r0ckyreed

Thats where I differ. To me, a realization is not really a realization if it doesn’t change your life. If you say you realize God but then go about being a Devil, then I would argue that you didn’t really realize God. Awakening and lifestyle go together. Awakening isn’t about chasing a dopamine pike experience, it is about deep understanding of what truth is. And a deep understanding will change your life. It is not just chopping wood and carrying water, it is about changing your way of life, which starts with a change in your perspective and understanding.

Think about it. Leo states that First-Person Subjectivity is all that exists and is all that can be known to exist. Consciousness is Absolute. Qualia is Absolute. Our perceptions/senses/experience is Absolute. From this follows that free will is a first-hand subjective experience. I experience myself being able to think of whatever I want to imagine and since I am God, what would stop me from doing so. Determinism assumes that you aren't God, but Leo claims that Consciousness is God and is Absolute and Infinitely Intelligent with no limits. If this is true, then Consciousness has free will within the limits of the human experience. I experience free will; therefore free will exists. It is determinism that is concept and imagination because you are imagining all these brains, neurons, and synapses. But free will is what is ACTUAL. Too many people straw man free will. Free will doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Free will means that you are able to do whatever you want within the confines of the human body and laws of physics (which of course are part your unconscious creation/will). Of course, free will is compatible with determinism because you wouldn't say that you have total freedom over how fast your heart beats, but saying that there is total free will or total determinism is a flaw in your logic because that implies a duality. Free will and determinism are one and non dual. From a first-hand experience free will and determinism are both actual and imaginary. You are imagining the neurons firing and you are imagining that there is a self that has an ability to choose. Free will and determinism are both part of the dream. Compatibilism is true. What do you all think of this argument?

I respectfully disagree. Dissociation is not meditation. There are proper and improper ways to meditate. You can be deeply connected and aware of truth or you are not. Meditation is about open awareness, and I know for a fact that I do not have a meditative awareness throughout my day. You have to create distinctions; otherwise, you are left standing where you are pissing.

First hand experience can also show you that from another vantage point (outer space) that the earth goes around the sun. But I have not confirmed that. With the Donkey, there is no first person experience. A donkey’s point of view is always inferred through your own experience. But just to go with the train of thought, calculus does not exist to a donkey in the same way that we can say that alien mathematics (let’s call it alienalegbraculus) does not exist for humans. It is all relative to first person subjective. First person subjective is absolute.

I think many of you are still missing the point. Determinism implies that time exists that past and future are real but past and future are imaginary, so therefore, determinism is imaginary. Free will assumes the self exists and it does, it is consciousness. Determinism cannot exist without imagining a past or future. Free will is all the infinite ways you can act in this very present moment. Free will is a paradox and still exists. It’s like the ego. The ego exists but also doesn’t. If the ego didn’t exist, then you couldn’t be alive and function.

You didn't read/understand my post. You have a headache, you have 2 arms and 2 legs. You cannot control that, but you still have free will for what you are gonna do about that. Free will doesn't mean absolute control of reality.

Funny enough, the free will video and what is consciousness videos were the first two videos of Leo that I watched. You are missing that you will also experience all the pleasure as well. Leo’s solipsism video was already apparent to me. If you do the work and read Leo’s booklist, then solipsism shouldn’t surprise you. I was reading Jed McKenna and he basically said solipsism is true because you can’t know anything except that you exist.

PS4/PS3 is the best console ever. You can play PS live for free on PS3 and you get amazing games. PC always gets viruses on them. I have never got any viruses on PlayStation. My Xbox One on the other hand will update constantly. I just wanna come home for work and play a game, but nope, I gotta wait for half an hour for the console and games to update. PlayStation is the way to go.

