CQ - Contextual Intelligence? Let's find a term for Guru-contextual-knowledge.

[Maximo Casas]

Context of post:

While watching the Video "Understanding Recontextualization": Leo pointed out at the end, that Gurus give advice based on the context of their advice seekers. Based on the Context the seeker is in, he gives the next step of personal growth for his personal context and could be able to give different people with the same exact problem a contrary advice.

Leo described it like a knowing, a sort of experience about contexts a guru has towards his students.
 

Idea:

So, this is a new field of "intelligence" (like emotional intelligence or the IQ in general) that is going to become more significant as more and more people are going to go into turquoise/yellow states of consciousness.

We will find a word/term for that "intelligence" that a guru has about contexts.

First, I wanted to propose in advance the term "contextual intelligence", but as stated on this website: There is already a contextual intelligence.
In one sentence, the contextual intelligence is defined by "Contextual intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge to real world scenarios and situations."

It's kind of similar because the guru has knowledge about something and applies it to real world scenarios. BUT the important difference is, that he looks at the individual worldview and context of the student and gives him advice based on that.

A "classic" contextual intelligent person would give to the different persons with the same problem the same advice even though it perhaps doesn't fit the context of some person. The guru does not do that.

So we obviously will distinguish these two contextual intelligences:
 

Contextual intelligence and...     ? Oh there is none(!) until today:

 

Now it is your turn to propose a new word for this kind of guru-contextual-intelligence or gcq! Let's go!

[Maximo Casas]

I will start:

 

Meta Contextual Intelligence (abbreviation: MCQ)

[MAYA EL]

Infinite + understanding =infinstanding? Meaning Limitless understanding.  Abbreviation being "IS" ... idk just pulled that one out of my hat lol

[Leo Gura]

It's just intelligence.

Intelligence must be contextual, otherwise it's not very intelligent.

Intelligence is a universal property of consciousness which can range from 0 to infinity and everything in between. Infinite Intelligence is the universe's total and complete self-understanding. Which is a real thing.

[Maximo Casas]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It's just intelligence.

Intelligence is must be contextual, otherwise it's not very intelligent.

Intelligence is a universal property of consciousness which can range from 0 to infinity and everything in between. Infinite Intelligence is the universe's total and complete self-understanding. Which is a real thing.

Wow, so we'll overwrite the definition of intelligence one day. Seems legit to my ego, that we will include the contextual property of it into intelligence itself.

So it turns out that everything is intelligent, even Trump, even Stalin and everything and everyone. Any kind of intelligence is part of that.

This post opens the mind to stop even more criticising everybody! The materialists, the dictators, the fundamentalists, even "me" as I am not fully awake to non-materialism or non-paradigm.

Do you have a Video on the topic to free oneself up of all paradigms (Maybe in the video "understanding how paradigms work"?)? -> Nevermind, I found out: It's in all Videos about non-duality, Why brains not exist and how paradigms work.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Maximo Casas

[Angelite]

There is no inbetween 0 and infinity..

Infinite and zero is the same. 

 

If you have numbers inbetween the two then you don't understand i n f i n i t y 

and zero.

 

[skywords]

I'm trying to ENGAGE Leo in a personal dialog about a New Paradigm, I call ENGAGEMENT.   Since this proposed dialog hasn't happened yet, I'm busy preparing an "Open Letter To Leo."  But, until then, I'd like to offer the following, to you, Maximo, regarding CQ.

I believe that our "enlightenment" would be greatly enhanced through the application of the  ENGAGEMENT paradigm.

How does THE ENGAGEMENT paradigm apply to the questions of "intelligence," "context," "gurus," "understanding"?

It "sublates," synthesizes, incorporates, integrates them all, under the banner of the following fundamental insights:

1.   Everyone is equally God.  It doesn't matter whether one is a "guru," or in "stage purple, turquoise/yellow," whatever.
2.   There is Only This Now.  ABSOLUTELY any and all paradigms that are predicated upon some privileging of some "better/worse" past or future, are engaging in demonizing, or "less than-ing" the Present Moment.
3.   Thus, no one/thing is better in any way shape or form, than anyone/thing else, and thus, comparing one intelligence to another is sublated (transcended, included, yet incorporated into an integrated Now) into THIS ETERNAL FULL ENGAGEMENT: NOW.
4. If one is to engage in making comparisons, metrics, between some category and some other category, it would simply be in terms of how to communicate one's degree of engagement to another person.  It becomes a question of COMMUNICATION  of engagement, in the now, between two people.  For example, "I am presently most engaged in the beauty of your eyes, and find discussion over the price of these eggs, meaningless."

