Exposing falsehood ≠ Truth

[OmniNaut]

A reflection for Leo and the tone he sets on his blog and in this forum.

For quite somewhile now, I feel a growing distain to open the blog and the forum. Although Leo openly points out a big deal of his work is exposing human falsehood which prevents you of reaching the Truth. It becomes apparent that it is the main tone on his blog, which for a long time carried over his more pessimistic tone on the forum as well (although lately it feels a bit more neutral, but he also refrains from replying to much).

The logical fallacy that I get from Leo's communication on his mission, is that exposing falsehood does not lead to Truth by itself. I know that Leo is aware of that, but it does not reflect on his blog subjects. He talks about Love and what it takes to reach Love, but rarely provides the good examples that can be found on Love, and yes they are there.

Where does the distain come from? Constant exposure to the negative aspect of humanity does not work well to elevate the tone and set a positive outlook for the future of humanity. It also feels the tone of the blog is replicated on the forum as well. As a lot of people here somehow look towards Leo as the tone setter, (consciously or unconsciously) and it's hard to find uplifting examples of the outlook on human existence in his communication on the blog and the forum.

Maybe it's more the INTP nature of Leo to focus on the factual nature of his work and thereby neglecting the more emotional nature.

Also I think Leo is to limited in his US centered approach. Although he exposes himself to a variety of YouTube media, this media is mostly filtered by the creator itself. This is the nature of human communication ofcourse, the further you get from the source the more noise there is.
Especially on international topics on his blog, which often is a video from a Westerner (American or European) looking through their (Western) POV. 

One of the most difficult tasks for a website is how to weigh your direction when it comes to satisfy the current user base, and from another perspective attracting new users.

Probably Leo is not directing to much in these kind of terms. But maybe something to think about. At some point the loyal follower see the mechanism that runs falsehood, by being exposed by so many examples. Which is exactly the goal of his approach, teaching you to see it on your own.

At that point the loyal follower has no reason to come back to the blog if the mechanism is exposed because it shows nothing new anymore. So at some point the loyal follower drops out. I wonder if he has enough metrics from his site to see what is going on, how many returning IP addresses compared to new IP addresses over time.

So my request is to mix in some positive stuff as well. How humanity is catering to love and truth, maybe not all has to be with a capital T, but it can balance the emotional side of the blog as well. And maybe a more positive mind set on the blog can change the tone on the forum as well.
+ A more neutral POV and letting go more of the US (Western) centered POV, especially when it comes international subjects.

 

@Leo Gura Not telling you how to run your site, just giving some honest feedback from my perspective and my journey when it comes to how I experience the blog (and forum).

Curious to see if I'm the only one.

[Joseph Maynor]

I think Love is more about accepting perspectives that differ from what we would prefer.  Sometimes we do cut relations too.  They we may reconcile differently.  We're all operating at different pacing in different areas of Creation.  There's no guarantee.  This is why Love has limits.

[OmniNaut]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I think Love is more about accepting perspectives that differ from what we would prefer.  Sometimes we do cut relations too.  They we may reconcile differently.  We're all operating at different pacing in different areas of Creation.  There's no guarantee.  This is why Love has limits.

Yes that is a perspective. But providing feedback is also a form of love. All is relative can be answer, but it's not the only answer, which in itself is relativistic. 
If all is relativistic and all is love then my reply is love as well. 
If all is relativistic then there is no need for Leo's blog because falsehood is love as well.

Love is relativistic in Absolute truth, Love is not relativistic in relative truth. Which is a mind fuck.

[Miguel1]

I appreciate your perspective but I think it is simplistic and reductionist.

Leo posts plenty of ”positive” content, he has a series on How To Fall In Love With Life, and at the end of the day, deconstructing falsehood itself is Good, Positive.

[OmniNaut]

7 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

I appreciate your perspective but I think it is simplistic and reductionist.

Leo posts plenty of ”positive” content, he has a series on How To Fall In Love With Life, and at the end of the day, deconstructing falsehood itself is Good, Positive.

I appreciate your perspective but your response is to simplistic and reductionistic. 

If you read carefully in my post, it acknowledge Leo's contribution to exposing falsehood.

 

That series is over 3 years old. I'm not reducing his approach just pointing out it's lopsided.

Edited January 31 by OmniNaut

[Natasha Tori Maru]

How else can you arrive at truth without ruling out and deconstructing falsehood?

Genuinely asking - not necessarily disagreeing with perceived negativity. 

Leo can be a ranty man.

Edited January 31 by Natasha Tori Maru

[Miguel1]

There’s plenty of people focusing their work around the positive stuff you are talking about, it’s in abundance everywhere.

Nobody is really focusing on deconstruction, to the extent Leo is focusing. That’s why he does it.

[OmniNaut]

Again it's not a critique towards exposing falsehood, it's a good thing. But the blog feels to much focused only on exposing falsehood.

 

Too much negative inputs will colour the mind of the reader. A more balanced approach and examples of finding Truth in positivity can also have a positive effect on the reader.

 

Not requesting to stop exposing falsehood just a more balanced take on it.

[Miguel1]

38 minutes ago, OmniNaut said:

Too much negative inputs will colour the mind of the reader.

Interesting. I find his heavy focus on deconstruction Beautiful, and utterly Positive. It’s the reason I follow his work. But yes, some focus on positive construction here and there is nice to have, which he does have.

But as Leo has pointed out many times, his work is not for everyone (read: fainted hearts).

I’ve been in the community for years and I’ve seen people manage to always find things about his work to complain about.

[OmniNaut]

People please this is not complaining, it's just a request.

