Parththakkar12

True. But the definition of proof even within the materialist paradigm is very complicated and it changes with time. There can be a lot of argument on what counts as valid proof, what counts as unquestionably true, what counts as 'enough proof', etc. The reality is that if someone wants to believe a conspiracy theory, they don't need to prove it to anyone. The question we're dealing with is how do we engage with them. If I believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority on the absolute truth, that's enough for me to believe in creationism. That's enough for creationism to be 'true' for me. I don't have to believe that the Bhagvad Gita is true. I will justify my creationism by calling a Hindu 'deluded' for believing that the Bhagvad Gita is the higher authority than the Bible. All of this will be 'true' for me. I don't have to consider the perspective of the Hindu as valid. In fact, I am free to invalidate the perspective of the Hindu to justify the believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority. Same goes for the Hindu who believes the Bhagvad Gita is a higher authority than the Bible. The question was 'How do we engage with people close to us who have become conspiracy theorists.' This was my answer. How they came to believe conspiracy theories would be something you'd do better to ask them. It's not simple. The best arbiter of whether you're using intuition or not is your emotions. How do your beliefs make you feel? Do they make you feel passionate, high-energy, anxious, fearful? How hard are you willing to fight to defend them? Or do they make you feel calm, stable and peaceful? The more heated someone gets in defending their beliefs, the less they're operating from intuition. People who are operating from intuition will not feel insecure and defensive about their position.

I'd frame it differently in this context - The truth of Oneness is that distinctions are imagined by the mind. We still have the option of doing the discussion past silence, we still get to decide whether it's meaningful or meaningless. Yes. We are talking about relative truth. Relative truth is subject to what you want to believe. Okay. The human body is oriented towards a 3D sensory reality. We will always have a part of us that believes the materialist paradigm, cuz the survival of the human body depends on us believing in it. The question is - What do you want in this specific situation? If you want to see how many tic-tacs are there, then the INTUITIVE way would be to use your senses and count them. Keep in mind that counting, as a method of determining how many of something we have, has also been intuited by someone! If we try to use some other method, that would not be intuitive because it wouldn't be pragmatic. The Universe is Infinitely Intelligent, therefore Infinitely Pragmatic. Your Intuition is the most Pragmatic thing there is! When you have a how-question, your intuition will come up with the most pragmatic way you know to do it. The Universe is in a process of Self-discovery or knowing itself. The way you discover yourself is through investigation. The Universe is constantly in a process of growing and learning about itself. Therefore, the Universe does not know whether a specific idea is true or false. However, the Universe will use it's Infinite Intelligence to find The Best, most Pragmatic ideas and techniques to know itself. So the ideas your intuition will come up with may not be the best, or the truest themselves. But, those ideas will be the most Pragmatic and Efficient way for you to find the Truth, or the Best Way. My point is that if I hold on to a belief that 'Statement X is true' and Statement X is outside the context of the materialist paradigm, you will not be able to prove me wrong. Proof doesn't work outside the materialist paradigm. And if proof doesn't work, who is the arbiter of relative truth? Yourself! If I believe in Pizzagate, I believe I have enough evidence. Who decides what counts as 'enough evidence'? Moreover, who decides what counts as 'evidence'? How much evidence do you need to be convinced of something? This is specific to you. Now how do you resolve this conflict? You will have to use your intuition to closely observe yourself and them to determine where their beliefs come from, where your beliefs come from, why they're holding on to a belief, why you're holding on to your belief, etc. This will have to happen once you've dis-identified from your perspective and are looking at both perspectives impartially. This is what I've been advocating for.

