Oeaohoo

That’s an interesting idea. Do you think that the purpose of AI in the greater scheme of things is as a sort of divine purge of the inferior aspects of the present humanity? (Sounds rather “fascistic” to me!) Aurobindo’s model actually derives the lower from the higher as I do: ‘Psychoanalysts look from down up and explain the higher lights by the lower obscurities; but the foundation of these things is above and not below... The superconscient, not the subconscient, is the true foundation of things. The significance of the lotus is not to be found by analyzing the secrets of the mud from which it grows here; its secret is to be found in the heavenly archetype of the lotus that blooms for ever in the Light above... you must know the whole before you can know the part and the highest before you can truly understand the lowest.’ This is from his book Bases of Yoga. The darker dimension of Progress, like it! No finite thing could ever have infinite intelligence and AI will always be a finite thing; by definition, because AI excludes all that which is not AI. Therefore, AI could never become God or possess infinite intelligence. Given that, your latter suggestion seems more likely. Another false idol for our contemporaries to worship! Yes! I just find it significant that today Stage Blue always has to be filtered and neutralised through the lens of later stages.

If you go to his YouTube channel and keep scrolling back you should be able to find his pre-fame lectures. He is a very exhausted Kermit the Frog nowadays and his political talking points are even more worn out than they were when he was originally making them. Leo recently posted his Bible series on his blog so, if you want to hear the Bible reduced and profaned to the tune of Jungian “archetypes of the collective unconscious” and Piagetian developmental models, maybe you could start there! I know what you mean but such things can be useful to some people… Like Genesis said, “you have to get in to get out”!

Yes, that is what I meant: ABC, as easy as 123! Feudal - Mercantile - Democratic/Bolshevist; No Automated Machinery - Human-Operated Semi-Automated Machinery - Self-Automated Machinery (apparently) rendering humanity obsolete. Fair point. In invoking Frankenstein I only meant to refer to the theme of a creature turning back on its creator. This is the Promethean/Luciferian temptation to be as gods and to steal the fire from Heaven so as to distribute it among humanity. In a way, AI turning on humanity would be similar to man turning on God in the Fall. Maybe history is a fractal of involution! It was certainly metaphysically superior, and many now who are not ignorant on the subject would even say that it was physically superior: historians no longer refer to the early Medieval period as the “Dark Ages” because average people were much wealthier than they were during the so-called Renaissance. I appreciate, however, that Feudalism is not an ideal or perfect system: Christianity is a religion for a fallen world, after all. As just one example, though, medieval art is far superior in elegance, nobility and grandeur to the overblown splendour of Renaissance art. This is a bit of a separate conversation however. Yes, the present state of humanity is very saddening. Well, there are some redeeming qualities to progress. Generally speaking, the appeal of progress is that on a very superficial level life has gotten better, more comfortable and secure. “They have abandoned the lands where the living was hard, for one needs warmth. One still loves one’s neighbour and rubs oneself against him, for one needs warmth.” I would also accept that the modern world offers certain special opportunities to spiritual seekers and intellectuals (in the true sense of the word) who seek a deep and comprehensive understanding of reality. That doesn’t stop the overall trajectory being away from God and towards hell. Haha, me neither! It’s still not clear to me how humanity can be subsumed into Overhumanity if the latter isn’t already real, if only in an embryonic and potential form. Do you accept that the entire course of evolution is already contained within God (or Overhumanity)? Ordinary language sort of breaks down here. Yes, neither should be denied in an ideal world. Historically and relatively speaking, however, we don’t live in the ideal world but in a fallen world. Recent religions denied the flesh in the name of the spirit, people today deny the spirit in the name of the flesh; both (of course these are generalisations) are dualistic and hence ultimately flawed. The deepest realisations are beyond both flesh and spirit. As far as Heaven is concerned, I don’t mean it as a strictly Christian concept. We could just as well use Asgard, Elysium/Ouranos/Olympus, Tiān, the higher realms of Indian cosmology, and so on. I simply mean the abode of the gods, the divine seat, the higher realm or whatever you want to call it. I know you won’t be interested but all of these religions speak to the same truth regarding man as bridge and mediator: the Romans called members of the priestly class pontifex (bridge builder); in Nordic mythology, the rainbow bridge Bifröst unites Midgard (Earth) and Asgard (Heaven), and the leader of the group was conceived as being this bridge; the emperor in the Chinese dynasties was viewed as being the Bridge between Tian (Heaven) and Di (Earth). Even Zarathustra, “The human is a bridge between the ape and the Overman”. Could you elaborate on this? Do you think he was referring to the decadent Roman Empire and pharisaic Judaism, as opposed to the emerging, more “advanced” and “progressive” Christian world? This is one of the tricks of the present regime: to call all sacral hierarchy and legitimate authority, and eventually all of history itself, “fascism”. To the present secular religion, fascism is basically the equivalent of satanism: in Spiral Progress terms, you could say that this is one of the ways that residual or unintegrated forms of Stage Blue manifest in the present Orange and Green dominated world. Even Leo likes to call people devils!

