sgn

Leo's biggest hater?

205 posts in this topic

This "unSpirituality" guy is back at it again. This time criticising Leo's latest video.

Thoughts? xD

 


"Maybe aliens is sitting somewhere up there looking at this at like a video feed and jerking off to it. You don't know!" - Leo Gura, 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he a hater?  That's a strong word.


Leo currently has me banned from posting or responding to PM messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joseph Maynor Haha maybe wrong choice of word. But he seems to get pretty triggered ;)


"Maybe aliens is sitting somewhere up there looking at this at like a video feed and jerking off to it. You don't know!" - Leo Gura, 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sgn said:

This "unSpirituality" guy is back at it again. This time criticising Leo's latest video.

Thoughts? xD

 

This guy's channel appeared on my youtube suggestions, I checked it out, and he just basically talk about other people, there's nothing useful on his channel whatsoever, is a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Dumb Enlightened said:

This guy's channel appeared on my youtube suggestions, I checked it out, and he just basically talk about other people, there's nothing useful on his channel whatsoever, is a joke

I assume you've watched some of his videos to come to this kind of conclusion?  Let's not demonize people ourselves without first being fully informed about what we're talking about.

Edited by Joseph Maynor

Leo currently has me banned from posting or responding to PM messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I assume you've watched some of his videos to come to this kind of conclusion?  Let's not demonize people ourselves.

Yeah man, I'm talking about the channel, not the person, the channel indeed sucks, zero content

I dare you to watch 10 minutes of the video that was posted above

Edited by Dumb Enlightened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sgn said:

Thoughts? xD

Don’t make the same mistake yourself. 


ActualityOfBeing.com Nonduality & Meditations 

   “Wonderer, worshipper, lover of leaving. It doesn't matter. Ours is not a caravan of despair.
Come, even if you have broken your vow a thousand times. Come, yet again, come, come”. Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shin said:

Is it funny ? 😁

Mostly sad


"Maybe aliens is sitting somewhere up there looking at this at like a video feed and jerking off to it. You don't know!" - Leo Gura, 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 minutes ago, sgn said:

Mostly sad

Yeah it is 😂

Perfect depiction of an ego who gets triggered about its belief system 😂😂

Edited by Shin

If you want the moon, do not hide from the night
If you want a rose, do not run from the thorns
If you want love, do not hide from yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@10min. is a good example of the "pre/trans" fallacy. He is contextualizing "nothing", "everything" and "god" into more basic constructs such as irrational religious beliefs. This is a hallmark of a being that lacks direct experience and awareness of "higher" conscious states. I did this a lot earlier in my development. For many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@sgn

To me, he seems to be coming from a loving place.

He loves humanity and cares about the world too much, that he is against what he considers evil religious dogma, and is not open to it at all.

He claims that he'd spent 10 years practising spiritually, I don't believe him, maybe he's lying out of love, but who really knows?

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/2/2019 at 0:20 PM, Serotoninluv said:

@10min. is a good example of the "pre/trans" fallacy. He is contextualizing "nothing", "everything" and "god" into more basic constructs such as irrational religious beliefs. This is a hallmark of a being that lacks direct experience and awareness of "higher" conscious states. I did this a lot earlier in my development. For many years.

How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?  My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions.  Why wouldn't the same attitude apply here?  You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias.  Scientists are supposed to correct for biases like that.  Weird.  I was a philosophy major and I try to correct for my biases all the time and be fair to opinions even when they're hostile to my Ego or other Egos that I had a vested interest in protecting.

Edited by Joseph Maynor

Leo currently has me banned from posting or responding to PM messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?  My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions.  Why wouldn't the same attitude apply here?  You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias.  Scientists are supposed to correct for biases like that.  Weird.  I was a philosophy major and I try to correct for my biases all the time and be fair to opinions even when they're hostile to my Ego or other Egos that I have a vested interest in protecting.

