Leo's Teachings Sometimes Gets Me In Trouble

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

How can God be selfish when it's formless. We are playing word semantics here. Good in this sense just means it cannot be bad if it's unlimited and infinite. Selfish can only be where there is form. Please don't ask me if a stone is good. A stone is not sentient, it doesn't have feelings. 

If the reality is formless is beyond good and bad, it's good is the sense that nothing bad could happen, same than the stone, is good because can't be bad, then "good" really means nothing. Then yes, everything is good. Something could appears as bad, even it's good is essence, because good is just absence of "bad"

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, bambi said:

I am missing no point, I can assure you that. Send me your gpt-4 chat and Ill clear it up quickly for you.

In regards to your message, that everything is God, or conciousness, or that everything is an act of God, act of Conciousness or an act of Love, doesnt address remotely the proclamation 'everyone always acts out of good intentions'.

What you are doing is trying to make a basic tautological proposiion: A=A, which is obvious and self-evident, but says absolutely nothing meaninful or insightful about anything.

Its akin to saying rape is an act of the universe, sure, everythign is an act of the universe, so whether thats rape, pooping or eating ice cream is meaningless statement

Ok, you're right. Watch the video that @FlyingLotusshared in the link from his comment to me. It explains it better than I can. You don't have to but, I'm still sticking to what I'm saying and you can keep disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that. I already understood the depth of the message but these things are hard to communicate because they are so radical and profound. Certain points are just being misunderstood and i don't think I can fully communicate them to someone who thinks they already know what I'm trying to communicate.

[Breakingthewall]

21 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

How can God be selfish when it's formless.

But then, everything that has form and wants to live is "bad", because it's selfish. Then it's going to kill if it's necessary. But that doesn't mean that's bad, bad is just a human concept that comes from the idea of what we don't like that happens to us. Bad is anything that we don't like, good, what we like. Destroy seems bad, because we don't want be destroyed. Then we perceive as bad anything that is destructive, and if it's something that has an ego who "knows" what's is bad and good, it's evil, bad and intentionally bad....but the thing is that bad is just an idea

Edited October 14 by Breakingthewall

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

But then, everything that has form and wants to live is "bad", because it's selfish. Then it's going to kill if it's necessary. But that doesn't mean that's bad, bad is just a human concept that comes from the idea of what we don't like that happens to us. Bad is anything that we don't like, good, what we like. Destroy seems bad, because we don't want be destroyed. Then we perceive as bad anything that is destructive, and it's that is something that has an ego who "knows" what's is bad and good, it's evil, bad and intentional bad....but the thing is that bad is just an idea

Hard to communicate these things with words. People have different definitions for different words. Yes, bad is just an idea so is good.

[bambi]

3 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok, you're right. Watch the video that @FlyingLotusshared in the link from his comment to me. It explains it better than I can. You don't have to but, I'm still sticking to what I'm saying and you can keep disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that. I already understood the depth of the message but these things are hard to communicate because they are so radical and profound. Certain points are just being misunderstood and i don't think I can fully communicate them to someone who thinks they already know what I'm trying to communicate.

No, what Im saying is: you simply dont understand at all yourself, and your deeply confused. 

Such that you trying to engage in any meaningful discussion around this subject is pointless, no offence. You haven't at all comprehended what Leo is trying to say yourself or thought for yourself about it, that much is clear.

If you are struggling, why not use AI to help you develop your thoughts, and then post that

[Thought Art]

His Teachings or your talking?

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Princess Arabia said:

Hard to communicate these things with words. People have different definitions for different words. Yes, bad is just an idea so is good.

Just trying to understand if really something could be defined as bad. Let's say that bad would be when you go against other will. If anything has will of survive and you kill, you are acting "bad", of is has will to be free and you enjail, etc. Then in relationship with other being with will you could be bad, and there is no good in deep, you are "bad", and being bad is power, because you are exercising power over others. In human society they try to make this disappear, but there is a lot of "bad", and in the past were basically everything bad. Just power relationships

[Princess Arabia]

13 minutes ago, bambi said:

No, what Im saying is: you simply dont understand at all yourself, and your deeply confused. 

