Synchronicity

There are massive holes in your argument. It’s not just the AI being too dumb for you For example, something can be non-spatial (not occupying space) & still be limited Biased emotions are one example. They don’t occupy space. They can be limited regardless Numbers are another example. Yes, numbers of things occupy space. Like 3 rocks, for example. But numbers themselves don’t, because they are properties/arrangements of items. Numbers themselves don’t occupy space. But many numbers are limited, despite their abstract non-spatial nature Points are another example. 0-D points don’t have any extension throughout space, cause they’re zero-dimensional. And yet, they’re limited. They’re incapable of presenting any extension. That’s their limit There’s many more examples There’s also many assumptions in your other premises, but even with just #3, the argument closes itself off from many other possibilities & corresponding objections Leo’s video has problems too. His tautologies weren’t actually tautologies. But I don’t know if if he prefers people white-knighting in his forum. That may be disrespectful & deserving of a ban. I don’t know his policies But I don’t see any good arguments or proofs in this forum so far I’m not sure where everyone is assuming that AI is too unintelligent for them. Sometimes, it is. But I think people here are just over-estimating the validity of their proofs

I have to agree with @aurum I‘ve had a lot of the weird New Age-y types of experiences since I was a kid (among other things that started earlier). And so, I’ve been very familiar with a lot of the woo-woo stuff that New Age circles describe I don’t necessarily believe in the ontological status of the experiences in the way I used to. But they’re still tangible experiences for me, whatever they are. I’m talking the full shebang; interdimensional consciousness, interdimensional beings, other densities, other frequencies, aura fields, sacred geometries, hidden civilizations, aliens, grays, reptilians, Pleiadians, Bigfoot, mythological creatures, Pantheons, polytheistic deities, God (“Source” in the New Age definition), etc. Those experiences led me to explore a lot of the online New Age communities since I was about 11. With that said, it’s been almost… 16 years now that I’ve had a heavy familiarity with the New Age section of spirituality Anyways, instead of bragging more than I intended, I’ll finally get to my point. I looked through Yeshuani’s website & a lot of her TikToks & other clips. And from what I can gather, her main focus is on this underlying “geometry” that she says is the essence or structure of everything. And her work seems to be centered around claiming to shift these “geometries” for the benefit of a better life And to be honest, it’s standard New Age metaphysics. Law of Attraction, even. People who experience underlying geometries & claim to work with them, are a dime-a-dozen in the spiritual community. In fact, I would almost suggest to you, that if you love Yeshuani’s work, then there’s hundreds of Discord servers you could explore, all full of people who will teach you the same stuff for free It’s just not really anything new… given my 16 years of experience in those types of communities. I’m sure it’s new for you, as this may be the first time you’re really encountering a person like that. But if we’re talking in the context of the whole wide world? There’s a colorful plethora of other people you can find who are offering the same content Her website also mentions 5-D Awakening & reality mechanics. 5-D themes are another common feature of New Age spirituality. It’s basically their favorite dimension. Or at least, one of their favorites (e.g. 7-D, 9-D, 12-D, 33-D, etc.) I wouldn’t necessarily categorize her & Leo into the same sub-category of spirituality. She’s more New Age, 5-D, LOA, etc. while Leo is closer to being in-between sub-categories like integralism & pure consciousness-work (Ken Wilber would be one example of the former, while Peter Ralston would be one example of the latter) I’m not gonna make any arguments here about whether any of these people are right or wrong. I do have my own stances on whether they are, but I won’t get into that here, because that’s not the focus of my comment My main point is just that, Yeshuani & Leo have similarities to different types of spirituality & there’s quite a sizable number of people you can find in some of those sub-categories It’s still possible to be unique & there are definitely people who genuinely are. It’s just very difficult & I wouldn’t say this is an example of a person who takes the cake

With the realization of being infinity in particular, yes, that’s something I’m aware of and agree about

I could be unawake, yes. Open to invalidation

Haha I like it Pure Ineffability such that even calling it ineffable isn’t it

@Inliytened1 Hey! Hope you’ve been doing well Since you’re one of the mods, I’ll run this by you I don’t want this video to start a Nonduality war. I only want my testimony to open people’s minds to further possibilities to discover So if this thread turns into a close-minded fight, go ahead and lock And everyone, again, be open to what Leo says. But also be open to what else there could be for you to discover on your own?

