What Arguments can You Make That Actualized.org Teaching are Indeed Very Rare?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Hey, I think a thread could be opened for each of those topics.

You cannot now the mine virus this statement created for me 🙃

I will work on a preamble for 'What is Art?' first ❤️ 

I'm going in the direction of 'Art as truth'.

Either as what it can reveal about the human condition and reality, or how the lies of art (manipulation of perception and graphical tricks, as an example) reveal the falsehoods we do not realise are embedded in perception. Subjective expression to render the impression of a thing - a 'lie' that reveals a different kind of truth, by challenging assumptions and revealing tricks of perception. 

All of my training in graphic art is based on rendering an impression. Never the real truth. But by learning the techniques of impression I see to the truth of things with much more acuity. I learned very early the parts of realty others ignore, to render only the relevant. Because I have been trained in art since birth this has been the core tenant of my entire life, and it was not until the contrast of the social domain - especially these forums - I realised what it did to my experience !

 

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You cannot now the mine virus this statement created for me 🙃

I will work on a preamble for 'What is Art?' first ❤️ 

I'm going in the direction of 'Art as truth'.

Either as what it can reveal about the human condition and reality, or how the lies of art (manipulation of perception and graphical tricks, as an example) reveal the falsehoods we do not realise are embedded in perception. Subjective expression to render the impression of a thing - a 'lie' that reveals a different kind of truth, by challenging assumptions and revealing tricks of perception. 

All of my training in graphic art is based on rendering an impression. Never the real truth. But by learning the techniques of impression I see to the truth of things with much more acuity. I learned very early the parts of realty others ignore, to render only the relevant. Because I have been trained in art since birth this has been the core tenant of my entire life, and it was not until the contrast of the social domain - especially these forums - I realised what it did to my experience !

Sounds good. It'd be tricky to render the real truth, though - I'd imagine.

[Carl-Richard]

22 hours ago, Eskilon said:

The Infinity of Gods video is the ultimate strange-loop(period).

"Strange-loop" is an euphemism for "superfluous".

 

22 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Can GOD be absolute and multiply itself in other absolutes but never truly know? Never truly encounter other Absolutes but intuit that it exists? But if GOD could do that would it be truly absolute and omniscient? Well that's the strange-loop and a consequence of unlimitedness.

Can God be absolute and multiply itself? Yes. Can God create multiple things that don't know each other? Yes. So what is new here?

The trouble lies in treating the things that are multiplied as their own absolutes, which is contradictory (as "absolutes" is relative). What you're actually pointing towards is the concept of the unknown, of postulating something outside what is known. If you're God and you know yourself as the absolute (empirically, through direct experience), you can theoretically postulate something (hypothetically) outside of that. But if you approach it rationally, for something to exist outside of God is antithetical to the concept (it's also ironically a kind of human neuroticism that gives birth to the entire exercise; a thought, hypothesizing, putting up a boundary, a limitation, often about the unknown and its associated fears). You might not know for sure whether the absolute you experience is indeed truly absolute, but rationally, the absolute has to be absolute. Rationally, God has to be the one true God.

So the Infinity of Gods thinking essentially just entertains the unknown as a hypothetical while equivocating around the concept of God. If you want to cut the fuzziness and just get the bare points: yes, you can entertain the unknown as a hypothetical, but empirically and rationally, God is still the one true God.

 

22 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Yeah no. I don't think alien awakening is machine-elves or anything of the sort.

I think it essentially is. Aliens are not private property. But hey, I'm open to be absolutely blown away.

 

22 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Carl-Richard: Are we supposed to be amazed when science investigates, discover and understands new and original things about reality?yes, dUh.

What is there to be amazed in life if not to understand and explore new stuff?

Just because pyschedelics increases consciousness, from that it doesn't follow that you will understand the same stuff I understand, and that it doesn't have uncharted territory never explored before. And definetly doesn't mean it easy to get there.

The common thread through all high-dose, breakthrough, alien encounter trips, is "I communicated with and downloaded an immense intelligence that I have no way to communicate or even remember fully, but I know it was awesome". I think that's what this is.

