wildflower

Also just want to add @Leo Gura Im sure you have read alot of Jung (I have a discord on jungian psychology), but essentially a lot of his work and associated work goes into explaining the archetypal nature of mind, and the work is foundational to good epistemology. His work on synchronicity which was widely discounted by science is also interesting, it's an acausal model. Jung wasn't enlightened but his work gives a good context to relative domain

Gotcha, this is one of those things were contexts need to be explicit else it becomes a bamboozle. Just so we are on the same page: essentially you are pointing out the fact that everything is essentially arbitrary boundaries and classifications (archetypal derivatives) we overlay on top of perception to (ego-self) subjectively and relatively make sense of it. Beneath this apriori metaphysical model is nothingness, or infinity, until we start to arbitrarily create finite things from this infinitude via our archetypal metaphysical constructs. Like for example, there is no fixed absolute boundary to what we class as a human, you can't find one, same with colours, there is no absolute fixed boundary between 'yellow' and 'orange', etc etc The way I interpreted it from your video was you were implying that reality itself changes completely when we don't percieve it, like something out of Dr Strange or another dimension

Sure, this was just something I picked up on as I genuinely try to listen to what someone says, and take their arguments on their own merit. I agree with your thesis on QM, science, rationality etc, but essentially for me they all meet at the very end anyway and collapse, it's just how you arrive to the end Can you please expand on the second line. Are you stating when you don't look at an elephant it's form changes? Or if you don't look at another human their form changes? It's really hard to know how to interpret what your saying without the context

there is a we, there is no we, there is neither we nor no we, there is both a we and no we

There is no whole point, thats the point, you need to go deeper

Yeah I wasn't talking about any of that, so don't worry, misunderstanding each other

Abstract object literally means abstract thought about an abstract object.... that should be obvious No you haven't watched Leo's videos, he claims that the elephant and your children when you aren't looking are existing in a superposition of infinite possibilities, and mentions other objects like elephant and cat.... You don't understand what I'm saying or Leos video, he mentions beginning of universe being an wave function of infinite possibility, I agree, but I added my own views and clarifications. But we are talking past each other, as your not addressing or perhaps understand what I'm saying. I am going to be honest what I think you are talking about is completely nonsensical to even talk about, because as soon as you write or say anything it's a contradiction, which I find untenable

No you can't actually measure light I disagree, the wave function is a abstract object that describes probabilities. The problem is if you apply this to abstract notion to large objects you end up with errors, or thinking things like an elephant is existing in a superposition of an ant when you are not looking. This isnt true actuality. Becuase QM shows us things are relational, that is to say the thing that comes into existence, comes into existence in relation to what already exists. Let me explain further, the beginning of universe was a wave function that contained an infinite^infnite amount of possibilites, but as reality manifests, the amount of possibilities is negated, all the way until the end of the universe But right now, not everthing in the material world is existing in an infinite superposition, form is negating possibilities., this eventually becomes the infinitiy of infinities containing the negation of infinities. This is obviously abstract, but I can explain further if it's not clear. But it should be clear by the consistency of form at size you can see, it isn't every time you look again at the world a complete infinitely different form. When you look at an elephant, look away, look back, it's almost identical to you. It isn't now some strange esoteric possible form

I'm sorry you have no idea what I speak about when I'm referencing language, and clarification of language. If you take your own logic, no one would ever speak or say anything to anyone. I'm just pointing out your deluded hypocrisy, and how insane it is to communicate like this.

None of these questions are addressed in the video. But let me just answer something that will help, all of science are just models or stories we overlay onto empirically reality, that have utility to do so. None are absolutely true, all are relative, and they all break at some level But I've asked specific questions regarding Leos video, can you answer those (not sure if you can), if not no worries

Well no, it's not hard to say ego-death is it? It's just extremely poor communication. Thats not actually all of it, he says you die and all of reality is annhilated, so he isn't just referring to ego-death. You see how confusing this is, even you are confused, you just don't know it

I just want to talk about science for a bit as I enjoy science, is that allowed?

It's not a Leo bashing thread. It's a truthful open discussion. No one is using pejorative language towards him. I have nothing but love for Leo and enjoy his videos. But Im capable of both having love for someone and also an adult honest conversation, maybe Im wierd, but I've been doing this spiritual stuff a long time, it gets easier

I'm saying there is a time and a place to talk about and throw non duality at people, and that time and place isn't... every time and every place Like I said you seem like a nice guy, I wish you no harm or insult, it just derails conversations which I find needless, but you can carry on as you wish, just ignore me

But like thats basically a call to authoirty (a formal fallacy), its absurd. He wasn't speaking to me when he posted that btw, but it assumes so many things, that he couldn't possibly assume. I've studied all this for over 10 years, and did my first psychedelic 12 years ago, so I qualify his 10 year mark btw. But this style of discourse is antithetical to my values and principles, it's illogical, highly biased and selfish, and doesn't deserve to be engaged with. So he doesn't need to speak to me or others, thats up to him

You still don't understand, you think I don't understand non duality, that I don't believe in it, that I haven't experienced it etc etc... none of this is true What I am talking about is completely orthogonal to all that, but look if you don't understand me by now, I'll just stop trying, and you can continue as you were

We all have work to do, and we all want to work in peace. If any of us publish our work or thoughts into public forum it is open and assumed for public discourse, you understand that right? Leo, his thoughts and his work do not sit outside the realms of feedback, discussion or critique. He even himself says the same.

No you aren't understanding me, no contradictons or illogical things about the Truth I'm talking about the way members including you communicate here, almost like robots who can't think or speak for themselves, it's scary man

Again, just want to say I agree with his main thesis, and I have directly become conscious of the multiverse superposition onto reality. It is actually explained by Jungs work synchronicity to a certain degree.

Im not making a mockery of anything, I was pointing out the illogical, contradictory or hypocrital behaviour. I literally back everything I say up with genuine explanation

What do you mean? Thats literally the teachings, I can give you timestamps from videos....

Well actually he can, because when he awakens fully, we all awaken, as we are all one, you haven't understood the teachings

He also continually states you need to die to embody the truth he has discovered for himself and is teaching, but he is quite clearly alive, how does he explain this contradiction?

Also again he makes the following hardcore solipsistic claim - can someone confirm whether he still actually believes that none of us exist when hes looking or speaking to us, as he's mostly ignored or equivocated: you're not looking at your child that 55:05 child exists as infinity as nothingness 55:08 when you're not looking at elephant it's 55:10 infinity its nothingness we're not 55:12 looking at your house it's infinity it's 55:13 nothingness 55:18 that's what it is that's also what you 55:22

If we are being honest Leo in a lot of videos adds to it this insinuation of attainments, that end up confusing and contradicting himself. He will claim to have been conscious of things no other humans have, reached levels of conciousness that no one else has, and that the things he was conscious of, if you too become concious it will literally kill you, and end the whole of reality. That obviously doesn't make any sense, as he's still alive, and reality still exists