Leo Gura

Firstly, scientific models are NOT based on formal logic. Again, "formal logic" is a loaded word. There are an infinite number of different formal logics. So which one are you gonna base your scientific model on? They all contradict each other. You must do empirical research to determine whether your logic squares with reality. Often times it won't! In quantum mechanics particles do not follow Aristotelian binary logic. So physics has long ago debunked the naive notion that reality follows binary logic. The question of What is science? and How come science works? is a very tricky one. It takes decades of study and contemplation to understand it. In short, scientific models contain very partial and limited relative truths. They are true only under very very narrow circumstances and contexts. Just because some aspects of reality are predictable does not mean that reality is logical. In fact it tends to work the other way around: Whatever humans call "logical" is however reality happens to behave in contexts which are relevant to humans. For example, if chairs had a habit of turning spontaneously into cats whenever you sat on them, your mind would grow accustomed to that behavior and call it "logical". In practice, what you call "logical" is just whatever reality happens to do around you. If everyone you knew walked around naked on the street, you'd eventually start calling that logical. Because in fact it is impossible to distinguish between logical and illogical things. That is a matter of relative perspective. What's logical to me is not logical to you, and vice versa. Or to put it another way, YOU are the sole arbiter of what counts as logical. Whatever you insist is logical, becomes logical (for you). Whatever you insist is illogical becomes illogical (for you). Logic has no normative power. So if someone wants to be "illogical", they are free to do so and no amount of reasoning, argumentation, or evidence will convince them otherwise. Because they are only "illogical" relative to your judgment of them. They are not illogical in any absolute sense. There actually exists no standard to determine what counts as logical. It must be this way because reality is nondual and empty/groundless. Anyone who tries to ground reality in logic will fail. This was rigorously demonstrated back in the early 20th century. Logical positivism and the attempt to formalize reality with a finite system of symbols failed spectacularly. As it should have. Reality is not quantifiable or formalizable.

You have to be very careful to distinguish formal logic from the word "logic" as it is commonly used in mainstream culture. Certainly formal logic is not what you use to run your life. Not anywhere close it. And even in the case of formal logic, did you know that there are an infinite number of different formal logical systems with varying truths? So which one are you gonna say is the truest one? How will you decide? By using some meta-logic? But then there are an infinite number of meta-logical systems with varying truths. So you'll need a meta-meta-logic, and so on to infinity. As Kurt Godel proved, no logical system which is complete is consistent. And no logical system which is consistent is complete. This is because Truth is infinite and cannot be captured in a finite set of symbols. Most people who tout themselves as being "logical" have no clue what logic really is and its limits. In everyday life the ego co-opts logic to commit devilry. Even the craziest and most deluded people think they are being "logical". So how can you trust logic then? You could think you are being perfectly logical whilst you are totally deluded. So logic is no guarantor of truth.

Most people would not be able to handle days or weeks of 5-MeO. Remember that I only did that after YEARS of prep, and it was not easy. Don't try that at home. You'll have a psychic breakdown.

What is it you mean by "logic"? That's a super-loaded term. Contemplate: What is logic? It certainly isn't true in any absolute sense.

@George Fil It's too generous to call Peterson a stage Yellow thinker. Zizek too is probably more Green than Yellow.

@bejapuskas Being the devil that you are, you are already a master at lying. So no need to practice it any more.

@zeroISinfinity Relative life vs Absolute life is a duality too. With lots of awakening you will merge the two worlds into one, such that your everyday life becomes infused with Spirit, Divinity, God, Goodness, Intelligence, and Love. More work is required! So back to the self-inquiry salt mines!

Lol, your ego is unreal! I have already answered that in The Radical Implications Of Oneness video.

Thanks guys! You take the edge off getting old.

That is good. I support studying all kinds of perspectives. I will do some meta politics topics in the future where we look at the fundamentals of what politics is, how it works, and how it fits with spirituality. Those will be very powerful videos, unlike any political analysis you've ever seen. It will not be about any particular political candidates or partisan grabage.

Classic conflict of stage Blue vs stage Orange That can be difficult if your parents are solid Blue. They will not be openminded enough to allow it. But you might be able to convince them. You could try to explain to them how meditation will lead you to God. And then when they go to church you stay home and do meditation. Emphasize the mystical aspects of their religion. Every serious religious practitioner does meditation/prayer/contemplation. Guide their religiosity to spirituality.

Number is a duality Each number is a division. How many divisions can you make? 0 to infinity and everything between.

@oMarcos No, sleep is not awakening. Sleep is unconsciousness, awakening is consciousness. After you awaken deeply you can be conscious even during deep sleep. It's sorta like existing in a pure void. Sleep is a tricky thing. The fact is you don't really know what sleep is. That requires contemplation.

@Harikrishnan Yes, he's nondual and there are many nondual sufi writings. Rumi is one. Ibn Arabi is another. Hafiz is another.

@NorthRise Why torture yourself with low-consciousness videos when so many high consciousness videos exist? There is not enough time in the word to listen to every foolish debate on Youtube.

