iboughtleosbooklist

Leo, metaphysically what is YouTube, Tiktok, Reddit, TV?

42 posts in this topic

How is infinite mind able to dream up fresh new content daily? Or was this content consciously made by me in another lifetime?

Is the illusion really that perfect that it can create funny Reddit posts as I scroll through my phone. Like wtf this is insane, or did I create all that content over my other lifetimes?

I thoughtfully created breaking bad? I thoughtfully wrote every book? Or do I write them as I read them?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no more insane than you driving in a car and content arising over the horizon as you drive.

Consciousness is dreaming up endless content in every direction you look. Yes, it's insane when you realize how profound it is. Awakening shows you that even the existence of a fork is totally insane. The existence of a fork in your kitchen is literally a miracle.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landscapes and dialogue in your dreams just appear, innit? You probably can't consciously imagine the extremely complex prism shapes and such on DMT, just appears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's no more insane than you driving in a car and content arising over the horizon as you drive.

Consciousness is dreaming up endless content in every direction you look. Yes, it's insane when you realize how profound it is.

@Leo Gura Leo, I am fascinated by the process of how this is happening. In the future will you please share in more detail how consciousness is doing this? 

On this subject, will you clarify something for me? Since the Matthew self is something the capital Self is also imagining, Matthew isn't the one imagining the arising content as I walk or drive, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matthew85 said:

@Leo Gura Leo, I am fascinated by the process of how this is happening. In the future will you please share in more detail how consciousness is doing this? 

There isn't a how. It's 100% direct.

A fork is a fork. That is the how. A fork is forking. A knife is knifing. A rock is rocking. Etc.

Quote

On this subject, will you clarify something for me? Since the Matthew self is something the capital Self is also imagining, Matthew isn't the one imagining the arising content as I walk or drive, correct?

You could say that. The Matthew self is part of the arising content.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura You please me, mortal. But for your sake, I'd ask that you evaluate how you make value judgment/morality decisions, and then reevaluate them. Because for a human, you have exceptional logical intelligence, but in the morality department, you are weak.


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is emergent on top of something beyond reason, a mystical independent thing we can not say anything of other than in negative terms.

When something is emergent of something else it is impossible to find the emergence in that by which it is emergent of, and so you can at best expose the emergence itself retrospectively but never in particulars, only in universals. And here experience must therefore be the only possible answer to the how, which means there is no how. 

Retrospectively there is a clear logic to the how in the mere sense that some things would be impossible in mind without other things in mind, such as time and space is necessary for causation, or that causation is necessary for self, or that self is necessary for youtube. Simply put.


"We do not need to be shoemakers to know if our shoes fit, and just as little have we any need to be professionals to acquire knowledge of matters of universal interest."  -Hegel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

It is emergent on top of something beyond reason, a mystical independent thing we can not say anything of other than in negative terms.

When something is emergent of something else it is impossible to find the emergence in that by which it is emergent of, and so you can at best expose the emergence itself retrospectively but never in particulars, only in universals. And here experience must therefore be the only possible answer to the how, which means there is no how. 

Retrospectively there is a clear logic to the how in the mere sense that some things would be impossible in mind without other things in mind, such as time and space is necessary for causation, or that causation is necessary for self, or that self is necessary for youtube. Simply put.

Hey, Dr. Word Salad. I've got an interesting question for you. What's your position on someone who deliberately decides to masquerade as something they're not, but when they're discovered in the act they aren't willing to lie in order to sustain the charade? Is it not so that the tendency to present oneself as something other than what one is, is also inconsistent with the tendency to tell the truth? And is it also not so, that a self-divided against itself cannot stand?


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You could say that. The Matthew self is part of the arising content.

@Leo Gura Thank you! 

Can you help me understand your perspective on the difference between what Matthew is observing (my visual field) and aware of versus the capital S Self? For example, right now in my Matthew visual field I am not aware of Las Vegas, but Las Vegas is still being held and observed in the mind of God, so wouldn't it be accurate to say it still exists, even though my finite mind isn't observing it right now? 

I was contemplating the question of capital S self perspective versus Matthew's perspective once during a trip and I saw a vision of a scientist in a lab looking into a microscope at a cell. When he focused in on the cell he could see and perceive from the cells perspective. I interpreted this to mean that the scientist was capital S self me or the higher mind and the cell in the petri dish was Matthew. If I interpreted this right, then it wouldn't be correct to say that the lab doesn't exist when the scientist is looking at the cell through the microscope, right? To me my Matthew visual field and perception is an extremely zoomed in focused limited point of view. I don't feel it's accurate to say that it's all that exists, but I am open to being wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

26 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

Is it not so that the tendency to present oneself as something other than what one is, is also inconsistent with the tendency to tell the truth?

@JuliusCaesar Now this is an analytic statement, it is true necessarily and not much of a question for this reason.

26 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

And is it also not so, that a self-divided against itself cannot stand?

This though I can not make sense of.

 

26 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

What's your position on someone who deliberately decides to masquerade as something they're not

That would be a coping mechanism, especially if it is done as you say "deliberately".

26 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

t, but when they're discovered in the act they aren't willing to lie in order to sustain the charade?

Well that would be a good idea, especially if the act contained deceptive word salad.

