredible. I agree, at some point, it was a bit too much of Non-Duality. ( from mid 2018 to beginning of 2019 ). But, now, it's greater than ever.

I've been reading recently about Plotinus, and there seems to be so much of Non-Duality in his old teachings that I wondered if anybody could help me better understand this strange philosopher, that uses Platon's work but add some mysticism to it. What did he really brought to the table ? For example, he talked at length about a "superior principle" that fill all the things with its light, but not in a Christian perspective. But, he creates a hierarchy of "hypostasis" within what Leo may simply call God by different names ( The First/The One ; Being/ Essence ; Intelligence/ Unique Spirit and finally, the forth hypostasis : Matter ) Why ? What does it mean ? ( I have translated those terms from french, they may not be accurate in a Latin to English translation ) Is it of of any usefulness ? According to Porphyry, a student of his, Plotinus has said that he reached "complete unification" 4 times, and that it was an extremely difficult and rare state to provoque. It is a pretty good description of an awakening and the first one I encounter within ancient philosopher. Is his teaching an accurate form of non-duality ? Do you know any enlightened philosopher ? ( considered as a philosopher today )

What a shame ! When you know how first empirical christians ( Ockhamists ) and first Renaissance scientist ( like Da Vinci ) were so critical of faith, nor for faith sake but because they saw it as an obstacle to True Knowledge ( since you could think outside the box ) . They fall back in the same trap ! Who's fault is it ? Is this the result of a particularly stubborn hyper-rational philosopher ( like Descartes ) ? Or is it more because of the human nature, that needs faith in something ? The question is : Is Open-mindedness enough to escape it ? How to be sure we're not in the same position ?

Yep, Meister Eckhart is pretty amazing too. I didn't noticed it in Hegel however, but I admit I haven't read him a lot ( it's hard ! ) . When you know the fame and the inheritance of Hegel, I ask how is it possible we talk so little about mysticism in modern culture ? Why his successors didn't work as much in ontology as he did ? In other words, why is modern philosophy, general public teachings of philosophy exempted of mysticism ?