Edited August 16 by Carl-Richard

[Eskilon]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Strange-loop" is an euphemism for "superfluous".

Bruh. Stange-loop is the exact opposite of that.

Strange-loopiness is what prevent GOD from fully knowing itself, even though GOD needs to be omniscient and fully sovereign by the logic of Oneness. It's the very definition of Mystery with a capital M. It's the transrational factor. It's what makes GOD to exist and not exist at the same time.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Can God be absolute and multiply itself? Yes.

Yes and No. God is one thing, it cannot be multiple things. But at the same time, it can.

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Can God create multiple things that don't know each other? Yes.

No. God is absolute and needs to be at all places at all times, there's no room for disconnection and not knowing itself. But at the same time, it can.

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The trouble lies in treating the things that are multiplied as their own absolutes, which is contradictory (as "absolutes" is relative).

No, everything must be the same thing. Everything is absolute. The words you are seeing on the screen is the whole reality. The whole universe is here. Did you grok what sameness is?

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What you're actually pointing towards is the concept of the unknown, of postulating something outside what is known. If you're God and you know yourself as the absolute (empirically, through direct experience), you can theoretically postulate something (hypothetically) outside of that. But if you approach it rationally, for something to exist outside of God is antithetical to the concept (it's also ironically a kind of human neuroticism that gives birth to the entire exercise; a thought, hypothesizing, putting up a boundary, a limitation, often about the unknown and its associated fears). You might not know for sure whether the absolute you experience is indeed truly absolute, but rationally, the absolute has to be absolute. Rationally, God has to be the one true God.

The thing is, GOD must not be bound by rationality. I know it sounds bogus to our human minds, but GOD is beyond all limits, including logic and coherence.

Everthing is known to GOD, but if that was the case, if knowing ends, that's a limit. It cannot happen. So GOD is always knowing, its a process, fluid and flexible thing, like water. It must be so because of infinity and the absence of limits. So in a sense GOD is not omniscient, it is always learning, and going, so this leaves room for unknowns, hence the Infinity of GODs awakening.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think it essentially is. Aliens are not private property. But hey, I'm open to be absolutely blown away.

I don't think Leo contacted Aliens perse, like some entity outside talking to him and giving him wisdom. It's just that I presume he discovered a radically new field of consciousness that allows for new sense-making and insight; and that it must be so weird that he named Alien.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Bruh. Stange-loop is the exact opposite of that.

Strange-loopiness is what prevent GOD from fully knowing itself, even though GOD needs to be omniscient and fully sovereign by the logic of Oneness. It's the very definition of Mystery with a capital M. It's the transrational factor. It's what makes GOD to exist and not exist at the same time.

Yes and No. God is one thing, it cannot be multiple things. But at the same time, it can.

 

No. God is absolute and needs to be at all places at all times, there's no room for disconnection and not knowing itself. But at the same time, it can.

 

No, everything must be the same thing. Everything is absolute. The words you are seeing on the screen is the whole reality. The whole universe is here. Did you grok what sameness is?

 

The thing is, GOD must not be bound by rationality. I know it sounds bogus to our human minds, but GOD is beyond all limits, including logic and coherence.

Everthing is known to GOD, but if that was the case, if knowing ends, that's a limit. It cannot happen. So GOD is always knowing, its a process, fluid and flexible thing, like water. It must be so because of infinity and the absence of limits. So in a sense GOD is not omniscient, it is always learning, and going, so this leaves room for unknowns, hence the Infinity of GODs awakening.

When people criticize you for using clear, unequivocal and conceptually detailed statements when explaining non-duality or God, the extreme version of that is using unclear and equivocal statements on purpose. That would be my pick for what qualifies as "fake spirituality". It fundamentally boils down to conflating the intellect that points with the truth that is being pointed to. Being a shitty pointer is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Being a shitty user of language is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Unless your every utterance is a mere Zen stick for shaking up somebody's preconceived notions, using unclear and equivocal language is the opposite of being intelligent, the opposite of being virtuous. It suggests some underlying pathology or attachment, or something that needs to be protected, or simply ignorance.

