Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Deziree]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

To call brutality reductionist IS the reduction IMO.

Brutality is never phased out or replaced.

It is always silently dormant in the background. It just looks like it's been replaced because we don't personally see it.

The amount of slavery, torture, and death that funds your lifestyle (yes, you) at this very moment is unfathomable. The fact that you have an electronic device with which to access this forum means you're loosely interconnected with and reliant on a web of child slave labor in Africa (mineral mining to produce electronic chips). Not to mention food, care products, transportation, electricity, your work/education - and even if you somehow manage to side step every evil by meticulously planning every micro behavior to dodge consumerism and champion sustainability, your friends and family are entangled in a web of slavery, torture, and death, and your life is entangled with their lives.

Notice the somewhat cold and confrontational way that I wrote this. I didn't particularly intend to sound so harsh, but it just naturally comes off that way when you announce the accurate state of affairs. This is the cost of truth. Truth means you're eating a bacon burger and I remind you that you're funding and relishing in the torture and extermination of pigs and cows. I'm not TRYING to make you feel bad. I'm just saying what is the case.

Or maybe you're vegan and you think you're above animal cruelty - well then I'll remind you that for your salad bowl to exist at all, there had to be soil-eroding, biome-destroying monocrop agriculture and enormous transcontinental shipping chains with a combined harm yield of: slave labor, ecosystem destruction, species extinction, ocean pollution, and so much more that I can't even wrap my head around.

I'm not saying this to say "you're wrong."

I think you made great points about the importance of empathy in survival. I basically agree with you on everything other than your idea that brutality is a reductionist relic of the past. I am generally pro-empathy.

I am just highlighting how empathy tends to conflict with truth and avoids accurate reflection. And accurate reflection always unearths things that you would rather not admit to yourself.

Like if your girl asks "do I look fat?" you're basically obligated to say "no honey you're gorgeous" even if she's actually a land-whale. Because you care about her feelings. And more importantly, she cares about her feelings. So she's not even asking the question wanting to know the real answer. She's asking to feel good, which has nothing to do with accurate reflection. This is a silly (but common) example, but the overall dynamic is preserved across most instances of empathy between humans.

(first off you made really good points) 

living a completely ethical life is practically impossible due to interconnected global systems. it's nearly impossible to live a life free from complicity in these harmful systems, even for those who strive for ethical consumption.

It is fairly understandable that empathy conflicts with truth on a foundational and ethical level or let's say the other way around, that truth conflicts with empathy in lieu of survival.  I agree that it's nearly impossible to be completely 'pure' in our consumption, and that many forms of suffering are indeed out of sight, out of mind for most of us.

I acknowledge all your points while defending my stance on empathy versus truth. I'm just saying that it's a bit more nuanced than truth is brutal for survival because empathy is woven even into this brutality. You might say that these electronic chips needed child labor but what if these same mobile phones were used in emergency services saving lives calling ambulances. Do you see this as empathy in motion? Truth might be brutal but empathy is not just about feelings. If a life is saved, this is empathy in action and this action is survival too. Do you look at it with this perspective? 

However, I don't think acknowledging these realities necessarily negates the importance of striving for empathy or for reducing brutality where we can. While brutality might always be a potential in human nature or within global systems, the degree to which it's expressed and tolerated is precisely what we have some agency over. My point about brutality being 'phased out or replaced' wasn't to say it disappears entirely, but rather that societies can and do evolve to diminish its overt forms and establish norms that condemn it. The fact that we even discuss and deplore child labor or environmental destruction, for example, is a testament to an evolving empathy, even if the systems haven't caught up. Do you consider this? Just trying to add a bit of mine to your perspective as well. I basically agree with you wholeheartedly but adding a bit of nuance where empathy is concerned. 

Perhaps the 'truth' you speak of and the 'empathy' I talk about here aren't mutually exclusive. Empathy can be a powerful motivator for seeking out those uncomfortable truths and then working to change the systems that perpetuate them. It's about finding a balance between acknowledging the harsh realities and not becoming paralyzed by them, instead channeling that awareness into action, however small. The alternative—accepting brutality as an unchangeable constant—feels like a more dangerous reductionism to me. So how about enmeshing both. To some degree both go hand in hand. With survival surplus as you said, we begin to think of empathy more and more at the top of the chain. 

