Natasha Tori Maru

@Basman The hardware onflow effect is a good point. 2 years ago I built a new PC. To build the EQUIVALENT now is slightly more $$$

It's when moral and ethics are compromised that the disgust for marketing seeps into it. It's so tantalising to face the concept of being able to make bank in questionable ways (exploitation) and potentially get away with it. Risk free. You don't know the depths you will go to unless faced with the opportunity. Small steps. One little thing. How bad can it be? How far can I push it? Ethics and morals are your untested assumptions about yourself. Marketing isn't necessarily the issue - human corruption is. But marketing sits close to persuasion, desire, status, fear, and money. The very pressures that test a person's character.

ROFL Why is the image of baguette so dry and clay-y in head? Like sticking to my mouth, need to wash it down I feel like we need some hot butter and a sliver of camembert, slice tomato and basil to really get this party started

Leo does, intentionally or not, insert himself into the work by being the sole authority. Without an external metric (that isn't subjective) to measure against, he positions himself as the ultimate authority. Because he operates largely outside an established tradition, and presents highly personal metaphysical conclusions, there is often no agreed-upon external standard by which to evaluate claims such as the nature of consciousness, God-realization, or the structure of reality. Usually you get 'direct experience' touted as justifying radically different conclusions. But this can vary wildly depending on who reports it. You could argue that the work he does is inherently first person and experiential. That external validation is impossible with certain types of consciousness work. Direct experience being the metric to judge. I see the self sealing nature of this as: Leo reports and insight > Leo interprets the insight > Leo explains why critics don't understand the insight > Leo remains the primary authority on what is correct I think this is where it becomes mixed up. It creates a system where teaching a method and teaching ones personal metaphysics gets blended up. In fairness though, many spiritual teachers through history have done this. The different is they were embedded in wider foundations in solid traditions. Competing interpretations exist. Leo occupies a very large portion of his work because it is so individualised. I don't think this really answers anything about cult or not. That's not my intention with this comment. But I do see where @zurew makes some solid points.

@Wilhelm44 profiling the vulnerability and suggestibility of the members ... 😇

This can be explained by egoic attachment to the teacher role, narcissism. Inflated ego. Could be many motivations behind it. It could be a mechanism to funnel out those who would not follow, and keep narcissistic supply close via adoration from students. Just some possibilities - I don't have a dog in this fight.

@Apparition of Jack In honour of one of the OG memes:

The collective data of humanity could potentially be poisoned into being slop >.< AI entrained on corrupted AI ad infinitum

Raises the interesting hot topic of whether we consider AI data-scraping to be stealing or simply 'learning' much like humans. I never really considered that data could be corrupted, poisoned and fed into AI to reduce usable output.

Spiritual Tech-health druid form unlocked NOT EVEN HIS FINAL FORM

Very true. I think you risk betraying yourself and your needs in the process. You give yourself up in service to love or for another. Self needs are abandoned. In an air emergency, we put on our own oxygen mask before we help anyone else. Or Don't set yourself on fire to keep another warm.

It doesn't quite make sense to me to stick to rigid ideas of what a cult is. As technology evolves our definitions move due to tech changing how we interact, altering dynamics and behaviours. A cult describes a cluster of social dynamics / behaviours. I treat it less as a binary and more a spectrum.

This is a hard thing to face. Many people do not want to admit - sometimes love just isn't enough. People who suffer from addiction have a disease - an affliction. They are bound in service to the addiction. This can get right in the way of loving another person. In addition, remaining in situations like this can hurt immensely. To see a loved one suffer, and to feel that pain with them, can break your heart just as much as breaking up can. It really comes down to; can you endure this with them? Because you will have to be in it with the afflicted person. You will have to partially take on a caretaking role. The whole issue becomes complicated because they also have to want to quit. They have to want a better life. Nothing you can do will change that. If you stay with them, and they do not want to quit, this could end up with profound resentment. It will fracture and destroy your love. Usually people who suffer from addiction aren't always able to hold space to have empathy for what they put you through. This is purely a function of how deeply they are in distress. There is nothing wrong with admitting love just sometimes... isn't enough

What is actually new? Like pragmatic results. Not hearsay Did it crack the IRS database?

@LambdaDelta I may be highly sensitive to caffeine. It find it very psychoactive 😃