 

3 hours ago, Eskilon said:

I don't think Leo contacted Aliens perse, like some entity outside talking to him and giving him wisdom. It's just that I presume he discovered a radically new field of consciousness that allows for new sense-making and insight; and that it must be so weird that he named Alien.

Which again is not new. You're probably waiting for the lizard video as well? I want you to radically evaluate the charity you extend to people's claims, the charity you extend to people claiming they're radically special, to people claiming absurd things that they have not backed up. This is what Leo wants for you.

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

When people criticize you for using clear, unequivocal and conceptually detailed statements when explaining non-duality or God, the extreme version of that is using unclear and equivocal statements on purpose. That would be my pick for what qualifies as "fake spirituality". It fundamentally boils down to conflating the intellect that points with the truth that is being pointed to. Being a shitty pointer is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Being a shitty user of language is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Unless your every utterance is a mere Zen stick for shaking up somebody's preconceived notions, using unclear and equivocal language is the opposite of being intelligent, the opposite of being virtuous. It suggests some underlying pathology or attachment, or something that needs to be protected, or simply ignorance.

Every statement about GOD is unclear and equivocal. Whether is sound and logical or contradictory and incoherent is still imprecise. But Ok, I get that you don't like strange-loops, which is weird because it is one of the most sophisticated pointers in regards to understanding of GOD. To each their own I guess lol.

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Which again is not new.

How do you know? You can`t know what Leo discovered. So it's best to suspend your judgment and be open.

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're probably waiting for the lizard video as well?

Lmao, No? Why would I expect that? Do you think anyone here expect such a thing?

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I want you to radically evaluate the charity you extend to people's claims, the charity you extend to people claiming they're radically special, to people claiming absurd things that they have not backed up. This is what Leo wants for you.

Dude, I am not believeing Leo blindly, trust me. I know what epistemology is. 

Edited August 16 by Eskilon

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Every statement about GOD is unclear and equivocal. Whether is sound and logical or contradictory and incoherent is still imprecise.

It's one thing to concede that God cannot be ultimately communicated. It's another to communicate it badly. You've chosen the way of logic and concepts, but you shoot yourself in the foot. Its like if you want to communicate truth through vibes and energy transmission, but you use a plastic figurine rather than yourself.
 

4 hours ago, Eskilon said:

But Ok, I get that you don't like strange-loops, which is weird because it is one of the most sophisticated pointers in regards to understanding of GOD. To each their own I guess lol.

I can appreciate a strange-loop when it's actually a strange-loop and not an euphemism for equivocating or being incoherent. When you say "if God is absolute, but it breaks itself into 'multiple absolutes', how can God be absolute?", you're just looping, not strange-looping. "God is the absolute and the absolute can divide itself into the relative, and then the relative can recognize itself as part of the absolute again". That's a strange-loop. "Multiple absolutes". That's a contradiction.
 

4 hours ago, Eskilon said:

How do you know? You can`t know what Leo discovered. So it's best to suspend your judgment and be open.

I literally said that. I just said what I feel based on the current information.

Edited August 17 by Carl-Richard

[Eskilon]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I can appreciate a strange-loop when it's actually a strange-loop and not an euphemism for equivocating or being incoherent. When you say "if God is absolute, but it breaks itself into 'multiple absolutes', how can God be absolute?", you're just looping, not strange-looping. "God is the absolute and the absolute can divide itself into the relative, and then the relative can recognize itself as part of the absolute again". That's a strange-loop. "Multiple absolutes". That's a contradiction.

"The beginning is the end, the end is the beginning" This is a classic strange-loop. A strange loop is a contradiction, fundamentally. It tries to equate two vastly distinct aspects, that shouldn't be equated if you think logically.

You're saying that ""God is the absolute and the absolute can divide itself into the relative, and then the relative can recognize itself as part of the absolute again". If GOD is absolute, it cannot relate, or be divided, it is the only thing that exists by definition. So you saying it can divide itself is a contradiction and incoherent.

I am saying that, the Infinity of GODs is GOD trying to grasp the possibility of other absolutes. And of course, if you were to analyse this logically it doesn't make any sense and it is a contradiciton, yes you got that. But, as I said, GOD is not bound by such things, and thus is able to accomplish such feats. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

"The beginning is the end, the end is the beginning" This is a classic strange-loop. A strange loop is a contradiction, fundamentally. It tries to equate two vastly distinct aspects, that shouldn't be equated if you think logically.

