Thought Art

@Leo Gura At the end he also claims she: 1. Is doing harm and a disservice to humanity. But, from my brief research, familiarity with her via Brendon Burchard who I have grown very fond of and what the core subjects of her books are about she is providing basic self help and psychological comfort to people. People likely benefit as to her popularity. Not just empty, cold calculated love bombing and marketing funny sales copy. She does not, nor does Jay pose as psychologists. Nor do they just flaunt « positive thinking » and « positive affirmation ». That is a straw man. 2. The YouTuber also claims she makes people less resilient to to the stress and challenges of daily living. How? He never explained that just finished with th claim after framing her in a demonizing light. Could you find example of gross stage orange behaviour etc? I’m of course open to that possibility. This video however is not a good example. Be careful lacking nuance I think, when we judge the character of others that can easily be smudged by negative framing and being well spoken as is this YouTuber. I am open to being wrong. But, I suspect this YouTuber is actually wrong, or at least not entirely correct, and likely is framing this with a negative bias. He, to me interpreted the things said by those in the video different from me, attributing falseness, fakeness, pure manipulation, fake emotions, etc of itch Jay, Mel and the other guest. This to me is not a critique from above.

I won’t explicate all my reasons why but I am pushing back on Leo’s recent post against Mel Robbins. She teaches basic self help intended to motivate and provide some psychological comfort which helps basic people. Her marketing is aligned with her message. And she can love her audience. She can move humanity and people. Can can build a business and profit too. Leo, and this YouTube making the critique love to posture as moral authority but I beckon you to see it for yourself. I really think it’s important not to take Leo’s opinions on everything as true. These YouTubers are convincing and also playing psychological tricks, whether knowingly or not. The guy critiquing Mel has a clear general bias. He makes lots of assumptions and claims to know true intentions which he can’t really. His research is questionable, and his interpretation skills are also questionable. Make your own conclusion. Don’t fall into Leo’s gloom traps. But, focus on discernment, and wisdom development.

I think there are aspects of the Mel Robbins video you shared where I could question his interpretation of interviewee/ interviewer intention and authenticity. Someone could cry tears about others pain, believe in sharing their message and sell books. Someone can sell a book, and care about their audience. You can’t reach lots of people without these marketing tactics. Humans have a psychological structure. Marketing isn’t all bad. Guys, it’s worth listening to Leo I think he has a good eye and understanding of corruption. But, also be wary of him on this. He’s been sharing a lot of negative stuff lately. Can’t be healthy to binge all that. Be wary of those who make their careers shedding shadows on others. I think the guy who did the Mel Robbins/ Jay Shetty espose/ critique even at times misrepresents what Jay is saying. He wasn’t speaking about affirmations around 23 minutes in but the YouTuber making the critique says he was. Odd. Jay Sherry spoke about how attitude and meaning made a menial, and gross job something valuable. No how they used positive affirmation to change their opinion of their job. He didn’t say that changed from low to high. Which makes sense, your attitude shapes how you see your work. Then, at 25:02 the YouTuber shows a quote which he says contradicts what Jay was saying. Which, it doesn’t really, as the point can co-exist that interpersonal and internal perspective can effect how someone gains meaning or value from their work. And, though he didn’t find in his research the exact words the researchers wrote, or what was quoted in law where Jay refered it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The guy has a clear bias as well. Why can’t I find something meaningful? And who is he to say I do or don’t? Who is he to make Jay or Mel, bad actors who don’t care? That seems a bit odd. The sharing and proliferation of information requires marketing and use of psychology. Is that inherently evil?

Human petty bs

@Leo Gura Be sure to have editors.

Trump is also rich, his hands are free to do as he pleases and he is sober.

What matters is what you think 😀

Vape meme

Saws post on Osho but it seems to have disappeared.

I get what you are saying but your brush is too wide.

I wouldn’t consider lady boys trans. Nor are they post modern deconstructists.

Yeah because that is how people with gender dysphoria are approaching their transition. ? Most trans likely aren’t deep post modern thinkers. Maybe they are confused kids or mentally ill? Some could be post modern. But, they likely aren’t all built equal. Your intellect is likely being projecting in these people. Trans does not equal post modern gender idealogy either. Trans would be a particular chapter in the book in that.

Disagree on the trans post. Trans is not a “deconstruction “ but an alternate presentation, and shaking of standards.

Press secretary be like:

Okay but try running a business without some marketing

All in time

Elon Musk May have killed 300,000 people

@Carl-Richard okay thank you for sharing that i was reply to your previous comment. I think others can be perceived by a solipsist without applying space and time. They have a different ontological category for “others” than, they would if they were a materialist. In a dream for example a person speak of a monster they saw. But, the dreamer need not consider space and time because they know it’s a dream. There is no space and time in dreams though it appears that way. A solipsist may just consider an “other” a form of finite division in their infinite mind. Like anything that that would be perceived. I would say solipsists, at least metaphysical, absolute solipsism is not grounding reality in space and time at all. I’m not entirety sure why you think that. Because. It’s all maya. I think, largely the realization of solipsism occurs during God Realization and in states of omnipotence.

@Carl-Richard So, my understanding of maya would that the “other/ other people” is part of maya. Notice how the other people in your life you only know your own awareness. If reality is maya, why wouldn’t other people be included in that maya and not actually exist. You seem to be drawing distinctions where some things are real, like other people, other minds, space and time (all of which you only experience in your mind) which you ground in some form of rationality which is again your own mind. I wonder your thoughts on my interpretation. It doesn’t really make sense that reality would be “consciousness” but to ground your metaphysics in space/ time. There is not really any proof existentially in other minds, space or time. These things exist in consciousness. But, are not existing in and of them selves. They would be aspects if maya.

@Carl-Richard Time and space, are constructs of consciousness? How so you know anything exists outside your experience though? Because people or resources in your experience tell you? You can’t escape the fact that you believe in things outside your experience but have no proof.

@Carl-Richard Explain

@Natasha Tori Maru You disagree that there could be types, or qualities of love?

Click edit and delete it like you would any letter.

@Salvijus Yeah but that’s a finite definition of love or a type of love.

@TruthFreedom Haha, well. The forum is fun but it doesn’t quite wet the social whistle.