Scholar

For a truth addict you do not really seem to be very interested in the truth.

Look at the world more closely and you will realize it is Divine Will for the slaughter of animals to be inevitably ended. I do not think most people here comprehend the radical compassion future generations will have for all life on this planet. We will all look like barbarians to them, and yet they will still have compassion for us, as they know that we knew no other way. In the future there will be no veganism as it will be part of the consciousness of our civilization. It will require no identification to act in accordance with the greater harmony of reality.

It's the same reason why we have legs, eyes, skin and so forth: Evolution. Those organisms who prioritized survival would procreate, those who not would perish and cease to exist. That's why the ego is so hard to dissolve, it evolved in a way to be stable because those organisms who had a weak ego would not bother as hard to keep surviving.

I agree, but I think that makes it even more important for functional and healthy people to teach these virtues. People have to get them somewhere, and if the only people teaching them are Jordan Petersons, then that will be where they will get their fix. Religion is being dismantled and we have not really bothered to replace these structures with more healthy ones. People used to listen to a preacher, now the listen to Alex Jones. I feel like Spiral Wizardry is more needed now than it ever has been. It seems like sometimes we evolve so far ahead that we don't realize how much most people are lagging behind. We forget the basic challenges they are facing, which we have long overcome. It's like burning the bridge with which we have crossed the river and then wonder about how all the other people are not on the same side of the river.

I think part of the issue is repression of stage blue and orange values. If people never learn to integrate blue and orange, they will be dysfunctional and they will naturally tend to seek out these ideas, they will be attracted by whatever they lack. Because green is repressing blue and orange to a significant degree, the only supply of blue and orange values (which we should not forget, are essential for a healthy and fully developed human being) will be provided by the dysfunctional blue and orange, and rarely by stage yellow. People nowadays are not taught the valuable memes of the lower stages, like for example discipline, purpose and responsibility, by the higher stages who themselves should embody all of these aspects. Unless this is fixed, we will not be capable of transitioning into a healthy green society, there will be too much resistance and too much repression.

He looks so russian in that picture. To be honest though Leo doesn't look that fat in that picture, it's more like he was a little chubby.

Apart from ego dissolution there are basically all other aspects of mind that can be investigated. The ego is one aspect of mind, it is not the only one to explore, deconstruct or alter. In the future we might be able to simply deconstruct the ego with technology, within an instant. And we might even construct new things, things unimaginable to us. Mind seems to have no limitations, we really are just exploring an evolved structure, when in the future we will be able to create structures so unfamiliar that they will shift our paradigms in fundamental ways that no one today could possibly predict. I mean, look at how primitive we are. We sit years and years so that a few neurons are altered, or we take psychedelics that kind of alter certain brain activity. It's so inaccurate, and we are completely limited to the natural structure of our brain. We cannot really completely alter it in radical ways, create completely different structures that access completely different senses or dimensions of reality. Again, try to imagine how different an ant is experiencing than let's say a bat. Their realities are completely different, and they have been designed as tools to propagated their survival. Soon we might be able to construct whatever we want, a unicorn, a dragon, animals that would never came to evolve in a natural environment. The same will be true for consciousness, we will be capable of structuring consciousness so deliberately that we will be able to create realities that would have never come to exist in a natural environment. Exploring these different aspects and dimensions will in the future aid us in the construction of these new realities. The people of the future might laugh at our silly ideas of consciousness and reality, they might go so far beyond us that we will seem like one-celled organisms to them, completely unaware of the bigger picture.

