Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Okay, but can you agree then, that by that very definition of using suicidal moments as pointers to psychotic tendencies, that most people on this forum have potential psychotic tendencies ?

Sure, given the underdetermination issue - the answer to that question is yes, they potentially do.

6 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Have you not had any suicidal moments in your life ?

I had, yeah.

Not sure whats the argument from here.

[Wilhelm44]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

Not sure whats the argument from here.

The point is that if everyone in a group has potential psychotic tendencies, then by these metrics, no one would qualify as a suitable leader. ie if you were the leader of this group, there would also be the potential for you to lose it one day and steer the group down a dark path, just as would be the case for everyone else here.

Edited 18 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

The point is that if everyone in a group has potential psychotic tendencies, then by these metrics, no one would qualify as a suitable leader.

I dont think that follows from what I said. 

My whole case is precisely to show that having potential psychotic tendencies is not enough to get you to such a conclusion, because of the underdetermination issue.

The recognition of the underdetermination will motivate you to do further investigation, but does not automatically disqualify someone from being a leader under my view.

Edited 12 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think that follows from what I said. 

My whole case is precisely to show that having potential psychotic tendencies is not enough to get you to such a conclusion, because of the underdetermination issue.

Aha, got it.

I think that yesterday you narrowed this whole drama down to 3 very succinct points.

Hopefully one of the mods will approach Leo soon with some kind of formal statement, so that resolution can be found, and we can finally close this thread.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Hopefully one of the mods will approach Leo soon with some kind of formal statement, so that resolution can be found, and we can finally close this thread.

Do you think this discussion necessitates some form of action, conclusion or acknowledgement? 

Because if this is the reason for the extensive engagement on your behalf, you might be up for disappointment. Not sure if anyone feels a compulsion for any sort of formality.

We can all agree to disagree and nothing can come of it, as one potentiality.

[Wilhelm44]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

We can all agree to disagree and nothing can come of it, as one potentiality.

Of course. 

[integral]

My blessed individuals. I have traveled far for the second time to be with you in this land to present de with a superior opinion. .✨

The way you differentiate a cult from a not-cult is by identifying its core values.

You have to separate two layers: the extrinsic values that are superficially present, the stuff it advertises, the label, from the intrinsic values that are actually operating, which are usually unconscious to the cult itself and to its members. Once you label those correctly, you get a clear picture of what the thing actually is, and whether it's a cult.

---

Most of this thread is trying to figure out what a cult is by looking at the symptoms.

Leo's unfalsifiable epistemology is a symptom of the core values of the organization. That doesn't mean it's a cult.

 

And the end of the day we got to ask what makes a value high or low? 

The domain is axiology. But that domain is pretty Limited, and Leo has his high consciousness axiology. "truth as the highest value" and so on.

Edited 11 hours ago by integral

[Joseph Maynor]

I see the underlying issue as a question as to what is power?  This is not really dealt with thoroughly with most people.  

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I would just like to add one final point, and then I'm done.

By using suicidal moments as part of your case to point to psychotic tendencies, you are basically including everyone

in the spiritual world. (Because once again, hands up everyone here who has never had a single suicidal moment in their lives.)

Therefore it would be best to stick to those other or additional facts you mentioned, in the process of determining psychotic tendencies.

So whether or not some supposedly smart psychiatrist thinks that suicidal moments points to psychotic tendencies, if you include that metric, you are basically excluding most spiritual people in the world from being seen as suitable leaders to any group. Because by that very definition then we all have psychotic tendencies here.

Suicidal moments can also point to a powerful rebirth, but this is language that most psychiatrists probably wouldn't understand.

If the psychosis description doesn't seem accurate, remember I said "psychotic tendencies and other concerning behavior". You decided to focus in on psychotic tendencies in particular (a common thing you've done in this thread, focusing in on parts of an argument). That's probably partly why my mind went there.

I would concede that if you want to be very strict about definitions of things like "delusional thinking", then the Leo gun scenario need not necessarily be "psychotic" (the exact details around that situation might have involved things that one could likely classify as not "delusional" in the strictest sense, but if you ask any psychiatrist, it's still concerning behavior especially in its seeming abruptness and discontinuity with prior behavior). A more fitting description would be (all assumptions considered) "sudden ungrounded and concerning behavior brought on by psychedelic intoxication". So if not a "psychotic break", perhaps a "concerning and conflicting psychic break".

