Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Novac08]

I really like what Leo wrote in his recent philosophy post, but I don’t think he models these principles in his own behavior. What I see instead is a kind of sealed room around his philosophy: agreement confirms his insights, while disagreement confirms that the other person has further to go. This seems to extend beyond his claims about enlightenment to his views on politics, technology, and society more broadly. He models epistemic certainty rather than epistemic humility, and it’s hard to see how genuine criticism or error correction can penetrate a framework in which he always ends up being right.

The strange thing is that he continues to produce thoughtful pieces like this, which is why I keep coming back to his blog. But I find it off-putting that he can articulate these principles so well while seemingly exempting himself from the very standards he advocates.

[Rafael Thundercat]

4 hours ago, ZenSwift said:

Hey Leo, I see you've been posting a lot about Christianity as of late. I'm curious if you plan to drop a video about Deconstructing Christianity. 

 

Also, I think this has a typo: 

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-771

"It's" should be "isn't" 

It shows

"Moralizing It's good"

Allows fools to be fools

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dem5-WxFYYj/?rpxt=MTJrZWp4OGZjNzZyZQ==

France is going crazy now

Question:

Is this guy here moralizing?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DehOoTMo9rs/?srtk=eTZlOHg0eXplcDdq

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Rafael Thundercat

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, Novac08 said:

I really like what Leo wrote in his recent philosophy post, but I don’t think he models these principles in his own behavior. What I see instead is a kind of sealed room around his philosophy: agreement confirms his insights, while disagreement confirms that the other person has further to go. This seems to extend beyond his claims about enlightenment to his views on politics, technology, and society more broadly. He models epistemic certainty rather than epistemic humility, and it’s hard to see how genuine criticism or error correction can penetrate a framework in which he always ends up being right.

The strange thing is that he continues to produce thoughtful pieces like this, which is why I keep coming back to his blog. But I find it off-putting that he can articulate these principles so well while seemingly exempting himself from the very standards he advocates.

Good point. At least Leo has admitted that he is wrong sometimes and it's up to us to determine when that is. Also if he spoke hesitantly maybe he would reach less people.

Also I think his fans have to be careful to not subconscious adopt Leo's rhetoric. Which would be a mistake 

Edited 15 hours ago by enchanted

[enchanted]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/jesus-disciples-were-illeterate

This is an incredible, creative, and original insight @Leo Gura a mind blowing post. 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Novac08 said:

I really like what Leo wrote in his recent philosophy post, but I don’t think he models these principles in his own behavior. What I see instead is a kind of sealed room around his philosophy: agreement confirms his insights, while disagreement confirms that the other person has further to go. This seems to extend beyond his claims about enlightenment to his views on politics, technology, and society more broadly. He models epistemic certainty rather than epistemic humility, and it’s hard to see how genuine criticism or error correction can penetrate a framework in which he always ends up being right.

The strange thing is that he continues to produce thoughtful pieces like this, which is why I keep coming back to his blog. But I find it off-putting that he can articulate these principles so well while seemingly exempting himself from the very standards he advocates.

Because I do it internally. My epistemic work is very private, as I have said in videos before. I question myself a lot internally, which you guys never see.

But I understand I should model it better externally too. I will work on that.

Also, like I keep reminding you guys, I am not immune to these problems.

"Leo, why aren't you epistemically perfect?" Because it's damn hard, especially with the internet how it is.

Edited 15 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Novac08]

@Leo Gura

I don’t think anyone expects epistemic perfection, Leo, and I appreciate your acknowledgment that you could model your process better publicly. I can only describe how this has looked from my perspective over the years.

When I first discovered Actualized, I was a beginner in many of these subjects. Your videos genuinely helped me with practical psychology, epistemology, self-deception, and philosophy. I never quite put you on a pedestal, but I certainly regarded you as someone who had figured out a great deal.

The first cracks in that impression appeared around your political commentary. I’ve lived in four countries, studied politics and political philosophy at university, and maintained a lifelong interest in political systems. If anything, those experiences have made me less certain, more appreciative of conflicting perspectives, and more comfortable sitting with contradictions rather than rushing toward conclusions.