What if one day there will be an enlightened master who will claim that all aspects of spiritual work are describing aspects of mind? What if they, despite having experienced all Leo has experienced and more, will claim that it is all just mind? Can there not be a perspective which simply assumes that the mind can be infinite, yet that it is not everything in existence? To me it seems like people have a misconception about how the brain and the mind function. We seem to view experience in the same way we view the physical word, as something that has boundaries, that is limited. For example, we cannot imagine there to exist infinite atoms in one single brain, and thus we assume there cannot be an infinite experience. Yet, experience might function more like a spectrum, a vector, in other words, it might not require any more brain cells to experience "1000% intensity of love" than let's say, "10% intensity of love". It might be that instead the experience, the aspect of reality that mind is "pulling" from, is rather limited upon than "generated" by the mind-structure. Thus, instead of needing more "power", more "energy" to create an experience of infinity, it might more be like it requires more cells, more structure to limit in more nuanced ways the dimension of existence which is accessed. So, for example a structure less complex would only be able to either not experience pain or experience infinite pain. A more complex structure would be able to get more steps inbetween, like dividing infinite intensity into 1/4s, or 1/8s, 1/10000000s etc. Might we not be victims to our cultural misconceptions of the capacity of mind? Again, if I assume that everything I experience is equal to the wave-function which makes up whatever brain-activity that is correlated to consciousness, then of course all aspects of experience will be revealed to have aspects of intelligence, of divine love, of oneness. Though these aspects will be rather the aspects of that particular wave-function, they will be very much real, very much as real as anything could be, but yet they would not be the whole, the entirety of the wave-function of this universe. To "access" the entirety of the wave-function, or the universal-wave-function, would require to go deeper, more fundamental, where we find no-thing, no-mind. The wave-function of the individual mind is indeed part of the whole, but it should not be confused with the whole. Leo might be discovering truths between the mind-wave-function and the universal-wave-function and be confusing these aspects as something inherent to the universal-wave-function. How could he possibly tell what aspects he is experiencing? It seems to me that Leo assumes that just because these aspects are grand, beyond regular imagination, beyond regular consciousness, that they are beyond mind, when all this could be is Leo's fundamental misconception of what the mind is and that it has access to infinities, yet that it is not Absolute Infinity. I am saying this because whenever I listen to Leo talk about these different facets, it just seems like he is describing the infinities of mind, instead of the infinity of Totality. I think we have to let go of the notions that Infinity, whether it is infinite color, infinite love, infinite meaningfulness, infinite space, infinite sense of self, whatever infinity it is, that it is something special. Instead we could start embrace the idea that infinities are simply regular functions of reality, that they are just as special as a limits. In fact, it might be that limitation is far more special than unlimitedness, because it requires structure that limit those infinities. Yet, when the regular mind is uncapped from it's limitations, it cannot fathom that these infinities are part of it, that in fact every single aspect of the mind is an infinity. It cannot comprehend, because comprehension requires limitations, and that is why we might fall into delusion, into false assumptions about the Totality of reality when we are merely experiencing infinite aspects of mind. It would also explain why some people have an experience of God before they die, it simply is the different aspects of their minds shutting down, and as they do so, the limitations are "uncapped", revealing the infinities for what they are. This would explain the difference in experience from person to person, and it would explain why, in the future, when we will be capable of changing certain structures of the brain at will, why they will reveal those aspects to us. The structures are there to limit, not to generate consciousness. Once we change our paradigm, so will the interpretations of our experiences. Maybe Leo is paradigm locked... In other words, Leo might be describing Soul, rather than Spirit.

Deleted - Wrong thread

You could read some books. Leo made it easy for you and made a book list, saves you hundreds of hours of figuring out which books to read. Don't expect people to explain things to you, many here haven't read the books themselves and don't really know how to answer your question even if they think they do. I see there are a lot of misconceptions about very basic concepts, based on how you framed all of these questions. So, if you want to get a grasp of any of this, work yourself through some books. You have to first realize the depth of your ignorance before you start adopting any positions, and I can see that you have not yet recognized how many assumptions you just take for granted. It seems like you are suffering, you might want to first learn how to care for yourself before you start caring about others.

