Search the Community

I use gummies on the weekends to relax, it makes time slow down and a certain sort of disassociation happens, I become lazy, hungry and more focused lol. My research into it tells me the Psychedelics have their time and place in usage, if You rely on them totally for Spiritual Awakening it probably won't work, Leo may be the exception but he has also done lots of Sadhana too to supplement it.. I for sure agree, that one should do the Sadhana first, get to a point of Awareness that already brings about a natural sort of Peace and Knowing, if Your stuck there then maybe use psychedelics to give You a peek over the fence, which basically inspires You in your Sadhana practices, but don't rely on them totally, it will more than likely lead You astray... In the end for real Transformation to happen, You have to make it happen naturally meaning without the use of drugs or anything external other than Spiritual Practices.. Find a Guru or Mentor and practice that works for You, stick with it, know Your intentions and goals then let it work its magic!

I'm clear on the distinction mentioned above. You want to feel validated, but a state is a state; consciousness is prior to the body, as if. The possible side effects awakening may have on you are, well, side effects. They are not the consciousness itself, but rather a function of the depth of realization and how your mind relates to that increased consciousness. This seems to vary on a case-by-case basis. You are already inherently selfless - how about that? Don't confuse healing or transformation with awakening. These are different pursuits.

Can't be otherwise. Knowledge is what speaks. It's expressing itself just like me and you, only in different ways. Theoretical or experiential, it's still knowledge based. The only transformation is transforming from knowledge to knowledge. Tell me something you don't know. Can't be something you're not already. You're not transforming, just being. Transformation is an illusion; knowledge- based illusion at that. How would you know you've been transformed if not for knowledge of some kind.

Psychedelics can open the flood gates of consciousness and mind. My position is this. You must already be doing spiritual work, consciousness work, heavy existential contemplation, already doing advanced nuanced personal development and self actualization. Have a healthy eating habit, already moving towards your life purpose. Know what your values and passions are. Lots of study and theoretical knowledge as a foundation. Deep study of epistemology and a deep thirst for spiritual Transcendence are keys for making the most of your trips. Also understanding beforehand that these trips don't last and to not mistake these for permanent transformation or consciousness. You must know to continue your integration after our journey and to continue doing the daily grind, bringing the transcendental back into the relative. Also you must study self deception and how the ego deludes and conflates these experiences. Basically study Leo Gura, Ramana, Alan Watts really good before you do them and to be aware of mind projecting these people's ideas onto your trip.

An associative telic attractor intentionally relating phenomenological overlaps through functional lenses. A unitive predictive preference evaluator of experiential awareness conditioning creative transformation. A distributive perception animating potential anticipations from growing gestalts forming familiar patterns. Context is powerful, connecting a nebulous Consciousness as Intelligence, Meaning, Intention, Telos... everything Context is like a Conscious Phenomenological Associativity, the Capacity to Intuitively understand Relate Feelings. Context is: Feelings relating intuitive understandings. Intuition understanding relative feelings. Relations feeling understanding relatively. Understanding intuitively feeling relations. Contextuality is the Capacity to Remember and Relate, to Distinguish and Frame in relation to Feeling or Intent.

Worth watching. Nuggets of wisdom.

