Gesundheit2

I don't think we're on the same page. Religious people have religious experiences despite being "dogmatists", so you're clearly just dismissing them right off the bat for no obvious reason except the difference in opinion. How do you know it doesn't exist? You're talking from a different paradigm, but that doesn't give you the right to automatically cancel out all other paradigms. The truth is that you don't know whether the God they talk about is actually real or just imaginary. At least with the religious God morality exists, unlike with your God. Your God doesn't differentiate between right and wrong, which is not the case with the religious Gods.

But Leo, that's a strawman of religion. Religion claims that God is the creator of existence, but not existence itself. Religion makes a distinction between creator and creation that God is somehow/someway separate from its creation, which you deny. You use the word God as a synonym with the word existence/direct experience. Religious people use the word God as a synonym with the word faith/belief.

Thanks life, you're awesome ?

Hey, thanks for the suggestions. Intel core i3 1st Gen CPU; M 370 @ 2.40GHz. I'm sold. I didn't know that viruses can be transmitted merely through the browser. It's a little bit ironic because I should have known that already since I'm on the way to becoming a web developer. I'll probably go with Avira if you recommend it. Haha kinda scary thought that such a simple program can steal that much money.

I don't tell you what to wear, so you shouldn't tell me where to stare

What other people think doesn't really matter, neither does what they say. It's what they do that actually matters. But... What they think influence what they say, and vice-versa. And that in turn influences what they do. So, that's why what people think/say might matter. It's always the case, but it can be very twisted sometimes.

You don't know that. That's the non-duality God. What about the duality and plurality Gods? Rinse and repeat the above answers.

Why do you feel entitled to men's eyes and thoughts and penises? Be serious and work hard, that's the only way. I know many women who don't allow any man to treat them wrong because they set the perception straight with their attitude from the beginning. On the other hand, women who are flimsy and accept special treatment are always ridiculed and ignored when serious events happen.

This analogy is not quite accurate, because they're not actually serving their self-made foods. They're not only stealing costumers but also the ingredients and most of the food itself while serving it in a different package to escape copyrights but not very different so that it still looks similar to the original. Again I don't know what happened, I'm just talking based on the thread posts here.

You don't know their motives. They may be thinking Leo is a devil that is leading people off the cliff so they feel responsible for guiding them back to the right way. But I don't know who and what happened so I may be just talking nonsense.

YT is a fair competition. This is different. They're stealing Leo's efforts, it's lazy and not creative competitive at all.

Of course, any mind activity automatically implies playing the hierarchy game. So as long as I'm thinking and talking, I am playing the game. The mere fact that I consider everything data is itself a hierarchy that I've created in order to make sense of reality, and so far reality never made any more sense than now. Ultimately, if I were to drop the hierarchy, I would be silent or say that I don't know. That's the only way I know to equalize all thoughts. I told you before, you assume too much about me, and the assumptions seem to be blinding you from my communication. You assume that I'm stuck inside my mind and can't see beyond, let alone escape it. But ironically from this conversation it seems to me like that's how you're actually operating. For example, I see you talking about the "me problem" which is not a problem for me. You assume about me what you're actually doing, which is projection. Doubting can create clarity in more than one way. It can help create distinctions between more clear and less clear understanding, so it's not necessarily just black or white. As well, the ultimate clarity you get is that you don't really know anything, and that solves the "me problem" as well as many others. You can doubt the concept of gravity, and you should, because gravity is a theory. We assume that masses attract each other, but maybe there's a different assumption that makes more sense and works more in alignment with reality. Now, the real thing that is labeled gravity is an appearance that can be doubted as well, but at this point the doubt is at an existential level, which doesn't necessarily affect the way gravity works. Yes, actually. That's a real possibility. Not every thief gets caught, so doubt in this case can be useful to the criminal as it can give him the courage to do the crime.

Doesn't matter unless your pocket is bald too.

Most of post-modernism is mental masturbation, because it's mostly focused on deconstructing language, which is a distraction from the inquiry at hand. In my experience, deconstructing language does not provide any meaningful answers about knowledge. It only creates confusion and distracts from the real questions. I've delved into it before and won't do that again, because it didn't get me anywhere meaningful, rather did the opposite. So yeah, I won't engage in that anymore. See, that's what I was talking about above. This is just a silly language game. I said in the post right above that I doubt this thought and that I'm open to changing it according to any new data that might come along. That's doubt actually applied to itself, unlike the little loopy game you're suggesting. You literally said it's not a good thing. Here: But maybe you assume that I wish to treat everything or all perspectives the same, which I don't. That's like saying if everything can be broken, why use a sledgehammer? It creates clarity and removes illusions. I think that's enough for our goals here. You can create any meaning you want, but you can also doubt that meaning until you reach clarity. It's your choice.

No, it doesn't. Assumptions are still assumptions with or without that statement. That statement only serves to bring awareness to the fact that an assumption is itself, which is true. I told you I can't possibly know your vocabulary, but from what you said so far I can tell we will have a hard time if we keep going in the same direction. We have to agree beforehand to the conventional vocabulary if we are to keep talking, that's an axiom for any fruitful communication. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other all the time, and we won't know when that happens or doesn't. It generally is the case that people share the same vocabulary or at least very similar ones when they talk, which is why nobody has to declare that rule explicitly. Significance is an added feature/quality. I try to see the perspective in its rawest form first, then I may add a particular level of significance to it, or might not. This is silly mental masturbation. The data so far suggests that each and every thought can be doubted. If you can present a thought that cannot be doubted, then by all means bring it up, and I will try to doubt it to the best of my abilities. Of course it can be doubted. It's just a thought/data and it might be wrong, so again by all means doubt it all you want. It's actually very simple, just bring one thought that cannot be doubted, if you can. How? Just because it is called "doubt" doesn't make it a bad thing. Really, all doubting boils down to is inspection. And I think we both value this method, so we don't disagree here.

