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

[Robed Mystic]

9 minutes ago, BlendingInfinite said:

Leo is influenced by his own Gurus and books. He is booksmart and himself gullible in a twisted way.

I had certain awakenings prior to Leo.  As they were not on psychedelics.   I was just talking to @Iesu and explained to him that Leo discovered God through psychedelics far behind when his own ego was ready for it.  That's why he is still busy acting out shit in Vegas and other stuff.   This is again why I feel that psychedelics can be a dangerous tool if leveraged foolishly or too early   in Leo's case, that is not the case because he was grounded.    But still he is at an egoic state of growth where what he learned via psychedelics was far beyond where he had developed as a person.   I think this is the biggest inconsistency with  Leo.  Psychedelics.   In other words his ego still needs to catch up.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Robed Mystic

[Loop]

11 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

I think he jumped the gun by banning him and probably regrets it.  Phil has been Phil forever..so why now?  I know I've jumped the gun on there before and it clearly shines through as ego.  

 

Yeah I agree. I do feel that Leo is a bit in over his head with what he has expirenced from psychedelics though. Doing them for nearly a month in a row is just asking for trouble, people need time to ground themselves. 

 

36 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

That said - it could have been that their styles differed and it was better if Phil started his own community just because of the different styles.

 

I am glad Phil started this comunity, I feel he is better at guiding a community then Leo is, and have had overall better interactions with people on here then over there. Although I always felt Leo and Phil made a interesting team, Phil was filling some kind of emotional void over there in my option. 

[Robed Mystic]

55 minutes ago, BlendingInfinite said:

I don't think this is Leo. He would contribute on this forum more than on its own. Furthermore, Leo would never contribute to Phil's traffic, because of pride etc. . It is just a poor acolyte who doesn't have much to do in life and is now pushing the act.org movie.

 

It is self-evident that Leo made up the argument of "cryptic communication" for political reasons. Otherwise, he could have done this a long time before. Too strange, that it just happened as he proposed his solipsism course, which costs lie in the 4-figure range. Moreover, before the demoting, Phil posted links to YouTube channels of people, who made debunking videos of Leo.

 

Now I'm already taking part in such a conversation 😄 I feel like a teen magazine journalist or something.

You know what I see?  And yes I know who you are from Actualized.  You are TimR.   I see a very young, very very smart  guy who has really placed ALL his authority into one guru.  Only its a different one.  You jumped from the frying pan into the fire.  Be careful with that brother.   

Edited April 15, 2022 by Robed Mystic

[BlendingInfinite]

40 minutes ago, Orb said:

@BlendingInfinite I'm not saying he's leo, im saying it seems he may have influenced leo.

You could be right. Maybe he is part of his marketing.

 

Btw. I took a look at Actualized LLC company information

https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_nv/E0036322018-4
or
https://www.bizapedia.com/nv/actualized-llc.html
 

He does his business not alone, as he always says. E.g. he has one registered agent, who receives all lawsuits and summons.

 

 

[Orb]

@BlendingInfinite hahaha it's not that deep, im not saying theyre in a board room planning to take over the world. 

 

I'm just saying maybe they've chatted in the past and leo was influenced by him 😅.

[Faith]

10 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

You know what I see?  And yes I know who you are from Actualized.  You are TimR. 

 

This member is not TimR.  Please watch "your" assumptions. 

 

Thank you.  

[Robed Mystic]

4 minutes ago, Faith said:

 

This member is not TimR.  Please watch "your" assumptions. 

 

Thank you.  

Noted!   If I'm mistaken then I am.  But I saw his post where he felt like he had abandoned his integrity for leaving the other forum.  And he had just asked about the meaning or importance of integrity on Actualized.   Perhaps my intuition  was wrong here.   Nonetheless- I see a guy who left one guru for another.  

Edited April 15, 2022 by Robed Mystic

[Faith]

8 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

If I'm mistaken then I am. 

Yes, you are, because I know who Tim R is here and it ain't him. 

