Gidiot

Stage Orange Critique of Green+ (Leo is not a Cult Leader)

40 posts in this topic

I engaged very extensively in the youtube comments to that video. In the end, I'm not sure it was worth it or what motivated me to engage (I guess a general annoyance with the casual use of the word "mysticism" as a slur). But it did help me get a better sense of how to draw different lines on a variety of different topics so it might be of interest to take a look at the back and forth.

One thing I really didn't have a sense of before engaging is the shape that Orange's ego tends to take in discussions around spiritual topics: it's like Orange wants to be convinced about the reality of spiritual topics but only on its own terms. So show Orange the relevant scientific studies, was a common request! Or Orange is willing to entertain things like "infinite consciousness" or "God" so long as you can point to some specific phenomena (that is an object) in the world that corresponds to "infinite consciousness" or "God". Well, the request to do so is clearly self-refuting: if infinite consciousness could be analyzed as something occurring outside of oneself then it wouldn't be something for a person to experience, and if God could be turned into an object of scientific analysis then there would be no possibility of worshipping God. So yeah, Orange tends towards arrogance in its own unique way and there isn't the possibility of discussing the world with Orange except in ways that are very objectifying and instrumental (it makes one wonder whether Orange is even capable of talking authentically about Love, quite honestly!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Boethius to orange love is just a bunch of chemicals in the brain or an emotion and there are not any metaphysical points. Also there is no understanding of the problem of being part of the world you’re measuring so you can’t create a distance from god or infinity or what you’re measuring you’re intimately intertwined with it.

thanks for your insight I now understand this problem a lot better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Boethius said:

One thing I really didn't have a sense of before engaging is the shape that Orange's ego tends to take in discussions around spiritual topics

How normal people engage in internet conversations:

Person 1:

Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g.

Person 2: 

"I disagree with A and B and I'm going to write it in a couple of sentences."

 

How Orange debunk lords engage in internet conversations:

Person 1:

Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g.

Person 2:

"You didn't provide any evidence for your claim, therefore A is false."

"B i'm not going to address because I'm going to gish gallop you with a bunch of tangentially relevant paragraphs without directly addressing the point, picking apart every little unimportant detail like some postmodern genius."

"c is a logical fallacy."

"d is not a valid authority."

"e is pseudoscience."

"f is not backed by peer reviewed studies."

"g is irrelevant - my argument still stands."

 

Of course you shouldn't expect anything when talking to these people in the first place purely based on psychology, but you can also make that conclusion by just looking at the structure (or shape) of the conservation. It's impossible to have a back-and-forth when all you get in return is a tedious deconstruction of 5% of what you're saying and endless tangents of self-important verbosity. This is one big reason why debates don't work. Even if the psychology allowed for people to change their minds, the format that arises and some people excacerbate the effects of just makes it impossible.

Edited by Carl-Richard

To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard Thanks for that deconstruction! I guess I was hopeful that dialogue was still possible even if debate wouldn't work. And yeah, the ego involved is obnoxious. I guess the sort of "procedural reasoning" that Orange employs is really meant to lead to only one valid conclusion. Or at least this is true when starting from a fixed set of priors (which of course are always unstated and under-examined). So maybe we shouldn't expect anything more from people who aren't willing to analyze their priors.

@Gidiot I'm glad my thoughts were helpful ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes wisdom to understand wise words.

Leo is way ahead of his time.

Happy to see so many people here that kinda understand how human psyche works, and have learned and thought about the stuff that Leo talks about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura

after watching your new vid, I’d like to apologize for even posting this and feel free to delete it.

it really resonated with me and my ego was getting hyped up and fed up.

I don’t know if debates would be good for you other to get normies like you say. Imagine a super bowl ad where you say you are god lol.

now back to my yoga and meditation work.

 

work on your book take a break from the videos when you can. Lots of love.

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a koan:

What is the difference between the materialistic cult and all other cults?

Hint: There is no difference.


