Leo, how is your dream still intact.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I find myself perceiving less a sustained, logically structured critique and more a series of emotionally charged rants . 

He is criticizing the rationalist paradigm, no?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

He is criticizing the rationalist paradigm, no?

Yes - but my comment is more to do with the excessive and diverting emotionally charged language, intonation and tone. I find it difficult to receive the message.

[Joseph Maynor]

13 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yes - but my comment is more to do with the excessive and diverting emotionally charged language, intonation and tone. I find it difficult to receive the message.

I agree.  

[Joseph Maynor]

The tone is I'm always right and everyone else are always wrong.  That's a rough premise to defend.  This gets into picking your battles.  But if you limit the scope to what he is teaching, he is just trying to be direct.  I think he is trying to communicate one thing as directly as possible.  It gets a little confusing due to the breadth of topics covered.  So there is a mixing of the relative and the Absolute in the wide range of topics covered.  Nobody wants to make good sense of the link between the finite and the Infinite.  

Edited 4 hours ago by Joseph Maynor

[AerisVahnEphelia]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Fucking gross.

This is just a cult of bootlickers defending the guy they've put on a pedestal. Nothing more conscious or more sophisticated is happening here.

And now there's equivocation on "God." (Suddenly everyone isn't God anymore --- only Leo is God and poor God needs a lot of patience)

Now this is supposedly "corrupt" and "devilry," and apparently one main deciding criterion is whether something "helps Leo," (as if every discussion is obligated to optimize for Leo's interests.)

Meanwhile, none of you have anything to say when Leo went on his thousandth rant about science and scientists, or when he regularly opens with lines like:

• "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about."
• "I'm the standard of epistemology."
• "You ought to use my definition of cult."
• "I'm the most awake out of all you spiritual rats."

Apparently all of that is "sophisticated," "conscious," and carefully calibrated to "maximize" truth.

Or when he gaslights people for holding him to standards that he himself established. Or when he insists he never said something, is shown that he clearly did, and then ends the conversation with, "I can't be wrong because I once said self-deception is endless, therefore if I'm wrong, I'm actually right about self-deception being endless."

And the list goes on and on.

None of you actually care about tone. None of you really care about truth or substance. Your supposedly "sophisticated" or "conscious" analysis of what best serves truth begins and ends with whether Leo is the one saying it. It has virtually nothing to do with the content or with the tone of the message.

 

 

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I confess I have not enjoyed, and even actively disliked, Leo's posts and video's regarding science (especially as of late).

The repeated rhetoric, the absence of substantially new arguments, and the consistent way the subject punctuates his work, suggests an emotional core / motivation rather than any attempt at true education. I get the impression there is affront, slight and offence taken that science does not take Leo's work seriously, and I feel this is the true impulse behind statements like "I am not done with science". Well, science appears to be done with Leo - which may be the problem.

The tone is sour. The passion reads as inciting emotional contagion in the listener, rather than appealing to logic. Just how it comes across to me. Emotions are fine. Great even. But they can corrupt logic and critical thinking if we are not truly connected to ourselves. Connected in understanding. And wisdom. Emotional connection / integration is a huge gap in the body of Leo's work - and I see this in his followers.

Whether the above inference is correct or not, I find myself perceiving less a sustained, logically structured critique and more a series of emotionally charged rants . Even intonation and expression when Leo records himself on this subject act to steer me to my conclusion.

You both believe that language is a meaningful way to understand reality and the world, and that it can somehow solve reality.

But maybe it can’t. Maybe we’re all just animals making noises and hallucinating meaning into them. Have you ever thought about that?

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@AerisVahnEphelia You don't know what I believe.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

14 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I agree.  

deconstruct why you need to agree or disagree

11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The tone is I'm always right and everyone else are always wrong.  That's a rough premise to defend.  This gets into picking your battles.  But if you limit the scope to what he is teaching, he is just trying to be direct.  I think he is trying to communicate one thing as directly as possible.  It gets a little confusing due to the breadth of topics covered.  So there is a mixing of the relative and the Absolute in the wide range of topics covered.  Nobody wants to make good sense of the link between the finite and the Infinite.  

what's the tone, compared to what, if you were rised by wolves biting everyone would be the right tone.
 

children of the summer will hate everything sounding like the winter " it's the bad season, only summer is the good temper ! "

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@AerisVahnEphelia You don't know what I believe.

how can you know that I don't ?
 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

deconstruct why you need to agree or disagree

what's the tone, compared to what, if you were rised by wolves biting everyone would be the right tone.
 

children of the summer will hate everything sounding like the winter " it's the bad season, only summer is the good temper ! "

I don't understand the anger he has toward scientists for example.  Why?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

how can you know that I don't ?

