r0ckyreed

@Leo GuraI’m playing God’s Advocate here. I was reading about a woman who never ran in her life until age 50 and she was overweight her whole life. Then she started running ultra marathons. Also, how do you explain through the lens of genetics that I was born with ADHD and had no interest in reading or philosophy until I went to college? It was my environment that shaped me. Sure, you need to have a working body, but all of my efforts to develop the intelligence I have came from my work ethic and not just from innate genetics alone. You could argue innate genetics contributed to work ethic, but I would argue that I could’ve fallen into victim mentality and said “screw it I have ADHD; therefore, I will always be bad at school.” Hell no. It took my parents advocating for a constructive environment that helped me to develop the skills of focus that I needed to thrive. I feel like this genetics theory becomes unfalsifiable because no matter case example I give, you could always just say it is genetics. What would be evidence that genetic theory may be wrong? Here we are going into the subjectiveness of evidence.

Isn’t evidence subjective? This is one of the main issues with postmodernism. There comes a point where saying evidence is subjective is foolish.

@Leo GuraCould you post your outline after your video? I’d like to see how you structure your videos.

People throw this word meditation around all the time. But what does it actually mean? What is meditation? Give me a simple, specific, and clear definition of meditation. The issue with some meditation teachers like Osho is that they define everything as meditation. This is a poor operational definition of meditation. When everything becomes a meditation, then how is that different if nothing was a meditation? Meditation seems like it is more than just being a witness. I guarantee that there are certain “meditations” that are a complete waste of time. If you say you can meditate while playing videogames, scrolling on Facebook, going for a run, then this seems like you do not really know what meditation is. To have the deepest meditation possible, you have to have the right environment and right practice. If you are scrolling on Facebook and just being a witness to your thoughts, that isn’t meditation because it is an oxymoron to say that you can achieve a deep state of mindfulness while doing such a mindless activity. In order to meditate effectively, you need to set up the right conditions. What are these conditions? What is meditation really? Can meditation actually increase your intelligence and understanding or is it purely a myth? How can you achieve understanding through a thoughtless mind? How is thoughtlessness/stillness and mindlessness different or are they? I argue that extreme long term meditation is a trap. There is a whole world to see. There is so much growth that you can experience inn the world. Buddhism glorifies the lifestyle of staring at a cave wall for 10 years and calling that meditation and enlightenment. But how are you exactly living a meaningful life of service this way? What is the point of staring at a cave wall or closing your eyes for 2 hours a day, essentially sleeping while you are awake, chanting some mantra, when instead you could travel the world and be just as mindful? If Osho says everything is a meditation, then there is absolutely zero point in closing your eyes, counting your breaths and staring at a cave wall. Do you all not see the contradiction? If everything is a meditation, then why become a sedentary, thoughtless Buddhist Zombie? Edit: I would define real meditation as a state of deep curiosity, contemplation, and gratitude of the beauty of existence. Anything else isn’t meditation. If you are sitting and counting breaths but aren’t in a state of deep curiosity, contemplation, and gratitude, then you aren’t meditating!!