So I found it strange to see you sharing The Young Turks and other YouTube political junk on your blog and forum. It felt like a nutrition expert eating at 7-Eleven, not only thinking himself immune to its effects, but somehow thinking it was worth sharing with others. Around that time, you also released a video titled something like “The Deepest Political Analysis You’ll Ever Hear.” It reminded me of Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo, with chapters like “Why I Am So Wise” and “Why I Write Such Good Books.”

I’ve watched your political views evolve over the years, and some of those habits seem to have changed. But the extraordinary confidence has remained remarkably constant, even in areas where I perceive blind spots. That punctured something for me.

I don’t particularly object to intellectual grandiosity. I find Nietzsche’s self-descriptions amusing, and sometimes yours too. Perhaps you’ve both understood things that others haven’t. That’s part of why I keep reading. I also recognize that teaching publicly, especially when constantly challenged, may require a certain decisiveness.

But this brings me back to the sealed room. In your philosophy post, you emphasize that your own mind can deceive you, that your philosophy is no more immune to bias than anyone else’s, and that recognizing error quickly is essential. That’s a profound commitment to epistemic humility, and one I admire. Yet when disagreement so often seems to confirm that the other person has further to go, it’s difficult to see how that humility informs your engagement with others. I’m not asking you to perform self-doubt publicly, nor do I doubt that you question yourself privately. It’s simply that the certainty and dismissiveness you model seem at odds with the principles you articulate so forcefully. And for me, that inconsistency cheapens the insights rather than strengthening them.

[Greatnestwithin]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Because I do it internally. My epistemic work is very private, as I have said in videos before. I question myself a lot internally, which you guys never see.

But I understand I should model it better externally too. I will work on that.

Also, like I keep reminding you guys, I am not immune to these problems.

"Leo, why aren't you epistemically perfect?" Because it's damn hard, especially with the internet how it is.

@Leo Gura when is your Next video out? And what Will be the themes? 

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Novac08 said:

@Leo Gura

I don’t think anyone expects epistemic perfection, Leo, and I appreciate your acknowledgment that you could model your process better publicly. I can only describe how this has looked from my perspective over the years.

When I first discovered Actualized, I was a beginner in many of these subjects. Your videos genuinely helped me with practical psychology, epistemology, self-deception, and philosophy. I never quite put you on a pedestal, but I certainly regarded you as someone who had figured out a great deal.

The first cracks in that impression appeared around your political commentary. I’ve lived in four countries, studied politics and political philosophy at university, and maintained a lifelong interest in political systems. If anything, those experiences have made me less certain, more appreciative of conflicting perspectives, and more comfortable sitting with contradictions rather than rushing toward conclusions.

So I found it strange to see you sharing The Young Turks and other YouTube political junk on your blog and forum. It felt like a nutrition expert eating at 7-Eleven, not only thinking himself immune to its effects, but somehow thinking it was worth sharing with others. Around that time, you also released a video titled something like “The Deepest Political Analysis You’ll Ever Hear.” It reminded me of Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo, with chapters like “Why I Am So Wise” and “Why I Write Such Good Books.”

I’ve watched your political views evolve over the years, and some of those habits seem to have changed. But the extraordinary confidence has remained remarkably constant, even in areas where I perceive blind spots. That punctured something for me.

I don’t particularly object to intellectual grandiosity. I find Nietzsche’s self-descriptions amusing, and sometimes yours too. Perhaps you’ve both understood things that others haven’t. That’s part of why I keep reading. I also recognize that teaching publicly, especially when constantly challenged, may require a certain decisiveness.

But this brings me back to the sealed room. In your philosophy post, you emphasize that your own mind can deceive you, that your philosophy is no more immune to bias than anyone else’s, and that recognizing error quickly is essential. That’s a profound commitment to epistemic humility, and one I admire. Yet when disagreement so often seems to confirm that the other person has further to go, it’s difficult to see how that humility informs your engagement with others. I’m not asking you to perform self-doubt publicly, nor do I doubt that you question yourself privately. It’s simply that the certainty and dismissiveness you model seem at odds with the principles you articulate so forcefully. And for me, that inconsistency cheapens the insights rather than strengthening them.

You are not appreciating how deep these problems go. No matter what I post, someone will disagree with it and use it to think I am a hypocrite for being wrong. You don't like TYT, so when you see me post TYT, you use that as evidence that I'm being stupid or sloppy or biased. But this will always happen no matter what I post. No matter what I post, someone will think it is biased and delusional. Some of you think I am biased for being too left, and some think I am biased for not being left enough.