Nevertheless, your attempt at appealing to gradations ("everybody has been suicidal before') doesn't work here because it undermines all traits that can be classified as psychotic. Everybody has had delusional thoughts, everybody has had hallucinatory experiences. And we're not talking about simply threshold experiences. We're talking about serious cases of those experiences. We're not talking about having simply had a thought with the content containing suicide, like anybody probably has had. We're talking about being in a place where you were "so close" to shooting yourself with a gun. So "we've everybody been there" doesn't work.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

'Suicidal thoughts' is a bit unclear anyway - suicidal thoughts can be a form of intrusive thought we never intend to take action on.

You could argue a case almost everyone has thoughts such as these.

Suicidal thoughts can be simply intrusive / totally unwanted - or passive suicidal ideation types (I wish I could disappear, I wouldn't mind not waking up) - right into active suicidal ideation. Intent is a big factor.

The term is ill defined.

[Joshe]

Here for the party.

@zurew 

Would an apology and behavior change really do it for you? 

If Leo never uttered a single word of his specialness and never put anyone else down, and conversed in good faith from this day forward, do you think that's an acceptable termination of this issue?

It would be like if Trump's advisers told him to stop saying he was the best at everything and to stop telling people they're stupid. If Trump took their advice and stopped, we'd still know who he was at his core even if he doesn't say it out loud. 

The issue is, once patterns like these are seen, they stain the character in ways you can't unsee. And if you're perceptive, you intuit extreme narcissism and high moral character cannot coexist. When an extreme narcissist projects that they care deeply about other people's growth and development, it's incongruent with who they are, even if they themselves believe it's true. 

In other words, even if Leo adjusts his behavior perfectly, it won't be an acceptable closure for anyone who has seen, because what really bothers the people who can see is not the behavior itself, but what the behavior confirms about the entire structure. 

Finding it acceptable so long as it's not let out of the cage is some weird shit IMO. "I am above everyone" is as base as ego gets. When you realize Leo is more ego-driven than most people in his community, what do you do with that? Can you just accept it? I don't think you can just be like "as long as he keeps it quiet, we're good", lol. 

To veil the structure is probably more toxic than it being out in the open, which is why I think asking for behavior change is the wrong idea. 

---

Also, this isn't something Leo can likely solve since behavior is a symptom of underlying psychology. It's not like Leo has just been rude or something and needs to be nicer. To understand the scope of what it would take to uproot extreme narcissism, we have to understand what it's providing.

Narcissism is more rewarding than it is protective. For a narcissist, the reward they get from being special is serving as their primary reason for living. That's WHY they do it. Being special and being above others IS the point and what makes existence feel worthwhile. We can't simply ask a narcissist drop this bullshit, lol. 

There's likely never going to be any acceptable closure for those who have seen and fathomed the implications. It just is what it is. 

Edited 30 minutes ago by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe Do you think that behaviour change does not influence structure of personality or psychology? 

 

[Joshe]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Joshe Do you think that behaviour change does not influence structure of personality or psychology? 

 

When the behavior is trying to change something load-bearing in our psychology, not really. It works when it's something simple like just being nicer in situation X or something like that. Like, if you wanted to not be as reactive in your responses, it's easy to adjust that with practice. But when you're asking someone to change behavior that manifests from deep psychological structures, I don't think you stand much of a chance. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, Joshe said:

When the behavior is trying to change something load-bearing in our psychology, not really. It works when it's something simple like just being nicer in situation X or something like that. Like, if you wanted to not be as reactive in your responses, it's easy to adjust that with practice. But when you're asking someone to change behavior that manifests from deep psychological structures, I don't think you stand much of a chance. 

By load bearing (if you could clarify) do you mean to point toward a personality disorder as opposed to a disorder?

We would have to make a case to support the claim that Leo has a personality disorder or 'load bearing' issue. Or something more permanent than a simple disorder that have better prognosis. Which, without a clinician assisting, would be difficult. 

Public facing content - do we think this is sufficient to establish a construct like a personality disorder? Without clinical assessment any strong attribution is speculation. Which is fine, if that's the basis of the claim.

Edited 12 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joshe]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

By load bearing (if you could clarify) do you mean to point toward a personality disorder as opposed to a disorder?

We would have to make a case to support the claim that Leo has a personality disorder or 'load bearing' issue. Or something more permanent than a simple disorder that have better prognosis. Which, without a clinician assisting, would be difficult. 

By load-bearing structure, I mean a psychological structure that exists for a reason. We all have load-bearing structures. Nothing inherently pathological about them. A narcissistic structure is pathological/unhealthy/toxic. (I know you like precision so I'm trying to cover the field 😝)