LambdaDelta

That's indeed how it goes by law of noncontradiction. But it's not universal, you get to choose where to apply it strictly or be flexible. Most likely you wouldn't tell your mother "your problems are not my problems", despite logic suggesting that to be correct. What defines which words are your own? Depending on the standard employed, those which you haven't created from scratch may not count as your own. For that matter, do you know for sure that Davino and Leo are not the same person? Maybe it's just an alt account. Reality is so nebulous and profound that it's backwards — it's only literally impossible for something to be impossible. He probably wasn't, I just made it up for him on the spot. Then again, who knows. True enough, that's a widespread issue. However, it's possible to use an alternative interpretation: one can decide that the person asking the question will be better served by deferring to the more extensive source material than their paraphrasing, even though that's not what was explicitly asked. Just like a good professional will do a job not by mechanically following instructions, but fulfilling the client's actual needs. It even makes sense in the given context; this is Leo's forum, so naturally most members will use the terminology in a very similar way to him, therefore the way the community as a whole defines those things provides more clarity than individual opinions. Not to say that's really what happened here, it could well be that he was simply being lazy. We have a user that literally only links YT videos as a response to any given topic.

Joke's on you, he's making a meta-point that Leo's words are his own words.

Consciousness as a whole is Undefined, since there is nothing to define it with/against. So it defines itself, in other words it's whatever you define it to be. It's no coincidence that the more of a blanket term you apply to Consciousness, the more accurate it gets, hence we also call it Infinity, God, Nothingness, etc.; but words will fail rather quickly so you'll have to drop them. This will all seem like self-contradictory nonsense until you get very comfortable with twisted, paradoxical thinking, which is one of the abilities of higher consciousness. Doing so requires going beyond causation, reason, language, sanity... There awaits absolute logic that resolves all contradiction, as there is no contradiction in self-definition. A ∧ ¬A is not only perfectly consistent, but necessary. 'Conscious' and 'aware' can often be used interchangeably, but not always. For instance, you can be aware of all the gossip and scheming going on at your workplace, but that doesn't make you any more conscious; neither is an animal with spatial awareness several orders of magnitude better than human more conscious than you. One can even be aware that what they're doing is wrong, but not be conscious of why it is so. Consciousness is more like self-awareness, it is not contingent on surroundings, information, knowledge, sensations (as in Ibn Sina's floating man thought experiment); higher consciousness simply means raising your self-awareness until you're fully aware that you are reality itself. Becoming more loving, truthful, present, etc. are merely consequences of this realization. A person can be "made aware" (of something, like a fact), but cannot be made conscious, only be/become conscious, i.e. it's an act only you are capable of. I can bring to your awareness that Google search and everyone replying to this thread are projections of your mind that you're using to teach stuff to yourself; however this doesn't mean you'll be capable of accepting that, and even if you were, unless you become directly conscious of it, that'll just be a belief.

The one and only, absolute Truth. This poll invites a peculiarity, the ones voting for 'lower' levels of truth will in most cases be more truthful and integrous than those who consider themselves more conscious.

Kisses 😘 to all you dreamers I have an assortment of quality teas from around the world. Though connoisseurs would take offense at the fact I drink them with sugar and milk, as a kid would.

Might be able to do it for you if you wire the equivalent amount in roubles and provide the necessary credentials. Only if you trust, of course.

This can be framed as a good thing, such rampant corruption will self-destruct quicker and is clear for everyone to see and learn from. What we need to exorcise devilry in ourselves and people around us is to get it all out in the open and gradually heal through awareness; sweeping it under the rug turns out to be counter-productive. Not unlike a brain tumor. After all, the real test of love is to see the full extent of the ugliness of humanity and still love that, as it is Truth. I also don't check the news much anymore, but the toxicity doesn't disturb me, it's just that the content is all the same; you can skim a digest once a week or even month and not miss anything significant. For some positive contrast, there's a YT channel that does summaries of the good things happening in the world.

I don't know... The only certainty is that we need to break the structure at center-left, there's nothing to do on the right side. Either push pawn to e4 attacking the knight with bishop and opening up the diagonal for potential future check. Or sac the knight at f4 to force king's g3 pawn to take & move; that seems like something Tal would do. Or perhaps the right move is completely different, like moving a piece back to set up some crazy positional play. In any case there's a long way to go whatever is chosen, probably 15 more moves at least. That's why I'm no good in real games, can't see that far ahead. Wanted to check the actual game, but there's a playlist of like 20 matches between them, ain't got time to sift through all that. I like that there's no more square labeling and the board is flipped, forces the brain to adapt and learn. Chess notation is its own language, similar to musical notes. It's always impressive when GMs play out entire games in their mind simply through that, or how composers hear the music from a sheet. Amazing visualization/abstraction abilities, goes to show how poor we are at it; gotta train this faculty of mind much more.