Political junk? I post very little political junk. Sharing a TYT video is not evidence of political junk. And even if I did post some junk, that does not contradict anything I've told you. Yes, I can fall for some junk sometimes. That's the point. That's not a bug, that a feature. But now you can criticize me for being too certain that I don't post political junk. And so it goes with any other issue.

The quality of my political analysis in my 4 part series called Conscious Politics, which is what you're referring to with "The Deepest Political Analysis You’ll Ever Hear", is in fact a level of depth and quality unlike anything you will find on YouTube if you search for discussions of politics. You can argue that it's arrogant. Okay. Fair. Yes, it is arrogant. But go find deeper analysis, see how long it takes you to find it. Political pundits don't even understand the things I talk about in politics, it is so over their heads.

Your mind cannot avoid being confident in something. That's the entire point. The mind has no choice but to take certain things as certain, even if you are being humble then you are confident in the fact that you are doing humility properly. When you say, "TYT is junk", you are saying that with confidence. When you say, "But Leo is so biased", you are saying that with confidence. And when you say, "Leo is too arrogant", you are saying that with confidence. And when you say, "Spiritual people should be more humble than Leo", you are saying that with confidence. Any conclusion of your mind is confident by definition because it appears true to you. This is the entire crux of self-deception. That's why no one can escape it.

I am not even disagreeing with the flaws in my behavior that you are pointing out. I am making a deeper point here, which is that this is all part of the difficulty of this work.

Yes, I am very dismissive of many things precisely because I understand certain things so deeply that I quickly see through them. But this does not mean I don't get it wrong too. I can be dismissive prematurely and incorrectly. I am well aware of that. The entire challenge is how to quickly dismiss human crap while not getting stuck in your own echochamber. It is not easy to get that right.

There is a twisted irony in this work that the deeper you master epistemology, the more certain you can become in some ways, which becomes a trap of its own. The better your understanding gets, the more of a trap it can become. Humility is not as simple or straight as you guys assume it is. What you see on the surface of me is not what is actually going on deep inside. My attitude and style is very unlike what you see in scientists and academics, who pretend they are humble but are insanely arrogant in substance. With me it is the reserve, I am arrogant on the surface and humble in substance. Everything looks the opposite of what it actually is. You are looking at the surface and wondering why it is arrogant, not seeing that all my priority goes into the deep substance which you guys never directly see but which grounds my entire body of work. The reason the surface is not as nice as you expect is because while every other social media influencer is busy polishing the surface of their presentation to maximize success, I am focused on digging for substance. That's why Actualized.org is so deep. I am sacrificing the surface presentation for depth. That is a deliberate choice. What you want is a nice, user-friendly, professional, inoffensive set of teaching, but that's not what I prioritize.

I even sacrifice improving my behavior because I am busy digging for substance. That's not an excuse, that just my different priorities. It is counter-intuitive and I don't expect anyone to understand my priorities. If you dislike it, I totally understand. Yes, I am aware it looks strange because the surface doesn't quite match the substance. I will work to improve that.

I am not rejecting your feedback. I am just making the point that this shit is a lot harder than you guys assume it to be. If it was easy it wouldn't be so rare. I developed this deep epistemology, I did it in a sloppy way, and I didn't know how else to do it. That's the bottom line. The sloppiness is part of its success. It is hard to explain to you why I do it that way.

It is like you are a soldier asking a general in an active war why he is making certain decisions, sending troops here or there. It is hard for the general to explain his own behavior. Some of it is the general's genius, some of it is the general's honest mistakes, and some of it is the general's corruption. It's all mixed together and you cannot just have the good without any of the bad. The general is juggling a very complex and messy business. And yes, plenty of mistakes get made in war. But the general's #1 priority is to win the war despite all the chaos. We are deep in an epistemic war. It is an ugly, nasty war. Arms and legs will get lost. Puppies will die. Feelings will get hurt. Wrong houses will get bombed. War crimes will happen.

Anyways, thanks for your feedback. I do listen to it. Internally I am always listening, despite how I might sound here or there.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Psychonaut]

@Leo Gura Preach brother!

[Thought Art]

His conscious politic series, understanding the left, understanding the right, and his when the left or right go to far are the deepest most well thought out political commentary on YouTube and likely the deepest of a single person in a 20 hour investment. 
 

