Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

@Nilsi Do you really think you are telling me a thing I don't know?

I'm just trying to help people realize that God is an empirical word.

[Guest Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nilsi Do you really think you are telling me a thing I don't know?

I'm just trying to help people realize that God is an empirical word.

I don’t care what you know or don’t know if you’re still playing these kinds of naive empiricist language games.

The point is precisely that there’s no such thing as an “empirical word.”

[Rishabh R]

@Nilsi But I think that there are empirical words. Not everything is subjective and relative.

Edited July 12, 2025 by Rishabh R

[Guest Nilsi]

17 minutes ago, Rishabh R said:

@Nilsi But I think that there are empirical words. Not everything is subjective and relative.

It’s not about relativity. Experience is absolute. That was never in question. The argument is about language and representation. I’ve already laid out my position clearly. Feel free to offer an actual counter-argument.

[Rishabh R]

44 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

It’s not about relativity. Experience is absolute. That was never in question. The argument is about language and representation. I’ve already laid out my position clearly. Feel free to offer an actual counter-argument.

In that case all language is just a symbol that points to something. 

But certain words like reality , experience,actuality are more closely tied to absolute and are better representations.

[Guest Nilsi]

15 minutes ago, Rishabh R said:

In that case all language is just a symbol that points to something. 

But certain words like reality , experience,actuality are more closely tied to absolute and are better representations.

All language is ultimately just symbols pointing to other symbols. And yes, it is arbitrary. You can pick any random syllables or phonemes, and it doesn’t fundamentally change anything. You could replace “God” with “spaghetti” or “reality” with “pineapple,” and the structure would stay the same. It’s silly to believe that using some supposedly privileged word instead of another somehow makes everything fall into place. That’s not how language works.

A signifier only has meaning through its position in the symbolic network - a system of differences and relations, not because of any inherent property in the sound or the word itself. You’re not doing anything by swapping one label for another if you’re still operating inside the same structure.

It’s never about finding the right magic symbol. It’s about how you can crack language open to the Real from within - by using style and syntax to push meaning to its limits, to create gaps, ruptures, and slippages where something beyond representation briefly shows itself. This can happen in all sorts of ways: through repetition that empties out a word until it collapses, through paradox or contradiction that language can’t resolve, through performance or gesture that interrupts smooth signification, or through excess and intensity that overflow the form itself.

And when I say “language,” I don’t just mean words. Art, performance, architecture, objects - everything can be read as language in this sense: a field of signs you can bend, fracture, or intensify to expose what no system of representation can fully contain.

[Rafael Thundercat]

The moment one start to conceptualize,, boommm is all lost..

[Rafael Thundercat]

13 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

All language is ultimately just symbols pointing to other symbols. And yes, it is arbitrary. You can pick any random syllables or phonemes, and it doesn’t fundamentally change anything. You could replace “God” with “spaghetti” or “reality” with “pineapple,” and the structure would stay the same. It’s silly to believe that using some supposedly privileged word instead of another somehow makes everything fall into place. That’s not how language works.

A signifier only has meaning through its position in the symbolic network - a system of differences and relations, not because of any inherent property in the sound or the word itself. You’re not doing anything by swapping one label for another if you’re still operating inside the same structure.

It’s never about finding the right magic symbol. It’s about how you can crack language open to the Real from within - by using style and syntax to push meaning to its limits, to create gaps, ruptures, and slippages where something beyond representation briefly shows itself. This can happen in all sorts of ways: through repetition that empties out a word until it collapses, through paradox or contradiction that language can’t resolve, through performance or gesture that interrupts smooth signification, or through excess and intensity that overflow the form itself.

And when I say “language,” I don’t just mean words. Art, performance, architecture, objects - everything can be read as language in this sense: a field of signs you can bend, fracture, or intensify to expose what no system of representation can fully contain.

When I read this conversarions here the only thing that comes to mind is a Text from Huang Po called Transmission of Mind. 

[Guest Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

The moment one start to conceptualize,, boommm is all lost..

That being the point.

Yet you still make excuses the moment someone utters the “right” magical concepts.

Edited July 12, 2025 by Nilsi

[Rafael Thundercat]

5 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

That being the point.