Maximo, does this make any sense?

[Leo Gura]

48 minutes ago, Maximo Casas said:

So it turns out that everything is intelligent, even Trump, even Stalin and everything and everyone. Any kind of intelligence is part of that.

Yes, of course. Even Trump and Stalin are very intelligent things. Their ego just gets in the way of access to God's infinite intelligence. But never totally. Even the most evil humans still use God's intelligence to do their evil. In fact, evil is highly intelligent. But nowhere near as intelligent as Goodness and Love.

[Angelite]

@skywords that's why intention is key. 

Free will is key. (Re : freedom of intention.)

 

[skywords]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, of course. Even Trump and Stalin are very intelligent things. Their ego just gets in the way of access to God's infinite intelligence. But never totally. Even the most evil humans still use God's intelligence to do their evil. In fact, evil is highly intelligent. But nowhere near as intelligent as Goodness and Love.

"But Leo!," don't you see that when you call ppl "evil," or "ego" driven, you are ABSOLUTELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY, DEMONIZING THEM?  What I want you to engage in, is a discussion, with me, over just this.  And what I'm proposing is that, instead of living in an imaginary future/past, where there is no imaginary "evil/ego/devilry," we live in an Eternal Present, where there is just "my engagement" in this, and "my disengagement from" that...  

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, skywords said:

you are ABSOLUTELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY, DEMONIZING THEM?

Nope, not at all. Those are relative labels. You have to understand the relative framework in which I use those terms.

From the Absolute perspective there is no evil.

[skywords]

Thank you for your response.  

Of course, I agree with you.  And I expect that you will agree with me that relative terms are "grounded" in absolute terms.  

What I'm proposing is that As God, you/I/we/them/it, are grounded in the absolute of ENGAGEMENT.

When we are fully ENGAGED, we are most in the Now, In The Conversation, In The Relationship With Other ~ In Manifesting As God.

I don't know if this is clear.  

But in an attempt to elaborate, when you say that Stalin, for example, was "evil," what you're really saying to me, in any case, is that you don't want to engage in his behavior, RELATIVE, to, say, someone else's behavior, someone you admire, like, maybe, Osho, say.

But, what I'm saying is, that if you fully groked what Stalin/Osho really was, that is, God ~ if you fully engaged in seeing them fully, entirely, in all their Godhood, you would grok that they were no more and no less engaged in being God, than you, yourself.

See, that's why I want to talk to you on the phone, at least.  Because that way I can immediately get whether you're engaged fully enough with me to grok me.  And, of course, conversely, you would be able to immediately grok whether I'm fully engaged enough with you, to get you:  to experience your Godhood.

?

Edited December 14, 2019 by skywords

[Leo Gura]

@skywords You're not telling me anything new. You're just speaking from the perspective of the Absolute while I was speaking from the relative.

The relative perspective is important functionally, from the POV of survival. A society cannot be built if you regard outcomes like Stalin as of equal value as that of the Buddha. Even though of course in the absolute sense they are of equal value.

I have discussed all of this before. You're conflating relative and absolute domains.

There is no need to convince me of your paradigm. All paradigms and formulations of the Absolute are partial and relative. If you like your paradigm, fine. But convincing me of it a waste of time.

[skywords]

Leo, with all due respect, and I GREATLY ADMIRE YOU, my interpretation, and I'm sure this is new  to you, I am certain no one has ever said this to you:

My interpretation of what you've just written, is that:

you don't find what I say engaging enough for you to do anything more than dismiss it, because you have other competing  interests, preoccupations, and priorities, in this singular moment in time, and they, and they alone, are preventing you from contemplating the repercussions of my statement.

No one has ever said to you:

"Leo, you have yet to avail yourself of the freedom to dedicate dramatically more serene, graceful time, contemplating, and experiencing the awareness of  just how fully  to engage with another person, in their entirety.  I'd like for you to eye gaze with X, Y & Z, for at least 2 hours each, before you presume to fully sense just what they might be conveying to you."

This, I'm sure, is New  to you, Leo.

