Warning To Members Here

[Jirh]

12 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What I am talking about is the inverse of idealism.  A lot of problems can be solved by talking to someone face-to-face.  Developing a real relationship with them.  

I don't think you understand relationships.

We have limited resources, namely time and energy in the context of relationships. We can't go around making friends and relationships with everyone. We gotta have some priorities and hierarchies for who gets to be close and who doesn't get recognized at all. Let alone famous people like Leo, I'm mostly talking from the regular person's pov. Anyone who's living a full life is too abundant to be seeking relationships online then turn them into real-world relationships. A full life includes real social circle, spiritual connection, hobbies, a regular job, and occasional vacations.

[Joseph Maynor]

10 hours ago, Jirh said:

I don't think you understand relationships.

We have limited resources, namely time and energy in the context of relationships. We can't go around making friends and relationships with everyone. We gotta have some priorities and hierarchies for who gets to be close and who doesn't get recognized at all. Let alone famous people like Leo, I'm mostly talking from the regular person's pov. Anyone who's living a full life is too abundant to be seeking relationships online then turn them into real-world relationships. A full life includes real social circle, spiritual connection, hobbies, a regular job, and occasional vacations.

Your point taken.  Thanks.

[Joseph Maynor]

 

[UnbornTao]

22 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This effect is well documented in other domains that do not even involve "consumption" ie reading a book on epistemology, or watching a video on YouTube. The effect of having viewed something is often conflated with having understood that thing.

Speaking about plans and projects has a similar onflow effect, although in a different domain. The act of speaking about the topic, plan, or concept makes us feel we are 1) making progress toward the thing and 2) increases our own perceived understanding of the topic/plan/concept. There is also an element of fluency heuristics we use where familiar information feels easier to process - and then we mistake fluency with mastery.

It is usually not until we are questioned critically, or we critically inspect the "how, who, what, why?" of the thing that we see the holes, assumptions, inferences and logic/fallacies behind our understanding of the thing. In particular hidden assumptions - assumptions in general - are ways to strengthen an argument. They band-aid over weak points. Anyway, I digress a bit there... 

Definitely. It's a critical distinción to make. It could be boiled down to, at the risk of oversimplifying it, 'theory' vs 'practice.'

'The map is not the territory' - again, we hear this and in our minds we think we know what it is, but then there's what happens in actuality, which is usually different and inconsistent with our conception of things.

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Can you at least acknowledge that he gave bad practical life advice.

There is saying non-dual things in response to asking for life advice, and then there is actually giving bad life advice.

If he did give non-dual responses when people were asking for life advice (and I think he did that), yes, I think that can be annoying.

What is even more annoying though is having a real life practical back and forth with a person and then they suddenly jump to non-duality for some reason, or they try to delegitimize your argumentation by using non-duality.

I believe Nahm was benevolent in this way, in that he didn't use it as some defense mechanism or escape hatch in an argument. He just genuinely from the get-go reminded you of the non-dual perspective and left it at that. And it's not like he pestered you with it constantly in a thread, was my impression. He would usually leave a comment, short, sweet, and that would be it unless someone engaged.

The way things are done is sometimes just as or more important than what exactly is done.

Edited 6 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Joseph Maynor]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is saying non-dual things in response to asking for life advice, and then there is actually giving bad life advice.

If he did give non-dual responses when people were asking for life advice (and I think he did that), yes, I think that can be annoying.

What is even more annoying though is having a real life practical back and forth with a person and then they suddenly jump to non-duality for some reason, or they try to delegitimize your argumentation by using non-duality.

I believe Nahm was benevolent in this way, in that he didn't use it as some defense mechanism or escape hatch in an argument. He just genuinely from the get-go reminded you of the non-dual perspective and left it at that. And it's not like he pestered you with it constantly in a thread, was my impression. He would usually leave a comment, short, sweet, and that would be it unless someone engaged.

The way things are done is sometimes just as or more important than what exactly is done.

I was on his forum for 4 years.  I got to know him quite well.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I was on his forum for 4 years.  I got to know him quite well.

And what's your position on the issue?

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And what's your position on the issue?

He helped me on my path.  That I can say.  

[Vido]

Honestly,I mostly only lurk here but I feel most of the convos I happen to see are....low conciousness? Low quality argument? Not all, but enough to leave a bad taste most of the time.

When I joined here, i expected people to be in their own journey figuring life out, stuff out, but most of the time it's random people defending dogmatic beliefs that they learnt from Leo. Weird thing is the work is literally about becoming concious of them and breaking them.

But, could it be that since these people are the loudest, that's all I see and most people are actually normal and chill? Not sure.

I think just ban people and be merciless. Calling this a cult is probably one of the dumbest thing I see people arguing. Literally, you can just delete the account and move on....

If people can't even think for themselves, what's the point of Leos work? At that point it's better off to ban people and force them to confront their real life. I wouldnt be suprised if they took the same energy and start wasting their time on reddit.

