UnbornTao

Hmmmm... I'll believe you, master.

I meant self-deceived, not wrong.

Not excluding anyone from that category - that's the use of the phrase.

It ain't that deep. It may not occur to people that this fact applies to you as well - it's a reminder that you're not special.

@Carl-Richard France - Spain England - Argentina

It's probably the biggest roadblock, and I feel there's always more to uncover on that front. The depth of it is staggering. To tell the truth about something, you first have to realize or experience what it is, ontologically.

We deceive ourselves

There are probably people out there who simply are not addicted to their phones, but I see what you mean, thanks for the suggestion.

Shoot, I initially read 'lasagna.' In the Intellectual subforum, no less. Isn't the UI a bit distracting? The menus and options are all over the place. I do like the originality, though.

You can just turn off your phone.

Avoid getting distracted by the masterful choreography.

What if we apply this principle to everything that is conceived and perceived?

Good, keep it up!

Historically accurate, too.

@Hiluy It'd be hilarious if you were a bot.

Is this guy AI, Leo?

AInception?

Am I too paranoid, or is this guy fucking AI? Weird facial expressions. One of his eyes does funny things. Constantly looking down. Heavily edited video. His articles are from 2026. LinkedIn account from 2004, profile picture changed a year ago. The whole thing smells fishy. Fuck, I hate this.

Lol

No awakening needed for not being a gullible fool.

Tell the others, then. Especially the ones who believe Leo. You'd have to have as many awakenings as me to discern charlatans, and I'm not kidding. What I'm talking about is way beyond a psychedelic state. You think I'm playing games with you.

If anything, this alien business has proven how gullible most people are. They'll eat up anything that sounds remotely spiritual and transcendental, with no real interest in asking what's actually going on for the person claiming such things. If certain terminology aligns with your views, and it comes from a worldview you favor, then it must be true. Before taking people's word for it, pay attention to his failure to record such a video. The implications of that failure are bigger than you think.

You ignored my points. I deliberately used the term awakening so that you couldn't weasel your way out of this one. Even then, whatever you call it, it is not an experience either way. We might as well call it Banana. You still assume that taking a drug "increases consciousness." You still tacitly hold the matter as an experience. You were equally self-assured with the recording. Knowing you've fallen into the psychedelic path, I think it's safe for me to say that's not what I'd call whatever you're pointing to. From what I can tell, you're referring to some kind of subjective state to which you've given the status of "Truth."

How come you couldn't make the recording (regardless of what's claimed)? We often mistake subjective states for "the Truth." I'm more interested in investigating the source of that inability (and perhaps the refusal to publicly acknowledge it). This is precisely how "everything is absolute" and "everything is imaginary" can both be marshaled in favor of any argument you like. At some point it devolves into conceptual games untethered from actual experience. We don't call clipping our nails an awakening. Perceiving something is not the same as becoming conscious of it. Having an emotion is not enlightenment. Feeling a feeling is not an awakening. And so on.