I just had an insight into what I think is the universal deepest fear and that is Eternity. I got this idea from watching Sartre’s No Exit play and the Good Place. Eternity robs life of all meaning. Death in a way is our salvation and escape from eternal boredom. I think there comes a point when our soul reaches the “I’m done” moment and wants to experience reality from a different perspective. Imagine that if your consciousness was locked into the human form forever, you as God would get tired of that. God cannot be omniscient if it blocks itself off from experiencing everything that isn’t human. This is why I think reincarnation might be true. Reincarnation is like beating one video game to play another. But eternity goes deeper than boredom. One of the reasons why people kill themselves is because they believe their depression will last forever, which of course is a self-deception. You born and die in self-deception. What do you think? Do you think eternity is our greatest fear? Of course a counter argument is that we wouldn’t fear everlasting, eternal happiness. But I would argue that even happiness would lose meaning without the experience of other contrasting emotions.

So I guess it seems like I made a genuine insight into the nature of our ultimate fear. Nobody seems to disagree, so I take that as my assessment of eternity being our ultimate as being 100% accurate.

I wanted to remind everyone of a trap I have observed in this work, and that is the importance of cultivating the Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. I have been following Actualized.org since 2017. I have noticed that Leo has once stated the importance of arrogance and how it has helped him to go through BS. But I also see that it has made him locked into a certain awakening paradigm that he is the absolute expert and awakening can only be THIS way. I have personally noticed myself being more arrogant and thinking of myself as an expert in my field. But I read a Buddhism book, and I reconnected with some of the reasons for why I love philosophy. Beginner’s Mind is a Buddhist concept that has been so helpful for me in being able to have mystical insights. I just wanted to make a post to remind people that it doesn’t matter how many awakenings you have had or whether you think you are a master/expert. That is the time where the ego and self-deception come in to stop you from growing and learning. Awakening is infinite. There is no such thing as a final awakening. It is still vital to have an openness. In fact, that is a paradox/contradiction that I notice in Buddhism is that while they have the concept of Beginner’s Mind, they seem to be convinced that there is a “FINAL”Awakening. But this would contradict the concept of Zen Mind. Because learning is a life-long process and so is awakening. You are never done, and you are never an expert. If you think that you can be done and that you can be an expert, then you will not have a beginners mind and you will stunt your growth. On the ideas of Solipsism and an external world, I apply the beginners mindset and keep the possibility open. Even though, I know that I can only know my experience absolutely, I keep myself open to the possibility of learning something new. I want to keep myself open to experiencing awe. I have found that I cannot do that if I think I know everything and that I am awake. I just wanted to point out this trap that I have noticed in myself. The further you progress in something, the more likely you are to close your mind down. I recommend reading this article on beginners mind. https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-cultivate-shoshin-or-a-beginners-mind

This post seems more like an argument for solipsism than a debunk. Lol! If you claim that appearance is all that exists, then you admit that solipsism is true. The whole view of solipsism is that the only thing that can be known or that exists is you, and you are consciousness. Anything that you are conscious of is you because you are consciousness itself. This Post just affirms solipsism. You haven’t proven that “other” isn’t anything more than a concept. Until you do that, you haven’t disproven anything.

Starstruck already made a post about this.

When you “awaken,” your ego never dies. Awakening isn’t the killing or dissolving of the ego but the integration of it with the rest of the universe. The desire to kill your ego or have an ego death is just more ego. Ego is all about acquiring (an enlightened state) and killing whatever obstacle is in its path (itself). But the act of trying to kill your self is an act of ego and will only breed more ego, more suffering, and more illusion. When you awaken, your ego goes to sleep temporarily. When your ego wakes up (as it naturally will), your awakening will go back to sleep. Notice how you can have a deep profound awakening and then lose all of that in an instance with ego and self-deception. There is really nothing we can do about ego but to integrate it and become aware of it and love it. You cannot live without an ego because your human character is the ego. If you no longer desire to breathe, have sex, and make money, you will die. Ego is important. There is no God-Realization without ego; otherwise, you would just be God without the realization. The game of life is so beautiful that we start will an illusory character to play the game to realize that it is all a hallucination. The issue is that the hallucination never goes away because that is what life is. That is why I say Absolute/Complete Awakening is impossible unless you do a mahasamadhi. But there is no point in doing that either. There is nothing to understand or realize when you are dead. That is why I say that understanding is relative. You first have to exist as a finite, ego in order to have the ability to understand. The key is figuring out the best ways that you can develop your ego rather than ways to kill it. The former is higher consciousness and the latter is more ego. Just writing out my daily insight for the day. The main insight that I had today is that ego death is an illusion. Maybe someday I will realize what physical death is.

