Where is Peter Ralston wrong?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Same with Nietzsche. Although his work is so fragmented that it’s hard to point to a single text as his definitive statement.

Both Nietzsche and Deleuze are not saying anything as simplistic as you make it out to be. They’re two of the most sophisticated and rigorous metaphysicians around, so take any ChatGPT summary, Wikipedia blurb, or especially YouTube clickbait with a big grain of salt.

Thanks for the recommendation, maybe I try. I've read a lot of Nietzsche in the past, as well as many other philosophers. For example I remember that I read many times meister eckhart, but now I don't remember a single word, just a feeling of authenticity. Regarding Delutzde, I only know his ontology in a very general way, just a resume. Probably I'm not going to read him in depth because I detect limitations. I find it impossible to read anything about philosophy or mysticism because the moment I detect a limitation, I'm done. There isn't a single author with whom this doesn't happen to me of those I know. They seem toxic to me. It's not an opinion but a feeling. Maybe I'm deluded, maybe not, but at the end you only can follow your instinct, it's inevitable. 

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[Nilsi]

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Thanks for the recommendation, maybe I try. I've read a lot of Nietzsche in the past, as well as many other philosophers. For example I remember that I read many times meister eckhart, but now I don't remember a single word, just a feeling of authenticity. Regarding Delutzde, I only know his ontology in a very general way, just a resume. Probably I'm not going to read him in depth because I detect limitations. I find it impossible to read anything about philosophy or mysticism because the moment I detect a limitation, I'm done. There isn't a single author with whom this doesn't happen to me of those I know. They seem toxic to me. It's not an opinion but a feeling. Maybe I'm deluded, maybe not, but at the end you only can follow your instinct, it's inevitable. 

There’s a humility in reading people’s best works and actually making an effort to understand where they’re coming from and what they’re trying to communicate.

You have to appreciate how difficult it is to put experience and understanding into words in a way that lets someone else glimpse the depth behind them. When someone devotes their life to this craft - trying to grasp something profound about reality and communicate it - and they happen to be a one-in-a-billion intellect like Nietzsche or Deleuze (and I suppose you’ll just have to take my word on that for now), I think it deserves to be taken seriously and worked through with a certain respect. Only then can you really see where its limitations lie.

And I can guarantee you, with all due respect, that these thinkers are far beyond anything you’ll find on Actualized.org in terms of rigor and the subtlety of metaphysical insight. So if you’re serious about this, and you have the time to watch Leo’s videos or read endless forum threads, why not go straight to the real deal?

It’s the equivalent of going from self-inquiry to 5-MeO-DMT.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

There’s a humility in reading people’s best works and actually making an effort to understand where they’re coming from and what they’re trying to communicate.

Yeah, true geniuses who have channeled human intelligence and left a profound mark. Without them, our conceptual and even energetic structure as a human collective would be different. Other writers, let's say lighter, like Hermann Hesse, Hoffman (the one of LSD) , Ernst Junger, and others, have contributed to the openness that can be sensed when reading them in the movement toward spiritual freedom. In them, real depth was perceived, even without being precisely articulated.

The problem is that in more recent times, what has appeared is flatter, perhaps more ontologically ambitious, but lacking real depth. Henry Miller in Tropic of Capricorn talking about shit connects more with the core of reality than Ralston in all his work. The collective psyche tends to embrace more breadth at the cost of losing depth. 

The problem I see in spiritual literature is which is based on certain foundations that are limited from the ground up: Indian mysticism and Huang Po-style Zen Buddhism. They are supposedly indisputable, but if you analyze them closely, they reveal themselves to be limited. Almost not limited, almost to the core, but no....still not, even if they could burn themselves without moving a finger. 

Btw no philosopher is above the simplicity of Heraclitus

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[Nilsi]

25 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Btw no philosopher is above the simplicity of Heraclitus

I completely appreciate Heraclitus.

You know who else did - and saw him as a fundamental precursor to their own metaphysics? Nietzsche and Deleuze.

