zurew

Do you plan to go on a podcast in the future, or you lost your interest to talk with other creators?

I agree with this. Yeah. Maybe he should have convos with people who is similar to Curt Jaimungal , but i don't know how many people are out there who is similar to Curt. The other podcast Leo was on was with the charisma on command guy - Charlie. That was good too, but it wasn't as good as the TOE one.

I don't think deep down Destiny thinks that. He may say that but in some of his videos he was open minded enough after his strong mushroom trips to really question his reality. I think he even said it himself, the he thought it looked much more real than normal reality, and also he said that it was the most interesting and most terrifying experience of his life and that he don't regret anything about having a larger dose of shrooms. Also he pretty much weakened his stance on being absolute certain about materialism. Now on the surface level he act like a materialist but deep down his certainty in worldview has been destroyed years ago (when he had is shroom trip). Who do you think Leo should have a convo or debate with? Destiny or Mrgirl or someone else?

Yeah, the education part should definitely be corrected. Creativity is a big element to it, because in mental health we don't see any "laws" like in physics that would seem really consistent, we mostly have models that are built upon a lot of empirical evidence. So, because of the lack of laws to rely on, it leaves a big room for creativity to how to solve certain problems, and even how to approach them. There is no one way how it could be done, and most likely everyone should find their own therapist and its good that there are different kind of therapists, because one category couldn't fit all, imo. But there should be a system, that can connect people to the right therapists that are most likely will fit them the most.

Cultural change can be achieved, but it really matter who is the target group. When we are talking about having conversations and debates we are trying to target people who are open minded enough to have those, but not yet convinced that certain practices can be powerful also not yet convinced what is spirituality really about and not yet convinced what are the limits of materialism and science. We aren't talking about general lazy people who most likely won't do shit, and have a million other problems to focus on before any spiritual work. We are talking about a target group, where people are open minded enough, and developed enough to deconstruct their worldview and open enough to have conversations about politics, education, and science and about other important topics too. Also we aren't just talk about Leo's spiritual practices and ideas, he has a well rounded work which targets philosophy, science, spirituality, politics, education, economics, sexuality etcetc. He has golden ideas in each of those categories and those could be spread and those could be tested. In my opinion, Leo should represent and spread his own work if he really wants a culture change, otherwise just as what Scholar said, people will consciously or unconsciously misrepresent and misinterpret his work, and all his work will be even more demonized. And people will be left with his mischaracterized work, without Leo defending and explaining his own work. If you want to target general, normal people, then yes, you are right that the approach should be different.

I think these two things are the ones we can do, to have direct impact on people so to achieve cultural change and development Spreading the message having convos and debates Showing an example and trying to embody all the teachings as much as we can

What is a better alternative though, to spread the message? I agree that spreading the message with convos and debates won't be enough for cultural change, but this is one aspect that we can have direct impact on. We can't really force people to do the practices, but we can bring the knowledge what to do, why and how and for what reasons. Also we can point out, or Leo can point out the pitfalls of this work, because of course there are many, and i think many of us can fall into one at a time.

I meant opening up some hardcore materialist people mind is a really tough challenge. If it would be easy, we wouldn't be here culturally where we are at now and science wouldn't be at a place where it is now. But i agree that in some cases, the changing of peception doesn't seem hard, but in the vast majority of cases make people to awaken is really hard. Opening up some people's mind who is materialistic but open minded enough to have conversations about God and about spirituality, and about the deconstruction of science is a good idea, imo.

Are you talking about this one?

I didn't mean that way. I meant to really know what Leo is talking about can only be known through direct experience. Also i think @Scholar is right. If we can target the right audience with certain ideas and spiritual practices it can be spread. Spreading ideas is necessary for cultural changes. Without people knowing about these ideas and practices properly they won't even start their journey. Even if he won't engage in debates, Leo could use friendly conversations to spread some of his ideas. There are people who are open minded enough to have these convos, they just need to be found. Look at the Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal. That one was great, and i think that targeting was really good, because Curt was open minded to have a convo with Leo. Specifically targeting a group of people who are developed and open minded enough to have certain conversations or debates about Leo's ideas can fasten up cultural change, because those people can spread the ideas in their own way further. I am mostly talking about conversations where Leo could talk about how certain practices and methods could be used and why should people do them. For example talking a lot about psychedelics and meditation and yoga and contemplation. Talking about all the facts and all the good points how they can change one's life, how can you use them to deconstruct your own worldview, why you should deconstruct your worldview etc. ---> this way more people could start doing those practices and eventually opening their mind up for spirituality even more and spread the importance of those practices even further to other people.