It's not. It's when you jump levels and you get back to where you started. It does not necessitate equivocation or a logical error. That's a choice you're making. You can always choose to make the steps in the strange-loop explicit so an equivocation doesn't happen.

 

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

You're saying that ""God is the absolute and the absolute can divide itself into the relative, and then the relative can recognize itself as part of the absolute again". If GOD is absolute, it cannot relate, or be divided, it is the only thing that exists by definition. So you saying it can divide itself is a contradiction and incoherent.

No. The absolute includes everything, including the relative. The relative is a sub-set of the absolute. The absolute is the superset. God is the superset. See how you can choose to avoid equivocation? It's a purely linguistic choice, but it's a choice that increases clarity, that doesn't equivocate.

 

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

I am saying that, the Infinity of GODs is GOD trying to grasp the possibility of other absolutes. And of course, if you were to analyse this logically it doesn't make any sense and it is a contradiciton, yes you got that. But, as I said, GOD is not bound by such things, and thus is able to accomplish such feats. 

And I'm saying that multiple absolutes defeats the concept. You can choose to be logically consistent in your words, even though reality fundamentally isn't. If you stop holding your words to logical consistency, then anything flies, and you're down the rabbit hole of thought disorder and things that people want to lock inside hospital walls.

Edited August 17 by Carl-Richard

[Eskilon]

On 17/08/2025 at 0:08 AM, Carl-Richard said:

It's not. It's when you jump levels and you get back to where you started.

And that's precisely what I describred?? ""The beginning is the end, the end is the beginning" .

 

On 17/08/2025 at 0:08 AM, Carl-Richard said:

It does not necessitate equivocation or a logical error. That's a choice you're making. You can always choose to make the steps in the strange-loop explicit so an equivocation doesn't happen.

It does happen if you were to analyse or look at the structure through logic or reason.

 

On 17/08/2025 at 0:08 AM, Carl-Richard said:

No. The absolute includes everything, including the relative. The relative is a sub-set of the absolute. The absolute is the superset. God is the superset. See how you can choose to avoid equivocation? It's a purely linguistic choice, but it's a choice that increases clarity, that doesn't equivocate.

There's no relative, no set, subset or superset. All you said are mental projections into reality.

All that exist is this spontaneous moment. And it does not have a name. But if one were to name it it would be: Absolute with no other.

Edited August 18 by Eskilon

[Carl-Richard]

On 18.8.2025 at 5:31 PM, Eskilon said:

And that's precisely what I describred?? ""The beginning is the end, the end is the beginning" .

You described it as a contradiction. That was what I was contesting. Presenting a strangeloop as a contradiction is a choice (be it deliberate or indeliberate). It's not necessary.

 

On 18.8.2025 at 5:31 PM, Eskilon said:

It does happen if you were to analyse or look at the structure through logic or reason.

No. Calling something that is not absolute absolute does not happen as a result of logic or reason. "Multiple absolutes", "multiple Gods", is simply a failure of communication.

 

On 18.8.2025 at 5:31 PM, Eskilon said:

There's no relative, no set, subset or superset. All you said are mental projections into reality.

As is what you said right now. We're already conceding that by talking. 

 

 

On 16.8.2025 at 11:38 PM, Eskilon said:

Every statement about GOD is unclear and equivocal. Whether is sound and logical or contradictory and incoherent is still imprecise.

I know you probably didn't intend it, but this is identical to a certain naughty word: narcissist gaslighting. Your statements, Leo's statements, are perfectly logical, perfectly precise, all up until the equivocation part. And you want to come off that way. You want to come off as logical, clear and precise. That's why you make a video. That's why you're speaking to me using logic right now. But then, when I point out the contradiction, the error in logic, the equivocation, you suddenly revert to "every statement about God is imprecise". As if every statement you make is imprecise. As if every mistake I point out is actually the mistake. Suddenly it's all completely flipped. It's the same with "that's just a mental projection you're making". Yeah, like every statement you're making.

