r0ckyreed

No. You are asking yourself these questions over and over again to pull yourself back into the illusion. That’s why I said that all of this is an ego game.

You/I got it.

Go on. Why are you obsessed with it? Why do you dream of other people being obsessed with solipsism? You already know the answer. The illusion is other. Your very ego is constructed and heavily dependent on a sense of other. Now that other is deconstructed, your ego is also deconstructed. There are no others who are obsessed.

What if sharing is the ego's defense mechanism to keep itself asleep? Of course, the irony is that me posting all this is my own self-deception and defense mechanism. I am gonna get off now lol! See, this is how tricky this devil is. But at the same time, what else is there to do but to enjoy the dream.

Consciousness is playing a game with itself right now. Become skeptical of the dream characters claiming they have awoken. Only the dreamer can awaken. After awakening is when you become the most susceptible to falling right back into a deeper sleep. For instance, I had a dream once where I realized I was in a dream. It was a lucid dream. After waking up from my lucid dream, I told my mom about my lucid dream last night. The self-deceptions that construct a dream are so powerful that I soon discovered that I dreamt the entire thing of me waking up and telling my mom about my lucid dream/awakening. And guess what? I am still dreaming now. Now, how is my lucid dream self-deception experience similar to what I see going on here?

How can we know the difference? It is more like you forgot that you wrote the script for other characters you created to act real to fool yourself into thinking they are real so that you can keep dreaming. Consciousness is playing a game with itself right now. Become skeptical of the dream characters claiming they have awoken. Only the dreamer can awaken. After awakening is when you become the most susceptible to falling right back into a deeper sleep. For instance, I had a dream once where I realized I was in a dream. It was a lucid dream. After waking up from my lucid dream, I told my mom about my lucid dream last night. The self-deceptions that construct a dream are so powerful that I soon discovered that I dreamt the entire thing of me waking up and telling my mom about my lucid dream/awakening. And guess what? I am still dreaming now. Now, how is my lucid dream self-deception experience similar to what I see going on here?

There are no others. Nothing matters. Even awakening does not matter. Why do you think you put yourself to sleep in the first place? It only matters when you say it does. Life is a game, a game it is playing with itself.

You are playing games with yourself. There is only one dreamer in the dream. All else is a story.

I am smelling an ego here. What the hell does it matter what "other" people think? Posting your awakening on here is another ego game. Responding to "others" trying to convince that you aren't deluded is another game. Measuring your awakening sizes is also another ego game. I have not escaped the ego games and neither have you, relatively speaking. Align your lifestyle with the highest awakening. Keeping going further. You ain't done.

