Jump to content

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

Forza21

By Forza21
in The Path

 Share

Recommended Posts

Joseph Maynor

Joseph Maynor

Posted
Posted (edited)

Robed Mystic said:

"Bias is bias.  No we shouldn't let everyone out of prison and we shouldn't dismiss a teacher because of who they are and thus not look at their communication.  We should look at the communication and not the teacher."

My Response:

"Bias is bias" is a tautology, not a premise or argument.  There's no movement in a tautology.  There's words there, but no persuasive action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robed Mystic

Robed Mystic

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Bias is bias is a tautology, not a premise or argument.

The point is don't use it one instance and then say you aren't in another.  If your admitting you are being bias with Leo then look beyond the bias.

Edited by Robed Mystic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joseph Maynor

Joseph Maynor

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robed Mystic said:

The point is don't use it one instance and then say you aren't in another.  If your admitting you are being bias with Leo then look beyond the bias.

 

"The point is don't use it one instance and then say you aren't in another."  This is a false equivalency.  For example, if I'm biased towards eating dinner right now (which I am) -- that doesn't mean I shouldn't be biased against violent criminals and want them to be in prison.  You can't take every "bias," equate it as a bias, and then make generalizations that come to a biased point of your own.  The absolute doesn't trounce the relative.  Not every bias is weighted the same.  If I'm hungry and want to eat, yes that's a bias, but that's not the same as having a bias that hurts many people.  Not at all.  I mentioned this to you before the issue of trying to reduce the relative to the absolute.  It's not bias that's the problem -- it's certain specific biases that are the problem in a relative sense, especially those that hurt many people.  Adolph Eichmann's bias as a Jew killing Jews is not equivalent to my bias in wanting to eat dinner right now.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robed Mystic

Robed Mystic

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

"The point is don't use it one instance and then say you aren't in another."  This is a false equivalency.  For example, if I'm biased towards eating dinner right now (which I am) -- that doesn't mean I shouldn't be biased against violent criminals and want them to be in prison.  You can't take every "bias," equate it as a bias, and then make generalizations that come to a biased point of your own.  The absolute doesn't trounce the relative.  Not every bias is weighted the same.  If I'm hungry and want to eat, yes that's a bias, but that's not the same as having a bias that hurts many people.  Not at all.  I mentioned this to you before the issue of trying to reduce the relative to the absolute.  It's not bias that's the problem -- it's certain specific biases that are the problem in a relative sense, especially those that hurt many people.  Adolph Eichmann's bias as a Jew killing Jews is not equivalent to my bias in wanting to eat dinner right now.

So you are saying it's OK to be bias of Leo and thus  dismiss the communication based on this bias ?

Edited by Robed Mystic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robed Mystic

Robed Mystic

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

This is incomprehensible to me, sorry.

It's real simple.   It's incomprehensible to you  because you overthink everything a thousand fold.  Look at what is present in your direct experience.   Do not analyze it.

Be it. 

Edited by Robed Mystic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joseph Maynor

Joseph Maynor

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2022 at 6:48 PM, Robed Mystic said:

That's not what I asked you.   I asked you if uou could look beyond your bias.  I ask the same of @Aware Wolf.  

 

I'll say this, if you can find good reasons for a bias then despite the fact of it being a bias, it's still sound.  For example, if you harmed a lot of people and I can prove that to a jury of your peers and you go to prison, then despite that being a bias, it's a good bias from a relative perspective.  "Don't analyze it" you say, sure.  That's what you would love for us to do, right, from your biased perspective.  Because when you're subjected to analysis, your claims fall like a house of cards very easily.  So you're the teacher, ok, you're making claims -- all I'm doing is trying to learn from you and I am.  Are you the teacher or are we the teacher?  Anyone can designate themselves a teacher, but a true teacher leaves a lasting impression and a lesson for all, including those they argue with.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MetaSage

MetaSage

Posted
Posted (edited)
  • Alan Watts and Chogyam Trungpa were alcoholics
  • The Buddha shat and ate and probably wasn’t a good cook. :D
  • Gandhi was a womanizer
  • Nissargadatta smoked cigarettes like crazy
  • Adi Da looked like a stoned cult leader and yet Ken Wilber said he’s the most awakened guru he’s ever met
  • Osho liked cars, a lot ;)


See? You can be enlightened and do X or Y. They still have a self, with a body, a mind, preferences, opinions, etc. They don’t stop being humans; they can still fuck up and do stupid things. For example, Ramaji, presumably enlightened, voted for Trump.

 

Leo has valid and useful communications, and then there’s his personal shit. So, the teacher and the persona behind the teacher are different. People easily confuse those two.

 

Seems to me that being either in favor of, or against, a teacher misses the point. Simply listening to what the teacher says is best, if you want. To be clear, I’m not implying blind acceptance, but openness (if you’ve previously decided for yourself that he is to be trusted).


I don’t understand why a guru must behave in a way predetermined by students’ expectations of “enlightened” individuals.

Edited by MetaSage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robed Mystic

Robed Mystic

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, MetaSage said:

Alan Watts and Chogyam Trungpa were alcoholics

The Buddha shat and ate and probably wasn’t a good cook. 😄

Gandhi was a womanizer

Nissargadatta smoked cigarettes like crazy

Adi Da looked like a f** stoned cult leader, and Ken Wilber said he’s the most awaken person he’s ever met

Osho liked cars, a lot 😉

 

The teacher and the persona behind the teacher are different.

 

Leo has valid and useful communications, and then there’s his personal shit.

 

Seems to me that being either in favor or against a teacher is missing the point. I think simply listening to what is being said by the teacher is best. To be clear, I’m not implying blind acceptance, just openness (if you trust a teacher beforehand).


Don’t forget they’re still humans. They can still fuck up and say stupid things. I hear tell Ramaji, presumably enlightened, voted for Trump on the basis of some spiritual sounding bullshit.

 

So, see? You can be enlightened and a homeless, or a piano virtuoso. You’re still a person, with a body and a mind and opinions. 


I don’t understand why a spiritual teacher should behave in a way predetermined by the students’ expectations of what gurus should look and behave like.

 

Something like: A teacher eats meat so she’s not genuinely spiritual. Or he has an Indian name so he must be enlightened. 
 

Sorry for the sloppy expression.

Absolute brilliance

Edited by Robed Mystic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ges

Ges

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Space4This said:

@Ges

It's easy to judge moderators, because they're supposed to represent a standard,

 

It's kind of funny that the standard they're supposed to represent does not apply to the admin. I've been warned and given penalties many times for saying things in a way similar to Leo, and I only did that because I thought it was okay since he does it this way. And the irony is that the mod that issued me the most warnings and penalties was a huge supporter of everything Leo says and does, and they would jump into his defense all the time or remain silent, but never criticize. The double standard there is iconic.

Have faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blessed2

Blessed2

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

That's one of the reasons you yourself are not yet a master or awake.

 

9 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

And  you have total consciousness of your own shortcomings..i.e. selfishness, as a human. You have understanding.  Understanding of yourself and reality, because they are One.

 

8 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

But your not there yet.

 

8 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

I'm trying to help you awaken.

 

7 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

Run off like you always do.

 

7 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

When you learn this you will have awoken.  

 

6 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

Your being bias

 

Beep boop bullshit detector activate

 

Beep boop

 

There must be an effortless way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • 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.

  I accept