Also if your identity is based off of Leos work, that's also dumb. Treating it like a source of truth. No.

Read, gather different perspectives, figure this out for yourself. I see Leo as a possibility of Reality. That's it. Not as a Truth. Will never be unless you see for yourself. 

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If he did give non-dual responses when people were asking for life advice (and I think he did that), yes, I think that can be annoying.

Giving nondual advice when someone is suffering and actually needs some practical common sense life solutions, is not just annoying, it can be dangerous, and it showed lack of wisdom on Nahm's part, no matter how good his intentions. 

[Carl-Richard]

24 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Giving nondual advice when someone is suffering and actually needs some practical common sense life solutions, is not just annoying, it can be dangerous, and it showed lack of wisdom on Nahm's part, no matter how good his intentions. 

What a p-hacked statement. The initial statement was "giving life advice". Now you're assuming they're in some kind of dangerous and unstable situation, when "life advice" also obviously includes things like "should I say this on a date?" or "should I buy this non-stick pan or this other non-stick pan?". You're loading emotion into the argument and now you made it seem more significant than what it was initially when you brought it up. If you want to talk specifically about that particular scenario (giving non-dual advice to "suffering" people), feel free to pull up actual quotes and we can judge rather than you playing a p-hacking game for your amusement.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Joshe]

24 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Giving nondual advice when someone is suffering and actually needs some practical common sense life solutions, is not just annoying, it can be dangerous, and it showed lack of wisdom on Nahm's part, no matter how good his intentions. 

You serious? lol. Maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else but it seems like you were one of the people who was defending Leo's much worse rhetoric than "non-dual advice given at the wrong time". 

Edited 2 hours ago by Joshe

[Wilhelm44]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What a p-hacked statement. The initial statement was "giving life advice". Now you're assuming they're in some kind of dangerous and unstable situation, when most "life advice" is like "should I say this on a date?" or "should I buy this non-stick pan or this other non-stick pan?". You're loading emotion into the argument and now you made it seem more significant than what it was initially when you brought it up. If you want to talk specifically about that particular scenario (giving non-dual advice to "suffering" people), feel free to pull up actual quotes and we can judge rather than you playing a p-hacking game for your amusement.

Carl, your a smart guy, but you have a hard time admitting when your wrong. All I have been doing here is trying to get you to acknowledge that Ulax made a good point earlier, which you cleverly tried to intellectually analyze your way out of. "A guy could've been homeless, on food stamps and asking about how to find a job, and Nahm would've told him it was just a thought. Leo demoting him was very reasonable."

Yes, it can be dangerous to give nondual advice, especially when someone needs to take action to make practical changes in their life.

Leo had good reason to let him go.

Edited 2 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Wilhelm44]

16 minutes ago, Joshe said:

You serious? lol. Maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else but it seems like you were one of the people who was defending Leo's much worse rhetoric than "non-dual advice given at the wrong time". 

Not sure what exactly you referring to.

I never claimed Leo didn't make any mistakes.

The topic right now is that perhaps Nahm was not quite as wise as some people thought.

Edited 2 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Inliytened1]

17 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Carl, your a smart guy, but you have a hard time admitting when your wrong. All I have been doing here is trying to get you to acknowledge that Ulax made a good point earlier, which you cleverly tried to intellectually analyze your way out of. "A guy could've been homeless, on food stamps and asking about how to find a job, and Nahm would've told him it was just a thought. Leo demoting him was very reasonable."

Yes, it can be dangerous to give nondual advice, especially when someone needs to take action to make practical changes in their life.

Leo had good reason to let him go.

That is correct.  He became like a non-dual robot.

[Wilhelm44]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is correct.  He became like a non-dual robot.

Hey, why didn't you respond to my last comment in the Jim Newman thread, Im not a nondual robot

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Carl, your a smart guy, but you have a hard time admitting when your wrong. All I have been doing here is trying to get you to acknowledge that Ulax made a good point earlier, which you cleverly tried to intellectually analyze your way out of. "A guy could've been homeless, on food stamps and asking about how to find a job, and Nahm would've told him it was just a thought. Leo demoting him was very reasonable."

Ulax giving that hypothetical might've been Ulax's point but when I interpret you p-hacking in your discussion tree, that's highly annoying for me. I didn't even address his point so I don't know what you mean by "intellectually analyze your way out of".

 

19 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Yes, it can be dangerous to give nondual advice, especially when someone needs to take action to make practical changes in your life.

Leo had good reason to let him go.

Hypothetically, you can give non-dual advice in a way that is harmful, yes. Anything particular you had in mind?

[Wilhelm44]

@Carl-Richard

Feels like we going in circles now.

Ulax already gave you some examples there.

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Hey, why didn't you respond to my last comment in the Jim Newman thread, Im not a nondual robot

Ill check it out 😀

 

[Inliytened1]