Intuition is an inner knowing. It's not speculation. They knew their theories before they were able to prove them! Proof is what you need to convince other people of your theories. When you're able to debate with them and answer their tough questions, that's when your theories have the potential of becoming the new 'truth', which is the new standard of 'proof'. Let's not forget that the scientific materialist paradigm is a paradigm, that too one which is constantly evolving. There aren't these rigid fixed standards of 'proof' even in science. A good example is that Galileo's telescope was shunned by the church as an 'Instrument of the Devil' well before it was accepted. Being a revolutionary intellectual is a very very dirty business. You will almost never be able to convince the status-quo of your ideas. A lot of times they'll shun you your whole life, then you die, then they'll recognize your greatness and foresight 500 years later. You are on the leading edge of thought, and you have nothing but your intuition showing you the way. Your intuition will not show you the Absolute Truth in the form of ideas, because the Absolute Truth is incommunicable. Rather, your intuition will serve as a guidance system for your mind to get the answers to its questions. Once all the questions are answered, there will be nothing but peace. How do you know it's their intuition talking? They may say it's their intuition saying that the earth is flat, but is it really? Or is it a rationalization? You can use your intuition to closely observe your interactions and intuit the answers to these questions. In a Universe based on Oneness, the intuitions of two beings cannot conflict with each other. My experience says that it isn't possible. If there is a perception of conflict, at least one party is deluding themselves. Now there is potential for gaslighting. This is because human beings are very good at being inauthentic. So we can fake confident behavior very easily. There is a big difference between fake confidence and real confidence. Fake confidence will show up as aggressive, agitated defense of one's position. Real confidence will show up as a stable knowing, where you aren't doubting yourself. Oh yeah proof isn't circular within the scientific materialist paradigm! But if you look at proof fundamentally, as it is, it is circular. Here's the kicker - There is no such thing as 'true' or 'false'. These are distinctions created by the mind. The materialist paradigm seeks to establish a monopoly over the truth, like so many other paradigms do. Here's another kicker - If I say 'Statement X is true', Statement X is true for me. No amount of proof will convince me otherwise. This is because Truth is fundamentally Infinite, so it includes everything. So when I say statement X is true, I'm technically right! I'm just not saying the whole truth. This is assuming Statement X is not a part of the materialist paradigm. If it is, it can be disproven using scientific experiments and sensory data. If it isn't, it can't. For example if I say 'A sphere has 4 sides', that can be disproven by sensory data. However, if I say 'Nazis are evil', good luck disproving that! Thus, your beliefs determine what's 'true' or 'false'. In such a situation, you get to choose what you'd like to believe is true vs false. This becomes logically tenable. Because your mind creates reality, it is in fact helpful to be able to choose what you'd like to believe. Your mind is not meant to defend someone else's definition of 'truth', rather it is meant to define it's own truth according to what it wants. Edit: The materialist paradigm is able to give us the convenience of consensus, because our sensory realities generally agree with each other. A schizophrenic's sensory reality will not agree with that of the mainstream. That is why they will be labeled as mentally ill by the consensus. This is what 'proof' is based on in science. 'Anecdotal evidence' is dismissed as unimportant as the consensus reality is more important than integrating all perspectives. This fundamentally disrespects the Truth of Oneness.

Proof is a fundamentally circular concept. The notion of proof holds only within the context of materialistic science, because you have experimental evidence to back it up. There are multiple ways of interpreting the data. For example, a climate change activist would look at some data on climate change and see that as a sign that our world will end in 10 years if nothing is done. But a fossil-fuel corporation's CEO will look at the same data and say 'It's not that big of a deal. I have my lawyers ready to protect my company from lawsuit.' All of these are rationalizations. Here's my claim - If both sides accessed their intuitions and self-reflected, eventually they'd arrive at the same answer and they'd agree on the truth they arrive at. All conflicts must eventually be resolved in a Universe that is One. Confirmation bias is mental rationalization, which is different from intuition. Your ego will use this mental tool to escape unsavory realities. Your intuition, on the other hand, will guide you to face those unsavory realities. Your example is one of a rationalization. Your intuition will not compromise with your ego, much less favor it. It will make you do things that your ego thinks are bad for it. Intuition is prior to your ego, as it is the Universe talking to you. So it will inevitably lead you to self-reflect. Intuition is prior to science. Science is the product of the intuition of people like Newton, Einstein, Pythagoras, Western philosophers, etc.

That's how you save taxes! You don't have anything you own under your name. It's under the name of your corporation. Same goes for 'philanthropy work'. He talks about this a lot.

You're at Green and Yellow. Green because Blue and Orange are strong triggers to you, Yellow because your mind tends to be more holistic as opposed to narrowly specialized. Your reactions to them are strong because you're past those stages, so you're starting to get out of your own narcissistic bubble. You're starting to really despise those who are still stuck in their narcissistic bubble. You're seeing their dysfunctionalities in the context of relationships and what's even worse is that other people may not be corroborating what you're seeing. In such a situation, it really helps to have a Green social circle of hippies, love-and-light spiritual people, SJWs, etc.

Your intuition will tell you where you're being biased and where you're headed in the right direction. The closer you are to the truth, the more peaceful and at ease you will feel about it because the Absolute Truth is peace.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I didn't fully get you. As I said, it's a speculation until you've investigated it. As far as fear is concerned, I think you'll feel fear if you're speculating or assuming. It's the uncertainty that causes fear. It's the ghost chasing you that causes you fear. When you face your fear and look at the ghost, that's when you'll know whether ghosts exist or they don't! If you see that they do exist, you get the choice to fight the ghost. If you see they don't, then you'll be sure that they don't. Then you won't have a fear of ghosts anymore.

