Joshe

Can you sit with this question: 'What if my framework-free seeing is just another framework I trained into and then forgot I trained into it?' Could it be that you trained so deeply into a way of seeing that it no longer feels like a perspective, but feels like actual reality? For example, you can train your consciousness to suspend interpretation, but the suspension itself is a trained orientation that originated from a preference and a framework, and over time, the training and framework are forgotten and what remains feels like raw reality. I'm not saying this about you necessarily, just pointing out that it is a real mechanism with big implications. This is exactly how people end up in the psych ward. They trained consciousness in a direction until the training disappeared and what remained felt like "just seeing reality". Same mechanism.

We often mistake choosing for discovery. Consciousness will validate whatever framework(s) you commit to. This mechanism is universal and unavoidable. If consciousness will validate whatever you commit to, then the honest move is to choose your framework knowing it's a choice - not to pretend you discovered actual reality. And even if you did, you should hold such things loosely. "I'm choosing to orient toward love because I prefer a life organized around it" is more honest than "I discovered reality is infinite love." Seek and ye shall find. Subtract and ye shall find too. You aimed at "removing falsehood" and you got a remainder and called it truth. But subtracting is seeking. It's spurred on by preference. What made you subtract? What made you call the remainder "truth" instead of "residue" or the "the stubborn parts that persist"? It is a preference to call what survives "truth". The vocabulary is selected for words that feel good, significant, profound. WHY? Values and preferences. My point is consciousness can be trained to confirm any framework, including spiritual frameworks that claim to be framework-free. That claim is the framework. You prefer your framework be framework-free, and you believe it is because that's what you sought. "I just look at what's true" is the framework. It's preference acting like neutrality. Your highest awakening is the same stuff as grandma washing dishes, with the main difference being the elaborate significance you add. These ideas are uncomfortable because they dissolve significance.

Consciousness is very fluid. You can make friends with Ultimate Satan if you train your consciousness that way. But you chose to train yours to befriend Ultimate Reality. You can train consciousness in any direction it will go. lol. C'mon man! This isn't a bad thing.

lol, ok. I know you don't believe this, but ok. What we call things matter. Calling a cable a cable isn't the same as calling conscious experience "God". If you call it God, then you're smuggling stuff in - love, purpose, sacredness, meaning, etc. And then you forget that you smuggled it in and act like you discovered it. That's my whole point. I know you're capable of seeing this if you will allow yourself. It doesn't have to be a permanent frame forever, but what I'm saying is a very real mechanism that most spiritual seekers never account for.

I never took it as a belief. I took it as a description, which I carefully thought through and held as a possibility and constantly questioned if any part of my understanding was wrong. So I'm confident that it's not a projection. Part of my point is you are free to call it whatever you want. But what you call it has significant implications.

The word "God" isn't a discovery. It's a choice, chosen from motivated reasoning. Rebuttal: "You'll understand when you go deeper." Of course! 😂

You are the example bro. I agree that consciousness is the fundamental substrate of reality. But to call it "God" is kind of my point. You were presented with the idea of "God" and you were eager to see it as such and turned reality into that. How do I know? Because I made the same mistake. I called consciousness "God" for many years as a result of following Leo's work. But then I grew up a little and realized I didn't need Leo's words to describe my experience and that it was a mistake actually. Just because consciousness is fundamental doesn't mean you get to call it "God" and import all the metaphysical baggage with it. I hope you can see the point.

Yeah, it's half venting but half substance too. I'm only human. There's still a deep line of inquiry here.

As far as I know.

You know I suck with words, but I mean it like it's an excuse. I'm not mocking, even though I was aware that it carries that connotation.

Not for everyone. Some would benefit from the marines. For all the people here who say they just want to live in a peaceful environment to study reality and not have to worry about worldly stuff, joining the military for 20 years then retiring could be a decent plan.

I can't stand mouth sounds for longer than 5 seconds. It seems like the same mechanism. One theory is it's related to how the brain processes "human-produced" sounds, like the neural circuits that monitor other people's bodies get overactivated for some reason. Not sure I buy it though. I think there's a psychological component involving disgust. I have an autistic nephew who has ARFID (basically can't eat many foods due to being disgusted by various aspects of them). There seems to be a strong ND connection with this these phenomena.

Yes, though patterns still exist. The problem is in misattributing them or having an incomplete view, which is part of the growth process - fleshing out the view. I'm betting OP's view has changed a bit by starting this thread. We all have to start somewhere.

@Natasha Tori Maru I agree. I like to think of it terms of evolution. There's been an explosion of complexity and humanity is still sorting it out. The collective sees more mistakes being called out every day, and they recognize themselves in some of them. Sure, they usually reject that they're making the mistakes, but that rejection comes with cognitive dissonance (pressure). The experiment has just begun. Psychological and philosophical concepts are spreading like wildfire in memes, videos, Twitter arguments, etc. For example, 20 years ago, almost no one even heard of "FOMO", but it's a common psychological concept these days. People are absorbing all sorts of relatively sophisticated ideas without even realizing it. This is all totally new and a generation hasn't even passed. Even the term "cognitive dissonance" was obscure academic jargon just 15-20 years ago. These days, even Marjorie Talyor Greene (the most whacked out buffoon lunatic in US politics) knows about it. This is just one example of hundreds or thousands of relatively sophisticated ideas that are becoming ambient in the collective consciousness. This makes me optimistic that humanity will find its way, and I think technology in its current form is a catalyst - a painful one. Growth usually is painful and messy. I feel like humanity is in its adolescent phase without any parents around and it's just going to have to find its way. lol Whether it self-destructs or not is to be seen, but I'm optimistic. I think the collective is slowly developing antibodies to its own bullshit.