Nietzsche:

• “Heraclitus will remain the profoundest of all philosophers.”
• And: “He sees in all things not the persistence of being but the eternal and self-creating, self-destroying fire, the eternally living flame, flickering up and down in itself, and time and again consuming itself.”
• He also wrote: “Being is an empty fiction invented in opposition to the rich thronging diversity of the becoming and the passing away.”

Deleuze:

• “Heraclitus says: ‘An unapparent harmony is stronger than an apparent one.’”
• “The same world is both a chaos for the empirical understanding and a cosmos for the transcendental thought which deploys it in pure Idea.”
• And in describing becoming: “Becoming is thus not the disorder of appearances, but the dynamism of the Idea itself.”

It’s funny that you cite Heraclitus so favorably while criticizing Deleuze for supposedly being too fixated on becoming.

[CARDOZZO]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Thanks for the recommendation, maybe I try. I've read a lot of Nietzsche in the past, as well as many other philosophers. For example I remember that I read many times meister eckhart, but now I don't remember a single word, just a feeling of authenticity. Regarding Delutzde, I only know his ontology in a very general way, just a resume. Probably I'm not going to read him in depth because I detect limitations. I find it impossible to read anything about philosophy or mysticism because the moment I detect a limitation, I'm done. There isn't a single author with whom this doesn't happen to me of those I know. They seem toxic to me. It's not an opinion but a feeling. Maybe I'm deluded, maybe not, but at the end you only can follow your instinct, it's inevitable. 

Sounds like Pyrrhonism.

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

It’s funny that you cite Heraclitus so favorably while criticizing Deleuze for supposedly being too fixated on becoming.

It's interesting that they resonated with Heraclitus. He had a very direct connection with existence. I don't criticize him for being obsessed with becoming, but for considering it the basis of reality. Becoming is existence, and existence, being, is the inevitable consequence of reality, its manifestation. But the foundation of reality is limitlessness. I know I'm repeating myself like a parrot and maybe I sound stupid.

Let's say, parroting others, that the foundation of reality is the Tao, and the true Tao cannot be said, since "saying" is a structure that happens, a manifestation in the tao. Reality is absolute openness, and within it, becoming is inevitable, infinite in all its dimensions, completely interconnected and alive. The life, the being, is a consequence of unlimited depth, or could be said that being is the absolute depth and becoming is it's manifestation. I know all this sounds like meaningless nonsense that someone would say to appear profound and mystical, but it is the better mental structure to define what reality is if you realize it's limitlessness 

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

But nothing compares to Christianity understood in its essence, free of all its structure and embellishment: the fire of the cross, the absolute suffering, the bleeding heart of Christ, opens the real door of heaven. Not of the fluid, egoless life, but of the living heart of reality. Where everything falls away and the fire of suffering burns all the barriers, glory manifests itself, the unthinkable, the total, the living heart of reality, and then only one exclamation fills reality: hallelujah. The long-lost prodigal son has returned. The glass has been filled to overflowing. There is no explanation, no idea, no pointer, that can come close to the absolute fullness that reality is. 

Or in other words: 

When the walls of the structure fall, what remains is not simply spaciousness or stillness, but absolute light manifests. Total openness does not translate into bland peace or sterile silence: it translates into total being. And that being cries out life, expansion, creation, and joy. What is revealed is not a personal state or a psychological refuge, but the very source of infinite universes: the infinitely living heart of reality. There, where there are no limits, only absolute fullness remains, reality in its pure essence, without containment, without comparison, without defense. That is the real Halleluja: the inevitable exclamation of reality recognizing itself in its bottomless glory

If there are no limits, potential is absolute. Absolute potential is the burning heart of infinite galaxies, the love of infinite mothers, the creativity of infinite jungles, the explosion of infinite supernova. It's what we are. As the Christianity says, the good new. 