There's an idea https://www.infinitechess.org/ https://mchess.io/

Apart from some already mentioned here (Chainsaw Man & Death Note): Attack on Titan (for the clever worldbuilding, incredible twists, heart-wrenching circumstances, plus one of the best OSTs and occasional brilliant animation sequences), Code Geass (can't exactly pinpoint why I enjoy it so much, just do; it's like Death Note on a global scale and I find more characters compelling), and Violet Evergarden (visually stunning and deeply emotional, the main character's journey towards gradually understanding human empathy and love is very relatable to me). Honorable mentions — Kaguya-sama Love is War, JJBA Part 5, Bleach and Naruto (but only certain arcs), NGE, Hellsing Ultimate, Kuroko's Basketball, Takopi's Original Sin, Look Back, Kaiji & Akagi (both really obscure stories written by a guy obsessed with gambling; Kaiji was Squid Game before Squid Game). Expanded to manga and visual novels, therein lie my favorite pieces of fiction bar none.

If that's an actual offer, 'fraid I'd get wiped the floor with; my ELO is probably around 1450 if that, puzzles are only easy due to limited variations and unrestricted time to think, plus I like dabbling in logical ones and sudoku. We should someday hold an Actualized.org chess tournament though, where everyone's free to use any psychedelic/nootropic they wish, let's see who can best harness infinite intelligence.

Assuming it's black to move, there's really only pawn to e4 or whatever square that is, covering the queen's diagonal to threaten a quick checkmate. White's only choice is to cover with its own pawn, from there I don't wanna look much further but should be a simple sweep as the whole structure falls apart. Immediate check with pawn might be tempting, but it leaves the queen too mobile and able to defend. The philosophical exposition actually makes it much easier to find 😛

Back to silly examples, last year after the blog post praising croc socks I immediately went and bought a pair. Turns out they're not comfy to wear at all, particularly putting them on. So they just collect dust in the drawer most times except the rare occasions I hand them to guests as an entertaining prop.

That's not quite fair since the point of the episode was to make the audience realize their full responsibility for their epistemology, behaviors, relationship to reality, and so on. The whole conformity spiel was a long-winded buildup to the heart of the matter — autonomy of mind and live intelligence. And it's these two crucial aspects that don't get the proper attention in discussions here; we can list all the examples we want but it's all content, not true structural analysis. Of course Leo self-aggrandizes to an extent, a lot of his own examples aren't that much better; some are deep but most just inflate the list, though that's still useful to demonstrate the breadth of the issue. "4 hours of explanation wasn't enough" is also a moot point, very few Actualized episodes work at full power as standalones; really grasping this one requires at least synergy with the Survival series, What is Will, How Your Mind Interprets Reality, Content vs. Structure, Social Matrix, and a bunch of other auxiliary ones. That's been repeatedly stated elsewhere but the viewer should also be intelligent enough to intuit it on their own. So the other side of what you're trying to say is a meta-lesson to stop relying so much on Leo's guidance and draw your own conclusions he himself may not have considered yet that'll also be fine-tuned to your particular situation. For instance, the episode largely dealt with collective conformity, but to those of us actively self-actualizing or very hermit-like by nature that's not necessarily relevant, far more insidious is the personal conformity of getting stuck in ways/paradigms we ourselves developed, especially when those have been yielding results far above par.

Leo did not release Deconstructing Rationality part 3 and The Ultimate Guide to Success in 2025 because following the calendar is conformity

That's what everyone suggests, and it works for most, but there are always edge cases. I do intense and perilous things all the time, that's how I first got into serious spirituality. My sensitivity is broken on many levels and regardless of the degree of intensity it never lasts. There is a way to make it permanent, through pure insanity. Otherwise, that's the sort of condition I live with. Given the infinite potential freakery of Consciousness, it's hardly surprising that such a thing exists. Awakening is a remedy, but no cure; it's a lifelong treatment process. Even seeing God's intelligent design in everything gets boring, believe it or not. Leo calls existence Miracle, and it is, but simultaneously it's a Certainty. Eventually all realizations come to that, and there's nothing interesting about certainty. So forgetting is fundamental to God experiencing its miraculousness. Only the oblivion of death is capable of dissolving ennui this dense. What people like me need is not more intensity, it's more not-knowing and venturing into utterly alien realms of Consciousness. It's not all bad though, there's advantages like rapid progression, lack of attachment, and abnormal risk tolerance.