It’s a paradox I call the ego paradox. The more you develop your ego, the less ego you will have. By that, I don’t mean to develop your identities/attachments. I mean to be able to sit and face a wall and effortlessly contemplate for 1 hour straight. I have done it, but am not developed enough to do that consistently.

I was contemplating time and self. Realized I was Infinite and so is time. I fell in love with just existing. I cried of joy and hugged a tree for no reason.

You are forgetting the space that allows those lines to exist. There is only one space and one consciousness. You can imagine however many lines and consciousnesses you want. But they will always be occurring within that one space/consciousness. And, the 2 infinite parallel lines really aren’t infinite because they are going only in directions. God is infinite in all directions and all dimensions. That would only leave you with ONE. It’s like space. There isn’t a separate space, it is all one even though the atmospheres may be distinct. Post closed. The question has been answered.

This is the 10% of Leo’s false teachings guys. If Leo is a cartoon wolf, then I am Mickey Mouse! ?

There is nothing wrong with relativism and nihilism. To say nihilism is wrong or right is to also assume an objective fact. The only thing I would say is "wrong" with nihilism is if you just sit in meaninglessness. Reality/life is meaningless, but that doesn't mean that you cannot create any meaning for yourself. Reality is meaningless so that you can create whatever meaning that you want. It would be much worse if reality had a goal/purpose but it was a purpose that you didn't find meaningful or worthwhile. Meaning is subjective but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Meaning is what you find worthwhile and fulfilling. It is a human emotion. But everything we do is based off of emotions, and there is nothing wrong with that. Again, wrongness doesn't exist right? So, if you are a true nihilist, then even the notion that "Life is meaningless" becomes meaningless, and the things that bother you are a subjective matter and not an objective one.

If "nothing is objective," then is that a subjective claim or an objective claim? If it is an objective claim, then your statement is false. If it is a subjective claim, then it is just your opinion and not applicable to everything.

Thanks. I think I may have misspoke. Realize, I am only assuming whether or not you are doing "proper" philosophy based off of what I notice you posting on the forum. I don't know who you are off the forum. With that being said, I noticed posts you've made about converting to a religion. I think it was Islam. Also, in the past, you seem to have dismissed certain pointers/concepts such as solipsism without entertaining. It is like you were completely bought into the concept and then now, you want to completely dismiss it. These are just a few examples of what improper philosophy is. This post is also an example and so is mine because we are talking about a petty issue that has no bearing understanding consciousness and Absolute Truth. Another thing is that instead of using this post to point out some of the behaviors you find annoying in others (and in yourself), you could have focused more on the metaphysical points like I did in my first post here that parroting is an issue that impacts all social systems. You could have dove more into asking questions such as "what is parroting? Why does it exist? Why do all social situations get corrupted with parroting others and losing independence?, etc." Instead, you just stopped at the surface level and offered people feedback to be aware of parroting without diving in and exploring why this is. Does that make sense? My definition of "proper" philosophy is similar to the video Leo made on Introduction to Serious Philosophy. It is hard to simply define proper philosophy, but I will give it my best. My simple definition of proper philosophy is independently contemplating and introspecting to get at the true nature of a thing through independent means and derivation. This means that reading philosophical works is not proper philosophy. But contemplating philosophical works does if it has to deal with metaphysical/epistemic issues. If you are just contemplating to understand Descartes' view of something, then I would consider that improper philosophy. The point is to utilize the knowledge/information available to contemplate consciousness. By contemplation, I don't mean speculation or mental masturbation, which is what I notice you tend to have done in the past quite frequently. By contemplation, I mean thoroughly thinking deeply (not researching) through questioning different thought experiments that others have invented and original ones that you create. By contemplation, I mean observing what is going on in direct experience and contemplate it. For instance, if I say to you that solipsism might be true. I want you to contemplate it by asking the question. What is solipsism? Solipsism is the view that only the mind can be known to exist. Then, I want you to contemplate whether it is true. Start by contemplating what a mind is. What self is and what other is. In your direct experience, there are no others but your direct experience. The wall and table are not other to you. They are objects occurring in your direct experience. These words are also your direct experience. The english language is also your direct experience. Then, what is direct experience? Direct experience is everything you are experiencing right now. Well, what is indirect experience then? Well, it technically doesn't exist because existence is a very direct thing (you can go into that topic separately on whether the indirectness has an ontological foundation). Indirectness is everything you are imagining, which imagination itself is direct. Experience is DIRECT! Okay. I am done with that one. That is a short example of contemplation. You can even contemplate further whether experience is direct or can be indirect. But with each point, you want to ground it and verify them in your observations. Remember to come to your own conclusions, which may be different from mine. The point is to have the attitude of mind where you want to discover what is true and you don't care whether you have to explore solipsism, run into Plato's cave, or sail across the Ship of Theseus. The point of proper philosophy is to ask questions with the intention of deriving your own answers and gaining insight into reality through focused, concentrated observation and thinking. Remember, it is easy to get sidetracked. That is the main thing I notice with a lot of folks (including myself). I know there is more to say, but I hope that helps.

