Overcoming spirituality

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Karl-Heinz Mueller said:

But that is not all-too credible to me. If we accept that, then mental phenonema did not exist before biological life did not exist. So I guess that life forms and mental phenomena seem to be in some way able to be of the same nature, in a way that we have not yet been able to understand.

Bernardo Kastrup calls this mental dissociation (from his ontological framework of analytical idealism), which is the creation of individualized mental perspectives (the experience of being tied to a particular identity, localized in time and space). In other words, it's not that the substance of mind did not exist before biological organisms, but it's rather that the bubbles of dissociation wouldn't have formed yet.

Dissociation is also just a byproduct of form (differences). You can experience formless reality through meditation where your bubble is no longer defined, which is an indication that mind exists beyond form, beyond time and space, beyond your bubble. You can also look to dissociative identity disorder, which is where Kastrup got the idea from, where one's perception of self and reality can get severely altered:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/

[Karl-Heinz Mueller]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bernardo Kastrup calls this mental dissociation (from his ontological framework of analytical idealism), which is the creation of individualized mental perspectives (the experience of being tied to a particular identity, localized in time and space). In other words, it's not that the substance of mind did not exist before biological organisms, but it's rather that the bubbles of dissociation wouldn't have formed yet.

Dissociation is also just a byproduct of form (differences). You can experience formless reality through meditation where your bubble is no longer defined, which is an indication that mind exists beyond form, beyond time and space, beyond your bubble. You can also look to dissociative identity disorder, which is where Kastrup got the idea from, where one's perception of self and reality can get severely altered:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/

Okay, well that sounds interesting. I will do devote some investigation into that when I have the leisure. Thank you!
 

8 hours ago, lxlichael said:

THEN GO CREATE A JOURNAL AND WASTE YOUR TIME THERE!I mean how convenient, is Leo some kind of garbage disposal for you discomforts?
=======

Oh, so is this forum meant as a worship place for Leo? Oh, Sorry! Nobody told me that!

Quote

You're wasting my time as well.

Didn't force you to read my stuff.

Quote

No its not noble, nobility isn't just subjective you can feel it in your bones.

People seem to have varying kind of bones then.

Quote

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. You created this storm to simply garner attention.

Dayum, you exposed me! I did not want to convey any message whatsoever, all I do here is using the "most efficient" way there is to garner attention. And you fell for my trap! Cool!

Quote

NOBILITY IS A DAMN FREQUENCY/VIBRATION!

No damn good explaining myself to you though. Don't deserve to know this knowledge yet.

I can pleasantly endure to be a noble renunciant of any of your knowledge.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Karl-Heinz Mueller

[Karl-Heinz Mueller]

I guess it will be locked soon! I'm surprised anyway that they give a forum for heretics like me...

[Karl-Heinz Mueller]

12 minutes ago, lxlichael said:

We can discuss these projections further if you believe that it will add to your psychological health to speak about them with wisdom.

From seeing your posts above I would kindly decline that invitation!

 

27 minutes ago, Karl-Heinz Mueller said:

Okay, well that sounds interesting. I will do devote some investigation into that when I have the leisure. Thank you!

Now that being said it does not mean that I find it extremely unlikekly that, if I do enough research and "go to school" that I would end up coming to the same conclusions that Leo did. More so, that eveyone that does not end up at the same conclusions is "full of shit". ^^ Just looking at his definition of, say, karma, "god" (I almost feels awkward to me to use this word without quotations marks) and non duality, it does not seem likely to me that what Leo holds is true. Just that one about karma alone is enough for me to be sure that Leo has definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, as they say.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Karl-Heinz Mueller

[Ulax]

@Leo Gura I'll be real dude. This sort of reply doesn't help the cult perception/ issue.

I don't think its right to say he's full of shit.

Respecting critiques like this from @Karl-Heinz Mueller are important to keeping this forum a healthy place.

