Logic Nation For Actualization

[Emerald]

21 minutes ago, Martin123 said:

@AxelK What do you mean by that? The bread is perfectly fine. The click should help you out greatly if you're stuck in a rut. 
@Emerald Wilkins Would you share on what basis you're gonna build your argument on? Im super curious how "spiritual enlightenment people" will argue. Because he doesn't operate on that level. He operates on concepts, not direct experiences of reality. (The only thing I'd tell him is that his click is helpful, but you can go deeper with consciousness... much deeper than that, only it requires more effort).

Well, I will argue that logic cannot be the core value even if we want it to be because even the adoption of logic as the supposed core value is motivated by the search for happiness and fulfillment which is the motivator for all action. To go toward positive emotion and away from negative emotion. No matter what a person does, benevolent/malevolent/neutral is always motivated by this emotional end. Emotions are (of course) not very logical in and of themselves. But making logic as your end, you could completely sail off course from your actual intended destination. Many people get stuck in being "the most logical" person, but never question whether or not being the most logical person actually makes them feel happy and fulfilled... when this was why they wanted to be "the most logical" person in the first place.

So, logic can only ever be the means to that end, as the default core value of sentient beings is toward happiness. Then, I will argue that logic only produces imperfect results toward achieving the end of happiness and fulfillment. I would argue instead that Truth (as in being in touch with reality exactly as it is beyond all frameworks, attachments, and assumptions) and unconditional love and acceptance of that Truth, is a far more effective vehicle toward happiness and fulfillment than logic is. Often times, logic can get us stuck in blindspots because of its limits. If we think logically about ourselves and existence, it can make us come to the false conclusion that existence is invalid because it does not hold up logically. It makes no sense that anything would exist in the first place. Also, people who take on logic as their only perspective tend to get strongly identified with seeming logical, to the point that they have to lie to themselves about their own experience of reality.

I will also debate his assertion that he is the most intelligent person in the world from the basis of logic in science, as this is neither a logical nor scientific claim. It's not scientific because he has no evidence of this claim. Also, we'd all have to decide on what exactly intelligence is, as well as whether or not it's quantifiable in the first place. Also, it's not logical to make this claim because it's implausible that he would be the most intelligent person out of the nearly 8 billion people on the planet. 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins

[Martin123]

4 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

Also, people who take on logic as their only perspective tend to get strongly identified with seeming logical, to the point that they have to lie to themselves about their own experience of reality.

This has been like the biggest red-flag I've seen in people who made the "click". I like that point a lot actually. It is a great tool for self-deception.

[DJ]

100% logic and no feelings = Mr. Spock! 

To me, logic is basically symbols (language) and mathematics, which at the end of the day, is nothing but a bunch of man made squiggly lines. 

[Flare]

6 hours ago, Schulzy said:

Well i already said i dont think he has insane ego at all. But i think all these people that are talking negatively but have no balls to actually debate the guy should keep their mouth shut.

Sorry mate that's just not true. He is definitely a so called "Impossible Dude". The argument that you "should keep your mouth shut because you have no balls" doesn't have any value at all. It's pure polemic, nothing more and nothing less. Most of the time introverted people who have not enough self esteem are statically seen more intelligent that people who do tend to be extroverted, even though it's only a correlation not and direct cause. 

And that's the point with athene. He says he basing his arguments, his whole being on "logic" (which he doesn't define further) and then discusses like a maniac in a polemic way. If you're really interested in logic - than you shouldn't be judging people because of their self-esteem but only (!) based on their arguments, which he is in fact not doing. You can just watch some recent youtube video of his channel - where he is celebrating winning arguments not based on facts or logic. He's just using manipulative argumentation strategies so that he appears as the winner.

This said it doesn't mean that his theory about the "click" doesn't have any value. It does have. But it's nothing really "new". And he is definitely not promoting it in a authentic way. Or as Chinese would say - he has absolutely no tao. 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Flare

[Schulzy]

Nice   
DJ he defines logic differently. Consistent patterns that bring about reality.

[Schulzy]

Flare but you do understand that you can bring attention to his behaviour when he starts doing that? 
What is the reason you don't debate him? 

[Flare]

That's actually pretty simple. 

