UnbornTao

Maybe the real cult was the friends we made along the way...

Unironically, his group turned into a full-on cult - a characterization Leo himself agreed with on one of my threads. Brain-dead people, he called his followers. I think this is educational, if only to discourage so much gullibility. You'll likely not see it that way, since you've watched a few videos about "epistemic responsibility" and the like, and think that, because we talk and think about it, this material necessarily resembles the reality of the situation - yet the claims keep being made regardless, despite whatever mental caricature of this work you're operating with. We both know the theory; we've seen the videos, and still the claims keep being made. For a reason. Could there be any resemblance at all to places like these?

I feel the same. I don't think I've ever watched a horror movie, now that I think about it. I might be lying, though.

What is claimed or thought may not necessarily be the same as what actually happens in practice, so learn to make a distinction in that domain. For example, look at what's encouraged, what's discouraged, how people interact with each other, how they treat Leo, how "dissidents" are seen, etc. Don't stop at surface impressions and your reactions to the assertions and atmosphere. What goes on in certain interactions? Making assertions is easy. You can claim and think anything. You already do. This does not imply the claim is consistent with, or bears any resemblance to, actuality. Consider this gap. The alien recording is brought up as a clear instance where certain dynamics are made apparent. Who dares to confront the teacher's bullshit? How come many refused to keep him accountable according to standards he'd set up for himself? Instead of admitting failure, he'd rather ban and unmod a few members. Now, you have a reaction to this type of contentious expression - feel it and then separate your reaction from its underlying message. If you want to educate yourself, read @zurew's posts, a "Tier 2, epistemically responsible, big dick (former) member." Nice profile picture, by the way. Negative meanings are likely instinctively associated with the term "cult" itself. I'm not saying Leo is necessarily evil, egotistical or narcissistic, deliberately deceiving and misleading people, or even aware that he might be contributing to this situation. The critique is essentially about the tacit expectation to believe. I'm not even sure this is recognized by Leo when it happens. It may come across as "progress" or loyalty, perhaps, depending on the case. You and I likely know the theory and the "Actualized worldview," too, but let's go past the chatter and past the affectations.

Testicles.

I'm a party pooper. I kept confronting Leo on his claims and pointing out certain hypocrisy and denials - in my characteristically annoying way.

@Someone here Thanks

Oh la là

The Tao that can be unmodded is not the Eternal Tao.

I appreciate that you're able to see that.

I woke up as a member of the peasantry - dethroned by Leo, my archnemesis. I didn't know it.

Oops, @zurew got permabanned. This is rough. If someone like that gets banned, you have to ask what kind of place would do that, and why. (Setting aside the usual spiritually performative justifications that have already been raised before.) It seems to me, among other things, that Leo wants people to believe him - not as an evil conspiracy, just as a simple tacit request or desire - on certain subjects, at least. @Leo Gura All this just so you don't have to admit you were wrong on the alien recording - and don't have to face the implications of that failure, including the people who blindly followed you on it? The Dictator has nothing to envy you for:

The debate exists for a reason. Notice how your exhaustive analyses tend to go in one ear and out the other for most people here (particularly Leo). There's no serious interest in those among the acolytes. @zurew It is what it is. We were just too unconscious, corrupt, self-deceived, conformist, subservient, and epistemically irresponsible to realize we were wrong. I'll do the master move of recommending Actualized videos to undermine the very dynamics people unknowingly engage in here. Fighting fire with fire:

God is Self-Employed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funnyvideos/comments/1upf3nr/ugandan_minister_of_finance_on_corruption/

It depends on a case-by-case basis. Bear in mind that there are lots of pretenders in these lands - who might not necessarily be aware of that themselves. Because abstract terms such as truth and God lend themselves to multiple interpretations, they end up becoming rather meaningless blanket concepts that the ego can co-opt for its own purposes. A lot of times, when you look into it, you find that an experience has been interpreted through the filter of one's assumptions, which seemingly confirms your view. If it's accompanied by grandiose and deep feelings, this is then thought to be some kind of enlightenment. Hopefully this is based on something real, but it might not be what we think it is. This is one reason why I feel that believing an experience to be a direct realization is such an easy trap to fall for.

Contemplate how people who claim "I am God" or similar (it's better if it sounds true to you) could be lying to themselves without knowing it.

Mind your own business.

- Show me your mind. - ... - I thought so.

I created the need, and it fostered a good discussion. They were the same thing; now they are two concepts - already differentiated. We're sharpening our skills here.

Seems that way. Deception can be applied to everyday matters, too - like what kind of information you listen to and believe in. As far as I can tell, this has little to do with direct experience.

Are you self-deceived when you trust an AI video to be from a real human, or just wrong? Even without motivated, misleading interpretations, you can just make mistakes.

When you believe a reliable source that turns out to be wrong, for example. Plain 'honest' ignorance. Not having enough information. Making mistakes - scientific, mathematical. It seems to me, these don't necessarily imply that one is self-deceived. Self-deception may require something extra. Ignoring evidence, for example.

Not really. I was doubting whether the claim is true or not. After all, two different terms are used. It seems to me you can be wrong without being self-deceived. The deepest deception is implicit and occurs in the background without us knowing. It isn't usually a deliberate or willful manipulation but a more subtle process.