dyslexicCnut

@Johnny5 I certainly would not have wished he be cast out from spiritual oneness into "his own realm devoid of good things" had this been his only misdeed. Haha, If you thought I was biting this dude's head off merely over the joke, I'd say you definitely have a strong tolerance for others' defects . A quality I'm trying to gain.

The OP 'Enlightenment' previously posted a thread "BLM/Antifa Devilry Examples Thread" where he cherry picked examples of civil unrest incited by BLM protests. I can't imagine being so evil/stupid/unenlightened to interpret these examples as demerits towards what BLM is intended to stand for. It should be obvious that marginalized groups will see more destructive behavior among themselves since poverty universally begets criminality, and these socioeconomic factors continuously drive the negative cycle, making it an unavoidable side effect that mass movements for the liberation of such groups will bring about this foreseeable unrest. Citing videos of black people looting without any contextualization, as if we're just supposed to innately react "those rowdy minorities are at it again", is just about the most cringe worthy and unflatteringly telling action one could take. Disgusting.

I can confirm it's not, however it'll take more than a quick denial to convince me this white supremacist mental patient isn't you. Much appreciated. I will acknowledge though that I am definitely trying to overcome having such reactions. But for now I just want to see all conservatives sent to hell.

Why do reactionaries post the stupidest shit? Sometimes I wish the likes of this 'Enlightenment' cretin would be curb stomped and spat on, and cast out of absolute infinity into their own realm devoid of good things.

@Consept Thank you, I found the channel useful. In regards to using logic to derive spiritual truths there's a document written by Chris Langan (the supposed smartest person alive) that does manage to accurately denote truths of non-dual reality through logical derivatives. He doesn't talk about spirituality, but his document, the 'CTMU' (cognitive theoretical model of the universe) is an impressive bridge between rationalism and mysticism since he does ultimately equate his model to spiritual oneness on a purely logical basis. It's the main reason why I've even found my way here. Since the document is rife with complicated language I found myself looking up a multiple words per sentence at times, one of which being the word 'actualized'. Since then, I've seen just about all of Leo's video. @Breakingthewall Yeah that's so true, a couple months back I had a terribly planned, dreadful LSD trip where I was (almost literally) sent to 'hell', which I still regard as a resoundingly positive experience because of what I was shown. It was crazy. I plan to write a trip report, but I don't look forward to it because I know it'll take ages to describe everything I experienced (I like to be very precise). @Some Fella Thank you for taking the time. If you've experienced benefits from meditation I'd say you're definitely more advanced in this work than I am. I just haven't been able to muster the willpower, or discipline to commit to a meditation routine. I'm seriously gonna get on that soon. The more people I hear speak well of it, the more motivation, so thanks again. I was worried that using apps like the Sam Harris one would compromise results, but if you say it's a good idea I'll check it out. @bejapuskas I don't mean to be rude, but if you regard my much warranted grievance towards pedantic nitpicking as forbidden conduct, I can only sit back and laugh at the outright absurdity that you've been allowed to moderate this forum. Please go back to umpiring little league sportsball. Definitely seems more your speed.

Over the last year I've spent a huge amount of time researching nonduality, and everything I have gathered seems to necessitate a rather unfavorable outlook on life. My general estimation of the ultimate structure of reality is that we as human beings are experiencing a small portion of absolute infinity that is being manifested through a metaphysical infinite mind. The apparent reason why this metaphysical mind subjects itself to the unpleasant lives we live is because at a metaphysical level there is no difference between pain and pleasure, and any manifestation of anything at all is the result of a metaphysical embrace of consciousness, or what's referred to as "love" in spiritual circles. From an uninformed perspective this honestly seems like a horrible travesty. Basically what I've gathered is that the metaphysical mind is delusional, and believes itself to be immune from suffering because all pleasure and pain is supposedly an illusion. The only problem is that this illusion is so convincing that it may as be real. I imagine myself "waking up" from this reality to a metaphysical one, once this life has concluded, and saying to my true self, "what a great experience, now for a harder one". It seems that the true metaphysical self could not possibly be receptive to the actual suffering that it is subjecting itself to since it perceives suffering as illusory. I worry that the entirety of life as we know it is merely a poorly calculated manifestation of metaphysical willpower that has trapped itself into a system of cycling through rebirths that it mistakenly believes to be positive. When I hear talk about life being a "love simulator" it makes me think, "so this metaphysical mind is just training itself how to endure worse and worse situations, and it has mistakenly convinced itself that this process of horrific masochism is love?". I'm hoping that a more experienced perspective can provide a more positive interpretation of this reality, because from my perspective, this seems like an absurd way to design reality. It's so absurd it has me doubting whether or not my life is a computer simulation, and all this spirituality bullshit is just a mean trick being played on the person being simulated. Unfortunately I have watched Leo's video "Why Reality Cannot Be A Computer Simulation" 3 times and this was not able to sufficiently eliminate that possibility.

