zurew

Regardless of what kind of wordview we are using, the only thing i can interact with and access is my dream. So even if there is an objective true part of you, i cannot access it, so thats why i call it a dream. The only thing i can be sure of is my conscious experience, anything more would be based upon further assumptions.

It doesn't absurd at all. "Reality is a dream" claim is correct on many levels. Even if you want to make the argument, that there is an objective reality out there, even then, you don't really access that reality, but you only experience your own interpretation of that reality. Interpretation is basically reality, and interpretation = creating reality. So by you making your own interpretation of your own self and reality either consciously or unconsciously you are making your own dream. When you read this message, you won't read my message, you only read your own interpretation of my message. I am always inside your head, you basically can't get around that. You are communicating with an idea of Zurew in your head, you can't access any objective Zurew. So even with the "there is an objective world outhere" assumption, you still only access your own biased, distorted version of reality.

Because there is no difference between real and not real. What makes the "real beings" real and the dream characters not real? Also you are asking for evidence and proof, when this thing is unfalsifiable in the firstplace.

Yeah this is really true. I find it way too reductive to say that "all judgements just in your head" implying that its just subjective so it has no real substance on reality. There are a set of characteristics that we can agree on that is really destructive, unproductive and unhealthy in a society. The mind is constantly making judgements on reality and on its own self. The mind is a good tool for survival, and its necessary for survival. Survival is not bad, using judgements to survive is not bad either. We can use the mind consciously and unconsciously. Making a judgement call, that a person based on certain characteristic traits can ruin your life, could save your mental health and could save you from a lot of trouble.

Good stuff This is another one ,that is really good from Shpongle.

This assumes, that after death you won't have any experience. There is no objective answer that can be given, why experience makes life worth living. However, if we want to go with the conventional definition of death, then we can say, that paradoxically death making life worth living. When you ask yourself the question why living is better than being dead, its basically a subjective question. Because any experience can be subjectively evaluated on the good and bad scale. You are the one, who evaluates an experience and put a value on it. So the answer can only be given by you. On the other hand, we can talk about generally speaking why people subjectively value life over death. For instance being able to have enjoyable, pleasurable experiences, to create, to connect with others, to develop yourself, to express your unique nature in the world to have the ability to love to have the ablity to fall in love etc With life you have the ability to create. Lack of meaning is better than a deterministic meaning, because you can create the meaning yourself.

I would say, that not always but in a lot of scenarios the difference between conceptual understanding and embodiment, is that in the case of embodyment you have intuitive knowledge. Under intuitive knowledge i mean knowledge, that you can't really articulate and you don't neceassarily know conceptually, you just know it. For instance, could you describe me how to walk, if i didn't have any intuitive knowledge about it? (How to and what leg muscles should i use and in what ways and in what times, how to lift my leg up, how to step forward, how to not fall, how to use my foot ) etcetc you probably wouldn't be able to. I have a sort of intuitive knowledge about it, that i have gathered by fail any try, but conceptually i could only understand it at a certain level. In this case, conceptually i don't really have that much more knowledge about walking compared to a child, but i can still do the activity without being able to describe it or understand it in a very nuanced way. Now, i could teach a child walking ,but not because i have great conceptual knowledge about it, but because that child already has a ton of intuitive knowledge inside him that can be used for learning that particular activity. (in this rare scenario, for the sake of teaching, you don't need to have a conceptual knowledge about the particular activity to be able to teach it) Other example could be eating. Could you describe how to use all your organs and your muscles and your teeth and your tongue to be able to eat something? To a certain level you might, but not to the level of your embodiment. But you still embodied this particular activity. But for instance, in the case of boxing, for someone to be able to get to a world champion level, it doesn't really matter what genetics he has [what i mean here is that even if he has the best genetics in the world for boxing, he wouldn't be able to be a world champion without good coaches behind him], he need a really good coach behind him. He need a certain coach who understand his movement, his setbacks, the concept of boxing, how to adjust certain exercises to certain anatomy, a coach who can evaluate the strength and weaknesses, who can see all the boxer's blindspots, and a coach who has a really deep conceptual understanding how to punch and a whole set of techniques how to defend punch) . In this case, the coach could study this subject conceptually, and can understand all the knowledge that has been gathered from the past through a lot of fail and try by other boxers and coaches. This coach can have this knowledge, and articulate this knowledge without needing to embody all the stances, all the punches all the defending of the punches. So embodyment can happen without conceptual understanding.

