DrugsBunny

Every other concept in the list had heinous moral implications, whereas homosexuality does not. If he meant it as you're interpreting it, the obvious word to have used instead would be "homophobia". Given his choice of words it's fair to assume he shares at least some political alignment with the likes of Steven Crowder or Tucker Carlson. In my most generous interpretation I can only surmise that you see gayness as a form of moral degeneracy. In my more blunt interpretation I'd say this is inbred tier homophobia wrapped in pseudo-spiritual toxicity attempting to exonerate evil from a metaphysical perspective of godlike total acceptance. I haven't experienced any significant godlike states of consciousness, but if I had, and thus fully embraced all forms of evil, this would be a state of consciousness — a state of being that shouldn't be haphazardly transcribed into reckless language that can only be interpreted by ordinary people as callous indifference to human suffering.

Maybe if you're lucky your next divine insight will highlight how asinine it is to include homosexuality in the same category as rape or murder. Epic self-report right there, and for what? This numbingly tame bit of spiritual hearsay that we've all read before? Aha, alright. ???

@Brivido I'm finding your posts seriously fascinating and I've basically stalked your profile to read your old posts and I'm finding great shit. Normally I have trouble lending credence to people's claims here but it seems you are genuine and worthy of my perceived credibility. I hope you won't mind answering some more questions now that I've tactfully flattered you. ?? I'm about half way finished with KUNDALINI TANTRA - Swami Satyananda Saraswati, and from what I've gathered so far, it apparently claims that you should have yoga experience (specifically hatha yoga) before doing these. I would obviously prefer to just start with the techniques in the book right off the bat, so: To what extent would you deem it necessary to actually do other yoga beforehand? What benefits will these lesser yogas even give me? How long were you doing other yoga forms before these techniques? I'm also wondering a few things related to your psychedelic experience: As someone who has never tried 5-meo DMT, nor even NN-DMT, do you think it's safe for me to take 5-meo MALT? Do you think I can learn to stay in the I am after just a few trips of 5-meo MALT? You answers are much appreciated.

@Brivido This is all such great info thanks. I'll definitely buy that book. Can you describe how you learned to be mindful throughout the day (and not just while meditating)? I imagine it's something like just dismissing unproductive thoughts that take you out of the present moment, but I'm also wondering if it just gradually became apparent to you how to maintain such a state all day only after meditating for a long time, similar to how you said you had to learn to mimic the 5-meo-malt state to achieve the aforementioned phenomenon, I imagine I would have to mimic what meditation brings. Any clarifying explanation is much appreciated.

Cool. How long do you meditate? How long have you been practicing consciousness work? What resources taught you to do Kriya yoga? Can you list every psychedelic you've done and describe how frequently you use them? If you don't mind.. Thank you.

I find it sad that we merely perceive people on the basis of their least fortunate moment. Demon mama, while having undeniably fucked up here, is easily more intelligent than 95% of this forums user base, especially anybody who watches Destiny.

Been quietly following this community for a while, much to my frustration, as there seems to be a consistent lack of logical backing for significant ontological claims; just blind deference to spiritual hearsay. Leo seems to commonly defer to a pretty unsatisfying assertion to address metaphysical inquiries: "You're imagining X". Okay, fine. But what if I were to assume this for literally any and all conceptual notions? Could it be said that even the actual distinction between solipsism and mutual sentience is imaginary, and what exactly would this imply? Is there any point at which there is no utility in assuming this postulation? Shouldn't I be able to say that the distinction between imagination and objective reality is imaginary? You must see that I am essentially rendering the term meaningless at this point. When describing the metaphysical process of intelligent conjuring which allegedly creates reality under this epistemic framework, I find the term "imagination" to be a bit deceptive, or definitionally frivolous (for admittedly underdeveloped reasons, mind you — it is obviously conceivable that this may in fact be the best term for what is metaphysically taking place). Intuitively, it seems that such a term is too easily conflated with a sort of nebulous lack of substantive existence, which is how I generally interpret "imaginary" in this context. For instance, "You're imagining other people" implies that other people do not exist, but If I were to assert this claim as flippantly as I see it used in this community, I could invoke the same postulation to affirm the opposite implication, for instance, "You're imagining that other people are imaginary" would essentially mean that other people DO exist. Can somebody actually provide a non-frivolous answer to the inquiry of whether it can be said that the distinction between solipsism and widespread consciousness is imaginary, and what this would even mean? My best guess would be: "Everything is imaginary, thus even distinctions between real vs imaginary can also be said to be imaginary if we assume a recursive instantiation of imagination which defies logical intuition", but this is just a guess, which is what I tend to see on this forum, except there will be no admitting that ones claims are conjectures. I genuinely want this explained as if I were an autistic 5 year old. Explain why I should even lend merit to you. If it isn't clear, I tend to see the majority of this forum as hapless followers, so I am really just trying to appeal only to the brainy scientific crowd here, which my saying will undoubtedly evoke the appeal of the exact opposite, so I have little hope of an effective answer, but maybe somebody will surprise me.

