Carl-Richard

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? (😂)

Locked for low quality.

I might add that even within the pathological psychological frame, especially within clinical psychology, the field as a whole is moving away from targeting individual DSM-5/ICD-11 diagnoses and towards "process-oriented approaches", directly targeting different cognitive and behavioral processes like rumination, worry, avoidance, attentional bias, self-criticism, etc. These are "transdiagnostic" processes, which seem to link different "disorders" and explains comorbidity. Also, the approach is more individual-focused and context-sensitive (idiographic) than looking at data from groups and then generalizing down to the individual (nomothetic). So unfortunately, the "neurotypical-neurodivergent" framework is becoming a thing of the past, and like I've said earlier, you should rather focus on the goals you want and the processes related to them. The role of the individual in the coming era of process-based therapy (Hayes et al., 2019): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000579671830158X?via%3Dihub

So we've recently been introduced to the frame of "neurodiversity" (thanks @Cred, and welcome), which is implicitly (or rather quite explicitly) a pathological psychological frame, concerned with describing dysfunction or things that are broken. Notions like "executive dysfunction" get intermingled with "passion", notions like achievement-oriented behavior get intermingled with "narcissistic coping". Those who are different in some way or another, or "neurodivergent", are proposed to disengage from "normal" society, behaviors, activities, people (those who are more alike each other in some way or another). And those who are different are encouraged to identify with various labels from pathological psychology (ADHD, autism, psychosis, etc.). This pathological view of psychology is quite prevalent. I recently watched a video of Dr. K describing how high-achievers are "broken in the right ways". Interesting how you can take a pathological and essentially negative view of something which is so obviously non-pathological and positive. It's of course not surprising, as Dr. K is a psychiatrist, and psychiatry is in essence, in its historical root, concerned about fixing pathology, healing the sick. And hence it frames the problem a certain way, and I believe the way you frame the problem has a lot to say for how you go about not just fixing the problem but relating to yourself and your own mind. And I believe pathological psychology can (not coincidentally) breed pathological frames of mind, of course inadvertently. Viewing yourself as broken, as something that needs to be fixed, and that is "other" than some ideal, is inherently disempowering, stifles autonomy and the feeling of being in control of your life, which as I'll get into, is one of the main drivers of health and functionality. Now, there are cases where taking a pathological view is necessary or useful, but this ideally comes second to taking alternative frames when the pathological frames don't work. And I also believe these alternative frames can address many of the same issues as those proposed by the pathological ones, also especially the concern addressed recently by @Cred in the neurodiversity frame of "are you doing the right thing?", or "are you doing what is right for you?". And what are the alternatives? Well, not coincidentally, there is something called "positive psychology". It is concerned with notions such as happiness, well-being, health, motivation, mindfulness, meaning, etc. Also notions like self-actualization and life purpose, familiar to those interested in Actualized.org, also fall under this category. You also have "salutogenic" perspectives on health, i.e. approaches towards healthcare and public health policy that are concerned about how to "increase health" rather than "fix illness" (i.e., it's about framing the problem in a positive rather than negative way). And it leads to notions such as empowerment, resilience-building, sources of social support and adaptive cognitive styles. You of course also have more Eastern psychology and religion and also Western religion with its spiritual frameworks of moving towards Enlightenment or sacred states of being, intermingled with moral and ethical philosophy on how to live a good life (Dharma, Jesus' teachings, Buddha's teachings, ancient stoicism, achieving eudaimonia). This ties back into well-being, peak states, peak performance, flow states, sources of purpose and meaning found in positive psychology (positive psychology is in large part a recapitulation and Western rebranding of ancient wisdom). And how do they address the questions of "are you doing what is right" and "what is right for you" or otherwise? If it is not self-evident in that you simply have to explore some of these perspectives (which I give my own orienting framework of here), I can give what I think is the most efficient, elegant or powerful model, and it's from positive psychology. You might've guessed it: Self-Determination Theory. You can choose to read more in-depth explanations of it (I will leave some links here; [1], [2], [3]), or you can simply take this summary of the model: do what you want to do (autonomy), do what you are good at (competence), and do it with the support of those who support these things (belonging/relatedness). The question then is of course "but how do I do this in a world that is dangerous and other to me and against what I immediately want to do; taxes, bills, people who disagree, culture, law-makers, naysayers, squares, disbelievers?". Find a way to make it work, find the golden middle way. Life is not infinitely forgiving. That is the harsh reality. But once you have staked out the correct orienting framework — do what you want, do what you're good at, and do it with the support of the right people — you will sooner or later end up in a more and more suitable position, a place where you truly feel that you belong. Even if you feel that you don't fit quite anywhere, if you keep trying, you will find something, and it might find you.

