Jump to content

My thoughts of Leo and actualize.org. What do you think?


Forza21

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

Folie a duex


Wow, there's a term for it. Shared Psychosis Disorder is aptly named. Yeah you can literally transmit the psychosis that you bring back from your psychedelic experiences to other people, wild.

Describe a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Joseph Maynor Reminds me of a casino, pull the lever again, you'll get it next time! Oh did you think I said this time, nooo I said "next" time!

 

Or all the dead bodies and human waste on Mount Everest, which has turned into a major money maker, yet is for the people who guide the adventurers, supposed to be sacred, and therefore left alone. 

 Youtube Channel  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mandy said:

@Joseph Maynor Reminds me of a casino, pull the lever again, you'll get it next time! Oh did you think I said this time, nooo I said "next" time!

 

Or all the dead bodies and human waste on Mount Everest, which has turned into a major money maker, yet is for the people who guide the adventurers, supposed to be sacred, and therefore left alone. 


But I think you could give him credit for stating what he thinks in a clear way.  There's always going to be a wobble between magic vs./and truth.  You can presume this in almost every situation in life.  And that's ok.  That's to be expected.  I guess I'm somewhat open to discussion on this issue.  

Here's the question at issue from my perspective: Is what someone says genuine or said to appease some perspective?  But now you have to have evidence that someone is not being genuine.  In law we call this: not communicating in "good faith".   But that has to be proved.  How do we know when someone is trying to appease or being forthright in their statements?  I don't know how we test this in our online communications.  
 

You raise a great issue.  How I trust is personal to me and I go by my own guidance.  But I'm also an optimist.  I give people the benefit of the doubt and allow people to change and create (and recreate) themselves.  I allow people to grow.  You can (or someone else) can change anything right now.  Who's to say?   We're both different and the same paradoxically -- and/or maybe not too!  We trap ourselves by not letting different expectations and results emerge.  We're against change.  You have to question that premise.  

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:


But I think you could give him credit for stating what he thinks in a clear way.  There's always going to be a wobble between magic vs./and truth.  You can presume this in almost every situation in life.  And that's ok.  That's to be expected.  I guess I'm somewhat open to discussion on this issue.  

Here's the question at issue from my perspective: Is what someone says genuine or said to appease some perspective?  But now you have to have evidence that someone is not being genuine.  In law we call this: not communicating in "good faith".   But that has to be proved.  How do we know when someone is trying to appease or being forthright in their statements?  I don't know how we test this in our online communications.  
 

You raise a great issue.  How I trust is personal to me and I go by my own guidance.  But I'm also an optimist.  I give people the benefit of the doubt and allow people to change and create (and recreate) themselves.  I allow people to grow.  You can (or someone else) can change anything right now.  Who's to say?   We're both different and the same paradoxically -- and/or maybe not too!  We trap ourselves but not letting different expectations and results emerge.  We're against change.  You have to question that premise.  

It doesn't seem like you are giving yourself room to change significantly by constantly going back to that well.  It's the same exact thing being served there, but maybe you're too accustomed to it to notice.  

 

Side note, didn't they teach you about the logical fallacies in philosophy class? You might want to review those, and see if his post, any of them, passes muster with them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear, Truth is like that overwhelmingly and overblowingly, teasingly tempting, sexy and attractive rockstar whom all those conservative, fundamental and religious folk say is bad, evil and devilish and whom you should resist and not even look at, yet whom they all really want deep in their hearts and can't stop thinking about.

 

Jeez, just give up the nonsense and get down with the star already.

 

Anyone here seen Rock of Ages?

 

 

There must be an effortless way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

There's always going to be a wobble between magic vs./and truth.  

Not in direct experience. It's pretty real and fantastical and also just this, nothing special. Not sure what it is. 

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Here's the question at issue from my perspective: Is what someone says genuine or said to appease some perspective? 

People can occasionally be appeased, perspectives can't be appeased. Usually appeasing is done when there is peer pressure being assumed or imposed. 

 

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 How do we know when someone is trying to appease or being forthright in their statements?  I don't know how we test this in our online communications. 

Ask questions? When we're upset we can't find the car keys, or the remote, or get the joke, but when we're relaxed and don't claim to know or need to know we, see clearly. Actually looking and asking, with okayness with not knowing are the same here. 

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

We're against change.  You have to question that premise.  

Lost me. 

 Youtube Channel  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2024 at 2:51 PM, Phil said:

Persistent unworthiness is often related to trauma suppressed by a misunderstanding of intelligence as finite, or, as something separate selves have amounts of.

 

It plays out as a gravitating towards or attracting of, resenting of, and or even pedestaling ‘people who have a lot of intelligence’, via trauma bonding… via the shared suppression of unworthiness / via sharing the belief in intelligence

This is so huge..

 

How do you contemplate something like intelligence? What angle do you go at it from. Maybe there is a way to gradually dispell beliefs about intelligence without fully realizing that there is no self.

 

"Worth" also. Seems so obvious that it doesn't exist yet still seems to dominate stuff in experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

This is so huge..