I doubt it. People in right-wing circles have a radically different perspective on all of these things. They will use perceived double-standards in the way non-white riots are reported, perceived denial of white in-group preference as opposed to other groups, perceived bias in media and so on as reasons to dismiss this out of hand. I’m not saying that any of this is true but that’s how they see it. Many still seem to believe that the insurrection was all just a joke, a meme, a photo shoot; postmodern irony culture and hyperreality seem to have corroded most people’s capacity to take anything seriously! Most of the people watching probably already hate Trump. The rift in America is very deeply rooted. It’s like people today literally live in different realities. That’s why they are always accusing each other of gaslighting! Well, Democracy itself seems to have a peculiar knack for setting up such “dangerous moments”! Anyway, I hope it goes well for you.

Your conception of punishment, failure and loss is much too narrow and materialistic. Devilry always loses doesn’t mean that every individual devil will always “get their comeuppance” in a crude blatant way. It means that devilry is parasitic, it is rooted in denial and absence, it is a house of cards and a fantasy. It must lose because ultimately all that really exists is the Good, the True and the Holy. Of course, you have also totally overlooked the possibility that any of these people might be punished in an afterlife of one sort or another.

The trouble with this is that the “myth of science” intrinsically and explicitly defines itself as hostile to any truths which aren’t positively verifiable and empirical. It’s very easy to deconstruct something as inane and stupid as this. Deconstructing religion would be much more difficult because at a certain point you would reach truths which supersede the merely destructive postmodern methodology. Stage Blue people are loose enough nowadays as it is. Like Alan Watts said, if there were any real Christians left in this world they would be screaming in the streets! Haha, Shiva deconstructs Hinduism! He is the destroyer, after all…

Absolutely! This was a very peculiarly potent and spiritual time for me. Relating to this channel, a lot of Leo’s deepest videos were released round this time. Except, you know I can’t agree that is “something inclined upward”!

And more senile…

Very good! You were actually correcting Pseudo-Dionysius though… This seems like a typical new-age confusion; focusing only on the positive aspects of life and reality. There is a darkness which is beyond all light.

Not necessarily. The Left Hand path, or the path of Darkness, is chosen because the ultimate nature of reality can only be conceived of in negative terms. Ultimately, the aim is to transcend both light and darkness and attain to the Radiance of the Divine Darkness:

This is more or less the distinction between the Right and the Left Hand path. Like you have shown, they both lead to the same destination only from different directions. The Right Hand path is slower but surer, the Left Hand path is faster but more dangerous. Take your pick! Yes, Nietzsche’s last few books are a good case study in one form of the Left Hand path. However, to a certain extent this is just Nietzsche poking fun at Christianity, a satire by inversion, so I wouldn’t take it too seriously. There are openings to profound light in Nietzsche: “For all things are baptized at the font of eternity, and beyond good and evil; good and evil themselves, however, are but intervening shadows and damp afflictions and passing clouds.” Also, power isn’t limited to a dark and subterranean force: Shakti, the main goddess of Hindu cults, literally means Power, and the related terms Sekhmet (“she-who-is-powerful”) and Shekinah (Divine Glory) from Egyptian and Hebrew religion have a similar meaning.