Edited August 21 by Carl-Richard

[EternalForest]

I've consumed a lot of self help content whether through books, online videos or full courses. And no other source I've found has combined the variety of sources and insights in the way that Leo has.

Who else has read hundreds of books, researched individual topics for multiple years to build a vast understanding, or dedicated themselves to watching a documentary about every country in the world?

You also won't find the depth of spiritual insights combined with the stern practicality and groundedness of Actualized content. And likewise, you won't find traditional self help figures Tony Robbins or Napoleon Hill touch some of the more esoteric and left field concepts that Leo explores.

Format wise, find the raw 3 hour format incredibly valuable. To put it in perspective with other teachers, especially nowadays, you might get a 20 to 40 minute video at most. And the traditional guys usually either save the deeper and more long winded insights for their private retreats/workshops or if it is in a book, obscured in complex or overly structured language that doesn't always get to the core of things in an approachable and powerful way like Leo does in his stuff.

So all in all, while Leo isn't the only great teacher out there, I do think he holds a unique spot in the self help space for the sheer variety, depth and seriousness that he offers.

Edited August 20 by EternalForest

[zurew]

On 2025. 08. 18. at 6:04 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Your statements, Leo's statements, are perfectly logical, perfectly precise, all up until the equivocation part.

Once the move of equivocation is recognized in Leo's work , you start to see it everywhere and you realize how much it lacks substance and how uninteresting and unimpressive it is.

"Ohh, you made a 1000 blog posts trying to critique X, where you use X in a completely differently sense how people you want to critique use it? Cool, buts its completely unresponsive to their position."

 

On 2025. 08. 17. at 4:08 AM, Eskilon said:

I am saying that, the Infinity of GODs is GOD trying to grasp the possibility of other absolutes. And of course, if you were to analyse this logically it doesn't make any sense and it is a contradiciton, yes you got that. But, as I said, GOD is not bound by such things, and thus is able to accomplish such feats. 

There is a difference between talking about possibilities vs making meaningful statements.  Its not about God not having the ability to do X, its about X being meaningful.

If I were to object to you saying "God is not bound by anything, therefore God can tell you the square root of red", the objection wouldn't be about pointing out that God lacks some ability, but about you being conceptually confused and your statement being incoherent and not communicating anything meaningful. 

So its not about your statement being false (because only meaningful statements can have the property of being false) - its about your statement not even being capable to be true or false.

[Carl-Richard]

On 20.8.2025 at 11:22 PM, zurew said:

If I were to object to you saying "God is not bound by anything, therefore God can tell you the square root of red", the objection wouldn't be about pointing out that God lacks some ability, but about you being conceptually confused and your statement being incoherent and not communicating anything meaningful.

Everybody knows the square root of red is infrared 😛

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Everybody knows the square root of red is infrared 😛

God can make it so that gravity is 6 feet tall , infrared, and smells like roses, because he is not bound by anything.

He can also make the square root of red more tasty and a little bit more salty.

[LoneWonderer]

On 21/08/2025 at 5:40 AM, EternalForest said:

I've consumed a lot of self help content whether through books, online videos or full courses. And no other source I've found has combined the variety of sources and insights in the way that Leo has.

Who else has read hundreds of books, researched individual topics for multiple years to build a vast understanding, or dedicated themselves to watching a documentary about every country in the world?

You also won't find the depth of spiritual insights combined with the stern practicality and groundedness of Actualized content. And likewise, you won't find traditional self help figures Tony Robbins or Napoleon Hill touch some of the more esoteric and left field concepts that Leo explores.

Format wise, find the raw 3 hour format incredibly valuable. To put it in perspective with other teachers, especially nowadays, you might get a 20 to 40 minute video at most. And the traditional guys usually either save the deeper and more long winded insights for their private retreats/workshops or if it is in a book, obscured in complex or overly structured language that doesn't always get to the core of things in an approachable and powerful way like Leo does in his stuff.

So all in all, while Leo isn't the only great teacher out there, I do think he holds a unique spot in the self help space for the sheer variety, depth and seriousness that he offers.

Yes, I agree with this view