Leo Gura more advanced content

[Nahm]

10 hours ago, 4201 said:

In my experience, I don't think it's fruitless nor does it need to be combative. I agree that going after Leo directly might not do much if he's not open. But being clear about your difference in position is imo much more healthy than avoiding the conversation altogether. If you avoid stating your difference in position people likely will assume you agree with him and his views (despite your videos) and I think this is quite detrimental to the people following along.

This thread was originally a question based on a claim made by Leo. Wouldn't have challenged this claim made by Leo helped OP?

To be fair in your first post you do imply that the idea of there being "advanced" content is a bit ridiculous. But it was so ambiguous I really couldn't tell whether you were saying that or saying that OP is ridiculous for trying to criticize's Leo's use of the word. Like your "joke" assume that we understand you differ from Leo in this position about advanced content. But to literally anyone who comes in with the fear of everyone agreeing with Leo and it being an echo chamber, it doesn't come across as a joke. It really just seemed like you were trying to steer the thread away from criticizing Leo. And calling OP a troll is really the top way of making him defensive and not see that you were joking.

Looking back I can see how I indeed assumed you weren't joking and defending Leo because that's what I believed about you from your previous interactions. Are you purposefully not explicit because of a bias or a fear of creating conflict? Or is this just you being cryptic in general?(tbh many of your messages feel like hard to crack riddles to me) I just don't know, but now that I understand the "joke" it's much less of an issue as I first thought. My bad. 

That being said I'd still be mindful of how newbies (kinda like me) are likely to interpret your message. If your messages have multiple interpretations possible and one of them make you seem like you are being defensive (e.g. name calling someone who criticize Leo) then it's likely to hurt the community by excluding anyone who isn't a hardcore Leo follower, imo.

 

This is all yours, I don’t share any of that thinking or experience. I think you’re creating conflict & drama over nothing, in not noticing that is how you’re thinkin. I have no position, I freely state my views, people following Leo’s views are not my responsibility, and you are free to assume & make whatever assumptions and create whatever accusations or defamations you like. 

[4201]

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

This is all yours, I don’t share any of that thinking or experience.

So the way people perceive and receive the content of your messages is just not your problem?

I personally perceived it as you gaslighting OP and looking at the replies of OP, they probably perceived it like this too. Yet when they give you the confirmation that they haven't understood your message by saying "What a cesspool. Ill be asking future questions elsewhere." you just find this funny? 

 

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

I freely state my views

At least in this thread it wasn't a statement but an implication that can be received in multiple ways.

 

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

I think you’re creating conflict & drama over nothing

You are free to think that way and you are also free to not care at all how people understand your messages. I do think that those messages have an impact in the way they are perceived and not in the way you meant them to be perceived.

In any case it's true I would probably not have brought up the issue if I initially understood the "joke" in your first message. But I still think the topic is valid.

If you felt offended or that I was creating a conflict with you I sincerely apologize. 

[Nahm]

@4201

Not offended at all and thank you, and likewise my apologies if I’ve offended you.  I wasn’t saying you’re creating a conflict with me. Just that imo you are creating conflict where there is none. 

 

[4201]

10 hours ago, BenG said:

If I still have one sticking point, this would be it. I don't think I'm being dishonest if I say I'm leading you to a maximum height. The assumption that the previous point was lower wasn't given.

So to you omitting a detail is not dishonest?

If I say "There is a fire in the house. There is a fire extinguisher under the sink." and those 2 statements are true, yet the fire is safely inside a fireplace and doesn't need to be extinguished, isn't that dishonest? I didn't explicitely lie but I said true statements in a way that implies things that aren't true. The action of saying the 2 previous statements implies there's a reason to say this (because something is on fire!), if there isn't anything on fire it makes little sense to state those 2 random facts.

