Nilsi

I just rewatched the entire thing for sake of argument and he very clearly tells you what he wants you to do. He wants to radicalize you and urges you to unplug from "the social matrix"/"moloch" -- he ties this together with the classic Krishnamurti quote of it "not being a good meassure of health to be well adapted to a profoundly sick society" (this is as anti-libertarian as it gets). He also tells you to curate your social media feeds with whatever feels most meaningful and true to you (and gives Nate Hagens as an example), because youre "the product of the five people you spend the most time with." He also says that he wants you to be depressed, because thats the only authentic feeling you could have, if you truly pay attention to the trajectory mankind is currently on. In essence, he wants you to completely rebuild your life from scratch, so you can avoid "moloch" from the start, before becoming entangled with it and having it take over your motivations. I really like this approach, precisely because it is so radical. I must admit though that I can not genuinely say that the values and worldview he puts forward are congruent with my deepest values (which is the premise on which the procedure rests), but perhaps that only confirms his pessimism.

What you said implies a certain morality, or at the very least is the seed out of which said morality grows.

I would say there is no public intellectual that is doing more activism and expresses a greater sense of urgency than Schmachtenberger. This talk is such a radical call to action. When I listened to it, I couldnt sleep for several nights, because I was afraid Daniel would visit me in my dreams to tell me that its TIME TO ACT. He also overtly expresses his struggle to formulate clear action steps for the average viewer to follow and usually takes it back to Lao Tzus "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao," to (rightly) justify his approach of empowering people to figure out the right steps for themselves.

Shes an artist, shes not really arguing for anything. She was a professor at MIT though and is super smart and educated.

Fair. I threw in the holon-thing myself to make a point.

Slave morality. This is almost exactly the gross moralistic argument that the the pre-socratic philosopher Anaximander put forward. By this logic I should feel guilty for even breathing. Luckily we had this guy called Heraclitus, who later went on to emphasize the "innocence of becoming" and likened the human being to a "child at play," spontaneously and joyfully exploring live, without any sense of guilt or bad conscience whatsoever.

Great. Ken Wilber would disagree though and since you based your argument on his ideas, I felt compelled to make this point.

W I raise you Neri Oxman though, shes a real A+++:

To make this even clearer: My first point is that all worldviews are bound to be partial (should be obvious enough). But my main point is that ranking those partial worldviews along some kind of axis of partiality-wholeness is itself ultimately arbitrary. The idea of some kind of objective "holonic order" to the universe, the way Wilber talks about, is ridiculous. Deleuze actually hit the nail on the head by contrasting arborescent and rhizomatic worldviews, as follows: Arborescent Worldview: being structured like a tree with one value/idea at its root, from which all the others branch of, in a hierarchically integrated manner gg Rhizomatic Worldview: being structured like rhizoma/funghi with all values/ideas being interconnected in a highly complex non-hierarchichal manner Of course, you can now make the good ol' gotcha' move when it comes to postmodernism and argue that this denies the superiority of the rhizomatic structure over traditional hierarchical structures -- and thats precisely the point. Reality is inherently paradoxical and fluid (strange-loopy, if you want). The problem is locking yourself into the idea of hierarchies/holarchies and getting stuck there.

Heinrich Himmler always carried a copy of the Bhagavad Gita with him and taught detachment and meditation (identifying with the Atman) to German soldiers fighting in WWII, to make them more efficient killing machines. Adolf Hitler started "Mein Kampf" with a comprehensive cosmogeny, which he used as proof of the relative "insignificance" of human life in the grand scheme of the universe. I dont think I need to explain how that story unfolded.

Just tell us how to enlarge our penisses.

This conception of "transcend and include" gets increasingly murky, as you get into more abstract territory like ideas/culture. Just because you "integrate" a lot of stuff, doesnt mean that your view is objectively more "whole." I could reference all these subjects and tie them all together in a grand argument in favor of the holocaust.

The Jeff Rosenstock project was fun. 100 gecs is too trashy for my taste.

Im referring to the fact that he seems to need every metaphysical premise laid out explicitly, before he can consider further arguments about any subject. For example, if someone talks about sociology, he needs to hear how society and culture is a fabrication of the mind first, before he will consider any further statements about said subject, even though this point may have been settled long ago. Thats what Ken Wilber does. Before he makes any new and interesting point about how society functions, for example, he will lay out his entire metaphysical framework (when he could have just referenced back to the place, where this argument had already been made).

Im talking about continental philosophy aka French, German, etc. Its a distinct style of philosophy, that is among other things characterized by its subtlety (and often fairly criticized for being overly obscure and ideosyncratic).

I think Leo is incapable of understanding continental philosophy. Its too subtle for him. Makes sense, considering how over-the-top straight and explicit his own philosophical musings tend to be.

Can you imagine every philosopher being as painfully neurotic as Ken Wilber and reformulating their entire worldview in every single work they publish, before they say anything new? Apparently thats the only way to impress Leo.

I generally dont disagree with this sentiment. Endlessly rambling on about "the Truth" while failing to formulate any clear thought on said subject is quite cringe (especially when one creates these overly spectacular systems and arguments like a lot of Christian philosophers do, for example). Whats truly cringe though, is when Leo fails to recognize that there have been multiple philosophers in the Western tradition who did very overtly talk about such a "post-philosophy," which he is advocating for here (which really is more about conscious exploration and creation than it is about "seeking the Truth.") Nietzsche (and others, like Deleuze, for example) comes to mind here, who Leo will insist on was just a clueless materialist. Youre damned if you do and damned if you dont apparently, when it comes to pleasing Leo. Talk about Truth and you are a cringelord, take this point as settled and youre a clueless dimwit.

True. I once had a very intense LSD trip where my hubris was checked by me being given full consciousness of how my mind orchestrates every teeny tiny detail of reality, from my digestion to geopolitcs to physical reality itself and I had to hold responsibility for all of it. That was way too much for me. Be careful what you wish for.

I know this is supposed to be a lighthearted video, but existentialism actually puts forward a profound epistemological perspective, namely that ones personal existence is prior to any pre-determined truth about reality. In that way, the act of questioning or seeking meaning is more fundamental than any objective meaning or explanation of reality. Thats why there is such an emphasis on the individual person.

I grew up watching Spongebob Squarepants -- which probably explains my postmodernist sympathies lol

It’s one of the more conventional kinks. I could get off of that from time to time (maybe 1-5% of my sex life). There are some really fucked up kinks though, that are actually worth going WTF over (like stuff with feces, or extreme physical violence).

He’s doing testosterone replacement therapy and other hormone treatments (and he’s literally taking 100+ supplements every day), so adopting his diet in isolation will probably not be all that optimal.

Biohacking online-shops are a goldmine for this kind of stuff — I’m sure you’ll find some excellent make-up products that way.

I get all my skincare products from: https://alitura.com/ I have been using their cleanser and moisturizer for months now and they are superb, as far as I can tell (and smell fantastic). I also regularly use their clay mask, which is really powerful and immediately makes my skin look way smoother. Additionally I’ve taken Schmachtenbergers Qualia Skin supplement, which is supposed to improve your skin „from the inside“ (you swallow pills) - that’s also had a noticeable impact, as far as I could tell. Sauna also seems to improve my skin substantially. Besides that, high quality (organic) unprocessed foods (coffee is especially delicate and can easily impact your skin negatively, if the quality isn’t there - I drink Bulletproof, which is the cleanest coffee available, as far as I’m aware), enough hydration and regular exercise. I smoke a pack of cigarettes every other day, but have the skin of a facial model, having nailed all this other stuff.