 What I'm suggesting is that empathy isn't just about feeling good, but about driving change. Positive change like technology that helps disabled people operate better? 

The fact that we can even have this conversation, that there are movements dedicated to ethical sourcing, environmental protection, or human rights, suggests a collective moral evolution, however slow and imperfect. This evolution, I believe, is fundamentally driven by empathy, by our ability to recognize and respond to the suffering of others, even if they are distant.

My argument wasn't that brutality vanishes, but that our societal response to it can change. The 'dormant' brutality you mention is precisely what empathy seeks to expose and, ideally, diminish. The "truth" you're highlighting, while painful, can also serve as a catalyst for greater empathy and, consequently, more informed action. If we accept the 'cost of truth' as simply being harsh without any call to action, then what's the point of uncovering it? For me, the discomfort that truth brings should fuel our desire to mitigate harm, not lead to resignation. That's what I meant. Of course I don't condemn brutality, in a more moralistic frame, yes, but fundamentally our survival is connected with brutality but love and empathy are core components of driving change to accommodate max survival I'd what I meant. 

[Daniel Balan]

10 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

but you're comparing men vs men now.

regardless of how they stack up against each other, on average they will both prefer to interpret sense data in a self-consistent manner

whereas the average woman will choose to interpret sense data in whichever way sparks joy

Leo states that the better you do at survival, the more you are alligned with truth, which from my POV, is not the case! The better you do at survival, the more intelligent and the better you can make sense of reality! Which has nothing to do with truth from my perspective. Truth means sometimes sacrificing survival for truth! This is just my opinion! I'm not trying to debunk Leo's claim! He is right, but I feel that it is wrong to equate truth with one's ability to manipulate reality to hoard wealth and maximize survival. 

[RendHeaven]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I don't see feeling vs truth.

@Natasha Tori Maru Yay, I was hoping you would join

I did consider very thoroughly that the feminine POV has "it's own truth."

I've brought up many times in this thread now that most women will prefer to hear what sounds good to them rather than a consistent interpretation of sense data (accurate mapping of reality). This is the anchor claim behind why femininity tends to be less truth oriented.

But the counterargument to that is something like - "sure, a woman might reinterpret sense data in whichever way feels whimsically good to her in the moment, but why can't this be its own meta-truth? why do you insist that there's only one correct interpretation? Maybe she doesn't value utilitarian pragmatism. When she makes statements or asks questions, she's feeling into an energetic truth beyond the logistical content of her speech"

That would be a solid way to challenge everything I've written so far.

But the problem with saying that women are tapping into some sort of "meta-truth" that goes beyond the logistical contents of speech is that this gives license for women to call anything at all "truth" on a whim. This reduces Truth down to "anything goes as long as I feel like it" and this cannot be tenable because Truth is non-arbitrary. The finite world is configured a certain way and not another way.

A woman can paint over the state of the world with her relative, spontaneous "meta-truth," but unless her worldview is stress-tested and accuracy-checked by contact with reality, she will always be a walking contradiction between what she says, believes, and feels VS what the world is reflecting back at her.

1 minute ago, MuadDib said:

Shes asking a question to probe for a deeper truth.

Namely, do you love me in spite of my flaws?

Truth is the handmaiden of Love.

@MuadDib But that's precisely delusional, if she's actually fat as fuck and the guy has to reassure her that she's not fat in order for her to feel loved.

Truth = Love. There is no Love if it's built on lies.

If the woman really cared about love, she would feel warm butterflies and a sense of peace and comfort when her man says, "Actually, you do look a little more plump today. I don't mind. You're beautiful to me."

But no, this would make her sour and passive aggressive lmao. Because she doesn't actually care about love. She cares about FEELING love on HER terms.

(again, speaking in averages. obviously, conscious women do not have this issue)

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

I don't see how survival corelates with truth one bit!

I know. That's why I'm insisting on it. This is a gap in your logic.

Try to build an airplane without caring about truth. See how far you get.

You are focusing too much on the social aspects of society where bullshitters and grifters can get by without truth.

But focus instead on the aspects of survival that are less social and more grounded in scientific or physical reality, where truth makes or breaks you.

Physical survival requires alignment with physical reality/truth. Social survival allows for much bullshit, lies, and fantasies. We live in a highly social society which affords a lot of room for bullshit. But that only works on a foundation of physical survival.

