Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Rafael Thundercat]

17 hours ago, Adrian colby said:

im sure if I ignore it and just concentrate on creating in my own immediate sphere, it will be grand… but only for a while. Eventually with no pushback there will be an increasing corruption that spreads into spirituality. 

Same situation with me. I witnessed the corruption of some Cultural Appropriators of Ayahuasca in Europe. People using the drink for money making, playing shamans. If I would open my mouth to expose the scam they would gasligth me AF. So I just left the circles. Let them rot and discover soon or later that they are playing fool games. 

I decided stop arguing with stupidity. 

[Yimpa]

We call it Mean Green 

[Thought Art]

The blog quality has improved. More mature tone, with quality quotes of great thinkers making more regular appearances. 

[Yimpa]

@Thought Art Thank you for your feedback 

[Zigzag Idiot]

What would that be?

 

Edited Thursday at 03:43 AM by Zigzag Idiot
typo

[Yimpa]

@Zigzag Idiot

 

[moonawakening444]

@Leo Gura have you read the book Reality Transurfing? would you recommend it ?

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, moonawakening444 said:

@Leo Gura have you read the book Reality Transurfing?

No

[Adrian colby]

On 11/08/2026 at 6:41 PM, Yimpa said:

 

I don’t know if I would conflate love with attachment identity. 
 

I know this is aimed at those who are liberally polarised but in here would it not be better point to preservation and adaptation as complementary check and balance as facets of ourselves individually as a holistic system that become fragmented and separate when we attach identity to one and consign the other to our unconscious shadow as though it is not a part of us?

 

I would presume that the issue is the inability to understand the two as a unity to be integrated back into the self.

Edited Thursday at 10:04 PM by Adrian colby
Forgot a word.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Profound Quotes #135 https://share.google/vBuqJkWfYrvILKPhh

What this Quote means? I dont get it

[enchanted]

31 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Profound Quotes #135 https://share.google/vBuqJkWfYrvILKPhh

What this Quote means? I dont get it

It an obvious commentary of the delusions of the patriarchy. Here we have two men, completely severed from the organic world. One sycophant worships a fragile, masculine deity that willfully ignores the womb of Mother Nature. The other acts as a literal agent of the state, aggressively disseminating colonial language and violent, written decrees while entirely erasing the intuitive, non-verbal communication of matriarchal ancestral tribes.

Their arrogance is so profoundly unchecked that they believe the raw thermodynamics of the universe will bow to their privilege. But the punchline, of course, is the subtextual erasure of their existence by a literal bolt of lightning. Nature, the ultimate matriarch, instantly incinerates them, providing a shocking reminder that the future is female.

Seriously though I don't get the quote either. 

Edited 19 hours ago by enchanted

[Human Mint]

@Rafael Thundercat @enchanted That death is imaginary, probably.

[emptiness dancing]

it's about bias.. maybe...
The preacher (supposedly a man of god)should not be afraid of any of God's action.
But the mailman was so bias, and think of him so highly (that he the mailman knows what God wants to do, not the preacher) that he even preached to the preacher.
Sort of.. maybe..

or something about Texas ... , I don't know 

[emptiness dancing]

after thinking about it a second,
maybe in the early 1900s both the job as a mailman and a preacher carries the same amount of importance... (for the society at that time)

That's why the post does not make sense to us...

My first inclination was to try to find the punchline (mailman... must be a joke somewhere)

Then it hits me, it's not a joke, it's just a post about changing social norms. 

[Joseph Maynor]

I like the new blog post.  The idea that you can't define yourself out of a problem.  That is a deep insight.  

[Leo Gura]

On 8/13/2026 at 1:54 PM, Adrian colby said:

I don’t know if I would conflate love with attachment identity.

I know this is aimed at those who are liberally polarised but in here would it not be better point to preservation and adaptation as complementary check and balance as facets of ourselves individually as a holistic system that become fragmented and separate when we attach identity to one and consign the other to our unconscious shadow as though it is not a part of us?

I would presume that the issue is the inability to understand the two as a unity to be integrated back into the self.

The point that's being missed in all this is that conservatives honestly love their culture and leftists do not.

Imagine actually loving your culture.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The point that's being missed in all this is that conservatives honestly love their culture and leftists do not.

Imagine actually loving your culture.

I wonder if it’s that they “honestly love their culture”, or if they’re simply less willing to leave room for a particular way of being “wrong.”

People who are along the left "stage green-esque" kinds of communities, they come together around “injustices,” but they don’t necessarily offer a particular way to be. “You can be whatever you want to be, as long as you’re not abusive in whatever way we consider abusive.”

So that kind of culture can create this more justice-warrior-esque style while also being very open-ended. And I think that can leave a lot of people wondering what the right path or way of living actually is. A lot of people just aren’t comfortable with that level of openness and prefer having some kind of structure or script.

It’s analogous to religion versus agnosticism. With religion, you’re given a lot of things upfront: a community, family values, a way of life, routines, moral frameworks, ideas about masculinity and femininity, an identity, etc. But with agnosticism, suddenly all of those questions are left open.

I feel it’s more about simplicity, comfort, and self-preservation than necessarily “honestly loving the culture more."

You could say: Christians genuinely love their culture, whereas agnosticism/atheism do not.

But agnosticism/atheism isn’t necessarily trying to prescribe one particular, “biased” way of being or make a specific culture easy to follow. The whole point is that you now have more choice.

It gives you more choice, which is harder to sell but more freeing for the right kind of psychology.

[Nemra]

@Xonas Pitfall, their love of their culture comes before their love of the truth. Thus, their culture automatically seems infallible to them.

[Leo Gura]

@Xonas Pitfall You are still missing the point: conservatives honestly love their culture.

See, you are so left you can't even imagine loving your national culture.

Imagine if I told you: "Well, I don't really love my child but this gives me options to love every child." That means you don't love your child.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Xonas Pitfall You are still missing the point: conservatives honestly love their culture.

See, you are so left you can't even imagine loving your national culture.

Maybe I misunderstood what “love” means here. I can definitely imagine someone loving their culture so much that they want to see it everywhere, spread it, preserve it, and conquer anyone who stands in their way.

I just wanted to add that I don’t think people on the left hate their culture or don’t "love" it. It’s just that their "cult" or definition is more open and elastic. You can definitely see people on the left being extremely passionate about their values, views, and protecting against injustice, to the point where you get some pretty extreme people on the far left too.

It’s the same way an atheist might be extremely passionate about scientific thinking, so they become very “biased” toward it and love it deeply. They just don’t necessarily have an entire way of life attached to it that they’re also biased toward.

So even though both “cults” are biased, one is definitely much more biased and prescribes way more things strictly than the other. So if you define love by how strongly biased someone is toward it, then yes.

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Xonas Pitfall, their love of their culture comes before their love of the truth. Thus, their culture automatically seems infallible to them.

Yes!