I wanted to offer a critique of postmodernism. (Please note that I have NOT watched Leo's video on postmodernism because I want to contemplate this topic entirely on my own from scratch.) What is Postmodernism? Postmodernism is a philosophical movement that applies skepticism and deconstruction to dominant narratives theories in society. Postmodernism questions the assumptions of modernism, which is a movement that associates science and rationality with objective truth. Postmodernism suggests that knowledge and truth are context/mind-dependent, in such that there is no such thing as objective truth. Strengths of Postmodernism 1. Applies skepticism to science, rationality, religion, etc. 2. Acknowledges its own biases; hence, the self-referential paradox of postmodernism being another narrative to deconstruct. 3. Relativism: Postmodernism acknowledges that there is no right perspective and rejects the idea of an objective truth. 4. Acknowledges the biases in society and how socially constructed every system is. 5. Points out the assumptions of every system that claims that it isn't a social construction - Examples of social constructions that pretend like they aren't social constructions: Science, religion, territory, money, status, politics, rationality/logic, spirituality, Buddhism, Enlightenment, God, etc. 6. Challenges objectivism Ex. The notion that the earth is round is relative to what is defined as the earth and what is defined as round. It may be round in this period of time and in this dimension, but what if the Earth's shape changes over time in the same way the continents have changed since Pangea? What if the Earth appears round to the human eye but appears different to another being? Postmodernism makes a good point that everything we experience and known is mind-dependent and mind-constructed. Criticisms of Postmodernism 1. It applies equal relativism to all systems when some systems of knowledge may be truer than others -Ex. flat earth vs. round earth. Both of these theories cannot be both equally true. It may be true that shape is a social construction, but if we go out in space, we will see the earth whether it is round or not. -Ex. Scientology vs. Science To put science on the same level as scientology would be an ignorant conflation. Even though distinctions are imaginary, it is foolish to claim that science is on the same level as scientology. However, I do acknowledge that this leads to a bigger issue of how to distinguish rationality vs. foolishness. Every person thinks they are rational, so it would be a mistake to assume that my own mind is rational and incapable of fooling myself. However, it is a self-deception to assume that I am incapable of being rational and figuring out objective truth with my mind. That is what science is about. 2. Dismissal of objective truth Knowledge may be context-based. For example, I could not type these words right now had I not had some level of indoctrination to learn the English language. Learning the English language comes with unquestioned metaphysical assumptions. Examples of metaphysical language assumptions: - Sunrise and sunset The sun does not actually rise and set even though it is imbedded in our language. Also, when I the word queer, that word can have multiple meanings depending on the historical time that word was used. Now, apply that insight to all language and see how language can change and evolve over time. - First-person language You cannot communicate without it being self-referential. Examples of objective truth: - shape of the earth (this is true regardless of what I believe) - whether Sadhguru pees and poops (this is a relative objective truth) - The Universe/Existence/Consciousness - Gravity - Tree falling in the forest when you didn't see it. - 1 + 1 = 2. Dismissal of objective truth seems to imply that everything goes. My main criticisms of postmodernism Overusing relativism. The issue I have stumbled upon is that postmodernism applies relativism heavily to all systems of knowledge. But some systems may be more in alignment with how reality actually is rather than my beliefs about it. For instance, someone can claim that gravity does not exist and another claims that women are stupid. Should we really give these ignorant fools' perspectives equal weight against a more intelligent person's? What about the difference in perspectives between a doctor and a patient or an adult and a child? Are we going to say that they are both equally true? In a sense, postmodernism is correct in that all their perspectives are true because they are living through their perspective. The patient is living the experience of the condition and the doctor is applying secondhand knowledge of the condition. The adult's perspective and the child's perspective is true. But the issue comes about when we are applying these perspectives to different contexts. For example, would we really say that the patient knows more about medicine than the doctor? This is an oxymoron because to be a doctor is to know about medicine better than the average population; otherwise, there would be no point in having a doctor. I could just go to Walmart and tell them what drugs I need for my condition if that were true. Another example is saying that the child is more intelligent than the adult. In this case, it is relative and depends because there are savants and child prodigies out there. But we still wouldn't give children the same rights as adults because their brains are not fully developed "enough" to make their own decisions. Postmodernism would claim that intelligence is a social construct, which seems to be a half-truth. Intelligence as we define is a social construct, but within our social confines, one can be in alignment with reality or can be deluded. What is a delusion if postmodernism is true? How can delusions exist if postmodernism is true? This is my main concern with postmodernism is that it is so deconstructive that it would even say that delusions are delusions or rather it would just deconstruct them. But this does not add anything to society, and it is kinda contradictory because a postmodernist would suggest that pragmatism is as true as non-pragmatism. But if postmodernism is deconstructing everything, it seems to have a bias against pragmatism. How can you focus on improving society if you are destructing everything and not constructing anything? Postmodernism only constructs a philosophy of deconstruction, which even postmodernism would have to deconstruct itself. Also, intelligence in a sense is relative and socially constructed, but on the other hand, we could say that all of reality is intelligent. Intelligence is found within a single cell to the largest galaxy. That is what I would call Universal Intelligence. But there is relative objective intelligence where there are some humans who have views that are more in alignment with how reality is. Are we really going to say that the Aztec philosophy is as valid as science? Are we really going to say that sacrificing humans will prevent the world from collapsing? This runs into foolishness, which of course is very nuanced. Rationality vs irrationality is a distinction that can be hard to make at times because the mind can rationalize any view that it wants to believe. But I think there is a difference and there really is no alternative. All systems of knowledge are going to be circular. Rationality and intelligence are circular in a sense that in order to increase your consciousness, intelligence, and rationality is to use more consciousness, intelligence, and rationality. I think we can make distinctions between what is rational vs. irrational. I think the basic feature is open-mindedness. The postmodernist perspective already illustrates rationality at its finest. How can you be rational if you do not understand the very limits of rationality? One who understands that rationality is self-defining can then start to appreciate what rationality is. On the one hand, rationality is constructed but rationality is also learned through experience. You cannot just make up whatever science and rationality you want because that again would be "foolishness" and "irrationality." To be rational is to be in alignment with the way reality is. If a pen drops to the floor when my friend drops it, it would be rational to assume that the pen would drop if I dropped it. Now, if the pen doesn't drop when I drop it, then it would be rational to expect that every time I have the pen, it doesn't fall, and every time my friend drops then pen, it drops. What postmodernism gets wrong? 1. Objective truth exists and it can be discovered. It is not just interpreted. 2. Relativism does not mean that every perspective is equally valid/true. Some are more or less true than others.