You don't know what special ability or talent you have unless you try to discover it or find it. Also, you have the ability to get really fucking good (not at anything) but at a good number of things. You can basically master a lot of things, if you give it enough time. Everyone has their own advantages and disadvantages. Everything comes with a cost. Do the best, with what you have got. You can still do a lot, to find what you would love to be doing. How much time do you contemplate about it every day? How many different kind of jobs and activities do you try every day? How many new experiences you deliberately have every day? You can "attack" all those 3 above, and as time goes on, you can get closer and closer to your desired career/job/activity. You basically need to get to know yourself deeper, and better. You have to figure out yourself, no one else can know what you deeply want to do. We can only give you tools, and you can use those to dig with, but you have to do the digging yourself. And of course it will be hard to sit with yourself for hours and contemplate about it, it will be hard to get out of your comfort zone and try a bunch of things out without the guarantee that it will be the one that you will like. But you don't really have any better option, so you might as well use those that you have.

Teaching requires understanding and knowledge, but it doesn't require embodyment. Being good at something won't automatically mean, that you will be able to teach it well. Why? Because you have had a unique structure and you figured out a good way how to use your structure, but you won't necessarily will be able to adapt your knowledge to other people's structures. However, if you have the ability to think in other people's structures, at the same time you have a lot of knowledge about a field (conceptually), then you can help people with different structures to apply your knowledge. Having an embodyment is not necessary, but it can be a plus when it comes to teaching.

I think that letting an AI being a leader would be really bad. Especially, because of the constant set of values. As humanity evolves, our values are evolving and changing, being stuck at a certain stage wouldn't be good. Also there are an infinite number of factors that you wouldn't think of, where having a constant valuesystem would be bad. How would that even look like? What valuesystem would you program into an AI? Valueing what over what? Or if you say that you would make it such a way, where the AI can evolve its own morality, then thats even more scary. Using an AI to inform our choices is okay in my opinion, but having an AI to make important choices instead of us, wouldn't be wise.

I think you are sort of right, in the sense that a lot of people here (including me) lacking a holistic approach in life. Putting all our stats on spirituality without having a proper foundation can cause some anomalities. Especially some of us young actualizers make this mistake, to unconsciously parrot some of Leo's values and beliefs and then saying "I only care about Truth and enlightenment and nothing else matters". I think for most us thats a cope. Most of us are lacking a proper normal foundation in life. Very few people is cool with going just for enlightenment and at the same time not caring about other things at all. Even Leo is caring about other stuff as well, and he has a conscious business built up. Leo is still careing about woman, about his business about actualized.org, about this forum and about his channel and about what image he has on the internet. The other trap some of us falls into, is the "spirituality will solve all my problems trap". Trying to use spirituality and enlightenment work as a copeing mechanism to deal with life, without really faceing with the challenges head on. Doing spiritual work will increase your happiness in life, but there are aspects to life that really can't be skipped without faceing them head on. There is no one technique or method that will help you to solve all your problems at once. Working on our ego (growing up) part is really important too and can't really be replaced with enlightenment work. Getting more connected to our values, what do we actually want to do, and how do we want to express ourselves in this world. At the end of the day, until physical death you will have to live with your finite ego self , so then you might as well start working on it .

There are a number of ideas and beliefs that you cannot test, and we take it for granted. This idea, that if you can't test something, then it must be delusional can be questioned itself. Just because there is something we cannot test in a normal conventional way, that does not mean that it isn't true, or less true. Also, we always test ideas and beliefs in an already created subjective structure or system. That means, that there are always some number of underlying assumptions and axioms that are not being questioned and taken for granted. So even if you can test some ideas and it became true (in your subjectively created structure/system) that does not mean either that it is objectively / absolutely true. Given enough well defined axioms or premises, i could create an infinite number of self validating structures or systems, where if i put something into that structure i can subjectively evaluate if that thing is true or not (based on my unjustified axioms and premises). ---> the lesson here is that you won't find any system or philosophy that will be able to justify itself objectively without having any assumptions at all. So trying to use logic to get closer to truth won't help. So you either have a self justifying system, or you have an infinite structure where the justifications need justifications to infinity. So using doubting as a tool and using logic as a tool to get to a destination can only help to a degree, but can't get you all the way there, because they are too limited on a structural level. Absolute means, that it is full, there is nothing outside of it, so you cannot test it against something else. Whatever you would want to compare to it, you wouldn't be able to ,because that 'something' would be already part of the absolute. Testing something absolute is like trying to fit an infinite thing through a finite structure/model/system.