By the act of saying "here is a maximum point" it implies that the number of maximum points is at least finite, otherwise there would be no value in using the word maximum. In a math exam it would be technically correct to answer (2, 3) if the question is asking you to give a maximum point on a plane. But whenever you speak to someone, your use of words implies there was reason to use those words, imo.

In fact this whole thing we are talking about have a basis in statistics. The statement "here is a maximum point" is a true positive which make lead people to believe there are negative (non maximum) points but in fact those are false negatives because every point is a positive (maximum). We would say it is a statement with poor specificity. You can read more about sensitivity and specificity here. IMO an honest answer would minimize the amount of false negatives or false positives.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by 4201

[Fearless_Bum]

We could've continued making spaghetti jokes, but you guys want war instead ?.

[mandyjw]

@BenG

If Bob Ross paints a landscape, he puts the highest point where ever that pleases him. He does this to give depth or the illusion of perspective. If I thought I was a figure in the painting, I might also think that another figure might know the way to the highest point of Bob Ross' mountain. But the "highest point" of Bob Ross' mountain is the enjoyment of creating and beholding it. Its not a point at all. The perspective of the painting is based on the assumed location of the viewer and it is entirely created. Higher and lower is something that can be determined only after there is a chosen perspective. The figure in the painting is the seen not the one who sees. 

Happy trees.

Edited November 29, 2021 by mandyjw

[mandyjw]

@BenG   That's only when the canvas is upright thought.

"Becomes as good" is a bit conditional though, depending on how you mean it. Like, how do we value our life? Is there really anything except joy in the moment?

I think that art makes a good example to question value. Like, is Thomas Kinkade better than Van Gogh was? It depends on what you enjoy and what you value. The idea of value is based somewhat on what you enjoy but often much more on what you've observed that other people value. When we recognize that we love art because of the way it makes us feel, that the reason we love anything is because of how it feels, that the reason we love love is because it's LOVE, LOVE here and now, LOVE. We're free. Love is free of any thoughts saying, "eh, that tree needs to be a bit taller."

The reason we love beauty is simply because in the experience of beholding beauty there is NOTHING there saying "eh, could be better, I've seen better." 

So the idea of value can take us where we want to go, only when we drop the idea of value. 

 

 

[mandyjw]

The unintended synchronicity of our avatars here is hilarious. 

 

[Natasha]

@TruthSoldier Higher teachings are communicated everywhere and in a lot of different ways...you just have to tune in 

[mandyjw]

On 11/28/2021 at 11:35 PM, BenG said:

I don't agree because in this case, the act of misleading to an imagined "higher place" would itself be the highest place (since everywhere is the highest place). So, the idea of misleading would lose all meaning. Then again, maybe I'm just playing a game of armchair philosophy, idk.

The idea of a leader and leading is based on the notion of what? 

[4201]

7 hours ago, mandyjw said:

The idea of a leader and leading is based on the notion of what? 

Leader is identification with leading and leading is the same as pointing, which is exactly what a word do.

[mandyjw]

35 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Leader is identification with leading and leading is the same as pointing, which is exactly what a word do.

Is it though? Pointing is like, "DUDE!!! check this OUT!" I'm amazed and enjoying this sunset, or big wave, or whatever, and I want you to enjoy it with me too. We make a big deal of Neil Armstrong because he was the first man to step foot on the moon, but if I point out the moon to you because I think it's quite beautiful tonight, that's entirely different. You wouldn't call me a leader. You wouldn't talk about giant steps for mankind. You'd either look, and join me in my appreciation or not. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by mandyjw

[4201]

39 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Is it though? Pointing is like, "DUDE!!! check this OUT!" I'm amazed and enjoying this sunset, or big wave, or whatever, and I want you to enjoy it with me too. We make a big deal of Neil Armstrong because he was the first man to step foot on the moon, but if I point out the moon to you because I think it's quite beautiful tonight, that's entirely different. You wouldn't call me a leader. You wouldn't talk about giant steps for mankind. You'd either look, and join me in my appreciation or not. 