Nope, i was more focused on the majority of people, not the minority. Firstly i assumed, that you thought the same way, but now i see, that your point is to target the minority. I can agree with that, and i can see how those people could change their mind listening to some debates. But what is the audience we want to specifically target, and with what kind of teachings ( simply those who we assume are open minded enough?) You mentioned that Leo don't necessarily need to start with the most advanced ones, so where do you think Leo should start, he should start at Dismantling materialism? Do you think the start should be sort of like idealism vs materialism or Leo should jump into awakening vs materialism? I think its possible to do it, but he will need a lot of time to prepare for some questions to be able to defend his side properly (he could do a thread where we brainstorm for most of the questions that can come up in a debate and find ways to deconstruct them and defend some of them). But if one of his main goals is to make more people open to his ideas, then yeah he should do it. I think you are right, i think that changing (or at least open up) some materialist minded people's mind (whose mind already open enough to have conversations about it or debates) using debates is necessary not just possible. The only other way i see, is using psychedelics, but we would need to wait for them to become legal and accessible for every people, so until then debates could be used. Or both tools could be used for adequate efficiency. Those scientist who will be convinced could advocate and spread Leo's ideas further into the institutions. Of course firstly it will be viewed as an ideology but that part can't really be jumped over it is part of the process probably. Also you are right, the negatives i mentioned before can't really be dodged, because it will happen anyway regardless if Leo will have convos or debates or not. So at the end of the day defending and presenting his ideas in an adequate way should be good and beneficial.

I think, that the point is not to make trauma therapy generalised, but to make a system that can correctly recognize the root problems. There should be a system made, which is more holistic and taking into account a lot of stuff in order to recognize where the problems are coming from, once the problem is correctly recognized, the solution is 50% on its way. And i also agree with you, that there are aspects to this problem that can't be solved by any therapy but must be solved on a systemic level (in politics, and in economics and in education etc)

Of course there are people, who's viewpoint can be changed but those people are the minority. The vast majority of people, are not at all open minded. If you want to target a small minority of people, thats fine i can agree with that. But we should be clear who is our target and make a specific plan how to do it. But i still think that converting stage blue/orange society to stage green would be a better goal. Destiny is a good example, but not a fair comparison in my opinion. We are not talking about people changing their political views we literally talking about people changing how they view themselves and life overall in general. In this case its a much much tougher challenge to do and a much bigger change required on their end. Also to understand Leo's concepts you need to be at a much higher level of development already compared to convert some people's political views. How many debates are we talking about here, because Leo would need to start at rock bottom. He would need to debate with one person for hundreds of hours to get to a point where they can somewhat understand what Leo is trying to say. Most debates would consist of a lot of strawman arguments, because the other side would not even understand what he/she is disagreeing about. There would be so much misunderstanding and strawman arguments that psychedelics and Leo's teachings would be even more demonized than it is now. The problem im having with your idea about this is that i don't think its realistic. Because the culture change you were talking about in your examples (for example in the vegan example) is like a 1-2 level jump, when we are talking about Leo's ideas is like going from level 1 to level 50 or level 100. I know some christian people who are really fucking good at debating ,and they probably win most debates against atheist people but i still don't see those atheists converting into being christians (even though those atheists were familiar with the christian concepts, then imagine if you are not even familiar with the other side even on a conceptual level). Surface level ideas can be debated but really core ideas are a different story. So basically at the end of the day, you believe that more people can be more convinced than being pushed away from Leo's work. I just don't think this society is ready to hear and to process these advanced concepts. Even most Leo's viewers are not ready, how do we expect random people to be ready for it? I mention again, its either a systematic approach where we slowly targeting each stages with a proper plan and helping them to climb or somehow making psychedelics more mainstream and teaching how to use psychedelics properly or both. Or if you want to target a small minority, than we should be clear about who is our target.