Yes, definitely a healthy thing to remember And along those lines, don’t let my video be a call to war either. Just let it open up your mind to a strange possibility Be open to what Leo says, but also be open to what else there could be. And then, you discover it for yourself

Yes, exactly. So be open to what Leo says, but also be open to what I say It’s possible to prove one of us wrong. So just be open to your own discoveries

Hey ya’ll, didn’t expect my video to be shared! Lol I want all of you to also read a point I made in the comments, so that you can see my full view. @Spiral Wizardyou can post this in the original too Basically, God-consciousness can be real, but be open to strange possibilities

@SQAAD There’s people out there who are better able to help you with this all these questions of yours. Everyone here is just gaslighting you because these topics aren’t their niche or expertise. This is a self-development forum. But your questions here are outside of self-development

?

Not Dallas but Central Oklahoma which isn’t that far. I swear I’ve seen a couple people on here who are from Dallas though (as well as Houston and Austin). It’s definitely hard to find people in the American South who are deep into any of this stuff. I’d be down for a southern actualizers group meet-up if there’s more people here?

I’m sure there will be quite a few people here who will have some great books and resources to recommend. So on top of that, I’ll add having a deeply epistemological discussion with other people as a good technique to have your own views or biases reflected back on you. Each person in the convo acts as a mirror to each other. But there’s no judgement against certain ideas. Just a mutual investigation of them. I do this with a few people - sometimes in a group - and it seems to create a lot of healthy openness as well as introspection.

Oh yeah, your reasoning is definitely accurate! It’s a solid proposal. All I’m saying is that as ridiculous as the notion of a beginning-less past reaching the present point 0 is, there are models that are powerful enough to overcome that infinite distance in time. It’s like a paradox that actually has feasible solutions. If you would like to talk more about those possible solutions, you can just DM and we can talk. Preferably a live-chat is better because texting this stuff gets very complicated

@WokeBloke Your explanation is correct, very nice work! However, your argument is still missing a lot and there are many ways to disprove it. To start off, your example of an infinite past reaching this present moment is similar to what’s called a “super task.” That’s an infinite number of tasks that converge on a limit (the limit here being the present now). I can tell that you haven’t taken any higher-level mathematics courses involving infinite sets and series because there are certainly mathematical models for overcoming these super-tasks (even if they have no beginning like in your example). I’m happy to explain these to you but that’s far too much to type out in a forum comment. Feel free to reach out if you’d like to talk more about those. Besides math, there’s a couple other ways I can name off the top of my head that allow for an infinite past to reach a present point. One has to do with infinitely many derivatives of motion, which would allow for an infinite distance to be traversed in a finite amount of time and then adding an extra dimension of “meta-time” to allow for an infinite amount of time to be traversed. But that also takes a long explanation. It’s like explaining physics to a flat-earther who thinks that a round Earth is impossible. So don’t be so certain that an infinite past is impossible. There’s many deep-subjects here that you’re bypassing. After all, your entire argument rests on arithmetic alone. So it’s not that high-powered of an argument. We can take it much deeper

I think this is a very valuable point. It does seem that many of us in the spiritual community place Enlightenment on a pedestal above everything else when we should all be open to more possibilities contained within Truth

My first-hand encounters suggest that reality does indeed include this stuff. So if my take is truly representative of reality as it is, then yes, reality is a singularity of infinitely many infinities similar to what @Someone here detailed above People will say that there can’t exist infinitely many things because, for example, that means that there must exist a supernova so powerful that it blows up infinitely many Universes. Therefore, how are we still alive if such things exist? Well, that’s because reality would be so infinite that such a supernova could destroy infinitely many universes and there’d still be infinitely many more left over. So infinity accommodates itself so perfectly that it allows for the existence of anything and everything (including endlessly powerful supernovae). Though I do realize I’m saying all this without any evidence to offer. Just my first-hand take

