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

[Jonas Long]

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?

[WhiteOwl]

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*

[Phil]

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. 

[WhiteOwl]

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.

[WhiteOwl]

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 😂 

[Mandy]

9 hours 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.

Saying that you'll change and no doing so can either intentionally or unintentionally manipulate people into continuing as they were. Without manipulation or force, simply seeing something so clearly that it can never be enacted again is the only real change. 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

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

😂 ♥️

 

6 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

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.

If interested, now contemplate what we are, and what a unicorn is. 

[James123]

@WhiteOwl what about intelligence?

[Robed Mystic]

On 1/20/2024 at 2:20 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

Spiritual enlightenment is not a worldview. It's not idealism. 

No - its not a worldview in and of itself, but you can discover that reality is Mind not Matter - but only via mysticism.  And that it is One - singular, Infinite Mind.  Science and rationalism can't bring you there.  

Edited January 26 by Robed Mystic

[WhiteOwl]

9 minutes ago, Phil said:

If interested, now contemplate what we are, and what a unicorn is. 

Very "interested". What is that though?

 

"What we are" seems to be something behind the scenes that can't be pointed to or seen. 

 

"Unicorn" is an image. Well whats an image. Its nothing. Its made out of the same as all other thoughts. 

 

 

 

 

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

Very "interested". What is that though?

 

"What we are" seems to be something behind the scenes that can't be pointed to or seen. 

 

"Unicorn" is an image. Well whats an image. Its nothing. Its made out of the same as all other thoughts. 

 

 

 

 

Awesome. 

 

Now contemplate what is something behind the scenes that can’t be pointed to or seen?

What is nothing?

[Enlightened Cat]

1 hour ago, WhiteOwl said:

But things arising for "me", knowledge/intelligence, does seem to arise for what has previously been put focus on. 

There is memory of experiences, viewed through what is currently experienced. Then there is the knowledge you attribute to that memory. However, there can't be a "you which experienced", otherwise that creates two viewers, one in the past and one in the present. But, there can be a you which views memory, or remembers things. There is a difference between remembering something and "experiencing the past", the former happens in the current moment, the latter doesn't really happen at all.

There is no experience of something which has previously been focused on, only a memory of it. There cannot be an entity which "previously focused on things" inside of your current experience, because you cannot "previously focus" on something which is currently experienced.

Edited January 26 by Enlightened Cat

[Robed Mystic]

On 1/20/2024 at 7:51 AM, Phil said:

@Robed Mystic

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. In extreme cases this can be doubly masked by the belief in solipsism which is isolating and tends to psychologically rule out introspection / therapy / healing (since it’s already “known”). 

 

Similar to how persistent un-deservedness is accompanied by a misunderstanding of the nature or truth of abundance & plays out as a gravitating towards ‘people which have a lot of stuff’ and efforts to be seen or thought of as someone who has a lot of stuff. 

 

This is why, so to speak, people can ‘learn it all’, completely understand quantum mechanics for example, and ‘have it all’ as in be relationship & finance wealthy… yet still experience persistant unworthiness and or un-deservedness. The deeper & relevant introspection is that of dispelling the separate self the beliefs center around. Otherwise what’s being said can be innocently reinterpreted via misidentification which might sound like ‘now I have to do this’ or ‘now I have to realize this’ (to be enough / be worthy / be deserving / be whole). In this case the guidance of guilt would be felt. 

 

If the word intelligence (wisdom as well) is popped in replacing the word consciousness in phrases like my consciousness, your consciousness, levels of consciousness & states of consciousness this stands to be more clearly seen, like a half step home from conceptualizing ‘back to’ feeling & listening to the underlying emotional discord. 

 

Another way to look at it is the truth; you are nothing. That might ‘trigger’ underlying discordant beliefs about a separate self or selves, and therein keep rumination about separate selves being awake or not, to levels, etc, going, as not to feel (which stands to dispel the discordant beliefs). Similar to how the truth, that there aren’t separate selves, only unconditional love, stands to ‘trigger’ thought attachment / ego. Trigger as in clarify, or flush out beliefs to the contrary. 
 