I might disagree with a lot of Karl's point, but I believe it is important to act respectfully towards him simultaneously. Everyone, and every one of their expressions is worthy of respect, imo.

I wish you both well.

[Ulax]

26 minutes ago, Karl-Heinz Mueller said:

I guess it will be locked soon! I'm surprised anyway that they give a forum for heretics like me...

I don't think you are a heretic dude.

I respect your post, even if i disagree with some of it.

It was a courageous thing to post.

[Ulax]

 

1 minute ago, lxlichael said:

You haven't approached this situation beyond your projections, sitting in other peoples positive reinforcement at all here will not serve you at all, aka @Ulax, cult? Preposterous. Why haven't I received the invitation that I would never accept? 

Both of you @Karl-Heinz Mueller are obviously followers because you follow the projections that others before you have projected onto situations like this leading to the inevitable null result here concerning any creative progress. 

A life that lacks genuine inner innovation will lead to a projected life onto others you perhaps have underlying jealousy around.

 

I don't understand your first paragraph. I'd like to understand it better and would appreciate it if you were to rephrase it.

I agree in some senses I am following what other have projected. I suppose in some sense I'm a follower. However, in other ways I am voicing my own beliefs.

"A life that lacks genuine inner innovation will lead to a projected life onto others you perhaps have underlying jealousy around." I would agree with that somewhat. It will lead in part to a projected life onto others. 

However, i think its dangerous to dismiss people's views/ concerns merely because they lack genuine inner innovation or are partly projecting. I believe it allows for dangerous power dynamics to take hold. I believe people's voiced concerns always contain some value. Perhaps, it takes more digging with some than others.

I respect your critique of my comments.

[Ulax]

@lxlichael I hear you.

1 minute ago, lxlichael said:

 

Right on cue with that "positive reinforcement", beware destructive incentives, it's never "courageous" to project your mess onto other people. That is called underlying insecurity, false courage due to underlying cowardice towards facing ones own falsity.

"Right on cue with that "positive reinforcement"," It was not my intention to positively reinforce. However, I can see how would be a consequence of what I said.

"beware destructive incentives". That's valid, and I can see the value in what you're saying. Perhaps, I'm perpetuating harmful behaviour. However, I don't think I am in this case. Quite the opposite.

"it's never "courageous" to project your mess onto other people". I would disagree with you there.

[Ulax]

@lxlichael I appreciate your expression of cordiality. 

I believe that if you deem a certain demographic view's as views that must be dismissed, then the following occurs. On one hand, it would be helpful because the inaccurate views that that demographic would express would not cause harm that stems from ignorance. However, on the other hand, it would be dangerous because when that demographic voices legitimate and/ or accurate concerns, then that demographic will have those concerns addressed and will be vulnerable in relation to the issues of which those concerns pertain too.

[Ulax]

@lxlichael ""it's never "courageous" to project your mess onto other people" I would disagree with you there." (lol quoteception ).

My elaboration is the following. To me courage, put loosely, is about doing something you want to do, despite a fear-based belief, or set of beliefs that demand the act not be done by you. In "projecting one's mess' you therefore be courageous.

[Ulax]

Firstly, I would like to express that I would prefer it if you didn't say things like this, 'I'm still waiting for the elaboration @Ulax, on two accounts now'. I felt pressured, and combatted against when you said that.

1 minute ago, lxlichael said:

And what title shall we give the demographic? Unresolved shits and giggles underneath the surface of a shadow psyche? That's the demographic we have to remember to take into consideration?

There's a line in the sand that needs to be drawn regarding behaviour that is tolerated and not tolerated, entertaining the severe psychological malnourishment of the majority of western civilisation is not one. Most people are highly undeveloped and with every "likeminded attack" its like a crowd sourcing effort that becomes a new acceptable SJW norm that should have been booted out before it was given the chance to flourish.

Those concerns have not actually been determined yet as valid or invalid, nor have you actually cited which views you support and which ones you don't for us to examine stated validity from your own perspective.