I said @10min. and did not specify a length of time or amount of content. You asked me how long of a time period and then seemed to assume this was an insufficient time period / content and that my impression was dismissive and biased. . . To me, that indicates that the original question you asked was based on an underlying assumption and was not genuine. . . 

Notice how you first asked the question, then shifted to "my guess is" and then shifted to the assumption. . . in which there is no longer a question or "a guess". This is a common psychological dynamic a mind plays to conceal underlying assumptions. Yet, when one has played that game before, it's really obvious. . . . 

When that surface-level dynamic is revealed, one can then explore a level deeper. In this case, notice the use of "your scientific work as a professor" and then "Scientists are supposed to. . . " then "I was a philosophy major and. . . ". Notice the underlying personality dynamic. The next level deeper would explore the subconscious "energy" fueling that dynamic. Yet a mind would need to become aware of the more surface level dynamics before digging deeper. If the first two dynamics are subconscious and avoided, then it is not possible to dig deeper.

Thank you for this. This dynamic is much more interesting to me that the original comment I made about the video. That one was fairly generic. There is a little more "juice" to this one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has yet to face his sensations. Likely due (unfortunately) to pretty severe childhood traumas. 


ActualityOfBeing.com Nonduality & Meditations 

   “Wonderer, worshipper, lover of leaving. It doesn't matter. Ours is not a caravan of despair.
Come, even if you have broken your vow a thousand times. Come, yet again, come, come”. Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I said @10min. and did not specify a length of time or amount of content. You asked me how long of a time period and then seemed to assume this was an insufficient time period / content and that my impression was dismissive and biased. . . To me, that indicates that the original question you asked was based on an underlying assumption and was not genuine. . . 

Notice how you first asked the question, then shifted to "my guess is" and then shifted to the assumption. . . in which there is no longer a question or "a guess". This is a common psychological dynamic a mind plays to conceal underlying assumptions. Yet, when one has played that game before, it's really obvious. . . . 

When that surface-level dynamic is revealed, one can then explore a level deeper. In this case, notice the use of "your scientific work as a professor" and then "Scientists are supposed to. . . " then "I was a philosophy major and. . . ". Notice the underlying personality dynamic. The next level deeper would explore the subconscious "energy" fueling that dynamic. Yet a mind would need to become aware of the more surface level dynamics before digging deeper. If the first two dynamics are subconscious and avoided, then it is not possible to dig deeper.

Thank you for this. This dynamic is much more interesting to me that the original comment I made about the video. That one was fairly generic. There is a little more "juice" to this one.

No need to get so defensive friend.  I’m only saying that scientists are renowned for making careful conclusions and for examining all the evidence before arriving at conclusions, including but not limited to carefully examining any self biases.  I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head.

Edited by Joseph Maynor

Leo currently has me banned from posting or responding to PM messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

No need to get so defensive friend.  I’m only saying that scientists are renowned for making careful conclusions and for examining all the evidence before arriving at conclusions, including but not limited to carefully examining any self biases.  I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head.

I welcome this dynamic. As I said, your comments and the underlying psychological dynamic is much more interesting to me than the video I originally commented on. I think it is helpful for others to learn about this psychological dynamic.

So let's observe. . . Notice in the original statement there was a question "How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?" Do you think this is a question in which the questioner is genuinely curious about how much time the other person thinks they need to make a judgement?. Well, we will need to examine the next statements. . . The questioner next makes "a guess" on how the other person would behave. "My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions." Notice the shift right here. The questioner adds in a "guess" that the other person (being a science professor) would look carefully at things before making over-hasty, dismissive conclusions. Where on earth did "over-hasty, dismissive" conclusions come in? This is where the assumption of an over-hasty, dismissive conclusion is introduced.

The following sentence "You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias.  " clearly indicates the previous question was not "a guess". The questioner solidifies the assumption and now speaks of it as fact - the other person is inclined to want to dismiss and goes even further by calling it "a clear and obvious bias". This is so incredibly clear cut. It is right in front of you. An "uncertain guess" has now become a fact. The other person is inclined to dismiss and is biased. 

