Carl-Richard

You can conceptualize your encounters with the absolute, and those conceptualizations can be very profound (or the conceptualizations that happen right after encountering the absolute and when your mind tries to make sense of it can be very profound). I'm not equating that to like some insight into some mathematical proof or concept in physics. If you think that, then that's of course belittling. Nevertheless, it is conceptualization when your mind encounters something (be it the absolute or not) and it starts speaking language and spinning, well — concepts, and narratives about what it just encountered.

Now that's belittlement.

It is a belittlement of the Absolute to conceptualize it, but as you say, the human mind has to belittle the absolute to "understand" it (conceptually). But me saying that is not saying "you're not having a profound experience, you're just deluded". No, it is very profound. My conceptualizations of "solipsism", "aloneness", "perfection", etc., were very profound. It's just I see what my mind was creating as a response to encountering with the absolute; concepts about the absolute. Love/bliss/energy is also very profound, and it is also "Maya". You see, there is no hyperbolic, black and white scapegoating here. It's clearly labelling what is going on.

I like how the presumption is that something being conceptual makes it less profound or valid, or that it is somehow offensive to label it as conceptual if it is experienced as profound. Very interesting. I mean, in a certain sense, there is nothing more profound than immensely eternal ego death where there is no way back and you're inside a black hole for eternity but you're somehow existing on a physical plane simultaneously. But realizing (conceptually) the immense perfection and necessity of reality being what it is, that's also profound. But of course, it's not the same as being that perfection for eternity. You're not merely crying for a few hours. It's for eternity.

@ZeroZeroes Feel free to rewrite all of that while dropping the unnecessary abbreviation of terms. When the words abbreviated are already short and you use many abbreviations, it can reduce comprehension rather than increase it.

Turquoise is a conspiracy by culturally homogeneous empirical samples misappropriating a domain of experience as an ontogenetic level. If you want to know what anything of that means:

So your notion of awakening is intrinsically intellectual; it involves the mind reflecting on something. That's kinda what I've been hinting at. Let me rephrase the question: can a baby have an "experience" of pure being and love/bliss/energy? I think yes. But then, can they have an "experience" (does that even make sense?) of "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God"? I don't think so. Why? Because those are intrinsically conceptual/intellectual, the former is not. I call the two categories awakening because they're intrinsically non-conceptual. They most fundamentally happen prior to and independent of any reflection. You can reflect on them, but it's not relevant to whether it's an awakening or not, it's not important. Why you choose to make reflection on an experience an important part of the definition, could mean you highly value the conceptual.

I will quote Davino and I might be putting his words in your mouth, but just for demonstration: So first, I would propose a baby can awaken to consciousness and also love/bliss/energy. It doesn't depend on their intellect or ability to think rational thoughts; it's either pure being or energy moving throughout their body or tapping into such energy in the external sensory world. Then the question is: can a baby awaken to "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God", as in these being separate and clearly defined awakenings? Or does it require an intellect and rational thoughts?

How much did you know about these topics and what was your position on them before learning about them from Leo? Try to go point by point. What topics or points do you disagree or differ with Leo on somehow?

And now imagine that people use this as a source of information.

I've done some testing with GPT-6 Astra now for suggesting improvements for written text. It still has marked contextual issues. For example, I asked it to reword a paper that was initially conceptualized as a validation of a questionnaire into a "preliminary validation" and scale development study because it has a low sample size and lacks some useful analyses, and it becomes very self-critical and also more verbose than I would like. I also caught it (twice) essentially mistaking or disregarding a theoretical claim for an empirical one (which was also a problem of context). It's still good for getting some suggestions and a dialectic going, but yeah, far from human-passing in this sense. Honestly, for me at this point, the problem is not that the models are not "smart enough" but that they just fail at context and relevance. It's like having a very verbose autist on your team (no disrespect to autists, you go).

https://philosophyball.miraheze.org/wiki/Flat_Ontology https://scalar.usc.edu/works/material_philosophy/flat-ontology It's like consciousness itself, AND sense perceptions, AND concepts, are equally imagined. You don't seem to have an own "reality category" for each, unlike say most idealists worth listening to (who are not pure subjective idealists, skeptics, solipsists) who have a distinction between for example Consciousness/Truth and Maya/illusion (referring to sense perceptions, and perhaps concepts). And there is a hierarchy there; one is more real than the other. You don't seem to have that. "Whatever you imagine, that's reality". It's like kinda you're just floating out there, not very grounded in the everyday reality of stuff or human things. The reason I only have two categories of "awakening" is because one of them is consciousness, the other is "sense perceptions" (energy, phenomena, a.k.a. illusion, Maya), and then I of course distinguish that from conceptual understanding (which is not awakening, but rather indeed conceptual understanding of reality). On the other hand, the way you seem to multiply the kinds of awakenings into essentially infinity, it just seems like you've collapsed awakening into the conceptual. Any distinction you can make, you can "awaken" to. Even my stinky shoes. And why are consciousness vs sense perceptions vs concepts salient distinctions? Because they are central to how humans operate. And of course they have been salient to how people have described awakenings up until today. Awakening to consciousness (pure "knowing", which is ultimately formless), vs awakening to energy/phenomena/form/bliss, etc., they are quite distinguishable. One of them is very fundamental but also abstract, the other is more concrete and embodied (you can literally track it as movements of energy in the body, or how you relate with objects, the love you feel for them, their feeling of fullness and depth). Meanwhile awakening to something like "perfection" or "authority", you're now truly dividing the pie in a way that is seemingly indistinguishable from conceptual divisions. Which again, the conceptual mind can reflect on and use these concepts to inquire into the nature of consciousness, and use them to have an experience of consciousness, but I would again posit these are entry-points into the experience rather than "the" experience itself. Like self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is a process of the mind using concepts to look places, and at times, it can unravel the mind into consciousness. But the thoughts during self-inquiry are not the consciousness that seems to be unraveled.

