- Introduction of Paradox: In this section, Leo Gura expounds on the nature of paradox and its inextricable existence. The intrinsic beauty of paradox, according to him, is a point of fascination that leads to the realization of absolute truth. This not only has aesthetic but also practical implications. Paradox often threatens rational minds, rationality, science, and materialism due to its self-contradictory nature. This threat, however, can also be viewed as a clue to examine reality through a deeper perspective.
- Effect of Paradox on Western Intellectual Tradition: Western intellectual tradition has historically feared paradox, trying to sweep it under the rug. This fear, often seen in rational minds, scientists, skeptics, atheists, stems from the threat paradox poses to established systems of understanding reality, such as science, materialism, and academic paradigms.
- The Failure of Set Theory and Avoidance of Self-Reference: The failure of Bertrand Russell's attempt to ground mathematics in set theory due to the self-contradictory nature of the set of all sets that don't contain themselves provides a profound example of how paradox can disrupt intellectual pursuits. The fear and trauma Russel experienced led him to develop a new set theory, which actively avoided self-reference. Hofstadter criticised this approach as a retreat from common sense and an irrational fear of self-reference structures or systems.
- Ignoring Self-Reference Limits Understanding of Reality: The failure to incorporate self-reference or self-reflection into the scientific and rational thinking results in a limited understanding of reality. Limiting scientific systems to finite, non-self-referencing models renders them unable to capture the complexity and infinite nature of reality. This concept also applies to all other symbolic systems including quantum mechanics and general relativity.
- Reality as Self-Referential:Paradox reveals that self-reference is a crucial part of reality, which is generally overlooked in conventional formal systems. By exploring paradox and self-reference, one can gain a deeper understanding of reality and move towards absolute truth. The human mind, due to its constructivist bias, continues to try to build and understand reality through created systems and structures, avoiding the inherent self-contradictions and complexities.
- Denial and Ignorance in Understanding Godel's Incompleteness Theorem: People claiming to understand Godel's incompleteness theorem often fail to grasp the broader implications of these ideas due to their inability to accept that self-contradiction actually reveals the true nature of reality. The fear of paradox has led to several attempts to eliminate self-reference from formal logic and other symbolic systems, in an unsuccessful endeavor to prevent contradiction and preserve the illusion of a logical and rational universe.
- Self-Reference Problem in Formal Systems: The self-reference problem arises in logic, mathematics, science, and other symbolic systems when they attempt to define or comprehend themselves. These systems can grasp other concepts but struggle to understand their own nature. They make the assumption that something outside of themselves can be used to define them, failing to realize that there is nothing exterior to the mind which encompasses them.
- Implications of Paradox on Understanding Reality: Embracing paradox and self-reference can lead to a deeper understanding of reality, despite contradicting conventional formal systems. Paradoxes reveal the infinite nature of reality and throw light on the existential nature of consciousness. This requires a shift from the belief that rationality and logic are the only means to understand reality, toward exploring common philosophical paradoxes including self-reference, recursion, infinite regress, and duality.
- Resistance to Paradigm Shifts in Science and Academia: Leo outlines how a fear of self-reflection and consciousness often underpins the intellectual traditions of Western academia, particularly in logic, mathematics, and the sciences. In many cases, he argues, this fear leads to the construction of academic "walled gardens;" finite domains of understanding that ignore and deny any elements of reality that do not fit within their prescribed frameworks. As a result, these academic fields often perpetuate the illusion of an entirely rational and linear reality, which Leo characterizes as an attempt to manipulate and control every aspect of existence. This, he maintains, is a fundamental divergence from the pursuit of actual truth.
- Contradiction is Inherent in Symbolic Systems: Leo argues that all symbolic systems, including logic, mathematics, religion, and other scientific models, eventually contradict themselves due to their finite nature attempting to encapsulate infinite reality. This produces paradoxes that challenge our standard conventions of truth. Ultimately, he suggests, these systems are unavoidably vulnerable to contradiction and paradox due to their very structure.
