If you're sick of repetitive spiritual content watch this

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

@Breakingthewall Many people if you say the word “openness” they’ll think you mean just “open minded” as if that’s all there is to openness

I mean absence of absolute limits. Ultimately reality is that, any god, telos, anything is something that happens because there are not limits that restrict it, but if that god lose its limits, then if become the unlimited itself, and the unlimited is formless, without intention, immutable, then that god wouldn't be God anymore, just a god that is open to its true nature.

Any change implies limits. Limits exist, relatively, but absolutely are impossible. Then from an absolute perspective god is just openess 

Its possible for any mind get open to the unlimited, that's the point of spiritual work, because ultimately it's our nature and the nature of everything. But with a frame like langans one it would be impossible because there is always a grip in the idea of telos . To open yourself to the unlimited you have to release all grips 

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Sugarcoat]

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I mean absence of absolute limits. Ultimately reality is that, any god, telos, anything is something that happens because there are not limits that restrict it, but if that god lose its limits, then if become the unlimited itself, and the unlimited is formless, without intention, immutable, then that god wouldn't be God anymore, just a god that is open to its true nature.

Any change implies limits. Limits exist, relatively, but absolutely are impossible. Then from an absolute perspective god is just openess 

It’s simple logic to follow along imo overall. 
 

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Its possible for any mind get open to the unlimited, that's the point of spiritual work, because ultimately it's our nature and the nature of everything. But with a frame like langans one it would be impossible because there is always a grip in the idea of telos . To open yourself to the unlimited you have to release all grips 

Yea but I think it depends on what you mean by releasing all grips, someone could be detached from any particular mental position, but still can’t break through because that detachment is still within the same structure so to speak. The “grip” can be on different things than that, and within it you can’t see exactly what it’s gripping because you’re in it so I don’t agree that it’s within one’s ability to release it all, for some people it has to happen through some other means, unconsciously.  
I’m saying someone can be as genuine, as relaxed, as open as they perceive they maximally could be but something is still holding on for some reason that one can’t see because you’d have to have released it to see it for what it was. 
 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Yea but I think it depends on what you mean by releasing all grips, someone could be detached from any particular mental position, but still can’t break through because that detachment is still within the same structure so to speak. The “grip” can be on different things than that, and within it you can’t see exactly what it’s gripping because you’re in it so I don’t agree that it’s within one’s ability to release it all, for some people it has to happen through some other means, unconsciously.  
I’m saying someone can be as genuine, as relaxed, as open as they perceive they maximally could be but something is still holding on for some reason that one can’t see because you’d have to have released it to see it for what it was. 
 

To do this, you don't have to seek openness, but rather your internal limits. But It's important to understand that the ultimate goal is absolute openness, not emptiness, God, or anything else; this makes the work much more effective.

Limits always carry an emotional charge, a need to maintain stability. Letting go of all limits is terrifying; in my experience, the way to do it is to become aware of them.

The ultimate limit, for me, is the subject-object duality. At a certain point, your mind is completely empty but limited to the awareness of "I am." In one part, there is a center that perceives, and in another, the perception itself, which is the fact of being.

If you focus on this long enough, without any other content, at a certain point it collapses, and what remains is total openness. This doesn't mean that the mind needs to be absolutely silent, but rather that the inner dialogue becomes irrelevant.

You might think, "Oh wow, 'I am,'" but that thought lacks a fundamental ontological level; it doesn't define reality; it lacks emotional charge, it's just something that appears.

Even in total openness there are thoughts, but they are in the background, like autopilot; there is no need to silence them, just jump to the level where their meaning is irrelevant

[Meeksauce]

12 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

i love how people here are so quick to just make assumptions and fling shit at each other. Like monkeys! The emotional stability and poise of this forum is at the maturity level of a child. Makes me hate coming here. When you can hide behind a screen it erodes the core of what builds a community and intelligent discussion - accountability. 

I disagree with your post and opinion, you insult my intelligence. I have nothing I need to prove to you but if you want my answer i find him to be too lost in concepts and numbers, he also talks about silly shit like demons and angels, finally i believe that someone who truly has a grasp on deep intellectual concepts can explain it in easily understandable ways, like a Ken Wilber, Ralston, or Leo, he doesn't seem capable of stepping out of his mathematical linguistics to cast a broader net. Too robotic, too much in the head, kind autistic, it's not that i can't keep up with him, it's just boring and lacks heart  

Big cope to talk about accountability when you didn't want to answer my question and explain yourself. I believe most see Langan's spiels as over and the top and ridiculous, largely stemming from him assuming many of his terms don't need to be defined (this could be intentional, as in "It's not my problem if you don't understand it"). Although he always simplifies if the interviewer asks or their question requires it. To people without this barrier of entry of vocabulary cleared, it can just sound like a dense word salad like "Consciousness emerges from gravity as a tertiary order of the telonic ethos". Like a guy explaining how cars work to his girl that didn't ask. And I won't dismiss the value of simplifying ideas - not doing so can genuinely inhibit communication, but his audience is definitely more people that are comfortable with creating logical systems from scratch, that have functionality, even if we don't know it is ultimately true.

