Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Novac08 said:

Curious where you land on this.

A second axis has its utility. I don't want to reduce reality to any single-axis model.

But the 2-axis model sometimes obscures that Nazis/Hitler was fundamentally conservative.

Regarding Stalin and Mao, the issue there is complicated. The issue is that leftist ideals can be worn as wolves in sheeps clothing.

There is a deep asymmetry between embodiment of left vs right. It's much easier to embody the right because it purely serves survival whereas left ideals are utopian. Therefore, many power-hungry people can cloak themselves in leftist ideals without the ability to embody it. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ghaddafi, and pretty much all 20th century leftist revolutionaries used leftist ideals to grab power but then since those ideals were totally beyond the development level of their societies, they turned into classic power hierarchies. The key is that power was never actually shared, it was brutally consolidated -- which is actually a conservative way of governance. When left ideals fails conservative reality rules.

What matters is not the words they say but whether they actually share power with the weak. If power is not shared then it's just bullshit and effectively conservative.

Stalin can say he was a leftist, but he didn't have the development level to be actually be a leftist.

Being a true leftist is way harder than being a rightie. That's the rub that right-wingers do not understand.

When shit hits the fan everyone acts like a selfish animal, no matter how left their ideals are. Being truly left requires surrendering yourself, which only sages can do.

So the load in my view is not carried by one axis but also by distingushing ideological rhetoric from developmental embodiment.

There is the selfish vs selfless axis which transcends politics.

Edited June 3 by Leo Gura

[Novac08]

@Leo Gura

I keep circling back to the same snag: if every time a leader grabs all the levers we call it “conservative,” the word ends up meaning nothing but “authoritarian.” Lenin blows up monasteries, Mao melts temple bells, Pol Pot bans the calendar—none of that is conserving an old order; it’s bulldozing it to build a brand-new hierarchy.

What drops out of view is the everyday motive to keep fragile inheritances alive. Spend an afternoon in parts of Andalusia, a Mexican pueblo mágico, Kyoto’s old streets, or Istanbul’s historic quarters and you can feel the beauty and wisdom of tradition: not just the buildings, but the recipes, dances, dialects, poems, music, church liturgies—even the traditional understandings of family and gender that knit a place together. When those start disappearing, many people defend them not because they crave domination but because life without them feels thin.

You collect old African masks. Even if you can’t trace each one to its exact workshop, you sense they carry something old andmeaningful. If a government plan bulldozed every mask-maker’s stall for a generic food court, I doubt you’d shrug. Maybe that reflex is “conservative,” but it isn’t the same as seizing the radio tower and jailing the opposition.

Out of curiosity, can you point to a movement that stayed egalitarian, liberal, and genuinely self-sacrificing all the way through? Scandinavia comes closest to me—yet even there the model rests on deep Lutheran ethics and a tight-knit national story. Now that large-scale immigration is testing those shared habits, the region is wrestling with illiberal currents of its own. That seems to confirm the point: the liberal framework worked while it was anchored in a culture someone first had to conserve.

I’m still not convinced that power consolidation automatically equals “conservative,” but I’m open to the example that will change my mind.

[Daniel Balan]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Daniel Balan Cheers!

Don't use my insights to hate others.

Thanks.

I'm not hating them per se, like thinking of doing them harm, not at all, I wish that all conservatives could evolve one day, but their overall behaviour drives me mad when I have to deal with them, I just can't comprehend that such levels of devilry are possible!  When I encounter leftists, I smile with compassion, even though their actions are often stupid, but I think in my mind, look this soul with all the imperfections of his actions, at least cares to make the world better for others! While when I encounter conservatives I'm blown away by their amount of devilry and selfishness, which they do, consciously, on their own volition, to enhance their survival as hard as possible at the expense of others

Edited June 3 by Daniel Balan

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Novac08 said:

@Leo Gura

I keep circling back to the same snag: if every time a leader grabs all the levers we call it “conservative,” the word ends up meaning nothing but “authoritarian.”

It would be a mistake to perfectly equate conservative with authoritarian.

Conservative also requires preservation of traditional identity.

Yes, there can be leftist authoritarianism. A good example of that is the atheism of Communism.

We don't want to make the mistake of saying that by definition no true leftist can be bad or wrong. That is the no-true-scotsman fallacy.

Quote

What drops out of view is the everyday motive to keep fragile inheritances alive. Spend an afternoon in parts of Andalusia, a Mexican pueblo mágico, Kyoto’s old streets, or Istanbul’s historic quarters and you can feel the beauty and wisdom of tradition: not just the buildings, but the recipes, dances, dialects, poems, music, church liturgies—even the traditional understandings of family and gender that knit a place together. When those start disappearing, many people defend them not because they crave domination but because life without them feels thin.

You are right that there is more to preservation of tradition than merely domination. Tradition is laced with evil but it is never 100% evil.

