zurew

Do you think that meth is inherently bad/harmful?

It is though. There is something that is either seperate or not, that tries to figure itself out. From this human pov we call it 'changing its own states'. We can say other things but that describes it fair imo. This thing can change itself to be aware of different kind of things. If i use your position, then i can say, that everything that zurew said above is just false, because his relative pov about this problem is coming from the finite self, and not from the infinite self. The infinite self (which is exactly true compared to the finite self) realises its True nature. Everything that a relative self can do or make sense of is either false or just partially true. There is no other, there is no separation , its just Isness. No manipulation, no doing because it assumes a doer, or a manipulator. When you realise that you are absolute, there will be no more questions, because there is no one that could ask those questions. But with all that said, for example if a question pops up that 'is there a reality out there?' . This question assumes a lot in an of itself, but it can be investigated with infinite number of different kind of tools ,and states of consciousness, and then at the end of the day you can say that yours is the right one, and maybe you will be right, but maybe you won't (again here is an assumption that there are others, I think making different kind of foundational assumption can create different kind of paths to explore, without assuming, that there is only one True way). Now, in my opinion, that above is cool and all, but Reality or God can be investigated from infinite different kind of states of consciousness, and not just that, but it can be investigated with different kind of epistemic tools. For me, every tool is just a tool and neither of them holds more speciality compare to the other ones. Of course again it could be said, you just say that only, because you think you are this finite self and that you think there is a seperate investigator. I know the very need to explore God from more perspectives and with different tools can be questioned and could be called problematic in an of itself, but right now, i am (limited ego talking here) holding this position.

Do you think, that what you say is not just a perspective? Because , so far what i have seen about these enlightenment arugments, is that there is so much disagreement between person and person, that it suggest, that there is much more place for not knowing compared to knowing. But again, how do you arrive at the claim, about what I am. You are using the so called infinite consciousness, to derive at the conclusion that I am God. So you put more emphasis on that level of consciousness compared to the other ones. And now you can say, but at that level there is no one to have a perspective, but again, why do you want to make it out to be that it is more objective? The level of consciousness which one use is the gatekeeper here. It basically changes everything.

Yes, but isn't most claims on this forum comes from the place, or from the claim, that the so called infinite levels consciousness pov is the "right", and from that pov we can basically allow ourselves, to make absolute claims, but on the other hand if someone disagrees with a certain position, then it can be dismissed or shut down, because he/she doesnt use the same level of consciousness as a basic foundation, to derive truth from.

Thats fine, if i want to say that those states are more true compare to the other states. However, most arguments are around 'from which state of consciousness can i make sense of reality the best' or 'How could i know, what is True?'. I know its a problematic statement, because it assumes a lot, but because langauge is limited and relative it will always be problematic. We can make every claim relativistic, even the God ones if we want to. If you truly want to be objective, why would you put more emphasis on the God levels of consciousness compare to the other states. If i change my brain chemistry enough with 5 meo dmt, then my ego could be crushed and my perception of reality can change and also my knowledge about my identity as well. But why would you put more value on a certain state compare to the other states. Also, i want to add here, that from that state, there is no one else but me. But again, why would i appretiate that state more to derive the Truth compare to the other ones.

Yes, there is always a way to look at it. Especially, if we are talking about perspectives. I think reality is sort of perspectival. From a human's pov it could seem like that miracles are happening, you could say that is is not true, because from the so called absolute pov it is this or that. We can dismiss the so called relative povs, or we can say that every pov has an element of truth in it.

I don't particularly agree with Leo's behaviour, when he said something along the lines of, that he accessed such states, to which no one has ever had access before. I do have my own critisism of Leo, and i agree with you, that if someone wants to make it self to look like they are special,then, it can be a problem. Even if it is not intentional, it could create a dynamic where some people starts to worship that particular person.

