Meeksauce

He interestingly doesn't address the topic of solipsism. At least not that I can find. But I definitely plan to as soon as I can get off my SNRI

Smart. I wonder if someone gave Langan a huge blast of 5meo, would that decimate his logical approach or would he just find a way to fit it into his framework? I'm going with the latter, but you have experience here

Yet he is rejected by all of them. Kind of shame

Couldn't it be said that the telos of reality is God reawakening to itself?

Your approach is much more streamlined and direct, which I appreciate. It's better suited for a platform like YouTube. If you're at a genius convention, maybe then Langan's approach has its merits.

From what I understand, he is saying the telos of reality is directly intertwined with its complexity. Without nested order, you cannot have evolution. Evolution happens within one's own life, and as a species, so if you believe the relative is a microcosm of the absolute then ontological and spiritual evolution becomes a necessity. If one believes the unifying substance or substrate of reality is some form of matter, then I can see how one would come to the conclusion that evolution is purely a precipitate of biology. What nonduality doesn't fully articulate is that the universe has to be structured in a way that is top down, and bottom up, at the same time. This is how order and complexity are tied to telos.

Big cope to talk about accountability when you didn't want to answer my question and explain yourself. I believe most see Langan's spiels as over and the top and ridiculous, largely stemming from him assuming many of his terms don't need to be defined (this could be intentional, as in "It's not my problem if you don't understand it"). Although he always simplifies if the interviewer asks or their question requires it. To people without this barrier of entry of vocabulary cleared, it can just sound like a dense word salad like "Consciousness emerges from gravity as a tertiary order of the telonic ethos". Like a guy explaining how cars work to his girl that didn't ask. And I won't dismiss the value of simplifying ideas - not doing so can genuinely inhibit communication, but his audience is definitely more people that are comfortable with creating logical systems from scratch, that have functionality, even if we don't know it is ultimately true. What evidence do you have for angels and demons not existing? Lack of evidence does not mean something is automatically not true.

Exactly. Compared to God's intelligence any deviation among humans is effectively nothing. Was actually just thinking about the topic of ant consciousness yesterday. There was one that kept coming close to me on my bench, I would act threatening with a rock towards it and it would scamper away, only to come dancing back proudly seconds later, as if teasing me. Yes I spared him haha. But the question of to what degree insects possess rudimentary consciousness and intelligence is a good one. I tend to think that we downplay their intelligence because we are using human metrics.

Please elaborate. You don't think he's a genius? If not, I would be highly inclined to believe that is a result of your own ceiling of intelligence

Nothing wrong with being conceptual at that high of a level. However, my main difficulty with him is along these lines as well - It's easy to confuse having a working logical system with having an actual descriptor of reality. Do I think he's right on many levels? Yes. Describing the interaction between energy and information as a meta framework is not total bullshit. But could it also be just a very complex and interconnected theory? Absolutely. I mean really, who are any of us mere mortals to say. It's not like us idealists are superior for understanding the same things he says but in a significantly less intelligent way. The point stands about an extremely high functioning mind being valuable to study. 37:00-38:00 is a particularly good insight for Leo's followers. Leo's wording tends to be something along the lines of "Infinity is so unlimited and unbounded that in order for finite reality and relativity to exist, constraints or limits have to be applied by your higher self" (feel free to correct me if I'm steelmanning). What Langan says is something a bit different, that total unboundedness would not even give you the precursor for any qualitative conditions. The sharpest intellects in the world such as his are able to "peek under the hood" of any idea and reconstruct it in higher definition.

Science and spirituality do not negate each other when applied properly - in fact, you shouldn't have either too much science or too much spirituality without having the other. The two compliment each other in that science without metaphysics is self referential atheism, and metaphysics without science is self referential idealism. If you fall into the first category, get some first hand experiences with meditation and psychedelics. If you fall into the latter, you need to study quantum mechanics and tighten your logical recursivity. Being a human is all about balancing the different tectonic elements, without doing so you run the risk of partiality and self reference.

Music is both an illusion comprised of individual frequencies and a voice that is sung from the heart, hearing the entire line, simultaneously. It's like unraveling the illusion of life - anyone is free to unravel it, but life exists for its own sake, as its own end goal. That is to say music exists primarily at the foundational level of perceivability in the same way that the universe exists as a function of perceivability. When it comes to writing music, all music is God writing music through you, yet this actually doesn't negate your free will. Absolute will and individual will intersect in tandem yet function independently. In simpler terms, the unpotentiated infinite will of the universe channels itself through you in a way that still gives you decision in every moment. Knowing this alone doesn't make you an excellent musician, using it to go beyond the confines of an established technical mastery does.

I'm not gonna say he totally hits the nail on the head with God, but his thought process is valuable.

This guy's mind is truly on another level. Even if what he said turned out to be false you have to respect the creativity and ingenuity of his ideas, and his degree of logical coherence is on a supercomputer level. He supposedly has an IQ of 200, which I am skeptical of because even professional IQ tests cap around 160, they just weren't designed for anything above that. In any case he's well into genius territory. If you have the kind of mind that needs something difficult to feel engaged, this is a juicy burger. He basically says everything Leo says but in his own, incredibly sophisticated way as if he reached those same conclusions without ever having heard of spirituality. It's highly refreshing. He talks a lot about how time works in both directions through orthogonal dimensions, I've been saying this for a while and I haven't seen anyone else that agreed with me until him.

My brother in Christ you made the notion of good an absolute as God. This is like saying "torture and oral sex are completely equivalent because how do I know what God ordains". You're diminishing the intelligence and scope of God.