Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Rafael Thundercat]

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes they can.

Being Jewish is some bullshit humans made up.

Yes. All made up. Oh Abraham that Goat Fucker, land grab griffter.

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

There are two forgettings. If you forgive you eventually forget. If you forget and didn't forgive, karma coming after ya.

Can you unpack that a little bit more?

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

That is why you need to deal with these issues through relative pragmatism and moral reasoning.

That's exactly where consciousness, truth, and awareness of survival comes in.

To be more moral you need deep consciousness of your unconscious survival habits.

What I'm teaching is very practical. I am not just speaking of the Absolute.

Become conscious of all the ways you are a survival zombie. Then you will stop doing the evil shit you do.

Edited 11 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Lila9]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes they can.

Being Jewish is some bullshit humans made up.

Humans made up all the other religions, it can be said about anything.

The Jewish identity is just one identity trying to survive among other identities that are trying to survive as well. It is not more false than Islam or Christianity or Scientology or Buddhism.

 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Humans made up all the other religions, it can be said about anything.

The Jewish identity is just one identity trying to survive among other identities that are trying to survive as well. It is not more false than Islam or Christianity or Scientology or Buddhism.

The issue is that it is unconscious and killing people.

Being non-binary or whatever doesn't kill anyone, doesn't lead to corruption of government. Not all invented identities are equal in their consequences.

Edited 11 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Zionism is survival!

You guys are not connecting the dots.

Real State Mess. 

For any animal Territoty and Resources equals survival. If I would wish to eliminate a specie like frogs for example, instead of killing one by one, the fast way would take out their territory and food suply since no animal life without the ecosystem. Humans are animals figthing for Land and Resources. All the politics are the details and rationalization to justify land grab and survival of those who grab it. Even buying is a form of grab land( check the movie Bury my Hearth at Wounded Knee -in HBOMax) 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

19 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think the majority of people have a psychology that would allow them to actually do whatever without any psychological pushback.

But regardless how many people have that kind of psychology , one thing is for sure -  you wont persuade psychopaths to not do bad things by talking about moral realism.

They wouldnt care at all .

Even if moral realism is true, everyone falls short of doing the right thing much of the time.  You can see people's actions and generally get a sense as to how much they value morality though.  People do differ in how much respect they give to morality.  Some like to give the illusion of morality (even excessive morality) and then act very differently behind the scenes.

[Lila9]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

The issue is that it is unconscious and killing people.

Of course, this is very unconscious. But they are dealing with people who are no more conscious either. 

I mean, Christianity and Islam are the largest religions in the world and have been responsible for the killing of millions.

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's exactly where consciousness, truth, and awareness of survival comes in.

To be more moral you need deep consciousness of your unconscious survival habits.

What I'm teaching is very practical. I am not just speaking of the Absolute.

Become conscious of all the ways you are a survival zombie. Then you will stop doing the evil shit you do.

I completely agree. It’s just that saying “all you need is truth” or “it’s due to a lack of care for truth” is very reductionistic and can come across as backseat criticism. Even with greater human consciousness, you would still face issues like bias, preferences, which identities or ideologies survive, what is let go of, what gets promoted, and how you would realistically reach that point. I agree that truth, goodness, or God serve as an incredibly useful and practical ideal, but I have seen many statements that feel overly reductionistic and detached from reality when you rely only on that argument as solution. I hope that makes sense.

[Leo Gura]

@Xonas Pitfall Truth is the chief orienting principle. You have still not grasped how pivotal truth is.

[Xonas Pitfall]

44 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

My identity is immutable. How I roll day to day is up to me. I can choose ways that make life easy or ways that bring suffering. Nothing is fixed in the relative. It's all good.

This is very much a fantasy. We all have attachments and biases toward things we would not easily let go of; at the very least, we would fight for them. You cannot make statements like this because they are too reductionistic and fail to address the complexity of the issue.

It is like saying, “I don’t care whether I am poor or rich, since I am always rich in my mindset.” This may be technically true in some abstract sense, but denying that you would have preferences or resistance, such as preferring wealth over poverty, or being stolen from or having nothing would be unrealistic.

[Xonas Pitfall]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Xonas Pitfall Truth is the chief orienting principle. You have still not grasped how pivotal truth is.

I definitely agree with it, but you have to consider questions like who decides who gets to live, who pushes which culture onto whom, and which biases shape people’s lives. Otherwise, it becomes a form of detached armchair philosophizing and criticism. That's all. 