Those people who are really stuck in their paradigm, doesn't seem to be open for changing their view on things with just debating. Even if Leo would win all the debates most will just get even more defensive imo. Just look at the comments below the "Deconstructing The Myth Of Science" videos. Those who are hardcore materialist minded were really defensive, and other people who was already open to other possiblities or those who hated materialist people, those were the ones, who praised his video. I think making the 'awaken using psychedelics' approach more mainstream seems the most effective way to me to convert these people. Other approach could be to make a detailed plan for each stage to help them to climb up. But that of course much much slower and needs even more planning than the first idea. The other ploblem i have with this idea to debate with people about this or to have conversations about people, is that they will misunderstand most of these ideas regardless who is communicating it. Leo is very good at teaching ideas and breaking down concepts, but still, most people will misunderstand it. Just look at this forum how much question is about solipsism and God and stuff like that. Those who wached 100s of hours of Leo's content about spirtuality and God they still misunderstand some stuff. So the proper knowledge can only be given through direct, subjective experience.

Yeah, i agree. Its all in one package. We need more individual responsibility, but we also need to work on the systemic issues part too. Ideally, we would want a society where most people are okay on their own, but if they need help, they should be able to get it without much friction.

For anyone to have enough money to go to a therapist for several weeks or month you need to have a lot of money stacked up. Most people can't afford a psychologist nor a psychiatrists even though they are working somewhere. Its a systemic problem, you try to make these problems way too simplistic. Also you don't take into account those people with severe mental health issues, who can't work that much or can't work at all, and i could list other examples too, where "just find ways to make money" won't work. We are talking about mostly poor people. Why do you think, that people who can't afford therapy are the ones who need it the most? Just because they don't have what it takes to earn enough money to go to a therapist, or we can find some stuff systematically? Good luck with getting your life ready, when you don't have any motivation, you have several mental problems, and you are depressed as hell. This advice is okay for people who are not clinically depressed. But for people who have severe mental problems this won't work. In some cases you need to solve the mental health issues part first, and then you can be able to do and get your other basics ready. Proper mental health is essential to get your basics handled. Also we are talking about mostly people who don't have the capability to get their basics handled on their own yet, without outside help. For countries that don't have that already in place ,sure. But those countries who have that already, they should implement it and focus on mental health too. Because nowadays you can clearly see the growing number of mental issues, and the growing number of suicides You seem to focus only on the individual responsibility part, which of course is important, but we can't forget about the systemic problems.

Yeah its interesting to see, that in most European countries we have a Health insurance but that only covers physical issues mostly, and leaving out the mental health aspects which is just as much important. I don't think they should charge less, but i agree with the public funding idea. If that mental health professional is good and well trained and suitable for their job, he/she should get their money. Basically they are mental doctors, and when we are talking about doctors, we know, that all doctors generally earn a very high income. The reason why public funding or why government funding would be really good, is beacause low income people (which are mostly needed for mental health therapy) could access therapy more easier, and the second point is that psychologists and psychiatrists life and income wouldn't depend on the toxic dynamic where they need more and more mentally unwell people to get their money, they could get it automatically from government as a yearly or monthly income. With the monthly or yearly income solution we can solve some problems that you mentioned above, the "dragging out as much hours as they possibly can, without saying anything or without really working on your problems" and the "low income people can't access therapy" problem. Also other big problem you probably already recognised, that it lacks a holistic approach. If we take depression as an example , we can know, that it can stem from 1000 different things and sometimes it can't be find in the mind, but for example coming from having a really bad diet or bad genetics or whatever. Finding out what the root of the problem should be done in a more better way, but as you have said, therapists are not incentivised to do so, they are incentivised to exploit money from the patients.

If thats the main goal, thats going to be really really tough. I assume you would specifically target everyone with psychedelics and making 'awakening with psychedelics' more mainstream. Do you work on a plan for each stage, or you more like working on a grand plan ,which can be applied for most people? But one other thing that would also be really hard and tough and also cool to do is to really convert hardcore materialist minded people, who is not even open enough to the possibility that they could be wrong like Neil deGrasse Tyson type of people and convert them to at least stage green level. If those people would be converted, that would have a very large effect on all society.

