Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Michal__]

Anyone else can't pee on 5 meo even if they really want to? :DD

[LoneWonderer]

I have to be honest in my opinion here that others have also pointed out. It in no way is meant as a mean jab but an observation. The colored cape you are wearing is immediately off putting and gives off cult vibes. In my opinion it degrades a sense of seriousness and trust that needs to happen for the layman audience.

The interviews were good on the other hand. She was waaaay too cocky and asured of her position and wasn't really that open to entertain deeply anything you were saying. He on the other hand came off more curious. These conversations are really hard to have if there is no foundations in Leo's work. Maybe for next time a restructuring of priorities? Like focusing on what is the most important yet relatable information I can convey to people in 3h to get them excited and interested in actualized.org teachings knowing full well that the audience watching has 0 spiritual work under their belts.

Edited 7 hours ago by LoneWonderer

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I know all those positions and they are garbage. Not worth discussing.

That doesnt make much sense to me as a reasoning for why you dont discuss them.

How does normie positions in any way at all less garbage and more worth discussing than non-normie positions?

Edited 5 hours ago by zurew

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

it doesn't matter that leo is enlightened or not, why the fuck anyone care to prove anything, the moment you'll get those level of insights you understand that really you're just yelling at walls.
no one is going to confirm, because god is absolute.
you really think you can share anything of your reality or that anyone can ( yes and no, absolutely yes ).
if that happen it's as miraculous as fucking cosmic heaven coliding stars, but fucking miracle happen all the time.

you all still using lasers & ruler when even using telepathy isn't possible in this space.
 

it doesn't even fucking matter, relatively the number of distinctions and construct you can produce is infinite & finite, but finite only for the human self, which cannot be grasb, so might aswell be basically infinite.

you all mad, everyone just confined to fucking insanity, thank god, I've enough sanity for all of us.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say?

[Davino]

I think it would be helpful to reference your work when talking in interviews.

E.g. if you wanna know more about evil: Go watch what is The Devil? What is Goodness? Etc. A full 3h lecture on the topic...

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, Nemra said:

@UnbornTao, I am not a believer in Leo, especially recently, which is not to say I won't agree with him.

Psychedelics annihilate the authority of Leo, to be honest. He is just a guide who can help.

Look at what's behind the act of agreeing. But okay, I'll take your word for it.

In any case, weren't you approaching them with preconceived ideas about what they would do for you? And where did you hear that? What were you expecting to experience, and why? Subtly, it's a form of confirmation bias.

"You'll find X", and people find (create an experience of) it.

14 hours ago, Nemra said:

I speak for myself.

Maybe psychedelics work on you differently. You have to consider that could be the case.

Maybe. Or maybe I no longer fool myself into mistaking an experience for an 'awakening.' Again, why do you think I bring up masters?

These are the excuses and resistance mentioned above.

Without any prior sense of what enlightenment is, this trap seems virtually inevitable with psychedelics. And look at the forum - especially those who have drunk the Kool-Aid - which you can tell if you pay attention.

14 hours ago, Nemra said:

You can superficially make that logical connection, but if you didn't become conscious of what the universe was before you were born, then you don't really know what you are talking about.

I know that being drunk exists in a different domain from what is, and a change in state does not change that. It's just a significant part of, and influence on, what we consider life to be.

Remove every perceptive faculty at your disposal, including the mind, and see what 'state' you find.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

That doesnt make much sense to me as a reasoning for why you dont discuss them.

Because it is easier to discuss from a clean slate than trying to correct a flawed foundation.

The distinctions and categories in academic philosophy take longer to correct than to just start from scratch.

Getting into the weeds of academic philosophy is really only appealing to academic philosophers, not normal people. Why make my discourse intentionally arcane? I frame things in a way that requires no education in academic philosophy.

I could go all philosophy-nerd. And I try not to.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

Kastrup says reality is mind when its not mind. Its something else. Hes mistaking the drone ( nothing) for mind. He is putting 2 seperate things together. Not the void of nothing that it truly is. At least from what I can remeber he says nature is mind.

Your mind is reality but there is something that is no mind. That is more reality.

Edited 4 hours ago by Hojo

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Because it is easier to discuss from a clean slate than trying to correct a flawed foundation.

The distinctions and categories in academic philosophy take longer to correct than to just start from scratch.

Getting into the weeds of academic philosophy is really only appealing to academic philosophers, not normal people. Why make my discourse intentionally arcane? I frame things in a way that requires no education in academic philosophy.

I could go all philosophy-nerd. And I try not to.

But you dont start from a clean slate, in the sense that you assume that they are new atheist types and you start from attacking that foundation.

Its also the case that I dont think you can really skip using arcane language, because you cant do philosophy with just using vague terms where each term can be interpreted a 1000 different ways. You are forced to define terms at the end of the day. The general population's culturally induced intuitions around metaphysics are so far removed from your view, that you need a lot of and careful explaning to do so that they wont misunderstand things . There is a reason why most of your close fans still not understand in a lot of cases what you are saying despite the fact that they have consumed 100s of hours of your content.

If we were to run a test on your close fans where they would be forced to describe your views in detail in a non-vague manner where they would need to differentiate your view from other Idealist views, they would fail horribly, because even though they are using the exact same terms as you, each have a different understanding of what those terms mean.

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, zurew said:

you assume that they are new atheist types

Scientists are not blank slates. They have a default worldview.

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think you can really skip using arcane language

The language I use does not require people to read obtuse academic philosophy. That's part of the value I offer. Usually to get the kind of intellectual depth my videos offer would require reading very heavy, elitist academic tomes. I make very deep things accessible to normies.

Edited 51 minutes ago by Leo Gura