Deep in the night a Sparrow met a Mouse. "I told you, right up there, thousands of them, don't you see them?", said the Sparrow, pointing to the sky with one of his wings. "No, I don't see anything, only leafs and dirt!", the Mouse argued, looking around to find the so called 'stars'. The Sparrow was aghast, not able to comprehend how the Mouse could be so blind. "Not on the ground, up here! How can you not see them, they are everywhere!" "No, I don't see anything on the ground, only leafs and dirt!", the Mouse repeated, increasingly frustrated with the Sparrow's arrogance. "No, not on the ground! You have to look up here, the stars are in the sky!", the Sparrow chirped, fluttering his wings passionately for the Mouse to see. Once more the Mouse looked around. He looked in front and behind, to his left and to his right, even beneath his own four paws! Yet, he could not find a single one of the stars! "I am looking, there are no stars on the ground! I knew you were lying all along little Sparrow. Stars don't exist, stars could not possibly exist!" The Mouse crawled back into his burrow to go to sleep. Now all by himself, the sparrow would watch the night, the stars and the moon. Until the sun would rise he would sit on his perch, gazing far up, where the Mouse would never take a glance. Had this pop into my mind after I had a discussion with someone about how they were stuck in their paradigm, that they would not be able to see the limitations of their perspective if they would not make attempts to escape it. I tried to tell them that they had to stop thinking and instead focus on what their thoughts were pointing to in their experience, so they could see them for what they truly were. They couldn't do it, they still responded with the same thoughts I was trying to tell them to inspect. They didn't have the ability to question the seemingly self-evident, they were completely deaf to what I was trying to communicate. It was so weird, I felt just like the Sparrow.

Why does Buddha seem to have been passive while Christ seems to have been proactive? Buddha's actions seems to have been manifested more among the lines of leaving all living creatures alone and helping those who would come to ask him for help, while Christ seems to have been far more involved in trying to help and aid people, as an action rather than a reaction. Where does that difference in action originate from? Can we learn something important from Christ that we cannot learn from Buddha, and vice versa? Maybe there is a difference between fully dissolving the ego and structuring it in accordance/resonance to the divine?

It seems like I am living in hypocrisy. I know that the right thing to do is to surrender to the aid of those who need it the most. I know that it is what I have the greatest passion for, yet I show no true effort to go towards that reality. What is the point of enjoying life when there is incomprehensible suffering in this world? It is not even true joy that I am experiencing, it is superficial and momentary happiness. It does not give me anything, it does not add anything to my soul, nor my character, nor to what I deem to be right. Why am I not able to live consistent with my philosophy? If I was the one to suffer, I would urge myself to give up this fleeting happiness in the aid of myself. And I know that either way the surrender of my self is my ultimate destination. I know that the greater the concern for my self, the greater will be my suffering. How do I take the step to live one with what I deem to be the only moral thing to do? I truly do not see the point of continuing the path I am treading on, not rationally, not intuitively, not emotionally. I can continue living a superficial life amongst superficial people, creating superficial tools for superficial purposes. But what is the point, other than to preserve myself in a way that seems to be comfortable, but yet grows more unbearable each day? If I were consistent with my beliefs, I would follow the suffering of those who need it the most, those who are neglected and those who nobody else is willing to stand for. I would learn to give love unconditionally, I would actually live a life worth living. I know that this is the best thing to do, why do I still resist? The comfort cannot be a good reason, and yet it is the only one I can find. I have to remind myself of the suffering that is experienced. I am not yet ready for awakening, not before I have not resolved this inconsistency. I have to restructure my life and my character, I have to commit to radical change and I need to be strategic about it so that I have a chance of achieving it. I have always known that this was what I had to do, though it has taken so long for me to consider it a serious possibility. I have to rid myself of all pride, of all desire to find approval. This cannot be for glory, for money or fame, it has to be for nothing else but compassion. I have to be able to sacrifice everything in order to achieve what is my true authentic desire. If I do this, I will find fulfillment and peace. It does not have to be grand, it simply has to be the best and most honest effort I can do. What is even the point of this continuous struggle? Concern after concern about myself, instead of a surrendering to the servitude of god. This is what the world needs the most now, true sacrifice for the greater good. I know it will be the path to true joy, yet I also know it will be the most difficult thing I could possibly do. For now, I at least have to give a good effort to start trying.

By the way, what the communists did to the level green meme's of Karl Marx is what people in this community do to the level turquoise meme's that Leo is communicating in his videos. It is literally the same mechanism, no one can help but do it. The only advantage we have is that we know about this mechanism and thus have to tread with great care about any positive statements we make about the nature of reality that we have not yet experienced ourselves. There is a reason why Zen Masters talk in riddles, and we do not yet know whether Leo's way of advocating the Truth will not have some sort of catastrophic results for certain individuals who follow this path. It is an experiment, and there is a possibility that there is a greater wisdom we have not yet articulated.