Quote

You collect old African masks. Even if you can’t trace each one to its exact workshop, you sense they carry something old andmeaningful. If a government plan bulldozed every mask-maker’s stall for a generic food court, I doubt you’d shrug. 

Well, masks are an apolitical tradition.

Much of tradition is apolitical. Fireworks on New Years is apolitical.

You have to look specifically at traditions that affect distribution of power, like forcing women to wear burkas.

Quote

Out of curiosity, can you point to a movement that stayed egalitarian, liberal, and genuinely self-sacrificing all the way through? 

Perhaps American Civil Rights movement under MLK Jr.

Perhaps Gandhi's Indian independence movement.

Certain religous traditions or orders. Maybe Jainism or Buddhism. Although they still have some hierarchy and can be quite conservative.

The US founding fathers and the US Constitution.

Perhaps Sadguru's Isha Foundation.

No political movement is perfect. There is always corruption.

Edited June 3 by Leo Gura

[Novac08]

I’m happy we agree that conserving identity isn’t the same as asserting raw dominance.

I also don’t think any living culture can stay wholly ‘apolitical’; it coasts for a bit, like a car rolling after the gas is cut, but eventually it needs public choices to stay alive.

Thanks for the exchange—gave me plenty to chew on.

 

[Davino]

Quote

Political worldview hinges on this one question: How should power be distributed?

I'll contemplate this question for the next decade.

 

This blog post about Power Inequality is reaching a very serious, holistic and nuanced threshold. I have the intuition that if you keep pushing there's gonna be a breakthrough in your understanding and a precipitation of insights into your mind as politics, psychology and spirituality interconnect into a macro understanding of human nature. It's giving me T3 vibes, the across the board application is truly remarkable. 

[Davino]

Quote

Science is like a child and the mind is like a pedophile luring it into its white van with candy.

Savage

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, Davino said:

I have the intuition that if you keep pushing there's gonna be a breakthrough in your understanding and a precipitation of insights into your mind as politics, psychology and spirituality interconnect into a macro understanding of human nature.

Yup. That happened for me last year. I still have yet to release videos about it. I'm giving you guys some previews via the blog.

[Daniel Balan]

Actualized quotes 200! Congratulations @Leo Gura, you have officially entered Stage Coral! Stage Turquoise is characterized by its collectivist and communal undertone! And you have trasncended that! For you the pendulum swung from the colective centred worldview to the individualistic centred worldview! Nice to see that Actualized.org is the first stage Coral life teacher! Thank you for creating this!

[Majed]

@Leo Gura

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are right that there is more to preservation of tradition than merely domination. Tradition is laced with evil but it is never 100% evil.

Yeah this is what i thought when reading the blog post. When it comes to the example of veganism that you gave, traditions ensure culinary diversity and abundance of recipes, tastes, and textures, not just the slaughtering of innocent animals, even if that comes as a result of that. Which one is more important from civilization's point of view? the preservation of culinary diversity and traditions or fairness to animals, that's a complete relative matter, each individual will respond differently, but for now from civilization's point of view, culinary diversity and traditions are way more important otherwise we would get half of our foods taken away from us, which is just disastrous of a consequence from our traditions, cultures, taste buds and culinary refinement point of view. Inherently veganism as it currently is, treats traditions and culinary refinement and experiences with barbarism, which just doesn't work. For veganism to be effective new technologies have to be invented, to preserve our cultures and at the same time ensure animal equality and fairness. 

Edited June 3 by Majed

[Rafael Thundercat]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It would be a mistake to perfectly equate conservative with authoritarian.

Conservative also requires preservation of traditional identity.

@Leo Gura 

One example of this is with indigenous tribes in amazon jungle. Their elders, the ones who carry the wisdom of the plants and the chants they chant for plant medicine work hard to keep the tradition and stories going on to the next generation. When portuguese Jesuits came to Brasil their where forced to learn portuguese,learn to adore Jesus and the practices with ayahuasca were consider devil worship and forbiden. In this case today we still have oportunity to learn with this people due to the effort of some of them who for centuries run to the middle of the forest and resisted to be domesticated by the conquistadors. 

Imagine some authority would come to you and tell you to edit all your content? Would you be Conservative? Of more flex and try to adapt and accomodate?

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Imagine some authority would come to you and tell you to edit all your content? Would you be Conservative?

A better analogy would be if some smart person came along and pointed out all the aspects of my content that harms or exploits people.

But I admit, I would still be conservative since that is no easy thing to admit to oneself.

I understand why people cling to their old ways. We all do to some extent. That's survival.

Edited June 3 by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

On the last post about Reality cant be defined.

Amazing that today I was talking with a friend about this. He was trying to explain to me that we become to attached to words and concepts about reality when for example flower in itself goes beyond the mere definition "flower"

Then to exemplify it he asked me if I knew about Hellen Keller, and told me about her experience with water and the first time she made a connection that the words her teacher use to write in her hand "tacticle sense" as water ,was about that experience of something wet that she use to slash her face. Before that she was just direct experiencing water with no descriptions.