You think you are knowing?

[AerisVahnEphelia]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I don't understand the anger he has toward scientists for example.  Why?

They operate through the same toxic mechanism as religious people, only in an even worse form. I think some religious people are at least vaguely conscious that Jesus and the whole mythology around him are largely fantasies designed to make them feel better.

Scientists are convinced that they have figured out reality, that they are exceptionally intelligent, and that this gives them the authority to dictate how reality itself should be interpreted.

In that sense, they are worse than religious people. Instead of tiny goblin-like devils, they become enormous, well-fed demonic entities that occasionally devour the goblins.

Science is too sacralized, but I think we should also start mocking language itself a bit more.

 

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You think you are knowing?

depending what is meant by knowing

[Joseph Maynor]

@AerisVahnEphelia  I'll give you one counterexample.  Not every scientist cares about truth.  They care about what works.  And that is enough for them.  And someone needs to do that job just like someone needs to be a plumber in society.  It is kind of a straw man to assume scientists are doing truth.  No, they are categorizing patterns that can be confirmed by observation and experiment.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Joseph Maynor

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@AerisVahnEphelia Exactly.

Are you:

Inferring?

Deducting?

Inducting?

Extrapolating?

Estimating?

Predicting?

Maybe it is less rigorous. Guessing, speculating, assuming, presuming, intuiting, believing, expecting.

Or maybe you are using a cognitive shortcut? A heuristic. Maybe pattern matching. Analogy reasoning. 

Or you could simply be confabulating. 

Regardless - you don't know. So I wouldn't make the claim, if I were you. But only because it stands on the spindly legs of a foal newly born  

Edited 4 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joseph Maynor]

10 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

They operate through the same toxic mechanism as religious people, only in an even worse form. I think some religious people are at least vaguely conscious that Jesus and the whole mythology around him are largely fantasies designed to make them feel better.

Scientists are convinced that they have figured out reality, that they are exceptionally intelligent, and that this gives them the authority to dictate how reality itself should be interpreted.

In that sense, they are worse than religious people. Instead of tiny goblin-like devils, they become enormous, well-fed demonic entities that occasionally devour the goblins.

Science is too sacralized, but I think we should also start mocking language itself a bit more.

This sounds a little paranoid to me honestly.

[Joseph Maynor]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@AerisVahnEphelia Exactly.

Are you:

Inferring?

Deducting?

Inducting?

Extrapolating?

Estimating?

Predicting?

Maybe it is less rigorous. Guessing, speculating, assuming, presuming, intuiting, believing, expecting.

Or maybe you are using a cognitive shortcut? A heuristic. Maybe pattern matching. Analogy reasoning. 

Or you could simply be confabulating. 

Regardless - you don't know. So I wouldn't make the claim, if I were you. But only because it stands on the spindly legs of a foal newly born  

What about direct knowing?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What about direct knowing?

I think you would need telepathy for that! (in the context of knowing what you or I believe, as it applied to this dialogue)

But I would add it to the brainstorm list, indeed.

I can brainstorm some problematic methods of knowing... confabulating, hallucinating, overclaiming, rationalising, self-deception, projection... mind-reading. 

I often think about which version of 'knowing' a user might be invoking in their comments or arguments.

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I think you would need telepathy for that! (in the context of knowing what you or I believe, as it applied to this dialogue)

But I would add it to the brainstorm list, indeed.

I can brainstorm some problematic methods of knowing... confabulating, hallucinating, overclaiming, rationalising, self-deception, projection... mind-reading. 

I often think about which version of 'knowing' a user might be invoking in their comments or arguments.

The question is what does it mean for you to directly know something?

[Jirh]

Sometimes, I wonder if Leo even truly understands what he teaches.

[Joseph Maynor]

29 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Sometimes, I wonder if Leo even truly understands what he teaches.

He understands it for himself, I'm sure.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

deconstruct why you need to agree or disagree

Sometimes people have great insights that I agree with.  But that is just my opinion.  

Edited 2 hours ago by Joseph Maynor