Gnosis

Can you see where someone above you is at? And frankly on the topic of these types of posts, which we've seen so many of over the years on this forum, Leo should think carefully about how this "phenomenon" reflects on his own teaching style. This is sincere criticism. I make no claims about myself with this statement.

@Enlightement

The mind is something else than transfer of energy between matter.

It's clear to me that nothing is clear to you.

Comparing reduction of self-referential thoughts to "awakening" in any way broader than the most narrow possible definition is like comparing a peanut to a helicopter.

At my "stage of development" the former is less outrageous of a statement than the latter. However Leo intentionally chooses to make the latter statement rather than the former. This makes him an interesting character.

Isn't the issue here that you yourself do not understand or know how to articulate what you've realized? That's the only reason to make all these assertions via negativa. Whether or not the statement itself is true is irrelevant to my point, because the only possible function of such a statement is to declare that the reader is wrong. What good is such a statement beyond this? Granted, maybe precisely what people need is to just have the simple cognitive power to understand that they're mistaken, but fundamentally you haven't communicated whatever it is you wanted to. This whole statement is like second-rate wine that's only served when the first-rate wine is on too tall of a shelf to reach.

This is spot-on criticism, Leo's arrogant "style" turns off people who don't either: 1. Accept his words at face value. 2. Tune out the arrogance. 3. Tune into the arrogance as entertainment. There are only a few ways an audience can go about it, and option 1 would be the wrong thing for the audience to do according to Leo's own standards and advice. So perhaps the criticism here is actually that Leo's communication style and self-assuredness at times will allow for option 1 to exist no matter how much he declaims about the importance of "thinking for yourself" and not taking his teachings on as a belief. In other words, there's a dissonance between his teachings and his style of communication. I'm sure he himself is aware of this to some extent.

But Osaid, structure is con-structed.

Just stay there for as long as you can.

You're talking out of your ass.

Simply put, postmodernism is not thorough deconstruction of concepts. Relativism is itself a concept. The postmodern kind of relativism when adopted tends to be less like relativism and more like a gravestone planted firmly in the ground. Of course cognitive development can go beyond postmodernism. Cognitive development is of course also a concept. At any rate, good developmental psychology is at the very least produced from analyzing massive amounts of data and surveys. Postmodernism is not. Why might someone prefer developmental psychology over postmodernism? Because it's like comparing the selection of alcohol at restaurant to a single pack of beer. Both are of course fantasies.

Just admit defeat, my guy.

Would you want to study under such a teacher?