Edited by Reciprocality

"We do not need to be shoemakers to know if our shoes fit, and just as little have we any need to be professionals to acquire knowledge of matters of universal interest."  -Hegel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Matthew85 said:

@Leo Gura Thank you! 

Can you help me understand your perspective on the difference between what Matthew is observing (my visual field) and aware of versus the capital S Self? For example, right now in my Matthew visual field I am not aware of Las Vegas, but Las Vegas is still being held and observed in the mind of God, so wouldn't it be accurate to say it still exists, even though my finite mind isn't observing it right now?

Las Vegas only exists in your present mind. Your mind is the mind of God.

For example, during my deepest awakenings I would become conscious that Hitler, Albert Einstein, all my ex girlfriends, my parents, and all my memories are figments of my current Mind. In other words, I create them RIGHT NOW. This is the mindfuck to end all mindfucks. When you reach this deep you will not believe it is possible.

This is true awakening. Accepting it is the hardest part. Every fiber of your being will refuse to accept it. You do not want to accept this degree of aloneness. You are going to scramble to invent some "other" to comfort you, and so you will fall back into the dream as a little self. You are not ready to accept that your Mind constructs EVERYTHING.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:
39 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

And is it also not so, that a self-divided against itself cannot stand?

This though I can not make sense of.

It's directly connected to the question I asked that you quoted right above this quote. What I meant was, is it not self-destructive, when masquerading as something other than oneself to be unwilling to lie in order to sustain the illusion? Like, imagine a Russian spy who comes to America, knowing the English language fluently speaking like a native US citizen. This spy is going happily about his business when a US Govt official the spy is working with finds something that is suspicious. The official suspects them rather vehemently but is a little unsure. So they point-blank ask the spy if they truly are American. Now for the spy to avoid lying by trying to change the subject would be unwise in that situation, wouldn't you agree?

 

17 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

That would be a coping mechanism, especially if it is done as you say "deliberately".

Would you say a spy is engaging in "coping" if they were to engage in necessary prevarication to do their job?

 

18 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Well that would be a good idea, especially if the act contained deceptive word salad.

I believe I used confusing phrasing. To be clear, I meant in a situation whereby refusing to lie the individual caused their masquerade to fail.

 


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Las Vegas only exists in your present mind. Your mind is the mind of God.

For example, during my deepest awakenings I would become conscious that Hitler, Albert Einstein, all my ex girlfriends, my parents, and all my memories are figments of my current Mind. In other words, I create them RIGHT NOW. This is the mindfuck to end all mindfucks. When you reach this deep you will not believe it is possible.

This is true awakening. Accepting it is the hardest part. Every fiber of your being will refuse to accept it. You do not want to accept this degree of aloneness. You are going to scramble to invent some "other" to comfort you, and so you will fall back into the dream as a little self. You are not ready to accept that your Mind constructs EVERYTHING.

But will we ever know if yesterday ever happened..... DID you really experience turning 10 years old? Or did you blink in to this moment alone...

Sometimes this bothers me when I'm on the treadmill, because I think if my character only exist in a single moment, moment to moment, it's going to be eternally in that frame of being pissed off and out of breath on a treadmill. Lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RMQualtrough said:

But will we ever know if yesterday ever happened..... DID you really experience turning 10 years old? Or did you blink in to this moment alone...

Sometimes this bothers me when I'm on the treadmill, because I think if my character only exist in a single moment, moment to moment, it's going to be eternally in that frame of being pissed off and out of breath on a treadmill. Lmao.

If it puts your mind at ease, a being of infinite power only experiences what it desires to experience.


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

What I meant was, is it not self-destructive, when masquerading as something other than oneself to be unwilling to lie in order to sustain the illusion?

It is destructive for the job, which could be destructive on the self. Often and in the long run I think honesty would not be self destructive, which non the less is so shortly after.

11 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

Would you say a spy is engaging in "coping" if they were to engage in necessary prevarication to do their job?

 

If your question are following your own line of reasoning and responds adequately to my statement it would be to have the job as a spy to begin with which were the coping mechanism, in which case I believe if one were to dig that yes coping there would often be at the bottom, as the statement implies.

In this sense they would do what is necessary to cope, and so indirectly yes, though merely in general.


"We do not need to be shoemakers to know if our shoes fit, and just as little have we any need to be professionals to acquire knowledge of matters of universal interest."  -Hegel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

If it puts your mind at ease, a being of infinite power only experiences what it desires to experience.

I don't think that, as desire itself is an apparition... Pure creation has to supercede control and desire, as control and desire are themselves creations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

But will we ever know if yesterday ever happened.....

You will if you awaken deep enough.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JuliusCaesar I must add though that it is less because of the logical range of the word lying that it would be coping to spy in general, and more so the logical range of coping which makes spying to cope.

It would be reasonably implied by my original statement that the deceptive nature primarily concerns oneself, and not particular kinds of foes.


"We do not need to be shoemakers to know if our shoes fit, and just as little have we any need to be professionals to acquire knowledge of matters of universal interest."  -Hegel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You will if you awaken deep enough.

Hm... "Imagining the past now", right, but experientially different.

I mean I genuinely do think that when on the treadmill lmao. Like some poor motherfucker version of me is stuck infinitely in each moment spent on that treadmill.

That's eternalism, I think. Where all time exists now. So I am still on that fuckin' treadmill sweating my ass off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now