Thought Art

@Leo Gura We can contemplate conformity more but you can also admit their is layers to this. And, you said there was no evidence for these things in the green health post, did you not? We ask these questions because in the space of conformity as you provide example with commentary we need to make a distinction between what exactly the kind of conformity that is happening. It was unclear if you were for example labelling Wim Hoff conformity but also debunking its legitimacy by how you worded this recent blog post. That’s partly on you. A tied pod is one thing. A health trend is another. Pretty much every diet trend is a form of conformity is a good example. Perhaps there is lower and higher levels of conformity. Likely true at different levels of education and ego development. It seems apparent to me there are kinds of conformity, and things that can be conformity but aren’t always depending on the consciousness brought in. Enough for me today. Thanks for speaking with me a lot the last little bit. Stay well Leo. …. I would say conformity is a form of monkey see monkey do. It’s forming a social identity, or a habit or behaviour through osmosis of one’s culture. It is a survival mechanism that is largely unconscious. It is a form of heuristic for survival in a complex reality. It is a form of collective ego. Conformity is when someone identifies with, does, says, acts, etc in a mechanistic way through osmosis influence of their culture…. It’s a form of fitting in, being current, a limited form of truth seeking or defending. Okay, that’s my rough personal definition.

@Leo Gura Good example. It was ONE time okay? Jk 67

@Leo Gura It’s hard to tell what you mean. You say things like “no evidence” “people would shove pepper up their ass”, etc It’s hard to make a distinction what you mean sometimes. Like, are you saying each of these things has no actually evidence and everyone is stupid or are you saying people generally conform to these health trends like machines. Your crass approach is confusing sometimes…

@Leo Gura Leo sassy AF these days sheeesh 😂

However, try taking anyone conforming to a health trend to be more open minded, holistic, ask serious questions about their conclusions, why they are doing what they are doing, etc… yeah, I’ve met conformist Wim Hoff, conformist Vipassana, etc I love Qigong practice and have thousands of hours of practice and direct observation. But I find it cringe to see why people dressed in Chinese gown doing Qigong. It’s so cringe. I endure cringe when studying fields to mind the gold.

Some of the green health trends you list do have studies behind them. Not everyone doing those things is a blind retard just doing monkey see monkey do. I think there is conformity in those trends. But, there is health benefits some of these things and studies behind them. Acupressure is making a big difference for me. My studying of it for example has required me overcoming a lot of internal resistance, and focusing on doing it with open mindedness and curiosity. I feel amazing after a cold dip. I love breathing exercises. I love exercise and fitness. Those things make me feel good. I enjoy eating healthy. incense and natural oils, though I don’t buy all claims do bring sense of peace and beauty to my life… I know like you said not all things are absolute conformity if they are done largely by conformity. I grant you a point made. But, I also push back to allow me to make my own decision regarding X. “Leo smart, everyone dumb”. NOTE: Don’t fall into the meta trap of conforming to Leo’s opinions, conclusion or way of thinking. That’s a trap.

@Leo Gura And your own too.

@Leo Gura No hate here. Just asking, while restating your own words and offering appreciation.

This is a demo of a song. I’m gonna make the next demo this week as an experiment recording a demo in my op1 so it will have drums, and maybe a synth.

@Leo Gura That’s all fine. But you made a very clear, strong promise about the timeline. So I asked. Now you are backing off which is why I asked because I know you now in this regard. I appreciate the work you do and I’ll watch it when it comes out. But, consider not making those promises if you know this about yourself and your work and what it may take to ensure quality At least I interpreted the promise of a full series by end of this month with one episode every 2 weeks. I say this with humility that you are the only one making this content and with appreciation.

@Leo Gura Hi Leo, With respect you promised me something in the video about your timeline. I just was wondering if you were going to follow it. You did not answer my question. That is up to you. I’ll watch it when you release it. Have a good day hope you are well. Art

A none answer. All good

@Leo Gura Like you said if someone is intellectually dishonest you don’t listen to them

@danniel Looks great!

The 100 million dollar series by Alex Hormozi, The Code of the Extraordinary Mind by Vishen laikhiani, and High Performance Habits by Brendon Burchard. Also, The personal MBA by John Kaufman is a great book.

Leo are you sticking to your production schedule as promised with this series? @Leo Gura

A song demo!