My complaint is now that people are seeing this as a complaint. If you only can look at this kind of feedback as a complaint maybe it shows more of your interpretation then mine.

Are people here so stuck up that they can't tell the difference to sharing a perspective and feedback and complaining?

[Cred]

7 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

Where does the distain come from?

Leo is heavily oppressed by societ because of his neurodivergency and he is coping by putting himself on a pedastal and everyone else down.

If he would finally realize why and how he is being ostracised, he could be able make peace with it and develop a more balanced view of society

[Cred]

@OmniNaut Your mistake is that you have the same wrong assumptions as Leo.

You are correct that you point out the hypocracy of someone who says "exposing falsehood is truth" and "love is truth". But you come to the wrong conclusion that the former one must be the wrong one. It's actually the latter.

I'll not repeat a point I've already made so here we go:

 

Edited January 31 by Cred

[Terell Kirby]

8 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

He talks about Love and what it takes to reach Love, but rarely provides the good examples that can be found on Love, and yes they are there.

Depends on how you define Love, the mistake is equating it to feel good human emotions-which is a bias of the human mind.

8 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

Constant exposure to the negative aspect of humanity does not work well to elevate the tone and set a positive outlook for the future of humanity.

I believe Leo has stated countless times that his aim is not set some positive outlook and validate human emotions. We are dealing with a teacher who places Truth and understanding of reality above the survival priorities of humanity.

@OmniNaut - these teachings can be hurtful if you are empathetic to human suffering as a result of coming to grips to the dark nature of survival and corruption that runs paramount in human social institutions and hiearchies.

It is important that you take care of your emotional well being. Instead of trying to change the teacher, in this case Leo, it may be better to ask yourself how much you can stomach-and respect your limits. I say this from experience as I've had to do the same at different points of doing this work. 

[OmniNaut]

27 minutes ago, Cred said:

@OmniNaut Your mistake is that you have the same wrong assumptions as Leo.

You are correct that you point out the hypocracy of someone who says "exposing falsehood is truth" and "love is truth". But you come to the wrong conclusion that the former one must be the wrong one. It's actually the latter.

I'll not repeat a point I've already made so here we go:

 

I'm not pointing out some hypocrisy from Leo. I appreciate his work. I did a lot of falsehood exploration myself, even before I read Leo's blog about it. 
It's not about the exploration of falsehood. It's just lopsided with exposing the negative side of humanity and human existence. There is a good side of humanity and human existence too, but it's barely shown. 
I can look past hypocrisy, because everyone is a hypocrite in a certain way. 
 

 

3 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Depends on how you define Love, the mistake is equating it to feel good human emotions-which is a bias of the human mind.

I believe Leo has stated countless times that his aim is not set some positive outlook and validate human emotions. We are dealing with a teacher who places Truth and understanding of reality above the survival priorities of humanity.

@OmniNaut - these teachings can be hurtful if you are empathetic to human suffering as a result of coming to grips to the dark nature of survival and corruption that runs paramount in human social institutions and hiearchies.

It is important that you take care of your emotional well being. Instead of trying to change the teacher, in this case Leo, it may be better to ask yourself how much you can stomach-and respect your limits. I say this from experience as I've had to do the same at different points of doing this work. 

I don't want to change the teacher, just giving some feedback and a perspective

[OmniNaut]

Trust me I have seen the dark side of humanity in real life. Been to many dark places in person to see what is going on in the world. Not from a desk chair like others. 
I know about the falsehood, evil and hypocrisy of humans.

I understand where in the humans it comes from. I studied it in depth.

There is always falsehood to be found and to be exposed till the end of time, it will never end.

People one last time. 

Take off your assumption glasses and see my post as it is. Not a complaint, not trying to change the teacher, not pointing out hypocrisy. Just a perspective, he is free to do whatever he wants with it. It's his blog. 

Edited January 31 by OmniNaut

[Miguel1]

57 minutes ago, Cred said:

Leo is heavily oppressed by societ because of his neurodivergency and he is coping by putting himself on a pedastal and everyone else down.

You have to seriously reduce the amount of diagnosing you do here on people that you do not know.

[Cred]

51 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

You have to seriously reduce the amount of diagnosing you do here on people that you do not know.

This is the best explaination for his rethoric I've found so far. I feel like it is relevant for this forum.

I know that my rethoric is intrusive. That's because exposing delusion is inherently intrusive.

If you have a more complete explaination than me or you have specific arguments against my claims I'd like to hear them.

[Miguel1]

@Cred I appreciate the insights you try to bring to the community.

It is the way you bring them. In an obnoxious way. Show some humbleness, and we are much more likely to receive you.

[Cred]

1 hour ago, Miguel1 said:

@Cred I appreciate the insights you try to bring to the community.

It is the way you bring them. In an obnoxious way. Show some humbleness, and we are much more likely to receive you.

Thank you!

A few days ago I watched a streamer who said to her chat: "You can be obnoxious if you're right and you can be wrong if you are humble. But you can't be wrong and obnoxious."

I think that I get to be obnoxious because I believe I'm right. If you have a different opinion, I get that you find me annoying.

Another reason is that I want people to attack my points, so I can go back to the drawing board and strengthen my points. But you're not doing that. You are just attacking my rethoric, not the content of what I'm saying.

[Miguel1]

@Cred What I am saying is the mutual conclusion we have of you in our private moderator discussion.

We do not encourage arguments / attacks here. And especially not obnoxiousness. We are here to discuss in a civil and respectful way.

Our standards here are much higher than in a typical streamers mind / community, when it comes to communication and in the way we treat each other.

Please respect this.

Edited January 31 by Miguel1