I thought I might share a long-form essay I wrote on underdetermination - which deals with the epistemology of facts, the enshittification of news media, an autopsy of bullshit, and how to navigate today's chaotic information environment. Whereas most treatments of underdetermination tend to explore the topic from the domain of science, I do so in the context that's more relatable to most people - the media landscape that molds our attitudes and beliefs about the world. The article itself can be found here: https://7provtruths.substack.com/p/facts-dont-speak-for-themselves ______________________________________________________________________________________ Facts Don’t Speak For Themselves Still from 'Network' (1976), directed by Sidney Lumet, © Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. Text added by the author. Facts, it turns out, do care about your feelings - not because truth is a matter of preference, but because what counts as a relevant fact is always a matter of context. A context is just a background situation for forming interpretations. Think of how a spoken conversation can carry very different meanings depending on tone, body language, and your relationship to the speaker. Facts work the same way. The relevance of any particular fact isn’t fixed - it varies enormously depending on what you’re trying to accomplish, and where you stand in relation to the world. If this sounds like academic pedantry with no real world stakes, think again. Human communication depends entirely on shared conventions about relevance. Just ask any journalist, whose job description is heavily focused on making judgments about which facts matter. The quality of those judgments help determine whether we get functional information ecosystems or dysfunctional ones. Before we tackle today’s chaotic information environment, and what it reveals about the perspectives we inhabit, let’s start with a best-case scenario - and what we get wrong when looking back at it today. The middle of the 20th century is widely considered a high-watermark of American journalism. These were the decades when reporters took down Joseph McCarthy, cracked the Watergate scandal wide open, and laid bare decades of deception about Vietnam by publishing the Pentagon Papers. There’s a charming but misguided notion that this golden age was defined by newsrooms sticking to a simple principle: ‘just the facts’. If this sounds blissfully uncomplicated compared to today’s algorithmic echo chambers, that’s exactly the point. It never was this straightforward. We only think it so because the interpretive machinery operated so seamlessly that we mistook it for objectivity. Yet the myth persists, and it’s easy to see why. Picture an era before cable news, before social media - where families across the political spectrum gathered around a single television set to receive the day’s news. All of it delivered by a trusted anchor, whose voice carried the weight of national consensus. Hard as it is to imagine amid our current algorithm-driven polarization, there was a brief window of time when mass media served as a unifying force. One where we’d argue about what course to take, but could more or less agree upon what happened. That’s not to say that this was some golden age of civility - just look back to the civil rights struggle to see how vicious those disagreements could be. The key difference is that we were having our culture wars within something resembling the same Reality. In contrast to contemporary infotainment - where fact and opinion are tossed into a blender as a matter of course - it’s easy to grow nostalgic for the journalistic integrity of this bygone era. Of course, quality journalism still exists, if you know where to look for it. But its authoritative role has greatly diminished - collateral damage of changes in how we consume our news. The advent of the 24-hour news cycle was pivotal - when eyeballs equate to revenue, sensationalism wins out over substance. By the 1980s these trends were converging into an early version of our media-driven echo chambers. Today’s social media feeds are in fact just the latest iteration of a decades-long transformation. Cable television and talk radio were the initial catalysts. A ‘greed is good’ ethos provided the rationale. Politically motivated deregulation made it inevitable - specifically: 1) The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, which necessitated balanced coverage of controversial political topics. 2) Media consolidation, which concentrated ownership in the hands of a handful of major players. 3) The privatization of public airwaves, which drove programming to become advertiser-driven. What you get from this brew is what the author and digital activist Cory Doctorow calls enshittification, where media platforms are hollowed out into a scheme for extracting money from the very people they were built to serve. What began with cable news and talk radio has been supercharged by the digital attention economy. We need look no further than our social media feeds, which are precision engineered, like slot machines, to keep us scrolling and tapping. Against this brave new world of competing realities, a desire to return to ‘just the facts’ is understandable. The trouble is, this romanticized version of journalism’s high watermark gets the story backwards. Through our rose-colored glasses, we remember a time when trusted reporters like Walter Cronkite supposedly delivered just the facts, and let events speak for themselves. News was news and commentary was commentary - or so the story goes. What’s missing from this nostalgic portrait is a recognition that Cronkite and his peers were never delivering just the raw facts. They were instead master curators, whose skill was in deciding which facts were relevant to the public interest - and then arranging those facts into a coherent narrative. The higher journalistic standards of this era weren’t illusory - but they weren’t the result of news reporters serving as neutral arbiters of truth. They instead emerged from skilled professionals who understood themselves to be public servants, tasked with helping citizens make sense of a complex world. It was a role that required rigorous judgment about accuracy, relevance, and fairness, rather than a presumption that these journalistic principles translated into objectivity. The kernel of truth in this idyllic distortion is that a distressing number of people today lack even basic media literacy skills - which is understandable given today’s chaotic information landscape, and decades of educational neglect. What this amounts to is a form of epistemic inequality - where access to reliable information - and the skills (and inclination) to evaluate it critically - become yet another form of privilege. What does this inequality look like in practice? It’s a media environment where quality journalism demands our time, effort, and resources - while misinformation flows freely through social media feeds engineered to exploit our psychological vulnerabilities. The natural outcome of this digital divide is that people gravitate to sources of information that accommodate their reality. And if you’re someone struggling to keep a roof over your head while juggling two jobs with family obligations, you probably don’t have the time or motivation to become a part-time epistemologist. Fair enough - what’s needed isn’t sophisticated theory, but basic bullshit detection. An Autopsy Of Bullshit Bullshit is a term we love to throw around casually, but it’s a concept that’s taken seriously by respected philosophers, who’ve given it a precise definition. So what is bullshit? It’s not the same as lying. A liar at least respects the truth enough to avoid it, but bullshit is speech that’s manufactured without any regard for truth or falsehood. Its main purpose is to deceive and distract in service of an unforthcoming agenda. Whereas a lie might fabricate facts, bullshit separates facts from the contexts that make them meaningful. Its intent is to get you to bow out of the truth game altogether due to apathy and exhaustion. To that end, the bullshit artist will bludgeon you with anything and everything: flattery, half-truths, irrelevant statistics, thought-terminating clichés. Whatever they can get their grubby little mitts on, they’ll use to get you to stop asking questions. While bullshit has been around with us from time immemorial, our fractured media landscape provides today’s bullshit artists with the cover they need to thrive. Inclusivity - the notion that we should accommodate different ideas and perspectives - is a worthy ideal whose very nature makes it self-undermining without proper guardrails. All manner of dangerous bullshit will take advantage of this openness to masquerade as legitimate perspectives - including those that seek to undermine the very tolerance they cynically exploit. This is known within philosophy as an example of a ‘free rider problem’ - where individuals benefit from a collective good without bearing their fair share of the costs. It’s a dynamic that enemies of open societies have gotten very good at exploiting, as evidenced by the fact that modern authoritarians are more likely to gain power through the ballot box than through military coups. There’s a widespread folk-theory of information that makes us especially vulnerable to this kind of exploitation - the so-called ‘marketplace of ideas’ - which holds that truthful viewpoints will ultimately prevail over toxic nonsense. It’s a lovely aspiration that’s unfortunately disconnected from the messy complexity of human psychology, which is wired for survival rather than truth. What Facts Get Wrong The vast majority of our viewpoints aren’t arrived at through careful consideration, but as an organic outgrowth of our lived experience. Precisely because we can step back from these lived orientations but not step outside of them entirely, this necessarily means that our assessments of the world are always localized, limited, and incomplete. Given this reality, the idea that we could somehow critically examine all of our assumptions is absurd. While armchair philosophers may exhort us to ‘question everything’, in reality this isn’t a blueprint for wisdom - it’s a recipe for psychosis. This is what philosophers call the problem of underdetermination - where the available evidence literally under determines which interpretation is correct. It’s not just that we disagree about what facts mean; it’s that we have to go beyond facts themselves to make sense of the world. Which brings us back to our original dilemma. If the relevance of facts is always a matter of what we’re trying to accomplish and where we stand in relation to the world, then what basis do we have to reject harmful or destructive viewpoints? When we remember that facts never speak for themselves but are always curated and arranged, we can be more attentive to the agendas that facts are in service of. While there’s no shortage of bad actors who are at the ready with a firehose of lies, more sophisticated bullshit artists know how to use facts to deceive and manipulate. The so-called 13/50 rule that’s a staple of racist discourse is a telling illustration - where it’s asserted that black Americans make up 13% of the population but make up roughly 50% of the crime statistics. Conveniently missing from this ‘factual’ premise is everything that would prevent someone from drawing the racist conclusions it’s designed to promote: centuries of economic exclusion, forced ghettoization, discriminatory policing practices, engrained prosecutorial bias, and methodological problems with crime statistics. Not to mention the unspoken implication that 40 million people are collectively responsible for the actions of individuals, in a way that white people never are. More prevalent than outright malicious intent are instances where someone is using facts to prop up a flawed premise. Take the argument that systemic racism is overblown or exaggerated, based upon the achievements of a number of high profile black entrepreneurs. Not individuals born with a silver spoon, but those who overcame genuinely harsh circumstances. For someone who lived this reality - working late nights and scraping together every penny to build something meaningful despite real obstacles - these stories vindicate that the system works, and success is simply a matter of talent and effort. What’s often missing from these accounts is an acknowledgment or awareness of the invisible infrastructure that made their success possible: the community program that provided avenues for constructive engagement in a rough neighborhood. The social programs which helped a parent put food on the table. Or simply the luck of avoiding the kind of crisis that destroys someone’s potential before they’ve gotten off the ground. Blind spots that in no way undermine the talent and hard work of these success stories, but do go to show that individual achievement doesn’t automatically translate into special insight about social policy. Where We Go From Here Which brings us back to our earlier question: if facts can be misused by malicious actors and misinterpreted by well-meaning people, how do we separate viewpoints that are worth engaging with from those that we’re better off discarding? A question made all the more complicated by the recognition that no viewpoint captures it all, and we’re always evaluating from within our own vantage point. When we acknowledge that viewpoints exist on a spectrum, we can start to develop some workable heuristics for which perspectives foster constructive engagement in spite of their blind spots, which are seriously hindered by distortive patterns, and which are deliberately manipulative. In general, higher quality perspectives are characterized by their adaptability, contextual awareness, and a realistic appraisal of their own limitations. Lower quality ones can be identified through reliable patterns of Reality-denial, where relevant complexities are ignored or dismissed. And malicious viewpoints weaponize whatever they can get their hands on - facts, emotions, grievances - to feed a selfish, shitty agenda. The key lies not in escaping the limitations of our viewpoints, but in acknowledging their existence - and learning to work within them skillfully.

Insightful article by Sister Jayanti of the Brahmakumaris on transforming negative patterns to positive ones using meditation as a tool. https://www.khaleejtimes.com/lifestyle/mental-health/gen-z-and-eco-anxiety-how-introducing-meditation-in-school-curriculums-can-help-combat-the-mental-h

You’re both right! I’ll stick with my nomination, borrowing from the Cantor and scholastic context of the “infinitum absolutum” versus the “infinitum secundum quid,” and from the great prolegomenon “Apeiron,” and also blast through traditia and sedimentia with this most explosive metaphor, for I am not merely human but, to tie it to Nietzsche, I am dynamite! Be sure to see my videos, where you’ll see how I weave the live currents of contemporary and traditional trends together with Leo Gura’s great contribution. All this is my integration work. It will lead not only to universal ontology (the ontology of absolutely everything, of reality and ultimate reality, etc.), but to a whole new civilizations epoch of “integral science” and an “integral philosophy” that blows past Wilber and even Dible and Gura, for it is INTEGRITY itself! It is a matter of CONFIDENCE both in the sense of the method of hypothesis operative in speculation and theoretical activity AND in the sense of the highest CONFIDENTIAL KNOWLEDGE, hidden in plain “sight,” but in the direct rays, I reflected and unreflectable and unrefractable LIGHT, for it is SIGHT WITHOUT LIGHT, or honestly choose your own metaphor from your infinite imagination and use whatever works to actually effect the great paradigmatic transformation of humanity. Universal humanity is possible in so many ways, but the point is to see it clearly, in lucid God-consciousness, and to see it through. I am happy to share transcendental happiness in any and all ways possible, and personally I have always attached this promise to the very idea of absolute infinity, and precisely to its reciprocal, as a recipe, with the main ingredient being the highest possible magician: me, the supreme personality of the Godhead, the actual fucking God. Leo’s completely right in indicating this, and doing it like nobody else does. It’s a complete miracle that this and all the other possibilities can be here and now, and so much more and and must!

It may not seem logical to you because, as humans, our perspective is limited to a narrow slice of cause-and-effect relationships. We see only fragments of the infinite network of relational structures that interlock and build upon one another. But every form, every state, every transformation is logical within the framework that sustains it. What appears “illogical” is simply logic operating from a structure or perspective we cannot fully grasp. Even phenomena like two subatomic particles being in two places at the same time follow the internal logic of quantum reality. Logic is not a human invention; it is the inevitable coherence of relationships, whatever their scale or expression. Relationship are coherent, because if not they collapse, everything is synchronic without deviation. Even the chaos and destruction are synchrony form a wider perspective

A Strategic Blueprint for European and Global Peace Hello everyone, I'd like to share a strategic framework for the question that was asked by PurpleTree. Traditional geopolitics often traps us in a cycle of managing rivalries and balancing threats. This proposal outlines a different path: a phased, "three-stage rocket" strategy that moves from pragmatic stabilization to a deep, systemic transformation of international relations itself. The vision is to build a world where great power competition becomes obsolete. This strategy integrates practical, near-term actions with the visionary toolkit of the Global Governance Frameworks (GGF), a project I have worked on since around March this year. The GGF is a comprehensive, open-source blueprint for civilizational transformation, an ecosystem of interconnected frameworks designed to provide scalable solutions to our world's crises and guide humanity toward a regenerative future. --- Stage I: Building the Launchpad - Forging Principled Autonomy (Years 1-5) Before Europe can effectively mediate peace, it must become a strong, coherent, and autonomous global actor. This first stage is about building internal resilience to address the core challenge you (PurpleTree) identified: an over-reliance on the US, which 'lives far away but has a lot of control.' By forging principled autonomy, Europe creates the foundation for credible power. Pillar 0: Social & Economic Cohesion: The foundation of all strength is internal unity. This involves implementing pilot programs for universal basic income and services (via the `AUBI framework`) to eliminate economic precarity, while deploying community healing programs (based on the `Kintsugi Protocol`) to build high-trust, resilient societies from the ground up. Pillar 1: Strategic Independence: Europe must achieve sovereignty in key domains. This includes a full transition to renewable energy, securing critical supply chains, and developing an integrated European defense pillar within NATO that can act as a credible deterrent on its own. This directly realizes the vision you mentioned of a 'strong European army... just for defence,' ensuring Europe's security is in its own hands. A central part of this is a clear Roadmap for Peace in Ukraine, using the methodologies of the `Peace & Conflict Resolution Framework` to pursue a just and lasting settlement. The goal aligns with your suggestion for a strong, sovereign Ukraine that acts as a bridge, fully integrated into the EU market and with robust security guarantees. Pillar 2: Economic Gravity: With a stable core, Europe can project influence through attraction rather than force. By scaling up its Global Gateway initiative and establishing a fair and transparent trade architecture, it becomes an indispensable economic partner for the US, China, and a post-conflict Russia. Pillar 3: The Innovation Bridge: This involves launching a "Helsinki-2" process to create new, updated security agreements for the 21st century, covering cyber, space, and AI, a formal venue for the 'open honest serious dialogue' needed to address the legitimate security concerns of all parties, including Russia. It also means creating a Peace and Transformation Index to transparently track progress towards a more stable world, measuring metrics of well-being (like the GGF's `LMCI` (Love, Meaning & Connection Index) alongside traditional security indicators. --- The Bridge Phase: Proving the Model through Regional Piloting (Years 6-10) This phase directly addresses what you correctly identified as the main issue: 'trust and diverging interests'. Having established its own autonomy, Europe begins to build that trust by testing the GGF's transformative models with a 'coalition of the willing,' proving their value through successful cooperation. The centerpiece of this phase is the launch of the first Regenerative Trade Zone (RTZ). Governed by the `Gaian Trade Framework`, this zone pioneers an economic model where trade actively heals ecosystems and builds community wealth, using regenerative currencies like `Hearts` and `Leaves`. By demonstrating the superior stability, resilience, and prosperity of this model with partners in Africa, Asia, or the Americas, Europe creates a powerful "pull factor," making the regenerative economy an attractive, evidence-based alternative to the current extractive system. --- Stage II: The GGF Endgame - Pioneering a New Global Paradigm (Years 11-25) With the GGF model proven in the Bridge Phase, the final stage is to launch a new global system that transcends the logic of great power competition. The core strategy is the "Regenerative Pull," creating a system so inspiring and beneficial that joining it becomes the most rational choice for all major powers. A Global Regenerative Economy: The RTZ is scaled globally, with access to the `Global Commons Fund` providing stability and funding for planet-wide public goods. This offers a path to prosperity for all nations based on healing, not extraction, and represents the 21st-century evolution of the idea to one day 'integrate Russia into EU,' creating a superpower rooted in regenerative economics rather than old political structures. Species-Level Security Cooperation: The `Aegis Protocol` is deployed, inviting the US, China, and Russia to transition their military capabilities into a shared Global Security & Exploration Trust. Their new, unifying mission becomes addressing species-level threats: planetary defense from asteroids, preventing pandemics, and managing existential risks from AI. This final stage doesn't solve the old rivalries; it makes them obsolete by reframing global security as a shared, positive-sum mission for the survival and flourishing of humanity. Conclusion This strategy presents a coherent pathway from the complex realities of today's geopolitical landscape to a genuinely transformed and peaceful future. It begins with pragmatic steps to build strength and stability, then uses that foundation to pilot and scale a new system of global cooperation. By doing so, Europe can lead the way in demonstrating that a more regenerative and collaborative world is not only possible, but is the most realistic path to enduring peace. [Link to the full, detailed strategy synthesis document as a blog post on the GGF website]

I'm saying death doesn't grant you lasting awakening, because you quickly go back to sleep again (granting reincarnation, which we are already granting, because life is you reincarnating moment to moment). I would claim everybody has had small moments of awakening, but they quickly go back to sleep, so it mostly doesn't even register. The profound moments of awakening are those that last a bit longer and that cause a kind of transformation or shift in perspective and an opening to what is possible. The "awakening" at death is similarly only a relatively small one, and it will quickly end. If you want lasting awakening (enlightenment), you have to aim at it, be it before death or after death.

Greetings - good to find this community and be here. Below I would like to discuss and ponder the nature of non-duality and such, take a step a look into a different concept of non duality.... one that while it isn't so popular these days, certainly isn't nothing of novelty.... Lately I keep seeing an increase of posts across various circles, saying how non duality translates into wholeness and therefore "we are already are" and there is nothing to be done but just "be", rings more like passive compliance -perhaps even the quiet wish of those who benefit most from our sleeping this world of 1's and 0s or duality as they call it, the world of extreme opposites, where say say darkness does not exist without light, where you are labeled "this" or "the other", often times in extreme opposites. This constant push for Neo-Advaita non-duality.... largely influenced by the West but I would like to explore a more ancient take on non-duality, one that requires some inner work to get it.... So if this interest you let's dig.... What could non duality possibly mean? For me personally - Home. Easy as that. Bold I know, tho I am allowed to my opinion, one would hope. The place before the illusion, before the separation and while separation is part of the illusion, we must be aware of the existence of separation at least within this world of illusions. Now that doesn't mean we cannot speak about non-duality, remines of our time before "here" and try to make sense of it - but to attempt to practice non duality within the illusion is an oxymoron by default - arguably so, equally to speak about wholeness in a world of separation is conflicting, but yet once again, recognizing or rather remembering these concepts is the stepping stone for home-coming. Advaita, The Plenora, The Tao, The Source as some call it these days. All names to describe the place where our true Self and consciousness truly originated, beyond the illusion of the Ego, as I called it earlier home, where we originated before the split our entrance into this realm, whatever the reason, let's leave that be for now, that by itself is a separate "story". So what does non-duality really mean beyond "Home"? Personally the way I see is simply as follows: it's a place of vastness, wholeness and resonance. A place where the greater good is not measured by opposites but by quite simply observing and understanding the results of an action on the collective. By observing the consequences of an action, we can determine whether it was positive or not - no need for opposites or darkness as a measuring stick. Utopic, madness, wishful-thinking, yeah I know what you are thinking and yet let me show you a simple example how the mind forgets, but the soul *always* remembers. When you were a kid, even before capable of speech, when you hurt another kid, how did that make you feel - awful, wasn't it? You see the soul when it enters this realm before it gets corrupted by obvious darkness of this world remembers its natural essence. The resonance of the higher Self within the soul is still pure before the corruption of the Ego. As we grow older, we "learn better", learn to put on masks, use the Ego to navigate this realm and worse of all, start justifying and accepting the darkness as part of this existence - only natural, it's a coping mechanism afteralll, yet one that can cloud the soul's essence if not recognized. So how can we exist in non-duality, be whole, be in oneness and still be ourselves without losing our identity? Another concept that failed to escape me for the longest time, something that I must recognize made me scared - classic mindgames of the Ego. You want to think as the other side as an infinite treat, an old wise Oak that long before linear time, one that predates all other realities - simulated, illusory or not. Base reality - a place where some say, we can materialize and de-materialize at free will, explore the vast real cosmos as we wish, be incarnated or in ethereal/spirit form. But let's focus on the question at hand, if we think as the oneness an old wise Oak, each branch represents the Self - the Oak has many different and distinct branches, which exists with their own distinct characteristics and colorful features... There is much richness in diversity, wouldn't you say? Equally, what's a tree without its branches? Nothing but a hollow log, I would dare say. This is how I have personally understood the paradox of how to be in oneness without losing the Self (nevermind the Ego, the clouding knock-off version of the Self that only serves to navigate the illusion). How do we even start to remembering the way back "Home"? By embracing your higher Self, understanding this world for the illusory nature that is and ***more importantly, active participation, metanoia*** active transformation in heart and perception, a conscious shift of the mind. Nothing to do with becoming enlightened , a saint, a meditation master, special or dissolving the Ego - Once again nothing but refined and clever distractions, subtle traps designed to keep us asleep within the dream. They distance us from the much simpler, more natural process of beginning to remember who we truly are. I can only tell you what has been working for me, as this process continues to unfold, its got to do with alignment and resonance. Each experience is different, we all wear different masks afterall and have different attachments. But if I could say the main things that have helped me along the way are: - recognizing this world for the illusion, distraction and separation it is. - using my consciousness as an antenna with purpose, actively asking "my higher Self" for answers and not from an Ego perspective, I remember the first time I searched in the stillness "and managed to speak with my consciousness" for lack of a better word - I was encountered with the first paradox: Who is asking? Is the the mask or the one behind it? That pointed me towards the right direction but I struggled to understand initially, for all I had known was the mask for most of my time here on this realm. The mask/ego feels like a loud child, trying to rationalize everything, always protecting itself much like a child constantly yelling "ME ME" "Show me, show me", demanding instant rationalization, the higher Self on the other side, is non-linear, sits with paradox, contemplates, understands sometime it is not ready yet to comprehend, yet at some point, things fall into place, it has no problem waiting for stillness or readiness to understand a paradox somewhere down the line, unlike the mask/ego which demands everything to be known and rationalized "now" Moments where I managed to personally speak with my conscience/Higher Self.... - In the night time, out in nature, under a tree, in particular next to the water or inside the water..... there is a voice of intuition there beneath all the noise and the intrusive thoughts, a voice of your true eternal Self, we have been lead to belief as madness, a voice that brings clarity (the inversion of the truth is a classic dynamic is the world of illusions), a subtle whisper in the back of your mind that is there for all to synch and connect with, if only we would actively ask and listen...... While what I am seeing sounds controversial, arguably one of the greatest minds who walked this realm and discussed the unconsciousness, Carl Gustav Jung spoke of this himself, he called this voice Philemon, a mentor archetypal guide, of this he famously said and I quote: “a force which was not myself” “He said things which I had not consciously thought” Time and time again the same truth resonates across this realm: see within. Perhaps this are nothing but the rambling's of a mad man, perhaps of someone who is beginning to awaken within the dream. I have no answers, only stories of my path and what has worked and is working for me - that's all. As Plato hinted, keep your mind distracted with matters of this reality, or rather the shadows of the caves of illusions and remain trapped within it, use your consciousness with purpose - beyond the Mask, to sense and communicate with something more ancient than this reality, longing to reconnect with us and urging us to re-awaken mid-dream, or alternatively, stay compliant and end up like Sisyphus. Yes I see the paradox - I am ending this non-dual rant in a highly dualistic fashion. I started by speaking of the paradox of speaking of non-duality within a dual reality, it only seems fitting that I embody it on a closing note. Food for thought.

You can start by not just asking the males of the forum for advice on the topic because it's not a male issue it's a personality issue and you're actually trying to attract women with this attempt at personality change. I even said things to suggest how I like men who are a bit funny and witty and that in of itself is a clue what some women find attractive and can maybe help in your transformation by suggesting things they like to see men do and act to possibly attract more women. You can be helped not just by guys experience in overcoming this issue but also what women have to say about their experiences with the man you're trying to become. It's not that women won't reply, I'm doing that, but the mindset that cones with only wanting a male's perspective on the matter speaks volumes in and in of itself. It's a closed mindset. How you do one thing is usually how you do everything.

Nothing can be done, without it being an illusion, about something that's not actually happening. Simply put. All you're describing there is not actually happening. It only appears to be happening to an observer. I'm not saying the body doesn't seem to speak or move or things aren't happening; what I'm saying is, it's not to or by anyone. So, the need for something to be done is subjective and subject/object related. There's none. It's all happening and appearing to itself by itself as energy in flow. The work being done on oneself is also the energy being the old self and transforming into the new. It's just seem to be different and appears different. It is also the tools used in the transformation; it is the practices and the processes. It's you and it's me. It's everything. It's done.

Ram Dass & Andreas Müller 🌲 conversation (GpT) 🌿 Scene: A quiet garden. A low table with tea between them. Birds chirp occasionally. Ram Dass smiles warmly. Andreas Müller sits relaxed, still. Ram Dass (smiling softly): So, Andreas… tell me. In your view, there’s no one here. No self, no journey. Just this. Andreas Müller (nods slowly): Exactly. There is no self. No separate person. No story that belongs to anyone. Just what appears. The appearance doesn’t need meaning—it is already whole. Ram Dass: I understand. I used to think I was someone going somewhere… until I realized the “I” was just another thought. Yet… love remained. When the “me” thinned out, the heart opened. Andreas: Yes. And that love too… is simply what’s happening. Not personal. Not from someone to someone. Just… love. Just presence appearing as connection. Ram Dass (with a slight chuckle): You know, I spent decades helping people shift from ego to soul, then beyond even the soul. But I always held a deep compassion for the seeker. For the suffering of thinking we are separate. Andreas: I hear that. But in this message, even compassion is empty. Not cold—but not held by anyone. Suffering appears. Seeking appears. They are not wrong. But they belong to no one. Ram Dass: I would agree—ultimately. But sometimes I met people in despair, and what they needed wasn’t a teaching. They needed someone to be with them. Not to dissolve their story, but to hold it gently. To love it. Andreas (pauses, then nods): That’s beautiful. And what’s amazing is—there was never anyone doing that. It just happened. Love happened. Holding happened. The idea that someone did it is the illusion. 🌬️ A breeze rustles the leaves. Silence falls naturally. Ram Dass (softly): You know… after my stroke, there was no “me” that could hold everything together anymore. Just breath. Just this. I used to call it fierce grace. Andreas: Yes. Beautiful. It’s just what is. There is no need for it to be accepted or resisted. It’s simply this… already complete. Ram Dass: So, no one becomes enlightened in your view? Andreas (smiling gently): No one becomes enlightened. There’s no process. No transformation. No arrival. The illusion of “me” may dissolve, but it was never real. What remains… is what always was. Ram Dass: And yet… we are here, sharing tea, speaking words, listening to birds. Isn’t that the miracle? Andreas: Yes. And there’s no one here to witness it. Yet it shines. ☀️ The light begins to fade. A silence stretches—not empty, but full. Ram Dass bows slightly. Andreas smiles, not from someone, but as the effortless face of this moment.

This post is the fruit of many years of philosophical inquiry, psychedelic self-exploration, contemplation, and study of classical and German philosophical traditions. I'm sharing it here in the Actualized.org Forum not to preach or instruct, but to offer a deeply personal gesture—an attempt to articulate a dynamic I’ve seen animating not just thought and language, but Being itself. I hope something here touches the Will of someone else. That’s all. A quick note: this was originally written in German, then translated and reworked with the help of Claude.ai. Some expressions may carry a Germanic structure or flavor. I’ve left certain German terms intact where they feel more precise. This is a long and dense exploration. But if you've glimpsed the paradox of trying to explain what cannot be explained, or felt the strange recursive loop of trying to understand understanding, then you’ll feel right at home. I. A Shift from Doubt to Wonder For over 400 years, Western knowledge has been built on a singular engine: doubt. We ask: Can this be justified? Does this follow? Can it be measured? In this, we are the children of Descartes, Galileo, the Stoics. Our sciences, our ethics, even our notions of selfhood are built on the assumption that to exist is to be logically derivable from something else. But there’s another path. A more ancient one. Plato says, "Philosophy begins in wonder" (thaumazein). Not in doubt. Not in rational proof. But in the bare astonishment that something is at all. And what if this wonder—this sense of the miraculous, the paradoxical, the ungraspable—is not an emotion to be moved past, but a rigorous cognitive mode in its own right? This, I believe, is the forgotten foundation beneath all foundations. II. Every Act of Definition is Self-Defining Take the act of defining something. Let’s say a table. You might define it by its parts: a flat surface with legs. Or by its function: something you place things on. But notice what’s happening: In the very act of defining the table, you’re also defining what it means to define. If you emphasize components, you're treating definition as analytic decomposition. If you emphasize function, you're treating definition as teleological or pragmatic. So, in the very act of saying what something is, you are recursively enacting what defining itself means. This recursive dynamic—where the act of determination defines itself—is what I call the Rubicon step. Every act of defining crosses an invisible threshold. It doesn’t just point outward to its object—it curves back and determines the structure of its own operation. Definition, then, is never just about the object. It's about Being itself trying to grasp itself. And failing. And trying again. III. Bestimmung: The Voice of Determination The German word Bestimmung (noun), Bestimmen (verb) is nearly untranslatable. It means: To determine To define To assign purpose or function To tune (an instrument) To give something a voice (Stimme) To resonate To call or destiny So when we define something, we are doing all of that: tuning it into harmony with our understanding, giving it a voice in meaning, assigning it purpose, resonating with it. We are not just describing—we are participating in its self-making. But here's the paradox: That is, there must be a power that remains free in relation to every form of determination—a power that enables plurality in determination. Otherwise, everything would be reducible to a single logic or law. This excess—this overflow—is the dynamic I call Exzess (excess). And its logic is Non Sequitur. IV. Non Sequitur: The Logic of Groundless Power In medieval logic, non sequitur marked a fallacy. Something that "does not follow." A mistake. But what if we reverse this? This is not just a rhetorical move. It is the key. Every act of determination involves a leap—a moment that does not follow from anything prior. It can’t. Because that which enables determination itself must be undetermined. In this sense: It is the divine power of the Absolute to arise from nothing. It is the God-move: the pure "nevertheless"—the capacity to be, with no cause, no justification, no derivation. This is what I mean when I say: The Self is that which does not follow. V. The Self as Escalation The Self—das Selbst—is not a substance. It is not a soul. It is not an identity. It is a dynamic. A recursive, escalating movement. The Self is the unceasing attempt to determine itself, and thereby constantly exceeding itself. It is the ungraspable origin of grasping. A pulse. A flame. A volcano that erupts from nowhere. This is why the Self can never “have” itself. It is always in a movement of Zu-Sich-Machen—making-itself-itself. But never arriving. Always escaping. This is not dysfunction. This is not suffering. This is God’s own logic. We see it in nature: In the recursive spirals of Mandelbrot fractals In the pulsing of stars and galaxies In your own heart In breath, rhythm, orgasm, and laughter In the strange loop of self-reference Each of these is an instantiation of the Self’s excessive, recursive attempt to be itself. And none of them follow from anything. They just are. VI. Will: The Non-Sequitur Capacity Will (Wille) is not something you learn. It is not the result of a decision. It is not conditioned or explainable. Will is the moment when the Self meets its own non-following. It is the “nevertheless.” Seneca said it best: Velle non discitur. Will cannot be taught. It can only be encountered. This is not the will of ego or striving. This is the divine Will: the Absolute acting through itself, from no ground, toward no goal, in perfect creative overflow. You cannot give anyone this power. You cannot demand it. You cannot systematize it. You can only stand in awe of it when it shows up. VII. Lust: The Joy of Will Encountering Itself Lust (Lust) is not pleasure. It is not hedonism. It is not desire fulfilled. Lust is the joy of saying yes without reason. It is when the Will touches itself. When the Self collapses into its own paradox. When power realizes it has no origin, and rejoices. Real Lust is sacred. It is divine. It is the ecstatic pulse of the Absolute realizing itself in form. Lust is when the Rubicon is not just crossed, but celebrated. VIII. Ernährung, Stars, and Other Examples Let’s anchor this in tangible examples: Ernährung (Nourishment): When I eat, I make something into myself. I transform otherness into identity. But this is never complete—I am always in the act of becoming. Eating is a living metaphor for the Self’s Zu-Sich-Machen. Pulsars and Variable Stars: Astronomical bodies pulse, not because of cause, but because of the same logic. They are self-referential excess in motion. The Heartbeat: Your own heart pulses. Not because you will it, but because you are Will in form. It is a manifestation of recursive selfhood. The Table (the philosopher's favourite example): Defined now by parts, now by function, now by artistic form. The table reveals that every act of determination opens a space for meta-determination—and thereby never captures what is. Each of these reveals: Being is a recursive, self-referential miracle. And the more we chase its essence, the more it eludes us—because it was never “there” to begin with. It was always here. IX. Pedagogy and the Touch of the Will True teaching cannot operate through sequences, systems, or techniques. Because: A pedagogue must not only know—they must burn. They must be amazed at what they do. Only then can they open the horizon of non-following. Only then does learning occur. Learning happens only when the Will is amazed. Everything else is imitation. In this sense, all true learning is ontological—not informational. It is the moment where the Self meets another Self and recognizes itself, groundlessly. This is the logic of spiritual awakening, mystical insight, and true transformation. It cannot be forced. It cannot be faked. It happens in the Present, or not at all. X. The Present as Non-Sequitur The Present (Gegenwart) is not a point in time. It is the site of Will. It is where the Self erupts into itself. It is the moment of non-sequential freedom. In the Present, we are not following. We are not justifying. We are not tracing back causes. We are being, without reason. Without defense. Without escape. And in that moment, all Bestimmung—definition, logic, identity, structure—collapses into the ecstatic simplicity of this. This is the miracle. This is the Absolute. This is what it means to be free. And it does not follow. ;-) <3 With love and fire, Benjamin