Rude

Song demo: Waiting

Something I’ve noticed is that to understand Jordan Peterson speaking to these individuals is very complex, requires deep levels of consciousness, epistemology, patience, capacity for recontextualization, empathy, and not assuming to understand Jordan Peterson. We have to put the whole conversation IN the context of human survival, development, history, brain types, etc. it’s a very complex situation which I think is useful to watch these videos if you want to grow yourself. He has a rock solid sense of the brutality and seriousness of these ideas which the people he speaks to do not. He is battling egos, assumptions, limited perspectives, youth, logic, etc He sees religion in the context of actual human existence and survival which I think is important. Someone like Rationality Rules actually isn’t a serious person and therefore his philosophy is shit. It’s shit because he doesn’t see how stupid he is, how foolishness his framing toward these topics is, and he is corrupt because he has no foundation that Truth is the highest value…. or the seriousness of proper epistemology and its consequences on survival. His use of rational tools, does not make up for his stupidity.

Meta rationality and infinite perspective IS fundamental in proper governance. Truth IS fundamental to proper governance. I have a perspective that is so powerful, it may take me years to implement, grow, flesh out, etc.

I intuitively know what a woman is. I feel like you don't need to be a genius to know what it is, and Greek Skepticism comes into play with common sense. But, I admit as we explore it very deeply through philosophy and ontology It's hard to define what a woman is. But, I know a women when my see one by using my penis (natural intuition). I know a woman through being a man. But, I also know that everyone is undefinable and a mystery. Yet, it's knowable at the same time. I know my mother is a woman, or my girlfriend is. I know a human vs a dog. I can know what something is, but not know what it is.

@Leo Gura I then went and watched about half of the Jubilee event. It clearly shows the limitations of everyone’s understanding of rationality, debates, and models, maps, etc for speaking about God. No one (even Peterson) has the proper epistemic foundation to discuss God, science, etc. One of the core issues was no one made a distinction between absolute and relative truth, the limits of symbols, or even a solid definition of what God…. Or any of the terms used for that matter. The entire conversation gets essentially nowhere. Peterson is right about God. But, he also is wrong about a lot of things, right about a lot of things and he doesn’t stick to strict use of language or words. He does have a grasp of language and the content of which he speaks. But, is not given the chance to fully explore. Even then, he lacks the direct consciousness and knowing. Though, his intuition is very good. He makes good distinctions but his mind blows like the wind and it’s impossible for him to hold a place at times which makes it hard for the two people to explore the conversation from a well rooted foundation. He made a very good point about how science can't be used to explain morality because human morality existed pre-science. Which is very subtle, but he got blown away like the wind before he could explain it and clearly layout the distinction that science is is a cognitive framework and philophical system used to explain what is there, but it not reality itself. As animals develop morality without science something else is developing the morality, ie evolution and universal Will, which I think Peterson is defining as God. This being said, I myself am developing my own understanding of these matters. I am given through your work and my own contemplations, trips, etc a good foundation to work on. I struggle to understand my recent trip. Because my sense making mind tells stories and it’s hard to know which is true or false. The altered state and direct consciousness and my recollection of previous trips makes me being, my reading sacred texts, your work, my own conclusions since I was a kid makes me being God a very obvious truth. But, I know there is deeper truth to be grasped and understood here. It terrifies me to know the truth as the altered state is profound and kills me. But, I should be responsible to get to the truth, and to practice pure philosophy. The Rationality Rules guy is simply wrong, and extremely sloppy in his use of rationality and his application of logical fallacies toward Jordan Peterson and likely in general. He is focused on debating, proving wrong, fighting against, pointing out technical flaws based on arbitrary logical systems which he applies without solid foundation that that is the truest way of applying that piece of logic’s Though, I do think Jordan has logical fallacies too. I can’t fully articulate it all. The reality is extremely complex and full of wrongness coming from everyone involved. No one is really that close to the truth as all have the wrong epistemic foundations. The format is fundamentally flawed for truth seeking but does act as good material for understanding the limits of conversations, differing views, arguments, limits of rationality, poor rational arguments, the issues of lacking truth as a direct experience, poor understanding of God, science and religion that exists among all participants and society at large.

This rationality rules guy can’t see the limits of his rationality. It’s amazing to listen to. Bias plays a huge role into how he himself rationalizes but he ignores that. He actively postures and creates rules which, aren’t inherent to conversation, words, etc. He conveniently ignores things Peterson says and it’s very interesting to contemplate. A Socratic conversation is far more powerful than a debate.