Because hate is retarded, and we only "accept" racists in so far as saying "aww, look at the retarded kid".

That is the most LeoGPT comment I've ever read probably ever.

I don't think being a systematizer is the best or even a good predictor for awakening. The best predictors I can think of is being obsessive, open, sensitive to subtlety and detail, and a bit neurotic or manic combined with being creative (your mind flies fast, it tests a lot of strategies, and you're not emotionally at ease, because then you won't seek something better). I think being a systematizer or feeler is a better predictor for what your challenges will be when awakening or for discovering awakening. Systematizers will have to deal with over-intellectualizing awakening and being stuck in their mind, not grasping it experientially. Feelers will (probably) have the issue of being less moveable if they are in the wrong boat (not identified with awakening): you'll (probably) have less leverage to lift someone out of a feelings/value-based perspective, be it personal values (Fi) or group values (Fe).

"Insight" the way Leo has appropriated the term is so rife with self-deception. It's conceptual, it's belief. When did I say that? 😂 Thinking, assumptions, beliefs. Then I will leave it on a commiserating note: To avoid the logical error but still communicating the same general idea, you could do something like this: Imagine God but ignore for a moment that you can only have one God. Let's it call it a demigod for the sake of clarity. So imagine you have a "God" (this big expansive thing) which we now call a demigod but then you also have another one, and another one, in fact infinitely many, separate from each other in/as their own "universes". "Ta-da!". The infinite "God" onion. Now, hang on for the next video on infinity of turtles, turtles all the way down.

I'm not disregarding the profoundness of infinity as an insight. I'm saying it's not complex. You add more cases. That's the function. You add more things. More complexity even. More. Ok, we got it now. So expounding on a particular case of adding more ("Gods"), well, that's not entirely interesting imo (again, irrespective of the linguistic issues).

You can keep adding layers on the onion of infinity. It's really not a deep insight. I get like the general idea of making "God" a layer of the onion, and adding more layers (it's a quite expansive way of doing it), but that too is honestly really not a deep insight, which is why I'm not particularly impressed by it (aside from the linguistic issues).

Oh wow, yeah, how can God imagine a boundary?

Sadhguru the Hindu supremacist 💀

Increased acceptance for idealism/God in academia -> increased acceptance for idealism/God in society. It's not a very hard jump to make. That's why you are on the podcast after all.

You're in a conceptual web of lies. You can have multiple entities inside infinity already. No need to call them "Gods". It's just fat.

This is the crux of the previous issue I raised: you're invoking unnecessary conceptual entities (if your aim is to be precise, concise). "Infinite infinities" is not a concise presentation of what infinity is. The way you explained infinity in the second interview was more concise: "In truth, there is only one thing: there is an infinite field of consciousness, which is infinity itself, which contains the entire possibility space of anything that can ever be imagined or can exist. And this infinity is God". That's perfectly concise. When you start adding infinity to the concept of God again, you're just adding unnecessary fat. And the way you go about adding infinity to God in the Infinity of Gods video contains a logical error: you have to assume there is something outside of God to add something outside of God. If God is everything that could possibly exist, you can't do that. That's more than just being imprecise or inconcise. That's just being logically incoherent. That is the true signal for when you're really just waffling about something which is not needed.

Infinity of Gods is a load of bullshit, I'm sorry.

Leo is not the first "consciousness-first" idealist they have interviewed. Consider that their knowledge actually mirrors their intelligence. Idealism is actually not a new thing, believe it or not. The issue is that Leo's communication is sort of whimsical compared to the concise scientific delivery. The way he mixes morality, love, goodness, evil, into the Absolute, it makes the scientist-minded thrown off track. A view like Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism is much more effective for that kind of audience, clearly delineating a metaphysical position without dragging in too many connections or too much conceptual baggage.

They talk to eachother. But sure, that's most intuitive. But the absolute is one, not two.

Emptiness and form are one yes. But yet here we are, talking about the distinction between them. If you don't want to make distinctions, "creation" is the least of your concerns.

Creation is the mediation between emptiness and form.

It's such a basic word hello. "Salubrious" that Leo used in the video is more impressive.