Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Daniel Balan]

@Leo Gura Hi! In your blog post https://www.actualized.org/insights/hitler-was-a-conservative. At the end you talk about 

Quote

And yes, as a leftist you’re also not immune from this problem. Your worldview must pass the Communist litmus test. Only if your worldview passes both the Nazi and Communist litmus tests can we even begin to take it seriously.

What is the Communist litmus test? How can I know if I can pass it? Please explain to me how can I take both the Communist and Nazi litmus tests to see if I am able to pass them! Thanks once again for publishing that article on your blog post. One of my all time favorites.

 

Quote

But then why did Hitler name his party the National Socialist (Nazi) party?

I think what Hitler meant by Socialist was the collectivist nature of Stage Blue. He wanted to appeal to all the Stage Blue people. Socialist as favorable to the well oiled machine that is Stage Blue collectivism and power as a group, as a nation. As opposed to Stage Orange individualistic libertarian, not Socialist as favorable to Stage Green egalitarian. Plus he used Socialism to fool the workers! The workers thought that he will cater to their needs. In a way Hitler's first years sought to help the workers by almost reducing completely unemployment. That was a socialistic move in a way! Everyone working for the benefit of the German Nation. I made a forum post a while ago called Hitler's Socialism where I emphasized that the Auto Bahn road network project of Hitler was in deed kind of socialistic but here all of his socialism ends. The workers were brutally exploited and had almost no rights and protections. They were basically Hitler's slaves. His wishes must be fulfilled by the working class. Basically the definition of fascism. The Fuhrer's will, was Germany's constitution! 

Edited June 4, 2025 by Daniel Balan

[Daniel Balan]

I would love if you will ever make a blog post where you compare Nazi and Hitler's worldview and their policies and ideology with the Marxist Communist USSR of Lenin and Stalin. Nazism and Communism of Europe's 20th century ought to be discussed in a way only you can do on your blog. In a way Communism and Nazism are quite the same. Like the 2 faces of the same coin. Both totally dominated society. The only difference I can name is that the Communists took away private property and all was owned by the state, while the Nazis did kinda the same, the private property that didn't suit the Nazi agenda was taken away and given to someone who served Nazi interests. Honestly I can't really find much difference between Nazism and Communism. Both wanted to conquer other lands, both were populist, both squashed individualism for the sake of everyone working only for the nation. I can't wait for the blog post where you compare the two.  

Edited June 4, 2025 by Daniel Balan

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Leo Gura

"Science" (I say it like that because there's no actual entity that this label may be sticked on) has made a very clever trick by separating itself from Philosophy entirely, it's own mother. 

On the other hand, it's not even interested in Truth, it's goal is accurate prediction and not truth seeking - So what do you want from it? It's not promising you Truth. 

Science doesn't deal with "what it is, but rather "how it is" - an accurate description of its behaviour.

Please explain, what is your quarrel with Science exactly? You say that reality is undefinable, I agree, and so do they, so they just skip this step and go on with progress.

I'm sorry, but to me it seems a bit like you are fighting with windmills.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Anton Rogachevski

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Vynce said:

Why would understanding of „only mind“ reality undermine your scientific potential to do great thermodynamics, medicine or tech? 

After all, science was always just a tool for practical measures. And if a non-dual scientist delivers better science, science will become non-dual.

It does matter because science has wrong epistemology and wrong ontology, which limits science.

Science is fundamentally about understanding reality. Their ability to understand reality is very self-limited.

Understanding cannot be reduced to practical measures.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

@Leo Gura Hi! In your blog post https://www.actualized.org/insights/hitler-was-a-conservative. At the end you talk about 

What is the Communist litmus test? How can I know if I can pass it? Please explain to me how can I take both the Communist and Nazi litmus tests to see if I am able to pass them! Thanks once again for publishing that article on your blog post. One of my all time favorites.

Communist litmus test is to sit down and write out all the things that were wrong with the socialist worldview and why it failed in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc.

5 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

I think what Hitler meant by Socialist was the collectivist nature of Stage Blue. He wanted to appeal to all the Stage Blue people.

Yes, that's another way to say what I said.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

On the other hand, it's not even interested in Truth, it's goal is accurate prediction and not truth seeking - So what do you want from it? It's not promising you Truth. 

Science cannot function without caring about truth. What good is false science?

4 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Science doesn't deal with "what it is, but rather "how it is" - an accurate description of its behaviour.

The two cannot be seperated like that.

4 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Please explain, what is your quarrel with Science exactly? You say that reality is undefinable, I agree, and so do they, so they just skip this step and go on with progress.

They don't understand that reality is undefinable. They think they are defining it and they are missing all the most important aspects necessary for understanding reality.

You can't just skip all the stuff I talk about. It's all fundamental.

[Majed]

@Leo Gura People are so foolish they think they can just get away with being practical without caring about the truth. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

There's one issue I have with one of the blog posts, and that is the How The Left Got Lost. Particularly at the end, it reads,

What every leftist needs is a crash course called Survival 101. But this is no cushy university course. For this course we air-drop the leftist into a war-zone in Africa for 3 months and see how she survives using her leftist ideals.

 

The problem is that we already tried this, and the left succeeded. Meet Ibrahim Traoré.

This mad lad took power of Burkina Faso during a time when a significant portion of his country was under control of jihadist insurgencies. Inspired by Marxist, Thomas Sankara, he enacted significant reforms such as;

State Ownership of Land: All land, urban and rural, now belongs to the state, not to individual landlords.