1) It's not under fair conditions. Saying that 1000+ people are watching and because of this it's an even argument is just blind. Same with people believing in radical political theories. They're watching the stream because they wanna se him wrecking people. I'm not interested in contributing to this. I watched over 8 Hours of him debating. He got crushed like shit, but some people including him still admit that he's right. So there is no value in debating him. (Just click on the "Impossible People" link) You attract what you are. He's is only attracting people that are in line with his believes. 

2) Changing peoples opinions based on fact is nearly impossible. Even athene does admit this. (@Destiny discussion) So there is no way chatting him up and trying to convince him or his viewers. (It's around 20% "logic" and 80% "emotional") 

3) There is absolutely no value in debating him. I would just decrease in my own being just trying to make a point. I don't need a polemic discussion. Btw. Your point he does define logic differently. First off all he should use a different word than and second of all I did point out much more arguments than just the "logic" based.

Last but not least - It's not an argument telling people to discuss him. We're here on actualized.org. That's a whole different level. I don't need to go to america to convince  my german friends I care about, if the metaphor is clear here.  

 

Edit: I just remembered a quote from one of my favorite authors - George Bernard Shaw, that sums this up pretty well: "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

Edited December 15, 2016 by Flare

[Schulzy]

Don't know man, seems to me you are just pussying out.

1) That makes no sense what you are saying. He is not attracting people that are in line with his believes. Its more the opposite. People are coming to debate him and argue against what he is saying. They got opposite beliefs if anything. Also doesn't matter what he thinks, if he won or not, you are debating him.

2) Because most people are emotional,yes. He wasnt speaking for himself.
3) So why are you spending your time explaining these stuff to random person on actualized, also im pretty sure i saw you arguing some other random guy here on actualized but you do not want to do it with Athene.

 

[Flare]

12 hours ago, Flare said:

Last but not least - It's not an argument telling people to discuss him. We're here on actualized.org. That's a whole different level. I don't need to go to america to convince  my german friends I care about, if the metaphor is clear here.  

You're using toxic argumentations, I'm done here. Already answered, you're just trying to distract.

[Martin123]

@brovakhiin I do agree with that. But he still has a real big ego. Not in a materialistic sense, but he's very much wraped in his intelligence and concepts.

But that's not an issue here. He's making great things. Limited, but great nevertheless.

[abrakamowse]

On 12/12/2016 at 4:17 PM, Leo Gura said:

The most powerful position, is to have no position.

That made me really happy, because I am arriving to that conclusion. 

Do you think Leo that's similar to Socrates quote "I know that I know nothing" ?

[Augustus]

I followed three steps Athene talked about here logicnation.org/ and I do feel positive changing after step 3, but I am not so sure if I reached the state of real Click or it's a temporarily effect, I am also not clear sure about how a person made the Click should exactly feel I guess I will wait few days and see. But probably there is something real about this.   I recommended everyone to take a look before rejecting the ideaa.

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Augustus

[vizual]

I recommend this guy watches some Star Trek on Netflix and realize that Spock wasn't always right. Logic has merit but it's extremely limited.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, brovakhiin said:

@Emerald Wilkins What did you think of your talk with Athene? 

My argument was basically that happiness and fulfillment are the default and unchangeable core value of sentient beings, by our very nature. Every action that we take is essentially to go toward the most positive emotions and away from negative emotions, unless we perceive some greater emotional payoff in the future. So, even when we choose to suffer, it is because we believe it will have positive emotional ends for ourselves even if it is to feel positively that someone else gets to feel positive even in our suffering. 

Athene's argument is basically that logic should be adopted as the core value, as this aligns a person with reality. And in alignment with reality through logic, we can move toward better evolution of the species which is what we're genetically geared toward and that emotions are simply a byproduct of this.

My argument relative to this is that even adopting logic as the core value is motivated by a desire to feel positive emotions. And even the desire to make humanity evolve, is an emotionally motivated desire from the subjective perspective. So, my argument is that it's important to realize that emotions are the primary motivating factor as failure to do so can create great blindspots in awareness of reality and our motivations toward particular actions. Like we can adopt actions and motivations that will not get us what we're actually desiring.