I would just say that the distinction between fitness and truth is ultimately unreal. Survival and fitness are included within truth; the ways in which limited organisms adapt to their environment imply the truths of that environment. After all, bad adaptations won’t work. They are therefore false, wrong, untrue. This is one of the ways in which Darwinian evolutionism is part of the program of contemporary nihilism. It overlooks the fact that even the so-called “survival of the fittest” is part of a divine order. This isn’t a flaw, it’s basically the purpose of the brain. It would be very difficult to operate in the ordinary world if you were constantly being bombarded by an infinite panoply of spectral multi-dimensional emanations of truth! You could say it is a flaw as far as the pure pursuit of truth is concerned, but like I said I think this is a false notion. Everything is truth!

Actualised videos remind me of something Wittgenstein said about Bertrand Russell: His episodes on metaphysics, epistemology and ontology (“What is Truth/Love/Integrity/etc?”) are often very captivating, but some of his social, political and historical analysis is so mediocre. I think this is because Leo’s thinking style is very self-derived and logical, which is great for analysis of interior experience but not so much for the collective situation. In “Spiral Dynamics” terms, I also think being a product of America gives Actualised a heavy one-sided bias against “Blue” in favour of an over-emphasis on certain aspects of “Orange” and “Green”. Episodes that had a significant impact on me:

Just think of the jokes these kids will tell each other: Q: “Why did the woman cross the road?” A: “What’s a woman?”

Yes, wouldn’t want to get caught in the hook of Truth and Reality! If anything is a social construct, it’s social constructivism.

Haha. I would say reducing half of humanity to a “social construct” is the real sexism! “Hey baby, I know you don’t exist and you’re just a fabrication of patriarchal society, but do you wanna come over tonight? I bet your imaginary pussy would feel beautiful on my oh-so-real male cock!” Sorry, just messing around; after all, isn’t that what the internet was made for? What do you think of the following: And this?

Ah, but all of that adaptive evolutionary biology involved sensory experience of the world external to the brain! We could go go back and forth like that forever because, like you said, it’s a snake biting it’s own tail.

What a pointless response. I notice you clipped off everything that I asked! Maybe I’m not the only one one working hard to avoid things…

I like this question so I’ll give it a go. Yes. A healthy society needs to have a clear idea of what it values. It needs to be capable of making clear distinctions between insiders and outsiders, friends and enemies. The enforcement of these distinctions might occasionally provoke conflict but greater and graver conflict is sure to ensue in the end from failing to make them. I think that one of the most fundamental utopian delusions of our time is the attempt to transcend favouritism. We could call this “the liberal delusion”, or for Spiral Dynamics fans “the Stage Green delusion”, or maybe just “the postmodern delusion”. To be clear, we could create a society in which favouritism was minimised, but it would require a radical shift in mentality. This delusion, however, is pedalled by people who are often far more identified with their limited human self-identity than any people of the past were. A society which practised a healthy favouritism would still be able to reach out and help others in need. Ironically, the denial of favouritism has produced forms of it that are very one-sided and unhealthy. Favouritism is reflected in biology because it is intrinsic to existence. To exist is to “stand apart”, to be separate, to be a limited and partial being. For such a being to be itself and not something else it must (at least at the most fundamental level) prefer to be that thing, otherwise it would be something else! It is as necessary and important as existence itself. I think we all know what the cons of excessive favouritism are. If anybody has forgotten, a Hollywood movie or a chat with one of your progressive friends can surely remind you! Say goodbye to the world! You could never eradicate favouritism from the world because it is intrinsic to existence. In a virtuous and noble society, however, favouritism would be understood as nothing more than one of the infinite faces of God.

