Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Girzo]

I died a little on the inside when Anastasia confidently said she is already Awakened.

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Girzo said:

I died a little on the inside when Anastasia confidently said she is already Awakened.

That's a bold trick I wasn't expecting 

[RisingLane]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I need to figure out how to contact him.

From his website.

[Leo Gura]

@RisingLane Thanks!

[Natasha Tori Maru]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I didn't feel that from him at all.

He was tracking everything I said. By the end he was moved. He was listening. He just has a chill demeanor. He was more open than Ana.

Oh, Shilo was also recovering from surgery, so he might have been in some pain or on painkillers. No worries.

I read him like this also.

I was amused he thought he had his definition of 'evil' down-pat with 'it is just violating another's consent'. He really doubled down there. My first thought was 'What about a parent who takes excessive candy from a child who is destroying their teeth with sugar - is the parent evil for violating the child's consent?'. Then I thought - how funny - is evil only manifesting at a certain 'age' when we gain independence from our parents? Haha

Ana seemed much more certain in general. Hard to fill a cup that is already full. Touch of hubris thinking she was 'awakened'. But I think this was simply because she has a different definition of the term to what we consider awakened here.

Edited 10 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[integral]

The issue with the morality talk was the focus had to be only on why morality is relative and not dabble in love equals God or anything like that, mixing these two things together for someone who doesn't understand morality is relative we'll just confuse them more. And will dig a deeper hole. Metaphysics and ontology are not the first steppingstones for understanding morality. That comes after.

They haven't grasp relativity, so already the whole talk on metaphysics was flying over their head

Edited 10 hours ago by integral

[zurew]

2 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

See, the expectation that I have to make an argument is part of the rationalist paradigm.
 

Lol.

You do understand right that you can find more overall criticism of the field of science and philosophy and rationality on the site I linked than what Leo managed to produce in his entire life.

There is this unjustified myth in your head that you just picked up from Leo and never ever questioned and just taken for granted that there is this big consensus among philosophers across positions on metaphysics, science, rationality, epistemology etc.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

See, the expectation that I have to make an argument is part of the rationalist paradigm.

This is some wild slippery mental hoop-de-loop for not putting ones balls on the line with an argument to refute. Debating 101.

I suppose I can just make wild claims and never have to justify anything.

Courts will love this new system!

[TheBG]

@Leo GuraIt is interesting how you explained what love is, and how there is nothing immoral about understanding others/loving, even if what is being loved is seen as "evil" by the world... and yet their minds could not grasp it. It truly CAN NOT be explained in a few minutes. The more you see it is all love... the more loving you are. It makes sense. They don't understand that they are fighting against your "theory" because it hurts their survival to do so. They are so stuck in survival that they can't see it's survival...

I am not different. Not really. I still operate on a survival level. I am trying to figure out how to survive more consciously. That is okay.

Yet I also look around and cry at the beauty of reality. Of existence itself.

I had no idea Leo did that as well. I must have forgotten. It felt really cool to know I am not alone in that. It also makes sense...

The shitting on the floor part was kind of funny. The hosts were like 

Edited 9 hours ago by TheBG

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@zurew FWIW I see what you are pointing to regarding terms being very loosely defined in Leo's worldview.

I raised this well over a year ago somewhere. I mainly see loose definitions being used as a slippery loophole out of being 'wrong' in some arguments. But at the same time, words are very tricky, as they lack inherent meaning without context. Many of Leo's statements lack context as he shoots for the truth in isolation, removed from context. I do find some of his statements fall apart when viewed from different angles. When this happens it immediately flags lack of coherence in my mind. Normally you can push further nuance out of him which clarifies meaning and intent. Sometimes he does this intentionally to provoke contemplation - but it can really confuse some users also.

 

[oOo]

@Natasha Tori Maru informed consent vs uninformed.

@Leo Gura I was actually impressed with Michael’s (Shilo - middle name) simplicity on the subject. 

You did really well, genuinely. 

Feedback: Purely going by what she said - Directly quoted - “You told us that you were going to explain three things. the ultimate structure of existence, the nature of love, and the nature of God.”

Some interviews are more casual than others, however I would spend some time delineating all four subjects (inclusive of when she tripped you up on defining love, despite you, as best as I can infer, drawing a distinction between human love and universal love) at their connection point that makes moving between them seamless during an interview setting. I get that it was your first interview in a long while, but those subjects at their core, went only partially answered despite it being the stated conceptual drivers for the interview, as stated by Anastasia.

I would ease back in future interviews on using terms like “truth psychopath”, it can sound edgy but on subjects like morality where people are either less informed and therefore a little dogmatic or people that have thought deeply on the subjects, it can be harder to reach people; which is kinda one of the points of the interview, to reach more people. I would also do the same for critiques of certain areas like academia as one example, the more refined your points on interviews like these the more of a win-win it becomes as they are both genuinely open minded warm people. Broad critiques are the strategic drawcard, but on the reel in to getting the actual catch, like getting an interview, it’s laid out mapped concretely. You’re handling very difficult subjects, and the people that want to listen, want to really listen, and like strapping a load of timber on a truck, the better you do it the safer your message is going to land safely home where people will be most receptive. You’re uniquely positioned as a conversant in the spiritual demography, capitalise on that devastatingly.

Irrespectively,

1. You kept composure under sharp pushback. Anastasia and Michael have had some really ego fuelled guests.

2. Framed “relative vs absolute” to defuse literalism.

3. Flagged survival/incentives as bias generators (institutions, self, culture).

4. Validated boundaries (“leave abuse,” don’t tolerate harm) so nonduality isn’t pure passivity. That was an excellent distinction.

