Leo's LOC (level of consciousness) calibration and kinesiology.

[Callum Milner]

In the book truth vs falsehood (on leo's book list also a must read in my opinion) david hawkins talks about using muscle testing to determine truth from falsehood, you can also than pinpoint where on the universal scale of consciousness ( A scale from 1 to 1000 with the highest 10000 being enlightened avatars like the buddah, jesus christ etc, the lowest being around 10 the level of severe depression commonly followed by suicide) a person's energy is. I thought it would be interesting, to test a bunch of spiritual teachers on this scale. Anything below 200 is considered ultimately destructive (means your worse of being exposed to them to varying degrees) anything above 200 is seen as supportive of life and beneficial to all. Using testing around 70-80% of the worlds population is seen to be below 200 so it is uncommon to be over this.

- Leo gura: Leo calibrated at 310 this is the level of willingness the life view is hopeful and god view is inspiring. This is a very good level for a teacher to be at it means they have overcome inner resistance and are willing to participate in life. This means actualized.org is a positive force on it's audience and generally beneficial to all who use it.

-Byron Katie: calibrates at 565 the level of unconditional love, at this level love and compassion, people at this level feel near constant joy and the world is seen as an expression of love and divinity. This is the level to aspire to in a lifetime.

Another interesting thing to note is the amount of people who drop down into pride ( around 180 level feeling of superiority over others) after making spiritual advances it's easy to think of yourself as special given the feedback from the outside world, which is a huge cause of a drop in consciousness for people, back to the level of pride. Below is a list of teachers with a note able drop.

-Deepak Chopra - Deepak calibrates at 185 the level of pride. At this level it generally feels good and is socially encouraged, but people at pride are still vulnerable because a change in external conditions can drop them down to fear anger etc. Because of the calibration below 200 they are seen as someone to avoid.

- Eckhart tolle- Eckhart calibrates at 265 the level of neutrality. At this level life view is generally neutral, a feeling of whatever happens ill be fine. The interesting thing is eckhart has dropped from 510 at the level of unconditional love, to 265. May possibly be attributed to the constant media presence/fame around him?

 

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

@Callum Milner Lol

You have turned Hawkin's work into self-delusion.

I warned you in the review not to take LOC too seriously.

[Hello from Russia]

For me Leo is way higher than that. And Echkart Tolle too, he looks enlightened as fuck

[Callum Milner]

L

Edited September 16, 2018 by Callum Milner

[InfinitePotential]

These LOCs seem low. Of course, the concept of LOC is a bit far fetched. We couldn’t say “Eckhart Tolle is LOC level X”, as if Eckhart Tolle is some permanent entity with objective qualities. I think talking about LOC levels of books and teachings is more relevant tbh. 

That aside, I’d be very interested in hearing Leo’s take on using muscle testing for any and all practical purposes. Perhaps on an episode. 

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, InfinitePotential said:

I’d be very interested in hearing Leo’s take on using muscle testing for any and all practical purposes. Perhaps on an episode.

As this post demonstrates, this muscle testing seems way too flaky and subjective to serve as a reliable measure of truth.

The biggest dangers with it is, once you accept it, you're all-in, and it can really distort your entire worldview because you take the numbers seriously and think you can know everything this way.

I thought a lot about adopting it, but ultimately decided that it is too epistemicly risky. It is more powerful to admit that you don't know than pulling numbers out of your ass and convincing yourself that you know something you don't.

[InfinitePotential]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

As this post demonstrates, this muscle testing seems way too flaky and subjective to serve as a reliable measure of truth.

The biggest dangers with it is, once you accept it, you're all-in, and it can really distort your entire worldview because you take the numbers seriously and think you can know everything this way.

I thought a lot about adopting it, but ultimately decided that it is too epistemicly risky. It is more powerful to admit that you don't know than pulling numbers out of your ass and convincing yourself that you know something you don't.

Seems reasonable. I mean, you’d have to muscle test whether or not muscle testing is valid. And then you’d have to muscle test whether or not muscle testing whether or not muscle testing is valid is valid, ad infinitum. Also there’s the potential for other causes of your muscles going weak... for example fatigued muscles from muscle testing. 

Perhaps it’s a skill that can be cultivated somewhat, but that some people are naturally better at than others. Like how some are more intuitive, psychic, etc. 