Don't feel too bad, this forum is filled to the brim with people like yourself. I genuinely considered closing the original post with "My petty untamed ego-mind will unavoidably take offense to the foreseeable onslaught of people commenting just to appease their own pet theories rather than to address the very specific point of the thread." I don't need intimate knowledge of your likeness to judge how devoid of thought your input was. I understand this is probably more forthrightness than you're accustom to, but it's time somebody clue you in on how this behavior comes off to rational people.

@Johnny5 As per your recommendation I've just finished Jed McKenna's Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing, the book that's supposed to leave you depressed afterward, and I've found that his explanation of enlightenment was pretty much in line with what I expected, I was not left "depressed" or disappointed by his negation of common enlightenment myths. I've now started Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything, if you have any more recommendations I'm here for it. Thank you. @WaveInTheOcean Funnily enough my first major LSD experience seemed to be conveying the same insight to me. That you can't have good without bad, as if they were necessary opposites like up and down. It's definitely nice seeing this sentiment expressed by others who are into this work. @Breakingthewall Definitely easier said. I've been following your thread about your unfavorable breakthrough experience and it's good to see most of your doubts about the experience have seemingly been dispelled. I'm curious whether you would recommend trying 5meo without a trip sitter. Having moved to Las Vegas I don't have anyone here I could try it with, but I still want to do it. @Member If your intention was not to inundate me with irrelevant corrections derived from your notebook of spiritual gospels that you've haplessly collected like Pokémon cards, then you certainly failed to make that apparent. Imagine having a passionate goal to educate yourself on an advanced topic, so you carefully express your qualms with the subject matter to a group of supposed connoisseurs, only to have the obvious intention of your inquiry overlooked in favor of poorly conceived nitpicks regarding the trivial wording of your question. Take a closer look at the intention of this thread and try to comprehend how your input is utterly incompatible. Member: "then stay arrogant" Also Member: "God: the title suits me well." My eyes have rolled to 'Absolute Infinity'.

@Leilani That's definitely a comforting idea. Thank you. @Member I'm trying to conjure what you think I could have possibly derived from your text which could reasonably beget a positive outlook on existence on a rational basis. Your first quote seems to reiterate precisely what I said, while you've mistakenly convinced yourself I meant something else. I can't say I'm not annoyed that my genuine inquiry for solace and understanding has been met with a seemingly juvenile urge to hear oneself speak. I appreciate this attempt to reassure me, but as of right now I find it impossible to refrain from an analytical approach to comprehend my existence. What you're saying seems to be "just go with the flow", and that I can choose to believe whatever sparks happiness. I'm sure once I'm further along in spirituality I will see the merit to what you're verbally pointing to, but right now it just seems like an irrational denial of empiricism, which to my ego mind is too risky to lend credence to. I don't want to be incorrect about major existential truths. Could you explain a little more why you think this is necessary? I suppose I see what you're trying to say, but I'm nowhere near a point in enlightenment where I can renounce my 'masked role' or identity features that my username and avatar respectively convey. @Johnny5 That's definitely a more positive way to intellectually approach this epistemic dilemma. I only wish it were possible to logically prove these insights. Thank you.

It seems there's some degree of dissonance between the implied conversation direction and this choice of words. The original post does seem to invoke relativism as the basis for denying "right answers" in politics. Now as you have said that you in fact mean the exact opposite, that there exists an objective truth which everyone could be receptive to, this begs the question, as I touched on previously, why do you want people to believe that the only essential difference between fascism and utilitarianism is the relative truth that one subjectively ascribes to them? This can only make sense if you are appealing to epistemological relativism. I find it beyond frustrating when the ever-growing likes of enlightened centrists try to convince me that nazism and buddhism are morally equal, so if you will, please explain why you have posited what seems to be an inane denial of the concept of favorability.

Notice that your use of the language "we're not discussing objective points of view that we should all agree on" presupposes a a set of beliefs that should serve as the axiomatic grounding for a political approach. That acknowledgment in itself should preclude any nondualist from invoking relativism as the basis for dismissing political preferences. If your post did not intend to invoke metaphysical relativism, then it's hard to conjure why you would be trying to essentially convince us nazism and utilitarianism are merely equally valid opposing perspectives. This sort of thinking really annoys the hell out of me, but perhaps I've missed something.

"Floyd didn't play Simon Says very well so the culpability of his murder is lessened." This is quite literally what you're saying. Also lol @ the edit from "George pulled his hand out of sight" to "George's arm was out of sight" after being proven wrong in my thread.

