Curt Still Lost in Concepts

[AtmanIsBrahman]

When you come across a video with this title, you expect it to be somewhat profound.
 

 

Unfortunately, Curt spends the entire video talking about conceptual abstractions attempting to define existence— which of course is impossible. He treats the subject as if it’s some kind of academic debate that we’ll eventually find the answer to, if only we refine our conceptual abstractions well enough. But Existence is first order, so it’s impossible. 

I recommend watching this video to see how the rationalist mind confuses itself. It’s honestly sad to see that this is the state of philosophy and science in the 21st century. This underscores the need for big picture thinking, openmindedness, nonconformity, etc. — basically what Leo teaches. Otherwise philosophy becomes a joke. 

[Carl-Richard]

"You're lost in non-concept". Or perhaps that's an overgeneralization? Maybe it's not that simple? Maybe you just focus on different things but you can recognize the same lesson to a fundamental extent. Curt is painfully aware of non-duality, he has interviewed Gura, Spira, etc.

Abstractions do give you some things, as limited as they are, they are more than simply non-concept alone (more than non-concept without it). "Lost in x" is a judgement (and maybe a particularly harsh one), the very concepts you want to question.

If you talk to Curt, he will give you his take, his take on non-concept, and it will not be entirely captured by the judgement, even if it's accurate. And as harsh judgements often go, they can be prone to being inaccurate. They tend to stem from some charged place, not from clear seeing, not from clear engagement, but entrapment in some limited view.

Non-duality is not that special, non-duality is not very obscure. You have quite mainstream people, Alex O'Connor, Nick Fuentes, talking about it on multiple occasions. Some people just go to something else because it's in a sense quite simple and you can do many other things with your mind. Sure, you can deepen your non-dual 'understanding' and embodiment. That's a valid way to refining one's connection to reality.

But it's not the only way, and again, people focus on different things. But don't necessarily judge them as "lost", perhaps they are as painfully aware of their limitations or more than you (although you do gain a kind of advantage by being on the outside of something, some distance. But that also goes the other way. Maybe you're too "lost"/immersed in the non-dual to recognize the validity and landscape of concepts).

Edited 54 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Non-duality is not special, non-duality is not very obscure. You have quite mainstream people, Alex O'Connor, Nick Fuentes, talking about it on multiple occasions.

That doesn't mean they have any clue what it is.

Nonduality has become a watered down buzz word. Most people using this word have no idea how radical true nonduality is.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That doesn't mean they have any clue what it is.

Nonduality has become a watered down buzz word. Most people using this word have no idea how radical true nonduality is.

Does Curt not have "any clue" what it is?

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Does Curt not have "any clue" what it is?

I doubt he does.

But I haven't followed him lately.

Just based on what I know of him, he has not transcended the academic paradigm, which means no serious God will be realized.

Edited 41 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

It is interesting how we are trained to talk this way in University.