6. Prompted epistemic humility a number of times. Like distinguishing belief/speculation from direct insight. You really underscored distinction as a grounding concept being the foundation to your drive over your journey, this positions you as someone that could break the linings of many different kinds of demographics, making you a valuable guest in any interview the better you grt at this overtime.

 

Good luck on the next interview, excellent overall, and we all loved the robe.

Best wishes.

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, oOo said:

@Natasha Tori Maru informed consent vs uninformed.

Yes, Shilo didn't go further into this - there sort of wasn't room either. The conversation naturally flowed past it.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

52 minutes ago, zurew said:

You do understand right that you can find more overall criticism of the field of science and philosophy and rationality on the site I linked than what Leo managed to produce in his entire life.

There is this unjustified myth in your head that you just picked up from Leo and never ever questioned and just taken for granted that there is this big consensus among philosophers across positions on metaphysics, science, rationality, epistemology etc.

The problem is that their critiques aren’t fundamental enough. They aren’t questioning the entire rationalist paradigm. What you find in Leo’s work is a special combination: some knowledge of academic philosophy, lots of knowledge about spirituality, spiritual practices, financial independence that allows for truth-seeking as a life purpose, complete autonomy of mind, and pioneering use of psychedelics. That’s why almost no one understands reality as deeply.
And this isn’t just to idolize Leo— it’s something we can do too, if we don’t fall into all the traps along the way.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Davino said:

I got the feeling that most psychology degrees are very biased towards the pathology branch. I do like the work of Jung. Thanks for the advice on those courses.

For my BSc, only one half of a single course (out of 17) was dedicated to "abnormal psychology" (i.e. mental illnesses and their treatments). For my MSc, essentially the same (out of 5). But of course, different mental illnesses are mentioned across different courses (maybe particularly in a course we had on trauma and attachment), but other than that, really a lot of other stuff.

That said, I did not do a MSc in clinical psychology (which also includes a year of practice); I did it in behavioral neuroscience (which is still psychology), so maybe if I had taken clinical psychology instead, I would've probably dove more into treatment and associated mental illnesses. But then again, that's my point: it's mostly in treatment it shows up.

 

3 hours ago, Davino said:

You need many special equipment that costs too much to make as a personal investment, you cannot spend 10k for every other subject; that infrastructure is provided by the university to put an example. If you study biotechnology, you're not gonna have a bioreactor home or a full chemical lab, etc. Just to put an example of what I mean.

I get it. But yeah, we're talking about philosophy here. And I don't think you strictly need the practical sides to attain high levels of theoretical knowledge in either engineering or biotechnology. But it's of course good if you're going to practice in those fields (as is virtually always the point with getting a degree).

Edited 8 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

I died a little on the inside when Anastasia confidently said she is already Awakened.

Dr. DeLay’s will be coming soon.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, integral said:

The issue with the morality talk was the focus had to be only on why morality is relative and not dabble in love equals God or anything like that, mixing these two things together for someone who doesn't understand morality is relative we'll just confuse them more. And will dig a deeper hole. Metaphysics and ontology are not the first steppingstones for understanding morality. That comes after.

They haven't grasp relativity, so already the whole talk on metaphysics was flying over their head

I had to jump to metaphysics otherwise we would have spent the entire 3 hours talking about evil grizzly bears.

That was me finally taking control of the conversation after 2 hours of moralizing.

I did not want to talk about morality at all because it would keep the conversation in the human domain. But I have to indulge the hosts.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

she has a different definition of the term to what we consider awakened here.

Definition of being Awake: "I'm awesome!"

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

See, the expectation that I have to make an argument is part of the rationalist paradigm.

You have been making arguments in other threads perfectly fine all up until this point, so I don't see why you should stop here.

...wait, is that an argument I'm seeing?:

4 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Making precise statements is fine, but academic philosophy overemphasizes this. There's a tradeoff between technical rigor and actual understanding. If you get too technical to the point of qualifying and defining every statement, you're missing out on actual understanding. And the irony is that you can never get a perfectly defined statement because reality is infinite and undefined-- which means that even attempting to define a part of reality will fail. That's why rationalism is an illusion of rigor.

Making sure you use the word "God" consistently across the presentation of your work, so that it suddenly doesn't mean something else, or in fact something completely opposite. Is that to get "too technical"? I'm not suggesting here for Leo to go full Bernardo Kastrup, downloading a PhD after showing his work to a university. I'm suggesting a bare minimum appeal to extremely basic epistemic norms, which should in fact be mandatory if you want to consider yourself not just different from but superior to all of analytical philosophy.

 

4 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Sure, it can be useful in some ways, but its far off from genuine Pure Philosophy.

Can we reel in the LeoGPTs a bit?

Edited 8 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, oOo said:

I would ease back in future interviews on using terms like “truth psychopath”, it can sound edgy but on subjects like morality where people are either less informed

I didn't even know we would be talking about morality.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Definition of being awake: I'm awesome!

I mean... pretty much. My perception was she had a bigger, more entrenched ego. 

I noticed that she was very sensitive to being wrong. When Shylo corrected her regarding the Grandmaster Flash example she got very per-snippety! No interruptions allowed when she has the soundstage! There is some delicious self image stuff she needs to confront - delicious in that - if she dissolves those lumps in her gravy she will make leaps and bounds in growth. IF she can confront her ego. Some people do not like their own abyss