I have some embarrassing information to reveal to you. We are referring to the exact same instance. Of course, we are both referring to the instance prior to the gun being pointed at Floyd (obviously... i mean what, no shit?) When you watch the video again, you'll see that you mischaracterized it by saying he "moved his hand out of sight" as if it was initially in plain sight. It's obviously more accurate to say that his sincere cooperation was obscured by panic, resulting in a failure to fully present his right hand, as I said earlier. He never "moved it out of sight" as if he was about to draw a gun and kill the officer. It's quite funny that you would say I'm not able to be objective as you mistakenly insist we must be referring to separate instances of the footage since your narrative was contradicted. Not only were you blind to the reality that we are in fact referring to the same instance, but your denied misrepresentation of said instance will inevitably be confirmed to you once you rewatch the video. So much for objectivity.

@RoyIt's understandable being too embarrassed to address the actual substance of what was said to you, but the idea that people are only motivated to "make a difference" is beyond stupid. For instance, you were egotistically compelled to muster this half-witted quip attempt, not because you're going to change my mind, but because the likeness of those who disagree is an affront to your petty ego, so you engaged, as have I. You're not doing anything differently, you just come off as an insecure 8th grader. Edit: Aha, damn I really struck a nerve. Got him going back adding videos of laughter and shit. I remember when I used to think anarchism was just an edgy pipe-dream. Any academic will correct your misconception and point out anarchism is merely a broad intent to dismantle unjust hierarchies. Ignorance sure is bliss, huh.

"I'm sick of all the politics", the boy angrily declares, unwittingly in a specifically political subforum. Imagine going to a hospital just to bemoan the sight of sick people. To your credit, you'll have no trouble with this mental exercise given how closely your mindset already conforms to this lunacy @Roy. @Apparition of Jack @FlowerNote I'm glad that not everyone here is haplessly contributing to the increasingly necessary verbal precision needed to navigate this onslaught of inane drivel. We really have our work cut out for us. I'm starting to think the main reason to pursue "spiritual enlightenment" is just to relish the riddance of my persistent cringe that will unavoidably come about whenever another radical centrist tries to convince me that fascism and utilitarianism are merely "alternate perspectives". Nazism and Buddhism are just two sides of the same coin I suppose? Correction: He did not "move his right hand out of sight". His arm never moved away from the officer's perspective. It's more accurate to say that his panicked attempt at cooperation did not appear to fully present his right hand. I find it suspicious that you would mischaracterize this straight-forward footage in favor of the murderous officers. It's dismally fitting that you have deferred to Chauvin's safety before Floyd's. If "Cops can be nice only when they are safe" why not say "People can only reasonably cooperate when the are safe". In what world would you consider him reasonably safe as a disconcerted black man being accosted by legally protected, gun brandishing thugs? It's not difficult for me (at "stage green" according to this flimsy colors model) to conjure a sequence of unlikely events that would lead me into a superficially similar situation as Floyd. Discombobulated, in a panic, and only cooperative with police to the extent that my compromised mental state will allow. Would that make me an "absolute" stage red for succumbing to my less favorable instincts during a rare lapse in judgement? In your mind it would, so it's safe to say we can rationally dismiss perspectives aligned with what you've submitted. You won't find anyone saying officers need to fully surrender to dangerous situations. You'll only find progressives pointing out the prejudiced basis for which standard situations are falsely deemed dangerous due to unfair social judgements. You'll also struggle to convince me that you're even remotely open to the possibility that you may have unfairly applied your prejudices to Floyd. Same applies to you, @Opo. I sympathize with this reaction. @Jennjenn It is not exactly my intent to turn people away from Leo, I just want to point out some failures in his political approach, and to strongly discourage people on the fence towards lending merit to problematic views from foolishly doing so. @Roy Someone's a bit upset. I can only imagine the impending rage when you realize you're actually in a subforum specifically devoted to politics. How amusing. Like a pouting toddler moaning in disgust at how wet the bathwater is. The lack of self awareness has me in fucking stitches, aha. The pouting boy proudly declares his superior lack of immersion in the world of clichéd politics while himself immersed in a heated exchange on the basis of politics. Imagine being so dense as to consider oneself above political discourse, yet simultaneously resorting to far pettier discourse on the basis of politics. It's as if Actualized.org hired a virtual court jester for entertainment. 10/10 comic relief.

Such a predictable response. Yes, I'm sure enlightenment and my political leanings are somewhat in conflict with one another, as my opinions are derived from my untamed ego-mind. Sure. This doesn't change the fact that you're trying to mitigate Chauvin's culpability using footage that only implicated him further. Borderline inexcusable if I'm being honest.

Edit: The content posted here has been submitted as it's own thread.