Right. I would agree. But you still run into the issue of how to distinguish rationality vs. irrationality. Conflating the two together makes it seem like anything goes. There isn’t a simple solution to this problem because all distinctions and definitions are going to be relative to perspective, but at the same time, postmodernism is naive of the issue that rationality isn’t just purely relative. A postmodernist would be deconstructing the idea that self-reflection is more rational than mindlessness. Putting rationality on the same level as irrationality is itself irrational.

I watched the video and it was pretty good. I think Leo contradicts himself because he is giving us a rational explanation for the limits of rationality. But this kind of contradiction is a feature of meta-rationality and the circularness of reality. @Leo Gura presents a problem early on that the idea of objectivity, a mind independent reality is an illusion because you are using your mind to make that assertion. I could use that same logic against him. When he is questioning rationality, he is still using rationality to talk about the limits of rationality in the same way that you use your mind to talk about the idea of mind-independent reality.

Read The Manipulated Man. Read it and contemplate it with a grain of dmt. No wonder why Maya was a Goddess.

Maybe it’s all the times in the club with loud music? I know for me that I would get ringing in my ears after being in a loud club, especially weeks after.

I like it. Postmodernism becomes its own self-deception when it denies objective truth exists. They can’t admit that there is a way reality is structured and certain points of view are more or less in alignment with truth and more or less with survival. Believing in God isn’t truth but it is in alignment with survival. Realizing God is in alignment with truth but may or may not be conducive to survival.

That’s interesting. I’m sure women think the same of men who watch porn.

It is not me who says which perspective is more or less valid. Go around telling people that you are the Messiah and see what happens. Go ahead and believe gravity doesn’t exist and see what happens when you can’t fly off a building. Claiming that objective cannot be discovered is itself an objective truth claim. I don’t claim all truths can be discovered, but there are some objective truths that can be such as the shape of the earth. I probably will never know whether you have 2 nipples or not.

This is exactly what a postmodernist would say and is the problem I’m talking about. Saying that it is just opinion is foolish. You can’t just make up whatever you want truth to be.

God is a social construct, but the Universe isn’t.