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[Thought Art]

@Breakingthewall Free from all its structure except the Christianity part lol

[Thought Art]

5 hours ago, Nilsi said:

And I can guarantee you, with all due respect, that these thinkers are far beyond anything you’ll find on Actualized.org in terms of rigor and the subtlety of metaphysical insight. So if you’re serious about this, and you have the time to watch Leo’s videos or read endless forum threads, why not go straight to the real deal?

It’s the equivalent of going from self-inquiry to 5-MeO-DMT.

Doubt it. lol, also logically incorrect statement at the end.

I simply guarantee Leo’s videos and book list trump those two thinkers. Plus, Actualized teacher includes 5meodmt which is why I say your last sentence is incorrect.

Edited July 2 by Thought Art

[CARDOZZO]

56 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

But nothing compares to Christianity understood in its essence, free of all its structure and embellishment: the fire of the cross, the absolute suffering, the bleeding heart of Christ, opens the real door of heaven. Not of the fluid, egoless life, but of the living heart of reality. Where everything falls away and the fire of suffering burns all the barriers, glory manifests itself, the unthinkable, the total, the living heart of reality, and then only one exclamation fills reality: hallelujah. The long-lost prodigal son has returned. The glass has been filled to overflowing. There is no explanation, no idea, no pointer, that can come close to the absolute fullness that reality is. 

Or in other words: 

When the walls of the structure fall, what remains is not simply spaciousness or stillness, but absolute light manifests. Total openness does not translate into bland peace or sterile silence: it translates into total being. And that being cries out life, expansion, creation, and joy. What is revealed is not a personal state or a psychological refuge, but the very source of infinite universes: the infinitely living heart of reality. There, where there are no limits, only absolute fullness remains, reality in its pure essence, without containment, without comparison, without defense. That is the real Halleluja: the inevitable exclamation of reality recognizing itself in its bottomless glory

If there are no limits, potential is absolute. Absolute potential is the burning heart of infinite galaxies, the love of infinite mothers, the creativity of infinite jungles, the explosion of infinite supernova. It's what we are. As the Christianity says, the good new. 

Have you read Adyashanti's book "Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic"?

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, CARDOZZO said:

Have you read Adyashanti's book "Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic"?

28 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Breakingthewall

No I didn't , I thought that adyashanty was like neo advaita, conciousness and that, at least a book that I read was like that. 

[Nilsi]

7 hours ago, Thought Art said:

Doubt it. lol, also logically incorrect statement at the end.

I simply guarantee Leo’s videos and book list trump those two thinkers. Plus, Actualized teacher includes 5meodmt which is why I say your last sentence is incorrect.

That last sentence was just a silly metaphor - don’t take it too seriously.

Also, how nuanced of you to „guarantee“ this and just „lol“ at me, when I’ve watched every video Leo has ever released, read all the Ralston books, many Wilber books, all of Nietzsche, and most of Deleuze - yet you probably haven’t read a single sentence of the latter.

Actually, falling for Leo’s delusional grandiose rhetoric is one of the best litmus tests of maturity - and you’ve clearly drunk the Kool-Aid.

Edited July 3 by Nilsi

[Hyperion]

17 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Neither is really a thing. There is only what is and what is, is neither nondual nor dual or truth just Absolute, timeless, boundless energy appearing as form. I'm not confusing anything because confusion cannot arise where there are no opposites and other to be confused about. Confusion may appear to happen in the relative sense and that's only apparent in the dream of separation so if I'm confusing anything it only appears that way to you the observer, which is fine but when you mention Absolute truth in the same sentence, I had to break it down.

Then why do you assume that enlightenment means that one adopts and becomes attached to the relative perspective (aka. mental story) of "there is noone here / there are no other people"?

Edited July 3 by Hyperion

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

That last sentence was just a silly metaphor - don’t take it too seriously.

Also, how nuanced of you to „guarantee“ this and just „lol“ at me, when I’ve watched every video Leo has ever released, read all the Ralston books, many Wilber books, all of Nietzsche, and most of Deleuze - yet you probably haven’t read a single sentence of the latter.