Another interpretation or consideration is that you indeed are perfect, perfection. Narratives based on who’s right or wrong, who’s at fault, who’s awake or more awake etc are the activity of perfection obscuring perfection (innocence, intelligence, happiness, unconditional love). At some point the who’s more infinite unconditional love (consciousness) is just seen as nonsensical, felt as discordant. 

It can be if one's insecurities revolve around intelligence. But you must remember this is the ego.  It is concerned with how it appears physically to "others".  And what "others" think of the "self".  Is the self "normal" like "other" selves?

Spirituality can help liberate one from the shackles of egoic thinking by coming to the realization that "other" and "self" are both projections of an Infinite Mind.  Yet in everyday life, the self engages with "other" daily.   Here one must apply wisdom and realize that it is one's own perception of the world that is the self"s reality.   If one perceives themselves as unworthy then they will feel unworthy.   If one deems themselves worthy, others will come to see them as worthy.  But this only because the self has changed their own perception of themselves, unconcerned with others.   It's an interesting dynamic.   But in @Jonas Longcase, when he enters a room with a crowd of people, it is he that is thinking about his imperfect lip, not other.   If he chooses to see his lips as perfect, others will come to see the same.  Or even better, if he doesn't focus on them at all, they cease to exist.

Edited January 26 by Robed Mystic

[James123]

7 minutes ago, Enlightened Cat said:

because you cannot "previously focus" on something which is currently experienced.

What is experiencing?

[Enlightened Cat]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

What is experiencing?

I interpret this question in two ways:

1. You are questioning what "experiencing" as a phenomenon actually is.

2. You are questioning "what" is experiencing, which is asking about the "thing" or entity that experiences.

"Experiencing" is just exactly what is experienced, although that word can imply a subject, like an entity which is experiencing, 

The "thing" or entity that is assumed to be experiencing things is not actually there, though.

[James123]

25 minutes ago, Enlightened Cat said:

I interpret this question in two ways:

1. You are questioning what "experiencing" as a phenomenon actually is.

2. You are questioning "what" is experiencing, which is asking about the "thing" or entity that experiences.

"Experiencing" is just exactly what is experienced, although that word can imply a subject, like an entity which is experiencing, 

The "thing" or entity that is assumed to be experiencing things is not actually there, though.

So what about if you never learned what expericing is ? Will it be real?

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

It can be if one's insecurities revolve around intelligence. But you must remember this is the ego.  It is concerned with how it appears physically to "others".  And what "others" think of the "self".  Is the self "normal" like "other" selves?

Spirituality can help liberate one from the shackles of egoic thinking by coming to the realization that "other" and "self" are both projections of an Infinite Mind.  Yet in everyday life, the self engages with "other" daily.   Here one must apply wisdom and realize that it is one's own perception of the world that is the self"s reality.   If one perceives themselves as unworthy then they will feel unworthy.   If one deems themselves worthy, others will come to see them as worthy.  But this only because the self has changed their own perception of themselves, unconcerned with others.   It's an interesting dynamic.   But in @Jonas Longcase, when he enters a room with a crowd of people, it is he that is thinking about his imperfect lip, not other.   If he chooses to see his lips as perfect, others will come to see the same.  Or even better, if he doesn't focus on them at all, they cease to exist.

There is the thought, ‘one’s insecurities’, but upon inspection it is of course found there is no such thing as ‘one’s insecurities’, there is only the thought. Attempting to point to ‘one’s insecurities’ stands to clarify. 

 

The actuality is that of the emotion insecurity felt, yet unacknowledged & conceptualized on behalf of a nonexistant separate self, as if a possession;  ‘one’s insecurities’. 

 

Being, being infinite, has no such possession. 

 

 

Attributing emotional suppression and spiritual bypassing (conceptualizing) to ‘an ego’ which ‘is concerned’ is a rationalization of emotional suppression and spiritual bypassing. 