@Seeker_of_truth Thanks for your response. Aint it though? Mortality to me is like the ultimate boss fight on your hero's journey. All fear stems from the idea of mortality. Immortality is the holy grail I am trying to find. To me, there is a difference between having a realization that death is a belief and actually deconstructing death. I am pretty sure that most people on here who claim to have deconstructed death are fooling themselves. You are still very attached to living and still fear death. How can you tell whether something is dead or alive? What does death look like? Where do you actually see death? Good questions/observations. To remain dreaming/living, death has to affect your realizations; otherwise, you would stop dreaming. I agree. I present a logical argument for immortality so I can walk you through my thought processes on how I come to the conclusion that death is imaginary. I believe evidence, even though it is relative, is still important for every claim. That way, I can communicate and other people can follow my derivations and conclusions. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Here is a tangent of my personal contemplations on dead/alive that I contemplated last night to help me deconstruct death (My contemplations here are probably all full of crap but I guess I have to start somewhere): What determines whether an object has life in it? Movement? If we say that movement is what determines whether something has life, then we could say that the wind is alive or the trees moving are alive. Most people would agree that trees are alive, meaning that they are living creatures. But most would not agree that the wind is alive or that soil is alive, but yet, all living things' survival are dependent on what we classify as dead things. Is food alive? Maybe. It depends on my construction. There are degrees of aliveness. A person in a comma or in locked-in syndrome could be viewed as half-dead/half-alive. Is death when we no longer feel important or lose our meaning? To me, death is impermanence. Death is change. But all distinctions of living and death are mental constructions of the mind. Aliveness also implies that something has a mind. A person in locked-in syndrome, a person sleeping, or a person whose heart has stopped could be considered as living, dead, or at least capable of life and potential because their mind is assumed to exist. How can you know if something is alive or dead? A dead cat and an alive cat are the same in direct experience. They are your direct experience. The only difference is the mind constructs aliveness and deadness. I mean, you could imagine your cat being alive but never moving or breathing. What would be the difference between the two? Any difference I can think of is arbitrary. Do other people really die? No. In my direct experience, I have never seen death, only my direct experience. Dead and alive are concepts and stories projected onto reality. Do other people die in my dreams at night? I imagine that they do. Where do the dead people in my dreams go? Where do my dreams go when I wake up? They are still inside me, behind my eyes, so to speak. There is no head or eyes, only the World or Field of Consciousness that everything occurs in. What about sleeping, dreaming, and death? Sleeping could be viewed as a form of death or another part of life. Again, it is relative to how I am constructing and drawing these lines. What if I am dead already? Have I seriously considered that? Assume I died. How would I know that death occurred? When I go to sleep, how do I know that sleep occurred? Do I discover when I wake up again? In a lucid dream? Yes. So how do I wake up? How do I become lucid? What is the "mechanism" that allows me to wake up instead of eternally remaining asleep forever? It appears that sleep, dreaming, and waking up just happen without my will. Would dreamless sleeping forever be similar to death? How would I know the difference if I am not there? I have no memory of any past life in the same way that sometimes I have no memory of my dreams when I wake up. Past lives like my dreams are mentally constructed right now in the same way that I construct the past, present, and future. Another way to look at it is that death is where I come from. Before being born, I was nothing. After I die, I go back to the same place from which I was born. How did I first become born or wake up into the world for the first time from the Deep Sleep of Death? This is all a nice story. But it is still a story. How do I know I came from death and how do I know I will go to death? Where the hell did I get the idea of death from? Culture and society and family. Death is a story on the news and in my life. I feel like I am crazy, but the only thing I have is direct experience. What difference is there between a toy/puppet, a tree branch, a snake, and a human? They are all Self. They are all Direct Experience. Where is the aliveness or essence of a toy, tree branch, snake, or human? In my mind. Where is the essence or aliveness of my mind? In my mind. There is nothing outside of my mind because all that I classify as other or beyond my mind is actually a mental construction of that which is my mind. Why do I still fear death? Because I am attached to this dream. I love the world and human character that I have constructed. What is beyond this dream, this life? Nothing is beyond. There is an assumption of a future of something beyond. But I will wake up right and this life will end right? I am still constructing that something will happen. The only thing happening is Now. There is nowhere to go. Location is another mental construction. There is nowhere to go because I am already there! Every dream I have is nowhere that appears to be somewhere. How is this life any different from a dream? How do I deconstruct death and all my fears? By learning to let go and become completely non-attached to this dream through more contemplation and meditation on these matters. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thanks! Keep growing and stay wise!

If death is imaginary, is memento mori bullshit? Argument for Immortality: 1. If the present moment is eternal, then I am immortal and death is imaginary. 2. The present moment is all there is. Death is a concept projected onto existence. 3. Therefore, I am immortal and death is imaginary. If I am immortal, what purpose does the practice of memento mori serve? My answer is that it helps me live to my full potential and execute on my life purpose. But I guess memento mori is a useful falsehood for the ego. What are your thoughts?

Interesting. That is why I asked the question on whether memento mori is full of crap. However, Memento mori helps me focus on what is important and to not waste time. The other practice you do could be an example of truth vs. utility. Mortality seems to give life meaning. Immortality and meaninglessness go together, it seems. I will try the opposite memento mori after I have fully deconstructed mortality. I feel like memento mori can be a trap that prevents one from deconstructing mortality.

I have watched your videos on death and memento mori. Is this a practice that you still do or find value in doing even after you have deconstructed death?

War! Huh! Good God Y’all! What is it good for!? Absolutely nothing! War! Huh! … Do not fight for what you hate, promote what you love. The best revenge is to not be like the devils.

Yes. The question assumes a tree exist without being seen. If this is the case, then it follows that the sound exists without being heard.