I read it with Trump's voice, it's pretty funny

My argument was not about defending Leo's claim, my argument wanted to be about, that 'everything in the mind'. Even if i don't use awakening kind of arguments, i can say that if i use idealism as a foundation, then from that position it can be easily argued why every aillments is in the mind. I wanted to target that, i didn't want to defend Leo's claim, because, frankly i don't know if it is true or not. The "debate" is not much about defending his claim on my part, its more about the fact, that neither me neither you know if such a thing that 'you can cure all ailments' is possible or not. Or that it is possible to do powerful things. The intellectually honest position is , that we don't know, now you can call bullshit on it, and you can say that it is not true, and that it is impossible, but that will stay merely an opinion not a fact. It does not mean that Leo was right about it, or that you are right about it, it means that from my and your pov , we don't really know. So i am arguing for more open-mindedness here, i am not defending Leo's position. Btw, correct me if i wrong, but i think that you have more problem with not the claim itself, but the consequences that it can have on other people ,when they hear such a message. I would hold Leo to that same standard, i am holding you right now.The standard is, that there are x number of things that you don't know about, and making claims about things or attacking things that you don't know , is problematic in my opinion. But i understood why Leo did what he did there, and i understand (or assume) why you do this right now. You want to protect people from irresponsible messages, that you think is bullshit, and you don't want them to hurt themselves, or to be in a position where they can harm others.(again i am assuming a lot here, feel free to correct)

Can you come up with an example for this, where a reputation system would be more valuable than the resources.Doesn't have to be too specific, but vaguely how it would look like.

It's flat out wrong only,if you are looking at it from your paradigm. You are using a different kind of epistemic foundation compare to most of the users on the forum, and thats all okay. However, your last sentence is an objective sentence, that "it is just flat out wrong", now speaking from a materialistic paradigm it could be true. It all depends on, in what structure you want to place that statement. Basically, all your critisism can be boiled down to this problem, that you and Leo are using different kind of epistemic foundations, and your criticism is only true and valid within your paradigm, Leo's claims will be true if you are using his foundations (or it can only be then realised). So for your critisisms to be objectively true, as you want it, you have to assume, that your worldview is objectively correct, and you can just assume that whole foundation(that you use) before you want to make a claim or a criticism. Now, we can start to argue whose foundation is correct and why, but i think what i said above, must be understood first.

@Danioover9000 I don't even think people have a problem with the length,but more with the lack of structure and with the really long sentences. Sometimes one sentence looks like that it will never end. Imagine, if i wanted to tell you a story which has 500 words in it, but i would only use 2 sentence. Its obvious that he is an intelligent guy, who can share a lof of valuable insights, so if he can work on this, that will be awesome.

@Danioover9000 thats true, however, i think nothing wrong with suggesting to use a more digestable form of writing. its much easier to make sense of, and also to reply to.

I'm triple vaxxed with pfizer. I didn't have any side effects. You can write out all of your fears about vaccine or why you have your resistance towards it. The first most common fear is often about long term side effects. As far as i know, if you get covid you can have certain kind of long term side effects too, and the chance that you are going to get the covid at one point in the future, i think it is still very high. The second thing is that not all people need it. Now, here you can find some nuance, because before it was pushed much more than it is now (before the omicron), because it had worse side effects than it is now. Omicron can spread faster but if i know it correctly,it is not as lethal compare to the past versions. Right know it could be argued how much it worth it for you to get yourself vaccinated when the virus side effects are declining, however you don't want to get vaccinated for protection, but now you want to get an opportunity and you don't want to suffer the regulations that comes with not being vaxxed. There is a lot of stat you can find on the internet, that it can show you that vaccinations were powerful and are effective, but it has to be said here,that nothing has 100% effetiveness. You have said in your text, that you think that vaccines aren't and wasn't necessary for covid 19. I don't agree with you, and if you study about it and look at some statistics you can see thats not the case. Vaccination wasn't just about your own health proctection it was about the proctection of ill and elder people and also to slow down the speading of the virus. It was also about preventing to put more burden on hospitals, there were some cases, when doctors had to choose ,to whom they should pass the breathing machine to(there weren't enough breathing machine in that particular hospital). You could read a lot of other cases, where very healthy,strong young people went to the hospital because of covid. But of course you can say that it is all propaganda, and that its not true. But now thats all irrelevant to your case, i just wanted to clear some stuff up. In my opinion, you should write out all your fears and all the cons and pros that you think you will have, if you choose to vaxx yourself. Right now, you have a fear about the future about the long term side effects. Such fear is based on things that are unknown,but that doesn't mean that it will 100% have very bad side effects in the future, but of course we don't know. However, on the other hand, you know exactly what you sacrifice, if you don't get vaccinated. I also have to add here, that regulations might change over time, especially with covid 19 mutating, and with taking into account that more and more people getting vaccinated and getting some kind of immunity against it. So, you could make an argument, that you want to wait and gamble with it and see if the regulations will change over time and the company where you want to go might change its policies as well. So again, overall i think its easy to get vaxxed, but you should contemplate it yourself, what do you really want to sacrifice here, and write out all the possible conseqences, whether you choose to get vaxxed or not.