I ultimately came to the conclusion that Athene's ideas and my ideas are not mutually exclusive, due to how he defines logic. I define logic as "A framework for understanding reality that makes good sense to the human mind." So, to define logic this way is at odds with my thinking. He defines logic as "being in alignment with reality." This definition is not out of alignment with my thinking.

My idea is that "Truth" which I define as "being in alignment with reality" (as he defines logic) will beget the highest levels of emotional fulfillment. So, I have no issue with him saying that logic (as he defines it) should be adopted as the main perspective, as this will help more people achieve their natural desire of having the deepest levels of emotional fulfillment. The Truth is liberating, and reality itself is what's True and real.

But he discounts emotional fulfillment as the default core value and desired end to all actions and says this value can be changed to logic for logic's sake. I disagree with this, as it has been my experience that emotions are always underneath all motivations and actions, no matter what those actions happen to be. So, I believe that the desire for the highest levels of human fulfillment possible in any given situation must be recognized as the motivator for action. This clarifies a lot in terms of self-awareness, as we can otherwise lose sight of why we do the things that we decide to do.

I don't think his view that 'logic' (as in his idea of logic) is mutually exclusive to this recognition. Within his system of logic (which is basically being in touch with reality), it could also be noticed that all actions are motivated by emotional ends. But he claims that logic comes first and that being in touch with logic means that you're completely detached and indifferent to emotional ends. But this makes no sense to me. I've never had the experience of emotions not being the underlying motivator for all my actions. 

For example, I can go to a 9 to 5 job that makes me miserable, but maybe I think that it will bring me happiness in the long through the security of having that job. Or I can decide to become a serial killer because it gives me some kind of a thrill to have power over others and to harm others. This is also emotionally motivated. Or I can decide to become a philanthropist because bringing happiness to others makes me feel good. So, emotions as primary motivator (even in adopting logic (as Athene defines it)) is motivated by emotions foremost. I believe that thinking otherwise is a blindspot to logic as Athene conceives of it. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins

[Ozisoki]

It's a great way to achieve greatly and stay safe in the Matrix ? 

I'm not sure if I understand correctly what Leo is saying. I'll write it down here so Leo will have the opportunity to correct me. Here's what I understood:

If you maximise your logic, you will maximise your understanding of how humans perceive reality. aka 2% of reality. (Or less...just using 2% for illustrative purposes)

It's hard to understand that you spend your human life and all cognitive capabilities to explore the 2% coz it's not logical. But what if your default perception of reality, of which logic is a feature, will lead you to only see the 2% hence you think it's the 100%. If this is true, then elevating logic to the heights of end-all-be-all is clearly stupid. Why would u bother wasting your life on getting to know 2% of Truth, specially when the tool to get to know the 2% aka logic is in polar opposite to what's needed for the 98%. Logic needs to go in the trash to get to know the other 98%.

I guess the flip side is since 99.9% of the human population is quasi-unconscious,  society will not reward you for being conscious or going beyond the 2% coz society cannot reward u for something that it doesn't see as existing. So by using logic as your core value u already reach the minimum threshold to maximise your position within society, so you're super efficient.

So as I understand if you choose logic, then u choose the 2% and choose achieving greatly and efficiently and safely in society.

If you choose consciousness, you choose the 98%+2% and u choose Truth. However you need to invest 10000x more time and emotional labour into it than into logic and society doesn't give a rat's ass about it. So if you want to be king of the Matrix, this option is really inefficient and stupid.

So clearly, you first need to decide if you really want the Truth or if you want to be king of Matrix. These are the 2 endpoints, so the probability of reaching either endpoint is super small but you need to decide towards which endpoint you direct yourself on the spectrum.

Clearly I think the Truth is not for everyone. Most people want to want the Truth, but in fact they don't want it. ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ozisoki]

@kurt Re your:  "Who do you think you are, Albert Camus?"

Don't shame people. Treat others the way you want others to treat you. Do you want to be shamed, bullied, or put to the "right" place? Ok, I didn't think so either.

You can use this moment to your advantage. Think about what compulsed you to behave in this way. Investigate the root cause, increase your awareness on it, work on correcting it. Result? You will step into a state where you cause lot less emotional suffering for yourself  as well as other people.

Moments you screw up bring with themselves the seed of a learning opportunity. You just need to harness the power of the seed. Awesome, right? 