 

How do you contemplate something like intelligence? What angle do you go at it from. Maybe there is a way to gradually dispell beliefs about intelligence without fully realizing that there is no self.

 

"Worth" also. Seems so obvious that it doesn't exist yet still seems to dominate stuff in experience.

What if whatever we have learned is an just illusion itself? Like being in the earth

 

"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

How do you contemplate something like intelligence? What angle do you go at it from. Maybe there is a way to gradually dispell beliefs about intelligence without fully realizing that there is no self.

The object of contemplation would probably be about the "I" that knows things, not directly intelligence itself, but the one who claims ownership over intelligence. The ownership and the inherent separation that comes with that ownership is the only thing that can create beliefs about your intelligence. "I know things, therefore I am intelligent because of that." These kinds of identity structures.

Edited by Enlightened Cat

Describe a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhiteOwl said:

This is so huge..

 

How do you contemplate something like intelligence? What angle do you go at it from. Maybe there is a way to gradually dispell beliefs about intelligence without fully realizing that there is no self.

 

"Worth" also. Seems so obvious that it doesn't exist yet still seems to dominate stuff in experience.

What is intelligence? 

 

What is worth? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mandy When we make something an enemy we don't want it to change.  We have a stake in it not changing because if it does, then we have to change, and we don't want to do that.  I always give the benefit of the doubt that anyone can change anything at any time.  People can turn on a dime.  I've seen it.  I don't want to be Pollyannish but I am an optimist.  Someone can get it and boom, they can change right there.  Everybody wants to improve.  If they realize something they're doing is stupid and they can change that, they will.  I always allow and root for people to change for the better, even people I put into my shadow for various reasons.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Mandy When we make something an enemy we don't want it to change.  We have a stake in it not changing because if it does, then we have to change, and we don't want to do that.  I always give the benefit of the doubt that anyone can change anything at anytime.  People can turn on a dime.  I've seen it.  I don't want to be Pollyannish but I am an optimist.  Someone can get it and boom, they can change right there.  Everybody wants to improve.  If they realize something they're doing is stupid and they can change that, they will.  I always allow and root for people to change for the better, even people I put into my shadow for various reasons.

How do you think he's changed, and what about that blog post would be indicative of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, James123 said:

What if whatever we have learned is an just illusion itself? Like being in the earth

 

The concepts are never the actuality at least. So what might be believed about intelligence or whats being pointed to with the word is far from my silly concept about it.

 

10 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

The ownership and the inherent separation that comes with that ownership is the only thing that can create beliefs about your intelligence. "I know things, therefore I am intelligent because of that." These kinds of identity structures.

But things arising for "me", knowledge/intelligence, does seem to arise for what has previously been put focus on. So in some way there is some ownership.. or so it seems. 

But it seems clear that there is no separate self in experience that has this intelligence, not in the way its believed at least. 

It seems tricky to let completely go of any doer in experience. Or maybe there is actually no "i" writing this right now. I don't actually have any direct experience of that. *bursts out laughing*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:


But I think you could give him credit for stating what he thinks in a clear way.  There's always going to be a wobble between magic vs./and truth.  You can presume this in almost every situation in life.  And that's ok.  That's to be expected.  I guess I'm somewhat open to discussion on this issue.  

Here's the question at issue from my perspective: Is what someone says genuine or said to appease some perspective?  But now you have to have evidence that someone is not being genuine.  In law we call this: not communicating in "good faith".   But that has to be proved.  How do we know when someone is trying to appease or being forthright in their statements?  I don't know how we test this in our online communications.  
 

You raise a great issue.  How I trust is personal to me and I go by my own guidance.  But I'm also an optimist.  I give people the benefit of the doubt and allow people to change and create (and recreate) themselves.  I allow people to grow.  You can (or someone else) can change anything right now.  Who's to say?   We're both different and the same paradoxically -- and/or maybe not too!  We trap ourselves by not letting different expectations and results emerge.  We're against change.  You have to question that premise.  

There’s nothing, not even a wobble, ‘between’ magic & truth. Not, two. 🤍

It’s the presumptions which stand to be questioned, certainly not trusted. 

 

https://chat.openai.com/share/5f1dbffb-9ea9-4559-baee-a40d6cbf6e47

 

Trust: Firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

 

Yourself is yourself, and is never made an enemy. This would just be a presumption, a belief, and again, the truth is not two. The self which has an enemy is not a self. 

 

There is no example whatsoever of anything at all which can be or become, something that it is not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Phil said:

What is intelligence? 

 

What is worth? 

What comes to mind as some "form" of intelligence. Being able to read Kant and just understand what he meant. Thats not what it really is though. Intelligence seems to be what "we" are. Just coming out. 

 

Worth seems to be a unicorn to use your own example. Can never be seen or pointed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

How do you think he's changed, and what about that blog post would be indicative of it?

He is now past Alien Intelligence and has understood the really advanced multi-dimensional landscape of local and higher maxima 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.