I tried it out for a while but would too often get different results on the same question. And I can confirm that it does not work for determining the outcome of a coin flip (although if I had a larger sample size I suspect I might find that the effect was very small but very statistically significant). 

[Leo Gura]

@InfinitePotential The easiest way to test it would be to have 5 different people give their rating of someone like Eckhart Tolle. I would bet a lot of money that all 5 numbers will come out different.

But I have not tried it. If you have a bunch of friends, you could try it.

[InfinitePotential]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

@InfinitePotential The easiest way to test it would be to have 5 different people give their rating of someone like Eckhart Tolle. I would bet a lot of money that all 5 numbers will come out different.

Agreed, and even muscle testing “authorities” like Hawkins and Ramaji disagreed on some LOCs, iirc. 

It would be sick though to have a go to, foolproof method for making decisions, knowing what’s true and false, etc. But maybe that would take a lot of the fun out of things. 

[Joseph Maynor]

LOC (Level of Consciousness) numbers is what happens when the Ego gets a hold of Enlightenment.  But it’s kinda ingenious too because now you have a way to sell your numbers to others as a way to make money off of Enlightenment.  It’s a pyramid scheme kind of thing.  It’s actually sad that Enlightenment has been targeted by such a system.  This is why making money off of Enlightenment can easily lead to doing evil for lack of a better word.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[eleveneleven]

Maybe it's just me, but when I first heard of muscle testing, it seemed like 1000% bullshit to me. Just an excuse to judge others. Whether or not it works even in theory, it could very easily be hijacked by ones more egoic processes. Have a personal issue with someone? "What a coincidence, they calibrate at 20! No wonder I hate them!"

It seems like muscle testing will more likely just tell you about the opinions of the person being tested more than anything else. (All of Hawkins' favorite music, books, and other things seem to "calibrate" so high; what a coincidence.) Even if pushing on someone's arm to receive messages from the universe worked, the person performing the test (and the reader) would have to be extremely free from bias for the messages to get through, I'd imagine.

Having said that, I don't think the universe has an abstract opinion of what "level" of consciousness someone is at, I don't think it assigns numbers to us, and I don't think it sends special messages specifically through the arbitrary stiffness of someone's arm. This is a human invention, utter bullshit used to judge others as superior or inferior. Who cares if Eckhart Tolle calibrates at 500 or 3? His work either resonates with you where you are at or it doesn't. Even if "calibration" worked, what would you use this information for, anyway? To judge someone or something? I don't see what else you would use it for.

[Mirror of Confusion]

Out of curiosity. Which living character would you guys set near to 1000?

Sadhguru? Om Swami? This guy?

 

[Callum Milner]

@Leo Gura why not? Similar thing as spiral dynamics, a way to contextualise someone’s consciousness to see if they’re someone you want to learn from. As long as you don’t go crazy with it  can’t see how it’s harmful and dr Hawkins has been on point with everything I’ve learnt from him so far.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Callum Milner

[Leo Gura]

@Callum Milner Spiral Dynamics is a lot better and more accurate.

[Callum Milner]

@Leo Gura I think for me right now the map of consciousness is more useful because it helps me deal with emotions I face, eg pride fear etc that I need to transcend, compares to the more general view of spiral dynamics. But I appreciate the insight into how this could be used as a trap ? 

[Callum Milner]

@Mirror of Confusion the source I used for these calibrations calibrated I’m swami above 500 but below 600 at the level of unconditional love. In terms of people over 1000 david Hawkins calibrated the great avatars eg the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad.

[EternalForest]

Food for thought: do you think someone at level 1000 would care about other people's level number? 

[Leo Gura]

@Outer Your smartassery is only hurting yourself.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, EternalForest said:

Food for thought: do you think someone at level 1000 would care about other people's level number? 

Precisely!  You nailed it!

[Joseph Maynor]

8 minutes ago, Outer said:

Relax, it's a joke. That LOC stuff is ridiculous.

I know Rali and his cult was all about it, even Mighty Mouse used to joke LOC when they came here. Rali has deleted pretty much all of his videos, removed all comments and removed public invites to his discord.

It's a way to make money off of Enlightenment.  Sales pitch: I will improve your numbers!  Give me money and I will improve your numbers.  

Edited September 17, 2018 by Joseph Maynor