Carl-Richard

Because hate is retarded, and we only "accept" racists in so far as saying "aww, look at the retarded kid".

That is the most LeoGPT comment I've ever read probably ever.

I don't think being a systematizer is the best or even a good predictor for awakening. The best predictors I can think of is being obsessive, open, sensitive to subtlety and detail, and a bit neurotic or manic combined with being creative (your mind flies fast, it tests a lot of strategies, and you're not emotionally at ease, because then you won't seek something better). I think being a systematizer or feeler is a better predictor for what your challenges will be when awakening or for discovering awakening. Systematizers will have to deal with over-intellectualizing awakening and being stuck in their mind, not grasping it experientially. Feelers will (probably) have the issue of being less moveable if they are in the wrong boat (not identified with awakening): you'll (probably) have less leverage to lift someone out of a feelings/value-based perspective, be it personal values (Fi) or group values (Fe).

"Insight" the way Leo has appropriated the term is so rife with self-deception. It's conceptual, it's belief. When did I say that? 😂 Thinking, assumptions, beliefs. Then I will leave it on a commiserating note: To avoid the logical error but still communicating the same general idea, you could do something like this: Imagine God but ignore for a moment that you can only have one God. Let's it call it a demigod for the sake of clarity. So imagine you have a "God" (this big expansive thing) which we now call a demigod but then you also have another one, and another one, in fact infinitely many, separate from each other in/as their own "universes". "Ta-da!". The infinite "God" onion. Now, hang on for the next video on infinity of turtles, turtles all the way down.

I'm not disregarding the profoundness of infinity as an insight. I'm saying it's not complex. You add more cases. That's the function. You add more things. More complexity even. More. Ok, we got it now. So expounding on a particular case of adding more ("Gods"), well, that's not entirely interesting imo (again, irrespective of the linguistic issues).

You can keep adding layers on the onion of infinity. It's not a deep insight. I get like the general idea of making "God" a layer of the onion, and adding more layers (it's a quite expansive way of doing it), but that too is honestly not a deep insight, which is why I'm not particularly impressed by it (aside for the linguistic issues).

Oh wow, yeah, how can God imagine a boundary?

Sadhguru the Hindu supremacist 💀

Increased acceptance for idealism/God in academia -> increased acceptance for idealism/God in society. It's not a very hard jump to make. That's why you are on the podcast after all.

You're in a conceptual web of lies. You can have multiple entities inside infinity already. No need to call them "Gods". It's just fat.

This is the crux of the previous issue I raised: you're invoking unnecessary conceptual entities (if your aim is to be precise, concise). "Infinite infinities" is not a concise presentation of what infinity is. The way you explained infinity in the second interview was more concise: "In truth, there is only one thing: there is an infinite field of consciousness, which is infinity itself, which contains the entire possibility space of anything that can ever be imagined or can exist. And this infinity is God". That's perfectly concise. When you start adding infinity to the concept of God again, you're just adding unnecessary fat. And the way you go about adding infinity to God in the Infinity of Gods video contains a logical error: you have to assume there is something outside of God to add something outside of God. If God is everything that could possibly exist, you can't do that. That's more than just being imprecise or inconcise. That's just being logically incoherent. That is the true signal for when you're really just waffling about something which is not needed.

Infinity of Gods is a load of bullshit, I'm sorry.

Leo is not the first "consciousness-first" idealist they have interviewed. Consider that their knowledge actually mirrors their intelligence. Idealism is actually not a new thing, believe it or not. The issue is that Leo's communication is sort of whimsical compared to the concise scientific delivery. The way he mixes morality, love, goodness, evil, into the Absolute, it makes the scientist-minded thrown off track. A view like Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism is much more effective for that kind of audience, clearly delineating a metaphysical position without dragging in too many connections or too much conceptual baggage.

They talk to eachother. But sure, that's most intuitive. But the absolute is one, not two.

Emptiness and form are one yes. But yet here we are, talking about the distinction between them. If you don't want to make distinctions, "creation" is the least of your concerns.

Creation is the mediation between emptiness and form.

It's such a basic word hello. "Salubrious" that Leo used in the video is more impressive.

@Ramasta9 Thing is, I respond very well to some vegan meals. No "adaptation" required there. How do you explain that?

Form and emptiness. God-realization is about realizing form. Self-realization is about realizing emptiness. Unity Consciousness is when the God-realization has matured to reflect the self-realization in form. "But that is to complicate it". It's just the case that you can refine the understanding of form.

I love Anneke's voice so much. Warm, majestic, powerful:

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

Suiçmez's solo style is so masculine and constrained in this Neo-Classical format, but in this solo he went full Avant-Garde improvisational (really odd and unhinged tonal modes and bends) but still maintaining the concise and elegant style. 1:52

At one point it became less pondering and more making things happen.

I know there are a few RuneScape people on the forum: did anybody play Deadman Mode Annihilation? I got some hours in there (game mode started January 30th and ended on 21st of February).

I don't bring up this guy to idolize him (and I don't seriously describe to his terminology) but it's one thing the guy Clavicular has that makes him allegedly successful with women despite his looks and despite his allergy towards "Jestermaxxing" (having a personality), and that is he doesn't give a fuck. He has said he literally does not care that he finishes in 1 minute with a girl and then bails, because he is only there to pleasure himself, he doesn't care about what the woman thinks (not saying that's a good thing at all, but just to give a picture). He indeed doesn't care about "jestermaxxing", to come off as likeable or charming or funny, just to literally "mog" with whatever other factor he has going for him. Now again, I'm not signalling to idolize, but to get some perspective, see what range of states or behaviors are out there, see that maybe your current states or behaviors are not necessarily needed in the degree you hold them.