Scholar

This kind of response makes me believe that what i wrote is incoherent, because it doesn't seem like you even understood what i wrote, or intended to communicate. You reiterated what I said in a less nuanced way basically.

Do you guys know of any good resources that give insight into how to increase your memory? I frequently struggle with describing things both because I lack the vocabulary, or sometimes I cannot recall a specific word. Do you guys know of effective ways to actually increase one's vocabulary in a way so that one actually can use it effectively? People usually say to read more books, but I do feel like the words don't stick in my memory. I remember Leo was talking about whenever he would come across a word he didn't understand he would write it down and then google it, but my issue would then be, what is a good methodology to as effectively as possible memorize these new concepts or words? I would also appreciate resources on memory in general, I know it's kind of treated like it's own field of mastery, where people go really deep into mastering how to memorize things. I am more interested in long term memory, but anything might be useful. I just don't know enough about this field to be able to tell what high quality ressources on this would look like.

I am already highly intuitive, that is the problem. I am so intuitive that I never recall anything from memory, rather I reconstruct ideas on the fly as I try to express something. I know what I want to say, and I know the precise concepts I want to use, I just lack the precise word for it, that's the issue I have. And it's not that I never heard the word, it just doesn't come to mind. It's specifically a memory recall thing, it seems because I rely so little on memory, and do things intuitively, which just becomes highly ineffective at some point, that kind of aspect of my mind has become rusty. It makes me better at thinking, but I basically have to reconstruct each concept each time I talk about it. I know this is mostly a habit and a way I have engaged with conceptualization and so forth, what I need is a high quality ressource that specifically goes into solving such problems, which there must be somewhere.

Am I missing something, or why do you guys engage with this in the most Tier 1 way possible? It's strange to see this on this forum, I feel like a few years ago the covnersations were on a higher level than this.

The Divine created a world in which "dead" matter self constructs into life forms, which eventually evolve into beings who can make the very statements you have just made. Think about that, the fact that all of this will happen just by itself, that this is the way the world was created. The fact that a mind can look and make predictions within the world is no accident. Your view of what reality is still has materialism attached to it. You are saying, so you still frame it that way. Humans can invent math, and math can have existed for eternity. You are contracted within a box, but you cannot see the miracle. The miracle that math can describe reality. You say it's a tool or language, but you do not see the miracle in it, the impossibility of it. Once you would, you would recognize that this connection, between what you deem to be a tool, and what you deem to be the world, is ultimately mysterious. It is impossible, and it is full of intention. Math is part of Infinity, and each and every part of Infinity is impossibility. This is why we can build machines like computers and satellites, it is because, it's not merely a tool. It's part of an interconnected, impossible expression of existence. It's Divinity, it's access to the manifoldedness of the Infinite. Math is Eternal, as much as Redness is Eternal. And the connection between Math and what you call the World, or humans, is itself one of Infinite expressions of connectivity. Unless it is deemed otherwise. Let go of the Duality between Idealism and Dualism, or Materialism. That Duality is holding you back.

The suffering that is caused by school shooters probably is miniscule compared to the suffering the very school systems and the society we live in causes to individuals who are pushed to commit such crimes. That is the true, unspoken reality of this issue. The root cause are not guns, and even if you get rid of all guns, and all school shootings, you will have barely removed a droplet from an ocean of suffering that your value-systems perpetuate. In a society in which compassion is no a core value, in which people are neglected, in which convenience and pleasure is deemed as more important as a life free of torture, enslavement, rape and death, there really is no other way but to wake you up to your ignorance and lack of empathy. Most of you, even in this forum, perpetuate the very system and consequences you are outraged by, and of course you will do nothing but point fingers at others. "It's the republicans, it's the guns, it's anyone but me!" It's me, because I am too selfish to see the suffering of my fellow human. I am too selfish to give up some of my convenience to help someone in need. I am too selfish to truly advocate for those in need. And so, the death of these children is my fault, and it is your fault. That's the truth we cannot face. Everyone in here carries the solution in their heart. You cannot change the ignorant, but you can help those who suffer. If you wanted to, you could prevent more suffering than this school shooter has caused, if you just did what you know you have to do. To reach out and open your heart to those nobody is willing to do so. It our weakness, our selfishness, our cowardice. It is not the republican's, because they do not know what they are doing. It is not the school shooter, because he did not know what he was doing. It is you and me, because we do know what we are doing. The world will only change if you start carrying your weight, instead of pointing fingers at those who do not carry their weight. Carry as much weight as you can, everything else is a distraction.