So the goal is to convert hardcore stage orange to stage green? Or more like targeting hardcore scientist and materialist minded people, deconstructing their worldview and converting them into a person who is much more open minded?

Have you seen the movie called Arrival? Its kind of related to this topic. The aliens there, communicating with visuals. Also psychedelic trips inlcuding a lot of visuals, and through the visuals we can get compact and complex messages.

@Rokazulu Thanks. Will check it out.

@Rokazulu Can you point out any existing platform or place, where your system kind of already in place, or there isn't any yet?

This is a very significant study. More such studies should be made with larger samples (But i know its hard to make such studies especially with young children). This process could be the first step to select those kids out who is likely to be transgender not just pretending to be one. Then after they go through that long 5 year process if they still indentified with being trans, then they could go through other processes before any surgery or hormone blockers just as Vaush said: They would had to talk to a psychiatrist, and they would have to go through an additional level of scrutiny from medical professionals.

Most people lack time. They don't have the time nor the desire to look through every post rigorously carefully to decide if it is banworthy or not. Its a full time job to do this its not easy at all, also what most people are lacking is the ablility to analyze things as unbiased as they possibly can. So why moderators are better for moderating? Because they can do this full time, they have all the time in their hands, and in an ideal society they could be trained for the job ( they could be taught philosophy and how bias works, they could be taught to be multiperspectival and how interpreation works and they can learn all the nuances of the guidelines which most people don't know or misinterpret) they aren't trained yet for the things i mentioned, but its much more easier to train up moderators than to suddenly train all society. Also i don't even know how your approach would work in practice. Lets say there is a platform with 10 million users. Lets say there is 3 million people who wants to ban a person called X. How this would work in practice? THey wouldn't be able to ban this X named people because less than 50% of the platform is voting for the ban and all the other people are not engaging in the voting? The same question arises with an unban. How can democracy work if not all people are engaging, and what is a time limit you can have to engage to vote? Imagine there is a 1000 different ban reccomendation in a week ( of course in a large platform there is much much more) so do you really think, that all the members who are voting would rigorously looking thorugh all those 1000 people's posts, analyzing deeply what they did and in what context and they have enough time on their hand? You still haven't made any argument in favour of your idea. You just tried to argue why mine is bad. plus, i don't see how your approach would be any different from reddit. We know very well how reddit dynamics work, and i wouldn't call that ideal nor fair. Your idea is not more fair, because of the arguements i made above (people don't have enough capability nor enough time to be good moderators themselves) and again it would just open of more negative dynamics (like large groups using their power) In this case, who will make that large group accountable, if the owner has almost no say? How can you hold a group accountable? Its much more easier to hold an owner or a handful of people accountable for their policies and also for their actions. Why would that owner be obligated to give a platform for society if its negative for him/her at the end of the day. You need to balance both sides out.

Yes, its a total gamble what is currently occuring with the NFT "market". The biggest problem with it that it is super volatile and don't have any inherent value to it. What determines an NFT's price? Basically the owner and nothing else. We can't even say that the market has its own effect on a particular NFT price, because every NFT is unique by definition. I think the current use of NFT's are really bad, but they have potential to be used in the future. They could be used to verify that you have this x y z property to your name. This property could be physical or not physical, but the NFT part would only be used to prove , that that particular thing is yours and unique to you. Imagine if you would buy anything lets be it physical or something online, when you purchase that thing you automatically get it with an added NFT to it. In this cases the NFT part would only be used to prove that the purchased thing is yours. Currently we have solutions how to prove what physical property is yours or not, but it involves a lot of work and papers. What if you lose your papers or receipts? You cwouldn't be able to prove that the property is yours ( There are cases of course when you can prove it because its being saved in a database, but there are cases when they don't save it in any database). It could be simplified with NFT's and if we are talking about online stuff, now there would be especially useful to use NFT's to prove that whatever thing you bought online is yours.