 

Carry on....

[WhiteOwl]

18 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

You know what I see?  And yes I know who you are from Actualized.  You are TimR.   I see a very young, very very smart  guy who has really placed ALL his authority into one guru.  Only its a different one.  You jumped from the frying pan into the fire.  Be careful with that brother.   

They are not gurus.. and someone mainly suggesting people to understand and express their emotions to feel better doesn't seem very dangerous to me. 

[Faith]

13 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Nonetheless- I see a guy who left one guru for another.  

Phil has said on here many times. He's not trying to be anyone's "teacher". 

[Robed Mystic]

4 minutes ago, Faith said:

Phil has said on here many times. He's not trying to be anyone's "teacher". 

Exactly.   

[Robed Mystic]

24 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

They are not gurus.. and someone mainly suggesting people to understand and express their emotions to feel better doesn't seem very dangerous to me. 

All that matters is if he sees him as a guru. 

[Indisguise]

@Robed Mystic

I am Tim R. 

 

I didn't leave Actualized.org (I got kicked out as you know), and Phil is not my guru. Neither is nor was Leo nor Actualized my guru or authority.

I also didn't "replace" Leo with Phil. 

 

I questioned my relationship to spiritual forums in general after Leo kicked me out for getting invited to be mod here. Yes, I questioned my integrity and thought about why Leo would ban a, dare I say it, valuable member like I was. Because when accused of treason (or anything for that matter), I will first hold myself responsible, and try to see if perhaps, Leo was right. That's why I questioned my integrity. I never a priori believed my integrity to be violated, I just questioned it. 

 

I don't post nearly as frequently here as I posted on Actualized - which has nothing to do with this place, I like it here, and hey, you want to be let in on a secret? I post here more frequently than there🤫 which again, has nothing to do with the forums or the guys who run them. I just enjoy being on forums and helping some people whenever I can. 

[Arug Oel]

The Annihilations of Actual

The key problem with "leaders" is that they follow a pathway of matter, of energetic waves splashing over the cosmos, that bind, signify, and hierarchize minds into mindlessness, souls into soullessness, and societies into rigid decay of all held dear and true--in certain situations when that leader structure is limited in its understanding when correlating its own mind with the sub-minds of its own system. In other words, a leader's mind is the mind of their followers, all their individual minds becoming mere components, sub-minds, and consciousnesses devoid of truest individuality. In fact, leaders of narrow insight, of a paucity of understanding, reduce the followers' capacity for being individuals, actualized points that are distinct and developed from the rest of the system. They are made less actual and more abstract, where the leader is the only one left, the leader being the only being of actuality, the leaders being like vampires that suck this actual-ness away from others. That is why these systems fail inherently--because lack of understanding is not conducive to the collective, and we live where humans are not as developed as they could get to.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Arug Oel

[WhiteOwl]

@Arug Oel You ain't fooling nobody mate. Maybe some tips here 

 

[Arug Oel]

35 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

@Arug Oel You ain't fooling nobody mate. Maybe some tips here 

 

I will not poison my mind with such cognitive trappings. "Obfuscation" is a matter of enjoyment, not "technique." It does, in some cases, serve a benevolence.

[Arug Oel]

It is a subject-object problem. Leader as the subjective viewpoint with followers as objects to play with. Or with followers as subjects that consume the leader as an object and cause possibly irreparable damage to their brains.

[Indisguise]

8 hours ago, Arug Oel said:

The Annihilations of Actual

The key problem with "leaders" is that they follow a pathway of matter, of energetic waves splashing over the cosmos, that bind, signify, and hierarchize minds into mindlessness, souls into soullessness, and societies into rigid decay of all held dear and true--in certain situations when that leader structure is limited in its understanding when correlating its own mind with the sub-minds of its own system. In other words, a leader's mind is the mind of their followers, all their individual minds becoming mere components, sub-minds, and consciousnesses devoid of truest individuality. In fact, leaders of narrow insight, of a paucity of understanding, reduce the followers' capacity for being individuals, actualized points that are distinct and developed from the rest of the system. They are made less actual and more abstract, where the leader is the only one left, the leader being the only being of actuality, the leaders being like vampires that suck this actual-ness away from others. That is why these systems fail inherently--because lack of understanding is not conducive to the collective, and we live where humans are not as developed as they could get to.