- Transient Nature of Identity and Paradigms: Leo indicates that the inclination to maintain consistent and fixed identities and paradigms is rooted in the mind's need for control. When these static ideas are challenged or contradicted, the mind is often resistant to accept new perspectives. Whether in the context of personal identity or academic paradigms, transitions and shifts in perspective are often met with resistance.
- Limitations of Academia: Leo contends that academia, with its constructivist bias that values building theories and models over deconstructing them, is limited in its pursuit of truth. This can inhibit progress towards understanding, as institutions often express a preference for generating ideas over challenging or deconstructing them, because the latter does not bring about easily quantifiable or monetizable results.
- Paradox and Deconstruction as Paths to Understanding Reality: The importance of understanding and embracing paradox is highlighted as a path towards deconstructing and ultimately understanding the nature of reality. Leo asserts that studying and analyzing contradictions and paradoxes can lead to insights that transcend conventional, finite systems, thus offering a broader view of reality.
- Rationality vs Reality: Leo discusses the idea that maintaining strict rationality can, in fact, deter the pursuit of truth. In his view, rationalists tend to create walled gardens where they only acknowledge the parts of reality that align with their rational worldview. Consequently, their understanding of reality is limited and potentially flawed. Therefore, instead of using rational arguments to guard against different worldviews, rationalists should be open to exploring and understanding these different perspectives.
- Fundamental Nature of Constructivism: Leo states that reality, including science, logic, and mathematics, is a human-made construct. He also warns against the corruption at the heart of science, wherein individuals fail to recognize the constructivist bias of science and academics. Further, he challenges the mainstream understanding of truth as aligning with these constructs and encourages the audience to question such bounds to truly understanding the nature of reality.
- Paradoxes and the Infinite: Leo discusses the inherent paradox within the attempt of finite constructs such as language, logic, and mind to comprehend the infinite aspects of reality. He argues that such limitations lead to contradictory and paradoxical speech when expressing absolute truth and asserts that the solution lies in deconstructing these finite systems.
- Self-referential Nature of Rationality: Leo notes the self-referential nature of rational arguments in which rational claims are validated using rational criteria. This can lead to a circular and self-limiting understanding of reality based on an erroneous presumption that reality adheres strictly to rational principles and logic. Greater truth might be found beyond the boundaries of strict rationality.
- Denial of intellectual error: Intellectual minds, particularly scientists and academics, struggle to admit profound errors in their understanding of reality. This resistance often results in the dismissal or denial of new domains or areas of study that challenge their existing paradigms, limiting their understanding of the larger reality.
- Limited understanding through symbolic systems: Symbolic systems or models, such as those used in science, can explain specific areas of reality but struggle with self-reference, or the ability to explain themselves. This is most apparent with sciences inability to explain consciousness and the mind, fundamental aspects of reality.
- Choosing between complete understanding and defending paradigms: Individuals must decide between pursuing full comprehension of reality, which requires deconstructing all models and theories, or protecting their intellectual pursuits and paradigms. The decision heavily influences their approach to interrogating reality.
- Challenges posed by infinity and self-reference: The denial or avoidance of infinity and self-reference causes significant limitations in the scope and completeness of understanding. This limitation results in an inability to address fundamental questions about consciousness, life, death, love, and God from within the established paradigms or symbolic systems.
- Brief acceptance of mistakes : Intellectual minds often admit small or shallow mistakes while rejecting the possibility of being fundamentally wrong about significant aspects of reality or their entire intellectual pursuits.
- Expanding reality vs. denying new domains: One can either admit their understanding is wrong and expand their perspective, which involves emotional labor, or deny new domains of knowledge and dismiss them as pseudoscience or irrational, to preserve their current paradigm.