Haha, of course it was both. We know who discovered it, the question is, by whom was it invented?

I know Leo says he does not want to be debating people, or even have conversations with people, about God and the Nature of Reality. However I am curious what Leo thinks about the fact that these conversations will be had either way, and that sooner or later, someone will be representing Leo's ideas outside of his actual control. We had something like this already happen with Connor Murphy. We also have different kind of spiritual ideas take over, which begs the question whether they might not at some point overshadow Leo's work. Here for example we have a debate on Spirituality, which comes from someone who seems to have very little actual experience with investigating the nature of reality: Now, it makes sense that Leo does not want to waste his time with these kinds of conversations, but if his focus is helping to dismantle materialism, I feel like part of that will be these kinds of conversations. At some point it seems it is inevitably that they will happen, and in the end it will be about whether or not Leo's ideas will be part of them. The question is basically, would it be positive for someone with a good understanding of reality to take part in these conversations? Or would the negatives outweigh the potential positives?

That's a contextualization that is due to monkey mind, not due to Isness. I think what you have not yet seen is that, being at ease means not to be at ease. Acceptance does not mean absence of suffering or resistance, that is the paradox here. True Love, Absolute Acceptance, means to accept Suffering to such a degree, that one pushes aside all other aspects of creation so Suffering can exist in it's true form. That is Selflessness and True Love. There is no distinction between togetherness and separation, unless it is deemed so. True Love makes everything, including you not crumbling. True Love is the essence that fuel the being of every moment you ever experienced, it fuels your resistance, your hatred, your ignorance, your addictions, your limitations. True Love is not better than anything, that perception of the betterness of True Love over all other experiences in your life is something your monkey mind does, because it was deemed so. What you call True Love is a relationship and contrast you have experienced due to your human nature, which is why you favor it over other experiences, which is why you say it is worth dying and be tortured for. Only the ape mind will think this, it is a story, a story that exists because it was deemed to exist. Your experience will be absolute, because that is how Isness works, it must be Absolute. Everything that is, must be Absolute, that is it's nature. So of course the ego will view it's own self-construct as absolute, and you will call your relationship to True Love absolute. Both of you do what you do, because it was deemed so.

How so? He is typical orange, he wants his freedom of expression. His values simply do not align with the green aspects of the progressive party, which lately have grown quite dysfunctional anyways. There will be a backlash to stage orange and this is an expression of it.

Basically what I think you need to do Leo, you need to look at Redness. Do you remember how you had that clear realization of "I know I cannot know this, I was directly conscious of this being impossible!", in regards to the Inaccessibility of other Sovereigns? You need to look at Redness, and have the same exact realization. You must look at it, and recognize that it's Being is fully and totally impossible, and that you are directly conscious of it being completely and utterly impossible, in the same manner you descibed it with the Sovereigns. And then, when you still see Redness, you will recognize what I am talking about here.

So Leo in his latest video said something about how one should genuinely respect the needs and will of each sovereign, and to try to help them in the case they have created a hell realm for themselves. He said specifically that one should not put ones own needs above others. So the question is now, is the behavior of buddhists and jains a display of a result of genuine insight into the nature of reality? Is it okay to just willy nilly step on ants because one has their own agenda and cannot be bothered to watch out while walking? And more importantly, is it proper to pay for others to be slaughtered against their will so one has certain needs met, like their energy levels being at a certain satisfactory level, explaining that overall it will have a benefitial effect while in the end ignoring completely the sovereignty of those beings and almost treating them like sacrifices? By the way Leo if you read this I think you are still very limited due to your intellectualism, I feel like you lack certain insight into the Impossibility of Existence, which is why you still try to attempt to create a logical framework that lacks internal contradictions. You keep saying things like "Haha, see there is no contradiction here, because it's like this and that, there doesn't have to be a contradiction!". To me that goes against the insight I have into the impossibility of the Isness, and to borrow your phrase, in my view the impossibility is a feature, not a bug. Because you strife for truth, with a lower t, a truth that you can conceptualize and frame within understanding, I think your mind basically gets what you designed it to desire. That's the wonderful thing about Impossibility, it can give you anything. If it can created Redness, it can create True Seperation, and then it can connect those. This is also why I never liked the way you framed solipsism, to me most of the framing comes down to the nature of your limitations as Leo Gura. You do not see the fac that, it is so because it was Deemed so. Once you see the Deeming it so, you will realize, reality can be completely solipsistic, and yet not solipsistic at all. Isness is does not need to care about it, and the only reasons you see it that way is because you do care about it. And you still care about it, you still frame things, and you still seem to be blind to the fact that you do so because it was Deemed so. That this is the only answer there is, and that every answer will be the answer because it was Deemed so, unless deemed otherwise. At that point any framework is arbitrary, unless it i deemed to be not so. It's like you have a bit of a sense of the Impossibility of Existence, because you keep recognizing paradoxes and calling them features, but then you still attempt to frame them within a logical, sensical framework. This implies to me you have a weak sense of the Impossibility, and have yet to realized the Total nature of Impossibility. Which of course, does not and will not make sense, unless it is deemed so.