If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of his critiques were valid, this whole ‘raise your vibration’ thing is pseudoscience 


لا إله إلا الله، وليو رسول الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible to connect both views as long as you're willing to connect the quantum and gross neuroscientific part of a human to each and every thought/logic/imagination which is impossible with current technology it's too much data to measure and even harder to process although and that's what other parts of intelligence besides logic are for;

What I want to say is that the orange man is misguided by not actually believing(having love for) in infinite material logic/science and thus actually partially defeats himself by denying his own love of logic/science in favor of some fears/agendas.

Leo doesn't want to waste time backtracking; however there is a critic I have for every mystic too in that they could motivate these people to actually become more passionate about logic/understanding itself because there are even spiritual practices that have the subjectivity of logic/understanding itself as a sort of landscape you can attain through which I understand to be the practice most prone to full blow delusion and becoming utterly broken mentally/physically(personal experience which took me 14 years to recover from) or rather with a high chance of getting side tracked since it has to do with exploring the realm of infinite possibilities/intelligence.
 

Basically to make your emotions operate with your intellect to achieve the absolute limit in actual logic so that you can transcend it.
 

This doesn't mean dropping logic but making it break all limits by adding other dimensions of intelligence and life to nurture it to levels you didn't think possible but usually these types of people love are scattered through way more than just science/logic so they don't even have profound belief in their own logic which is why arguing with them through logic can work when you make war with their logic and their subconscious love for logic gives in to your super conscious logic/love which of course can be a waste of time since this love is usually entangled in the usual survival patterns that hinge to much on social approval/etc and of course they put barriers on the development of their own logic by denying the logic of many other types of intelligence because they develop their love(ego) socially and not like an utter weird recluse like me who was absolutely obsessed with developing my intelligence(my ego) regardless of how dumb I perceived myself to be at any point.


I guess this just kind of displays the possible different speeds and quantities of development/fulfillment/suffering that each type of ego/chakra/attachment pattern can lead to.

I make the level of literal physical pleasure of the thought process itself the primary seat of evaluation of my current state and direction I should move in order to feel more of that literal pleasure like it's a drug.

I'm more balanced now as I improve this pleasure through doing all the normal things a human looking to evolve  does by also taking care of all the other dimensions of life in order to support my addiction to logic/imagination.

This was cathartic to write I guess socializing as it's merits when there's a space you can be yourself in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2021 at 7:04 PM, Carl-Richard said:

.... Of course you shouldn't expect anything when talking to these people in the first place purely based on psychology, but you can also make that conclusion by just looking at the structure (or shape) of the conservation. It's impossible to have a back-and-forth when all you get in return is a tedious deconstruction of 5% of what you're saying and endless tangents of self-important verbosity. This is one big reason why debates don't work. Even if the psychology allowed for people to change their minds, the format that arises and some people excacerbate the effects of just makes it impossible.

I'm not sure about that "debates don't work" thing. If we're talking about some 240-char back-n-forth face-farting in the comments between "satan666" vs "v3ganpumpkin", then I guess you're right. Personally, I even extend that to most of the long-form forums, including this very one, as a waste of my time (but not always - just looking at my "diarrhoea" below... lol ). Of course, the bulk of the work and the biggest progress is never verbalised - at least from my experience. I get all that. I also get that you'll choose what is the most comfortable medium to communicate your ideas.

But just to reduce a human conversation to verbal fights and rebuttals for the sake of ego and survival seems like such a caricature of how great and full of love human communication can be. It's like saying there are no levels to consciousness - just a binary "on/off" switch.

I get the complexity and subtle nature of many of the ideas that require a long preamble to roll the argument in full. However, the argument that this can only be done while rambling into the camera lens? This is such a false belief to me. And also, a mighty "un-holistic" take on the whole subject.
As if you've never witnessed any great conversation that you've learned from, clear some of your doubts, or even made you change your entire worldview.

Same as flawlessly talking to a camera for 4 hours without blinking and making "yhmm" and "ekhem" noises, debating and interview require skill and experience. Currently, Leo has almost zero public experience in interviews. Except for the two with Rawlston and Ball that many people (myself included) found incredibly valuable. Worth noting that Rawlston videos are essentially a debate where Leo throws objections, and Rawlston expertly tackles and disarms them. The benefit is not just for Leo but also for millions of people now and in the future, watching the video.