Parroting isn’t something specific to this forum. You will find parrots in every social situation and group. If you had Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln, Jesus, Buddha, and MLK all in one room, you will find a parrot. That’s just how social life and humans work. Even Leo has parroted ideas in the past. No one is immune. The issue is you aren’t doing proper philosophy.

I think that the point I am trying to make is that there is no knowledge/understanding without some point of view/reference/experience. Knowledge seems to be experienced relatively. The Absolute already knows all because it is all. The part is trying to grasp the whole, and I think knowledge/understand is a function of a part trying to become united with the whole. This is what I mean by understanding is not absolute because The Absolute does not need to understand because it already Is. I think understanding can lead to the Absolute even if it is relative to the living entity and one’s level of development. I will continue to keep my mind open to the possibility of having Absolute Understanding. I think what I mean is that when I am dead and in the Godhead, there is nothing to understand because I am dead and don’t exist. But when the Universe is experiencing a fractured part of itself, that part has the possibility of understanding. I don’t know if this applies to all parts. For instance, I don’t know whether it is possible for an ant to awaken to its nature. You seem confident that the human form is able to grasp the Universe. I am not so certain but will keep my mind open to it. I think that just like an ant has inevitable understanding limitations, I think the same applies to humans. I am just entertaining these thoughts, and am curious what you think. Are there certain inevitable understanding limitations for the human experience?

That’s the part I obviously don’t understand. I feel like knowledge and recognition are definitely conceptual and so is understanding. By conceptual, I mean anything the mind is trying to make sense of. Me thinking about all of this is conceptual. Any insight I get from this form, I also see as conceptual, as it all relates to the mind. I don’t see anything Absolute about understanding but that it is relative to the entity trying to understand. Understanding I feel like is relative to one’s state of consciousness and depends on mental processes to function. For instance, without attention, awareness, and thoug/ideas/concepts, I don’t see how you could understand something. In fact, all that we are talking about and an understanding points to some concept that we are grasping and making actual. It’s hard to separate understanding from conceptualization. I feel like understanding has a lot to do with language as well. Without conceptualization, there is no understanding other languages, and without understanding other languages, there could be no science, no math, no history, no philosophy, and no awakening?

I think to make my point clearer: Knowledge, recognition, and understanding seem to be relative. I know Leo has claimed that understanding is Absolute. But I feel that understanding will always be relative to some vantage point - the thing to be understood. Since the Absolute is pure being, it is beyond understanding, knowledge, and recognition because those are relative human/animal processes. The Universe already is intelligent and functions without “knowing” itself. I think the Universe can only “know” itself through us. That is because knowing is dualistic. The same is with meditation. Meditation cannot exist without relativity and duality. There has to be a subject who meditates who then realizes that duality is imagined. For instance, I wouldn’t say that a rock meditates or that space meditates, or that the Universe meditates. No, only living beings capable of focusing their attention can meditate. Meditation is a relative activity in the same way that knowledge/understanding/recognition is. Thoughts?