theleelajoker

Sounds a bit like J.C.Lilly: In the province of the mind what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experimentally and experientially. When so found these limits turn out to be further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind there are no limits.

+1 IMO people a) are way to easy manipulated into believing some so-called gurus and teacher. The older I get, the more I realize I do much better using my own capabilities. You need someone to tell you how the world is, what it means and how to navigate it? Good luck. Sure I ask for help and advice but with the intention to integrate with my view not to follow someone else's view of reality. One thing you can say fore sure is that every human is individual, so every experience of reality is unique, too b) Words are just words. I avoid believing grand proclamations, promises, apparent actions etc. What's the English proverb? "Show, don't tell"?

Many similarities with my experience. Of course I dislike things,too. But they play their part. I would say I just got better at accepting things, less resistance. What's different for me is the lack of Taoism focus. I look at different systems including Taoism but also others - Hinduism, Stoicism, Buddhism etc and integrate parts of everything. Which is why I like your last sentence that is incredible crucial IMO:

What a good boy you are!

Sounds to me like: Generalizing. Projecting. Lots of concepts. not much substance. I am a man, I feel very good about my masculine energy and I learn through infinite ways. I teach professionally and I see men learn through an infinity of ways. I see women learn though an infinity of ways. These whole masculine/feminine things seems to me like an excuse to behave a certain way, to justify one's one behavior instead of truly being present, truly seeing context, truly recognizing the individuality of each person, situation and moment. I guess stems from the fact that Leo is/was big with the pick-up scene and these kind of mindset also attracts certain kind of followers.

1.,There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Only subjective definitions. 2. What are the chances you can "force" humbling on people like that? What are the chances you create more resistance, more conflict, doing more harm than good? Even if this is the intention - the method IMO is not only questionable but highly ineffective. What would be a good method for me? Accepting. People write these bold statements and all you do is saying: "OK". Or not saying anything at all. Silence. If they are as developed as they think, let them have their experiences. Life will prove them "right" or "wrong" Asking questions that are not proving my (Leo's) apparent superiority, but are constructive .... There are others ways, but we are limited in the context of this forum. I see the question as it is as a flawed ego-move and a trap like Natasha Tori Maru said. Let's see if there are lemmings walking into it

Sometimes I am really impressed by your posts, your honesty and your way of seeing and expressing things. Sometimes I am incredible disappointed. Really, now you are judge of understanding, using a question about language definition on a forum? First, the test itself is shitty. Made-up words and you are the king of language, the king of understanding to tell what these words mean? Second, the sheer fact that you feel to prove your apparent superiority by a "test" like this? My take is that with more maturity, you would not even think of testing and judging people like this.

First quote by @Leo Gura I believe he absolutely has a point. My personal experiences definitely resonates with this. It's a long process, it's layer after layer, step by step and it's probably life-long and repeating in cycles. It is difficult work, very few people start, fewer continue and without effort and will, also will to suffer, you probably stop along the way without reaching certain benefits. Second quote by @Someone here I believe he absolutely has a point. My personal experiences definitely resonates with this. It's so simple it's almost ridiculous. It's just here. Breathe, observe, just experience the moment with (ideally) zero resistance. It's sometimes up, it's sometimes down, there is no final state because everything is just passing and arising. Enjoy the show. My view: Mind want's to categorize, to make a final statement, judgement But both can be true if I am not following the parameters of logical mind (isn't that one of the central intentions of Zen koans?) I don't understand these discussions - argumentation what is this and what is that, who is better and more spiritual and so son here in this forum Integration of different perspectives > superiority of one perspective. Less measuring of intellectual or spiritual dick sizes, more working together # ambiguity tolerance

OK I think I get a better understanding of your point. I remember examples where your statements fits. I remember other examples where it does not fit, too. Enough observation points for a general tendency as you described? I would say rather "yes" than "no" but it is not as clear cut as your first post re this indicated

Tbh, I can't say for sure. In one case I can ask. In the other case more difficult (it's an ex ) But clearly the interest of one girl in psychedelics was bigger then 95% of the men I know. And in the other case, she uses it more often than me and many men I know. But different context: PAT - psychedelic assisted therapy, where many therapists are women. So women and psychedelics in my field of experience is often in context of H&H . And H&H stands for "Healing & Helping others". I just made up this abbreviation But then again, what means "introduced"? First, there is the level of "just knowing it exists". But then even if you are aware of its existence, then sometimes there is resistance to do sth except sme you trust influences you in some way. Let's say there is a new drink, mixing cacao with coca cola and peanut butter. I don't know it exists so I never used it. Now a friends tells me about it. I think it's a bad idea and don't want to try it. Then a friend I trust tells me it's great. Or better, the friend I trust tells me we do it together...etc etc So "introduction" is a very broad term.

I believe you are right with: Women don't talk about it. In experience, women are indeed more intuitive and talk less about it, analyze, dissect it less then men. I don't know about this: I have the general feeling that women can get way deeper way faster more easily to truth than men You are VERY wrong about this: I bet almost no women would take psychedelics on their own. It's always a man coming along who gives these to them. They don't discover psychedelics for themselves. A woman needs a man who introduce her to psychedelics otherwise truth will not come to them. You're projecting some assumptions and ideas. You want to see men (or yourself) in a "must save women, must show them psychedelics" role. If I had to name the two people introducing me to a) psychedelics and b) spirituality - both women. Already won the bet.