Such that you trying to engage in any meaningful discussion around this subject is pointless

Why is it hard for you to communicate without throwing punches at people. You keep saying I don't mean to be rude and no offense. None taken. But the same way, you're saying trying to engage in any meaningful conversation is pointless I could say the same thing. You haven't once asked me any questions about what I truly mean in anything I said, Nor made any queries to ne about what I'm trying to communicate, to be clear yourself that I'm really misunderstanding what he's saying. I'm not saying this is nor isn't the case, but those are signs someone gives to communicate to the other that they are really interested in know clearly and without any doubt that the other person is obviously misunderstanding the message. Maybe it's you that hasn't understood the message, not saying that's the case, but a deeper inquiry and questioning the other is a sure sign that you even care to truly understand what they're communicating and that maybe you're just misunderstanding them. All this doesn't have to be done but to tell the other person with such surety that they are misunderstanding the message, to me, warranties this process. I rest this case thanks for your input.

Edited October 14 by Princess Arabia

[Breakingthewall]

For example, me in some moments I fished with a harpoon snorkeling, then I would get into the water, and I would do the " bad" during some hours. I tried to show no mercy, since it seemed like I should, but I really didn't like the feeling at all. I liked the search, the hunt, but I didn't like the act of killing at all, in fact it seemed miserable and disgusting to me. It was definitely "bad". I really feel those fishes as brothers, but even that I killed them , because if not I should be vegetarian , and Im not. 

Edited October 14 by Breakingthewall

[bambi]

3 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Why is it hard for you to communicate without throwing punches at people. You keep saying I don't mean to be rude and no offense. None taken. But the same way, you're saying trying to engage in any meaningful conversation is pointless I could say the same thing. You haven't once asked me any questions about what I truly mean in anything I said, Nor made any queries to ne about what I'm trying to communicate, to be clear yourself that I'm really misunderstanding what he's saying. I'm not saying this is nor isn't the case, but those are signs someone gives to communicate to the other that they are really interested in know clearly and without any doubt that the other person is obviously misunderstanding the message. Maybe it's you that hasn't understood the message, not saying that's the case, but a deeper inquiry and questioning the other is a sure sign that you even care to truly understand what they're communicating and that maybe you're just misunderstanding them. All this doesn't have to be done but to tell the other person with such surety that they are misunderstanding the message, to me, warranties this process. I rest this case thanks for your input.

You are 110% misunderstanding, thats why you are incapable of communicating your point of view, dont kid yourself here

I fully understand all of the perspectives from tangible to metaphysical, theyre not difficult for me tbh, I just have no idea what your trying to say, as you dont even know yourself lol

I already conclusively gave you the answer in the beginning, and then repeatedly all the way to the AI chatbot.

I also addressed what it is your probably trying to say: that everything is an act of God, and God is ultimately Good and Love, therefore everyones intentions and actions are ultimately God, Good or Love. But your in the land of pointless tautologies when communicating this

There are only a finite set of ideas, points or arguments you can be trying to convey or make

[Breakingthewall]

@Princess Arabia @bambiits the moment of the trial by combat. Only one can be right: who survives 

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Beautifully said, thank you.

Thank you. And you're welcome.  

[zurew]

Sounds like playing a wordgame where you define good intention in a way where there cannot be any bad intention.

Which is fine (people can use different definitions for the same given phrase), but the issue is when we pretend that we address a problem that we don't really address - rather what we do is redefine things in a way where we don't even touch upon the original problem. 

So if I define X as Y and you give a different definition for X and say X is Z and then make an argument  - that case you are not really responding to me (you are not really addressing the underlying fact of the matter in question [Y] you are talking about something completely different [Z]).

So even though we use the same phrase [X] we talk about substantially different things (I talk about [Y] and you talk about [Z])

 

 

Now bringing this abstract thing inside the context of this discussion - If colloquially bad intention is defined something like "having an intent to harm or do damage to someone" and then you or Leo create a different definition for bad intention (for example  - an impossible thing) then that isn't really responding to the original question of whether there is at least one person in the world who has an intent to harm or do damage to someone.

You would just say that  wanting to harm others or do damage to others would be still considered a good intention under your semantics, but under colloquial semantics it would be considered bad intent.

So when you or Leo say there is no such thing as bad intent - you are equivocating and using a completely different definition compared to what a normie has in mind and you are not really solving or responding to the bad intent that the normie has in mind.

The substance of ( wanting to do harm or do damage to someone ) is true and real under both semantics ,the difference is the label that you put on it. But giving it a different label wont make the substance go away.

Be careful not to equivocate and try to respond to the underlying fact of the matter.

