Carl-Richard

If I can expand on this point: Psychedelic use makes you take insights into Maya really seriously because they seem very salient and profound, because that is what psychedelics does. That is why I think Leo uses the word "awakening" for literally everything under the sun, and why he dismisses any pushback on such insights as "you just don't understand". The profundity makes it seem so special and unique that when somebody disagrees, it just cannot be the case that it's merely a disagreement but a profound lack in experience. But of course, the issue is when the insight is into Maya, that is exactly where disagreement can be had, and any clinging to it is deception and untruth. This is the unfortunate downside of psychedelics in that it makes you more prone to not just deception but profound narcissism, taking your own limited experience so seriously and dismissing any pushback on it as not worth taking seriously. "My view is so profound, that even if it's personal and limited, it's too serious to be even challenged". "You just haven't had that awakening yet". And the term "awakening" reinforces the deception because it sounds so final and "official", as if it's a stamp of truth. When in reality, it's purely untruth. This is exactly where Leo parts ways from standard non-duality (or rather completely inverts the concept). It's when you treat Maya like it's truth, when it's really not. Either you see this instantly, or you're stuck in the deception.

The fact that you call an insight into Maya (multiplicity, boundaries) "awakening" is a huge disservice to many people and they will suffer the concequences for this for many years if not their whole life until they break out of the illusion.

I'm concerned about not dying eating herbs (and how to do it within your peripheral-to-modern-science framework). Mhm.

Well, let me put it this way: your video on Absolute Infinity is probably my favorite video, maybe ever on YouTube. And I think that the Infinity of Gods idea would've fit better as one of the many examples you run through in that video for explicating infinity. Making it its own video, and equivocating on the "God" term, that was a mistake imo.

You guys must have the most humongous veiny sticks up your asses if you didn't see that this was a joke. "Then I must be already awakened, hahaha". My God.

You have been making arguments in other threads perfectly fine all up until this point, so I don't see why you should stop here. ...wait, is that an argument I'm seeing?: Making sure you use the word "God" consistently across the presentation of your work, so that it suddenly doesn't mean something else, or in fact something completely opposite. Is that to get "too technical"? I'm not suggesting here for Leo to go full Bernardo Kastrup, downloading a PhD after showing his work to a university. I'm suggesting a bare minimum appeal to extremely basic epistemic norms, which should in fact be mandatory if you want to consider yourself not just different from but superior to all of analytical philosophy. Can we reel in the LeoGPTs a bit?

I doubt you're doing this process yourself for every herb you use. So you trust "shamanically verified" herbs? Do you keep track of which herbs are shamanically verified and only use those, or are you more liberal than that?

For my BSc, only one half of a single course (out of 17) was dedicated to "abnormal psychology" (i.e. mental illnesses and their treatments). For my MSc, essentially the same (out of 5). But of course, different mental illnesses are mentioned across different courses (maybe particularly in a course we had on trauma and attachment), but other than that, really a lot of other stuff. That said, I did not do a MSc in clinical psychology (which also includes a year of practice); I did it in behavioral neuroscience (which is still psychology), so maybe if I had taken clinical psychology instead, I would've probably dove more into treatment and associated mental illnesses. But then again, that's my point: it's mostly in treatment it shows up. I get it. But yeah, we're talking about philosophy here. And I don't think you strictly need the practical sides to attain high levels of theoretical knowledge in either engineering or biotechnology. But it's of course good if you're going to practice in those fields (as is virtually always the point with getting a degree).

That's a feeling you have, I see no argument for why that is. The baby in the bathwater is that making concise and precise statements (e.g. not making imo trivial expositions on infinity; "infinite infinities"), and being coherent in how you use language ("God is one" ≠ "Gods"), be it inside a single video or across your entire framework, can be very helpful for communicating your ideas. It's ok if you consciously don't want that, but I probably won't stop talking about it (unless you make me).