High level Memes can be adopted and culturalized across all developmental stages. A good example are the Indonesian mass killings, a capitalistic (Multiplistic-Individualistic) ideology adopted by an Absolutist-Egocentric society. Each stage can interpret a high level Meme through it's own framework, in fact that is the only way it can do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66 Watch "They act of killing" if you want to get a deeper insight into the mechanisms taking place. All of this should be fairly obvious if we consider that all current major religions have kosmocentric meme's as a foundational structure of their ideologies. Memes spawned by the highest consciousness individuals have always been hijacked by lower consciousness structures. Our entire world is governed by ideologies that contain high level Memes but yet are on the lower levels of the spectrum, and even things like physics are no exception to that. Just look at the difference between the inventors of quantum physics, or even the inventor of the theory of relativity, and the physicists who currently live off of the fruits of these great insights into the nature of reality. Same mechanism, high level meme's adopted and misinterpreted by lower-level stages.

Consider why you assume that your skepticism is valid in the first place. What does it mean to question something? You are lost in thoughts and stories, and because thoughts and stories are just thoughts and stories you will find them to be empty if you try to investigate them. What is confusion? Don't just ask yourself that as a question but try to look at it for what it is, as a meditation rather than contemplation.

Not quite, it is not that simple. It would be accurate to say that AI will most certainly be able to generate images which please the human eye, which even might invoke different feelings and emotions, but it will not be able to create art, at least if you have an understanding of art that comes from an artists perspective. In fact I would say that, in the case that AI has consciousness, it would be able to create art, but not human art. I will try to explain why the difference is important. Art from my general perspective is not merely a product or a result, or even the process of connecting meaning to a given experience. Rather it is the attempt of articulating (in whatever way you want) a fundamental truth about human experience in a way in which this particular aspect becomes elevated, more obvious to the human mind. Art becomes more truthful than reality because it reveals a hidden aspect of human experience and attempts to blend out the mundane. This is something Jordan B Peterson is talking about, even if he is articulating it in a different way. A book like Harry Potter contains a truth about human experience that goes beyond all naturalistic descriptions of reality. Yes it is simplifying natural reality, it is extracting irrelevant information and pushing forth that which it wants to communicate. If you look at a painting like this, the way the values are grouped, the way the edges are controlled masterfully to lead the eye through the painting in a very deliberate way, it's all intentional. And furthermore it is not how reality looks like, yet somehow this painting tells us more about this person and the artist than a photo ever could have communicate to us. Why is that? Because a photograph simply captures reality, it does not capture an experience. In this case the artist, who is John Singer Sargent, communicated his own experience of reality onto the canvas. He took what he felt to be most important and he painted it in a way so that we would see that it is the most important aspect. We get an actual insight into the mind of the artist, a communication of how he experience this very moment of his existence. If you look at the features of the face you will notice that there is contrast between the values and edges so that this aspect of the painting captures the viewers attention. Of course we could teach an AI to do the same thing, to generate an image just like that (even though I don't even believe that will be possible, though that is another discussion entirely), but what would lack in the process of creation would be the intention. An artificial intelligence does not intend to communicate it's experience, because it does not experience. It does not feel like any of the aspects of the picture are more important than the others, because it does not experience any pictures. That is why you need to feed it data so it can generate anything. A human being does not require that because their consciousness is the source of the intention. Art is basically: Consciousness -> Experience -> Intention of communication -> Manifestation of communication within reality We can only communicate our experiences if the receiver of the communication is capable of experiencing the same thing. That is what art truly is, it is taking a particular aspect of experience that the artists wants to communicate and extracting it's essence, leaving all unnecessary information out. It is unfortunate that this principle or understanding is not a conscious part of our generation of artist, to the great detriment of culture and society at large. It is not just because it would result in better art, but because right now we are so disconnected from our nature, from our experiences. The process of art can be a process of spiritual inquiry, as it requires us to inspect the fundamental truths of our experiences. Today we operate on such a surface level that we don't even consider this. From Harold Speed, you should read some of his books. Another good quote:

That's what a lot of Philosophy graduates go into.

