AdeptusPsychonautica

Member
  • Content count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AdeptusPsychonautica

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. @Gesundheit2 If you find value in Leo's response then more power to you, but the fact remains it isn't science by any definition, and when Leo invokes "science" as he often does, then it is often an incorrect application of that word and what it represents. This would suggest that he either is simply confused as to what science is, or that he is deliberately invoking it in a deceitful way in order to add weight to a point he is trying to make. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.
  2. @Gesundheit2 Just take is as a given that @Leo Gura is deeply confused at the difference between "science" and "his personal subjective experience" and then you will probably realize its not worth asking him this kind of question. And of course when he talks about "lubricating the brain" and "radical open mindedness" just substitute in "believe exactly what I believe, for no particularly good reason". Simples! ?
  3. @pattimone I have been to one of their retreats, and having been to many other different retreat organisations in both Europe and South America - I can honestly say you should avoid Inner Mastery. You don't even need to take it from me. Here is someone who worked for them telling his story of what a shit show it is.
  4. Yes when I was referring to that quote which I did by posting that exact quote in this thread, then I was indeed referring to that quote... excellent work Holmes. Firstly the quote makes no mention of enlightenment, so lets stick with the words that are already there rather than muddying the waters. Secondly we already talked about what kind of healing might be possible within such altered states (trauma, psychological, emotional). Thirdly whether or not such changes are permanent was not ever discussed, this is something you seem to be inserting in for some reason. If we are talking about an illness caused by trauma then I see no reason why it could not be permanently resolved within an altered state. This is the basis for most traditional shamanism of which I have some amount of experience, so I do not think this statement is accurate. Yes while in an altered state then you might not IN THAT MOMENT perceive that you have any ailments, and yes those ailments might return if they were not resolved within the state as discussed previously in regard to trauma. "Infinite intelligence" would be a fairly bold claim, particularly coming from yourself. If what you are saying is that altered states can help one deal with problems, then sure - and again this would be an extension of the above trauma/psychological/emotional discussion. He clarified that he misspoke when making this claim, but realistically that was blatantly fucking obvious to anyone - all I did was point this out. If you could just get over it that sometimes Leo makes mistakes, then this whole thing would have been laid to rest two years ago. As I have said many times - is it really that hard? Which one? You seemed to get rather obsessed on the "healing" claims, but I am more than happy to unpack any other of my criticisms for you. I think you are straw manning again. I have never been particularly critical about any of this stuff and think putting "serious stuff" behind a paywall is not a bad idea, because it requires some commitment from the user. I also think its commendable that Leo did what he thought was best in regard to the solipsism video, not necessarily because of the content (I haven't seen it...yet, and yes I do have a copy), but just that it shows some integrity to his own vision for his channel. And of course I agree that beginners need to be onboarded at a controlled pace. This is true of any spiritual practice from shamanism to martial arts.
  5. I will happily take a self inflicted snobby, over being an immature halfwit bully ? Here is a more accurate rehash for you: Leo absolutely made objective claims, the evidence for that is clear, and he himself admits he misspoke in making such claims, he also correctly labels other people making similar claims as "delusional". Nowhere has he made any clarifying statement that he was speaking exclusively to a certain state, so since you obviously do not speak on his behalf then we can disregard any attempts from you to do so. You are welcome!
  6. Well its not new criticism is it mate? I have been consistent in calling out your glaring intellectual/emotional/irrational flaws and shitty behaviour throughout this ENTIRE THREAD, so if that is what you mean by "new" then sure! ?‍♂️ ***adds "new" to the list of words @Inliytened1 does not understand*** I'm not sure what you are referring to in regard to "the healing stuff not working out". As far as I can see I have offered reasonable arguments to all points that have been raised, and while I admit I am slightly biased here - I think its fairly obvious that I owned you. Still if there is some outstanding topic you would like me to address then feel free to highlight it, although I must admit that I am growing a bit weary of your clumsy jabberings and lack of integrity, so I would prefer to deal with those who are more reasonable and intellectually capable - I hope you understand. You seriously do, and honestly you have no business being a moderator while you are doing it. Your behaviour is appalling and if I was Leo I would be embarrassed by your display here. In my opinion there is no place for self aggrandizing bullies in the spiritual space, let alone moderating them. Literally nowhere did we break it down to that, and I don't think you even know what spirituality means (along with most other words in the English vocabulary). I mean can you link me to where this particular strand of the conversation happened? That's a rhetorical question btw because I know that you cannot ? I hate to take this kind of position and fully appreciate it looks bad or snobby, but you are not capable of keeping up with me on any level, and explaining basic things to you is becoming tedious. Please leave it to your more rational peers to have the big discussions, which will give you additional time to masturbate over how awakened you are(nt).