Sure I agree Greg is not really a good debater, nor is he a rigorous thinker. I think he tries to rationlize positions he holds because he intuits them due to the experiences he had, and he does not seem to be very adept at that. That to me is obvious, I am mostly interested in how MrGirl and Destiny are arguing, because they are more rigid thinkers and better debaters. I don't expect anything from the Greg guy I think he is just a random dude who had mystical experiences and feels he has a calling to make people connect to that aswell. Alot of his intuitions are correct imo, he just lacks the intellectual framework and sophistication to defend them in a meaningful way, or even point out the flaws in MrGirl's and Destiny's thinking. There were alot of points where Destiny and MrGirl almost intentionally misinterpreted what he was saying, one thing that comes to mind is the thing about math, where Greg said there is a lot of intuition involved. This is absolutely true, infact intuition is pretty much what gives rise to any novel thought in the first place, whether or not these intuitons are restricted to logic is another matter, but this is precisely one of the reasons why scientific breakthroughs in math, physics and pretty much every other area come from highly intuitive people. You intuit new solutions and perspectives before you truly establish a way to make them logically coherent. You don't just stumble upon Special Relativity by following some step by step logical process, you discovered it by have a creative insight, an intuition, which then your mind can make coherent through various systems of thinking. But even logical thought pretty much runs on intuition, as every thought that comes to you has to kind of be intuited to be logical before it manifests and then is actually tested to be logical by mind. That's how we train people to be logical thinkers, we ingrain it in their intuition, until their intuition gives rise to mostly thoughts of these categories. You can think about this as a perfect representation of a Orange vs Green dispute. If you notice, Greg basically sees the limitation of Stage Orange, but he lacks the intellectual understanding to express that in a way that connect to Stage Orange. And of course MrGirl and Destiny perfectly demonstrate the limitations of Orange. They both were kind of demanding from Greg to have him logically proof to them that "Scientism" (which actually refers to Stage Orange not merely science) is limited. And of course, that's not how you will ever transcend Orange, that's precisely how you get stuck in Orange, and how you fail to see the limitations of Orange. Greg would basically have to explain to them why their value system is the issue here, but of course you won't be able to logically pin that down, which is what their value system demands. They reject anything that sounds irrational, which manifests in MrGirl as his constant attempt to put Greg into a box. He says "This sounds like what religious people say", and by that virtue his mind has already determined that whatever Greg is saying, he will reject this. That's his value system playing it's part perfectly. And MrGirl is aware enough of it to know that this is not even in his control, it's not even rational, he just says "Well that's how it makes me feel", and the question to why that is the case is his value system, which he thinks is just arbitrary so of course he has created himself a neat little bubble where he never has to change anything about his core beliefs. They are ultimately validated, because nothing is valid, therefore everything is valid. The Truth is, if Stage Orange was truly rational, it would not behave the way it does, and MrGirl and Destiny would not behave the way they do. They behave the way they do because they have specific values, which Greg was trying to communicate, and these values will motivate certain actions, they will motivate the ideologies they find appealling, and so forth. And that is the true limitation. A Stage Orange person technically knows the solution to Climate Change, and all sorts of Social Ill's, but that's not the core issue here. The core issue is that they will never care enough to change themselves fundamentally, which is what is required to actually solve these problems. That's why a transcendence of the value system is required. And trust me, if I told this precise thing to Destiny and MrGirl, they would either not understand the depth of this problem (Destiny would pretend he understands this and proceed to say he agrees with it, which isn't actually true), or would ask for it to be "proven" to them. So, a typical Stage Orange reaction. Sure this is why I wasn't really expecting you to be doing this, but someone will, and I think it might be benefitial to have someone do it who actually is able to communicate these ideas properly, or point out the flaws in materialism atleast. I would say to some degree that will probably be necessary at some point either way, if our goal is to have people evolve up the spiral. My thinking was more about whether or not we should have these conversations in general, and whether they will be positive. If as a community we say "No this is just a waste of time", then it will be the case that others will take over this task and maybe do it in a less effective manner, delaying progress. I know that teaching spirituality is totally pointless in the grand scheme of things, but I am assuming you are interested in partaking in human existence, and enjoy doing so, otherwise I don't think you would even be here.