Make a video about researching. Using different kind of tools, showing how to use google effectively (with for example google dorks) How to use contemplation to make a web of knowledge of a certain kind of thing How to organize that knowledge How to make sense of the researched information

Jim Rutt article about it: https://medium.com/@memetic007/making-liquid-democracy-work-pay-the-delegates-bd813a9cb60a

@Danioover9000 Yeah, well said. We can add, that sometimes our damage what we do, is delayed in time or not even located in our place, so we will continue what we are doing, because it doesn't have direct impact on us, or we don't recognise that it has impact on us, or we don't want to change because we value other things better, or it doesn't matter to us, because it will damage other places, and not our country. Sometimes, when causality is delayed, the delayation makes it much more harder to make sense of certain kind of problems, because even if it had direct immeadite recognisable cause in a complex system, even then it would be hard to solve it, but with the delayation it makes it so much more complicated.

I think with a dynamic, where you can delegate your vote to others, it can be easy to take advantage of , especially if you have a lot of money. Basically you could directly buy votes from other people with only using your money, the most rich would have the most influence over the issues. If its done better, and if there is some way to prevent this, then it might be a good way to address things, but i don't know how it would look like in practice. Such ideas in my opinion should be tested in a smaller case, before it is used in a larger one.

I have posted some stuff about oil before, because it is important to know that oil is one of the best energy sources in the world right now. To go for renewables, it will take a lot of time, and also it will take a tremendous amount of money as well. But you got a point there, that countries have to become more self sufficient, i don't know how big we are speaking here. I don't think there will be a time where individual countries will be able to be 100% self sufficient . For most countries, its not in their best interest right now to do it so, for a number of reasons. One big reason is the economy. Economically speaking there are a lot of stuff for different kind of countries that they are importing on purpose. Just look at the USA, why do you think the USA imported oil from Russia before the war has started? I think its fair to say ,because on an ecomomic level it was incentivised to do so. But its just one example from the many. I think trading and importing and exporting between different continents and countries will never stop. But, if you are talking about more self sufficiency and not about 100%, then i can agree with you, that it might be good and wise to work towards it. It will only happen if economically can be beneficial for countries and companies, until then, we will mostly use cheap non renewable energy sources. No country wants to get behind in the short term(geopolitically and economically speaking) ,to look forward for the enviroment and make changes for that. For example if you make the oil price in your country higher (to prevent more envirmental damage, and to prevent the world to run out totally from oil), then it will change the trading dynamic ,because before more country would import from you because it worthed it, now they will buy from someone else for a cheaper price. Big eviromental changes will only be possible, if global action will take place simultaneously and not delayed, but such actions are not very likely in my opinion. We will see, but i don't think that most countries can afford that move right now. But even without this move, Russia will be more and more damaged in the longterm. It destroyed its whole reputation. Unfortunately, mostly will innocent russian people will suffer the most, especially in the longterm imo.

