Gesundheit

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman.

@Someone here So, where does that leave us with evidence? Is proof/evidence a context or a content? How can we prove something that we don't even know?

How exactly? What is the sun? What if what you're thinking is the sun is actually just a light bulb nailed to the sky which is the ceiling? What if it's not even that, but rather a collective hallucination? Perception is not truth.

You can't find what you don't seek.

I'm asking you whether you can find the thing we call "evidence" in nature or on your rooftops. If you can't find it, then where is it located? Before you've gotten into school and learned logic, did "evidence" exist for you? Has "evidence" remained the same or has it been changing and evolving over time? Et cetera.

Rather, I actually took it from you. Which is prior? Evidence or non-evidence?

@Loba Seems like an excellent idea! I wanna rebuild my discipline by reintegrating the stage Blue shadow that I've left when I moved past Islam. I want to create a routine and maintain it. I think this will help. However, I think that holding your part of the deal will be harder. For this reason, I will ask you to tread lightly with your art, and only work on it when you feel inspired. Maybe some days you will find yourself creative. Follow that energy and see what comes up. Then maybe you will experience a week or more without much inspiration. That's fine, too. You don't have to be disciplined about it as long as you have the vision and intent. The healing process is flexible and self-explanatory. And discipline can hurt if it doesn't feel completely authentic, ime. We want the most Transformative & Truest Healing possible in the long run, not just the appearance of healing. Feel free to communicate all your thoughts, filtered or unfiltered. We're together in this, and there will be no judgements. For me, I guess it will be easy. I have a Quran at home. So, each morning, and right after I wake up, I will open the book randomly and see what verses give me the most positive vibes. Then, I will post a script or a screenshot (yes, there are Quran apps too). Once per day, probably. I may be creative about it if I feel inspired. I may use other resources than the Quran. Or I may even make it all intuitively. I don't know. I think the most important thing is to get started. The rest is details and it will sort itself out on its own. My suggestion; Let's start a new journal dedicated specifically for this purpose. Go ahead, make the first step, and I will join in later.

Is creating contextualizations really part of human nature? Can't a human live without any contextualizations? What's the relationship between enlightenment and constructing narratives? Let's say enlightenment means the total liberation that many teachers talk about. Are the teachers themselves totally liberated? Or are they still stuck in egoic patterns of teaching? Yep. Philosophy. I agree. But also there's a distinction here. Since holistic thinking is not simplistic thinking, it has a different relationship to reality/absolute truth. In other words, each is a unique manifestation of absolute truth. So they're not equal in terms of value, but they are equal in terms of truth. I'm now thinking, how did truth and value become distinct here when I took holistic thinking to its extreme by including simplicity? I tend to be like your friend. I don't like going too much into philosophical zones. I'm mostly practice-oriented, but I also have my philosophical moments. Damn! I miss those times lol. Is it unrealistic to seek becoming a beach within/during one human lifetime? Should I accept the few grains that I currently have and just drop the rest of the sand?

I was asking specifically because of the what is wisdom video. Having strong opinions on wisdom and foolishness seems kind of dangerous if we consider change. I think Leo probably thought that spirituality is foolishness back when he was atheist. LMFAO! That image! Not to a stage Blue person, or a little child (for example). Would you say the nature of constructs changes? Or our relationship to it? Perhaps I'm questioning the distinction between real and imaginary here. I'm not sure I understand this. Tbc..

I already specified the context that I am interested in. Truth and value are similar in the context of bigger picture/holistic thinking. Outside of this context, they could be different. But that would be beside the point. Notice I also specified that I don't even have a rigid idea of what bigger picture/holistic thinking are. So your points are already included. I was just highlighting the intellectual position of favoring bigger picture/holistic thinking over the opposite. And I was doing that rather from a bigger picture/holistic thinking vantage point. (Now I realize my point was addressed later in the comment). But still, bigger picture/holistic thinking is not absolute truth. It may be closer to absolute truth from a certain perspective on certain levels, but essentially isn't it the same as small picture thinking/closed-mindedness? In terms of value, the mind is trying to control value and distribute it in the way it sees fit. Yet, in practice, the mind is too limited to know everything. It does not posses infinite intelligence. So, while on the one hand, it may be creating desired results, on the other hand, it might as well be creating problems in the long run that it cannot forsee no matter how big/holistic it gets. Okay, now I'm done.