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the statements "in" the video itself were incoherent. I don't care to refresh my memory on this, but he does after all go on about saying how he is challenging a prior notion (the very notion in question: the supremacy/absolute "aloneness" of God) and then he goes on this step-wise process of deduction. The problem of course is that "God" the way it is usually used, even by Leo himself, presents it as absolutely supreme. No twoness, no separation, no "other" outside of it. So when you say "Infinity of Gods" in this context, it is incoherent. So it's more "externally incoherent" than "internally incoherent" (although again, I could be wrong, I can't be asked to check through the whole video again). Nevertheless, the problem is using language in an incoherent way, and all for exploring a particular exposition of infinite regression (and if you were to take my advice, "Infinity of Demigods" sounds trivial, because it is, as trivial as "Infinity of Turtles").

I wouldn't say that's true. It's more that treatment in psychiatry and clinical psychology is pathology-focused. Psychology is much more wide and diverse than just clinical treatment. I learned a shit ton of stuff that positively impacted my self-development. If you ever get the chance to take a course in psychology of religion, or positive psychology, or even social psychology and personality psychology, it might actually be worth your time. What makes engineering so special? When I started reading neuropharmacology in my MSc courses, I can honestly say I already knew 85-90% of it, and that's from me reading for a few years when I was 17-18 on my free time, just because I was interested (and because I felt it was an obligation because drugs are dangerous mkay).

It doesn't take much reading to surpass an undergraduate level of understanding. And if you're genuinely interested in something and you've pursued it for many years, it's essentially a given.

Same with ours (Norway).

The way social circles work is that they are concentric and layered. You will only ever expect to find a relatively small core doing the most niche things. Meaning probably most of the names in the files are probably not guilty of the most severe accusations.

What is wrong with you? 😂

Every day, a new thread on genetics. I beg to differ, that the scientists who are capable of big picture thinking are the greatest scientists, the ones pushing paradigms ahead, the ones leading strong idealistic charges, the ones being driven by truly meaningful causes. Big picture vs detail focus is a constant flux, it happens all the time in our cognition. Some are more slanted to either side, yes, and yes some pharmacological states could impede certain aspects of either side (I avoid all stimulants, partially for this reason, but for other reasons as well; call it big picture).

There could definitely be more context, I'm just explicitly referring to this one message on its own.

Firstly, I don't think Deepak Chopra is "enlightened", I believe he has even said this himself explicitly. Secondly, yup. People like to infer what cannot actually be supported by evidence. Imagine you have a friend who you know dates a lot of girls, some on the younger side. And you make a joke in a mesaage about his way of life. You have otherwise no association to his way of life, you just know him as a friend for other reasons. Now imagine this message popping up in the Epstein files.

Surrender everything.

The issue is thinking your puppet ego self and its visual apparatus (and other bio-engraved sensory channels) is Absolute. It's for those people the relative-Absolute distinction serves a function. Never have I encountered a solipsist on the forum who used it to spiritually bypass (unless you did that once, but I think the problem was much larger).

It's a culturally contaminated term (bunch of materialist philosophy tends to get smuggled into it), and it's a horrifyingly fertile breeding ground for relative-Absolute conflation. These two are also connected.

I don't want to give you one thing (I disagree with the question), so I will give all the things I can think of: What religion is (hint: you're it), what spirituality is (and how to practice it, and much of the dangers of the practices), how to talk about spirituality (e.g. how scientific can you get, how conceptually engaged can you get, perhaps how precise, concise and unambiguous can you get), what New Age is (hint: you're it), what mysticism is, what solipsism is. Essentially most things worth talking about (except the latter). Some more: the limitations and scientific status of Spiral Dynamics (it's a Western-only model as far as the empirical data goes, and Turquoise is baloney).

@Ramasta9 This shit's important, yo.

But how do you do it while managing self-deception and sensitivity to outside signals? It's always a balancing act. If you go too far to the one end, you become Andrew Tate "depression doesn't exist". If you go too far to the other end, you become a fragile snowflake paralyzed by uncertainty and doubt.

👌Cooking 🍴 U on that brain training? (😂)