Some truthful man has to build airplanes or they fall out of the sky. And it is men who do that. Women are hardly engineering airplanes.

You know what happens when bullshitters take over the airplane business? Boeing planes fall out of the sky.

Edited June 21 by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

@Natasha Tori Maru Yay, I was hoping you would join

I did consider very thoroughly that the feminine POV has "it's own truth."

I've brought up many times in this thread now that most women will prefer to hear what sounds good to them rather than a consistent interpretation of sense data (accurate mapping of reality). This is the anchor claim behind why femininity tends to be less truth oriented.

But the counterargument to that is something like - "sure, a woman might reinterpret sense data in whichever way feels whimsically good to her in the moment, but why can't this be its own meta-truth? why do you insist that there's only one correct interpretation? Maybe she doesn't value utilitarian pragmatism. When she makes statements or asks questions, she's feeling into an energetic truth beyond the logistical content of her speech"

That would be a solid way to challenge everything I've written so far.

But the problem with saying that women are tapping into some sort of "meta-truth" that goes beyond the logistical contents of speech is that this gives license for women to call anything at all "truth" on a whim. This reduces Truth down to "anything goes as long as I feel like it" and this cannot be tenable because Truth is non-arbitrary. The finite world is configured a certain way and not another way.

A woman can paint over the state of the world with her relative, spontaneous "meta-truth," but unless her worldview is stress-tested and accuracy-checked by contact with reality, she will always be a walking contradiction between what she says, believes, and feels VS what the world is reflecting back at her.

Yes, exactly.

This, for me, is where it gets murky. 

This is why I cannot come to the conclusion feelings ARE truth. It doesn't work.

Someone getting so anxious over a social situation that they are having a panic attack? That feeling isn't true. There is an irrationality to our feelings that cannot be removed from this whole topic.

This is where I feel emotional discernment in general, is so vital.

If you can locate a TRUE emotion, if you can pull yourself apart and accurately realize that... Power. Power in knowing yourself. 

I think we are here to dig at the truth within, and emotions can assist here, as well as thought.

This whole topic makes my brain turn inside out.

[RendHeaven]

7 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Leo states that the better you do at survival, the more you are alligned with truth, which from my POV, is not the case! The better you do at survival, the more intelligent and the better you can make sense of reality! Which has nothing to do with truth from my perspective. Truth means sometimes sacrificing survival for truth! This is just my opinion! I'm not trying to debunk Leo's claim! He is right, but I feel that it is wrong to equate truth with one's ability to manipulate reality to hoard wealth and maximize survival. 

Yeah, I get you.

It's not that the best survivalist is the apex truth seeker per se - you're right that these men are totally deluded.

The seed of a man's "truth-orientation" is a very crass, primordial need to accurately scan the terrain that you're planning to conquer or defend.

At a very extended level, this makes God more accessible to men on average because knowing God requires you to eventually kill all fantasies and die.

Which, nobody wants to do. So obviously, almost no men are God-Realized.

We're just saying that, all else equal, if you pluck a random man VS a random woman, the man will have an easier time solving God.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@RendHeaven

I think we are beginning to touch on how higher order emotions come into play with relation to God. Love etc.... 

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I don't see feeling vs truth.

My girlfriend asked me if I like her butt being big. I said no. She cried and ended our relationship then and there.

Now you see feelings vs truth.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

My girlfriend asked me if I like her butt being big. I said no. She cried and ended our relationship then and there.

Now you see feelings vs truth.

Well I can see how that is true in that example. 

But I don't think it is always the case that it is feelings VS truth.

(BTW I do hope that isn't true, what a savage act)

[RendHeaven]

25 minutes ago, Deziree said:

(first off you made really good points) 

living a completely ethical life is practically impossible due to interconnected global systems. it's nearly impossible to live a life free from complicity in these harmful systems, even for those who strive for ethical consumption.

It is fairly understandable that empathy conflicts with truth on a foundational and ethical level or let's say the other way around, that truth conflicts with empathy in lieu of survival.  I agree that it's nearly impossible to be completely 'pure' in our consumption, and that many forms of suffering are indeed out of sight, out of mind for most of us.