@Gadasaa You were never actually born. You imagine it.

That is not what I am talking about. You are talking about an imagined unconscious state. I am talking about total consciousness. You cannot understand because you have not yet awoken. Once you awaken you will understand what was being pointed at. Your ideas of awakening are never going to match actual awakening. That's what makes this so challenging.

@Caitwin The most useful thing would be to distinguish between dualistic philosophies vs nondual ones. If it's dualistic it can still have some nuts of wisdom, but it will also contain a lot of misguided things. If you're using impure sources you will waste a lot of time sorting the the truth from the delusion. Sometimes I start reading a book, see too much dualistic delusion, and just stop reading. Such an impure source is not worth the effort to untangle when crystal clear sources exist.

Be careful. Just because someone is a mystic or is enlightened does not automatically put them at Turquoise. The whole point of Spiral Dynamics is to differentiate between stages of development and awakening. They are not always correlated. Don't just assume that your favorite sage/mystic is Turquoise.

The mind is a very powerful tool. Precisely because it is so powerful it is easy to get lost in the labyrinth of one's mind -- an endless labyrinth of symbols and ideas which tend to validate themselves no matter how misguided they are. Using the mind properly requires serious training, otherwise it falls into gross delusions. Unfortunately almost nobody teaches how to properly use the mind. People either teach how great the mind is, or how terrible the mind is, but not how to use the mind wisely.

You are confused about who/what you are. This is how most normal people are. At the same time they identify with being the body, the mind, and also not that. They are unsure and confused. The mind plays these games where one minute it thinks its the body, another minute it thinks its a human, another minute it thinks its the voice heard in the head, another minute it thinks it was born, another minute it thinks its some kind of "soul", another minute it thinks its God, and so on. The purpose of self-inquiry is to become very strict with yourself and force yourself to confront this shell game that the mind plays. What are you REALLY? Not as a belief, but what the fuck are you? If you claim that you are real, then you must be able to clearly specify what is it that's real. The body? The voice? The memories of childhood? The feelings of pain? If we put a gun to your head right now, what is it that you fear will die? << That is the false self. Getting clear about the false self is just as important as discovering the True Self. You can't disidentify with something unless you first clearly realize that you're identified with it. You might be identified with your childhood memories and not even realize it. So you have to ask yourself very seriously, "Am I identified with my childhood memories? Is that what I actually am?" And so forth with any other possible identifications until you eliminate them all. What will remain is nothing, which is what you actually are.

@mandyjw If you have young kids who demand a lot of your time you may just have to focus on them for a few years until they are more independent and then return to serious spiritual pursuits. In the meantime you can study theory and maintain a mild daily practice of 30-60 minutes. You can also do a few yearly meditation retreats or psychedelic retreats. Sometimes in this work you must inch your way up. Be creative. Find ways which fit your existing obligations. But also, don't fool yourself into thinking that watching Borat is spiritual work. You must be brutally honest about whether the techniques you're using are actually raising your consciousness.

The ego-mind will most-definitely misinterpret truth. Ignorance cannot help being ignorant. You can count on that. By understanding this you will be a little less likely to do it. But you will still not be immune. You must be careful and study many high-quality sources, and think for yourself. Also understand that mistakes are part of the process. No one walks the spiritual path without making some mistakes. Trial and error is how we grow. The key is to stay vigilant enough to correct yourself. You need to have enough theory under your belt to know when you've veered off course. It's okay to be a bit deluded here or there so long as you know what the right course ultimately is.

@Caitwin Not a fan. There are much better philosophies to read. Try Nagarjuna or Plotinus instead. Remember, there is A LOT of dualistic delusion within Western philosophy, so be careful not to waste your time wading through bullshit. Go straight for the highest nondual teachings. You can easily spend 20 years reading Western philosophy and still not get any closer to Truth. With that said, there is the occasional gem and I still encourage everyone to think through philosophical questions for themselves. Philosophy is not meant to be read or believed, it must be DONE! -- as in: contemplate everything for yourself. The power of philosophy lies more in the questions than in the answers. If you are not contemplating for yourself, you are not actually doing any philosophy.

@MM1988 There is skill and there are principles to dating, just like there is with golf, tennis, driving a car, or meditation. You are framing what I said as "This is so inauthentic and artificial". But once you actually internalize the skill of proper texting, it will become authentic and natural. Every skill you learned was at one point inauthentic and artificial, from mathematics to reading to writing to typing on the computer. I am not saying you need to keep a file of canned text messages. Once you understand the principles of texting with a girl, you can generate an infinite number of spontaneous texts. Without learning this skill, your text messages will suck and you will lose girls by committing stupid mistakes which only years later will you understand why. People expect to be good at sex and dating "naturally" without any deliberate practice. Because love is supposed to be "natural". This is a silly double-standard. Nowhere else in life do you adopt this attitude. If you want to be good at something you must train and recognize principles. Girls will appreciate it when you don't creep them out with your texts.