By your post it makes me think you haven’t watched those videos of his. Perhaps you only know he released these videos. Then, assume it’s like those works to reference. But, if you’ve studied poli sci, surely you found those videos quality. 
 

You have to ask if he is truly being arrogant. 
 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Thought Art

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

You have to ask if he is truly being arrogant.

I do not deny that I am arrogant. I am. And it is a problem I am working to reduce. But I can't fix it overnight. It is a serious internal process. Character doesn't change just because you want it to or someone tells you to. You can notice that in yourself.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Lyubov]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I do not deny that I am arrogant. I am. And it is a problem I am working to reduce. But I can't fix it overnight. It is a serious internal process. Character doesn't change just because you want it to or someone tells you to. You can notice that in yourself.

I do think you have a pretty unique path because you have so many people who you talk to here who constantly challenge and object what you say. I can crash test a lot of viewpoints and consider a lot of things and write about it and not receive the same amount of pushback. 

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura Man, I know your arrogant. I been here. 
 

But your not so arrogant as to be so corrupted by it completely Your not like a Ben Shapiro, Andrew Tate, infinite waters, etc  who is arrogant off a bridge into being a total fool. 
 

You have arrogance and one of the deepest minds and epistemic models ever. I can recognize both. You do self reflect, you do humble yourself and that shows to me. But, I’m like in your 3% top audience of simply watching your videos. 
 

In fact, as you’ve said I think the arrogance you have is largely a good thing. Yet, you also do reflect on things over time which I see too. 
 

I also notice how deep we can go with doing a video or talk, etc… but humans in day to day talk tend to be flippant. 
 

I don’t expect you to be perfect. I observe myself and you and everyone around me. We all have sticking points. We can teach something without embodying it because we as human are more complex, and swimming in the sea of seasons both inner and outer.  
 

I know the areas I need to improve in my own life and fuck it’s hard to change. I am not judging anyone. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

Vernon Howard does say some of the deepest masters appear the most arrogant to those who lack the clarity and ambition of great men. Also, those great men can be controversial as men try to grasp him. Also, great teachers aren’t all rosy in our interactions with them.

Of course, this requires wisdom and discernment for a follower which is difficult. 

[Basman]

Leo is much more chill now. I remember 🐀 being his favorite slur.

[Thought Art]

@Basman Praaause Rat Jesussss!!!!! Haleigh’uah 

[enchanted]

7 hours ago, Novac08 said:

 

The first cracks in that impression appeared around your political commentary. 

Looking for cracks in others is a classic self deception trap. If Leo has cracks then so do you. You claim to have outgrown Leo yet you are spending your precious time on the forum exposing his mistakes, mistakes he doesn't even deny having. That's pretty low conscious behavior wouldn't you say? 

Otherwise your argument is well articulated and definitely has some validity to it. I hope I don't discourage your from sharing your insights as I believe they are quite good and you write well. Cheers 

Edited 5 hours ago by enchanted

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 When you say, "TYT is junk", you are saying that with confidence. When you say, "But Leo is so biased", you are saying that with confidence. And when you say, "Leo is too arrogant", you are saying that with confidence. And when you say, "Spiritual people should be more humble than Leo", you are saying that with confidence. Any conclusion of your mind is confident by definition because it appears true to you. This is the entire crux of self-deception. That's why no one can escape it.

Great point

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

Leo is much more chill now. I remember 🐀 being his favorite slur.

You guys miss the point that when I call someone a rat, it is a joke. You are supposed to laugh, not take it personally.

Calling scientists rats is funny. But people get so butt-hurt over it.

I can't even make jokes with you people because you misunderstand it and then hold it against me.

I call scientists rats to take them off the pedestal that you've placed them on. Otherwise you will be worshiping rats rather than God. A scientist is a rat next to God. Appreciate the poetry of that. I am not insulting people for no reason. There is an intelligence behind the madness.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura Well, I think a lot of us find it distasteful. That’s feedback for you. It makes you look like a jerk, and it’s not a good look. I’m sure there is another way to achieve what you think you are achieving. 
 

You CAN make jokes. But, not all jokes are good. It’s like being a comedian and getting no laughs and blaming the audience.

Or, don’t change. 🐀

Edited 4 hours ago by Thought Art