- Partial understanding through science: Non-contradictory symbolic systems or models can be created, which offer a partial understanding of reality but are incapable of self-reference and do not account for consciousness, the mind, or their own existence.
- Underestimating the cost of limited perspectives: The cost of maintaining limited paradigms is not just intellectual, but also emotional, karmic, and at a survival level. This includes the suffering and pain constructed by setting such boundaries on understanding, which often goes unnoticed.
- Restrictive effects of rational and logical systems: Finite rational systems and logics restrict complete understanding of reality by preventing reaching out to truths that exist beyond their scope. Efforts to overcome this limitation by developing higher order logical systems still produce finite models that require even higher order systems to explain.
- Awareness of constraints and limitations: Recognizing and understanding the limitations of personal worldviews and theories, and their restrictive effect on accessing truths about reality, are key to breaking away from constrained perspectives on understanding reality.
- Persistence of the self-reference problem in formal systems: Leo Gura emphasizes that the self-reference problem pervades all formal systems, including logic, worldviews, and broader fields such as science, mathematics, and religion. These systems, designed to comprehend various aspects of reality, often stumble upon the self-reference problem when they attempt to understand and define themselves. This problem is likened to a hand trying to grasp itself; formal systems, like the hand, can grasp other things but struggle to grasp and define themselves.
- Problem of using mind to grasp reality: Leo highlights that scientists, rationalists, and skeptics often forget that their methodologies and practices are dependent on the mind. When these scholars aim to capture reality, they implicitly believe in the duality between mind (or their particular method of inquiry) and reality. They search for different parts of reality to self-define, assuming their methods of inquiry to be distinct from the reality they study.
- Inextricable link between mind and reality: Leo argues that this presupposed distinction is fallacious and points out the embedded circularity in defining the mind. He criticizes supposed definitions of the mind that use concepts integral to the mind itself, such as neurons in the brain, and highlights the endless, misguided game played by scientific minds trying to define mind and reality with something 'beyond' or 'outside' themselves, overlooking that even such concepts reside within the domain of the mind.
- Complexity of the self-reference problem: Leo concludes by highlighting the profound implications of the self-reference problem, urging individuals to contemplate it deeply. He believes that an exploration of this paradoxical issue could advance our understanding of reality and challenge our acceptance of assumed divisions between mind and reality prevalent in current scientific and philosophical discourse.
- The Problem with Dualistic Paradigms in Understanding Reality: Leo Gura highlights that science and philosophy often operate on a dualistic paradigm where it is assumed there is a mind and an 'other' to the mind. This leads to challenges when trying to define or understand reality, as we only have our minds to rely on to frame our understanding, essentially having the 'hand trying to grasp itself'.
- The Limitations of Knowledge in Understanding Reality: Leo argues that mind can realize its limitations in understanding itself but that it exists as part of a greater, infinite reality. This implies that answers to deep philosophical questions don't exist at the level of formal knowledge, but at the level of direct experience and being. Knowing the finite self is impossible, but understanding the self as a whole is possible through the realization of 'being'.
- The Paradox of Knowing: Leo highlights the paradox of knowing, stating that the highest form of knowing is actually not knowing. This is because knowledge is a subset of the infinite scope of reality, and thus cannot capture the entirety of it. Yet, at a more primordial level - that of being - not knowing becomes a platform for understanding because it accepts the limitations of knowledge in the face of infinite reality.
- Self-Reference as a Means to Self-Destruction: Leo introduces the concept of self-reference as the ultimate act of self-destruction, further emphasizing the limitations of self-knowledge. When a finite self-definition, such as science, religion or mathematics is allowed to self-reflect, it becomes so self-aware that it ceases to fit into its own finite definition and self-destructs. This self-annihilation paves the way for the merger of the finite self into the infinite self.
- The Challenge of Reconciling Distinctions: Leo critiques the inherent nature of distinctions in symbolic systems like mathematics and science, which prevents full comprehension of reality. These systems, while trying to understand reality, are creating distinctions within it, establishing finite categories in an otherwise infinite reality. This leads to conflicts like the ongoing struggle of unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity in light of a self-constructed distinction.
