• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Scholar

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. One fascet of the Greatest Awareness is indeed Evil. Evil like all other creation is part of the play of existence. Evil is it's own substance, therefore nothing but evil can truly be evil. However, an Enlightened Person can certainly lead to the creation of Evil. An enlightened person could rape you and that would create evilness in your experience. Do not forget that the highest consciousness is all-fasceted. The reason why the human mind tends to focus on the so called positive aspects of Existence once realized is that it is attractive to us. Reality however does also contain suffering, evilness and so forth. The enlightened mind, as you would call it, simply has a tendency to extinguish these fascets of existence from their own experience. Actions and objects are never evil, only evil is evil. So an enlightened person cannot be evil as much as anything cannot be evil, however evil can exist in the presence of full awareness.
  2. If you mean egos in a psychological sense, I would suspect it requires biological structures to really resemble them on a quintessential level. You cannot really simulate consciousness, the simulation is it's own very particular kind of consciousness or aspect of existence. For example there is most likely no color present in the substance of computers, what you would posit as the experience of color. The experience of color is induced in the structural essence of the biological or neurological structures which our brains resemble. You cannot seperate mind from body, the mind fundamentally is body, and the body fundamentally is mind. If you look at the body of machines, they are absurdly different from ours, therefore they experiences will necessarily be absurdly different from ours. I view ego as more of a fundamental part of duality, the human ego construct is simply an elaborate construction or interplay of duality. However, because of the magical nature of reality it is by essence impossible to understand what kind of structure resembles what kind of dimension of reality. It is arbitrary, but not really. The fascinating part is that the biological structures of reality access different potentialities of existence. For example, the brain accesses or let's flow through itself things like color, emotion, suffering and so forth. It reaches into an endless ocean existence and found different use for different aspects of existence. This interplay of these different aspects of existence and their correlation to what we view as structure or the physical world is by it's nature magical. The important thing to understand in my opinion is that these potentialities and these structures which are creating an elaborate interplay or dream are embued with true Creativity, a kind of Creativity that is foundational. A Creativity that is the spawn of all that exists. That Creativity is what gives all form life. It is what allows "dead" matter to structure itself into beings with awareness. The intelligence is not found the being, it is all Matter in the universe which is filled with Divine Intelligence. If you ignore all of existence but Motion and Geometry, you basically get current science. Even looking at these basic interactions it will reveal Divine Intelligence. But when we recognize all other aspects of existence which are in motion with Geometry, Motion and all things Physical, then the Divine Intelligence is unquestionable. Part of this is the fact that we can Understand anything. Understanding is utterly mysterious. It is fundamentally it's own form if existence, we must only be careful not to confuse it for all of Existence. I would say that artificial machine egos will only currently be possible by means of simulation the motions our human minds, not the other aspects of it, like color, feeling and so forth. However, it is not unlikely that machine minds will access their very own dimensions of reality, things completely foreign to us. Infact, machines already do so, as no structure is seperate from consciousness. Their behaviour in that regard will and must be different, as it will be the manifestation of different dimensions of Realness. Only the human mind is the human mind. Only the machine mind is the machine mind. The rock that sits outside of your house will be as much different from your mind as a machine mind will be from yours, even if it would resemble all of your actions perfectly, which in my opinion it will never be able to because of the quintessential differences between machine and biology. Your perception of redness has a effect on the very geometry of this universe. It is not a result of it, rather it is an interplay between the geometry of physicality and redness. They are not seperate. Yet, redness influences physicality in a very specific way, and certain physicality seems to be attaching itself to redness in a very particular way. This is why machine minds, which are nothing but different physicalities will therefore interact with different aspects of existence, which you currently call perceptions. These perceptions will have an effect on the physicality of the machine, and they probably already do have that effect, they probably always had.
  3. The problem with the current intelligence paradigm is that there is a belief that the structure is what is causing intelligence, rather than intelligence being what causes the structure. For example, the materialist will posit that the structure of the brain, the interactions between neurons and therefore information processing is what causes or is intelligence. Yet, they do not consider the possibility that intelligence and consciousness are prior to these structures, that they are what give rise to the structures and that the structures are what is merely allowed to express certain forms of consciousness or intelligence. In this way, articifical intelligence is not really a possibility. It will never be artificial, it will only be intelligent to the degree to which it has the inate intelligence and consciousness of the universe expressing itself through that structure. Notice that intelligence is not merely problem solving, it is not merely information processing. It is an aspect of consciousness which is present in all. It is fundamentally magical, it is not emergent. The current paradigm views intelligence as something like a machine, something that has clear structure and clear interactions. Yet, intelligence is not at all like a building, it is more like a delicate flower. For intelligence to be there need to be conditions met, yet the flower will grow all on it's own. The structure allows the flower to grow into it, yet within our current technology there is no room for flowering. It is all made of steel, smoothering any flower which attempts to grow within.