Respectfully.

"And what title shall we give the demographic? Unresolved shits and giggles underneath the surface of a shadow psyche? That's the demographic we have to remember to take into consideration?"

In this context, I don't care about the name of the group. I think, if we have the means, we ought to take every demographic into consideration. My beliefs regarding this stem largely from systems theory, determinism, IFS, and psychoanalysis. As well, as a normative belief in psychological health aspirations and collective responsibility.

"There's a line in the sand that needs to be drawn regarding behaviour that is tolerated and not tolerated, entertaining the severe psychological malnourishment of the majority of western civilisation is not one."

- "There's a line in the sand that needs to be drawn regarding behaviour that is tolerated and not tolerated"

-- I agree. I believe we ought to have boundaries in society.

- "Entertaining the severe psychological malnourishment of the majority of western civilisation is not one".

-- I disagree. However, not in the way I think you think I will/ do. I think we should entertain what people say no matter who they are, or what they say. However, I agree that it is not prudent to do what most people say they want done. For example, a neo-Nazi affiliated person may say, 'I want a USA filled only with white people'. I don't believe that would be a useful thing to do, or desirable. When I say we should entertain these views, I say it in the sense that we should do so out of respect for their dignity as people. Moreso, however, instead of looking at the words of what they say only, I would entertain what they said by analysing what the emotional state of that person is, and what base needs/ wants they are expressing.

To me, I would respect the statement, 'I want a USA filled only with white people' because I respect the need/ want, and life circumstance behind the message. I would analyse that person sees people not as equals, but instead that some people are better than other people. And it would reflect, to me, that that person had a life where they were often treated as lesser/ better than other people. And i see that as something they did not choose to happen to them. It was not their fault. And I would like to say i'd be compassionate to that non-faulted injustice they have suffered. I will caveat by saying that I would still hold them responsible for what they say, and draw up boundaries. However, it is a boundary based on keeping others and the speaker safe, rather than out of moral judgment.  

"Most people are highly undeveloped and with every "likeminded attack" its like a crowd sourcing effort that becomes a new acceptable SJW norm that should have been booted out before it was given the chance to flourish.""

- "Most people are highly undeveloped" 

-- I agree.

- "its like a crowd sourcing effort that becomes a new acceptable SJW norm that should have been booted out before it was given the chance to flourish". 

-- I am struggling to understand this. If you mean, not doing what most people want to do because it is what most people want to do, where the people are generally psychologically underdeveloped, then I agree with the normative (ought) element of your statement.

[Ulax]

@lxlichael Nice one. I plan to reply to these two recent posts in details at a later time. Till then, I appreciate the discussion.

[Byun Sean]

materialism is so tricky because its so common to buy into it given the education system and the level of consciousness of our culture.

 

 

Its important that if we don't want to be limited, we don't take any model or worldview for granted and question all of them. Material, spiritual, etc. 

 

If you cling to materialism too tightly you can close yourself off and miss out on aspects of life outside the materialist worldview.

This goes for any worldview.

 

That is of course assuming you are interested in Truth. 

 

 

Side note: Leo can be a bit blunt with his responses which can turn people off of what he says but I have to agree with him here. Higher consciousness reveals to you that reality is not in fact material but spiritual in nature. 

But the nature of consciousness is such that we have to raise our level of consciousness before we can know what it is. 

By becoming more conscious. Its not a belief system or an ideology. Its just being. Which is very different from 

regular ways of knowing we picked up in school and what most of society teaches which is mostly just belief systems 

and memorization.

Your level of consciousness is the number one determining factor on how fulfilling your life is.

That is why people care about self actualization work so much.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Byun Sean

[Karl-Heinz Mueller]

40 minutes ago, Byun Sean said:

That is of course assuming you are interested in Truth. 