I kind of regret opening this thread. It doesn't seem as if the actual intention of the inquiry is being addressed. I wanted a discussion on whether the distinction of real/imaginary has any substantive meaning. I am obviously referring to Actualized's definition of ontological imagination, which is asserted to be a metaphysical process of intelligent conjuration that creates reality and shapes conscious experience, as consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality, and its content (your life/direct experience) is that which is being metaphysically imagined (basically God creation). This is clearly what was being referred to, but people have conflated this with ordinary human imagination... Other people are deferring to the very uninspired "logic won't suffice to address this" as if it's some brilliant observation and not a completely obvious consideration, so painfully obvious that I would have preemptively rebutted it in the OP if it weren't already too long. An example of an acceptable answer that could satisfy the logical prerequisite could have been: Because everything in existence/consciousness is presupposed to be a form of metaphysical conjuration (or "imagination" as it's frivolously referred to in Actualized's framework), this concept would be entirely groundless, and it's application would have no limits. Abstract concepts like the distinction between imagination versus orthodox conceptions of objective reality can be said to also be metaphysically imaginary, which means the concept of metaphysical conjuration (imagination) can be self-reflexive. When you say "Metaphysical consciousness is imagining reality, and it is also imagining that it is imagining reality" you are invoking a recursive instantiation of imagination which does not change the implications of the original postulation, nor does it render the distinction of metaphysical imagination meaningless. If you say "Metaphysical consciousness is imagining that there is a real difference between solipsism and mutually experienced consciousness" it would seem as if you are saying that asynchronous isolated consciousness (solipsism) versus synchronous consciousness would be a meaningless distinction, but this is not necessarily accurate, because metaphysical imagination would be so fundamental to reality that even its paradoxical instantiations can be substantively real. If God is imagining the distinction between solipsism and its opposite, the distinction, having been metaphysically conjured, becomes real, and therefore, you are not actually rendering the term of "imagination" meaningless when applied in paradoxical ways. Of course, an answer like this is far too academically fastidious for it to be palatable to the woo-woo mystical schmystical crowd that Actualized attracts, but something like this is what I was asking for. Instead we have people like our friend and moderator @Space spewing their 2 cents with the following 5head banger: To him this inquiry is just silly because he lacks the critical thinking skills to see the merit in asking such a question. It is entirely possible that the existence of such a paradoxical application of the term "imaginary" would conceivably render it meaningless, in which case it would have significant implications because nobody should fear solipsism any longer, because it's distinction from synchronous consciousness would be meaningless. I just love being called silly by people who lack the cognitive means to even properly interpret what I am trying to address. @SOUL It's amazing how nobody is willing to acknowledge how their perspective is just conjecture. This is philosophy, it is possible to admit this and still make compelling arguments.

I imagine it's difficult for you to conjure a sensible response to my inquiry with the taste of Leo's ejaculate so thoroughly ingrained into memory, so perhaps I should excuse this pompous drivel you've posted. No idea what I've said to upset you here, but the supreme lack of self awareness with the adjectives you've ascribed is pretty impressive. Do you always resort to this flimsy color model to assign unflattering roles to other people? ???

This answer seems to regard present conscious experience as 'real', and everything else as imaginary, as opposed to literally everything being a metaphysical process of intelligent conjuration (imagination) such as Leo asserts. This is the framework I am working from. Would you disagree that the framework Actualized content often asserts is one which states that even your direct experience is imaginary? There seems to be a mix-up of definitions. I am not closed minded to this answer, but please understand that this doesn't necessarily have to be true. I considered preemptively rebutting this anticipated response in my thread but it was already getting a bit lengthy. The concept of metaphysical imaginative creation in itself is not inherently transrational; there may be elements to it which transcend human rationality, but broadly, the concept can be rationally understood as a metaphysical process which gives rise to intelligent creation via the infinite property of consciousness which is presupposed as the fundamental building block of reality. Saying something is imagination, in this context, simply means it is a mental construction, implying that the universe is a mind. Nothing transrational about that so far... It is thus conceivable to describe the process more thoroughly in a way that conforms to a sort of logical structure. In the original post, I believe it is pretty clearly stated that I am referring to metaphysical imaginative creation, which is obviously not localized imagination, nor would there even be any point in referring to this, as there is no confusion what that sort of imagination is... Everyone already knows how that works.

TL;DR - "You're imagining X" is seemingly too frequently applied. Should this also be applied to even abstract conceptions? The distinction between imaginary and real, is that imaginary? What does this imply? Notice I can invoke this postulation to assert opposite implications: "You are imagining other people" vs "You are imagining other people are imaginary". If the distinction between solipsism and mutual consciousness is imaginary, can it be said that other people are real? At what point is there no longer utility in asserting this notion? You must have missed when I asked: