Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Rafael Thundercat]

13 hours ago, zurew said:

Unconsciously internalized worldview, coupled with internalized persona (similar mannerism, similar choice of words and rhetoric, constantly in teacher preacher mode, disagreement automatically means that you are wrong and that you need to be  quickly told the correct set of beliefs ).

Some of these people never seriously engaged with any philosophy or spirituality outside of actualized.org. You grow up consuming years of Leo's content and that then frames your whole life.

Even the ones who did some drugs and spiritual practices -  how interesting, that after you internalize years of actualized.org beliefs and framing that you interpret most of your awakenings and trips inside that frame and that all of those foundational beliefs that you  internalized months or years before you did any serious practice , that they are suddenly "confirmed" the moment you do the practices.

Also notice how credence works with these people. After they "confirm" a given thing their credence in Leo's other claims  go up infinitely and they dont treat Leo's unconfirmed claims in an agnostic way and hence the cycle continues "internalize beliefs---> internalized framing clouds your interpretation of awakenings and trips -----> your credence in other unconfirmed claims go up and you internalize them"

Yup, and Leo is free of falt from this since he warned many times for guys about this trap. 

[Eskilon]

53 minutes ago, zurew said:

Im not seeing you having such issues when non-solipsistic views are attacked in a similar fashion.

I don't usually argue much here, I am not a solipsist by the way, for some reason I thought about enganging with you in this convo because you are well-read on many things in philosophy and arguing, so it's interesting.

 

53 minutes ago, zurew said:

I disagree, unless your relativize literally all epistemic norms, but given that you do ,then what you are pointing out is not gonna be an exclusive problem to the intellect, it is gonna be a problem for any kind of justification and thats gonna target everything including mysticism and spirituality as well.

What I did instead - I pointed out certain epistemic virtues  and given the context of those, how solipsism ranks worse than other views. With that move you dont undermine literally all views and you dont relativize everything the same way as you did.

You can say that you dont give a fuck about those virtues and norms and thats perfectly fine with me, and thats compatible with me saying in so far as we are using those standards, solipsism is gonna rank worse.

The "truth is true regardless of your epistemic norms and standards" is an issue for everyone and not just for the intellect. The truth is true regardless of your spiritual practices and your drug of choice and your awakenings.

if you want to go that skeptical - then there is no rule in reality that awakenings have to do anything with whats true.

You are demanding such a standard from me that you dont demand from the mystics. Your standards are unreasonable mine isn't, because the standards I use dont relvativize and dont undermine literally all investigation (and just to be clear again, Im not against spiritual work; I value mystical experiences and I include spiritual practices in the epistemology that I use, but if you would push me on it the same way you pushed on the intellectual norms, then a similar answer would come up - maybe none of these things have to do anything with whats true).

 

if your criticism of my criticism is that one must have 100% certainty about what kind of epistemic norm(s) or standards must have to do something with whats true (because otherwise every criticism is just bogus); in that case, literally everything is just bogus including all philosophy and all mysticism because there isn't any rule in reality that any kind of epistemic norm or standard must have to do something with whats actually true and if you gonna claim "but there is such a norm" then you gonna get back to the bootstrapping problem that you tried to push on me and that you thought was exclusive issue to intellectual norms.

Im okay with a starting point and using that starting point to filter views, and im also okay with not having 100% certainty about anything and with giving qualificaiton for everything (you not gonna see a similar kind of intellectual honesty from most actualized members though).

I see, fair enough, and good points.

The reason I specifically said it was an intellect thing and didn't lump together mysticism is because from my experience, there's a higher knowning if you will, that is distinct, certain and more profound than just thinking, reading a book, observing cause and effect and learning information about the world.

Such experiences are undeniably true in a transcendental way, like for example the moment of lucidity in a dream. It's undeniable, certain, but if you externalize it to other people, you are prone to questioning and the whole set of problems I talked about.

Not saying this is what solipsism is but, a 100% true position may not appear so when examined through the realm of intellect and the human mind, so I say we can and must critique things but with a grain of salt and some humility, which by your reply you seem to understand this. 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Eskilon

[Lila9]

So we are all schizophrenic then. Are all hallucinations equal? I don't think so.

[Lila9]

Cats are really beautiful. It's not surprising that they were worshipped in ancient Egypt.

I actually see the magic in animals. I am hypnotized by them. I love to stare even at bugs, like roaches. One part of me is disgusted, and the other is fascinated by their anatomy, beauty, and the energy and presence of their consciousness.

When I read the book The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, it expanded my perspective on bugs.

[Lila9]

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

You are imagining guys who you assume are refusing what means to he imagining themselfs. Some of these imginary guys may understand well what means to imagine themselfs and they just decide to be modest and not boost around about that. 

Ah, it is just Leo and his casual hallucinatory arguments with imaginary people on the forum. Very non-schizophrenic of him.

[Leo Gura]

@Lila9

4 hours ago, Lila9 said:

So we are all schizophrenic then

Not schizo, God.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

tl;dr relative solipsism is a concept built on assumptions - there is no direct experience or nature to it. Solipsism uniquely privileged epistemically? Ha!

I'ma die on this hill. Fight me.

Muah!

[Leo Gura]

@Natasha Tori Maru You are fighting yourself.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Leo Gura I understand metaphysical solipsism as a concept. I understand it from an Absolute.

It just isn't a direct thing - not an experience - relatively. 

[Eskilon]

@Natasha Tori Maru So you do make a distinction between two kinds of solipsism... interesting. So, there's relative and absolute solipsism and the absolute is the correct one and the relative the false?

Did Leo make this distinction in that video? I don't remember now

Edited 39 minutes ago by Eskilon

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Eskilon Oneness is behind everything - remove space and time. This is my philosophy though, separating absolute from relative. I say philosophy as it is a conceptual layer.

There is experience.

And then:

All interpretations of what that implies are added.

 

[Eskilon]

10 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Oneness is behind everything - remove space and time. This is my philosophy though, separating absolute from relative. I say philosophy as it is a conceptual layer.

There is experience.

And then:

All interpretations of what that implies are added.

But this experience is you right?

Behind everything or in everything or both? 

Where does Leo's view and yours clash?

Edited 20 minutes ago by Eskilon