  7. I would pretty much agree with what you are saying here in that there are different paradigms, and that one person could be speaking about one while another is speaking from the perspective of a different paradigm - no argument there None of this was stated as objective fact. The entire comment was prefaced with "in my opinion". Here I would disagree. While fully accepting that one can have different epistemic foundations, I think it is evident that Leo in the video I reference is actually making claims about things that will play out within (for want of a better term) material reality, so the paradigm he is straddling there is blatantly clear. Now while his head might have been somewhere else, the claims are firmly rooted in this paradigm. As previously highlighted in this thread he is not talking in solipsistic metaphor, but claiming physical ability over human disease and ailments - and he (Leo) himself has agreed that he was overstepping the mark by making such claims, so I really don't think there is much else to debate in regards to this point. So while I fully understand and appreciate different paradigms, to try and apply it here as a counter to these criticisms really is unnecessary retroactive woo woo white washing. Is it that hard to admit that that guy said some things he shouldn't have said, when he himself admits as much? I think its also worth highlighting a double standard here around such paradigms, and the Connor Murphy phone call debacle is a perfect example. Clearly Connor was making similar OBJECTIVE claims about what he could do with material reality - again, the paradigm that was "on the table" here was absolutely evident, and Leo was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to state that Connors claims were delusional. There was no question that Connor is "using different kind of epistemic foundations", no - he was simply acting delusional. I sincerely doubt there is anyone here who would argue in favour of Connor Murphy having a different epistemic foundation as a reasonable justification of his behaviour or the things he was saying, but based upon your reasoning YOU SHOULD, hence the double standard. Maybe something for you to think about?
  8. @Inliytened1 I guess we can add "cleared it all up" to the list of phrases you don't understand the meaning of - wow, this list is getting quite long! ? Honestly mate, your lack of self awareness is pretty amazing. Your contribution to this thread has been awful, switching between straw man arguments, cringe inducing arrogance, a complete lack of logic or reasoning, misunderstanding of basic vocabulary, emotional immaturity, and just being an outright bully by abusing your moderator status and banning people. You have some serious work to do pal, and the fact that you act like this as an outcome of your much vaunted "awakening" really raises some red flags. REALITY CHECK - you didn't clear anything up, you got cleaned up, and the atmosphere in this thread would have been A LOT "clearer" if you had kept your petty immature ego out of it ?
  9. I am making a joke out of the way you use words, because I find it nonsensical. On some level I agree with you, particularly in conditions related to trauma of which I have some expertise. Trauma can result in the manifestation of physical symptoms as well as emotional and psychological distress, and so the processing of such trauma through altered states is well documented. HOWEVER... Stating that all ailments lie within the mind is, in my opinion, complete bullshit. I appreciate that what I am saying differs from your chosen flavour of solipsism but viruses, parasites, genetic defects, and mangled limbs from automobile accidents are not "within the mind", so to make a generic statement around "all ailments and diseases and solving every problem in your life " is just flat out wrong.
  10. None of it is out of context, I mean this has already been covered at length within this thread so please keep up. In regards to new hobbies though then I am always open to ideas - what would you suggest?
  11. No I have not made any reference to you in any of my posts in this thread. The de-railing to which I alluded was @Inliytened1 having a meltdown and banning a user for no reason. I would concur with your sentiments, and hey - I would like to think that I am here in good faith, providing well reasoned arguments for the points I am making, and I appreciate those that take the time to respond in kind.
  12. Cool, I will add the word "cured" to the list of words which you use but do not seem to understand what they mean ? PS: I did not say that Leo lied (again strawman), I simply said that he was wrong to make this claim, and he at least partially agrees - so your woo woo white washing of this statement is kinda irrelevant at this point.