And/or maybe just making it more visible? Increased awareness/knowledge of the opposite sex has came online. 20yr old males these days have a ton of knowledge they can access. We didn't really have that growing up. If we did, I think we'd have been just as immature with it. When you get cheated on these days, you can easily find half-truth content that makes you feel better at the expense of the whole truth. This wasn't available in such abundance when I was coming up. I'm not sure if it leads to more or less immaturity after the dust settles. It would be different for everybody. I think more conscious individuals will eventually see their errors, as is typically the case with more conscious people, and less conscious people will continue to ignore their errors, same as always. It just seems like humanity on the whole is going through necessary adolescent challenges and eventually will grow out of it. Maybe in several hundred years or something.

Another factor is her perception of the guy's status and achievement in society. A man with material wealth and/or who is desired by many women doesn't have to work as hard to keep girls from cheating. Johnny Depp's girlfriend will swallow a lot more neglect and mistreatment than she would from a normal guy.

Of course, but I was zooming in on women.

Yes, age is one of many factors that play into whether a woman would cheat. Most young women don't even know what their wants and needs are, thus can't communicate them. When you ask them why they cheated, they often say "I don't know". So, of course younger women are more likely to cheat than older women. But you can't generalize from a single axis or whatever.

Joining the marines actually could be a good idea. I know a few guys who stuck it out for 20 years and now they’re basically retired at 40. They still work but they don’t have to. It made me think “shit, I should have joined the military.” 20 years will fly by. Plus, you’ll make friends in the marines. There’s also the benefit of externally imposed life structure. A lot of people want to wake up at 5am but can’t. When you’re in the marines, you don’t have a choice. It’ll definitely grow you.

This is the average woman: genuinely attached while things are good, but with an always running background process that evaluates the relationship against alternatives and unmet needs. Not consciously scheming or looking for a trade in, but also not unconditionally devoted. She can cheat on him for something as simple as her man is too nice, too boring, etc. If wants/needs go unmet for too long and other options appear, she gone!

Your view on women is biased. It's simply false to say that "women" are loyal to a fault. You're making the same mistake you're claiming OP is making but in the opposite direction. Loyalty is contingent on how fulfilled they are. You don't have to do anything seriously wrong for them to be disloyal. It depends on their personality, which obviously varies from woman to woman. There's the full spectrum of attachment styles, novelty-seeking tendencies, impulse control, etc, etc. Ride or die types are not very common. Maybe 10-15% if I'm being generous. And it's not because they're "loyal" and choosing you over everyone else. These types are loyal to a fault because of how they're wired - dependency, seeking security, etc. Being devoted in relationships is just who they are, but most women aren't wired this way. That you know of lol. You gotta keep them long enough for the novelty to wear off - when the boredom and resentment phase hits. Make it to this phase and your odds of being cheated on skyrocket. Women will remain loyal so long as they're fulfilled, which is a part time job, at minimum.

If the lump sum is around 50%, that's 500 million. Keep 10 million for spending money and put the remaining 490 million in treasury bonds, which would earn around $65k per day in interest, which is about 23.5 million a year in interest alone. I'd probably be a philanthropist and donate the majority of interest earnings, or use it to fund my own non-profits. I'd probably also set up a shadow operation that didn't play by the rules and would be a force against other powerful orgs that are detrimental to humanity. Working quietly in the shadows to sabotage them, lol. That seems fun.

We can easily agree on the experience of chocolate because it's a tangible thing. The nature of experiences are not. With chocolate, we can point to the same object, confirm we're eating the same thing, compare notes with some confidence. "Infinite Love" has none of that. Words cannot grasp experience of things in the abstract. So how can you know your experience of "infinite love" matches Leo's experience of it? You can't, yet here you and many others are saying that you know EXACTLY what Leo means when he says "infinite love". How do you know it was "infinite" and not just really big? Is it really big, "infinite" or boundless? These are different things. For all I know, I've experienced it myself but never put a label on it, because I'm not gonna map Leo's labels to my own experiences - that would be a mistake. I'm betting a high percentage of Leo's followers unquestioningly adopted the idea of "Alien Consciousness" as well. Saying things like "I can't wait to discover Alien Consciousness", as if they already know it's a real thing. Then, one day, you have a deep trip on 5meo and experience something that fits the label, then you show up on the forum talking about you know with 100% certainty you experienced Alien Consciousness. "You'd know if you knew" is a great self-sealing epistemological bubble. Concept introduced -> pre-accepted -> experience interpreted through concept -> reported as confirmation. No different from religion and cults. I'm not knocking anyone for making this error. I made it myself with Leo's work when I was younger.

Both parties are unwilling or unable to adapt to the other. We all want to be engaged where we are, but this is impossible for certain pairs of people. The fault is no one's. Just is what it is.

I use Claude Code almost everyday. It rarely struggles with anything I give it, and when it does, I can see the gaps and steer it right back on track. The other day, I built an app to manage a very specific, very tedious work project in about 5 hours. It was insane how efficient and accurate this app allowed me to execute the project. If you know what you’re doing, you can create some very real, very helpful stuff.