 

What evidence do you have for angels and demons not existing? Lack of evidence does not mean something is automatically not true.

[Meeksauce]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Anyway, about Langan. His entire theory rests on a logical leap. He correctly states that reality has no exterior, an obvious logical deduction, and observes that reality contains coherence and complex systems. He then deduces that reality in its entirety must be a self-aware system, because otherwise, how would one explain the perfection of these systems?

Furthermore, he deduces that reality/God has a direction, a goal. Let's see, if reality is infinite, as he says, it has no direction at a total level; this is impossible. It's not going anywhere because it hasn't even started. Or in other words, if God is absolute, how could it have a goal if there is not any state that it needs to achieve?

And reality can be a perfect system of unimaginable complexity without a creator, simply through self-selection of the most efficient possibilities.

In short, he needs a God with a goal to explain reality. Okay, so now, explain God. The point is, the reality can be conscious in local points, but conscious as a whole if it's unlimited is logically impossible, and he speaks from logic. 

From what I understand, he is saying the telos of reality is directly intertwined with its complexity. Without nested order, you cannot have evolution. Evolution happens within one's own life, and as a species, so if you believe the relative is a microcosm of the absolute then ontological and spiritual evolution becomes a necessity. If one believes the unifying substance or substrate of reality is some form of matter, then I can see how one would come to the conclusion that evolution is purely a precipitate of biology. What nonduality doesn't fully articulate is that the universe has to be structured in a way that is top down, and bottom up, at the same time. This is how order and complexity are tied to telos.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Idk what’s up with some of these intellectuals I just don’t see the value in such technical language, and then people feel like those people are some kind of “class of their own” and understand things they don’t, but sometimes it’s just more complexity of language than there is intelligence (not saying they’re not very intelligent just pointing out the proportion between the two)

The absolute most obnoxious shit I remember is in high school where we had to write our own analysis of some analysis “intellectuals” had done of some poetic writer. 

It’s like sometimes they’re just better at adding meaning themselves than uncovering meaning that is there😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I've said it before: people use lack of understanding as a gauge for whether somebody is smarter than them. And then it happens that you get some people who inflate their perceived intelligence with pompous in-understandable speech, or they're just bad at explaining themselves. Jordan Peterson does something similar but also with emotional tone. It's sophism really.

If you look at someone like Bernardo Kastrup, he is very technical, but when he explains something, he uses a lot of metaphors, plain language, examples. Meanwhile when I hear Langan or Weinstein explain something, they use none of those things (or if they do use for example a metaphor, it's more complex than what is being explained), and they might even refer to other jargon or peculiar words that need to be unpacked.

[Leo Gura]

Langan is definitely very smart in a certain technical, analytical way. But there is more to intelligence than just that kind of intelligence.

[Breakingthewall]

42 minutes ago, Meeksauce said:

From what I understand, he is saying the telos of reality is directly intertwined with its complexity. Without nested order, you cannot have evolution. Evolution happens within one's own life, and as a species, so if you believe the relative is a microcosm of the absolute then ontological and spiritual evolution becomes a necessity. If one believes the unifying substance or substrate of reality is some form of matter, then I can see how one would come to the conclusion that evolution is purely a precipitate of biology. What nonduality doesn't fully articulate is that the universe has to be structured in a way that is top down, and bottom up, at the same time. This is how order and complexity are tied to telos.

I think that from a logical standpoint, the explanation is very simple. The absence of limits is. Being and the absence of limits are synonymous. Absence of being would be an absolute limitation.

The fact of being always manifests; non-manifestation does not occur, therefore it is not. Any manifestation happens a relative change of state. What changes state is not something, like a spirit or consciousness, There is no thing underlying change; change is the form that manifestation takes.

Any change is a possibility coherent with itself, a logical equation. If the absolute fact of being emits limitless potential, the possible equations unfold, interconnect, and give rise to more limitless possibilities. It is something absolutely inevitable that needs no design; it is design itself, and it also needs no will since it is unstoppable.

 There is no ultimate telos. There is only the inevitability of being/limitlessness. Telos appears locally wherever manifestation produces intentional structures, that could happen infinitely but reality can't be limited to them , then even if an infinite God exist, would be just a manifestation of the openess, because infinite doesn't mean absolute. The only absolute is being, or limitlessness. 

Edited 30 minutes ago by Breakingthewall