  4. Leo, do you think as far as these kind of metaphysical insights go that they must come as full blown realizations or can they be slowly and gradually shifted into as an initial intuition or more of a subtle underlying aura of "insight" rather than instant full clarity?
  5. I find the hallucination/perception framework very limited. To say the mind is creating color seems to create just another story which does not reveal the infinite Creativity it takes to create any aspect of existence. Fundamentally, cone cells have absolutely nothing to do with color and neither do fundamentally neurological structures. Color is irreducable and is directly linked to the Causeless Cause. All duality, including the Imagination/Non-imagination duality is sourced directly from the Causeless Cause or the Creator. So is Color, and it exist as much as anything else we could possibly say exists. Redness is Quintessential. And yes, there are Colors with no bounds, infinite of them. Not mere gradiations, but entire types of colors. This also includes Sound, Touch, Emotion and all other quintessential aspects of reality. Moreover, there are Infinite types of Quintessential dimensions. Things other than Sound, Touch, Sight and so forth, that do not exist in Human Minds. And even more, there are infinite gradiations between all of these dimensions. These very gradiations are what we then call the World or Perception.
  6. The problem is that the blindness and horizontal thinking in any other group but vegans is equally as high or even higher. Just talk to your average person about meat eating and see how they respond. Creating identity, even if at some point these identities might be limiting, is a crucial part of social process. It is better to have a dysfunctional vegan movement than to have no vegan movement at all. Fundamentally it is about creating awareness of the suffering and destruction the animal industry is causing world-wide and locally. Sure, vegans have an us-vs-them mentality, but so do non-vegans. They hate vegans, as soon as you even dare to mention it you are an outcast. And this is relevant, because we are talking about a difference in morality that is quite substantial. Most people still think it is fine to kill animals simply for the pleasure they receive from eating animal-products. The conversation about whether it is healthy or not is not even in the foreground and is only used to dismiss veganism as a whole in current mainstream media. Sure there are dogmatic people, crazy raw-food flat-earthers who ruin their health and then go on about how ideological veganism is. There are also people who are very passionate about animal rights and are willing to make health-sacrifices for it and demand for other people to do the same. There are also vegans who only do it for health reasons. There is a difference between debating these issues and actually seeing animals being killed and slaughtered for the products that you deem necessary. The facts are most people can get by without eating most animal products, those who do need them probably can live by eating mussels or insects. Sure they will not feel optimal, but the right to feel optimal is in my opinion does not overstate the right for another beings freedom of deliberate slaughter. Additionally, if anyone here does indeed believe animal products are necessary for health, then it would be our utmost moral imperative to push society towards developing technology like lab-grown meat so that we can abolish the kind of exploitation that is currently necessary. Do I see any ex-vegans argue for that? Of course not, because they do not really care. We have an impact on this world and on other individuals, while it is obvious that we cannot demand people to stop consuming these products if they are necessary for their survival, in a society in which it is still fully acceptable, I do think we can have more deeper conversations than "Vegans are ideological, I was part of it and I know it!". That to me has nothing to do with integral thinking. It is a regression into individualistic paradigms that put the humans at the center of the universe. If we do need certain products to survive, we better reduce the impact we have on others as much as possible and also work on solutions which will do so in the future. Right now the awareness around animal rights and ecology is so low that the dogmatism in veganism and similar movements must be accepted. You can try to correct it, but to dismiss the movement as a whole means to regress and not to progress.
  7. You lack passion. To have passion is to love. To love is to give, not receive. Everything you have listed are things you are going to receive, not give. The artist who creates art puts love into the creation of art itself, every brush-stroke is an act of love, is an act of passion. From passion there will come vision, not the other way around. From the love of creating you will find desire to create things. No artist ever paints one painting for his entire life, that would be absurd. An artist who is passionate does not create goals for all the paintings he will be painting for the rest of his life. The painter loves painting, he uses the excuse of a finished piece so that he can do what he loves more to paint. Look at the passion of Christ. His passion was for humankind, his love was for human beings. Give him anything that would make him able to help humans and he would have been satisfied and happy for the rest of his life. He would have never grown bored of helping human beings, as it is his passion, his love. From that love grows a vision, a vision of how to increase that love. How to help more human beings becomes the vision of the one who loves helping human beings. It is not artificial, it is true Love. A vision should be an extention of your passion, not the other way around. First you will need to find your passion, that which you are willing to give Love. It is not about receiving, it is about infusing other experiences with love. If you, for example, truly love feeding birds, it will give you joy until the very end of time. You could stand there and feed them all day long, even if it was only one bird. To feed 10 birds might give you even more joy. To feed 1000s even more and so forth. There is no end to it. All of Creation is fundamentally the Passion of God, God gives Love to Creation. God does not receive, God gives. The Passion of God, therefore, leads to a Vision which will Increase Creation. Because to Create is Love, there is no end to Creation.