I don't think most Europian countries will come off of Russian oil or natural gas, because most of those countries would be in trouble, and secondly they would have to get those resources from somewhere else for instance from the USA. If they make that move, it will be more expensive for them and they are not incentivised to do so, economically speaking. I don't think they will make that sacrifice, just to put more pressure on Putin.

there is something called The C-RAM (Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar), it could be effective against drones

Because, especially facebook and youtube are optimised for time on site (not just those ones). If you have a business model where you want people to stay on your site (because it will make you the most amount of profit), you are incentivised to do so. You can have thousands of smart engineers and psychologists and neurologists insight to make a website/system where everyone is hooked on. Most of the time on these kind of sites, there will be artificial intelligence used as well. Now, you have a certain amount of freewill to fight certain kind of stimulies, but it can only get you so far. When you try to have a fight with an AI you will lose, and the AI just only get better and better. Its so addictive now on so many levels, that most people can't get off of it.

@mandyjw This is a fair critique and at the same time it doesn't. First of all, it could be the case, that he is not open to any crtisism, however in my opinion this is sort of a content vs structure problem here. What i mean is that he won't engage with crtisisms that are attacking the structure (god realisation on epistemic levels) of his teaching, but he will rather engage with crtisism that comes from the same epistemic foundation as him (i assume here). this is not unique to Leo, because if you look around in science you won't see that anyone will engage with a mathematician's critique about for examaple the field of psychology. Because they are different, they have different purpose and they have a different epistemic foundation. You can only make fair statements if you put yourself in the same epistemic foundations, that you want to critisize. Now, you can of course disagree with that, and attack the structure itself, but i don't think that such arguments could be useful for anyone. Everyone have their own biases, why they want to use different kind of epistemic foundations, so at the end of the day, it all can be argued, but what can be really achieved by that. Different people attracted to different foundations, they can feel free to use those roads to reach their own destinations. You could say, that Leo does attack other spiritual teachings on a structural level and he shouldn't do it, now that would be a more fair critique in my opinion, compare to the ones that i have heard so far. Because this would be some kind of a double standard here, that he won't allow others structural critques ,but he does allow it for himself at the same time. I don't really know how does this related to actualized.org being a cult, but feel free to elaborate if you want to. If you don't agree with his statements on pickup, thats okay, but i don't think its bad when someone presents his own thoughts and knowledge about a particular subject. But it does unique, doesnt it? How many enlightened people you see running around?

@PepperBlossoms If we radically change the chemical levels in your brain and body, your perception of 'reality' will radically change as well. Not only just that, but your identity will change automatically as well. Why do you want to be attached to only one state? What you think you know about yourself and the world is only attached to that one state. You can discover yourself from different states and you can do that with the world aswell. Why and on what basis assume that one state is superior to another? The main reason why you think you are a human is because you took this state for granted and think that only this state can provide the right perspective. Even the 'chemical level story in the brain' is attached to this identity and knowledge that you try to ground reality and yourself in. Also what you can't forget, that even if you assume that there is a reality out there outside of you, even within that framework you can only experience your version of reality. You cannot escape your peception. You always distort reality and can only experience your own distortion of it. Name one thing that was outside of your experience. You basically cannot do it, because it will be automatically be in your experience in one way or another. Also i want to add here, about your perception of your own self and about your identity that it is also distorted by you. You don't see yourself in its whole form, because you only experience your distorted, biased version of it. Thats why most spiritual teaching is about ego death, is because if the ego is dead, then the distortion and bias will be gone automatically. If you take up any finite identity, there will always be some distortion and bias. You don't have to agree with that, but just think about it, and contemplate it.

Yes, i agree with that. If someone is not even open to use different kind of epistemology to ground his/her worldview, then the whole discussion is a waste of time. And I agree with Leo on that, his work first need to be deeply studied before anyone tries to critique it.