- The Importance of Self-Reflection in Understanding Reality: Leo asserts that self-reflection, despite being often feared and avoided in scientific and rational pursuits, is essential when trying to understand reality. Unless scientists and rationalists embrace self-reference and self-reflection, they deprive themselves of an understanding of reality in its entirety. A true understanding of reality is only possible through infinite self-reference and self-reflection, which can only be harnessed through an embrace of the infinite mind.
- Identity problem in science: Scientists often overlook the identity problem within science, or struggle with determining and defining what constitutes science versus non-science or pseudoscience. This distinction is fluid and shifts throughout human history.
- Paradoxes in general views and principles: Various examples of paradoxes are discussed, such as "less is more," "I must be cruel to be kind," and "make money by spending it." These paradoxes often challenge our typical understandings and offer counterintuitive principles.
- Self-reference problem in systems: Self-reference problems are found in symbolic systems like Excel spreadsheets, programming codes, languages, or worldviews. This problem emerges when the system references itself in a way that makes it impossible to resolve, as is the case with a circular reference error in an Excel spreadsheet.
- Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics and Time Travel: Paradoxes can arise in scientific concepts as well, such as the wave-particle duality and retroactive causality in quantum mechanics, and potential consequences of time travel, such as killing your own ancestor.
- Mind-Brain Paradox: The paradox around whether the mind is in the brain or the brain in the mind is presented, challenging the materialistic view. The corollary paradox of whether the mind is in the universe or the universe in the mind is also brought up.
- Ship of Theseus Paradox: The paradox of the ship of Theseus is introduced, questioning when a ship stops being itself when all its parts have been replaced over time.
- Paradoxes inherent to identity: The ship of Theseus and the heap problem demonstrate the paradoxes inherent to the concept of identity. The ship of Theseus question asks if a ship that has had all its parts replaced is still the same ship. The heap problem queries how many grains of sand are needed to form a heap. Similar paradoxes arise when we consider our bodies and our own identities.
- Changes in identity over time: We are constantly changing as we learn, grow, and age. Even within a single conversation or episode, a person can learn new things and change their understanding of an issue. This challenges the notion of fixed identity and personhood.
- The paradox of the magic genie: The paradox of the magic genie creates a glitch when the wisher asks that none of their wishes comes true: if the genie grants this wish, then they are not granting the wish, but if they dont grant the wish, then they are actually fulfilling it. This exemplifies the complexities and contradictions that can occur in granting wishes.
- The paradox of worrying: The paradox of worrying implies that if you are worried, you should not be, and if you are not worried, you should be.
- Paradox of impermanence and tolerance: Nothing is permanent except impermanence is the paradox of impermanence. The paradox of tolerance indicates that absolute tolerance in society could tolerate intolerant people, which could potentially lead to an intolerant society.
- Paradox of absolute freedom: The paradox of absolute freedom suggests that a society that values complete freedom can end up enslaved or under totalitarian control. If regulations were lifted, power and wealth could accumulate unchecked, leading to a mega-corporation that could potentially become an undemocratic government.
- Paradox between the relative and the absolute: Reality involves a paradox between relative and absolute truths, emphasizing the intricate nature of our perception and understanding of the world.
- Paradox of skepticism: Skepticism itself entails a self-referential paradox - if you're skeptical about everything, you should also question your own skepticism.
- Paradox of Skepticism: Leo Gura explains that while skepticism is often used as a tool to question and criticize other ideologies, self-reflection and self-questioning is often missing, limiting its utility in reaching truth. If skepticism questions its own validity, it may self-destruct, but most skeptics don't apply skepticism to their own worldview.
