AtmanIsBrahman

There are only 2 personality types that can awaken (in general), and they are INTP and INTJ. Why is this the case? Let's look at the cognitive functions. The first two cognitive functions define what someone will be drawn to. The first function is the hero function, the most important one that is your north star in life. The second function is the parent function, which is a complementary function that is also strong, though not as strong as the hero function. For INTP, the first two functions in order are Ti (introverted thinking) and Ne (Extroverted Intuition). For INTJ, Ni (Introverted intuition) and Te (Extroverted thinking). Why is INTP fit for awakening? Ti allows them to care about truth above anything else, and they're also more likely to be logically correct. They filter everything through their own framework of how things work. Ne allows them to interconnect various ideas and generate new ideas in an ever-expansive way. Surprise, surprise-- Leo is an INTP. Why are INTJs fit for awakening? Ni allows them to have deep mystical insights and intuitively track everything down to its source. Ni hero is a convergent intuitive process that takes in perceptions and tracks them all to their source. Te allows them to remain somewhat grounded by cross-referencing various existing perspectives and keeping an eye on efficiency. Both types are good for spirituality in different ways. But the other types? All of them have other problems that make it unlikely they will awaken. The intellectual types are most likely to awaken because they have the most powerful, nonconformist minds. The other types are too conformist or uninterested in truth. But the other intellectual types (ENTP and ENTJ) are extroverted, which draws their focus away from truth seeking and toward the social domain. So there is your blackpill for the day: if you're not INTP or INTJ, you probably won't awaken, at least not very deeply.

You're right, it was a little bit tongue and cheek. But I think there's some truth to it. Let's say that an INFP awakens-- they may have a profound mystical experience, but I doubt they'll really make sense of it on the level that an INTJ or INTP would. So I would say mystical experiences are available to everyone, but truly understanding reality on a high level is something that correlates with personality.

Look, you don't have to memorize anything. You can play 1.b3 with white and 1.g6 with black every game and take it from there. Playing fischer random because you prefer it is fine, it's just that your opening claims are overblown.

That's fine, I was just pointing out that some of your thinking on this is wrong. The enjoyment reason is totally valid, it's just the other insights you gave about chess weren't accurate and I felt the need to correct them

Ok, but we were talking about openings. Now you're changing the subject. You claim openings matter, I claim they don't with much more experience in the domain. If you want to disagree, ok, but you're just wrong on this.

That's only true at the top level. At a lower level, all you really need is a basic opening setup that you like to play. Many beginners deceive themselves that not knowing openings is holding them back, when really it's tactics and overall understanding of the game. Well, that's just inertia like in any other discipline. It takes time for anything to change. But also, part of the reason fischer random isn't picking up as much is because it just isn't necessary. The pieces are set up the way they are for a reason- it's much more harmonious than a random assortment of pieces for each new game. Since openings don't matter that much, the benefit of fischer random isn't that much. Yes, a top level player. Not relevant for most players. If openings don't matter, then there's no reason to stop playing classical chess.

Reading this discussion, it kind of makes me cringe as a more serious chess player (2400 peak on chess.com). I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about chess— a domain you don’t know @Leo Gura. It’s like taking about how Peter Ralston’s martial arts mastery when you don’t have experience in martial arts yourself. By the way, the idea that people are good at chess because of opening theory is ridiculous. Any strong chess player understands that openings are part of the game, but not what makes you strong. A 2000-rated player can play horrible opening moves and still easily beat a 1500 player. The difference is about holistic understanding of the game, not opening theory. And also, a person’s Fischer random rating isn’t ever far off from their standard rating. It’s fundamentally the same game. The difference is probably 100-150 points, maybe 200 in extreme cases.

The podcast was good, but it’s sad that so little ground can be covered because people don’t have a solid foundation in consciousness work. It would interesting to see Leo talk to someone who’s already advanced in this work. That could make for a truly profound conversation

Finished the first episode. I think the issue is that they don’t understand what an absolute is, so they can’t make sense of Reality/Existence/God/Good. But that’s to be expected of people who haven’t done the work Overall good job by Leo trying to present a worldview that’s alien to them. And also avoiding a landmine when the girl was like “You don’t care about humans?” 😱 On to the next episode…

Notice listening requires someone you’re listening to. It’s fundamentally a giving away of authority. Obviously we can learn from people, just have to be careful and aware of what you’re doing. Just felt the need to add this in here 😁

