Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Deziree]

2 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Sanity is the degree to which one’s interpretive framework generates a coherent, stable, and socially intelligible reality, enabling effective navigation of experience.

Isn't it easy to differentiate (based on your definition), between who is and who isn't? I mean it's easy to conclude that someone is insane if their interpretation is totally incoherent with human logic, isn't it so? Why would need anyone to tell you what's insanity and what's not? 

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Deziree It's hard to understand what you mean. Try to clarify your question please.

[Deziree]

7 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Deziree It's hard to understand what you mean. Try to clarify your question please.

Your definition of sanity was near perfect. You seem to operate on a logical paradigm. My question is, why is it hard for you to know what insanity is? 

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Deziree I must stay open-minded about it. It's not as easy as my definition makes it look. 

The theme of sanity and insanity seems central to the Enlightenment practice, so I'm fascinated to hear the perspective of someone who had many many enlightenment experiences.

Some say that sanity is merely one state out of an infinite amount of possible states, and when you experience more and more, it just shows you how relative it actually was.

Edited Thursday at 04:42 AM by Anton Rogachevski

[Rafael Thundercat]

Porn star interview takes clarify a lot of the takes on Orion video and Sadia Khan and Orion interview. 

[Twentyfirst]

39 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Porn star interview takes clarify a lot of the takes on Orion video and Sadia Khan and Orion interview. 

The surgeries are getting so good now I wonder if she had work done. She looks natural but kinda off

[Clarence]

@Leo Gura Great work on your book! Thank you so much for everything you do…

Just a quick question: who are you directly talking to in this introduction? I find it confusing when you refer to “the scientist” in the third person, and then address the reader directly with “you” or “your mind”. For example:

The scientist thinks he’s just doing objective science first, being an ego second. No! That’s absolutely wrong. You are ego. The scientist does not understand himself.

Or:

So this book is about slowly building a ramp so that the scientific rationalist mind does not balk and throw away the book in disgust, because I know your ego-mind does not run on objective facts and logic.

I get confused about whether you're talking to the reader about scientists, addressing both the reader and the scientist in different ways, or mostly talking to scientists.

I get really confused by the switching from third to second person. It feels uncomfortable to me, but maybe it's just my own misunderstanding or the extract is too short to give full clarity.

This, however, is only happening in the first half of the extract. The second half already feels much clearer and more focused.

I’m sharing this impression because I truly hope this book will have a profound impact on mankind. And the fact that I’m feeling this itch makes me think other readers will feel it too.

It also feels to me that the first half takes a very confrontational tone toward scientists and scientifically minded people. I’m not sure if you’re aware of that, since you mention afterward that you will be ramping up. I think hitting this hard in tone might cause many readers to feel defensive or emotionally close off right there, especially scientists or scientifically-minded people.

[Oppositionless]

My friend was saying the other day that Hitler was actually pretty progressive besides, you know, that one thing .

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Oppositionless said:

My friend was saying the other day that Hitler was actually pretty progressive besides, you know, that one thing .

Heil your friend.

 

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Clarence said:

@Leo Gura Great work on your book! Thank you so much for everything you do…

Just a quick question: who are you directly talking to in this introduction? I find it confusing when you refer to “the scientist” in the third person, and then address the reader directly with “you” or “your mind”. For example:

The scientist thinks he’s just doing objective science first, being an ego second. No! That’s absolutely wrong. You are ego. The scientist does not understand himself.

Or:

So this book is about slowly building a ramp so that the scientific rationalist mind does not balk and throw away the book in disgust, because I know your ego-mind does not run on objective facts and logic.

I get confused about whether you're talking to the reader about scientists, addressing both the reader and the scientist in different ways, or mostly talking to scientists.

I get really confused by the switching from third to second person. It feels uncomfortable to me, but maybe it's just my own misunderstanding or the extract is too short to give full clarity.

This, however, is only happening in the first half of the extract. The second half already feels much clearer and more focused.

I’m sharing this impression because I truly hope this book will have a profound impact on mankind. And the fact that I’m feeling this itch makes me think other readers will feel it too.

It also feels to me that the first half takes a very confrontational tone toward scientists and scientifically minded people. I’m not sure if you’re aware of that, since you mention afterward that you will be ramping up. I think hitting this hard in tone might cause many readers to feel defensive or emotionally close off right there, especially scientists or scientifically-minded people.

The tone and style of the book is still undecided. My main concern for now is to get all of the key content and topics in place. Then I work on tone, style, and polished writing. I'm still fleshing out the outline. These snippets are part of the outline, not final pages.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura Be sure to have editors. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

@Leo Gura I definitely agree with Clarence.

The way you write your book is not really professional or academic, but you swing the pendulum in the complete other direction and it comes off as too casual.

[Terell Kirby]

Glad Leo is posting Soft White Underbelly videos on blog, there is some good content there.

Seems like the interviewer (who is normally balanced, open minded) was giving off real manosphere-ideological vibes towards the end- being over critical of porn and its effect on men .. wish Addison pushed back more on that .. 

 

[mmKay]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The tone and style of the book is still undecided. My main concern for now is to get all of the key content and topics in place. Then I work on tone, style, and polished writing. I'm still fleshing out the outline. These snippets are part of the outline, not final pages.

Thanks for the feedback.

I was craving more of a conversational tone from the snippet that you shared. It gave me borderline academic vibes and personally it's a turn off for me. Just my 2 cents. I always admired actualized.org for the clarity of straightforward language, and I think other readers will too 

[Leo Gura]

The book is going to strike a balance between formal and causal. More formal that a blog post but not dry.

Clarity will be off the charts.

[Ulax]

@Leo Gura All the best re your book. Am sure it will be 🔥

[CARDOZZO]

Do you want to understand different kinds of minds? (Human, AI, Aliens, Mechanical, Animals)

I really recommend Philip Ball, Andrew Gallimore and Joscha Bach.

Book: The Book of Minds.

Books: Alien Information Theory: Psychedelic Drug Technologies and the Cosmic Game and Reality Switch Technologies: Psychedelics as Tools for the Discovery and Exploration of New Worlds.

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by CARDOZZO

[Rafael Thundercat]

I am sure Leo is aware that he will need edition and all the necessary stuff to publish and promote a book. For me I am satisfied to get a copy and read and spread to all people I know. Mainly the hundreds of ayahuasca drinkers I hava contact. 

[Jayson G]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The book is going to strike a balance between formal and causal. More formal that a blog post but not dry.

Clarity will be off the charts.

@Leo Gura is the book just about consciousess, spirituality, etc. or other more practical topics as well? Is it away from the human domain and largely about existential truth? 

[Clarence]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The tone and style of the book is still undecided. My main concern for now is to get all of the key content and topics in place. Then I work on tone, style, and polished writing. I'm still fleshing out the outline. These snippets are part of the outline, not final pages.

Thanks for the feedback.

It makes total sense.

Thanks a lot for sharing parts of the process; it feels very special and I truly appreciate it.

I'll be sending you supportive thoughts throughout the writing of this massive book.