What is the highest stage of moral development? Disclaimer: Please don’t answer with “morality is a social construct and does not exist.” That is a foolish answer because you contradict yourself. If you are breathing, alive, and reading this, then you have a bias for this illusion called life. Morality is inevitable as long as you have a bias to live. If you do not care about morality, then you are a devil, and I only care about God and living as closely to the Goodness of God that I can. This is one thing I think is missing from Actualized.org teachings. Leo gives metaphysical insights about God but just because you awaken does not mean that you transcend devilry and being a devil. In addition, please do not respond with just "Selflessness." Or that "Morality cannot be conceptualized by a theory. Goodness is beyond any human theories and conceptualizations." These kind of responses do not help human kind to develop morally. Without a map, you are essentially trusting the masses to be able to know how to sail (which they do not; otherwise, we would not have any more horrendous crimes). So, we need to value and contemplate moral theories because they can help people become moral and construct a more conscious society. You will have a theory of morality regardless of what you believe, so might as well construct a positive and conscious one. What is the highest stage of moral development? How should one live? What is the highest goodness, virtue, and morality that humans can aspire to? What is the highest stage of moral development? There are many models of morality. Kohlberg defined 3 levels of moral development: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Within the 3 levels are 6 total stages: Stages of Moral Development (Kohlberg) Preconventional 1. Obedience and punishment - Good and bad is linked to whether or not we get punished or not. A person at this stage is not motivated to be good for its own sake. They only care about avoiding punishment 2. Self-interest - Morality at this stage is motivated by self-interest. “What is in it for me?” In psychological/ethical egoism theory, all morality is argued to stem from this stage. A person at this stage only does what is good because it serves their self. They are aware of punishments and consequences but the difference is that in this stage, a person will act despite known punishments as long as it is in their self-interest. Conventional 3. Interpersonal/conformity - Morality at this stage is motivated by “what others think of me?” Good and bad is viewed as whether other people will approve of your behavior or not. 4. Authority and maintaining social order - Morality is motivated by valuing authority and maintaining social-order or status-quo. A person at this stage will act despite what “others think of me” to maintain social-order. Morality at this stage is higher than conformity and what “others” think but more about “upholding rules to sustain a functioning society.” 5. Social contract - Morality is viewed as a social contact as opposed to strict absolute rules. At this stage, rules are evaluated on whether “a rule truly serves all members of society.” Postconventional 6. Universal ethical principles - At the stage, morality and rules are valid only if they are grounded in justice. Morality is guided by justice and our own inner-compass as opposed to self-interest and social conformity. The highest moral principle is compassion. A person at this stage believes that people should learn and understand all perspectives. A person at this stage may ask “What are the abstract ethical principles that serve my understandings of justice?” Source:https://sproutsschools.com/kohlbergs-6-stages-of-moral-development/ Other moral theories include: Ethical Egoism - Psychological egoism is the view that human nature is ultimately selfish and all behavioral are always motivated by self-interest. - Ethical egoism is the view that something is moral as long as it is in accordance with one’s own self-interest. If it goes against one’s own self-interest, then the action is viewed as morally wrong. Virtue Ethics - Virtue ethics view moral virtue as central to ethics. It is essentially about cultivating “virtuous habits.” It is a quest to live a life of moral character. - This view of morality is “character-focused.” -- "How should I live?" - An act is bad is deemed to be morally wrong if it makes our character morally inferior or unvirtuous in any way. Deontology - Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of “following rules to distinguish from right and wrong.” Ethical actions follow “universal laws.” - “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” - Kant - Unverbalizable laws include: Don’t lie, Don’t steal, Don’t kill, etc. - It is about doing your duty to following these rules and not about consequences. - An act is good as long it is following the unverbalizable rules. - Deontology essentially views individuals as “ends” rather than “means.” This means that individual agents are intrinsically valued and not instrumentally treated as “chess pieces.” - Actions are inherently good and bad. - Operates off of the Golden Rule - "Treating others the way I would want to be treated." Utilitarianism - Utilitarianism picks up on the flaws of deontology and focuses on the consequences of an action – what that action produces in the world. - Utilitarianism views moral goodness as any action that produces that most good in the world. - Utilitarianism is focused on providing the most goodness and well-being to all of society despite the actions leading up to it. - Utilitarianism, in the traditional sense, essentially views actions and individual lives as chess pieces in the game of chess. The ultimate goal is to have peace for all involved and that might mean making sacrifices to win the war. - Actions are not inherently good or bad, as long as it brings about the best result. Here is my question to you: Which moral theory is the highest that we should aspire to? If the moral theory is not on the list, feel free to make your own up. My thoughts on this are that I think we should all aspire to be Deontologists and Virtue Ethicists. I used to buy into utilitarianism because it seemed like a very attractive theory to our pragmatically minded society. Our society has a result-based mindset. For Deontology, I think it is wise to have established rules that can be universalizable. To me, Deontology is similar to social contract theory, but it goes much deeper. Social contract theory focuses on the rules, laws, or “contracts” dictated by a society. Deontology has imbedded in the theory of a larger duty beyond what a society deems as “just.” Deontologists will act on maxims that are universalizable and will act despite of what a society may think. For instance, a society could be a social contract that makes racism justifiable, but a Deontologist has a deeper duty to treat all humans with fairness and compassions because they are seen as intrinsically valuable. Moral actions are intrinsically valuable to a Deontologist. The issue with Deontology is that it focuses on rules and maxims that are universalizable. But our whole is becoming so diverse that the whole notion of having a rule that can be universalizable can be seen as folly. However, the closest maxim that I find to be anything close to universalizable is the Golden Rule of treating others the way I would want to be treated. This Golden Rule will apply to Virtue Ethics as well. I feel like Virtue Ethics and Deontology are connected. The main difference is that Virtue Ethics is focused on character development, whereas Deontology is focused on the social aspect of moral duty to uphold universalizable rules. The issue with virtue ethics is that it makes morality about character development. This may seem good on the surface, but there is a bigger issue of what determines whether a person is morally developed or not? How can morality be based solely on moral virtue if most of society may never reach the highest stages of moral develop? Virtue ethics seems very self-centered. I personally go back and forth between virtue ethics and deontology. One of the reasons why I like deontology is because it highlights that a “good life” is one that is lived by “good principles.” But I guess, you could argue that a virtue ethics individual could also be a deontologist in their own ways or vice versa. But to me, morality is deeper than any one individual’s character. Morality to me is about being in alignment and integrity with one’s own principles for living a good life. A virtue ethicist may ask “how should one live?” A deontologist may ask “What is my duty?” What principles do I need to follow?” Flaws to virtue ethics is that it seems self-centered on character development, as opposed to societal development. I guess that you could make the case that character development is the foundation for all other development. Unfortunately, not everyone is so privileged to have access to the highest education to have equal accessibility to developing themselves morally, you could argue. In addition, virtue ethics can also be unclear about what to do in ethical situations and dilemmas. What virtues do you use in a situation? Is it better to be honest or be beneficent, etc.? One thing that I do like about virtue ethics is that it focuses the moral development of our personal character. The issue is that it can be unclear as what is most virtuous or what is the most ethical? But I guess you could say that with all moral theories.