I think a lot of arguments could be made , why social media is polarizing. Its not just polarizing politically, but polarizing in terms of self-confidence or self esteem. Just look at the use of filters. Those people who don't use filters will get less tracking and likes on their posts so basically everyone is almost forced to do so. Those who are narcissistic will use it because they like the validation, and those who are lacking self esteem will use it, because they feel like they look like shit, so then "i might as well try to look more prettier to fit in ". So those who had a lot of self esteem will get even more, because of the validaiton, and those who didn't have enough self esteem will feel even more shittier, because they think other people are much more prettier compared to them. Also look at how most algorithms are working. For example on facebook, you get a lot more traction on your posts and on your advertisements, if you start to talk shit about other people or companies, because facebook is optimized for time on site. Because of that optimization the AI figured out that if someone is posting shit talking ,it will get a lot traction, because people tend to get triggered, and tend to talk about those. So the AI knows that it should recommend those kind of posts that will trigger the most people. Nowadays, most social media is revolving around self-validation. The more validation people can get, the more addictive that site will become. So at the end of the day, we are generating more narcissistic people.

It seems to me, that it googles the string that you give to it, and then applies the choosen background in some kind of way.

Yeah, it could trigger some of his deep traumas from his childhood. He is expressing himself very bluntly, but he seems very sensitive.

I don't do spirituality for neither of these. I do it to gain insight. Thats true, but you can't really change culture by targeting a very large group like all of society at the same time. Specifical targeting is much better imo. Like helping stage orange people to climb up to stage green through various kind of tools. Thats not the bottomline what you mentioned, the bottomline is, that everyone is slightly different than others, people have different capabalities, motivations, interests, values, cognitive development, stage development, maturity, morality, personality etc. The more variables one take into account, when want to target a group of people, the more effective that targeting can get. But at the end of the day, no matter what levels we are talking about, we make other people interested by talking to them, having conversations with them and giving them enough reasons and by that they may or may not get interested in what we are talking about. But it doesn't really matter, cause Leo won't debate anyone, so continuing our debate about this won't achieve much.

Do you plan to go on a podcast in the future, or you lost your interest to talk with other creators?

I agree with this. Yeah. Maybe he should have convos with people who is similar to Curt Jaimungal , but i don't know how many people are out there who is similar to Curt. The other podcast Leo was on was with the charisma on command guy - Charlie. That was good too, but it wasn't as good as the TOE one.

I don't think deep down Destiny thinks that. He may say that but in some of his videos he was open minded enough after his strong mushroom trips to really question his reality. I think he even said it himself, the he thought it looked much more real than normal reality, and also he said that it was the most interesting and most terrifying experience of his life and that he don't regret anything about having a larger dose of shrooms. Also he pretty much weakened his stance on being absolute certain about materialism. Now on the surface level he act like a materialist but deep down his certainty in worldview has been destroyed years ago (when he had is shroom trip). Who do you think Leo should have a convo or debate with? Destiny or Mrgirl or someone else?

Yeah, the education part should definitely be corrected. Creativity is a big element to it, because in mental health we don't see any "laws" like in physics that would seem really consistent, we mostly have models that are built upon a lot of empirical evidence. So, because of the lack of laws to rely on, it leaves a big room for creativity to how to solve certain problems, and even how to approach them. There is no one way how it could be done, and most likely everyone should find their own therapist and its good that there are different kind of therapists, because one category couldn't fit all, imo. But there should be a system, that can connect people to the right therapists that are most likely will fit them the most.

Cultural change can be achieved, but it really matter who is the target group. When we are talking about having conversations and debates we are trying to target people who are open minded enough to have those, but not yet convinced that certain practices can be powerful also not yet convinced what is spirituality really about and not yet convinced what are the limits of materialism and science. We aren't talking about general lazy people who most likely won't do shit, and have a million other problems to focus on before any spiritual work. We are talking about a target group, where people are open minded enough, and developed enough to deconstruct their worldview and open enough to have conversations about politics, education, and science and about other important topics too. Also we aren't just talk about Leo's spiritual practices and ideas, he has a well rounded work which targets philosophy, science, spirituality, politics, education, economics, sexuality etcetc. He has golden ideas in each of those categories and those could be spread and those could be tested. In my opinion, Leo should represent and spread his own work if he really wants a culture change, otherwise just as what Scholar said, people will consciously or unconsciously misrepresent and misinterpret his work, and all his work will be even more demonized. And people will be left with his mischaracterized work, without Leo defending and explaining his own work. If you want to target general, normal people, then yes, you are right that the approach should be different.

I think these two things are the ones we can do, to have direct impact on people so to achieve cultural change and development Spreading the message having convos and debates Showing an example and trying to embody all the teachings as much as we can

What is a better alternative though, to spread the message? I agree that spreading the message with convos and debates won't be enough for cultural change, but this is one aspect that we can have direct impact on. We can't really force people to do the practices, but we can bring the knowledge what to do, why and how and for what reasons. Also we can point out, or Leo can point out the pitfalls of this work, because of course there are many, and i think many of us can fall into one at a time.