Fundamental truth alone will not help you decide whether you should starve and kill yourself rather than kill an animal if you were a caveman in Africa desperately needing food to survive. It also would not fully settle whether your country should fight another that is threatening to completely wipe out your people. Do you simply let the powerful and selfish win in order to prevent violence, even if that means the destruction of everyone?

You can use truth as guidance in the sense of trying to act as humanely as possible. But who decides which culture should be propagated more, and who controls or enforces that in practice?

[gettoefl]

53 minutes ago, zurew said:

Can you unpack that a little bit more?

Do you understand the first part? Second part is because trying to forget is like me saying for the next 5 minutes you must not think of a pink elephant. Your subconscious will keep bugging you to remember it. You can't force forgetting since the forcing keeps the memory alive.

[gettoefl]

14 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

This is very much a fantasy. We all have attachments and biases toward things we would not easily let go of; at the very least, we would fight for them. You cannot make statements like this because they are too reductionistic and fail to address the complexity of the issue.

It is like saying, “I don’t care whether I am poor or rich, since I am always rich in my mindset.” This may be technically true in some abstract sense, but denying that you would have preferences or resistance, such as preferring wealth over poverty, or being stolen from or having nothing would be unrealistic.

I can behave any way I please. To suffer is to make an identity of it. My identity is what is absolute about me. Being awake to these things means I can be flexible. One day I might kill. The next day I say no big deal. What I do is irrelevant. I might decide to be altruistic. Next day I change my mind as to what that even means. No problem since it does not define me.

[Joseph Maynor]

11 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

I can behave any way I please. To suffer is to make an identity of it. My identity is what is absolute about me. Being awake to these things means I can be flexible. One day I might kill. The next day I say no big deal. What I do is irrelevant. I might decide to be altruistic. Next day I change my mind as to what that even means. No problem since it does not define me.

Isn't this moral situationism?  In other words, morality is when I feel like it.  You seem to be mixing identity between the Absolute and the finite I of you in the world.   

[Xonas Pitfall]

9 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

I can behave any way I please. To suffer is to make an identity of it. My identity is what is absolute about me. Being awake to these things means I can be flexible. One day I might kill. The next day I say no big deal. What I do is irrelevant. I might decide to be altruistic. Next day I change my mind as to what that even means. No problem since it does not define me.

These type of statements are exactly what I mean. It's too detached from the reality of one’s current human self and unrealistic. Unless you are speaking from the perspective of an “ultimate” transcendent self, these statements risk being unproductive and impractical.

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Otherwise, it becomes a form of detached

That's right.

Truth-seeking is detachment from survival.

[zurew]

17 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

Do you understand the first part?

Well im not sure, because I think you used the same phrase (forgive) but you used two different notions.

 

Here I think you meant something completely different by the term "forgive"

1 hour ago, gettoefl said:

Forgive this silly dream and be back to chill with the blissful changeless.

Compared to what you meant by 'forgive' here:

1 hour ago, gettoefl said:

If you forgive you eventually forget. If you forget and didn't forgive, karma coming after ya.

 

I would interpret the first notion in some kind of profound participatory sense, where you completely give up your ego and paricipate or merge with God or something like that.

And I would interpret the second notion of "forgive" in a sense where you forgive a wrongdoing that might have hurt you and with that you can actually heal and karma wont fuck you up later.

[gettoefl]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Isn't this moral situationism?  In other words, morality is when I feel like it.  You seem to be mixing identity between the Absolute and the finite I of you in the world.   

Morality is a mental invention. People subscribe because they feel they must. In a pinch they do what is best for themselves.

Edited 10 hours ago by gettoefl

[gettoefl]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

Well im not sure, because I think you used the same phrase (forgive) but you used two different notions.

 

Here I think you meant something completely different by the term "forgive"

Compared to what you meant by 'forgive' here:

 

I would interpret the first notion in some kind of profound participatory sense, where you completely give up your ego and paricipate or merge with God or something like that.

And I would interpret the second notion of "forgive" in a sense where you forgive a wrongdoing that might have hurt you and with that you can actually heal and karma wont fuck you up later.

Ah yes, you combine two different responses. But yes it is the same thing. I am using forgive in a deeper than everyday sense. The everyday sense applies but this goes beyond. Forgive means to affirm that nothing real can be threatened and thus I drop the idea that something bad happened because I being absolute am invulnerable to harm.

Edited 10 hours ago by gettoefl