Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Osaid]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

"No." is a complete sentence - "Every complete sentence requires both (a noun and verb)"

It lies!!! 😅😅😅

I thought there was something strange about that statement. It's AI lol.

[Davino]

43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I was a fucking atheist, don't forget. I had no love for the word.

Yeah, me too. A few Christian monks had existential religious crisis after debating with me, one almost left monkhood. I was truly savage about philosophy.

Then I kept contemplating and moved to agnosticism. Deep waters agnosticism on the limits of knowledge and the human frame, which is a more honest position for average humans really. 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

Very interesting distinction to make, I kinda like it.

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school.

For clarity, I don't think you are stupid for not knowing those things until now (or perhaps you simply forgot them—there are probably a bunch of concepts I've forgotten as well), but I think it shows for most of us  that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because many people lack even a basic understanding of how language works.                

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school.

For clarity - I dont think you are stupid for not knowing about those things for up until now, but I think it shows for most of us  that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because most people lack a very basic understanding of language.                

 If I could bullseye, hole-in-one, checkmate and slam dunk this in one single emoji, I would. 

[Osaid]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school.

For clarity - I dont think you are stupid for not knowing about those things for up until now, but I think it shows for most of us  that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because most people lack a very basic understanding of language.                

Maybe. I know what nouns and verbs are, but I thought the decision to bring those distinctions into a talk like this was interesting on Osho's part.

[LambdaDelta]

1 hour ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Why do you choose to use the word God instead of Absolute?

Both words seem accurate to me. The downside is that “absolute” is more syllables and sounds presumptuous and intellectual. Aside from that though, it does avoid the religious connotations of the word God.

'Absolute' is too impersonal, which misses that aspect of reality, whereas God implies absolute already. Your own username kinda highlights this. Also absolute what? Absolute Consciousness, Absolute Self-Deception, Absolute Infinity — God is all of that. In the same way, calling it 'Infinity', even as Cantor's transordinal Ω, is also problematic since the default association is to the mathematical notion, therefore insufficient. 
Ein Sof, YHWH, Trinity, Teōtl, ΑΩ, Allah, Vishnu, etc. all point to God, which is quite intuitive and not really controversial. Though confusion and conflation are inevitable regardless, par for the course. 
Example from How Your Mind Interprets Reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_of_translation

In the end all that kinda becomes redundant, the point is getting to a place where whatever is pointed at, be it the moon, the finger, rabbit, dog shit, yourself, a concept, an experience, a belief, the act of pointing, and so on is clearly understood to be God. But striving for precise terminology is nonetheless important.

Edited 1 hour ago by LambdaDelta

[ryoko]

I was right. Guys, Leo's been replaced by an impostor, who's now arguing with kids about words. 

[Leo Gura]

Just now, ryoko said:

I was right. Guys, Leo's been replaced by an impostor, who's now arguing with kids about words. 

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Osaid said:

I know what nouns and verbs are, but I thought the decision to bring those distinctions into a talk like this was interesting on Osho's part.

In that case, its my bad for misinterpreting your message.

[Davino]

I remember when Leo dropped years ago the gaslighting episode. I didn't understand at the time why he took so much effort on explaining that trivial topic. I gotta say that video aged like wine in my mind.

[LambdaDelta]

The first Osho vid reminded me of

Also callback to Professor Dave vs. James Tour

sums up debates here (and in general) 

Edited 44 minutes ago by LambdaDelta

[Terell Kirby]

Sounds weird to say Nothingness/Emptiness is self luminous.

God is Self luminous fits nicely.

But it’s not even about a fit. What else would you call a supreme being who omniscient, omnipotent, infinite and is responsible for all of Existence?

To call this supreme being Nothingness or Emptiness leaves so much on the table. The truth is, there is only one word that captures the magnitude of the power of this thing for humans, and that is GOD. 

You could walk down the street and ask 100 humans how they comprehend God and it will be centered around some all powerful and all knowing, transcendent being. Even for those that believe God is fake (and yes, that is a belief they haven’t validated) they will still be able to get at the heart of it and accurately point to how other humans comprehend God.

God as a belief is false. But there’s a profound difference between belief in God and a direct consciousness and understanding of it. Those who come to understand God have done so through understanding themselves, there is no separation.