This guy is rigth now in a ayahuasca ceremony hehe. I decided not to go because is a cold weather and the room they will do it is not confortable. 

Back to Helen Keller: i used Claude for some clarity: 

Helen Keller's life offers profound insights into fundamental questions about consciousness, reality, and human nature that have captivated philosophers for centuries.

**The Nature of Reality and Perception**

Keller's experience challenges our assumptions about how we construct reality. Living without sight and hearing until age seven, she inhabited a radically different perceptual world, yet developed rich inner experiences and sophisticated thought. This suggests that reality isn't simply "what we perceive" but something we actively construct through whatever channels are available to us. Her famous insight that "the world I see with my fingers is alive, ruddy, and satisfying" points to multiple valid ways of accessing and understanding existence.

**Consciousness Without Traditional Sensory Input**

Perhaps most striking is what Keller reveals about consciousness itself. Before learning language, she had thoughts, emotions, and experiences that she later described as vivid but wordless. This challenges both materialist views that consciousness emerges from sensory input and linguistic theories that thought requires language. Her pre-language consciousness suggests something irreducible about awareness itself - a kind of pure subjectivity that exists independent of our typical cognitive tools.

**The Relationship Between Language and Thought**

Keller's breakthrough moment at the water pump - suddenly grasping that "w-a-t-e-r" referred to the substance flowing over her hand - illuminates how language doesn't just describe reality but fundamentally reshapes it. She described this as the moment she truly became human, suggesting that symbolic thinking might be what distinguishes human consciousness. Yet her rich pre-linguistic experience complicates simple equations between language and thought.

**Embodiment and Transcendence**

Her story raises deep questions about the relationship between mind and body. Despite severe physical limitations, Keller developed extraordinary intellectual and spiritual capacities, becoming a writer, activist, and philosopher. This suggests either that consciousness can transcend physical constraints or that we drastically underestimate the mind's ability to work through alternative pathways. Her life demonstrates that what we consider "normal" human functioning may be just one of many possible ways of being human.

**The Social Construction of Disability**

On a broader level, Keller's achievements force us to question what we consider fundamental human limitations versus socially constructed barriers. Her isolation wasn't inherent to her condition but resulted from lack of communication methods. This has implications for how we think about human potential generally - how much of what we consider impossible is actually just unexplored?

**Interconnectedness and Communication**

Finally, her story reveals something profound about human connection. Despite her isolation, once communication was established, she developed deep relationships and engaged meaningfully with abstract ideas about justice, beauty, and meaning. This suggests that consciousness might be inherently relational - that we become fully human through connection with others, regardless of the specific mechanisms of that connection.

Keller's life ultimately points toward a more expansive understanding of human consciousness and possibility, challenging us to reconsider the boundaries of perception, thought, and what it means to be fully human.

 

[Ulax]

Gg for the exploration of the survival benefits of tradition. 

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

A better analogy would be if some smart person came along and pointed out all the aspects of my content that harms or exploits people.

But I admit, I would still be conservative since that is no easy thing to admit to oneself.

I understand why people cling to their old ways. We all do to some extent. That's survival.

When was the last time someone pointed at something in regards to your politics, spirituality or any other human endeavour and after contemplating with yourself, you realized that you were mistaken and the person that pointed that out was right?

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

When was the last time someone pointed at something in regards to your politics, spirituality or any other human endeavour and after contemplating with yourself, you realized that you were mistaken and the person that pointed that out was right?

I can't recall a specific case, but I am always refining my views based on stuff I see around.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

@Leo Gura

About your blog post on conservatism as a survival strategy, couldn't you argue that the leftist desire for inequality is also based on survival? I think it pretty obviously is, since that's true for everything humans do. The question then becomes what is "being survived" as Peter Ralston says. The right is simple: they want a national identity or group to survive, which ultimately benefits their personal survival. The left is tricky though-- they want equality, but for what purpose? Even if their ideal is universal equality, that ultimately benefits their personal survival and the survival of the society. My thoughts on this right now are that leftism is just a more expansive, higher-level form of survival, but survival nonetheless.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

@Leo Gura
I had an insight that survival is only bad when it is limited. The more limited a thing you want to survive as, the greater the cost of survival is. But the more expansive a survival process becomes, the lower the cost, and the more it is liberated. When you arrive at infinity, it is infinitely surviving, not as any one thing but as everything. That's why demonizing survival is the wrong way to go- survival can't be criticized, it can only be laughed at. It is an aspiration for the infinite disguised in something finite.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

My thoughts on this right now are that leftism is just a more expansive, higher-level form of survival, but survival nonetheless.

Of course.

Leftists ain't angels.

Leftists are diet devils. Conservatives are full caloried devils. 

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

@Leo Gura how do you deal with the frustration of human apathy towards such insights into the limits of science? (Assuming it is frustrating)