boom and boom I like both those responses^^^ Now yes, there are people like Frank who say that nonexistence is real and furthermore, that it’s an achievable realization through practice. I’m not invalidating this in any way. Cessation is certainly an actual realization and can be very valuable. But I’ve had a discussion with Frank as well as many other zen practitioners and what I can say is that what they call “nonexistence” isn’t some Universal End where everything ceases to be. We’ve all heard the old zen proverb, “before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.” So rather than some Universal End to all of existence, cessation integrates into every activity. Nirvana = Samsara You fuse it with life itself and integrate it. You still exist to chop wood and carry water. The cessation just becomes One with that activity. If Cessation were instead, some Universal End to everything, then there’d be no more chopping wood or carrying water. But notice that no serious zen teacher describes cessation as an escape from existence where everything ceases to be. Instead, you still exist to chop wood and carry water. So in a strict Stage Orange philosophical context, what Frank Yang and zen masters call “nonexistence” is still a part of existence. It’s just that what we’re calling “existence” here is an infinite singularity that contains everything, including what those zen masters label as “existence,” “nonexistence,” “both,” “neither,” “cessation” etc. It’s Pure Oneness/not-Oneness So the “cessation of Oneness” that Frank talks about is also included Hopefully that adds some valuable clarity to the subject @Adamq8 Just thought I’d give a detailed response on this since you requested my take

Very well put. Yep, the lack of biases is so total that it comes full circle on itself and experiences certain biases through certain forms.

Okay, I see what you’re saying now. Yeah I think you’re probably right there, if I were to ask them from that angle

Yes, they’re into the symbols. But what I meant was, they’re referring to what those symbols point to when they make such statements No…they do accept that. I’ve spoken to many mathematics professors and so far, all of the ones spoken to accept that mathematics is a language. But what they do think, is that the language points to something fundamental about reality. So in that sense they think mathematics is fundamental. In their opinion, they think math is a language that points to something more fundamental because it’s built on equations and self-evidence rather than spoken languages like English, which are built on grammar and syntax. Just explaining their side of the argument. Not saying I fully agree with it. But people here seem to not be understanding their side fully

@Endangered-EGO Not saying I agree or disagree with the math professor but you’re misunderstanding what mathematicians mean when they say “reality is mathematics.” They don’t mean that the mathematical language itself is reality. Instead, they mean that what the math points to is reality. After-all, if someone said, “a duck is an animal,” that doesn’t mean they’re saying that the word duck is an animal. What they mean is that the thing the word points to is an animal.

Yeah definitely happy to talk about this with anyone who’s interested. But I generally don’t do so here on the forum just cause it doesn’t really pertain to the consciousness-work done here. I know Leo likes to keep everything streamlined. So out of respect for this forum’s purpose, I won’t share here. But anyone can always feel free to DM!

@johnlocke18 I understand your frustrations that there’s some things Leo has said in his videos that aren’t being acknowledged here. I’ll give an example just so everyone can understand why he’s still critiquing In his Outrageous Experiments in Consciousness video, Leo mentioned all sorts of things that Unconditional Love is willing to experience from 1:36:50 - 1:37:20. One of them was, “are you willing to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger?” Now I understand that what Leo meant was, infinite consciousness is willing to undergo that and love that but still… you must see how that can be used as an explicit justification for spiritual suicide as a practice of unbiased love. Not saying I agree with that interpretation. But to say there’s nothing there that could lead one to suicide is irresponsible. That’s why the OP’s frustrated. Nobody’s acknowledging statements as explicit as the one I just mentioned. Now I’ll give Leo the benefit of the doubt. He’s super-busy and makes long videos. So maybe, just maybe he’s forgotten making such statements or maybe he doesn’t see how explicit they are I’m not telling Leo to change his teachings but these are just some things present within them that lead to these kinds of critiques. But look… if everyone thinks that such criticism is a distraction to the work on this forum, then I’ll offer my services. Just give me a role to answer to these criticisms so that they’re not distracting everyone. I’ve handled tons of situations like this already, if this is deemed necessary. Not asking for that role, just offering it if it helps

@Adamq8 I thought as a moderator, it was your duty to be making sure that everyone’s having a healthy and open discussion. So why are most of the mods laughing at criticisms of Leo… and telling people to keep quiet about them? This forum’s just getting more toxic, in my opinion