How is that obvious? Women are not merely a human phenomenon, there are female animals of many species. Why was this social construct chosen and not another? Even the term woman might not have merely social origins. Have you ever deeply contemplated the origins and nature of language? Why is it that in so many languages the phonetic roots “ma-“ and “sh-” are associated with woman whilst “pa-“, “da-“ are associated with man?

Careful! That’s not quite what this shows. The original input comes through the senses from the external world; this input is then formalised by the brain into a predictive model; then future input is only necessary to adjust this internal model. There is some truth in what you say, though, in the sense that the brain is already hard-wired to make these predictive models. Reality is an Ouroboros but by definition the brain is only a part of that snake!

@Danioover9000 What do you think? @IAmReallyImportant gave an answer above, emphasising the genetic aspect of womanliness. The only problem I have with this is that the study of genetics only emerged quite recently and ironically coincided with the rise of feminist ideology! However, the physical and hormonal differences that create the feminine character that everybody recognises as a “woman” are determined by genetics so I think this still holds true. I would say that a woman is a manifestation of the feminine polarity of existence. This includes: abundance, receptivity, passivity, power (Shakti) and potency (in the literal sense of “potential to be”), conformity (in the literal sense of “complying to form”, as form is a key attribute of the masculine polarity), materiality (from mater, the mother), seduction and illusion (Maya), and so on. The physical differences are all simply the material expressions of these metaphysical traits. This is why I insist that postmodernism is a radical negation, inversion and even perversion of Truth. It denies that there are archetypes and forms which are eternally true and which everything material is only a manifestation of. It is a unilateral denial of transcendence in the name of immanence. It denies what the Corpus Hermeticum called the “Things That Are”, and so is also a denial of Being in the name of mere becoming.

I agree but it doesn’t matter too much here. The important question would be what makes certain times better for spiritual progress than others. Even if spiral dynamics is a relatively dumb model, it still might help answer this question.

@Michael Jackson 93 is the number of Thelema and “Love Under Will” in the original Aleister Crowley’s teaching. 93 is an abbreviation of Crowley’s core teaching (‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’) so members of the O.T.O would often greet and dismiss each other with a simple “93”. Forgive me if you already knew this!

Yes I agree with you but to me this is the basic problem of postmodern society. It is not limited to Leo’s teaching or Actualised. The purpose of initiation and ascetic practice in older society - the Kenosis or “emptying out” of Christian esotericism, the pursuit of the ultimate state of Fana or “annihilation in God”, together with the heavy emphasis on Submission and becoming a Slave of God (Abd) in Islam, and even the catharsis that Plato taught was attainable through the study of Mathematics and Philosophy, to name a few - was to prepare the initiate for the reception of the deepest truths. Any remaining karma and limited identity will be inflated drastically by the proximity to God, so it is generally necessary that this is purified early on in the spiritual journey. The saints, sages and whatever else you want to call them of the past were aware that any given religion or social order is a very limited expression of ultimate truth, but they didn’t go around trying to subvert them; they understood that for most people customs and traditions are necessary. Even in the rare cases in which they deliberately blasphemed the social order (like Al-Hallaj in Islam, the “crazy wisdom” teachers of late-Vajrayana, and even Christ to a certain extent), they accepted their punishment as fully deserved. After all, to confuse the esoteric and the exoteric is a form of blasphemy. Today, however, there is no initiation, and “we live in a society” has been an ironic meme for quite some time! Everything is a mess, the masses hate secrecy and don’t know what is best for them, and the usual spiritual laws which would attract the disciple to their master are broken, so the only way to distribute spiritual truths is to make them readily available to everybody and hope the idiots who will misunderstand them just pass you by!