Actually, falling for Leo’s delusional grandiose rhetoric is one of the best litmus tests of maturity - and you’ve clearly drunk the Kool-Aid.

You can read the Tao Te Ching to death and still be as ignorant of it as before. That doesn't mean you actually grasp what's being communicated. 

We could start a thread on listening. 

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Breakingthewall Free from all its structure except the Christianity part lol

You haven't understood. I didn't say that we have to accept the Christian structure, but that the essence of Christianity, understood in a certain way, is the formulation that best points toward real openness. Perhaps that's why Western society has been the most vital, who knows

Edited July 3 by Breakingthewall

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

You can read the Tao Te Ching to death and still be as ignorant of it as before. That doesn't mean you actually grasp what's being communicated. 

We could start a thread on listening. 

Fair enough. But it would be silly to dismiss the Tao Te Ching with “guarantees” without having read a single page.

[UnbornTao]

14 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Fair enough. But it would be silly to dismiss the Tao Te Ching with “guarantees” without having read a single page.

For sure.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

You can read the Tao Te Ching to death and still be as ignorant of it as before. That doesn't mean you actually grasp what's being communicated. 

We could start a thread on listening. 

Usually if you read the tao te ching to death and another 1000 books means that you have the impulse, the need of understanding. That doesn't guarantees that you will reach a deep understanding of reality, but the will to understand is the fundamental step to doing so.

It's important that it be a will to understand for the sake of understanding, not to be the smartest in the class and receive many imaginary medals. If this is the case, then you will very quickly delude yourself into thinking that you understand everything better than anyone else and will close yourself off from true understanding. This is the problem of narcissism, which encloses you in imaginary ideas

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Then why do you assume that enlightenment means that one adopts and becomes attached to the relative perspective (aka. mental story) of "there is noone here / there are no other people"?

I never said anyone adopts to a mental story, you've interpreted what I said as such. The SENSE of a separate individual that arose in the human being is lost, just as someone can lose their sense of smell or taste, to reveal there was never an individual there to begin with, ALREADY, and cannot sense 'other' to be individuals either. A person that cannot taste or smell needs 'objects' to reveal to it that there's no sense of smell or taste. Therefore, when and if that apparently happens, it doesn't have a need to teach other anything and talking will automatically be happening to and by no one and there wouldn't be expressions of teachings happening only messages and responses which would be an energetic exchange just as what's happening here but because there is a sense of self it's interpreted as someone reading and someone responding when, in fact, it's the Absolute 'playing both parts'.

[Salvijus]

13 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

But nothing compares to Christianity understood in its essence, free of all its structure and embellishment: the fire of the cross, the absolute suffering, the bleeding heart of Christ, opens the real door of heaven. Not of the fluid, egoless life, but of the living heart of reality. Where everything falls away and the fire of suffering burns all the barriers, glory manifests itself, the unthinkable, the total, the living heart of reality, and then only one exclamation fills reality: hallelujah. The long-lost prodigal son has returned. The glass has been filled to overflowing. There is no explanation, no idea, no pointer, that can come close to the absolute fullness that reality is. 

Or in other words: 

When the walls of the structure fall, what remains is not simply spaciousness or stillness, but absolute light manifests. Total openness does not translate into bland peace or sterile silence: it translates into total being. And that being cries out life, expansion, creation, and joy. What is revealed is not a personal state or a psychological refuge, but the very source of infinite universes: the infinitely living heart of reality. There, where there are no limits, only absolute fullness remains, reality in its pure essence, without containment, without comparison, without defense. That is the real Halleluja: the inevitable exclamation of reality recognizing itself in its bottomless glory

If there are no limits, potential is absolute. Absolute potential is the burning heart of infinite galaxies, the love of infinite mothers, the creativity of infinite jungles, the explosion of infinite supernova. It's what we are. As the Christianity says, the good new. 

Damn