 

Spirituality, in so far as what’s actually true, can not liberate such a one from any thinking, as such a one which thinks is again a concept, and is a justification for purporting falsity as truth, based on a false identity of ‘the one’ which knows this. The concept of ‘infinite mind’ is a rationalization, based on the false identity of ‘the one’ which knows there is, infinite mind. The (nonexistant) knower. 

 

The self which engages in other is a personal concept, a belief, thoughts, and not a self. 

 

There is quite literally no such duality or self, no reality whatsoever of, ‘one’s own perception of the world’. Again, this is a misunderstanding of perception, a belief and a purporting, and an exemplification of the very misunderstanding based on misidentification being inquired about.

 

One can never perceive one’s self, as of course, one is oneself. Thus, one can never perceive oneself as unworthy. One can never feel one’s self, as again, one is oneself. Thus, one can never feel unworthy. 

 

 

Again, this is an experience of the emotion unworthiness, and it is how these thoughts & beliefs feel. They feel off rightfully so, with respect to the truth of, oneself, and this is again emotional suppression and rationalization via conceptualizing. 

 

One can never ‘change one’s perception of one’s self’. This is a gross misunderstanding of perception based on a belief in a false, separate self, or, mistaken identity. 

 

 

This is not an ‘interesting dynamic’. This is delusion, indicative of emotional suppression, or, unwillingness to acknowledge emotion felt, suppression of, conceptualization of, and rationalization of the conceptualizing of. 

 

It is unequivicoly not ‘he that is thinking’. That one is a thinker is based on the suppression, conceptualization & rationalization… and projection of misidentifying as a separate finite self such as ‘a thinker’. 

 

 

Here is an example of what’s being said about suppression, conceptualization, misidentification & the utterly misleading rationalizing of for reference:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil]

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

7 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

Spirituality can help liberate one from the shackles of egoic thinking by coming to the realization that "other" and "self" are both projections of an Infinite Mind.  

The idea that you are imaging (or imagining) others and that reality is a dream I think are both false beliefs.  I never thought either of these premises were true.  We can come up with a lot of stories, and those are stories in my opinion.  They're insidious because they've been turned into talking points that infect a lot of people.  People pick up talking points like these and then work to kind of mindlessly spread them further.  At best these are tools or rabbit holes on the path that one can go down or not.   I think spiritual enlightenment goes beyond this sort of metaphysical perspective as I've mentioned before.   It's not really higher path but more like mid-path.   It's ideology basically and true believer types get stuck in ideology on the path.   It's a place to start but not a place to end if that makes sense.   It's not the only place to start either, keep that in mind.   You can go beyond metaphysics on the spiritual enlightenment path.   The words we use are just pointers (and also ways we make relating with others possible and sustainable), not to be taken literally.   Leo kinda set a bad example (in my opinion) here with Absolute Truth being framed in terms of metaphysics, and certain people need to be trained out of that now (or more accurately train themselves out of it) -- if they want to.  

Narratives facilitate relations.  It's ridiculous to give a name  to anything that is timeless.  So you see the problem with turning spiritual enlightenment into social glue.  It takes people away from the Infinite because now they have an interest in sustaining the narrative that preserves the relation between them and another thing or network of things.  Truth that requires a consented to truth to exist is not Absolute Truth.  You can wobble the duality of the finite vs./and the infinite as well.  The relation compromises the thing as a thing on some level!  You can't substitute the Masculine with (and/or for) the Feminine.  The Masculine is the thing, and the Divine Masculine is the thing that has no relation.  Spinoza called this Substance.  Advaita Vedanta calls this the Universal Self.  You can name this in infinite ways I presume.  The key is the Divine Masculine is a  thing that doesn't depend on any relation for its authorization (or permission) to be a thing in and of Itself.

Edited January 26 by Joseph Maynor

[WhiteOwl]

5 hours ago, Phil said:

Now contemplate what is something behind the scenes that can’t be pointed to or seen?

What is nothing?

Seems like its believed there is something behind perception/feeling. The image is of course not nothing. Can't think nothing.