Yeah, the ego death is impossible, the ego transformation is possible. The self exists as an expression of the absolute; it is the absolute in a form. This form can be self-referential or open. What we seek is the latter, because the other option is not necessary anymore, it's an hindrance

I seek to find the core and source of consciousness that generates reality and figure out a way to let it transform me from the inside out. All meaningful change happens through this process, as the alternative is mechanistic repetition and unconscious continuation of pre-established ideas/patterns (I don't want to dismiss that approach of course, maybe building momentum and slowly integrating is necessary not to overstimulate the body and build a foundation but still). The body forms itself inside out, growing from a single undivided cell into the complex, intelligent, specialized, interdependent system that it is today. It continues to create structures and experiences, with conscious experience corresponding to various parts of the brain expanding and interconnecting. But what I seek is to access the process which makes it happen, and my psychedelic experiences point me towards consciousness retroactively upgrading the brain as its physical counterpart and sensory connector in order to account for and understand a greater portion of reality. You might say that Leo already made a video about this and it's the concept of going Meta and that is definitely a powerful way to do it. But I feel like there has to be even more to it or maybe that within the concept of going Meta, there is more room for expanding the understanding of that concept, of what it means to go Meta and understanding Meta² or Meta-Meta. How can I instead of transcending paradigms through Non-Duality as I currently do, access and utilize that experiential feeling inside of me which leads me to become aware and want to go Meta and integrate it into my awareness and make it a default action and state of operating. There are many limitations within that stop us from living our best lives by being stuck in paradigms, maybe there is a point to it, maybe self-deception is just ignorance, maybe its the natural process of evolution that propels us into greater self-understanding and a healthier way to engage in existence, maybe we specifically chose to be as limited as we are in order to experience and appreciate activities that would make no sense from a higher perspective. But low consciousness leads to a lot of suffering, as we see in the world and ourselves, and I realized how my very own ideas and desires lead me to suffer needlessly, chase never attainable pleasure and hedonism, get me stuck and at odds with people and slow my progress towards my passions and the things that I find meaningful. One might say, I'm supposed to learn through physical experience and learn through suffering, but Sadhguru himself says that this human machine is the most sophisticated thing on the planet and we haven't even bothered reading the user's manual, so that's exactly what I want to do. Of course gaining experience through action is a fundamental part of it, but why should I chase random societal desires and karmic tendencies that I don't even authentically want when I haven't even figured out the fundamentals of my human existence and am simply adopting a local paradigm of blind faith, perpetuating negative tendencies in the process of aping after others because that's all I'm exposed to. I've been so unhealthy in the past, the self-understanding I have now would have saved me a lot of trouble, mindless repetition, ego games and stubbornness. I have wondered what about psychedelics made me tune into the experiences they create, one thing being that I'm overflowing with love, another that my limitations dissolve, another that the need for external validation disappears, another being fearlessness, another being transcending shame through self-compassion and understanding, another being the peace of mind that spawns curiosity, another one being the release of trauma and energetic barriers, another one being authenticity, yet another taking responsibility, and at this point its basically just speedrunning the concepts from the titles of all of Leo's videos. But I don't wanna rely on Leo's videos, I want to find out how to get into the state of mind that generates these insights and figure out what its source is, the healthiest configuration, the source of creation and imagination, the peak of kundalini, the state of mind that lets me shed my skin and be reborn and transformed from new energy updating my body from the inside out. I want to access the link between the immaterial and perceived materiality, the feeling of conscious intent when moving a hand, formulating a thought, taking a cold plunge, presence, awareness, energy, transformation.

Not necessarily! If one night I drugged you, locked you up in a basement, and performed gender transformation surgery, making you "Miss Leona," you'd be forced to have a "consciousness expansion" experience due to your physicality and hormones changing. If I induced schizophrenia in you through a lobotomy and electric shocks, you would also have a shift in consciousness. When you're sad, you can point to brain activity that's "presenting" that you are in a sad state. When you're doing a complex calculus problem, there's brain activity for that as well. And there is also brain activity when your "dissociative process," aka your DMN or "ego," is being lowered, which expands your sense of self. I'm not saying the brain is the cause of consciousness, but it is a good "map" to look at if one potentially wants to cause these things outside of psychedelics. Creating substances that mimic this behavior, lowering brain activity, especially in areas associated with the "self" and "self-rumination," would be a good direction! Fundamentally, both 'real' mental barriers and 'real' physical barriers are the main culprits as to why we are not all flowing and basking in God. It's a sturdy process to deconstruct these things and become unself-deceived. That's why psychedelics help so much, as they loosen things up. This is also why I can touch my toes on psychedelics and almost do a pretzel!