Yes, I am. Why would I not?
What I a bit miss here is some open-mindedness to non-Leoic views. ^^

Like I said, it feels like that everyone who has views that do not accord with Leo's ideas about the world and his wife is a stupid, underdeveloped idiot that has to stay behind after school. From what some people post here I get the impression that you including Leo himself are the ones who should get some home schooling outside of your education system, but I guess we can go back and forth here forever.

Anyway, some interesting posts were made here, thanks for those!

By the way @Leo Gura I still waiting for a reply to some of my questions.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Karl-Heinz Mueller

[Karl-Heinz Mueller]

Oh, are you still wasting your time with me undeserving fool?

Quote

lxlichael said:

@Karl-Heinz Mueller WRONG!
 
It seems all you can fathom in your brain at the moment is that anyone that negates your views must therefore be a "follower" of Leo.

To the extent that I believe that I infer it from the fact that they mostly disagreed with me, but I did not (yet, perhaps) or hardly see them disagreeing with Leo.

Quote

Have you even bothered to enquire into the individual to whom you are talking to before you, AGAIN, PROJECTED your own insecurities onto them, your fears?

What insecurities and fears of mine? Did you you even bother to enquire into the individual whom you are talking to? ^^
 
I said initially that my critique is not all-encompassing, and there are even things about Leo that I like, as well.
 
But the points I mentioned I feel confident that I did enough enquiry to feel competent and sturdy enough to place my critique.

Quote

Show some respect, I demand that you show it to us but at the very least show it to yourself by reflecting a little deeper so that you can then receive deserved respect.

It seems that some people here I get along quite well and we are able to reciprocate respect. I do not ask to get along well with everyone.
 
And to be fair, as for the two of us I had relinquished that hope after I read:

Quote

You're wasting my time as well.
 
No its not noble, nobility isn't just subjective you can feel it in your bones.  
 
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. You created this storm to simply garner attention.
 
=======
 
EDIT:
 
NOBILITY IS A DAMN FREQUENCY/VIBRATION!
 
No damn good explaining myself to you though. Don't deserve to know this knowledge yet.

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Karl-Heinz Mueller

[Karl-Heinz Mueller]

To be completely honest, I can't help but feel at least some amount of schadenfreude to have your complete absence. ^^

Never said that I was a holy person. The attached youtube video I did not see thanks to a Firefox add-on that blocks external elements. The two of us should really not waste time with each other, but what goes around comes around, as they say.

Anyway, where did we leave off.

I will do some research into Carl-Richards input.

But since I seem to have Leo's complete absence as well (riding it out), I guess this is kind of otiose here.

Admittedly, it was quite foolish of me to expect that Leo would admit any mistakes or answer my question about Rob.

But it "never hurts to ask", as they say.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Karl-Heinz Mueller

[Byun Sean]

10 hours ago, Karl-Heinz Mueller said:

Yes, I am. Why would I not?
What I a bit miss here is some open-mindedness to non-Leoic views. ^^

Like I said, it feels like that everyone who has views that do not accord with Leo's ideas about the world and his wife is a stupid, underdeveloped idiot that has to stay behind after school. From what some people post here I get the impression that you including Leo himself are the ones who should get some home schooling outside of your education system, but I guess we can go back and forth here forever.

Anyway, some interesting posts were made here, thanks for those!

By the way @Leo Gura I still waiting for a reply to some of my questions.

Spiritual work and self actualization work is not Leo's beliefs exclusively. 

You can find hundreds of thousands of books, videos, and courses on this stuff from a wide variety of sources including leading edge scientists.

 

Theres a reason for that. Its not a religious cult against academia. This stuff can do wonders to your life.

 

I've been through the American education system and to a university. I know what they teach and how they teach it.

I used to have a materialist worldview too. I did for a good chunk of my life. Was I an idiot for buying into materialism? Of course not.

Could I have been limited by it in some ways had I clung to those ways of thinking? Of course.

 

Its not leading edge stuff and it won't get you to the most fulfilling points in life.

 

When you cling to any belief system: material, religious, atheist, spiritual, etc, you limit yourself because you won't be open to exploring possibilities of reality being different then that finite image of your belief system.

