Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[UnbornTao]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@UnbornTao You are too closedminded to understand what Alien Awakening is. So that lesson is lost on you.

But don't ignore the points that were made. Where's the video? And were you on drugs?

To me, it's clear that you tend to do the same. But I haven't made any grandiose claims for you to understand.

Fantasy Awakening is going to be my thing from now on. You can still get it if you're open-minded enough.

Edited 12 hours ago by UnbornTao

[LambdaDelta]

25 minutes ago, Majed said:

@Leo Gura check out my post about how i realized alien mind/consciousness in the spirituality section. 

Why do you keep pinging Leo about it? His approval or lack thereof has no bearing on the validity of your insight. Unlike a question or some video you record, an insight doesn't really require answers or feedback, as it is self-validating. 

It's good insight, but it is not what's meant by alien consciousness, not even close, at least going by how it's articulated, despite getting the big picture right. Even if you were told it is stupid, wrong, or trivial, that should be irrelevant to you, what matters is the fact you had an original insight. Well, to a reasonable extent, wouldn't want to be entirely unreceptive either.
If I may suggest, contemplate neediness, authority, and the nature of insight itself next. 

There are interesting mechanics behind why insights of others are so often dismissed or downplayed, that's also something you could have an insight into. 

[Eskilon]

@UnbornTao I mean, you can bash Leo and be skeptical of him, you are righ in doing so(being skeptical). After all, Leo is a bussinessman, and he is very charismatic. He has all the qualities of someone who is a master deceiver. He could be a complete charlatan, one should definetely doubt him to death. 

But, you should also be doing this to your gods: Peter Ralston and Adi Da. You also dont know if they are charlatans or not, unless you verify the stuff they are trying to say. I dont see you applying the same rigor to your gods, you should definetely be doing that. 

Tldr; everyone is a charlatan unless you verify their stuff and conclude otherwise.

Edited 12 hours ago by Eskilon

[UnbornTao]

So no video? I wonder why.

[UnbornTao]

8 hours ago, Eskilon said:

@UnbornTao I mean, you can bash Leo and be skeptical of him, you are righ in doing so(being skeptical). After all, Leo is a bussinessman, and he is very charismatic. He could be a complete charlatan, one should definetely doubt him to death. 

But, you should also be doing this to your gods: Peter Ralston and Adi Da. You also dont know if they are charlatans or not, unless you verify the stuff they are trying to say. I dont see you applying the same rigor to your gods, you should definetely be doing that. 

Tldr; everyone is a charlatan unless you verify their stuff and conclude otherwise.

Fear not, fear not. Again, fuck them all (ultimately). At the same time, there's a difference between recognizing mastery in others, listening to them, and taking their words at face value.

But no, not everyone is a charlatan. Most people in spirituality are, though.

Invoking those figures is meant to encourage considering perspectives outside one's own mind and preferences. But you can see that not even Leo listens to these guys in certain respects.

On the other hand, the easy and convenient stance to adopt is the "do-it-yourself" attitude, which can easily boost one's self-deception because you can avoid being confronted in any real way. It ends up being your mind interacting with your mind - a closed, self-referencing loop in which any reality can be created.

I suspect I've actually been one of the few people here who has taken both stances seriously as far as the drugs go (as an example). But you don't see people's stances here as closed-minded because they're focused on claiming things and making stuff up. Removing beliefs isn't really the focus there, and it meets resistance.

This is why grounding is useful and necessary, and why spiritual communities often completely overlook it. The focus is on being "open-minded." Meh. It has to be real, not just abstract, intellectual, imagined, or part of one's self-image. Neither is it the same as "appearing open-minded," when, in truth, one isn't genuinely operating from the principle.

Edited 4 hours ago by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

One clear trap - in my view - that is adjacent to the 'I'm doing it my way' sentiment, although essential in principle, is being so self-deceived and ignorant as to think one has surpassed some of the masters. Your observational skills need development.

In many ways that's a recipe for unconscious deception. It's you wanting to get your way under a spiritual umbrella.

Objective feedback.

Edited 11 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

One clear trap - in my view - that is adjacent to the 'I'm doing it my way' sentiment, although essential in principle, is being so self-deceived and ignorant as to think one has surpassed some of the masters. Your observational skills need development.

In many ways that's a recipe for unconscious deception. It's your self wanting to get its way under a spiritual umbrella.

True.  But one can also be deceived by following a teacher.  It's a weird balance between being influenced by another and being brave with your own insights.

[UnbornTao]

16 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

True.  But one can also be deceived by following a teacher.  It's a weird balance between being influenced by another and being brave with your own insights.

Definitely.

I like to think of it as truly listening to them and genuinely making an effort to meet them where they are - even though we're likely to fail. But this is what the work is about. We also have to guard against the tendency to claim understanding too soon. It's easy to think we have listened when, in fact, we haven't yet experienced what they're saying - or not to the degree they are conveying it.

As for your own insights, if they are real, I don't see a need to be brave with them. You just need to make sure they are real insights, and not merely a conclusion, a belief, a good idea, or something else. If they're real, they're real because that is what is so, and not because anyone - even you - claims that they are. It's a crucial difference in criteria that's easily missed.

[Yimpa]

23 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

True.  But one can also be deceived by following a teacher.  It's a weird balance between being influenced by another and being brave with your own insights.

Love is a Powerful Teacher. Ignorance is a Potent Devil.

 

[Joseph Maynor]

9 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Love is a Powerful Teacher. Ignorance is a Potent Devil.

 

But who determines ignorance?  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@UnbornTao curious - do you trust all your sensing faculties? 

As in, you are confident you claim them to be yours and yours alone? Unaltered, untampered? 

