Scholar

omfg we need a Leo wig.

What's wrong with his wig?

Once self-realization is attained there would be no difference between the bits of cheese and any thing else really, and given the human mind, it would simply do as it always acted (albeit changed structurally due to the nature of the insights). "Mundane" existence already is the full loving appreciation, because the perfection of mundane life is achieved through ignorance of love, which is the "highest" act of love. You can only truly love something if you are willing to let it be it's own thing. Loving it as God is easy peasy, that's what you do and did for all of eternity. It actually undermines the purity of the object you "love", because it muddies it with your love. Fear wouldn't be itself if it was muddied by your disgusting God-Love-Spunk all the time. It would just be a worthless love-fear mixture. Which just means you don't love fear enough to actually let it be itself. Godrealization is basically the ignorant human-monkey-mind ruining God's creation because it was too selfish to let Creation be itself. God-realization is like taking a cake, mixing it up, and adding a million tons of sugar. Sure you get more sugar that way, but the cake won't be a cake anymore, you ruined it all! If you want the sugar you can just be God, which you already were for literally eternity.

By "you" you just mean existence, or Infinity, which is just another word for reality. And that's all obviously, obviously reality gives rise to all of reality and existence.

Cope. You should do another interview though, looking back at it you were basically a complete newbie back then and the questions were surface level. Would be interesting if you could get more into the weeds, and maybe even have a discussion and challenging his views more.

Because empires were exclusive to Europeans. Not like the Arabs tried their best to conquer the world, or the Japanese, or the Mongols, or the Aztecs, or the Ottomans. And do the romans really count as europeans?

Listened to the interview, omg now we know where Leo stole the "Ta-daaa!" from!

Well that's at least something, I change my mind then. But the stuff he shows still looks like Bullshido, and no clue if that was a proper world tournament, or what even was the relevancy of it.

I still want to see evidence that he actually won a world tournament. I still think it's a lot of bullshido.

I have similar results as a vegan, the nurses usually are shocked about it. I'm not aware there are any negative consequences of having low cholesterol.

All cells in your body are enslaved to the organism that makes up what you are. A selfish cell might call itself a slave, but it doesn't realize that it would be nothing without the organism, that it wouldn't be capable of survival. What you call slavery is simply being part of a collective organism. The problem with a contracted identity is that it is not in harmony with reality. You are part of a whole, and enough resistance against the collective evolutionary motion will lead to your suffering and eventual removal from the evolutionary process. The benefit here is that you, even if your influence is miniscule, get to shape the collective through your participation in it. And the collective itself is also subordinated to the greater process of evolution taking place on earth, it's not arbitrary.

Surface level but for those of you who are not familiar with these concepts this can be educational:

The process of evolution will eradicate antinatalist tendencies. If you chose not to participate in life, you will not shape life. Even if the anti-natalists were to succeed in their dream, they would have zero impact on the bigger picture, because reality is infinite. There will be life, and it will continue for all of eternity, in all it's possible forms.

Moral systems are different of morality. Morality just translatesto preferences, like I said, and those are very real. When you say "People shouldn't rape my children", that's not soething your mind just randomly spinned up, it's just part of your subjectivity, it means "I really don't want people to rape my children.". It isn't an arbitrary invention.

This isn't the case, if it was, poor people in developed nations would have less kids than college educated individuals. The reason for not having kids are far more multifasceted and deeper than relative poverty, which seems to be a minor factor.

You are more of an objectivist than me. Morality just equates to preferences. Instead of using the word "moral" use the word "preference", and you will see what moral systems are in the first place, an attemptto capture the expression of subjectivity within any given individual. You are still stuck in objectivist notions of morality without realizing it. There is a reality to what your mind prefers, or what will lead to an optimal expression of your subjective ends.

Yes, obviously. But right now it's time for the annoying vegans.

Actually an interesting theory, mrgirl has been an a schizoid journey trying to argue with physicist that the universe is a black hole for the past months: https://observerphysics.com/videos/v/einsteins-first-mistake-the-speed-of-light https://observerphysics.com/videos/v/0 No clue if the physics works out at all, but I must say I would not be surprised at all if this was the case.

I agree, but it's probably a phase a lot of people have to go through, I don't know exactly how they would avoid this. And sometimes moral crusades have functions, even if it does not benefit the individual who is possessed by it.

Okay but now you are saying "As long as you don't point out the injustice, you're okay.". I think the moralizing is fine as long as it happens calmly and rationally. Spineless pick-me vegans are not really the way you want to be, that's probably as unhealthy as the other extreme. You want to be able to actually speak up for what you belief in, without it devolving into screaming matches.

The evolution goes like this: Recognizing universality of personhood. Inability to maintain clear seperation of identity between species boundaries. Desire to avoid negative self identity (someone who would objectify others and inflict torture on them in perverse ways for something trivial like pleasure and convenience). Repulsion at the idea of participating in the objectificaiton and commodification of animals. So that's basically what is going to happen over time. The reason why this is different from ethical considerations via harm-principle is because, when we drink coffee, we do not actually participate in an industry which systematically breeds, enslaves, rapes, tortures and kills individuals and then subsequently using their corpses and secretions as objects. Once identity has expanded, the basic desire to avoid being an individual who would participate in this for mere pleasure would outweight the desire to continue consuming those products.

Not all individuated beings have a developed consciousness. They wouldn't eat us because they would see their own consciousness reflected in ours, and would naturally unify their subjectivity with ours. There are only individuated beings, non-individuated beings do not exist, they are simply part of the unity of reality. The higher intelligent beings would limit themselves because they are not depriving existence from subjectivity, or contradicting subjectivity, when they consuming non-individuated matter. I think the fact that you think you would not attempt to teach other beings why they shouldn't kill and eat your loved ones when they have otheralternatives shows how alienated and disconnected you are from your own subjectivity. Either that is the case, or you have a profoundly idiosyncratic subjectivity, which will not be able to sustain itself throughout time.

Loving a rock doesn't mean you will be concerned about it breaking apart, because there is no individuated substance to the rock. When I see a family member of mine suffering, I don't care about them as an object, but as an experiencing individual, who wants to avoid suffering. In simple terms, my end necessarily is the full expression of my subjectivity, as is the the case with the subjectivity of any other being. A rocks full expression of itself is always itself, no matter what the rock looks like. The same applies to plants. So, an expansion of identity to rocks will not make me concerned about their well-being, because rocks don't have well being, they don't have subjectivity, nor do plants. But animals and humans do, and so, for the flourishing of their being, which is their subjectivity, I seek to aid them in the expression of their subjectivity as that is part of the expression of my own subjectivity.

There aren't enough autistic people to care about this nonsense.

That's a question you would have to ask yourself. I wouldn't do it because to me there would be no point in inflicting suffering onto another being in that context, and I don't wish to inflict suffering onto things which I have extended my identity towards. @DefinitelyNotARobot Yes I basically agree, it's hard to say in the end what will yield results though.