You are not appreciating how deep these problems go. No matter what I post, someone will disagree with it and use it to think I am a hypocrite for being wrong. You don't like TYT, so when you see me post TYT, you use that as evidence that I'm being stupid or sloppy or biased. But this will always happen no matter what I post. No matter what I post, someone will think it is biased and delusional. Some of you think I am biased for being too left, and some think I am biased for not being left enough.
Political junk? I post very little political junk. Sharing a TYT video is not evidence of political junk. And even if I did post some junk, that does not contradict anything I've told you. Yes, I can fall for some junk sometimes. That's the point. That's not a bug, that a feature. But now you can criticize me for being too certain that I don't post political junk. And so it goes with any other issue.
The quality of my political analysis in my 4 part series called Conscious Politics, which is what you're referring to with "The Deepest Political Analysis You’ll Ever Hear", is in fact a level of depth and quality unlike anything you will find on YouTube if you search for discussions of politics. You can argue that it's arrogant. Okay. Fair. Yes, it is arrogant. But go find deeper analysis, see how long it takes you to find it. Political pundits don't even understand the things I talk about in politics, it is so over their heads.
Your mind cannot avoid being confident in something. That's the entire point. The mind has no choice but to take certain things as certain, even if you are being humble then you are confident in the fact that you are doing humility properly. When you say, "TYT is junk", you are saying that with confidence. When you say, "But Leo is so biased", you are saying that with confidence. And when you say, "Leo is too arrogant", you are saying that with confidence. And when you say, "Spiritual people should be more humble than Leo", you are saying that with confidence. Any conclusion of your mind is confident by definition because it appears true to you. This is the entire crux of self-deception. That's why no one can escape it.
I am not even disagreeing with the flaws in my behavior that you are pointing out. I am making a deeper point here, which is that this is all part of the difficulty of this work.
Yes, I am very dismissive of many things precisely because I understand certain things so deeply that I quickly see through them. But this does not mean I don't get it wrong too. I can be dismissive prematurely and incorrectly. I am well aware of that. The entire challenge is how to quickly dismiss human crap while not getting stuck in your own echochamber. It is not easy to get that right.
There is a twisted irony in this work that the deeper you master epistemology, the more certain you can become in some ways, which becomes a trap of its own. The better your understanding gets, the more of a trap it can become. Humility is not as simple or straight as you guys assume it is. What you see on the surface of me is not what is actually going on deep inside. My attitude and style is very unlike what you see in scientists and academics, who pretend they are humble but are insanely arrogant in substance. With me it is the reserve, I am arrogant on the surface and humble in substance. Everything looks the opposite of what it actually is. You are looking at the surface and wondering why it is arrogant, not seeing that all my priority goes into the deep substance which you guys never directly see but which grounds my entire body of work. The reason the surface is not as nice as you expect is because while every other social media influencer is busy polishing the surface of their presentation to maximize success, I am focused on digging for substance. That's why Actualized.org is so deep. I am sacrificing the surface presentation for depth. That is a deliberate choice. What you want is a nice, user-friendly, professional, inoffensive set of teaching, but that's not what I prioritize.
I even sacrifice improving my behavior because I am busy digging for substance. That's not an excuse, that just my different priorities. It is counter-intuitive and I don't expect anyone to understand my priorities. If you dislike it, I totally understand. Yes, I am aware it looks strange because the surface doesn't quite match the substance. I will work to improve that.
I am not rejecting your feedback. I am just making the point that this shit is a lot harder than you guys assume it to be. If it was easy it wouldn't be so rare. I developed this deep epistemology, I did it in a sloppy way, and I didn't know how else to do it. That's the bottom line. The sloppiness is part of its success. It is hard to explain to you why I do it that way.
It is like you are a soldier asking a general in an active war why he is making certain decisions, sending troops here or there. It is hard for the general to explain his own behavior. Some of it is the general's genius, some of it is the general's honest mistakes, and some of it is the general's corruption. It's all mixed together and you cannot just have the good without any of the bad. The general is juggling a very complex and messy business. And yes, plenty of mistakes get made in war. But the general's #1 priority is to win the war despite all the chaos. We are deep in an epistemic war. It is an ugly, nasty war. Arms and legs will get lost. Puppies will die. Feelings will get hurt. Wrong houses will get bombed. War crimes will happen.
Anyways, thanks for your feedback. I do listen to it. Internally I am always listening, despite how I might sound here or there.
