Carl-Richard

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a26cd3e-d82c-83eb-9d2d-85e5e78f0ed3

@Natasha Tori Maru @Inliytened1 😅 Just curious, how often do you guys look up unfamiliar words when you read them?

@Inliytened1 Bruh I meant to say "divergence", not "convergence" 🫠 I can understand the confusion now.

When things get sufficiently removed from oneself into the past, we start to view it more through aesthetic than the brutal factual reality. We see this with the Vikings, pirates, Romans, Spartans. We start viewing them as cool, even noble somehow, perhaps despite the factual reality, and we even identify with them. Look at the Norwegian football fans during the World Cup role-playing as Vikings with their "Ro!" chant. The Vikings were essentially what Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida are today. Violent, ruthless killers, slaughtering everyone in their way, doing surprise attacks on larger cities and settlements. Norwegians are terrified of Islamic terrorists, yet they identify with the Vikings. The distinction is the separation of the far past and the immediate threat towards their survival. Remove the immediate threat to survival and you start viewing them in a different light. "But their ideology is different, that's why Norwegians don't like Islamic terrorists". Yes, different from their own, so it threatens their survival because it threathens them now. But is it really different from the ideology of the Vikings if you look at the pure structure rather than the content? Violent Islamic jihadism is not really that dissimilar from violent Norse paganism. Also, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, who couldn't be more different from oneself ideologically, also get the aesthetic treatment. There is even the idea that they were somehow enlightened or peaceful, living in perfect harmony with nature with egalitarian and matriarchical tribal structures, when that probably couldn't be further from the truth. This image crashes immediately once you replace "pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers" with "uncontacted jungle savages", and you see how when you meet these people in the present, you will end up with an arrow through your eye before anything else you can "gather" from them (talk about "aesthetics"). And of course, pirates get the Johnny Depp treatment, the Romans get the "every movie ever made about Ancient Rome" treatment, Spartans get the movie "300" treatment, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if 1000 years into the future and if violent Islamic jihadism has somehow become a thing of the past, Norwegians (or whatever they're called) start viewing violent Islamic jihadists as something cool, a bit like pirates, or the Vikings.

"I don't categorize him, I just describe him using a category". 🥴 Well, I don't care about "accolades" or "being a great teacher like those others". I care about what is actually being said.

What kind of research are you doing?

If you want to categorize Leo as grandiose, you can at least categorize yourself as a non-dual person. Non-dual people tend to be allergic to categorization, so that's not far off And some of them seem to be allergic to categorization more when it suits them rather than as a consistent principle 🤭 If you don't get the point of talking of one's own view in clear terms and not conflating one's view with others, then do that. I'm just providing a suggestion, something which I think makes sense.

Bruh 😂 When he says being a backflipping alien mouse is one of the highest states of consciousness he has been in, a non-dual person would say that's Maya/illusion/form/"experience". When a non-dual person talks about "higher consciousness", they don't talk about alien mice or turning into an alien on camera. They talk about something more "vacuous", like Being, presence, is-ness. And that's not Maya, it's truth.

If Leo wanted to end his beef with non-dual spiritual people, he would go in the philosopher direction of finding an own term for what he is about rather than siphon it under existing words like "consciousness" or "awakening". That's the true alpha/sigma move. Then you can actually say "you don't know what I'm talking about" and it would make more sense. But if you instead want to use existing terms and create a hierarchy where you're on the top and you get to judge and compare, then of course it makes sense to keep using the same terms. The point of divergence is that what non-dual people call fantasy and Maya (forms, experiences), Leo calls higher levels of consciousness. Some suggestions: Infinitability — the degree to which you have uncovered the realm of form through your experience, approaching the infinite. Formiousness. Multitudiousness. Experienciousness. Leo can still use words like consciousness and awakening, but if he also gives such definitions for the ways in which he is different from other approaches (I believe existing terms like "Alien Consciousness" are ill-defined and don't capture his larger approach), it's more understandable to act as a leading (if not a #1) arbiter of that perspective. This is not a new suggestion of mine, I suggested this 5 years ago with the "psychonautics vs spirituality" distinction. But this is perhaps more descriptive of the ontological differences rather than the methodological ones (psychonautics, with its association to psychedelics, can tend to be viewed more as a method than what is being aimed at).

"Hate" is a strong word. It's more like call it what it is when it's brought attention to rather than ignore it or be in denial. And of course when grandiosity is defended through less than kind and virtuous means, that should also be called what it is.

A wind-up toy can walk for a bit before it stops, yes.

When it's one's own culture/ancestors, it's even more powerful because you "were" them and the identification is more obvious (simple "our side", in-group vs out-group dynamic), but it even happens with other cultures, given sufficient distance into the past. You might feel more pulled to justify the ills of your own ancestors (just like you justify your own ills today), while other people in the past you just view as more neutral because their ills don't affect you (you don't perhaps feel as pulled to justify them but simply ignore them).

AI Chatbots are like calculators. If you give them the right input, they can perform the most incredible tasks a human could not perform in 100x the time. But it stops about right there.

I don't think it was a full enlightenment, limbo state remember? Anyways, one glimpse, many glimpses, doesn't change the fundamental point really.