Foreign Ownership Prohibition: Foreigners are prohibited from owning farmland or urban real estate in Burkina Faso. They can, however, apply for long-term leases, with options ranging from 18 to 99 years, particularly for agricultural purposes.

Land Distribution: Land is being distributed to citizens, especially young people, to encourage them to return to farming. Women's cooperatives are also being allocated land for farming, livestock, and agro-processing, seen as a way to empower women and stabilize communities.

 

He is also defeating the Jihadists militarily and stands up to French economic dominance, maintaining his country's sovereignty. What a guy! 

ISIS and Al-Qaeda still control 40% of the country through...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Burkina_Faso_(2015–present)

[Leo Gura]

@Husseinisdoingfine This is like saying we air dropped Fidel Castro into Cuba and it all worked out.

#LeftIsBest

Half of the dictators around the world are Marxist revolutionaires.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, Majed said:

@Leo Gura People are so foolish they think they can just get away with being practical without caring about the truth. 

Bingo

[zurew]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can't just skip all the stuff I talk about. It's all fundamental.

Oh yes you can, and you can still send a rocket to the moon without ever studying anything about metaphysics.

So no  - its not foundational at all.

 

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, zurew said:

Oh yes you can, and you can still send a rocket to the moon without ever studying anything about metaphysics.

So no  - its not foundational at all.

It is stupid that you reduce science to builiding rockets.

That you even consider this a serious counter-argument to what I said only doubles the validity of what I said.

Note: The only reason you could send a rocket to the moon was because people like Einstein took epistemology seriously and used it to generate insights that some engineering monkey just used be to practical.

You should read the importance Einstein gave to epistemology and philosophy.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Note: The only reason you could send a rocket to the moon was because people like Einstein took epistemology seriously and used it to generate insights that some engineering monkey just used without thinking. 

Note that Einstein didn't know about you and about your metaphysics.

Note that science still progressed without your system.

Note that you are and your insights are not central to any of this.

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is stupid that you reduce science to builiding rockets.

That you even consider this a serious counter-argument to what I said only doubles the validity of what I said.

There is nothing to make a counter-argument to, because you havent made an argument - all you have done so far is a vague gesture towards "scientists stupid and bad, cause they dont follow my metaphysics".

Notice that you dont have any good response to the rocket claim and you think that you have provided some kind of deep profound thought in your blogpost (that btw other have already made way before you - so none of that is original to you) and you are stumbled by one simple example.

 

And then you made some claims that you wont back up  - like your claim about fundamentality.

Edited June 4, 2025 by zurew

[zurew]

You would be laughed out of any philosophy of science department for even trying to imply any such thing - since when do you think that one cant hold onto a physicalist metaphysics and make progress in science or since when do we think that observations and equations will just break down under different metaphysics?

Like all of this is nonsense and stupid and this is all besides the fact that you strawmanned the fuck out of a lot of people without being able to back up any of it.

Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.

Edited June 4, 2025 by zurew

[Vynce]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is stupid that you reduce science to builiding rockets.

That you even consider this a serious counter-argument to what I said only doubles the validity of what I said.

Note: The only reason you could send a rocket to the moon was because people like Einstein took epistemology seriously and used it to generate insights that some engineering monkey just used be to practical.

You should read the importance Einstein gave to epistemology and philosophy.

Humans would meditate 1000h a year and do weekly 5-meo sessions, if that meant better practical science. Yet the best practical science came from pretty non-spiritual folks. 

Its hard to really pin point how metaphysical understanding affects practical science and vice versa. Its not obvious to me how enlightenment would make me a better practical scientist.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Vynce

[Miguel1]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

There is nothing to make a counter-argument to, because you havent made an argument - all you have done so far is a vague gesture towards "scientists stupid and bad, cause they dont follow my metaphysics"

You can’t be serious.

And you are a long time member here?

[Vynce]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

You would be laughed out of any philosophy of science department - since when do you think that one cant hold onto a physicalist metaphysics and make progress in science or since when do we think that observations and equations will just break down under different metaphysics?

Like all of this is nonsense and stupid and this is all besides the fact that you strawmanned the fuck out of a lot of people without being able to back up any of it.

Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.

You seem like a chill guy. 

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

You can’t be serious.

And you are a long time member here?

Long time member doesnt mean glazing at everything Leo does or says.

Why is it that you have nothing to say when Leo uses a 100 different rhetorical tricks and when he  bellitles people , but you are immediately hung up on when someone treats Leo like a normal human being who is not above anyone else?

Edited June 4, 2025 by zurew

[Miguel1]

8 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Humans would meditate 1000h a year and do weekly 5-meo sessions, if that meant better practical science. Yet the best practical science came from pretty non-spiritual folks. 

If most people were Turquoise level conscious, practical science & practical survival would be 1000X (at least) better and more efficient, yet we struggle to even go past blue.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.

This is a common thing with Leo. There will be an intuitive grasp of concept that isn't properly founded on solid points that build to it. Many times it is recursive.

Can't be sure but I suspect Leo is the type of thinker who intuitively grasps a concept, and then understands the details of it. Rather than someone who understands details and works up to an intuitive insight. But I cannot be sure, just my guess & observations of deep thinkers and their methods. Both ways have flaws if not addressed.

Like running a loop on a track - you run the same path and can get to the same outcome. But one jogger going clockwise will see something totally different to the jogger running anti-clockwise. They both get there in the end, but different methods.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Natasha Tori Maru