Or you can contemplate truth for yourself and question direct experience itself rather than off-shooting your own authority to someone else. Other minds is like saying there is an other God.

And what do you do after you wake up? How does one be the most moral and virtuous human being? Waking up has nothing to do with morality and virtue. Not sure I understand how disintegrating moral values makes one moral. If you don’t value something, how can you embody that? Yes of course. That is what morality is about. The question is how to reach the highest stages of moral (justice and compassion). Justice and compassion are relative. Do you mean justice and compassion in a Kantian, Deontological sense or in a utilitarian sense or what?

https://realization.org/p/jed-mckenna/who-is-jed-mckenna.html

How can you possibly know other minds exist? Notice that other minds are a belief and no belief is true. Solipsism and service are not incompatible. You can still care and relate to the "world" and "others" despite Solipsism. I can be lucid in a dream and realize others are my imagination, and I can still relate to them, be of service, and be a hero in my dream or in a video game. If I can be a hero in video games or my dreams, which are Solipsistic, then nothing is stopping me from being a hero right now. All the best <3

Of course. The fairy tale of Truth (which is a falsehood) is easier to understand, conceive, and believe than the Truth. We are all in Plato's cave and Leo is trying to tell us through analogy, concept, and metaphor how to unshackle ourselves and experience The-World-Beyond-The-Cave. No guru, teaching, or concept can get you out of the cave. All concepts about The-World-Beyond-The-Cave such as the river, water, and truth are all stories that are passed down from caveman to caveman.

@Bufo Alvarius Love your posts man! Keep them up! I totally love this. This Solipsism question totally tells you who is full of shit and who is woke. Do Jed McKenna next or do Eckhart Tolle or whoever you can find. Keep it up man. <3

Nice. I totally agree with that. I believe morality should be centered around selflessness and the highest love possible. It sounds like utilitarianism but utilitarianism seems to conflate love with utility. Yeah. There is a lot of overlap for sure. I think subscribing to a holistic approach is a good idea. It can help you cross-reference and see the bigger picture. The only flaw I see with the holistic approach is that it can be very overwhelming with a lot of different maps of the same territory. But in moral situations, multiple perspectives are needed in many cases.

I always admire how direct Leo is. I aspire to be more direct in my own life. Rupert Spira, Eckhart Tolle, and these other gurus now seem like a facade to me. It is all a mind game. They are just bullshitting themselves and “others.” It just amazes me how deep the ego goes in convincing people they have awoken when they really fell more deeply asleep. Edit: Of course, I am imagining these false gurus and their “awakenings” and their self-deceit and facades to keep myself asleep.

The Big Bang never started.