They will be able to explain why. It will be different reasons for different people, because our minds are different. It is a speculation up until you honestly investigate them. Once you reach your conclusion, that's when you will be clear on whether it's true or false. The first step to doing this investigation is to admit to ourselves that they are indeed speculations, i.e. neither true nor false for us as of yet. If we assume that they're true or false without investigating them, we will get defensive and insecure about our positions. Those who assume they're true become the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'. Those who assume they're false will demonize the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'. OP's question was 'How do we engage with someone who is in the Conspiracy rabbit hole'. Being in the conspiracy rabbit hole is not equivalent to assuming they're true. It could mean they're assuming they're true, it could also mean they're doing an honest investigation. Either way, if we want to engage with them, we must first resolve our resistance to conspiracy theories, then do the honest investigation. That way you'll have done your homework before engaging with them and you won't get heated in that engagement.

I respect your background. I'm not favoring 'subjective' experience over 'objective' experience. I'm saying there is no difference between the two, it's all One. Leo has a really amazing video on 'What is Perception'. Mind-blowingly amazing video. I'm not telling you to. I'm telling you my experience. You can do your own investigation on this. I disagree with you on this. They tend to want to defend their beliefs a lot, which is a sign of fake confidence masquerading as real confidence. Someone who is really confident will not need to defend their beliefs. Your intuition is with you at all moments of the day. It is talking to you through your emotions. Emotions are somatically felt. So, if you want to access your intuition, the way to do it would be to pay attention to somatic sensations. Things like buzzing, heaviness in the belly, lightness, etc. If you really want to go deep into this, I highly recommend watching Teal Swan's youtube channel. She goes into a lot of detail on this. YES!! That is the unbelievable part. Oneness is the Absolute Truth. So, if you have a disagreement, what this means is that at least one person is deluding themselves. If everyone does an honest investigation by accessing their intuition, my claim is they will arrive at the same conclusion.

@DocWatts @Dryas Your intuition is the universe talking to you. When you contemplate a certain question, the universe gives you ideas, or hints, or clues, or outright answers. It shows you the way to greater Self-Awareness, which is what the Universe (aka You) is ultimately after. Your mind creates your reality. The way it does this is through energetic frequencies, also known as emotions. Emotions are 'Energy in motion'. So, 'the external world' is a mirror of your internal world. This is something you can wake up to - On an energetic level, or on an emotional level, we are all One. To have empathy for someone is to be able to feel their emotions. Because of the Oneness on an emotional level, empathy is possible. So, in reality, there is no difference between 'your emotions' and 'someone else's emotions'. It's all You! There is a difference between intuition and rationalization. Rationalization is something your mind does, your mind comes up with possible explanations or theories on stuff. However, intuition is a somatic knowing. You will feel a deep, stable knowing relative to the topic at hand. This is why emotional awareness is such a key to accessing your intuition. Leo talks a lot about using psychedelics to gain this awareness. I know nothing about psychedelics, so I won't comment on them.

Your intuition is the ultimate arbiter of the truth. Rely only on that. The way you access your intuition is, ironically, through emotional awareness. I'm not saying that being irrational/emotionally carried away is more objective than being rational, rather I'm saying that it's only through sorting through your emotional attachments can you really find the voice of your intuition.

@DocWatts David Icke is the most obvious resource on conspiracy theories. You can find him on bitchute. There's a lot more, I don't feel comfortable naming too many names actually. I don't want to break forum guidelines. A lot of conspiracy theories are about 'elites' lying to the masses about a whole bunch of stuff. This seems impossible to someone who has never considered conspiracy theories, because most people lack an understanding of systems. I'd highly recommend studying how systems work, what high leverage points are there, who controls information, who controls the definition of 'truth' vs 'falsehood', 'fact' vs 'fiction', 'reality' vs 'delusion'. The question I want you to ask yourself is - Given the way our systems work, is it possible for the elites to get away with as much as the conspiracy theorists claim? Is it a valid possibility, or is it just logically impossible? That's where I'd start my investigation if I were in your position.

@DocWatts You're not gonna like my answer. The answer is to look at your resistance to conspiracy theories. Why are you so scared of them? What is it about the theories themselves (or the people who believe them) that terrifies you so much? Then the next step would be to consider them with an open mind. As Leo said in his last video on openmindedness, consider them with an open mind without having to fully believe them. If you really want to honestly conclude that they are indeed BS, you will have to consider the possibility that they could be right first. Then you can do an honest investigation to figure out what's what. A lot of the judgement and hatred comes from the fear 'What if they're right?'. If you're able to prove them wrong, you will not be scared of them anymore. However, if you're proven wrong by them, well..... that's a potential consequence you'll have to be prepared for before you do the investigation.

I like Windows and Android. I find it more user-friendly. I've basically grown up with it.