I think Destiny is falling back into his ego as time goes on, I don't even think he had a full breakthrough, he was resisting the experience and got stuck in a loop basically. But either way as time goes on he seems to return to a more standard view, where deep down he feels grounded in reality again, and the stance that he does not truly know is more intellectual at this point. I don't know if Leo should debate anyone, I wanted to have a conversation about the merits of these conversations in general. If you ask me personally I would be more interested in a conversation between Destiny and Leo but I feel like I already know how it would end. Destiny would get bored because from his POV Leo is just making claims that he can't verify, he would assume Leo is ideological, and if he got confronted about materialism he would kind of misunderstand the depth of the problem, and say he is only holding the position because it works, but he is not interested in "Truth" and doesn't even know if such a thing exists.

I reached the point and I am 99% sure that MrGirl said that specifically because he knew it would sting the guy, especially the way he phrased it. I've been realizing lately that MrGirl has almost zero genuine compassion for others, which is ironic because he is basically exactly what he accuses Dr. K to be. You also get to see the trauma Destiny has experienced, because of thet trip he had. It deconstructed certain aspects of his reality, and due to the nature of his ego, it terrified him to such a degree that he was unable to actually fully go through with that deconstruction. When he talks about "You just experienced something crazy and it needs to settle down and become coherent", he basically thinks that psychedelics put you in a kind of irrational state because of some radical change in experience, and that after a while a person comes down, and reality as it actually is comes back, reconstructing itself, so that in the end the experience can be framed as a phenomena or event within that structure. And that structure is the true structure of reality. But of course, that structure is just a hallucination, and Destiny's experience confronted him with that. And now he deluded himself back into having atleast enough certainty over this structure so that he can live life comfortably thinking he is in control. What is so astounding to me is that none of the materialists talk about how none of this even makes sense from the scientific perspective. If the brain hallucinates consciousness, then everything a person knows, or thinks to know, or perceives, is merely a hallucination of the brain, including the concept of the brain, aswell as any perceived object within consciousness. This means everything that can be identified, including the self-concept, the world-concept, epistemic concepts, metaphysical concepts, and so forth. It's a self-defeater, and yet cognitive dissonance makes them completely blind to that.

I haven't reached that point yet but Max is hopelessly stuck in Orange, he is like a perfect manifestation of it.

I think you are focused on putting holes into this rather than trying to envision the potential benefits, you are basically just saying things that are all going to happen whether Leo will debate or not. Again, if the conscious people do not advocate, the unconscious will. Someone will advocate for Leo's teachings sooner or later, and be trying to represent them, so all the negatives you are talking about will occur either way. I also am not convinced that you need to be at a higher level to understand Leo's teachings. I think many here are orange-green, infact especially earlier videos of Leo are geared towards capturing orange specifcally. I feel like you are reasoning in a motivated way here, because obviously it would not be ideal for someone to talk about the highest level teachings, it would be more ideal to dismantle materialism first, as that is a main hurdle, and that is what we are talking about here. Any I can only repeated it again and again, but we already had people doing exactly this. Connor Murphy had a debate with Vegan Gains, and he was doing it in the most unproductive way possible, spouting very advanced stuff which will not even be effective at targeting the minority who might be receptive. Nobody here said that whoever is going to have these conversations should start with the most advanced concepts, so like I said I think you are trying to poke holes artificially here.