Too much to explicate on that. The benefits and pitfalls of religion are fairly obvious and known, I'd just be regurgitating stuff. I read loads of texts from a variety of mystical traditions, they certainly enhance the spiritual experiences. I've directly experienced myself as YHWH, ΑΩ, Teōtl, etc. as well as grasped things like sanctity of life at the most fundamental level. In the end these are more like supplements that provide new perspectives on God, but they are not the absolutes. The value is poetic and artistic. It's about furthering creative expression and appreciation of God's Beauty. But you cannot, for instance, derive true morality through any scripture, religion, or tradition. At best they'll just provide a few hints.

What a strange conclusion to make, nothing I said suggests that. Though you do need some logic. How would you even know to look beyond the words in the first place? Or filtering out the noise? The point was not about you, it's highlighting much broader issues, yet you keep going on about your personal approach. Which nobody denied the validity of, so there's no need to get defensive. Truth needs no defense after all.

Here's some simple ones I found today. Just a quick exercise. The second half are a little more involved. https://lichess.org/training/aXw2V https://lichess.org/training/qoALR https://lichess.org/training/0D7DU https://lichess.org/training/O7zUv https://lichess.org/training/1GS05 https://lichess.org/training/GEo5v https://lichess.org/training/QyKaJ https://lichess.org/training/JgwzW https://lichess.org/training/QdGLd https://lichess.org/training/3ua8k https://lichess.org/training/Btv3a

It's in the name — 'ratio', or fraction, which is not the whole. Arithmetically, 'rational' is just "expressible in finite terms", so of course that cannot be done for the infinite. But there is a higher-order rationality where every fraction is a whole and finite terms are revealed to be infinite.

You should still take notes after each one, lest you forget important details. But small unstructured snippets aren't worth anyone's time, including your own. It is best to gradually accumulate and integrate your insights on a particular aspect, or better yet deeply interconnect several of them in a single glorious overarching writeup. You're guaranteed to learn a ton in the process, plus it's more efficient and futureproof too. Personally, I'm no longer going to publish individual reports, unless it's to share information about some novel substance/dosage/ROA and whatnot, for science. The contents, unless properly articulated, can only serve as mild entertainment.

I sure wish my memory was worse sometimes, remembering too many details is a significant contributor to boredom.

Such Christians are few and far between. Most have not even read the Bible, or do it in an extremely sloppy way. In Luke 18:19 you refer to he doesn't necessarily reject that he is good, he asks why the guy thinks he is good. It can be read as denial, but also as a rhetorical question pointing to how he is indeed God. Conversely, there is John 14:6 — Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. Read literally, this invites worship; but metaphorically, if Jesus is Love, Father is Truth, and the Holy Spirit is Will, what he says is exactly right, that's what the Trinity is. Seeing it that way requires a God-realization though. There's a number of different interpretations for any given passage in all scripture, which is precisely the issue. Interpretation by default is corrupt and no method is taught for how to correct that, the few that are lead to further corruption. Necessarily so, since the absolutes are noninterpretable. Not knowing what it is you have a relationship with will not end well. It would be more accurate to say that the God most people have a relationship with is actually the Devil. The best Bible verses are nowhere to be found in the lists of most quoted/popular ones, instead they're filled with nonsense about God protecting, guiding, and forgiving you, which is what people truly care about; it is used to excuse their sinfulness cloaked in false humility. "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will". Isn't this the essence of Actualized.org in a few words? And yet all Christian explanations of it miss the mark entirely. So the general problem exists and is worth pointing out, but if Christianity or another tradition helps deepen your spiritual connection that's great, it's as it should be.

Unless I'm missing a different one; rook to h3, pawn takes, knight g4, f3 pawn takes, and queen takes queen. But that 'wins the queen' only in the strictest sense of the word, after that knight takes rook and black is set to lose no matter what. There exists no other winning sequence for black than the queen sac. White dug its grave with that queen d8 move; should've taken the rook right away, then it's game over.