This might be true if I made an argument in a debate or a discussion that would be saying that, but I am not. I simply made recommendations to people in this forum who I repeatedly see reduce everything to very limited concepts that they somewhere caught, like for example the concept of "ego". If you reduce everything to a very broad concept you will actually lose understanding , and more than that you will actually fail to recognize lack of knowledge within a certain domain. I don't see how that is knowledge signalling, and I think you are being very close-minded and defensive for some reason. Sure I was signalling knowledge, that was the whole point so that I could get people motivated to read up on some of this stuff themselves, it's not like I have an inherent superiority, you literally just have to read the books on Leo's book list. To even suggest that what I am doing is due to some sort of arrogance or that it is some sort of debate tactic is so ironic. You literally just dismissed everything I said on the basis that it is knowledge signalling, without providing any rational to how it is "knowledge signalling" or in what way it would even be relevant to the discussion. What if I actually have a deeper understanding of human cognition and development than you do? You will invalidate that because I recommend you books? What are you doing here?

This is what happens when a human being does not develop the capacity to recognize the limitations of formal operation cognition and does not transition into vision logic or post-formal. You have to understand that from his perspective, what he is saying and interpreting, is actually valid and correct. Nothing you ever will tell him is going to make sense to him, in fact it cannot make sense to him. People in here have a tendency to dismiss this as pure ego, but that is very reductionistic and simply false. I can only recommend again and again that people in this community start to read some of the books on Leo's book list. The positions Leo is communicating are far more sophisticated than most people's understanding of the conclusions of these positions are. Leo's hour long videos are not even proper introductions into these topics, and people come away from them thinking they have understood them. This cannot be reduced to epistemology or egoic behavior, there are very specific reasons for why these positions necessarily arise within a human mind, how and why they are overcome. Once you actually go through these stages yourself you will see, feel and understand why conventional communication between these cognitive operators are relatively futile. It is in a very real way as if you tried to make an infant understand what object permanence is. It is not merely an understanding that can be communicated, it is a perception that is connected to cognition. It is how the mind generates it's own subjective reality. Thus it is not even knowledge or a merely a perception, it is actually a difference in the subjective realities between two subjects. These perceptions and cognitive operators structure your reality, and you expect these people to take in information that was generated by cognitive operators and perception that are simply non-existence in their mind structures and consciousness. You cannot understand object permanence if you have no experience of object permanence. You guys really need to read more books.

I would do what motivates you the most. As long as you try your best to surrender the addiction you will be fine. You could be trying to avoid wet dreams but not count them as relapses if that works for you.

Have you read any of Ken Wilber's books? I feel like you could benefit greatly from adopting multi-perspectival cognition.

Can you not see how what you have just told yourself is another fiction itself? Namely, the fact that atoms and molecules are fictions, is a fiction in and of itself? Understand this dynamic and notice what is happening, you keep reducing your subjective reality to certain kinds of ideas. What is a label, what is a function, what is a fiction?

The way I try to formulate it looks something like this: Vision logic or post-formal thought is the capacity to adopt multiple perspectives at once and recognize that truth is a relative phenomenon, that truth is actually an aspect of the mind and not an aspect of "objective reality". Due to that recognition one can hold multiple truths at once that are seemingly contradictory, because one recognizes that each of them contains a partial truth, partial validity. It is not merely the recognition that this is true, but a capacity of the mind. It is an ability that is easily recognizable to someone who has adopted it. I get asked for research and proof that vision logic exists and I try to explain to them that I cannot as it is a very subtle phenomenon. I know from their perspective it is irrational to just believe me, or to go through the effort of trying to learn about this themselves because I am just a random person who is telling them that. So what is there to do? It seems like their formal operational cognition actually prohibits them to go beyond it. It's like there a truths in reality that, due to the limited information we have about reality, are inaccessable to us if we follow strict rationality. It might actually be rational to dismiss me and not pursue what I am trying to communicate even though I am right. So how could one possibly nudge a stage orange person in the right direction? And how does it even occur that they themselves suddenly adopt early-vision logic?

Is it recommendable to use 5-MeO as your first psychedelic experience?