Space

Leo On Charlie and Ben Podcast

189 posts in this topic

On 5/7/2021 at 7:01 PM, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that the questions Charlie asked were so deep it would require a 5 hr conversation.

Something like deconstructing science just cannot be done in 60 minutes because there are too many defense mechanisms to address.

Deconstructing science would take at least 5 hrs. And we talked about a lot more topics than that.

Each topic Charlie asked about is a 5 hr conversation.

This is the difficulty of talking about this stuff in a casual way to a general audience who has zero foundation in metaphysics or epistemology. It is like trying to explain calculus to an audience who never even learned arithmetic.

Charlie's audience is gonna be very stage Orange so they will be extremely skeptical of anyone who questions science. That is a huge red flag in their mind. Because if science can be deconstructed their whole reality collapses and that is totally unacceptable.

Which is why my videos are so long.

@Leo Gura

After watching this podcast i said to my self:

Some things you just gotta stomach. If a person has no burning desire to know the truth there is no way you can verbally and logically give it to them.

I felt this subject is juts not something it can be discussed in Pop society as a 60 minutes entertainment video while eating popcorn.

Give it up, whoever wants to know will eventually find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate your explanation comments in this thread @Leo Gura, my first impression of the interview was that a normie wouldn't be able to understand anything you talked about and think of you as crazy, but it makes sense that you needed a lot more time per question to unpack.

Perhaps memorizing and parroting off concise snippets like your Actualized Clips would work well in interviews like this, it seems that's how most famous people interview anyway ie. they always say the same things the same way - if the goal is to get people to follow you and explore your more long-form content. Just my 2c.

Edited by AuthenticSelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

As soon as I start to deconstruct science he will throw a hissy-fit.

It's all about the defense mechanisms. As long as you don't trigger them you are okay, but as soon as you start triggering them his mind will close all the way down. Because it's not about truth for him, it's about his self-preservation.

Dawkins seems very open to deconstruction. He’d probably love it. No one has given him the opportunity thus far.

Or not, of course.

Edited by The0Self

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Leo definitely refers to God actually being no-God. God has no free will because it can only be a perfect manifestation of unconditional (infinite) love. So where is God? There's only unconditional love. So idk why people argue on here about God. God is no-God. Realizing you are God usually comes before realizing there's no you -- simultaneous with realization of unconditional love, which is more of an un-realization.

Edited by The0Self

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The0Self said:

So where is God?

God simply IS Love.

It is not a mistake that God cannot be something else. God must be absolutely tautological. There is no option for it to be otherwise, which is what makes it so amazing and powerful.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 28 cm unbuffed said:

@Leo Gura

How is love tautological?

In the same way that 1 = 1 or A = A is tautological. Everything = Love. The end.

If someone has to explain to you that 1 = 1, then the problem is you don't get it, and nothing can be done to fix that until you get it.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey leo, you mentioned on the video that the separateness and the imagination of separatenss is me (god) imagining others imagining me, and so on the circle goes... thus as you said that is constructing them into existance and consciousness, and them being conscious... so is this what u actually meant or is this a dumbed down version of something else, or did I misinterpret it wrong all along? ?

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