His other book on the Cashflow quadrants has a heavy focus on systems thinking, creating business systems. Isn't that Yellow? You're saying there's no Turquoise. Yeah he doesn't talk that much about non-duality, he talks more about money, personal finance, investing, etc. Maybe his target audience is folks at Orange/Green. But as a person, I think he's very evolved. He does sometimes talk about his awakening experiences when asked. He also talks about his Life purpose as the Rich Dad, which is selfless on his part. Coming up against the Fed, the education system, the mainstream investment markets, etc. is a massive risk for him as a person and as a brand. Also, he does talk about the inner work he does on himself. To be able to teach what he knows in such simple language such that the masses can understand takes a lot of awareness about the level of development of other people. It isn't enough to just put out information, you also need to account for potential resistance from your own audience. He's able to meet people where they're at, which is analogous to being a Spiral Wizard. As far as his company going bankrupt goes, well, all good things come to an end. He had a great run. Edit: Teaching people to manage personal finances really means teaching them to do shadow work around money. That involves being a kind of spiritual teacher. That involves waking them up about their shadows around money. That's very Turquoise imo. Try being a spiritual teacher, or try waking people up. You'll see just how difficult it is to get out of your bubble and meet people where they're at. I'm sure Leo will agree with me on this, that it takes unbelievably high personal awareness to do that.

I am Asian. Racism, judgement, prejudicial thinking in general is normal here. In fact, it's considered cool. The more out-of-the-norm your judgements are, the more cool you are. This is what I've grown up with. When I went to America, seeing Stage Green was a culture shock in a very good way. I was really happy to see people who were politically correct, cared about social justice. I felt very safe from judgement compared to here. I've heard immigrants say they're scared of racism from White people. From what I've seen, it is a projection of their definition of racism. The racism they've seen in their home countries is much much worse than racism in America. When American media really highlights the few racist incidents on TV, the world hears about it and this makes people project a much darker image of America than it actually is.

Nooo!!! The Donald is the biggest creative genius ever!! Don't you know?!?! His IQ is higher than everyone else! The 2020 election is gonna be big, it's gonna be huuuuuuuuge!!

I've seen an ad of this Wesley Virgin guy on Leo's video. He was like 'It's your fault that you don't have a million dollars. It's your fault that you aren't financially free. It's your fault that you don't have a Ferrari. IT'S YOUR FAULT!!! TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY!!!' As Orange as it gets. @rosemayblake The reality is it is possible to manipulate the masses. It is possible to manipulate them with fear, grief, hatred, etc. The problem though is your brand could get hurt. If your ad makes someone feel fear, they will subconsciously know you as someone that makes them feel fear. This will hurt your brand long-term, even if you make some sales short-term. I'd suggest creating a brand that inspires people, makes them feel good. Now here's the issue - you need to actually have a good product and you actually need to care about your clients. You need to genuinely care about meeting their needs using your product. It must actually be valuable for people to feel good buying it.

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger

India. I assumed you live here too? I haven't changed my location on the forum profile.

The problem is that sex is the vehicle of reproduction. So prior to contraceptives, there was always the risk of unwanted pregnancy. If the parents weren't ready to have kids, say they were just teenagers, then raising the kids would become the responsibility of the rest of the tribe, which would lead to internal clashes. This is why the notions of 'marriage', 'nuclear family', 'parents being responsible for raising their own kids' were created by religious institutions. This is also why there are so many restrictions on sex. For example - You shouldn't have sex outside marriage. You shouldn't divorce. Single mothers shouldn't exist. The reason for this is to have parents do their 'duties' towards their kids whether they want to or not. Cheating is bad because it violates the rules of the 'nuclear family'. Prostitution is bad, because if the man of the house cheats on his wife and brings in STDs, that's bad for the health of the family. This is also why prostitutes are looked down on, seen as 'low' and 'dirty'. Recreational sex, hook-ups, etc. is irresponsible and disgusting. If you're deliberately trying to be attractive to the opposite sex, or you're wanting to attract your partner, that's 'immature cuz you aren't seeing the consequences of it'. This is also why taking ownership of your sex life is culturally frowned upon. Marriage should be arranged by the community, because young adults will choose partners who they find attractive, as opposed to material compatibility. Conditions for material compatibility include the man having a stable income, the woman knowing how to cook and clean, etc. These conditions for compatibility as a couple are, in reality, conditions for compatibility as co-parents. LGBT shouldn't exist, because LGBT sex is too complicated to regulate. So it's convenient for us to make it a sin. Yupp. If we live here too long, we will go crazy. We must find a way to get out of here asap.

It's not justified from some objective impartial POV. But we do it for our own survival.

How about Leo joins this party?! LEO FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

People have said Trump doesn't have two faces. He is exactly the way he is in his private life the way he is on camera. Yes, that's true.