  13. @Tim R noted and agreed. I think I have said my piece around the ban scenario. I would just like to address this final point of @Inliytened1, because I do believe it is constructive and fits the theme of this particular thread. So I don't actually believe we did get to the bottom of my criticism because things got de-railed somewhat and so my understanding is that you feel something has been missed by me, and that my doing so indicates my "jumping the gun". I have read through the thread and can only assume you are referring to is the notion that Leo never claimed to have healing abilities, only that it was possible - thus my criticisms are invalid, and I "jumped the gun". This is entirely incorrect. Here is the direct quote "I can help you to discover that you are God. When you do realize that you are God, this will instantaneously solve every single problem in your life, not only that but it will heal you, it will heal you of every disease and problem that you have" Here is the timestamp to him saying it - https://youtu.be/6BOSwQAM27M?t=111 Just to add a further bit of context this was said by someone who states they have already had such an awakening, many times in fact, and is now declaring that they can give other people the same awakening, which he is OBJECTIVELY stating (I know you struggle with this one) that it will "Heal you of every disease and problem that you have" So my criticism is that Leo is making an OBJECTIVE claim with a real world outcome, and as I have said before to make such a claim is delusional, just as it was delusional when Connor Murphy was making such claims and Leo RIGHTFULLY described him as delusional. Now in addition to my own opinion of what was said, Leo himself offered his own take on that particular quote right here on this forum on a conversation he and I had back in 2020. Here is what he e said about the exact quote I listed above, and I will leave the direct link below Leo Gura - "That particular statement was overstated, to be fair to you. And I can see why that would arouse skepticism in people like you." OK, so even the guy who said it admits that he did actually say it and that it was a bit "overstated". Once again we can see that the criticism is indeed absolutely valid, and that no - there was no "jumping the gun". Now I will completely grant that later in the video Leo starts talking about some things which MIGHT be possible, which is what I think you are latching on to, but hey - that's a problem with much of Leo's content in that he says A LOT OF STUFF, some of which is contradictory to itself. Again this is covered in that original thread from 2020. I hope this helps clear up your confusion around "jumping the gun", and gives a useful lesson in not overusing the phrase "jumping the gun" particularly when it as actually you who is jumping the gun, in saying that someone else is jumping the gun. I hope it also firmly puts to bed the fanciful idea that I am just pulling these criticisms out of thin air - as you can see I keep fairly exhaustive receipts. Are we all good now, or is there something else you would like me to cover? ? As you know from experience I am happy to meet you head on anytime. Last time we did meet head on you ended up straw manning around things I have never actually said, and agreeing with everything I did actually say. Glad to hear it, because you are in fact wrong so I hope you have a strong chin ?
  14. I love you too, but dude if me tackling all this head on is deflecting, then I honestly don't think you know what that word means... along with subjective/objective...along with logic... along with science... along with materialism... along with hypocrisy.... I mean you write the words, but every time you do it exposes that you really don't understand them. But sure, if you want to say I'm deflecting then go for it - why not! There were many, but one of them was about awful moderation giving rise to toxic behaviour - that one aged pretty well I think ? Yup I'm listening Dr Freud, where would you like to go with this?
  15. Ah! You called him "the worst of the worst", threw an emotional tantrum, and then banned him in order to help him - OF COURSE! It seems so obvious now that you put it like that ?. I think I will file that explanation next to dousing someone in gasoline to put out the cigarette they are smoking - "I was just helping!" In that same spirit of helping each other, allow me to offer you some advice. Show some dignity, be a big boy and acknowledge your shitty behaviour, apologise to @RMQualtrough, and then have the grace to keep your head down while you recover from whatever is going on that gave you such poor judgement. While you are having that timeout take a "deeper look" at your own "internal battle" and "realize where you could make improvements". "Not the greatest" is a colossal understatement mate, punctuated by the bantrum (new word I just invented!) that followed. Is it that hard to just admit you fucked up and say sorry? Trust me you will feel better for it ? Anyway I always have to give credit where it is due - kudos to @Leo Gura for making this right.