- Paradox within Nihilism: Gura goes on to examine potential paradoxes within nihilism, arguing that authentic nihilists should be indifferent towards their own nihilism. The perception of reality as absolutely meaningless should not incite depression or aggression towards existing institutions, as these responses inadvertently add meaning to the nihilist's reality. The key issue with nihilism, skepticism, and other similar systems is their partial self-awareness, indicating that they are missing full self-understanding.
- Paradox of Post-modernism: There is a paradox inherent in post-modernism as well. While post-modernism tends to equate all perspectives and worldviews, post-modernists often place their perspective above others. Thus, if someone argues that post-modernism is inferior to other perspectives, it contradicts the post-modernist belief.
- Paradox of Language in Derrida's Deconstruction Theory: Gura highlights the paradox carried in Jacques Derrida's deconstruction theory. Derrida tries to demonstrate that all of language is a lie but uses language to communicate it, implying he himself is lying.
- Paradox of Neuroscience: In neuroscience, the paradox is that if human experience is caused by chemicals, then all neuroscience, being part of human experience, is also caused by chemicals and thereby a hallucination. This paradox shows the self-reference problem prominently in neuroscience and materialism.
- Paradox of Logic and Proof: Gura explores paradoxes related to logic and proof. If everything in logic needs to be proven, logic itself isn't provable because proof is a function of logic indicating that acceptance of logic is based on faith. Similarly, the concept of proof is paradoxical because specifying what counts as proof becomes an indefinite process of seeking validation.
- Paradox within Logical Positivism: Gura mentions a paradox within logical positivism, a theory emphasizing empirical evidence as the basis of knowledge. The paradox is that the premise of logical positivism, that knowledge should be based on empirical evidence, is itself not an empirically verifiable statement.
- Leo Gura concludes by emphasizing the importance of deep self-reflection to avoid the self-destruction of various conceptual and philosophical systems due to their inherent paradoxes.
- Limitations of Self-Reflection: Many individuals, especially those invested in certain paradigms like science or logic, avoid self-reflection as it risks collapsing their belief systems.
- Paradox of Selflessness: If someone finds personal joy in being selfless, it can be argued that they're being selfish. This highlights the paradoxical connection between selflessness and selfishness, suggesting that these aren't distinct concepts.
- Paradox of Love: If one aims to love everything, they must also love the things they hate, including their own inability to love. Genuine love involves self-acceptance for all traits and actions, including imperfections.
- Understanding of Reality Through Categories: The human mind creates categories (e.g., good vs. bad, real vs. fantasy) to understand reality. These categories, however, are finite and cannot fully encapsulate the infinite nature of reality. Iconic systems like science inherently fail to grasp ultimate reality due to their reliance on such categories.
- Concept of Infinity and Zero: A fundamental paradox lies in the perceived distinction between infinity and zero, or everything and nothing. In the context of collapsing all distinctions and dualities, infinity and zero, or everything and nothing, become identical.
- Mind as a Strange Loop: The mind is a complex system that seeks to understand its own nature with nothing but itself. This self-referential, paradoxical system leads to the understanding that mind ultimately creates and collapses duality.
- Reality as One versus Many: Any assumption of reality being anything more than one leads to contradictions and paradoxes. Contradictions, though typically shunned in formal systems, are a necessary recourse to grasp true reality.
- Questioning the Negativity of Contradictions: Contradictions are usually seen as problematic; particularly in science, as they threaten formal systems. However, Gura proposes questioning why contradiction is considered a bad thing, suggesting that contradiction might be a key feature of reality.
- The Fear of Infinity in Science: Scientists often fear when infinity occurs in their work because it's unmanageable and impossible to define. However, Gura suggests that rather than being a bug, infinity's emergence is a fundamental feature of reality.
- Reality as Inherently Contradictory: Gura asserts that reality might be fundamentally contradictory, going against the prevailing assumption of a non-contradictory reality. This becomes a critical point of reflection for individuals invested in constructing and maintaining certain systems.