As I say,

with all due respect,

because

I TOTALLY ADMIRE YOU, AND CONSIDER YOU TO BE A GENUINE GENIUS, ARTIST, GAME CHANGER, AND HISTORICAL FIGURE OF ENORMOUS CULTURALLY TRANSFORMATIVE SIGNIFICANCE.

ps:  birds are not mammals, as you mistakenly stated in one of your youtubes.    I know you know this, just wanted to tease you a little.  I'm not "serious," I prefer the word "fully engaged."  I'm FULLY ENGAGED.  That's more "serious" than "serious."  It's truly authentic.

Edited December 14, 2019 by skywords

[Leo Gura]

@skywords Look dude, I got better things to do that play games with you.

Drop it and live your life. I will live mine.

[skywords]

EXACTLY WHAT I JUST SAID!!!!  YOU'RE TOO PREOCCUPIED TO SEE ME AUTHENTICALLY.

WOW!!!!

LEO:  I'M GENUINELY AFRAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BURN OUT.  YOU DON'T GET THAT I'M NOT PLAYING GAMES AND THAT I ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOU.

I'M TRULY SORRY THAT YOU DON'T GET THAT.

 

[remember]

he will not - you are not the first to predict that and you won’t be the last. and if he will, he will take his time to get on his feet again. why eye gazing when people already gaze here? you are on eye height and you are not, why should there be a difference between x, y, z and even l (you still must find out if it is a l or an I )

Edited December 14, 2019 by remember
your eye, my eye, everyone’s eyes - we all throw it at him. and he throws it back.

[skywords]

see below

Edited December 14, 2019 by skywords

[skywords]

@remember

  49 minutes ago, remember said:

"he will not - you are not the first to predict that and you won’t be the last. and if he will he will take his time to get on his feet again. why eye gazing when people already gaze here? you are on eye height and you are not, why should there be a difference between x, y, z and even l (you still must find out if it is an l or an I )"

What are you saying?  I have trouble with your post because it isn't edited, so I can't tell whether you're making grammatical mistakes or intentional points.

I doubt very much that ppl on this forum are routinely eye gazing.  I don't think you know what Eye Gazing is.  And I don't think you've ever done it.  Or have you?  You tell me.  But assure me that you've done some research on it, and aren't just using the words, "eye gazing," randomly.

Lastly, as Leo appropriately insists, focus on your own experience, don't rely on mere logic.  When you ask, "why should there be a difference," you're asking a logical question.  I'm not referring to logic.  I'm saying that each person offers a uniquely eternal and infinite truth, and unless one is familiar with this EXPERIENCE, one doesn't know what I'm talking about.

So, bluntly, Remember, you don't know what I'm talking about:  Experientially, That Is.

Hope this makes sense.  I hope I'm not being too blunt.

Also, "he will not" what??  What are you referring to?

[MAYA EL]

4 hours ago, skywords said:

I'm trying to ENGAGE Leo in a personal dialog about a New Paradigm, I call ENGAGEMENT.   Since this proposed dialog hasn't happened yet, I'm busy preparing an "Open Letter To Leo."  But, until then, I'd like to offer the following, to you, Maximo, regarding CQ.

I believe that our "enlightenment" would be greatly enhanced through the application of the  ENGAGEMENT paradigm.

How does THE ENGAGEMENT paradigm apply to the questions of "intelligence," "context," "gurus," "understanding"?

It "sublates," synthesizes, incorporates, integrates them all, under the banner of the following fundamental insights:

1.   Everyone is equally God.  It doesn't matter whether one is a "guru," or in "stage purple, turquoise/yellow," whatever.
2.   There is Only This Now.  ABSOLUTELY any and all paradigms that are predicated upon some privileging of some "better/worse" past or future, are engaging in demonizing, or "less than-ing" the Present Moment.
3.   Thus, no one/thing is better in any way shape or form, than anyone/thing else, and thus, comparing one intelligence to another is sublated (transcended, included, yet incorporated into an integrated Now) into THIS ETERNAL FULL ENGAGEMENT: NOW.
4. If one is to engage in making comparisons, metrics, between some category and some other category, it would simply be in terms of how to communicate one's degree of engagement to another person.  It becomes a question of COMMUNICATION  of engagement, in the now, between two people.  For example, "I am presently most engaged in the beauty of your eyes, and find discussion over the price of these eggs, meaningless."

Maximo, does this make any sense?

I'm not sure why anyone should even bother with a new sudo metaphysical concept?  I mean why it's just non-duality in a croissant as opposed to Texas toast . I mean it's just going to complicate things for all the newbies that are already overwhelmed with the rainbow sudo metaphysical emotional and personality color references that Leo has made and I fear that any more information and there heads may start to pop