Hello. I think I am at a point where I am ready to start pursuing psychedelics. I have a friend that has access to psilocybin mushrooms. I would appreciate any general advice. I have stressed concerns in the past about worrying if fentanyl could be laced with mushrooms. I am going to see if I can buy some off of my friend. Any tips on what to do when I get them? Do I need to soak them in salt water or do anything when I buy them or do I just eat them raw as they come in the package? Do I need to store them in the refrigerator or my closet? How long do they last? I plan on getting a food scale and weighing 2 grams to start, and then my intention is to contemplate consciousness. I would appreciate any feedback. Also, I heard about growing mushrooms from spores. If anyone has any info on that, I would appreciate it. For context, I have never been drunk or high in my life. Never drank alcohol nor marijuana. Thanks.

That may be all well and good guys. But how do you deal with the fact that you still have to think high quality thoughts in order function in society and create something meaningful? If you don’t spend time contemplating, how are you gonna produce insight?

So is Covid then. I get that it’s still an inference, but it would be foolish to believe he doesn’t. Believing he does take a crap is more in alignment with logic and reality. 1. If Sadhguru eats, then he poops. 2. I’ve seen Sadhguru eat. 3. Therefore, Sadhguru poops.

There you go. That’s what I’m pointing to. Contemplation is a must. If all you are doing is quieting the mind, that is like wearing only one shoe to a marathon. Adventure, being active, and ambition are important values.

You already are in actuality. Quieting your mind does not equate with intelligence and understanding. If you want peace of mind, then quieting your mind is useful. But if you want deep understanding and make nuanced distinctions, then you need to use your mind.

I am coming from the perspective of having done meditation seriously since 2018 with the most I have ever sit was 5 hours in a day. But the issue is that you guys say meditate for an hour or so a day, and I am saying that it isn’t about how much time you spend in meditation but rather the quality of your consciousness and how deep you go now. I claim that quieting your mind only gets you so far. You need to contemplate!

We already are consciousness. You can’t just live life sitting on a cushion. You need to be active and ambitious. You have to contemplate and have a vision for the future while also appreciating the present moment. The only meditation practice I do is visualization/LoA. I would say contemplation is meditation, but the way meditation is talked about is the opposite of contemplation. Contemplation is about deeply thinking about reality whereas meditation is quieting the mind. Quieting the mind is good in moderation, but you have to use your mind.

I don’t think you guys are quite understanding what I’m trying to point to. If everything can be meditative, then why would you need to sit for 1 hour a day when you could go outside and garden or go for an hour run and have that same meditative state? That routine of meditating an hour a day becomes too much. If anything, 5-10 minutes of formal meditation is enough. Right now I’m on a serene walk through the woods. The issue is trying to define meditation as only one thing such as sitting down eyes closed and chanting. This is not meditative for everyone. I have too much curiosity and ambition to confine my mind with this practice of 5 hours a day. If you really want amazing results with meditation, you need to go at it all the way. Doing 5-10 minutes or an hour a day will only get you so far. It’s not a worthwhile investment for me to devote 5 hours a day and let only 1 hour.

He literally does in his book called meditation. He says meditation is simply being the witness to whatever you experience. He says you can meditate while driving, while running, while dancing, while hiking, while having sex, etc. What I’m arguing is that if everything can be a meditation, then why the Hell would you won’t to confine yourself to 10 years in a freaking room staring at a wall and chanting a mantra? Life is too short and there is a big world to explore. If you can meditate everywhere, then you would miss out on a lot of opportunities spending everyday in a room. Meditation seems like a prison to me that one confines themselves to. You don’t need to sit down for 1 hour with no thoughts. You might as well be dead by how some people practice with 5-10 hours of meditation a day.

Be honest though. If you won free tickets to go travel Europe or go on a 10 day Vipassana retreat in Costa Rica, I bet you’d pick the travel through Europe. If you can make everything a meditation, then there is absolutely no point in sitting in one place for 10 days. It’s a complete waste of time. I meditated for 5 hours straight and it was a waste of time. I can be more happy walking outside and running and more connected to being than doing some monotonous activity like closing my eyes and focusing on my breath and chanting a mantra.

I would agree. But you don’t have to sit with eyes closed with no thoughts to experience the truth of being. Since thoughts are part of reality, it would be a mistake to not use them to contemplate. Life is too short for me to sit all day with eyes closed. I’m a very active person and I think you can access truth by not meditating.