Deconstructing Rationality Coming Soon

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

@Reciprocality @Carl-Richard

Appreciating this exchange. It feels like the heart of it is a tension between wanting a clean, consistent system (a perfect map) and acknowledging that the territory of reality might be inherently messy. The pragmatic constraint Reciprocality outlined works, but his search for a purer solution via substitutional quantification is fascinating, even if the language could benefit from being easier to decipher.

Sounds like ChatGPT.

Just explain your ideas with concrete examples and unpack jargon with clarifying sentences and you're halfway there. Know your audience.

Edited November 7 by Carl-Richard

[ZenSwift]

@Leo Gura

I thought your deconstructing science series was beyond impressive and quite an achievement to be able to make a video so comprehensive. Like a crown jewel to your work.

So if this new video on deconstructing rationality is going to be like that...

Let's just say I'm thrilled. ❤️❤️❤️

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, ZenSwift said:

So if this new video on deconstructing rationality is going to be like that...

Yes, but deeper and more advanced.

[Human Mint]

On 11/5/2025 at 0:52 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Honestly people need to construct their rationality first 😂

Nah, that's high school stuff... I bet the video will cover how rationality actually prevents deep thoughts

[Leo Gura]

On 11/5/2025 at 7:52 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Honestly people need to construct their rationality first 😂

That is very true. Especially for New Agers.

But that is too obvious to be an interesting video.

[Carl-Richard]

51 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Nah, that's high school stuff... I bet the video will cover how rationality actually prevents deep thoughts

If you stopped developing your rationality in high school, I feel sorry for you.

[Human Mint]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you stopped developing your rationality in high school, I feel sorry for you.

Not really, I love rationality. I said it very lightly but I have read a red book called "logic" out of curiosity when I was 17, and I kept studying for a year very rational subjects - attended to chemistry, math and biology classes before switching career - and after that I discover actualized.org, started meditating and got interested with psychedelics. So you're probably right, excuse me. But even then I don't know what you understand for rationality and how you use it, so it would be good if you explain yourself more.

edit: plus I started learning C language on my own (self taught with youtube videos) I think at around 14. You're working head on with raw logic there. And kids nowadays start learning programming in primary school.

Edited November 8 by Human Mint

[integral]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you stopped developing your rationality in high school, I feel sorry for you.

I think it's worse than that most people don't have basic capacities of think because they're so uncurious, most people don't know what a molecule is, they wouldn't be able to define it or hold that basic system. Not that science represents truth just that you have to be completely un curious about everything to not care about these things. Most people don't know that eating fish is meat lmfao. They haven't built basic categories! 

Edited November 8 by integral

[Basman]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That is very true. Especially for New Agers.

But that is too obvious to be an interesting video.

You should preface that in your video so people aren't confused. 

[Stick]

This guy actually killed rationalism before Leo deconstructed it. A pretty good video too, lets see how it compare's to Leo's.

[HMD]

6 hours ago, Stick said:

This guy actually killed rationalism before Leo deconstructed it. A pretty good video too, lets see how it compare's to Leo's.

Good video. I just don't understand why did he infer that rationality gave birth to radical leftists

 

[LambdaDelta]

In the middle of rewatching this one, seems like a fantastic appetizer for the upcoming series.

 

 

[Sincerity]

Here are some of my thoughts on rationality. I started thinking about it because I was contemplating what beliefs and believability in general are, especially in the context of understanding one's energetic reality. 

Some definitions of rationality from the internet to get a sense:

Quote

"the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic."

"the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. This quality can apply to an ability, as in a rational animal, to a psychological process, like reasoning, to mental states, such as beliefs and intentions, or to persons who possess these other forms of rationality."

Rationality and reason are based on believability in particular energies and views.

1. Insights on energy

When a person acts, the energy that motivated the enacted behaviour was an energy that was "bought into" - in other words, believed. This is always the case. An energy CANNOT be acted upon if it isn't believed. YOU cannot act on an energy if you don't believe it (on an energetic level).

Belief is an incredibly deep thing. Basically, what you energetically believe is what you are. If you buy into/believe fear, for example, fear is the energy that is often expressed and propelled in your reality, and you are "a fearful person". This is the case for any and all energies - fear, resistance, guilt, shame, insecurity, love, excitement, desire for authentic expression, desire for truth, desire for unity with God, etc.

And the energy that is most believed will seem the most rational. The energy/motivation that is most believed is one's most compelling reason for particular action. But rationality and mind chatter and argumentation are second-order in comparison to immediate internal believability in a particular energy. The "internal argumentation" and the "process of making a choice" is energetically the process of the arising of the energy that is already most believed. The thoughts/arguments are the "voices" of energies, but the arguments themselves are not what is convincing - rather, what one is already convinced by and seeing as rational are the energies behind the thoughts.

2. Insights on knowledge and intellectual beliefs

A view feels reasonable if it adheres to the already existing knowledge base. If it doesn't, it is usually rejected and considered "irrational". Paths of thought and arguments are considered rational only if they belong to the prevailing paradigm.

Therefore, rationality can be seen as a "force" of keeping the existing understanding as it is. It's mind choosing/rationalizing what it already knows, and rejecting the unknown.

And the dominant paradigm is one that is "bought into" - so again, all rationality is based in belief (of what one already "knows").

Edited November 15 by Sincerity

[UnbornTao]

Edited November 17 by UnbornTao

[Yimpa]

On 11/5/2025 at 3:01 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Hell yeah I am looking forward to this. Balls to the wall 

Bruh, this is not The Hunger Games 😂

[Leo Gura]

No one ever renounces reason, they just use reason to rationalize whatever they want. Which is what all rational people do.

Notice that every lunatic has his reasons. The biggest lunatics are rational.

Edited November 15 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No one ever renounces reason, they just use reason to rationalize whatever they want. Which is what all rational people do.

Notice that every lunatic has his reasons. The biggest lunatics are rational.

Depends on how you hold reason. But there are certainly people who are capable of being irrational. By definition, a lunatic is irrational. Otherwise, how would we bridge the gap between these two? Without that distinction - which we already make - you'd be essentially arguing for the nonexistence of irrationality.

Edited November 16 by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Depends on how you hold reason. But there are certainly people who are capable of being irrational. By definition, a lunatic is irrational. Otherwise, how would we bridge the gap between these two? Without that distinction - which we already make - you'd be essentially arguing for the nonexistence of irrationality.

There is irrationality, but the problem is that rational people are irrational because it requires consciousness to see the contradictions in one's worldview.

Ironically, rationalists do not have enough consciousness to see that rationalism is irrational.

Edited November 16 by Leo Gura

[ExploringReality]

@Leo Gura

Robert Greene really highlights how humans are irrational creatures, especially the so called rational ones. We are irrational in our rationality. We like to think of ourselves as rational and logical, we are not. 

[UnbornTao]

On 11/16/2025 at 5:17 AM, Leo Gura said:

There is irrationality, but the problem is that rational people are irrational because it requires consciousness to see the contradictions in one's worldview.

Ironically, rationalists do not have enough consciousness to see that rationalism is irrational.

Fair enough. Let me bring up the etymology of reason... 🤓

Do you see that as one of the main goals of "being rational"? Dissecting or constructing a particular worldview, maybe one based on a certain logical coherence? Talking out of my ass here.

Edited November 18 by UnbornTao