As in my previous post, I think there is a misunderstanding of how culture changes, and you kind of pointed to exactly the point I am trying to make. Culture doesn't change by having an ideological dispute, and then everyone decides "Oh that was the most rational position let's go for this.". Rather, the more truthful perspective exists within the culture, it is fighting with current culture, and then bit by bit, those who see the limitations of the previous perspective will adopt the new one. A good example for this is veganism. Pretty much every initial vegan was seen as extreme and weird, especially like 30 years ago. But if these people had not been part of the conversation, it could have never grown into something more mainstream. You have to have these ideas be accessible, and people need to be aware of them, and they need to see that these ideas can stand the test of culture. Whether or not 99% will be convinced by them during a debate is irrelevant, it's about the 1% who are uncertain, or have the potential to be uncertain, who will say "Oh yes that actually seems to make sense, it's not as unreasonable as I thought, let me investigate it!", or "Oh wow I just realized why this is wrong, and I remember that debate by with that guy who talked about this, let me investigate it!". That's how change happens. Remember, it's like making people aware of a road. If you don't, they miight just walk down a different road which will lead them to nowhere, and then they both waste time and might reject any future exploration. It's important that people are aware of the healthy alternatives .

Some people are unable to be convinced, of course that is the case, and debates will not change that. But to say that nobody changes their minds through debate culture is a bit inaccurate in my opinion. Just look at Destiny and how effective he is at converting people from extreme's to his side. It doesn't happen within one debate, but people atleast have to be confronted with other viewpoints for there to be even a possibility for change. And remember, if someone argues badly for a position, which will happen whether we want to or not, it makes it even less likely for people to engage with that topic. You first have to convince people that psychedelics even awaken you, there are people who took plenty of psychedelics and still don't believe that anything beyond the material exists. And don't forget, if the people who advocate for psychedelics make terrible arguments and come off as delusional, then that in turn will make people avoid taking psychedelics. I think you misunderstand the situation. Debates and conversation about this topic will happen, and the misunderstanding of them will happen. I do not believe that Leo is as ineffective at convincing people as just any other random person is. Leo specifically is good at convincing people who have materialist point of views. It's not about most people, cultural change does not happen by convincing most people of something. It happens by ideas existing within a culture, and those who are ready being able to access them. If we do not partake in culture, those who are ready might fall for different kind of ideologies, and because these ideologies might be dysfunctional, they then will reject spirituality entirely. At that point, these people usually are locked on their level of development. In my opinion the work is not about forcing people to walk on a certain pathway, rather it is to build a pathway for them to follow so that once they are ready, they know where to go. And for them to know about that pathway, they first have to be somehow aware of it.

You are playing a language game here and you need to become aware of it somehow, that's the advice I would give.

Time-stamped. Wow, I did not expect this from Curt. But it's true.

From what I have gathered one of the reason the russian's might be having such problems is because they have a very centralized command structure, meaning that most soldiers simply get told what to do and are not taught to adapt on the fly and think for themselves, to such a degree that many of them don't even know the purpose of the tasks for any given mission. This kind of command structure can work, but only as long as things go to plan, at which point dynamic adaptation is necessary, which the individual soldiers and officers are not trained for. They are supposed to simply listen to the central command, which are obviously not on the ground and therefore can't really react to situations as dynamically. This leads to situations where singular tanks are driving around in the middle of nowhere because they are just following orders even if it doesn't make sense to do so. This is in a stark difference to NATO militiaries that usually are very decentralized, meaning individual units are trained and expected to adapt and make decisions on their own depending on what they are facing on the ground. For the russians, if something does not go according to plan, the information has to go up central command which then has to make a decision which the soldiers then have to execute, which obviously does not work when things are very dynamic and chaotic. Not to mention how bad things can get once you have communication problems. Thismight also be why so many Russian generals are being killed because this forced them to get on the ground themselves, because they are the ones making all the decisions. The Russians also have problems with troop morale, which is not to underestimate in any given conflict, while the Ukrainians have very high morale. All of these issues are exacerbated by the amount of corruption in the russian state.

My idea of this thread is simple, we consciously make an effort to do a simple, or complex, Loving Act, and then we report it in this thread. It can be any act that would be classified as a Loving Act, be it something that cultivates Love in oneself, others or in the world. I think sometimes we underestimate the power of simplicity. Hopefully, our actions will bring inspiration to us all and motivate further actions. And hopefully, reminding ourselves of this consciously each day will aid us in aligning ourselves with the Free Will, with Love. My first Act of Love was to send to 3 random members who are online a message that I love them, and to Leo aswell. It was more effort than you think because you have to wait a minute before being able to post another message.

Not to forget they wouldn't have died if Russia wouldn't be funding a war in that region.

Wow, an attempted Coup, interesting, interesting. I look forward to the next season of Drama of Actualized.org. Btw I can't quite follow the character arcs, what were the names of the Separatists who were caught? I am in particular interested in the names of the Moderators.