Carl-Richard

Whats sleep

It's like debating whether Trump is the best president that has ever lived. You can't have such a discussion follow a rational trajectory because it inevitably involves delusion-swallowing sycophants.

OCD is the cycle of identifying a problem and focusing in on it (obsession), and acting on a solution (compulsion). Taken to the extreme, everything becomes a problem and everything needs a solution (or you just can't seem to stop focusing on a problem or solution) and you may feel things are out of control. But it's fundamentally a function of our cognition. The less feeling of control, the more you want to call it an illness. To tie this into the discussion of belief, the worst belief you can have as a person who struggles with OCD is "I'm not in control of my actions". That's the nail in the coffin for any hope of organic recovery as far as I'm concerned. And that's one belief which is very abstract and not very grounded or fact-based and which you should challenge actively whenever it arises, because it lies at the core of all mental illness, all sense of vitality or growth, all sense of biological survival and thriving, that you can take action and do what you want.

Say what it is or don't say it.

I think the distinction you're getting at is that beliefs shape your cognition and what you find salient, relevant, worth spending your time on and that this leads to trade-offs. That's exactly true. That's why I'm careful to say "I think" and not "I know", so that you know I could be off and that I recognize that myself. The alternative is to deny that you could be off when you could be, which is a real sin. I've learned thanks to my cult experience that we don't actually choose what we believe. We believe whatever our path through life, be it due to our attention, attachments, reactions, rationalizations, has laid out for us as reasonable to be entertained as belief. Beliefs enter through the backdoor even when you think you're being rigorous about how you're assessing a situation. And that's on top of me believing that beliefs shape how you're assessing the situation again. So beliefs are slippery; but that does not remove the epistemic virtue of speaking with clarity about what you think (your hypotheses, etc.) and what you truly know. Because language also shapes beliefs, your own and others'.

I'll never get over how hilariously fucking sad this dynamic is where the person who says with the just purest grandiose conviction "I am the most awake person in existence" gets all the charity in the entire world ("you have to be openminded that he could be right") while the person who says "I think that is most probably false, but I could be wrong" gets met with the most absurd torrent of cynical pedantry and ruthless psychoanalyzing doubting whether I'm even saying what I think I'm saying ("I think you're bullshitting yourself that you think you could be wrong"). Bro this is like 1984^2 inverted twice into a strangeloop.

Do you recognize the distinction between a hypothesis and a 100% certain proof? Do you recognize the distinction between corroborating evidence and analytical/logical necessity? These are valueable fields in epistemology. Shame Leo skims over it because "academics are stuck in groupthink". Except when he finds one pseudo-academic which he uses to define what a cult is and ignores all the rest.

I think most people I learn things from are broken and corrupted in many ways, yet I put that aside. Leo's brokenness is just very loud and obvious and it's cringe when people try to deny it.

Wrong. I "think" it is bullshit, I don't "know" whether it is. It's not hard. Leo makes it hard because he conflates the two and sends mixed signals all the time. He has broken your brains on this. It's the most basic distinction in epistemology: theory / hypothesis / corraborating evidence vs definite proof/truth/actuality. "My hypothesis is I think [...]" vs "I know because this proves it."

...what??? Him being a stubborn corrupt baby says otherwise that he has admitted to being wrong in the past? Why do I even waste my time on this? I've said I can be wrong. "And that means I'm right" is something Leo would say, and he would also say statistical absurdities like "I'm the most awake person in the world" and then use bullshitting language such as the former to cover up that fact. He wants his "I can be wrong" cake and eat it too. We're here calling out that fact, we're not here saying we can't be wrong. This "you have to realize you can be wrong" line of argumentation is ignoring exactly what we're calling out, you're just blindly dishing it out as a defense response without seeing what is happening, it's just demented zombiefied numbed-out engagement.

You just say bullshit that is not true. That is what I mean by being a reducing/fake-closure enthusiast. Why will there be no learning if I can't call out what I think is bullshit WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY being open that I could be wrong? Tell me how you're not just saying bullshit to one-up or make me have an emotional reaction. This might be why you're giving a free pass to Leo because you're just the same: when cornered, say bullshit that you can't back up and then ignore any response.