Edited October 15 by zurew

[IronFoot]

I definitely feel it about these teachings getting me into trouble.

These days I tend to avoid talking about philosophy or actualized.org with people unless I already know they are on the same wave length.  I definitely don’t bring up actualized if I don’t think they are would even finish a video.

For some reason people in my neck of the woods will start asking me about Leo’s credentials on whatever topic I was showing them as if I am supposed to be an expert on him. Or they go into the whole cult narrative.  I find this super irritating as the actualized videos are almost always my best reference point when talking about philosophy (since they always paint such a clear picture). 

People will find any way they can to discredit this stuff.  If they can find an argument to make the concept seem evil/ unethical, schizophrenic, or criticize the speaker, then they never have to seriously contemplate any of it.  I think these conversations that “get you in trouble” are really just people’s egos trying to get as much distance possible between themselves and these ideas.

 

 

Edited October 15 by IronFoot

[Thought Art]

@zurew Our soldiers go to war to protect our country and fight for freedom - which entails doing harm to someone…

Is that a good or bad intentions.

—- 

You make good points!

—-

 

Edited October 15 by Thought Art

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@zurew Our soldiers go to war to protect our country and fight for freedom - which entails doing harm to someone…

Is that a good or bad intentions.

I didnt provide a perfectly clear definition for bad intent , I gave a rather vague one, my main point was that if a definition is given then use that definition in a consistent way and dont equivocate or if you want to go with a different semantic then make it clear or use a new label.(This main point applies even if my definition is bad)

But to answer - If its an entailment then its much harder to categorize .  I need to make my ealier definition more specific and narrow it down in order to answer your question. I would change the definition to "Your main goal is to do damage or to harm someone " then you have bad intent. Given this more narrow definition , I think the answer to your question would be good intent (if the soldiers main goal isn't to harm or to do damage to the other country, but to protect their country).

Edited October 15 by zurew

[Kid A]

My impression is that the view of morality is one of the areas where people, especially in the West, are the least developed. People seem to be very stuck in Stage Blue here and seem pretty terrified of the idea that morality is completely relative. 

[Princess Arabia]

16 hours ago, Thought Art said:

His Teachings or your talking?

Not necessary. Criticisms don't enlighten.

[Princess Arabia]

9 hours ago, zurew said:

So when you or Leo say there is no such thing as bad intent - you are equivocating and using a completely different definition compared to what a normie has in mind and you are not really solving or responding to the bad intent that the normie has in mind.

This is the issue. Even with people here on this forum, it's hard for them to see the nuance.

[Princess Arabia]

9 hours ago, IronFoot said:

I definitely feel it about these teachings getting me into trouble.

These days I tend to avoid talking about philosophy or actualized.org with people unless I already know they are on the same wave length.  I definitely don’t bring up actualized if I don’t think they are would even finish a video.

For some reason people in my neck of the woods will start asking me about Leo’s credentials on whatever topic I was showing them as if I am supposed to be an expert on him. Or they go into the whole cult narrative.  I find this super irritating as the actualized videos are almost always my best reference point when talking about philosophy (since they always paint such a clear picture). 

People will find any way they can to discredit this stuff.  If they can find an argument to make the concept seem evil/ unethical, schizophrenic, or criticize the speaker, then they never have to seriously contemplate any of it.  I think these conversations that “get you in trouble” are really just people’s egos trying to get as much distance possible between themselves and these ideas.

 

 

Thank you. You got the drift of what I'm saying here. I don't really talk to people any more about Leo and his content. I did when I first discovered him until I realized I was really unto something here because people were disinterested or couldn't compute what the hell i was saying. I'm talking about before I even got so deep into spirituality. I was like a kid in a candy store. Now it's more engrained and first nature and embodied and who goes around talking about their hands.

The topic at hand was more about human behavior and I figured I would try to explain the not so obvious, but to someone who was not so ready to hear it. I really don't see anybody else online discussing the topic at all in such depth as Leo does, so I couldn't reference anyone else; but the post was more about how I found myself having to explain away how I don't condone such behavior from tyrants more than them even trying to understand where I was coming from. 

This is a perfect example of you live and you learn; because it's not so much about Leo and his teachings, but topics that are metaphysically philosophical. I'll just stick to the "yeah, people are just assholes and this is just life" theories from normies when having a conversation with them.

Edited October 15 by Princess Arabia