Marioxs34

Hi guys, i've started to introduce myself to Leo's thought (not just to improve myself) and i've seen 6 videos ( the ultimate structure of reality explained; state of consciousness is everything; what Is consciousness, all questions answered; how openmindedness works and correcting the stigma of psychedelics part 1 and 2). Is it enough for having a pretty general and introductory vision?

I need also another help: does Leo talk about an inexistence of a objective nethod to reach truth such as science except for objective measurements (still science)?

Well, i don't want to dive so much i just want to get a taste of Leo's content so that i can judge if i want to continue or not. 100 hours is too much, honestly, and i think it's a good thing only if you want to start a serious self-development journey. I think i'll pick up whatever resonates with me

I just want to see if i wanna go further in his teachings, just to introduce myself, as i've said.

Guys, can anyone help me?

So, Leo talks about having to experience much of what he teaches trough psychedelics or meditation. But there's a problem: much of western philosophy talks about the problem of knowledege through Just pure experience. I can experience that the sun revolves around the earth but through science i can understand that this Is not true. This Is even more true when you experience through dream or hallucination: i can dream about Flying but in reality i don't fly. So now how would you say that Leo's epystemological system Is correct?

Descartes clearly used reason to claim that he was existing, he didn't experience it. And he also used logic to prove the evidence for mathematical and logical truths like the non-contradiction principle trough a sophisticated system of thought. Now this is going too far, i will not continue posting

Nope, i am talking about knowledge, not belief. Belief is when something seems real and you believe that that thing is real, before analysing it logically or you have poor reasons. But when something is absolutely undeniable, that's knowledge

Descartes talked about the fact that he was doubting about everything but he could not deny logically that he was doubting and by doubting he was something that was thinking. So, something to be considered real must be logically self-evident not seeming real. This is the first rule of his philosophical method

When i mean that something is real, i mean that it makes logical sense that something is real not that something seems real. Now, we can not question the validity of reason since Leo too says that reason isn't bad. And now that i think about it, talking about the validity of reason, many philophers talk about the power of reason and indipendence from faith and meta-perspectives. I have listened this from my competent teacher of philosophy (i'm from Italy and here philosophy is taught in schools)

Of course there's a difference. If it's real there's a forum, if it's an illusion the forum doesn't exist

So you're saying that reason is a medium to recognise whether the experience is an illusion? What does ultimately tell us that what we've experienced is not an illusion?

Then where does the epystemological validity come from pure experience if reason can't justify experience? I don't think blind faith in experience is a good thing

Then why Leo tells experience has to have privilege and reason can't question some its propositions?

Interpreting reality is not the same as lying about it. It is necessary because your experience of reality can totally be an illusion

But i think i will not continue to debating with you, this environment is not suitable for a civilised and fair exchange of ideas and i fear the reaction of its creator

Well, i can easily say: the cup has an inside and an outside, or the cup is tepid Reason can easily disprove any claim that comes from "higher states of consciousness" since, i think, Leo has not the absolute truth and his claims will be responded. And we must admit that reason has had the potential in all this centuries to come to sophisticated and complex systems of thought, so it is not just a mere mean to survival

So what do you mean by saying that this contradiction is due to how we use language?

Well, then we return to the same problem: how can we say that our experience is true? This is a vicious cycle. But now i have read the guidelines and i read that theoretical debating is not allowed, I think i'm going to get a warning

I have two requests: how do i eliminate a post (i find cancel and i click ok but it doesn't eliminate the post); and second: are you saying that the experience can be an illusion but there can still be a God? Then who can tell exactly that a God can still be there if we can not know him trough reason?

Well, what if God Is the content of that experience? You are experiencing something without a doubt, but that experience can just be an illusion

Sorry, i didn't understand exactly how. Would you please send me screenshots of the steps to do It?

Would you please tell me now do i talk directly to Leo?