The questioner goes on to say "Scientists are supposed to correct for biases like that.  ". Again, is an obvious assumption that a the other person has mad a over-hasty dismissive conclusion. Notice how the questioner no longer treats it as an "uncertain guess". I can't see how anyone could interpret this differently. The questioner has no idea how much time, effort and thought the other person put into the statement. The questioner is making this conclusion on an assumption.

When this is revealed to the questioner, he doubles-down on his position with "I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head." Again, can't you see this ENTIRE position is based on an assumption? Without the initial assumption that the other person made an overly-hastily dismissive judgement, the ENTIRE position of the questioner crumbles. The statement "of how good scientists behave" is based on an assumption a scientists has behaved badly. There is clear is day. 

In fact, your assumption is sooo strong that you have zero interest in the answer to your initial question. Why? Because you have already answered it with the assumption. How could you be taken aback without the assumption? Why were you taken aback? Because you are assuming a scientist has made an overly hasty judgement. Without that assumption, what is there to be taken aback about?

This is a super common egoic dynamic, especially in hyper intellectuals. But for those that have worked through it, it is sooo obvious. You are not fooling anyone. I can see you! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I welcome this dynamic. As I said, your comments and the underlying psychological dynamic is much more interesting to me than the video I originally commented on. I think it is helpful for others to learn about psychology.

So let's observe. . . Notice in the original statement there was a question "How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?" Do you think this is a question in which the questioner is genuinely curious about how much time the other person thinks they need to make a judgement?. Well, we will need to examine the next statements. . . The questioner next makes "a guess" on how the other person would behave. "My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions." Notice the shift right here. The questioner adds in a "guess" that the other person (being a science professor) would look carefully at things before making over-hasty, dismissive conclusions. Where on earth did "over-hasty, dismissive" conclusions come in? The questioner added this in here.

The following sentence "You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias.  " clearly indicates the previous question was not "a guess". The questioner has assumed the other person is inclined to want to dismiss and goes further to call that a clear and obvious bias. This is so incredibly clear cut. It is right in front of you. If you can't see this assumption and accusation, I cannot help you.

The questioner goes on to say "Scientists are supposed to correct for biases like that.  ". There is an obvious assumption that a the other person has mad a over-hasty dismissive conclusion. I can't see how anyone could interpret this differently. The questioner has no idea how much time, effort and thought the other person put into the statement. The questioner is making this conclusion on an assumption.

When this is revealed to the questioner, he doubles-down on his position with "I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head." Again, can't you see this ENTIRE position is based on an assumption? Without the initial assumption that the other person made an overly-hastily dismissive judgement, the ENTIRE position of the questioner crumbles. 

In fact, your assumption is sooo strong that you have zero interest in the initial question you asked. Why? Because you have already answered it with the assumption. How could you be taken aback without the assumption. Why were you taken aback? Because you are assuming a scientist has made an overly hasty judgement. Without that assumption, what is there to be taken aback about?

This is a super common egoic dynamic, especially in hyper intellectuals. But for those that have worked through it, it is sooo obvious. You are not fooling anyone. I can see you! :x

 

Oh sweet Jesus.  😇

Edited by Joseph Maynor

Leo currently has me banned from posting or responding to PM messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Oh Jesus.  😇

It seems you are not open to looking at this dynamic and have retreated by sarcastically labeling the observer as an angel. This sarcasm is yet another egoic dynamic to avoid looking at the first dynamic. I've played this games before Joe, I know them well and it is fine. What I wrote may be helpful to others. As I said, this is a very common tactic. I would consider it a moderately manipulative egoic dynamic to control a narrative. You get zero from me, because I know exactly how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you care about someone criticizing Leo? Do you have something invested in him? Be careful not to make Leo your guru and placing him on a pedestal. Just do the work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now