Carl-Richard

There is a pre-trans way of critiquing science, as with anything. Both pre-trans with respect to your own knowledge of the topic and also the people you're labelling as supposedly stupid. Many people think all religious people are stupid. Yet you'll discover there are smart religious people and that it's more that stupid people are stupid. That can come from deepening your understanding of religion or just finding people who are not "stupid" and are religious. You can also find stupid atheists, as well as smart ones. Same with science. It's easy to label all scientists as stupid once you get a taste of something else. But then you might discover that there are scientists who share your understanding and that those who seem stupid are stupid people in those clothes. "Scientist" in the sense of "scientism" is not the same as "scientist" in the sense of "scientist". Just like a religious person is not the same as a dogmatic literalist fundamentalist who knows no alternative. Try asking what Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, Rupert Sheldrake, think are the limitations of science. They are scientists, yet I will confidently bet they will give an answer that is not just on par but 10x better than Leo. If you don't know something deeply, you don't know its full limitations. You can be blind to it by immersion, of course, but even granting that, these people I listed I will bet you a lot of money dwarf Leo despite that. You can spend 20 years contemplating what are the limitations of a wooden structure like the Kon-Tiki and you will miss all the knowledge you'll only get from sailing it across the Pacific, or heck simply getting an education as a carpenter that can build it.

Anyone wanna join my new religious movement (NRM) thread? It's not a cult (That's a joke, the thread doesn't exist 😃).

Dw babe, I understand. 🏃 Specifically "babe" as pronounced in this clip:

51% of scientists believe in God and/or an universal spirit or higher power. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ "But scientist doopid" 😛

Don't 🤮

Pfft, how can it be a cult if they (ostensibly) don't practice 'mind control' (only ironically), they are (ostensibly) free to leave, you can participate online, and everybody is a having a yolly ol' good time?

Easy for you to say, frenchie.

You have a "wrong" understanding of cults, I'm sorry

@Nahm is pretty spiritually attuned, the dozens of other people he banned (who spoke unapologetically about non-duality and called out Leo on his behavior early when it started to spiral downwards), and also those who conspired together with Nahm to create a new forum (and subsequently got banned). To me, the post-2021 era was a spiritual dark age for the forum and we're still living through it.

Zurew knew the potential outcome, but sometimes integrity requires sacrifice. The smartest and most spiritually attuned people on the forum eventually end up getting banned. That's the pattern.

He makes a lot of points that his "incomprehensive style" was to blame, but parts of his post and his overall behavior on the forum for the last 5 years points in another direction (and as if Leo himself didn't have a problem with people "not understanding" him; he did, still does, according to him). There have been direct threats to ban people talking about non-duality; there have been people who were banned for talking about non-duality in a way that opposed Leo's teachings. It's all documented in the cult discussion thread which you will now get banned for participating in (in a way that does not agree with Leo).

The joke is I don't think a cult is a bad thing yet you can get banned for thinking something is a cult 😃 Leo thinks it's a bad thing of course, and disagreeing with him on that fact (or whether Actualized.org is a cult) is supposedly a red line for him. But that was not why the three mods got demoted (thinking Actualized.org is a cult), not as far as I could gather. But even the reason those mods got demoted and not at least two more, seems inconsistent to me and there was no explanation (except "vibe") on that inconsistency. The stated reason for my demotion (and presumably the others) was I purportedly "like to undermine some of the deepest things" Leo is trying to teach. Presumably, Leo's deepest teachings are not about whether Actualized.org is a cult or not. I think it was about calling his teachings (in the perspective of non-dualism) "Maya", illusion, form, experience, relative, not Absolute (which if that qualifies as "undermining" his deepest teachings, then fair enough, dramatic, but hey, if you believe you believe). But then, the two not-demoted mods I'm referring to seem to regularly echo my points in that realm. So again, it seems inconsistent. But hey, I've been speaking about inconsistencies quite some time now, it's not that I'm expecting anything different. Just know it's not only about whether Actualized.org is a cult or not that you should be afraid to discuss openly. It's about discussing non-dualism, Enlightenment, in contrast to Leo's teachings. This fact I believe was well-established already 5 years ago when @Nahm was demoted. Him speaking "incomprehensively" I don't believe was the reason. It was him actively "undermining" Leo's teachings. History repeats itself.

I think Actualized.org is a new religious movement, a social group with deviant beliefs relative to society with religious tendencies. Now ban me ;P

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).