  8. Of course, so is everything else, including "figments of the imagination".
  9. And the suffering of the animals is completely irrelevant? We have mussels, how can you possibly argue for torturing and killing animals for products that are completely unnecessary for survival? Sure you might feel a little less optimal if you eat mussels, but they will give you everything you need. Veganism is an ethical principle not a diet, it means to reduce exploitation where it is not necessary. Criticizing veganism from below is easy, a critique from above will not result in the same kind of justification of exploitation as orange gives, like appeals to futility coming from Leo. The assumption is that optimal human health is more important than everything else in this world, including the future of our ecology, the suffering of the majority of beings living on this planet and so forth. That is an insane, human-centric way of looking at the world. The fact that you think veganism is about being special, unique of having a label means you have not yet reached green whatsoever. Veganism is about an increase in compassion for groups that we currently view as objects, it is about equality fundamentally. The same reasons that give us the right to live and be free of exploitation are the same the animals deserve them. If you stopped having black slaves and joined the abolitionist groups what do you think would have happened if you at some point decided you want to go back to having slaves because of all the back pain that you have now that you have to work in the fields yourself? It is human nature to react agains that kind of "betrayal" far more excessively than against people who have not yet become conscious of the suffering they are causing to their black slaves. And recognize that Leo's way of looking at this would have easily allowed him to keep his black slaves, because "You cannot live without evil", and because "It would not help him optimally self-actualize because of the back pains he would have from working on the field".
  10. That's what we have mussels and insects for. Humans might be designed for consumption of insects. It would be interesting to know whether you actually have ever truly faced the "evil" you talk about outside of mere intellectualization. If not, I would recommend visiting a slaughterhouse.
  11. True Love is ruthless, it is the Destroyer of all Worlds. Love is inherently indiscriminate, it wields the sword of the merciless as much as it gives shelter to those who are in need of it. The Feminine and the Masculine are not better or worse, they are forces of Existence. They are in an eternal balance, in a play between the great Mother and the great Father. Both forces will eventually lead to your dissipation. This is beyond your ego, beyond your individual needs and wants. You are playing a game that will eventually lead to your death, your inability to accept that will be the degree to which you will suffer in this world. Stop viewing the Feminine and Masculine as that which serves you, and accept that it is you who is inevitably serving the Feminine and the Masculine. You are the ant who has confused itself for the colony. Fundamentally, suffering is the question of "What can God do for me?", whilst Liberation is the question of "What can I do for God?".
  12. lol, I did not even consider that it could have been fake, how can this happen on amazon. I guess you gotta check your sources everywhere nowadays.
  13. Humans fundamentally do not possess anything. We could say Free will is part of the condition of the Being of human, however that Freedom would have nothing to do with the Desire a human possesses. Free Will is Creativity, it is the Causeless Cause. It is the manifestation of Nothingness or Infinite Potential into Finite Form. It is not random. Imagine something that does not exist, in a world that does not exist, with rules and limitations that do not exist. Imagine that without having any knowledge of any kind of that which you will imagine. That process of imagination is Free Will, or Creativity. It is the Root of all Form. The closer a Form is to the root, the more "free" it is. Or in other words, the closer it is to non-duality and the further away from duality, the more potential it has to express in more ways. Full non-duality leaves room for full expression. The Human mind is already an expression and therefore limited in it's potential, yet where it carries the lose ends of non-duality is where it can express true Creativity. Free Will is Divine Will, and indiscriminate in it's expression.
  14. I never said that adopting better integration policy and structures will solve poverty. The integration policy is for the benefit of war-refugees and the countries which adopt these refugees. Don't forget that these refugees are cheap labor and benefit the economy of a lot of the countries which adopt them. This has nothing to do with our culture being deconstructed by post-modernism. Solving the poverty of other countries requires far more systemic approaches and most likely great sacrifices to western economies which depend on the cheap and exploitative labor in third world countries. However, you claimed western countries would benefit from an increase, or mitigation of a decrease, in population, and adopting refugees with effective integration would be a solution to that problem.