And by the way, the bulk of the "debates don't work" argument seems to be about "me not getting anything from it" or "not being able to convince the other person". Well, you don't really debate for yourself or to change your interlocutor's mind. Debates are mostly made for the silent majority at least as "food for thought" if not to educate them more interestingly and engagingly.

It also helps you become a better teacher as it can give you a high-level insight into how the other person is receiving your words. There is a great value in going through the process of concept verbalisations and becoming a better, more eloquent communicator of ideas.

It's like I often hear this "pointing finger to the moon" analogy - well, being a great communicator that has experience in "getting through to a thick skull" is like pulling out a telescope and pointing... You're just much more effective at it than waving your little finger at the dark sky and mumbling something about "the moon and shit...". The point is that thousands (millions?) of people can have a life-changing experience while listening to a highly conscious and informative interview - so just to dismiss it as "a publicity stunt" feels to me like such a blind spot and poorly thought out argument.

Also, some of the YouTubers' tendency to read thousands of comments under any given video may give you a false idea that channels are essentially built of closed-minded hordes of accolades and any idea-based conversation is futile. While this might be true to some groups, you don't just go to Professor Dave's channel talking about "being God". Picking the right person to talk to is key to having a great conversation/debate that benefits you and the majority of listeners. So I wouldn't whine about Richard Dawkins and his friends not wanting to listen to me talking about God and consciousness - I pick a better person/audience to talk to or modify my language and words to convey at least some of the truth, so I can help them progress or question the dogma (and, btw, isn't that skill and approach-flexibility a part of "yellow stage" package here...?).

Human communication has many various forms - some work only for basic subjects, others are better suited for more complex ideas. It's an art and is made from love. So don't shit on it because you're bad at it or seen some people doing a mockery of it. Go out of your comfort zone, experience it, and get better at communicating - for your and others benefit.

 

P.s. Who are we debating here, anyway? ...

"But, Leo...!" - Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@k0ver I appreciate your response. As I've expressed in another thread, I'm not inherently opposed to people having conversations (or Leo for that matter). I might have labelled myself a bit too strongly: I gave one reason why debates tend not to work. It's always a number's game. They can work, but they're mostly futile. The extreme example I gave doesn't necessarily apply to all situations, but there is always a level of mechanical restraint inherent in conversation.

 

51 minutes ago, k0ver said:

I get the complexity and subtle nature of many of the ideas that require a long preamble to roll the argument in full. However, the argument that this can only be done while rambling into the camera lens? This is such a false belief to me. And also, a mighty "un-holistic" take on the whole subject.
As if you've never witnessed any great conversation that you've learned from, clear some of your doubts, or even made you change your entire worldview.

In Leo's case, you have to realize that the videos where he is talking into a camera have a type of productive value in the sense that they're about new topics that he hasn't presented before. Him going into a debate would be most likely a rehashing of old points (in a new format, sure), so in this case, Leo argues it would be more productive to produce new videoes instead of debating. 

But is this absolutely the case? Is there zero productive value to exploring each point in depth and possibly clearing up misconceptions? Maybe not. However, is it worth it? That would be up to you to decide.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@k0ver I appreciate your response. As I've expressed in another thread, I'm not inherently opposed to people having conversations (or Leo for that matter). I might have labelled myself a bit too strongly: I gave one reason why debates tend not to work. It's always a number's game. They can work, but they're mostly futile. The extreme example I gave doesn't necessarily apply to all situations, but there is always a level of mechanical restraint inherent in conversation.

 

In Leo's case, you have to realize that the videos where he is talking into a camera have a type of productive value in the sense that they're about new topics that he hasn't presented before. Him going into a debate would be most likely a rehashing of old points (in a new format, sure), so in this case, Leo argues it would be more productive to produce new videoes instead of debating. 