I acknowledge all your points while defending my stance on empathy versus truth. I'm just saying that it's a bit more nuanced than truth is brutal for survival because empathy is woven even into this brutality. You might say that these electronic chips needed child labor but what if these same mobile phones were used in emergency services saving lives calling ambulances. Do you see this as empathy in motion? Truth might be brutal but empathy is not just about feelings. If a life is saved, this is empathy in action and this action is survival too. Do you look at it with this perspective? 

However, I don't think acknowledging these realities necessarily negates the importance of striving for empathy or for reducing brutality where we can. While brutality might always be a potential in human nature or within global systems, the degree to which it's expressed and tolerated is precisely what we have some agency over. My point about brutality being 'phased out or replaced' wasn't to say it disappears entirely, but rather that societies can and do evolve to diminish its overt forms and establish norms that condemn it. The fact that we even discuss and deplore child labor or environmental destruction, for example, is a testament to an evolving empathy, even if the systems haven't caught up. Do you consider this? Just trying to add a bit of mine to your perspective as well. I basically agree with you wholeheartedly but adding a bit of nuance where empathy is concerned. 

Perhaps the 'truth' you speak of and the 'empathy' I talk about here aren't mutually exclusive. Empathy can be a powerful motivator for seeking out those uncomfortable truths and then working to change the systems that perpetuate them. It's about finding a balance between acknowledging the harsh realities and not becoming paralyzed by them, instead channeling that awareness into action, however small. The alternative—accepting brutality as an unchangeable constant—feels like a more dangerous reductionism to me. So how about enmeshing both. To some degree both go hand in hand. With survival surplus as you said, we begin to think of empathy more and more at the top of the chain. 

 What I'm suggesting is that empathy isn't just about feeling good, but about driving change. Positive change like technology that helps disabled people operate better? 

The fact that we can even have this conversation, that there are movements dedicated to ethical sourcing, environmental protection, or human rights, suggests a collective moral evolution, however slow and imperfect. This evolution, I believe, is fundamentally driven by empathy, by our ability to recognize and respond to the suffering of others, even if they are distant.

My argument wasn't that brutality vanishes, but that our societal response to it can change. The 'dormant' brutality you mention is precisely what empathy seeks to expose and, ideally, diminish. The "truth" you're highlighting, while painful, can also serve as a catalyst for greater empathy and, consequently, more informed action. If we accept the 'cost of truth' as simply being harsh without any call to action, then what's the point of uncovering it? For me, the discomfort that truth brings should fuel our desire to mitigate harm, not lead to resignation. That's what I meant. Of course I don't condemn brutality, in a more moralistic frame, yes, but fundamentally our survival is connected with brutality but love and empathy are core components of driving change to accommodate max survival I'd what I meant. 

@Deziree Great points overall. I appreciate the effort you put into this post.

I agree that ultimately, empathy does not have to conflict with brutality or truth. A conscious mind can hold brutal clarity (i.e. truth) while acting out of compassion and balancing all perspectives and shifting the needle towards harmony. This is what Leo means by the maxim "Live Intelligently"

[MuadDib]

Perhaps women are better at gauging the relative truths of individual subjectivity, i.e. reality mapping the subjective spaces of people, and men at overarching objectivity. 
My point still stands that if you want Truth, you need to master both.

Try building a plane without the cooperation of other people and their diverse internal landscapes, or without a society of people to produce the materials needed and afford you the time to actually sit down, crunch Reynolds numbers, apply Bernoulli's theorems and such.

 

23 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

But that's precisely delusional, if she's actually fat as fuck and the guy has to reassure her that she's not fat in order for her to feel loved.

Truth = Love. There is no Love if it's built on lies.

If the woman really cared about love, she would feel warm butterflies and a sense of peace and comfort when her man says, "Actually, you do look a little more plump today. I don't mind. You're beautiful to me."

 

This response would be most conducive to a good, long-term relationship. It blends objectivity with empathy; if she has a problem with this, she'd best look for someone else.
Other responses:
"No you don't look fat"; she knows she's fat, and knows you're willing to lie to make her feel better, it's good in the moment to keep the peace, but now she doubts your ability to stand up to her and will shit test you.
"Yes you're a whale." She knows it, and knows you don't care about her feelings, not good in the moment, but might be beneficial long term. She trusts your ability to stand up to her, but now doubts your love and will shit test you.
 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

But I don't think it is always the case that it is feelings VS truth.

Of course it's not always a trade-off.