[Yimpa]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But who determines ignorance?  

This is genuinely something important to sit on. I don’t allow the discomfort to be the end in my contemplations. Instead, I explore deeper. Diving deeper and increasing Love breaks the ignorance and is Self-revealing that the prior assumption taken to be truth is now false. 

Stand firm in the Face of Truth.

Edited 10 hours ago by Yimpa

[UnbornTao]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@UnbornTao curious - do you trust all your sensing faculties? 

As in, you are confident you claim them to be yours and yours alone? Unaltered, untampered? 

Can you clarify and elaborate on it? What does this relate to?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

Can you clarify and elaborate on it? What does this relate to?

As in, vision, hearing, smell etc 

Just a random question with no relation - something I think on a lot ╮⁠(⁠.⁠ ⁠❛⁠ ⁠ᴗ⁠ ⁠❛⁠.⁠)⁠╭

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

As in, vision, hearing, smell etc 

Just a random question with no relation - something I think on a lot ╮⁠(⁠.⁠ ⁠❛⁠ ⁠ᴗ⁠ ⁠❛⁠.⁠)⁠╭

Depends on what we're talking about and what we mean by trust. But yes, that's pretty much a given in survival land - the notion that our experience is already 'true' or accurate (despite philosophizing that it might not). And your perceptive organs are yours alone, if that's in the ballpark of what you meant by your second question. Are you asking whether I'm free from influence by the external world, or something along those lines?

Unaltered and untampered? Good luck with that. They're designed for you. You are a bias, so to speak. If you want to claim that this basic mechanism takes away from unbiased observation or plain common sense, I'd say that's a false equivalence.

It doesn't seem to occur to people to ask the most common-sense questions or maintain basic accountability. You should ask Leo whether he trusts his drug-induced states and the claims he can't back up with the proof he said he'd provide. But I think I get where you were coming from with the question - setting up traps, eh?  

Edited 9 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Basman]

3 hours ago, LambdaDelta said:

Statistically you are of course correct, but your model will be made better if it also accounts for the remaining 1%. Not sure why people are so stubborn about this.

You can find exceptions to everything. If most people suffer and breakdown during war then it's not a failure to make generalized statement about the nature of war in that way even though there exists people who grow stronger and evolve in war. That is not necessarily a failure of imagination. 

3 hours ago, LambdaDelta said:

P.S.: nothing wrong with cutting yourself either (provided it's performed in an anatomically safe and sterile manner); I've done it a few times out of curiosity, not self-hatred or attention seeking. One of the central ideas of Psychology of Conformity was that the why matters more than the what and how. 

I see what you're saying, but I think self-harm in that context is still frivolous and lacking in substance. I wouldn't exaggerate the point your making either if it encourages those destructive habits in others since the majority of those who would consider self-harm have issues (I consider watching gore to be a form of self-harm as well).

I think it is unethical and unaesthetic to treat gore as a frivolity on top of that. That is not a conformist position. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

51 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Depends on what we're talking about and what we mean by trust. But yes, that's pretty much a given in survival land - the notion that our experience is already 'true' or accurate (despite philosophizing that it might not). And your perceptive organs are yours alone, if that's in the ballpark of what you meant by your second question. Are you asking whether I'm free from influence by the external world, or something along those lines?

Unaltered and untampered? Good luck with that. They're designed for you. You are a bias, so to speak. If you want to claim that this basic mechanism takes away from unbiased observation or plain common sense, I'd say that's a false equivalence.

It doesn't seem to occur to people to ask the most common-sense questions or maintain basic accountability. You should ask Leo whether he trusts his drug-induced states and the claims he can't back up with the proof he said he'd provide. But I think I get where you were coming from with the question - setting up traps, eh?  

No, not at all. I think it's a line of questioning I raised for everyone reading - not just you specifically. I thought it might point to mechanisms behind how we come to conclusions. How we become certain. 

What we trust. 

I think there has to be a choice involved there.

[lostingenosmaze]

I, for one, am still waiting patiently for Leo's reveal on how to get a hot witch girlfriend, performing his healing miracles, and blessing all the unborn fetus' in the world. Maybe then we can finally achieve world peace 😌🙏

[UnbornTao]

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

No, not at all. I think it's a line of questioning I raised for everyone reading - not just you specifically. I thought it might point to mechanisms behind how we come to conclusions. How we become certain. 

What we trust. 

I think there has to be a choice involved there.

If you say so. I'd add that's not a function of seeing or smelling. We already make tons of assessments in this domain every day. What are they based on? The main criterion is: do they work for our purposes? 

We trust a trained surgeon, not a random person on the street (unless he's a surgeon), when it comes to surgery and medicine. Why?

Then again, the issue here is that in spiritual or philosophical pursuits, this stance is all the more difficult to discern. "Who can say what's true? Everyone's got their truth." It can turn into an unsubstantial impartiality pretty rapidly. Basic rigor and common sense is desperately needed. 

Edited 9 hours ago by UnbornTao

[LambdaDelta]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

That is not necessarily a failure of imagination.

I didn't mean imagination, I meant sense-making, which this indeed wouldn't be a failure of. But now that you mention it, from a certain POV that is a failure of imagination, as its most commonly defined function is precisely to think up the most outlandish shit (in other words, being creative). God's imagination runs at 100% capacity, thus reality is infinite the way that it is. 

 

1 hour ago, Basman said:

I think it is unethical and unaesthetic to treat gore as a frivolity on top of that. That is not a conformist position. 

Since that's a position you derived of your own recognizance, it can't be conformist by definition, even if I disagree. I only brought up conformity 'cause you did in your first post, probably wouldn't have entered my mind otherwise in the context of this discussion.