"Problems" is an imaginary construct too! And it depends on one's agendas. (Just observing here). "Mind/interpretation/belief" are imaginary constructs, until we decide otherwise. (Again, just observing). What about the construct of constructs? Is it an assumption or truth? You're choosing to view things from a relativistic/construct-aware lens. But that's just your way of looking at things. (Mine too, btw). I'm not questioning the necessity of assumptions within a construct. I am rather questioning the validity of constructs in and of themselves. One question that arises is: Why is a construct important? I'm not done yet. I'll still be contemplating the rest in the meantime.

I've watched about the first 10 minutes and then stopped. First, I don't think that I am smart. I mean, I could be somewhere in the top 30% of the general population, but I'm definitely not in the top 10%. However, I am highly aware in the present moment. My baseline level of consciousness is probably amongst the highest in the world. Not the highest, but probably somewhere in the top 10%. For me, that could count as intelligence. Second, he explained being smart as having an overload of information, which is not the case for me. I rarely watch any videos or read any books anymore. I spend most of my spare time on spiritual practices and entertainment. But sure, I have my beliefs about enlightenment. Do I need to drop them? Maybe, but certainly not now. Dropping my enlightenment beliefs would leave me as I currently am, nothing would really change. I'm not suffering per se, but I am not fully satisfied, either. If I let go of seeking enlightenment, then you will have to deal with my aggressiveness for the rest of my life lol. Me seeking enlightenment is in your best interests, my friend. Trust me, you don't want me to stop.

There's no such thing as "trauma". It's often just a limiting belief that a lot of people have. That being said, I wouldn't try hell on purpose. If it comes on its own, then so be it. But I would never seek to experience it intentionally. And that is simply for the sake of comfort, which is the ultimate reason why I would do anything in the first place.

Connect that with OP. Let's say you've become a Trump supporter. How would you handle it? At least, how do you expect you would? Do you even think it's possible? Likely or unlikely? What does this kind of change depend on in your current opinion? (This is more directed towards Leo and other teachers that make videos and write books, etc...). I'll contemplate the rest of your posts and see what comes up.

Deconstruct the concept of evidence. Ask yourself; What is evidence? Or maybe create a thread lol. Maybe, but this still assumes "perspectives" which is a made-up "perspective" in and of itself.

It doesn't matter what I think it is. There's an intuitive guidance that's leading the process. And I trust in it. I don't know what to do with the rest of what you said. Honestly, it doesn't spark enough interest in me to reply. Anyway, and in case you're interested, this song describes accurately how I currently feel:

Interesting. I don't think it's ultimately false, but I don't think it's ultimately true either. To me, it's just beliefs/maps, not reality/the territory. At least for now lol. Wow! That is one powerful quote!

Why?

It is something I don't want to do, but I have this curse that's making me do it compulsively (By the way, when I say curse, I just mean ego. I use the curse narrative to paint a picture, both for myself and others). It's not my choice. I am the victim of my own lies. I am not fully aligned with truth and have said that before. If I was 100% aligned, I would be enlightened. Alignment means awareness and embodiment. I have higher levels of awareness than of embodiment, like most people. The difference between me and others is that I may have been 60% aligned with truth before this thread, but now I feel like I have achieved a 10% increase overall. Most people are barely at a few percents. Most people on the forum are at a few tens of percents. So I am more aligned than most people, at least in my personal estimate. BS. You wouldn't be talking if you didn't. Changing the outside world is the ego's deepest desire. Me saying this carry a desire to change you as well. It's inevitable. I don't believe in this nonsense, or like you'd say, mental gymnastics. Calling it "the obvious" is either an unconscious belief of yours, or a subtle desire to change me. Either way, it's all in your mind. And yes, I've noticed you playing the devil's advocate from the beginning. You asked me if I found that aggressive, and I answered no. That's where the 10% increase happened. Beliefs and ideas. What you imagine is vertical growth is not necessarily the same vertical growth that I imagine. You want me to adopt your version of vertical growth, that's all. There's no need to hide that, if you're aware. What do I really want? Can you say it directly?