You have what is called a flat ontology and it's as far as standard philosophy is concerned — for a lack of a better word — "impotent" (It doesn't attempt to deal with human affairs like illusion / sense phenomena, concepts / cognitive representations, or explaining multiple minds; it's quite "alien"). But you probably don't care about that.

You will tend to play more consonant than dissonant, hence it will limit you in that way. You're not necessarily limited in what you are able to play, but you are limited in what you will be most inclined to play.

The thing about this solo is not that it's impossible to play, but that it contains some incredibly musical but not music-theoretically standard series of notes. It's what happens when you play music but you don't know or care much about music theory and you simply play what sounds good. And sometimes that let's you play things that sound really really good and interesting but that no person who has learned music theory will ever be privied to play (because they have boxed themselves in and limited their range of accepted notes). And that also goes into my point that music is not something you fundamentally learn in theory, you learn it in practice, you learn it by expressing what your soul hears and feels (I'll refrain from tying this to a discussion of PUA, but I also think this also applies in a big way to communication between other human beings, a.k.a. "being social"; it's something you "do" most fundamentally, and getting boxed in by theory, "getting stuck in your mind", can definitely limit you). 4:00-4:32 This one is also sooo coool: 1:42-2:07 (The solo at 3:05-3:35 is also pretty cool).

@Lucasxp64 Interesting how if this is true, AI tech will be forced to abandon LLMs not because it will be limited in domains that organic systems are more efficient or superior, but because it will be limited in its own domain. And that the answer there also seems to be to recreate or engineer organic systems. I wonder if we will eventually conclude that building sensory-cognitive systems from scratch will be too much of a hassle and that we instead go the cyborg or mutant route trying to create a superintelligent human.

Omni-impotence.

*Me, a non-dual rat, watching a fellow rodent about to be devoured by horny felines*

A nurse giving you the wrong medicine, gg. My physiology and anatomy books when I studied biology were meant for nurse students. It's serious education. You need some way to certify whether they know the basics of things like the human body. A bachelor degree for a nurse is probably reasonable, although I don't know the full curriculum. What are people suggesting, 1-2 year education?

Hmm.

The issue is you want to point to individual cases and paint like an intuitive picture of "surely this would be very very reasonably true", while the legal system, in the case of the death penalty, has always and probably will always use concrete standards and rules that can be applied to each case individually. If you can't provide that, we can't know whether your intuitive idea of a legal system is even possible or if it doesn't already exist somewhere. The job would be much easier if you could say "yes I would vote for the death penalty in this country with this legal system". Right now, your position is essentially "I'm somehow not satisfied with current legal systems and would want a better one but I don't know how". And that makes it harder to say how much you would "accept" innocent lives being lost (we already know you do accept them with "basically 100%", as basically 100% is not equal to actually 100%, unless you want to walk back that statement). And no, Breivik or Columbine is not 100% (unless you have an argument for that). At most close to 100%. I'm just trying to explore whether you have thought through your point to any significant degree. Because if you accuse liberals of not being serious about serious crimes, I would expect some serious thought into the policies for such crimes. If you don't have that, you're perhaps not being very serious. At least "no death penalty under any circumstance" is a clear policy position.

I walked outside in the rain some days ago and then the day after, I had the Stinky Shoe awakening. Really annoying "facet of the Absolute" to awaken to. I honestly believe you have two facets of "awakening": transcendence (emptiness, pure being, Oneness) and immanence (love, bliss, kundalini, energy). Whatever else is simply new ways of self-inquiry to tap into such states (or simply having an intellectual understanding of a phenomena). You can imagine yourself as a big balloon stretching out infinitely and have the "Infinite Balloon awakening" or imagine the thing that existed before you were born and have the "Pre-Natal awakening" or where you will be after you die and have the "Post-Mortem awakening", or you can realize that these are ways of self-inquiry (the conceptual mind throwing rocks at itself to make it crack) to induce the experiences of transcendence and/or immanence. Omniscience / omnipresence / omnipotence are different conceptual rocks to throw against yourself to make the veil fall. I personally think a pointer which Leo said once was incredibly effective for me and which you could classify as an omnipotence pointer: "you are creating everything". But the place it lead me, I didn't identify as fundamentally different than where I was lead when I heard and grasped the "you don't exist" pointer. I was just lead there in a different way. As @Eskilon said, omniscience and omnipotence (and I would add omnipresence) are ultimately one; it's just you can look at them from different angles. And then you of course have stages of Enlightenment, but that's essentially an interplay between the two facets and baseline integrations of those.

What do you mean by normie? If they are curious, I would already classify them as "not normie". In any case, I would say whatever comes to mind. One line of thinking I like is making somebody try to imagine/remember where they were before they were born. And that that thing before they were born has always existed and will always exist and it's fundamentally what they are, what they always were and what they will always be.

I did watch it. https://rupertspira.com/blog/if-awareness-is-the-witness-of-experience-doesn-t-this-imply-duality/ The problem with "normies" getting it is not as much in what is actually said. It's mainly in getting an interest or intuition about what it's pointing to, of course beyond the language, and then wanting to pursue that. And then it's using the right language (whatever may work, which can vary from person to person) to induce that understanding. "Language", "thought", "belief", "concepts", etc., these are basic words that can help equally in pointing towards that which arises before and is fundamentally independent of those things.

I mean it's pretty standard guided self-inquiry.