True, but people dont automaticaly jump out of conceptualization without conceptualizing a lot at first. there is where Leo and many others who dare to point towards the pointeless aim to do. To give oportunities for others stumble into it. I feel like Leo is more a facilitator of Awakening than any other thing. And still it dont get any easier. 

How many times I tried to talk people into the obviousness of what Reality is, in many ways, and still in vain, sometimes even being gasligthed. So at least Leo keep trying. Call it compassion if you will.

Edited July 12, 2025 by Rafael Thundercat

[gettoefl]

I know God is, and then I cease to speak forevermore.

[Rishabh R]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

All language is ultimately just symbols pointing to other symbols. And yes, it is arbitrary. You can pick any random syllables or phonemes, and it doesn’t fundamentally change anything. You could replace “God” with “spaghetti” or “reality” with “pineapple,” and the structure would stay the same. It’s silly to believe that using some supposedly privileged word instead of another somehow makes everything fall into place. That’s not how language works.

But when the word reality is uttered it causes a different mental imagery than the word pineapple. Language has varying words with distinctions to what they point to.

 

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

And when I say “language,” I don’t just mean words. Art, performance, architecture, objects - everything can be read as language in this sense: a field of signs you can bend, fracture, or intensify to expose what no system of representation can fully contain.

Objects in that case empirical reality in your direct experience and merely conceptualizing about it is not the same thing as touching and object. Suppose you touch a hot stove , no matter how much one conceptualized it the reality of it being hot stove will never change unless you dismantle the stove and even then it is an empirical object.

[Daniel Balan]

@Leo Gura Why society and mankind as a whole would collapse if mankind realized God at a collective level? Why is it that God realization would make somehow society less functional? I totally agree that we are all full of shit, but why would people stop going to work, doing their duty as citizens etc if mankind as a whole would discover God? I tried to contemplate it but I can't figure out why you say society would collapse once mankind would drop all the bullshit and discover God.

[yetineti]

@Nilsi

You have a lot to say for someone who thinks words are arbitrary.

[yetineti]

One of my platonic friends kept running his mouth and saying how words meant nothing.

I asked him, randomly, one straight man to the other, ‘Do you want to fuck me?’

His face turned bright red. I said, ‘it’s just words, baby.’

He chooses his words more intelligently now.

Edited July 12, 2025 by yetineti

[Thought Art]

6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I don’t care what you know or don’t know if you’re still playing these kinds of naive empiricist language games.

The point is precisely that there’s no such thing as an “empirical word.”

If you could hold context of what he is saying in perspective you’d see what he points too. 
 

It’s easy to over Intellectuallize. Also, your essentially man-splaining Leo things he literally teaches in his content. Cringe. While also bringing in context beyond what is relevant, imo

Edited July 12, 2025 by Thought Art

[yetineti]

24 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

You’re essentially man-splaining Leo things he literally teaches in his content, while also bringing in context beyond what is relevant, imo.

Yes. I remember Leo explaining all of this 10+ years ago.

Leo has become quite the wordsmith since. Even more than he was.

I find it almost beautiful the way he can use words now.

Edited July 12, 2025 by yetineti

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

@Leo Gura Why society and mankind as a whole would collapse if mankind realized God at a collective level? Why is it that God realization would make somehow society less functional? I totally agree that we are all full of shit, but why would people stop going to work, doing their duty as citizens etc if mankind as a whole would discover God? I tried to contemplate it but I can't figure out why you say society would collapse once mankind would drop all the bullshit and discover God.

You have to look at how much of business, governement, religion, entertainment, media, education, and relationships hinge on falsehood to survive.

If you removed the falsehood from those domains much of the stuff there would colapse.

Just look at Israeli government or Russian government or Saudi government -- all built on lies.

What God can such people know?

Edited July 12, 2025 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you removed the falsehood from those domains much of the stuff there would collapse.

Just look at Israeli government or Russian government or Saudi government -- all built on lies.

@Leo Gura, do you think that society can be built only on truth?

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Leo Gura, do you think that society can be built only on truth?

The minds doing it would need to be very different from typical minds today.

It would basically require most of the minds involved to be Awakened and super developed to the Construct-Aware stage at least.

You can't build a society on truth without being conscious of what Truth is and what obscures it.

Edited July 12, 2025 by Leo Gura