I am beginning to see the nuances of social interactions. There's not one right way to act in all cases, it's more complex than that. The most important things are the ability to tap into the other person's perception of you, assessing your value in their eyes, understanding the circumstances, understanding the story that brought you together (history), body language, then finally verbal language which is the least important of all. Interesting.

So much baggage, and not much to make up for it. Not worth it.

It's not a conclusion, only the basics; Assumption: (noun) A hypothesis that is taken for granted. I did not suggest that. These are two different assumptions, so my answer is the same as above. Well, that's the problem right there. How you think of truth is not the same as the conventional layman meaning of the word. Truth: n., pl. truths (tro̅o̅tz, tro̅o̅ths). 1. the true or actual state of a matter: to tell the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: to check the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. You're basically inventing your own vocabulary and speaking a foreign language instead of speaking the same language. So, either you're unable to speak the conventional language because you're on a different frequency. Or you can speak it but need some care in your communication, which I hope is the case. For me, I can relate to what you mean, but unfortunately I probably can't communicate with you effectively because this may be a generalized situation with you. The thing is that I don't have the ability to assess how many of the words you use have a weird, non-conventional meaning. The problem does not stop there, because you have actually more than once put words in my mouth without me actually saying or implying them. So when I talk you're understanding different things from what I actually mean. Like for example when I said the assumptions aren't true, you thought I meant the opposite is true, which I didn't say, or imply. So in order for us to communicate properly we need to translate every word until we reach a consensus on what you mean and what I mean, and that could be really hard and take a lot of time, let alone ending successfully. So I hope you take the time to tackle down this issue before going any further. You asked me who I am, and I answered according to my experience. If I was in a different state, I may reply differently. Whatever the answer might be, it counts as data to me. The data paradigm that I am using combines data from all states and doesn't take one state to be of more importance than another. It's actually you who is seeking to know that is actually trying to find which state is more important and truthful. Notice that, then excuse me from your projection. Dodged? Look dude. Apparently, you assume too much and aren't aware that you do so. And on top of that your assumptions seem to be blinding you from seeing what I'm actually saying. I said there's only data and no such thing as knowledge. I am denying knowledge as a whole, so both of the questions you're asking are irrelevant to me. Every thought and assumption can be doubted, so there is no such thing as knowledge.

Delusion "A delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence."

You're assuming that the sober state is actually finite and that the psychedelic state is actually infinite. I will inform you that neither of these assumptions is true, so the rest of this reasoning is nonsense. I can't answer to something vague like that. You need to provide a definition of truth first. I don't think that I am a human. I said it seems like I am living a human life from this human body, which doesn't necessarily contradict being God at the same time, or at least seeming so. Although, God is an outlandish word, while human is more down-to-earth and you will understand it when you read it like everyone else, unlike the word God which probably means something to you that is different from me that is different from everyone else. How does it seem so?

Prior to time and space? You mean the concepts of time and space?

There are some things life that you're just born with and can't do much about. I think it's most things, actually. For example, I was born with a low IQ and EQ. I've developed myself so much over the past 5 years, but I'm still somewhere near average in both. And that took a lot of mental work, which hindered my life in other areas such as career. It just sucks that things are the way they are. I really wish that someday I would be able to speak my thoughts clearly and communicate my understanding of the world fluently like it occurs in my head, but that just doesn't seem possible, at least without huge efforts and environmental developments. I'm starting to get the idea that at least 90% of one's life is determined by genetics and environment. The personal component to development seems pretty much insignificant in comparison.

I don't think it was one particular input/data that made the shift for me, but rather the collection of all the data that I have gathered so far, and the shift was gradual for the most part. I may be using the word "data" in a way that can imply being raw and untouched, but of course there is a processing before the data is understood and made sense of. I'm deliberately avoiding words like information because it's close to knowledge. However, it's simpler and more direct than what's said above. How? Well, what is knowledge in the first place? Let's look it up. Here's how Wikipedia defines knowledge: "Knowledge is a familiarity or awareness, of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge) contributing to ones understanding. By most accounts, knowledge can be acquired in many different ways and from many sources, including but not limited to perception, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology." Most people take knowledge for granted. People who question reality start doubting the ways in which knowledge can be acquired, but not so many doubt and question until the end. Most seekers use already made frameworks to ground their questioning in, like philosophy or spirituality or science, etc... So due to this bias, they end up deconstructing aspects of knowledge while leaving out others intact and then fall into dogma, albeit a more subtle form of it. What we're mostly concerned with here on a spirituality forum is the perception aspect. Most people, and apparently even Leo himself, doubt and question everything except perception/consciousness. It is a common belief within spiritual communities that consciousness is primary and self-evident. Well, not for me. I doubted and questioned even consciousness itself until I reached here. I haven't used any psychedelic, but of course I've had many awakenings through the more traditional methods like meditation and self-inquiry. If I haven't had any awakenings, then it'd probably not be appropriate for me to talk. I'm not sure I understand this part correctly.

At this point, I see the world through a data filter. There's only data, and no such thing as knowledge.