- Finite Systems and Infinity: Leo Gura explains that any attempt to represent infinite reality through a finite formal system results in contradiction or paradox. Like any paradox can act as a gateway or loophole to escape the constraints of the finite system and understand larger reality. He states that any symbolic, linguistic, conceptual system will inherently be dualistic and finite, leading to inevitable self-contradiction when it tries to grasp infinity.
- Deep Epistemic Humility: Leo defends his approach of surrendering the notion that reality can be fully comprehended through any theoretical scheme, calling it deep epistemic humility. He contrasts this with the arrogance of scientists who believe they can fully comprehend reality through theories, arguing that their claims of humility are a ploy to deny their inherent arrogance. He emphasizes that theory should always be subordinate to reality.
- Reality as a Mystery: He posits that reality is fundamentally a mystery, not something that can be entirely known through scientific means. He assertions that reality is endless and unknowable, which is a property of infinity. Contrary to the scientific approach, he advocates collapsing the duality of knowing and being into unity, culminating in non-dual non-symbolic god consciousness.
- Sciences Monopoly and Insufficiency: He criticizes science's desire for a monopoly on truth and denial of validity to other domains outside of science. He explains this behavior as science's insecurity about not being superior or comprehensive. He also claims science resists the deconstruction of its foundation due to apprehension about its entire structure getting destroyed.
- Rational Minds Fear of Paradox: He discusses how the rational mind fears paradox because it threatens the foundation of rationality by demonstrating its limitations. He argues rational minds typically approach paradoxes with a bias towards demystification, without acknowledging the irrational and a-rational facets of the universe. Leo concludes with the paradox of stubborn rationality, where insisting on everything being rational itself becomes irrational.
- Significance of Intuition and Infinite Intelligence in Science and Reasoning: Leo Gura shares several quotes from various authors, thinkers, and philosophers, which highlight the limitations of reason and logic and underscore the significance of intuition and infinite intelligence. These quotes stress that reason, while useful, cannot fully grasp the essence of complex issues, discern the truth, or reach higher levels of consciousness.
- Notable Figures Who Relied on Intuition and Infinite Intelligence: Gura argues that many of the greatest figures in Western intellectual tradition, such as Einstein, Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, Carl Gauss, Niels Bohr, Leonardo da Vinci, Charles Darwin, Nicola Tesla, Kurt Gödel, George Cantor, Ramanujan, relied heavily on their intuition, imagination, and non-linear reasoning to make groundbreaking scientific discoveries and paradigm-shifting contributions.
- Challenging the View of Intellectual Giants as Purely Rational Thinkers: Society often overlooks the mystical intuition behind these intellectual giants' discoveries, rationalizing them as outcomes of strict rational thinking alone. However, figures like Einstein and Ramanujan attest to the significant role of images, feelings, divine revelations, and mystical intuition in their works.
- Encouraging a Trans-rational Perspective Over Strict Rationalism: Gura argues against the firm adherence to a purely rational paradigm. Instead, he suggests the adoption of a trans-rational perspective, which enables individuals to transcend the limitations set by rigid logical and scientific thinking. He emphasizes the potential trans-rational perspective holds for significant leaps in understanding reality.
- Contradictions Contradicting the Assumptions of Science: Despite society's common assumptions about science, Gura asserts that the field was built on mystical leaps of intuition rather than solely rationalism. He argues that the defining discoveries of science were achieved through non-linear forms of reasoning and transcending the rational way of thinking, posing a substantial contradiction to the common perception of science.
- Need for Intuition and Imaginative Thinking in Scientific Exploration: Gura emphasizes the need for intuition, imaginative thinking, and nonlinear reasoning in scientific exploration. He insists that these elements have been instrumental in the groundbreaking discoveries and paradigm shifts made by influential scientists and thinkers. He urges individuals to acknowledge these elements inherent in scientific exploration and reasoning.