Sometimes the truth feels good, when it's in your favor.

Quote

(BTW I do hope that isn't true, what a savage act)

Lol. Of course you hope it isn't true. Because you're a girl!

But of course it is true. Because I'm Leo.

What is more savage, to lie or to tell the truth?

Edited June 21 by Leo Gura

[RendHeaven]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My girlfriend asked me if I like her butt being big. I said no. She cried and ended our relationship then and there.

Now you see feelings vs truth.

@Leo Gura Chest over glutes huh?

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My girlfriend asked me if I like her butt being big. I said no. She cried and ended our relationship then and there.

WTF, seriously? 😒

If someone doesn't at least value truth for their own benefit or doesn't manage their survival, I wouldn't even consider being with them.

Edited June 21 by Nemra

[Deziree]

5 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

I agree that ultimately, empathy does not have to conflict with brutality or truth. A conscious mind can hold brutal clarity (i.e. truth)

Absolutely! 

[RendHeaven]

2 minutes ago, MuadDib said:

This response would be most conducive to a good, long-term relationship. It blends objectivity with empathy; if she has a problem with this, she'd best look for someone else.

@MuadDib Glad we agree. Unfortunately I do find that most women would not take well to the suggestion that she's gained weight, even if you buffer it with flattery and genuine statements of love.

I suspect this has more to do with modern people's body image getting royally fucked by social media, advertisement, consumerism, etc.

A woman without toxic inputs should be able to take realistic, balanced feedback without her mood spiraling.

[Leo Gura]

Just when you think there's on conflict, God will place a test before you, to see where your loyalty lies.

Edited June 21 by Leo Gura

[RendHeaven]

22 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yes, exactly.

This, for me, is where it gets murky. 

This is why I cannot come to the conclusion feelings ARE truth. It doesn't work.

Someone getting so anxious over a social situation that they are having a panic attack? That feeling isn't true. There is an irrationality to our feelings that cannot be removed from this whole topic.

This is where I feel emotional discernment in general, is so vital.

If you can locate a TRUE emotion, if you can pull yourself apart and accurately realize that... Power. Power in knowing yourself. 

I think we are here to dig at the truth within, and emotions can assist here, as well as thought.

This whole topic makes my brain turn inside out.

18 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@RendHeaven

I think we are beginning to touch on how higher order emotions come into play with relation to God. Love etc.... 

@Natasha Tori Maru And yet, I can see very clearly how feelings ARE true.

If I put orange glasses over your eyes, you would see all things as having the tinted shade of orange.

So in some way, the whole world really does become orange (to you and you alone. nobody else will affirm this for you, unless they're willing to meet you in your world by also putting on orange glasses).

But the logistics-oriented man would find this ridiculous, because he would say "the world didn't ACTUALLY turn orange; everything you're experiencing is explained by your glasses! the moment you take the glasses off, the world is no longer orange. Thus the world was never actually orange, you just thought it was orange while you had your glasses on!"

But also that's quite insincere. Because if he actually bothered to wear your orange glasses, he would see, very personally, just how orange the world can look. And whether that orangeness is an illusion, or fleeting - it still gives a strong in-the-moment impression which is true insofar as it exists at that time.

There's much more I can say about this, let me know if I'm making sense or if this jogs anything in your mind.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course it's not always a trade-off.

Sometimes the truth feels good, when it's in your favor.

Lol. Of course you hope it isn't true. Because you're a girl!

Yes, definitely.

Also, if we are attempting to interpret emotions as being true, or a tool/compass to truth... well there you go with human deception that you rap on about. Do we really think most people aren't so hopelessly self-deceived they can ascertain a true emotion? A higher order emotion that might point them to God? Lol. Fuck no. They would have no idea of the validity of it. 

It is easy to see why meditation, rigorous thought, psychedelics and inner clarity would have great use on the path to God & Truth.

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But of course it is true. Because I'm Leo.

What is more savage, to lie or to tell the truth?

I know life isn't like a vending machine where you put good in and good comes out - but this is legit actually so bad. 

You have my compassion - and also - my respect. For not ending up a pilled, bitter motherfucker.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@RendHeaven

It makes sense.

NGL I walk the dog, go for runs, chop the foods, make the bed, order some doors... all the while questions such as these are germinating in the lizard brain. 

It is a pleasure to converse with everyone here on topics such as these.