But is this absolutely the case? Is there zero productive value to exploring each point in depth and possibly clearing up misconceptions? Maybe not. However, is it worth it? That would be up to you to decide.

Producing new content in the darkness of your studio is one thing. Producing new content based on the experience of the whole enterprise of idea generation that - yes, inevitably includes the 1-on-1 and public conversation - is a whole new ballgame. Irrespective of one's "comfort zones" and "preferences", you can't tell me there is no benefit to ironing out your ideas while having high-level public conversations, "notes comparisons", bouncing back ideas and picking one's brain. All this is so much different than dropping essays on a blog or some forums - that I see very ineffective. (Just look at the @fridjonk response above - even after reading my long post (or not?) he still thinks I didn't watch the video which my entire post was based on...)

Here's the funny thing: you have this "High Consciousness Resources" thread here - how many of those are videos of people talking to each other and exchanging ideas? In fact, Leo drops a video on why he wouldn't do interviews on a blog, and then he posts an ->interview<- about "The Insane Benefits Of Fasting" that I guess he learned a lot from... Do you see what I'm saying here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, k0ver said:

 (Just look at the @fridjonk response above - even after reading my long post (or not?) he still thinks I didn't watch the video which my entire post was based on...)

Sounds like you need to watch it again because Leo addressed everything you just posted. 

When conversations about such deep topics take place, it will end with one of them having a mental breakdown. You can't talk about god, it's utterly pointless. Leo's videos are in a certain sense already too much info for people, because they've yet to actually do the work. 

Your mind wants to ground itself in reality by talking about awakenings instead of actually experiencing them. 

And talking about water fasting is not the same as discussing god and reality. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 4:20 PM, Husseinisdoingfine said:

A lot of his critiques were valid, this whole ‘raise your vibration’ thing is pseudoscience 

Raising your vibration is just a different way of saying, "getting into a higher state".

If we call everything that is not scientific pseudoscience, then pretty much everything spiritual is pseudoscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@k0ver Look, I wouldn't mind seeing Leo in a conversation or debate. I would actually want to see that. But realize what Leo's job is. It's not about convincing nay-sayers. It's about helping out those who are already committed to this work. Him "ironing it out" is what the 3hr three-part videos are about.

Sure, if he finds someone on the same wavelength, who aren't butthurt and only wants to settle some personal matters, maybe beautiful things can come out of it, but practically speaking, who would that be?


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

41 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Raising your vibration is just a different way of saying, "getting into a higher state".

If we call everything that is not scientific pseudoscience, then pretty much everything spiritual is pseudoscience.

I find "pseudoscience" an endearing term at this point. Besides, you have "real" philosophers like Paul Feyerabend who've deconstructed the entire demarcation problem (effectively saying there is no such thing as science vs. pseudoscience).

Edited by Carl-Richard

To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@k0ver Look, I wouldn't mind seeing Leo in a conversation or debate. I would actually want to see that. But realize what Leo's job is. It's not about convincing nay-sayers. It's about helping out those who are already committed to this work. Him "ironing it out" is what the 3hr three-part videos are about.

Sure, if he finds someone on the same wavelength, who aren't butthurt and only wants to settle some personal matters, maybe beautiful things can come out of it, but practically speaking, who would that be?

Ok, please, if you don't mind me asking: how long have you been on this journey? Who introduced you to it? Most importantly, at what stage of conscious development would you say you were when your worldviews or paradigm changed for the first time? (you can point me to a post where you've covered that if you have already)

And if I may, here's mine in a nutshell (and also so that you better understand where "this noob with 7 posts" is coming from):

1. in 2008/9, I was heavy into Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens - mostly debates as they were translated or easier with my early stages of English language (this was my "atheist era" lol)

3. 2010/12 - I'm balls deep into self-help and personal development - and had the usual run of top 200 books that I found on Amazon and various book clubs on the Internet (most of them you can find in Leo's book club nowadays) - I was also a little bit into PUA stuff (met my wife that way), diet + gym + daily intermittent fasting (still doing it), cold showers every morning thanks to this guy and, thanks to Rogan that I also found at that time, I introduced saunas 3x week (COVID stopped it for the first time for me - 13 months now and counting...) 