 

Its totally fine to have beliefs. But there is major benefits to staying open minded and unattached to our beliefs too.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Byun Sean

[Karl-Heinz Mueller]

Thank you, @Byun Sean, for that good comment! That was a very good reply that inspired me.
Why did I not get such a sound and well-spoken comment from His Enlightened Majesty aka "god" himself?
 
Speaking from my current perspective, I would assume a neutral monism with a materialist inclination. I am not tied to that view, but a matter-mind-duality seems very unlikely to me.
I was not bluffing when I said that I would actually love to believe in some kind of spiritual way, which is why I will take your can Carl Friedrichs input seriously. Also, I’m just interested in that stuff.
 
Perhaps I should have categorized my critique into three categories.
One is the theme of materialism vs non-materialism, the other one is about the more or less blatant flaws in Leo’s character, such as bad manners and arrogance, and the last one hare his spiritual wrong views, like, say, godhood and gerrymandering the idea of karma to his liking
 
Now getting things wrong and having character flaws and wrong views wouldn’t be such a big thing to me, I know no person that would be entirely free of that. So that would be okay, I can and have to live with that all the time. But if someone then announces himself to be god AND enlightened AND has such a huge following on Youtube and elsewhere AND is on my radar because I watched a good chunk of his material, I kind of feel an impulse and and urge to rebel against that. Which is why I put this critique here. That’s the least I can do.
 
As for wrong views, I mean, his idea of karma idea would suit a calendar motto. And his god view is profoundly ridiculous.
I did my schooling. But, as opposed to Leo, I went to a school named Early Buddhism. The idea of Early Buddhist non-self denied the possibility any form of identification of oneself with anything. That makes sense to me. From that point of view then, the brahmanic idea then to identify oneself with everything in a god-like fashion then is considered doubly wrong.  
I love about Early Buddhism because it is so outspoken. It wipes out so much esoteric nonsense, which is why I was able to take it very seriously.
Which is why I also think that @Leo Gura should go back to school (not his own school, however), but from what I see here he „acts too cool for school‟.  
I mean, he having after publicly announced being god or having filmed and published to the entire planet his „enlightenment experiences‟ (I loved the scene where he claimed omniscience of everything going on in the universe whilst being clueless about the upcoming bell-ringing package deliverer :D), followed by his comment on me here – if you ask me, all of that made him become somewhat of a joke figure to me. I mean, how can you guys take him seriously?
 
But since, like I estimated in my initial comment, Leo cannot go back and revoke his godhood/enlightenment anymore, he will probably take that to his grave.

No wise person would ever have done that.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Karl-Heinz Mueller

[peterjames]

Quote

I would like to see materialism proven wrong, but none of that spiritual stuff convinces me anymore. If your thinking is sharp enough, you notice the fallacies and trick of your mind quite easily.  

Are you talking about scientific [mechanistic] materialism, or a more organic type? The organic view is part of respected academia:  From: Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology Daniel J. Nicholson and John Dupré:

"Like most other organicists, Russell criticized the machine conception of the organism for neglecting the inherent dynamicity of life, and asserted that ‘[t]he organism is not, like a machine, a static construction, but a constantly changing organization of functional activities’ (Russell 1930: 169). Russell also drew attention to the temporal character of the organism, which ‘at any one moment of its history must be regarded as merely a phase of a life-cycle’, insisting that ‘t is the whole cycle that is the life of the individual’ (ibid., 171)"

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198779636.001.0001/oso-9780198779636

 

And from there, it is not far to Whitehead's physics of the World-soul: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-World-Soul-Whiteheads-Adventure-Cosmology/dp/1948609363

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by peterjames

[universe]

On 26.1.2022 at 2:17 PM, Karl-Heinz Mueller said:

Admittedly, it was quite foolish of me to expect that Leo would admit any mistakes or answer my question about Rob.

It has already been answered long ago.