@OBEler Maybe different for different people at different time? Perfect, situational individuality until infinity

Thanks.

Willing to share what changed?

Yes I can resonate with the ex-gf experience haha When you say "doing the work" and "dream addicts" - given your work, this forum, etc. I assume you think that people should explore reality instead of living the illusion. If yes, why do you think so?

In the video she mentioned that some people (characters, other parts of self) want to live the illusion instead of searching deeper. I can resonate in some way with this. To give some context: There are two people that were close to me and got curious about me doing vipassana retreats. So curious, that they went on one ten day retreat themselves. They liked it - but never went again. Also, the more time passed, there was decreasing interest in to share experiences, to go deeper into exploration of reality etc. Others are interested in taking psychedelics, sometimes with me. But they neither are interested in discussing their experiences beyond "nice colors", nor do they want to go deep enough to go really deep (one guy literally said "I want do what you did - but take less so I don't experience what you experiences" (my experience was deep insight into our being) Many years, I shared some experiences with a friend. He was super open, respectful, but plainly said: Yeah, cool what you do, but I don't want to know myself. In one other case, sme was really interested in taking psychedelics, did it and had a great experience. But now the person seems to experience confusion and difficult to integrate. From the outside it looks like the person is in a inner fight to continue the path or to stay "not knowing" Of course, it's like the girl in the video said - everybody can do whatever they please to do. So I am simply curious... My questions: Anyone having similar experiences as mine described above? Do you think there is sth like a general spectrum re truth & exploring reality? On the one end, people can't help themselves exploring, appreciating truth, asking "how and why" and on the other hand, people just want to live the illusion not knowing as much as possible? You think we are here to just live the illusion, to explore our being, both, or none of it?

Just finished it. Really liked it. She felt very authentic to me and that is rare in my experience with YT content producers

No kidding, today is the calculated date for my nephew's birth (he's not there yet). Guess his name...yeah, it's Leo.

Funny thing I noticed when I saw her writing on the whiteboard: Between "alone" and "allone" there is only one "l" And now someone could say that this "L" that makes the difference stands for "Love" . Alternatively, it stands for "Loathsome" hehe

Please reply as simple as possible. Clear statement, concrete example if possible You cannot know for sure so we talk about believe, not facts The way AI learns is similar to how the mind works What reasons make you believe you are not an AI? If you believe you are an AI in a simulated environment - what reasons make you believe so?

Yes, and maybe we are already the facsimile of the "humans one level above". And so on and so on to infinity... Has anyone ever watched "Le Deuxieme Acte"? One of my favorite movies and 100% fitting the context.

It just came to me - the guy I was talking about is Bernardo Kastrup. You talk about the AI we created in ~ 70 years and that this is not yet good enough. I agree. What I rather talk about is that how the mind works and how our current AI works has similar principles. How algorithms are trained by data and learning techniques to learn r.g. idioms, logic, reasoning, associations etc. Only humans do it with much more complexity (for now). More specific: Learning through reinforcement for algorithms with reward / punishment. Human: pleasure vs. pain, acceptance and peacefulness vs. bad conscience etc. Supervised learning with "actions / conclusion is right/wrong. For humans, culture, society, parents etc are the corrective element for our human "software".E.g. a time ago, I saw a kid ask a man "why do u have such a big nose" and the mother instantaneously said "no! you don't ask that" Unsupervised learning: We humans do the same - making our own conclusions, take assumptions based on our experiences and our own data set. It may even applies to human emotions (theory of constructed emotions). And OFTEN horribly wrong, same as KI creates hallucinations. Anil Seth, Paul Watzlawik, Lisa Barret Feldman are great sources for everyone that wants to dig deeper into these things on the human side Yes, exactly! So why do some people think "oh I am God" or "I am consciousness" or "I am simply a self-learning algorithm" etc etc.? I agree we can never know - so for me it's simply a questions of believe. Everybody has different background, different life, different experiences so believes are gonna be different. That's what I am curios about

OK interesting concept. Will let that sink in.

Thanks. Reminds me of something I heard before. Don't remember the name, sme once posted a video of him in this forum. He talked about our reality like a cockpit, we see the simulated reality but never the thing behind the 3-D cockpit. Maybe sme reads this and knows who I am talking about. The thing with self reflection I associate with synchronicity - sometimes it's crazy how clean and how fast the reflection is. And especially lately I have the impression that the same rule applies for KI-prompts and for my personal life: The higher the clarity of my input (= my interactions with others, less my thoughts although they play a role), the cleaner my reflection (whatever happens to me outside my direct influence). But it's not a formula I could apply in any way, I have no control. It just happens. What I am missing: You being the little thing in your mind you feel when you scream in your head. Don't get that.

I am curious about your view, but I have difficulties following. Can you please paraphrase, elaborate, or give examples?