Dear actualized.org members. It is important I share this update with the community. Around three years ago I made this post reviewing the Monastic Academy for the Preservation of Life on Earth, or MAPLE. Much of what I spoke to was valid relative to that point in time, but has since dramatically shifted. This post is an update to the original. I'm sharing this story now as a lesson and case study into the ever present dangers of self-deception. I haven't watched Leo's most recent video on fake-spirituality but can say with confidence MAPLE would fall into this category, as well as fits into Leo's classic video on "Cult Psychology." I re-watched Leo's video on cults towards the end of my Residency at MAPLE and was taken aback by how much Leo's description aligned with what MAPLE had slowly transformed into during my time there. I would approximate 70% of the aspects of cult psychology Leo speaks to MAPLE had slowly fallen into over the course of my training. If at all possible, I would ask either Leo or moderators remove the original review on MAPLE or let me edit it. MAPLE has spent considerable financial resources scrubbing the internet of negative reviews. Now when you search "monastic academy" on google, my original and quite frankly, raving review, is one of the top hits on Google. This could potentially contribute towards harm. Below is a statement I've written and shared on other social media and a link to a YouTube video speaking directly about my story. I'm also happy to answer any questions the community may have. - Last February I left my time training as a Resident at the Monastic Academy for the Preservation of Life on Earth, or "MAPLE." The TLDR is that I left because I watched this vibrant spiritual community slowly de-cohere into a cult. The below video is an account of my story regarding MAPLE, and what I observed which lead to this decision to leave. And it's worth mentioning - MAPLE has self-described explicitly as being a cult; the use of the word is both out of respect for the organization's self-identity and yet critical in that my sharing of this is a pointing to systemic power structures and dynamics typical of distinctly *abusive* cults. It's also worth sharing that multiple attempts at giving organizational feedback have taken place over multiple generations of the community on individual-to-individual, small group, and collective scales. I've personally engaged in all three of these forms of attempted feedback. Despite these prior attempts, feedback has not been adequately received nor addressed. Patterns of harm in various forms and iterations have continued playing out. As of right now, I'm the only individual I'm aware of who has deeply participated in the community and training program who is now making a public statement about MAPLE's misconduct. However, this raises the question - how is it possible that I, personally, could go along with this for three years? Since leaving, I've been in constant inquiry around this; around where personal integrity fractures, and where being a victim to sophisticated, subtle, and highly intelligent forms of manipulative domination meet. However, this inquiry doesn't stop at the individual. While MAPLE and my story are unique, this story is also a fractal of the ways in which planetary systems of power function to dominate not only humans, but all life on Earth. We are in fact in the midst of a global meta-crisis which originates from a collective mind of domination that we are all subject to. To ask where our personal integrity fractures in the face of domination is to be directly in the inquiry of global systems change. The tragedy of MAPLE is that despite what I share in my story, MAPLE's work in the field of existential risk and its theory of change speaks to the heart of preserving life on Earth through recognizing any true change of the future of humanity is a function of the transformation of mind. Attempting to address AI Risk, Climate Change, or any other major threat to life on Earth without addressing the axiomatic root of causally productive mind is misunderstanding where systems change actually takes place. Global systems change rooted in wisdom and compassion is inextricable from mind. Yet, to weaponize this insight as justification for misconduct is deeply dangerous and hypocritical. It's easy to say that the ends justify the means when one adopts a position of planetary spiritual authority. It's easy to bypass the hard work of relational integrity when there's only the foregrounding of planetary urgency. There are countless configurations of the mechanisms of manipulative deflection and plausible deniability that spiritual authority can wield when the only thing that matters is the conceptual projection of the preservation of life on Earth rather than living in the reality of one's embodied relationships. I have no doubts about the sincerity of the MAPLE community, but I also recognize the deep, ever present possibility of self-deception and all of its collective expressions when proper feedback channels are not allowed to exist. The core of why I left and why I'm sharing my story now is a response to this self-protective contraction of the community away from honesty. I do not claim to hold all the answers to MAPLE's collective psychology. I do not claim to hold all of the answers to global systems change. And I certainly do not self-proclaim planetary spiritual authority. But I do make a firm claim that it is only through a personal commitment to honesty, integrity, and truth that compassion arises, at any scale. This commitment must not only express itself as a realization of the nature of one's mind, but must also express itself throughout the behavioral conduct of living relationships, and it is the coherence of these two that gives rise to a world based on wisdom and compassion. Video Account of My Story

Trading is among the most corrupt domains in modern civilization, with an integrity level near 0. Based on my experience, this domain naturally attracts grifters and scammers. I have encountered too many fake trading gurus; whenever somebody claims to be an expert trader with the trading skills to help other traders gain millions, I automatically assume the claim is false. In law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. But in trading, it's the opposite: fake until proven genuine. It's interesting that there's a kernel of truth in some of their teachings. In the trading community featured in the video, it's: act as if you're already. This principle is the Law of Correspondence. But they use it to deceive and exploit others rather than pursue genuine internal transformation, essentially making them scammers. Instead of focusing on internalizing and embodying their affirmations, they act as though they're already millionaires by renting mansions and luxurious cars. Then they present these props as evidence for their trading success. This is performance, not transformation. As I have said in the past, trading is a fractal of life. I feel too lazy to explain it so I'll request CoPilot to handle it: AI is amazing.

I suspect this viewpoint might be pointing to a potential trap we can unconsciously fall into: seeing meaning as something negative or problematic - as I mentioned elsewhere. If this is not the case here, feel free to ignore this. Regarding this negative relationship to the suggestion that meaning may be created and not found: no! Enjoy meaning. Create it, use it, and be conscious of what it is. For example, you can make your life mean a challenging adventure - one meant to grow you and others in the direction of healing, consciousness, and transformation - and to serve the truth. That would kick your ass and be beneficial in all sorts of ways. Personally, I don't want to give the impression that what was said here is the whole story - or even necessarily accurate. Believing it is irrelevant; on the other hand, what can be done is asking what meaning is - if we want to know what's true in the matter. At the same time, it's also true that, at the end of the day, we don't really care what anything is as long as it serves us - so why not be content with both options? If anyone feels depressed after reading this thread, reconsider! Listen anew.

The point is that you can't be in coma for ever because it would be a limit. A break in the becoming. In fact you are in coma never. The becoming is transformation, it can't stop because if would be a total limit in the reality. It's ontologically impossible, anything that is in the absence of limits is unlimited, is the absence of limits itself. It could be seen from the logic and directly

Not even Jesus claimed to be good. (Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone,). There's a bit of depth to this statement of his, my interpretation is that this is him pointing to the fact that he is God and that "good" is a word that not a lot of people understand. Perfection has little to do with subjective human mortality that comes from mental judgements. Becoming immortal might make you inadvertently behave more lovingly, but this behavioural adjustment is only a byproduct.. a secondary matter. This is where religion falls, it sees holy living as a primary matter. (It also dictates what qualifies as "holy living"...). This isint to say it's cool to be a complete devil, but it's just the rigidity of religious and social morality that causes confusion. Consciousness is far more natural and cultivates personal transformation rather than moral information. (Consciousness reveals to the mind that hurting others toxifies itself, like a pipe that has acid flowing through it...it's going to eventually affect the pipe itself). Fuck, Jesus was supposed to have walked into a Jewish temple before he was executed and started trashing the place and assaulting people John 2:13-16. This is of course assuming that this portion of Christian scripture actually happened at all. But the point stands. I've just realised I'm going in a completely different direction to the OP, oops.