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, NTOgen said:

@Emerald Wilkins As far as enlightenment is concerned, logic trumps emotion. Because logic says that you can never win a dualistic game, such as trying to minimize the negative and maximize the positive.

One model of the process of waking up is called Jacob's Ladder (see link below), by Richard Rose. In this model (which I'm using here only to illustrate my point), the mind realm is one rung above the body realm and one rung below the consciousness realm. Emotionality and positive-vs-negative is part of the body realm. Reason and intuition are part of the mind realm.

So you are actually arguing in favor of the bottom rung of the ladder of waking up. You are arguing for remaining a slave to the whims of the bodily awareness of the organism. You are arguing for the survival mode of the lowest self. You are arguing to live as an animal. FYI ...

http://www.searchwithin.org/direct_going_within.htm

 

Logic doesn't tump emotion with regard to transcending/dissolving the ego. Emotion is real and tangible and logic is abstract and idea-based. The thoughts are real, but what you're thinking about is not that important, unless it distracts you from actual reality. So, ignoring/repressing emotional awareness is a resistance to reality as it is. Many people who seek enlightenment begin valuing an intellectual understanding of Truth as opposed to their subjective experience of reality (which includes emotions), and this always results in simply spiritual bypassing. There is a great quote from Marion Woodman that describes what happens, "Spirit without matter is a ghost, matter without spirit is a corpse." Both, are dead. I believe what you think I'm doing is advocating matter without spirit/intellect, this is not the case. So, you're leaning more toward spirit without regard to matter, and valuing the intellect/logic more than what's real. That is a mistake to think it will yield you results toward enlightenment.

Plus, what would be the point in reaching enlightenment if it didn't have some positive emotional payoff? There is no escaping the fact that emotions are what motivates you. Either you want to feel good about yourself because you reached some special spiritual state. Or you want to feel the clarity, wisdom, and fulfillment that comes from the transcendence/dissolution of ego. Or you want to get away from the suffering that comes from identification with ego. Or you seek simply because it feels good to seek. There is no pursuing anything without an emotional motivator... to gloss over this fact will create so many blindspots. You will fail to understand yourself at every turn, if you don't understand this fact of sentience: emotions motivate. 

Also, we will never not be animals. So, we must live as an animal. We cannot take the animal out of ourselves. It is not as though, in transcending the ego, we cease to be animals. So, it's important to accept this fact of reality. We have a body and our body makes us an animal. The problem is to balk at and resist our animalistic nature while holding up our higher/spiritual nature as the more desirable part of our reality. This aspect is incredibly important, of course. It's like a tree. The higher nature is where the fruit grows and the higher the branches grow the more fruit that can grow from the tree. But our animal nature is the roots of the tree and all the dirty dirt that surrounds it. If we believe we can somehow uproot the tree to make it grow higher, this is a mistake. The deeper you are aware of your animal (emotional) nature, the more you can expand your higher nature, the more fruits that will grow. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, NTOgen said:

By itself, emotion will never clue you in to anything beyond itself and will keep you trapped in its own vicious cycle

Maybe, if you're autistic / left-brained.

For right-brained intuitive people emotions can be much more reliable that logic.

Go hang out with some highly evolved intuitive right-brained people. Wow! The potential!

I would never rely on logic to make important decisions. Intuition is far wiser. And pretty much all the spiritual traditions recognize this fact. None of them tell us: go be more logic. They tell us the opposite: your logic is killing you.

BTW, mystical experience and religious experience takes place in the RIGHT hemisphere, not the left. Pretty obvious why. The left brain is linguistic. The right brain is holistic. The left brain is a manipulative computer. The right brain integrates everything together and uses wisdom.

Of course having a healthy balance is best. With the left-brain serving the right-brain.

[Leo Gura]

@NTOgen Of course following the "reptilian brain" or one's samskaras is not a good idea if one wants to thrive.

Indian traditions have really good distinctions of the parts of the mind and which ones create problems vs which ones solutions.

The West has a very crude vocabulary for mind-stuff.

[Augustus]

Being rational person does not mean to repress your emotion but to understand them, most people have this idea about the rational person must be like a robot with no feelings whatsoever and that actually impossible, you can't remove the emotional parts from your brain. Rationality makes you understand this.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Augustus