- Reality as a Mystery, Not Conquerable by Science Alone: Gura suggests that total reality is fundamentally a mystery and cannot be entirely understood by science alone. Despite sciences' considerable efforts, Gura implies its limitations by stating that trying to know infinity contradicts itself, presenting a paradox.
- Ramanujan's intuitive approach to mathematics: Ramanujan, a deeply religious Hindu, is known as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. He credited his mathematical abilities to divine revelations from his family's goddess, having visions of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes. This intuitive method led to groundbreaking mathematical discoveries and proved his abilities to be superior to many of his colleagues.
- Transcending the rational with the study of paradox: The study of paradox allows individuals to transcend ordinary rational thinking and logic and ascend to higher levels of understanding that are not typically attainable. These paradoxes can challenge existing beliefs about science, logic, rationality, atheism and broaden an individual's worldview. Paradoxes ultimately act as gateways to spirituality and the transcendent, improving our understanding of the ultimate reality.
- The paradoxical nature of reality and God: The concept of God as the creator of itself is described as the ultimate paradox, challenging the typical logical and rational thought processes. This is a profound realization, as it requires acknowledging that the universe could only have originated from itself. This point of view counters scientific thought, which tends to find the idea of self-creation illogical and impossible.
- The paradoxes of infinity and unity: The notions of infinite and absolute unity also present paradoxical situations. For infinity and unity to be complete and all-encompassing, they must also include finiteness and division respectively. This understanding challenges the notion that unity and division, or infiniteness and finiteness, are opposites.
- The limitations of human understanding in comprehending infinity and absolute truth: The human mind's attempts to understand infinity and absolute truth often result in paradoxical situations. This is evident in the attempt to contain the concept of infinity or absolute truth within a finite system such as language or logic, resulting in the paradox of infinity being both paradoxical and non-paradoxical.
- Understanding paradoxes: The purpose of this video section is to explain how individuals can understand paradoxes differently based on their levels of consciousness. Paradoxes, contradictions, and self-reference problems can't be resolved at the level of ordinary mind. They can only be resolved by boosting our consciousness and incorporating dualities into a deep unity.
- Interpretation of Infinity: The concept of infinity is introduced, it is something which refuses to be bound. Paradoxes arise from the attempt to fit infinity into a finite box. While infinity allows for an infinite number of perspectives or boxes (like religions or scientific domains), none of these perspectives can capture the entirety of infinity.
- Consequences of speaking absolute truth: Speaking absolute truth results in it sounding paradoxical or contradictory. The act of trying to contain absolute truth in equations, minds, or languages leads to all these systems breaking, not because absolute truth isn't real but because it exceeds the limits of these systems.
- Paradoxes and mapping: The analogy of the Mercator projection is used to explain this clash between absolute truth and finite attempts of defining it. Just as the Mercator map distorts the reality of the globe's dimensionality, our thoughts and explanations about absolute infinity or god are oversimplified projections of the true thing.
- Imperfections of projections: Our speech, thoughts and models about absolute truth are imperfect projections that can't accurately represent the absolute truth. This includes religious teachings and spiritual philosophies, they are all providing an oversimplified version of the actual truth. Leo Gura is highlighting that having the awareness of these limitations of teachings is crucial in understanding the actual truth.
- False notion of reality being paradoxical: Lastly, Leo explains the paradox of infinity saying that it is both paradoxical and not paradoxical. He mentions that the ultimate reality is not paradoxical rather it's infinitely conscious of itself and contradictions only come up when we try to fit infinity into finite systems. The real paradox of infinity is that it is both paradoxical and non-paradoxical.
- Infinite contemplation: Ultimately Leo suggests spending some time contemplating on the infinite truth to improve understanding; however, he also advises that what he says should not be taken as absolute truth, rather something that is relative and only true assuming a certain point of view. All of this requires a lot of contemplation and understanding from a higher level of consciousness to truly comprehend these concepts.