Alien Awakening to me is simple. It's when you take Terrence McKenna style "realizations"/hallucinations/ideations and explain them from the perspective of a narcissist who thinks they're the best in the world. That said, "I could be wrong", just like I could be wrong that Leo is probably not the most awake person in the world. But this is what it seems to me. Just like you can give "benefit of the doubt" based on observations of his past behavior, you can also do the opposite.

My fishing level is 99 from all the red herrings I'm catching in this thread. I'm a nerd 🤓

The fact that he oozes judgement and superiority with every comment does not have to boil down to a disagreement. It just so often happens that we can point to such disagreements as evidence that the aforementioned traits are the case (particularly when we're talking about what anyone with half a brain would consider a delusion). When he says "huehue, scientists are so stupid" every gosh darn diddly blogpost he makes (which I don't read), I most probably don't disagree with the core message (probably more over time though), but the way it is said is disgusting and blown out of proportions. And that has to do with simply how he is, not whether I think his worldview is flawed or he said something wrong. But yes, I do agree the main way he wants to distinguish himself from other spiritual teachers is to my understanding born out of Maya, and calling it Absolute truth makes no sense (unless you want to redefine the word in some peculiar way), and that I therefore disagree with his teachings, and that being high on your own farts 24/7 does notoriously impact your ability to see truthfully. But that is like 10% of the issue here.

The red line is Leo is a hurt and/or simply misbehaving child and we're stuck pampering him.

I'm going to balance out Zurew's effort posts by saying Elliott is a troll, Aurum is a reducing/fake-closure enthusiast, Sugarcoat is right, and Human Mint thinks Trump has never admitted being wrong even though he has.

Huh, never thought about that before 🤨

100% Viking.

Look at the quick cuts, the exaggerated hand gestures, the theatrical movements and display of the product. This is refined down to a science now, how to catch your attention and keep it there, even if it's something as simple as a t-shirt. https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DsaL1G12A/ And of course, the obviously fake but effective "honest influencer" format (establishing rapport), the appeal to "every celebrity" (not just "a" or a few celebrities) while probably using AI generated images intermixed with real ones, and of course using top 1% models to pitch the product (and rehearsed sales phrases like "not one, not two, not three, not four, but four"; wut? — the confusion adds to the dazzlement by loading your working memory, on top of it already embodying the prior high-speed and theatrical cinematics), your focus is being sucked down a black hole approaching the event horizon.

*Donald Trump voice* "Nobody knows more about epistemology than I do, yes it's true, it's really true. And if I'm wrong, one time I said I can be wrong, so that means I'm right". Unironically what we're dealing with.

Locked for low quality. Please provide something more than Instagram algorithms and single-sentence comments without any argumentation. And yes, if you have a problem with immigration or criminal gangs or whatever, be specific about that and don't siphon all of it under the biggest religion in the world, unless you have a clear argument for why that is reasonable. It's not knitpicking when I say there are muslims who have never been criminal, heck Europeans or Americans converting to Islam, who do not at all fit under the problems you are worried about. It matters a lot if you want anything resembling an accurate discussion. Associating those problems with "muslim" without any caveat is not serious engagement.

Somehow it adds to the effect. The monotone voice too. Gotta keep it calm and hypnotizing as a baseline. The dopamine hacking does the rest. Have you seen the videos that use a slow zoom in and out with every cut? That shit sucks you in, literally. Like dangling a clock infront of your face. Reminds me of a white gym t-shirt I used only once because it had zero breatheability. My back became a pool, then cold. Maybe their's breathes, idk. Slopitalism. The currency is attention, the less actual value (not commercial) the better.

@Monster Energy Do you have anything else to contribute than an algorithm that feeds you outrage clips? If you want to make a case for your "muslim" allergy, at least be factual. Until that point, know that you can't know the extent to which you are seeing mental illness or criminal subcultures instead of the religious framework of Islam based on the clips (but I guess it's common to just group those things under a common "muslim" label when your level of engagement is that of Instagram clips). Try hanging out with drug dealers for example and you'll know people will knock each other out and rob people without having an inch of "muslim" associated with them.

"You can't know for sure where my mind has been 🤪, I'm such a sophisticated e-piss-temologist stating the most trite rudimentary shit as if nobody has heard it 30 years ago, not just the most obvious Leo bootlicker next in the line to the other Leo bootlicking bots repeating the exact same bootlicking script, not just desperately pulling up literally anything no matter how intellectually squarerooted or contextually devoid that could play in defense for Leo".

Absurdist humor, contrasting statements do all the work 😌