I think it's so funny that this is pretty much Leo's reasoning (although I'm sure that you're not Leo, which makes your post even more ironic), because this is precisely what happened with Actualized.org. Many people became rather mindless, indoctrinated followers of Leo. And then he speaks of "the dangers of false teachings and teachers who don't know how to run a community". Oh the irony... 

[Ges]

14 hours ago, BlendingInfinite said:

For me and most other people, this is quite obvious. However, some people take longer to understand things in general. So no offense to you.

 

It is obvious that there is no offense at all. You're not implying that I'm stupid or anything. In which world would that fly?!

You should put more effort in your gaslighting techniques if you wish to continue with me. Otherwise, it's just lazy, and I don't like it.

[Ges]

15 hours ago, Mandy said:

I did. He pointed out examining judgement itself, you replied with really nothing but classic old thought out judgement, then when he replied that you recontextualized you responded to judge him personally AGAIN.

 

Oh, Mandy! Oh, Mandy Mandy Mandy! I so wanna pinch your cheeks right now.

What is this about? Are you not reading what I'm writing? I did examine the judgement and said that it is possible that I am wrong, crazy, deluded, etc. What else do you want me to do? Nod along in silence? Become a doormat for Phil's perspective and everything you guys say? What possible outcome that might satisfy your expectations?

 

It is obvious that I did no re-contextualization of anything. Phil asked a question, and I answered it directly.

Is it possible that X might be true? Yes it is possible. No questions or doubts. See, very simple and direct.

Now, where does that leave us? Well, either we accept X as true, or deny it as false, or remain neutral about it. I guess there aren't that many choices after all.

 

Now, should I just take X for granted as true like Phil and you are suggesting? Or should I deny X entirely? Or should I remain (or at least try to) neutral about it? I chose the latter, then was accused of changing the context, when all I did was "going meta" like you guys like to call it.

 

You see, for you to suggest to me to examine judgement, there is the assumption that you somehow hold a more expanded perspective on the matter. But is this true? That's what I examined and found not to be the case. And it's the most neutral thing to do/say from my pov. You can disagree with me, you're free. I didn't offer much of an explanation, so that would be understandable. But to keep suggesting that I'm not looking is just disrespectful, and really one more indicator that supports my conclusions that you guys aren't ahead. It seems to me, at least.

 

All I did in my response was that I said: I acknowledge that I might be having wrong judgement as you suggested. But after examining my judgements, I don't think I do, and here are my thoughts. If you have a problem with them, feel free to disagree. I hold no expectations from you regarding my thoughts. And I have no attachment to them either. I am happy to change my thoughts whenever I'm convinced they're false. Simple, is it not?

 

I want to add that you guys seem stuck with this whole "no judgement is true/allowed" narrative, which is nothing but a judgement judging other judgements if that makes sense. So I don't see why this one particular judgement should weigh more than any other judgement. If you can convince me why, then please go ahead. I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'll be sorry to inform you that you might be holding a dogma and failing to see it. You're a beautiful woman, Mandy. Maybe should look in the mirror more often.

 

15 hours ago, Mandy said:

If there weren't separate selves with reputations to be upheld and puffed up or shat upon, this whole thing would be hysterical.

 

Where is this coming from? Who are you talking about? Surely, I'm not involved.

I have no reputation to uphold, nor anything of the sorts. I am not an enlightenment teacher or anything. I don't even talk about spirituality that much anymore. And I said explicitly that my thoughts are useless and shall be dismissed asap if you don't like them or find them offensive in any way.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Ges