4. 2013 - I came across one of the early Leo's videos (with Red Canyon or similar in the background if I remember correctly...) - I stuck ever since watching every video (8 years now, wow...)

5. Same year (2013), I also came across Terence McKenna on YT and Harris's blog post about LSD - end of the year, I had my first heavy shroom trip and one of the most important trips in my life. I also did DMT (nn) for the first time and had my "atheist-world" turned upside down. At that point, I was all into Sheldrake, Tolle, Monroe and Watts. This would be my early "spiritual stage".

6. 2014/15 - I've stumbled upon Sedona Method here on Leo's blog in one of the material references (before there was ever any Forum open). This was my first successful introduction to daily meditation that further helped with deepening LSD and shroom trips. And general wellbeing (I've been a daily meditator for over 6 years now). I also started harping underneath each Actualized video for Leo to take psychedelics - which he eventually did mids 2016.

7. In 2015, I took my first 5MEO and got my first deep awakening.

8. 2016 - I left my 9-5 and built my own company rapidly growing till now. 

My point is that my journey started based on the debates and people questioning the mainstream dogma. People talking, arguing, interviewing each other back and forth, endlessly as they should. It will hopefully continue until my body falls apart. This has nothing to do with "convincing nay-sayers" or what "Leo's job is" - who are we to say who is a nay-sayer or what Leo's job is, anyway?

I wonder how many wasted years I would have if all these people never argued the dogma publicly, got challenged on their meek shit and came back with refined and more enlightened answers to help us get where we are right now. So, yes, I'm over-reacting slightly on the "because he's above it all", "his job is talking to Turquise people only", and "the lesser stage people wouldn't understand him anyway" boo-fucking-hoo reactionary defence-mode I spotted cancering some time ago here for whatever reason.

Therefore, I'm coming out of the woodwork to harp on that, same as I did years ago, insisting on Leo taking psychedelics. I hope I'm wrong this time (but I don't think so...).

 

P.s.

I had this powerful trip about the Language once - a feeling of total understanding of the Language as a kind of conscious "technology" or "tools" that we humans use to assemble a conscious message (Love) in a particular way that materialises in a flow of ideas. Nothing I ever heard about language coming from anyone has even slightly touched that understanding (though I got to a point where you can’t explain the Language using a language, so I won't hold my breath...). Anyway, during that trip, I also understood that the "tools" (the Language) aren't getting used most creatively unless people continue talking and arguing WITH each other.

If you insist on silence only or improper/unconscious use of "the tools" (like endlessly rambling to a camera alone in your man cave), the infinite river of creativity is then funnelled elsewhere. And in that analogy, you stand alone as this dried shell of a tree on the side of an empty riverbank of creativity that moves past you. That experience of a "dead tree" (or "no language" or "the silence" or "empty words") is always there accessible for you if you wish - it's beautiful in its own right.

However, my ego calls it "a missed opportunity" to bring more Love to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@k0ver Dw, I could infer your experience from the first post. I get your point and I can see a similar progression in my own life. I had my Harris-Hitchens-Dawkins phase, McKenna-Sheldrake phase, Watts-Spira-Sadhguru phase, done psychedelics, fasting, diets, nofap, daily meditation, sober samadhi experiences etc. 

I can see how debates can help you along the way and how conversation adds a certain richness of language or a new dimension of information flow, but at the end of the day, when one reaches the "higher levels" (while knowing how obviously pompous that sounds), you either know what resonates or you don't. You intuitively know what you want to apply to your own life.

You can watch 1000 hours of videos on the same topic, have tons of conversations and learn to capture all the different nuances in words, and that may serve you well, but you can do all that and still not manifest it in your life. There, the work is more often simple than not. A debate isn't necessarily going to help you with that. In that case, Leo's emphasis on diversity of content over plurality of formats can be understood as deliberate.

Edited by Carl-Richard

To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

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