Because everything could not be without you.

What if your relationship to the context changes? What if you're not convinced anymore with the value of multi-perspectival thinking? What if you discover that closed-mindedness is better than open-mindedness? What if your preference of creativity is no longer exciting to you? What if you stop calling what you're calling right now "assumptions"? What if you start calling them "truth" or something else? You think that you're assuming an external objective reality. But are you really? And how do you know? What if what you think is an assumption right now becomes then a thought that is not considered an assumption? Do you see the subtle, yet radical shift here? As well, "To me, a belief itself is not the problem. The problem is when the mind holds onto a belief tightly with attachment, the mind becomes rigid. Then the mind cannot see other facets of the diamond." This assumes a "mind" that is doing something called "attachment" and becomes either "rigid or fluid". It also assumes that reality is a diamond with different facets, but the present moment is one. There's no more than one facet except within an imaginary timeline. How do you reconcile that contradiction? Yeah, "truth" is not very different from "value". They're both more of what we call "bigger picture/holistic thinking", which is considered as the ideal here, and now everything is challenged by it. But, let's imagine that this ideal has changed. Let's say you've stopped looking at the world from a "holistic perspective" (whatever that is, btw). Let's say that now you've come to value some parts over the whole, or more accurately, different parts than you used to do. Would that not be a radical shift?

@integral Ha! What you're doing here is not very different from that which you want me to stop doing. You want me to change as much as I want you to do. But the difference is that you don't want to change yourself, so you tell me to change, in order to avoid looking inwards. It's as simple as that. Old-school devilry. Being direct or indirect about this does not really change anything. You think there's something wrong with me, and I was generous to agree with you. But actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with me, nor with you or anyone else. But obviously, there's a friction here. Agendas are not flowing together effortlessly. Me being who I am is causing distress to others. But see, I recognize that and I am already actively trying to change it by chasing enlightenment. I am looking inwards and taking responsibility. You guys don't recognize that you also are causing me distress by trying to change me to fit into your ideals of how a human should be. We're literally doing the same thing. You're just being indirect about it and trying to appeal to my ego from a different angle. (Notice how I was able to recognize that before you did, and then tell you about it directly. I doubt you'd ever have beaten me to this insight under any circumstances, because being indirect misses the point, by definition). (Also, notice that all of this here is just observation. I did not tell you to change nor tried to force my ideals on you. But it's likely that you will perceive my observations as threatening and offensive, because that's the nature of self-preservation, there's no interest in looking inwards or changing oneself. To you, all problems are without, not within, even though your ego may pretend to believe otherwise. Do you know why? It's because of lack of self-love/enlightenment. If you guys actually love yourself, you won't have a problem with change). Boy, I could go on and on... (Lol).

What happens if the context changes? Maybe at some point you will see what you regard as relative constructs right now as absolute truth that is incapable of interpretation. This might sound odd or even crazy from your current pov, but is it really an odd possibility in practice? After all, what's the difference between an absolutist outlook and a relativistic one? Both outlooks are defined by the content, and content is always changing. You're looking at this from a value standpoint. But this standpoint might change at any point. I'm not talking about changes in the content of value. The context itself might change, and you may not be interested in measuring things according to value anymore. And so forth... For example, notice that Leo's philosophy is based on nihilism as a core truth. Leo believes that nothing has an inherent meaning, but rather we, humans, project meaning onto things. What might happen if this core belief changes? That is interesting to me.

@Parththakkar12 I'm sensing a little bit of misogyny here. But I could be wrong.