Carl-Richard

To balance out Leo's troll response, I'll musical-intelligence-mog with one of the most intelligent and probably the most original musician I know 🗿:

Normie music.

Music that tightly interweaves rhythm and melody is some of the most entertaining and musically satisfying music. One of the best examples of this: 7:04

That's the dumbest thing I've heard, lol.

A tone, which is the rudiment of melody, is literally rhythm, just sped up. So it's impossible to perceive melody before rhythm.

And I think it should be perfectly acceptable and reasonable that you can say that without some condescending comment that "you're not awake enough" or whatever other variant I've already mentioned. And that when we disagree, as a default, we speak to each other as equals, of course not denying experience wholesale, but not using it to literally terminate thinking or lines of argumentation or to make your perspective something else than it is, a perspective. Then you can ask "is non-duality a perspective?" and then I will ask you back "is it?". Can you say with a straight face that the fact that existence itself, IS, is a perspective, again, without trolling? "But your perspective on non-duality, the way you talk about it, the way you practice, the notions you have about how you go about inquiring into it, etc., that's a perspective", yeah yeah yeah, but just keep it real. "The Absolute" has been made so ridiculously complicated, it's an exercise in gaslighting to try to unwind it. "The Absolute This, The Absolute That", Chill. And yes, I still love Leo. But man, keep it real, dawg.

And by the way, imagine perpetuating the exact same defense mechanism I'm pointing out, as I'm pointing it out. "As if you know what he's talking about" / "you just don't understand". That's what's repulsive. And to clarify, I can say "I haven't experienced it yet, he hasn't explained it in full detail yet, so I can't say for sure", as I have done many many times. But then if you ask me what I think, this is what I think. And I like to say what I think. It can't be much to ask on a forum that prides itself on "thinking for yourself, questioning authority, challenging conformity". And for contrast, I did not say "I've had an anti-Alien Awakening Awakening, and if you question any of it, you don't know what you're talking about". That's appalling, even if it's supposedly true that you don't know what I'm talking about. It's the epitome of anti-intellectualism, thought-terminating defense mechanisms (which not so coincidentally are only brought up when no other arguments are brought up). I'm just requesting even playing ground on matters that are obviously personal, obviously Maya, nothing to do with non-dual awakening, the Absolute, Truth with a capital T. None of "Alien Awakening", none of "Infinity of Gods", none of "solipsism". "You just don't have the right experience, you don't know what you're talking about". No thank you, I don't want to hear that stuff even once. But again, this is just what I think. No "Absolute X" awakening here from me. And I'm of course not expecting you to actually listen and take my advice. Only some of you, like @Eskilon, @Oeaohoo, @zurew.

This has been abundantly clear to me for years. I'm just reminding myself from a different angle: He even admits it himself that he is not ready to let go of his limited identity, that he likes using his mind, that "understanding" is his game. Yet it's couched in "awakening" language. I've explained why that is.

I'm just speaking my mind. The option is speaking what I think I know, or not speak. I'm not saying "this is ultimately true". I'm not doing that game. Maybe you're used to bowing to that game, I'm not, not anymore.

Everything you see, touch, smell, think, conjure up, feel, sense, imagine, which is tangible in form, substance, quality, etc.; "stuffness", "thingness", not merely "thisness", "existence", "it"; that's Maya. What is true always and forever, irrespective of space, time, person, mind, thought, that's truth. Maya is the antithesis to that.

Alien Awakening is probably the most perfect example of it. But I have to make clear that I do not put "normativity" into "deception" or "untruth". If you prefer Maya, go for it. But to mix it up with non-duality, and to treat it like some next step, that is simply wrong. And to use the same language, the same level of Absoluteness, the same level of conviction, while you're literally talking about some trip or mind-insight you had (profound as it may be), that is a blatant disservice to those words, to non-duality, to truth. Non-duality is the most simple, direct "insight" you can have into reality. When you start talking about "advanced", "intelligence", "beyond human thinking", you're off to the moon. And you're justified in having a super strong conviction in something that is incredibly simple and in truth undeniable. But when you start going down your own personal machinations, that conviction should naturally fade, that is of course, if it's not fueled by something synthetic/extrinsic/inorganic, or something which changes the very way you measure your own convictions.

It's not self-deceived any more than what I've said here. As far as it exceeds anything vaguely standardly non-dual, it's Maya, and as far as non-duality is concerned, Maya (in itself, not when taken as an aggregate together with the whole Truth, like many like to reflexively retort with as if it that somehow changes the fact of the matter) is untruth. They can still be very useful and in fact profound insights into Maya. But to then put down the great wall of "awakening" and "Absolute X" whenever any disagreement is encountered, that is problematic. That is where the dark sides of psychedelics or whatever personal predispositions that lean you in that direction, show.

I would do a tl;dr on it on an online forum. Pls 👉👈🥺

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.