Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[No1Here2c]

11 minutes ago, integral said:

Leo is not doing that.

How do you know?

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

No, this makes perfect sense you just havent understood it.

Absolutely.

And the dog will immediately understand "sit" if you express the exact same meaning using a completely different language, because surely there is some kind of universal law, that makes it so that the term has meaning independent of use and the dog has access to that meaning.

 Just like how humans will perfectly understand immediately if you express the meaning of a sentence in a  completely different language (that they havent studied ), right?

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[integral]

4 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

How do you know?

Because I verified everything he said independently.

If anyone believes anything Leo has ever said to them then they're doing it wrong and they missed the core part of actualized.org.

Leo is teaching you how to be Sovereign and independent at the highest level possible through the highest epistemology possible. He's teaching you to think independently and that means independence from him. he's not teaching you to listen or believe anything he says.

Edited 1 hour ago by integral

[No1Here2c]

@zurew I mean this, 

28 minutes ago, integral said:

The proper definition of a word is the least corrupt or uncorrupted version of it while held by the highest perspective, most holistic, most inclusive and highest state of consciousness possible.

which you claimed as gibberish, makes perfect sense. You are the source of the confusion in regard to this sentence which @integral posted.

Edited 1 hour ago by No1Here2c

[No1Here2c]

@integral

How do you know he has no conscious or unconscious survival interest subtly guiding his work?

[zurew]

@integral I honestly have no clue where you are getting at and I dont know what you specifically disagree with.

Lets try this - do you agree that terms have no meaning independent of use and  independent of how a given person intend to use the given term? If you can , please start answering with a yes or no , and then explain the reasoning afterwards.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[No1Here2c]

Yes words have no intrinsic meaning of their own. If a fox saw these words it would just shrug and continue after the rabbit. 

we are bound to instinctual drives, much like the fox, but we also have a higher order intelligence, which gives rise to cognition and meaning. Humans attribute meaning under ordinary conscious states. This is a fact of our experience.

Its not until you reach relatively high states of transcendence that meaning falls away again, but we are not in that current state.

[integral]

Just now, No1Here2c said:

@integral

How do you know he has no conscious or unconscious survival interest subtly guiding his work?

His survival interests are like everyone else, he just put more work into unraveling it, but he has blind spots like everyone else that will corrupt his insights. 

We are all like this. There's no Perfection going to happen here there's no Perfection anywhere.

We're all corrupt, it's a matter of how conscious you are of it and how much you care about it

[No1Here2c]

1 minute ago, integral said:

We're all corrupt, it's a matter of how conscious you are of it and how much you care about it

I don't give a fuck about mine

[Monster Energy]

Leo Gura is probably not a cult leader, but I understand why some people think he is. The reason is that he speaks very confidently about subjects that many people believe cannot be known with absolute certainty. So when someone like Leo claims to understand existence on a deep level, people may automatically assume that he must be a cult leader because he gives off an energy that feels intellectually dominant.

At the same time, some people’s egos may react negatively to someone who appears more intelligent or insightful than they perceive themselves to be.

Even though Leo repeatedly says in his posts and videos that people should not believe him blindly, but instead remain skeptical and verify everything through their own direct experience, it is still possible that this could function as an unconscious cult strategy. By telling people not to trust him, he may make the movement appear less cult-like.

What I am really trying to say is that no one knows for certain whether Leo is a cult leader or not, and that is the point many people in this forum seem to be missing.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Monster Energy

[No1Here2c]

3 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

What I am really trying to say is that no one knows for certain whether Leo is a cult leader or not, and that is the point many people in this forum seem to be missing.

Leo himself could be blind to the chance that he is operating a cult.

*If he is or somehow were*

I personally have seen no evidence for this.

Edited 1 hour ago by No1Here2c

[Monster Energy]

Just now, No1Here2c said:

Leo himself could be blind to the chance that he is operating a cult.

Or conscious of it, nobody will ever know 

[integral]

1 minute ago, No1Here2c said:

Leo himself could be blind to the chance that he is operating a cult.

*If he is or somehow were*

Even if every word Leo's ever said it's completely wrong this is still not a cult.

[No1Here2c]

Just now, integral said:

Even if every word Leo's ever said it's completely wrong this is still not a cult.

Is what a moderator as part of a cult would claim.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

There very few proper definitions of words in isolation without context. 

Light weight.

Turn off the light.

Light sleeper 

Light colour.

Edited 53 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[No1Here2c]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

There are no proper definitions of words in isolation without context. 

Context being an inherent part of existing as human.

You could not be human without context. You could not utilize words without context. And therefor any words which are utilized, must have a 'highest' potential definition given any particular conscious state.

Edited 52 minutes ago by No1Here2c

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, No1Here2c said:

Context being an inherent part of existing as human.

You could not be human without context. You could not utilize words without context. And therefor any words which are utilized, must have a highest potential definition given any particular conscious state.

What is this highest potential definition defined? What do you mean precisely by this term? Accuracy? Context illustrates that accuracy.

Context changes all meaning.

Edited 50 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[No1Here2c]

This 'highest potential' definition must take into account all possible usages and variations of a word. This at some point transcends abilities to transcribe or communicate, but it can be grasped & understood.

[zurew]

Does "proper definition" has a proper definition, and what does that mean?

 

If by proper definition you guys just mean to describe in what context people generally use the term, then I agree  with that kind of notion. But that isnt normative (doesnt tell you how you ought to use the term independent of your subjective goals), thats just a description about how people use the term.

If you guys mean some kind of other notion, then I have no clue what you guys mean by it.

Edited 47 minutes ago by zurew

[No1Here2c]

4 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

This 'highest potential' definition must take into account all possible usages and variations of a word. This at some point transcends abilities to transcribe or communicate, but it can be grasped & understood.

Highest potential definition attempts to take into account all possible contexts in which a word may be positioned, and all contexts a word may be understood from.

Edited 45 minutes ago by No1Here2c