Okay, that title was partly shock value… but I do actually kind of mean it. I’m not an incel or redpiller, but I decided to look into looksmaxxing to see if it’s really that bad or if there’s something to it. What I found was that beneath the surface of weird ideology and dangerous techniques, the core is actually very solid. Basically, attractiveness is objective. That means that humans all more or less find the same things attractive (I’m not saying it’s objective beyond humans). As long as you live in the social world of survival, you will have to deal with other humans— you will judge them and they will judge you. One of the main metrics that matters for survival is your attractiveness. There’s plenty of evidence that attractiveness affects how people are treated. It’s obvious in sexuality, but it also affects every other aspect of life like your career; the evidence is undeniable. Even babies react better to attractive faces. So the idea of looksmaxxing is that you are taking seriously this aspect of survival and instead of just accepting what the genetic lottery gave you, you decide to take matters into your own hands. For those who don’t know, there is softmaxxing and hardmaxxing. Softmaxxing is doing basic things like exercise, diet, and hygiene, while hardmaxxing involves surgeries or drugs. Everyone knows about softmaxxing, but hardmaxxing is where this becomes interesting. There are things you can do to significantly improve your appearance, like plastic surgery of all kinds and taking testosterone or other drugs. Of course some of these methods are dangerous, but if you go about it safely you can improve your appearance with no downsides. I think plastic surgery will become much more popular in the next 100 years. People who are ugly will realize they can choose to look good. What’s interesting is that it creates an arms race where everyone is trying to upgrade their beauty to meet the new standard. Also, kids will have to get plastic surgeries because their parents’ genetics won’t be as good as their looks. This means humanity will become more and more artificial… but we’re already doing that. Contemplate: what is the difference between natural and artificial anyway? . . . A lesson in collapsing dualities. Now consider this, if you care about survival then looksmaxxing is probably a good idea. Use your own judgment of course, but logically it makes sense to do at least to some extent. And of course this is all pure ego… but have you transcended the ego and don’t care about survival at all? Probably not.

@Leo Gura What happened to good/bad being relative? It sounds like you’re saying that it’s absolute now, which is kind of shocking. If reality is a dream, why does it matter if you lie to one of the dream characters? You’re dreaming yourself lying too, so it’s all a dream within a dream. There’s no actual morality in a dream. Honestly, Star Wars is very stage blue in terms of morality, very us vs them (Jedi vs Sith). I’m surprised that you’re holding it in such high regard.

I think you have a point that genetics are important. But it’s not about being good at a meditation technique or something like that— it’s about truth orientation. That’s what I’ve discovered so far at least. If you’re interested in Actualized.org, that’s already an indicator that you’re probably gifted in terms of care for truth, metaphysical intuition, etc. And what @aurum said

Why do anything at all if you are 100% complete? For example, why eat food— if you are complete then why survive at all? Doing anything aside from just being seems to require some sense of being incomplete, even if it is very minimal.

Linking this blog post by Leo which relates to looksmaxxing. In case anyone missed it https://actualized.org/insights/mike-israetel-on-physical-appearance

The mentality that it’s nothing new can be a big cope, to use the new generation’s terminology. Of course people knew looks are important in the past, but looksmaxxing argues that they are the clearly most important factor in attraction (and also have an effect in normal socializing/career). Also, things like plastic surgeries, pharmaceuticals, etc. have evolved a lot. It is much more possible to significantly improve your looks now than in the past. There are lessons to be learned from looksmaxxing. It’s an important example of applying truth as the highest value. You need to look into the truth, regardless of what the outcome might be. In this case, I think the truth is that looksmaxxing has a lot of corruption in it, but there is a lot of truth to be found too.

@tvaeli It seems like you’re building a conceptual framework to reconcile matter and spirit/consciousness. But ask, which one is actually fundamental? Does it make sense for there to be two sides to reality?

You've been talking about sovereignty of mind for a while, but there still isn't a video on it. It's only been teased in parts of different videos. A full video would be very helpful for people like myself who have been contemplating it on our own. An episode on Sovereignty of Mind would be amazing, bringing together all the aspects of epistemology, self-help, and metaphysics. The main theme is that you can't trust anyone and need to figure out reality for yourself. You have to deconstruct every human idea to reach truth. This is true about self-help too: you can't just do what average people do and get great results, it takes something more. The episode could also cover how this connects to God-Realization, where you grasp that you are the one sovereign Mind that is Existence.

@oOo Can you rephrase that differently? Not sure what you’re trying to say.

Agreed

Sure, I agree. But we’re not on the spiritual part of the forum. As long as you care about survival, attractiveness does matter. That’s something you can choose to deny or not.

Looksmaxxing is interesting to look at as an example of survival. Why do people looksmax? Survival. Why are people against looksmaxxing? Survival.

I don’t think this true. People agree on most things. There can be some preferences, but they’re insignificant compared to the objective metrics. Looksmaxxing is new in the sense that technology is advancing and it’s possible to make bigger changes to appearance

Recently I have tried to found some genuine spiritual music. Unfortunately it’s almost nonexistent. Interestingly though, Sadhguru actually has made some songs along with the Isha Foundation. I didn’t have high expectations, but some of them are actually good, and most importantly the lyrics are very profound. Here are some of the best ones I found.

I think the key to this thread is that there is no difference between creating and discovering. If reality is one mind, and you are it, creation and discovery are the same thing. I think you’re getting at the problem of self deception and specifically confirmation bias. Of course you could always be deluding yourself, but trying to relativize everything doesn’t help either. You’re basically saying that every perspective is equal in a postmodernist sense. Do you believe there is no absolute truth? And if so, is that itself an absolute truth claim? @Joshe