Ok I agree leading is different than pointing. 

But misleading in this thread has been used as a word that means "bring someone to" regardless of whether the person leading also comes with you or not. If I ask you where the bathroom is and you point to me the wrong door, it'd be misleading, even if all you did was pointing.

[mandyjw]

@4201 What if you were pointing yourself to your Self? Where would you point? The question of right place, wrong place, distance, somewhere other than here, someone other than me, leading, misleading...

If I were to point you to anything else I could steer you wrong or steer you right depending on what you were hoping to get from it.

[4201]

On 30/11/2021 at 7:22 PM, mandyjw said:

@4201 What if you were pointing yourself to your Self? Where would you point? The question of right place, wrong place, distance, somewhere other than here, someone other than me, leading, misleading...

If I were to point you to anything else I could steer you wrong or steer you right depending on what you were hoping to get from it.

Yes "being mislead" is a relative notion which judges the place you end up at as good or bad.

I concede that not liking the experience of believing things as a result of being said those things by someone who claimed it was true is my relative, subjective opinion and perhaps a subset of people would actually want this experience.

Edited December 5, 2021 by 4201

[mandyjw]

@4201 No, I don't think anyone enjoys it. However, nothing makes you more clear about where they want to go than going in the wrong direction. The clarity or grand revelation is that feeling is the guidance, that you don't need someone else to tell you because you are always feeling for yourself. Although if what they are teaching is aligned and is taught by someone who is in touch with THIER OWN guidance and they are pointing you to the same there's love, synergy, mutual appreciation, momentum and all kinds of wonderful things. It's definitely something worth wanting but you know what the way to it is? Your own guidance. See how brilliantly that works? You are the seeker and the sought after, the teacher and the taught. Well played Universe, well played.  

[4201]

29 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

@4201 No, I don't think anyone enjoys it. However, nothing makes you more clear about where they want to go than going in the wrong direction. The clarity or grand revelation is that feeling is the guidance, that you don't need someone else to tell you because you are always feeling for yourself. Although if what they are teaching is aligned and is taught by someone who is in touch with THIER OWN guidance and they are pointing you to the same there's love, synergy, mutual appreciation, momentum and all kinds of wonderful things. It's definitely something worth wanting but you know what the way to it is? Your own guidance. See how brilliantly that works? You are the seeker and the sought after, the teacher and the taught. Well played Universe, well played.  

Indeed this realization that you don't need any teacher is valuable. But this is an argument can be used to defend literally any con artist pretending to be a teacher. "My high school teacher was so bad I learned to be an autodidact which was an invaluable life skill, thank you so much teacher!"

If there's a scammer in town should be avoid warning the kids so they become less naïve or should we warn them? If you warned the kids, isn't that making them not listen to their own voice, how will they develop this ability to detect scammers themselves if they don't "go in the wrong direction"?

Edited December 5, 2021 by 4201

[mandyjw]

13 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Indeed this realization that you don't need any teacher is valuable. But this is an argument can be used to defend literally any con artist pretending to be a teacher. "My high school teacher was so bad I learned to be an autodidact which was an invaluable life skill, thank you so much teacher!"

I just had to look up autodidact because I didn't know what it was, which was the funniest full circle thing ever. 

13 minutes ago, 4201 said:

If there's a scammer in town should be avoid warning the kids so they become less naïve or should we warn them? If you warned the kids, isn't that making them not listen to their own voice, how will they develop this ability to detect scammers themselves if they don't "go in the wrong direction"?

You warn people when you can. I've received many, many warnings in life that were far more destructive than helpful though. Warnings that thwarted healthy curiosity, that cut me off from my own intuition and actually caused a lack of exploration resulting in worse naivete. 

The whole feeling guidance thing works through and as awareness... relaxed, unafraid awareness. When you mix up "be aware" with BEWARE, it becomes the very thing you hope to avoid. I want people to be aware. Not to BEWARE. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by mandyjw