A feeling of responsibility to help someone in need vs responsibility for them getting to that place are not the same thing.

I'm just preemptively clenching my anus for when somebody points at me in the same fashion to explain comments like your's and threads like Zeroguy's, "this is your creation", since I started talking about cults and all. And Leo did not find it funny at all let's say that.

@AION Bruh stop. If there was something that created Connor, it was Ayahuasca and his bipolar tendencies.

A glimpse into truth doesn't fix an unstable ego. It can start the process of fixing it. But it doesn't automatically fix itself. A radical experience can leave a lasting imprint and cause what seems like serenity on the surface, and it can also cause a radical neurotic and obsessive bungee smack. Bipolar mania has many of the signs of neurosis and obsession, that you get hyper-fixated on certain things and it seems extremely profound, but there is also a restlessness and resistance. A manic person who is not resisting is just in bliss, their mind is silent, where does the energy go? To create bliss. That's especially how kundalini awakening can either cause immense bliss or immense contraction and not coincidentally mania. You're just upping the energy levels. How you deal with it, how reactive your ego is or self-fueled it is, that's what dictates whether it's chaotic and difficult or calm and pleasant. A subtle nuance is that your mind could probably still be "psychotic" while being in a non-dual state, but that would have to be in the realm of thought content ("thought disorder") rather than immense contraction and the associated restlessness, neurosis, perhaps more in the direction of schizophrenia than bipolar mania (although both see worsening of symptoms under elevated stress and energy levels). Like you could imagine someone who has immense calm but their mind is simply computing things quite differently than other people.

I asked Nick Fuentes "Nick you mention non-dualism/perennialism sometimes. Is there a baby in the bathwater there (mystical experience)? U had one?" and he answered "I've never had a mystical experience, no". But he seems to know what it is because he answered it immediately (not surprising of course if you know about non-dualism/perennialism). But man, I was expecting like an answer on why non-dualism/perennialism is bullshit and why Christianity is the goat but he just skimmed right over that :Z It's at 4:20:36: https://rumble.com/v7ciea8-america-first-ep.-1713.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_f

How so? Can anybody link direct information from the police and not news articles that allege the police said something?

I post a lot about virtuosity (sheer technical skill), but on the other "side" you have people who are very into songwriting and creating a certain refined sound perhaps by chasing an internal vision of what they want to see. A band that has recently stood out to me there is Sybreed. Think Krautrock, industrial, Rammstein, with prog and djent elements, and then just this soulfulness that is hard to pin down but it's just there, pure clear inspiration. Another band like this is Cynic (similarly ecclectic but still highly visionary and intuitively attuned; in fact I know of no other band that sounds like Cynic even in terms of the genre, not just the visionary signature).

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

I had a thought that what most "shredders" (people who play fast guitar) do is their either don't improvise, or if they do improvise, they play very simple and isolated and repetitive phrases that usually don't connect to a larger story (or it jumps into a quite different story, one at a lower level of speed and intensity). They do the equivalent of saying very fast "I like cake, I like cake, I like cake" and then maybe "I like muffins, I like muffins, I like muffins", and then they go to singing more slowly "Oooh cake, caaake...... cake" or "Broccoli! Kale! That's what I like". Meanwhile someone like Shawn Lane, Guthrie Govan or Allan Holdsworth are like really fast like Eminem rapgod speed "I went down to the market to buy some cake and then I saw this lady with this massive cake and I thought 'damn, how much does that cost?', probably priceless if you ask me". They tell a whole story, they do interesting and funny things, like Guthrie Govan especially, he is like a guitar comic, he tells literal jokes on the instrument, some sounds and deliveries (lead ups and punchlines) he makes are so surprising and crazy but also witty and they make sense, they make you laugh, like how Theo Von talks almost all the time. And again, all while playing at lightspeed. It's one of those cases of having both a high IQ and high cognitive complexity (which usually translates to genius), or simply being tapped into pure creative intelligence. Watch this: And then this: https://youtu.be/I7AaKrHgK1A?t=312&is=HooO5XrolcOOxe-5 Or this:

My favorite 🤩

You're God but God has humans in it and we love humans. And so that nobody gets the wrong idea, my "cult critiques" (if you can even call them that) do not involve drawing histrionic associations to people dying. That would be a "corruption" of those critiques. There is no good statistical argument for that as far as I'm concerned, certainly not a guy allegedly jumping in a lake and getting a cramp in his leg 5 years after ever interacting with this place. Although I understand why somebody who might be affected by somebody's passing would want to try to make sense of it by drawing such connections. Religions all throughout history have questioned the veracity or realness of death, physical reality, and you can find so many ways to attribute someone's death to those ideas, yet they're ubiquitous and people don't tend to question it to the same level as more "cult" variations on the same phenomena. And yes, mentally unstable people can get caught in such ideas in less than ideal ways, or they just do mentally insane things, and mentally insane things transpire. That's a cause for caution, but should you throw all such ideas under the bus because of mentally unstable people? Probably not. But I also say we should probably have guardrails which do not currently exist in our culture for many people who instead go to cults and take in open source information without any proper guidance. Call it a new religion, with institutions, norms, that allows some sense of protection for people engaging in such ideas. But there too, mentally insane people will a find a way to be mentally insane.