Who Loves Post-Modernism? - New Video

[HMD]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's highly useful for driving Jordan Peterson mad.

Gold

 

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura this madman has a PHD in post modernism 

[Yimpa]

[Thought Art]

Does a racing madman know a racing madman?

Does a rationalist know a raving madman

Does a rationalist know a rationalist?

Does a raving madman know a rationalist? 
 

These are the questions people these are the questions 

Edited September 5, 2024 by Thought Art

[Yimpa]

Time for some grounding exercises, ya'll have lost your minds!

[Thought Art]

All this post modernism has given two of my favourite songs deeper meaning… 

 

[Thought Art]

Just now, Yimpa said:

Time for some grounding exercises, ya'll have lost your minds!

That’s like, your opinion man.

[Yimpa]

PM has no issue with PM or M since PM has integrated both PM and M.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

PM has no issue with PM or M since PM has integrated both PM and M.

Be careful assuming it has integrated them. Maybe it hasn't.

[Yimpa]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Be careful assuming it has integrated them. Maybe it hasn't.

Precisely why I no longer have a confrontational approach. 

[Keryo Koffa]

53 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

1. I meant identitification (maybe even metaphysical type'a consciousness).
2. There's no such thing as a lower-stage attitude when you are construct-aware.
3. I can only observe others live from such perspectives.
4. When can we expect to quit Leo's cult and join your coralized.org?
5. Have not, but I will soon.

1. That's cool but if you lose your vessel, how are you gonna come back to brag about it 😁
2. Sounds like PM relativity, where's Yellow and Holarchies? Lower = less aware, not worse
3. You transcend and include, but karmic attitudes dissipate outwards as you tire of them
4. Sounds like quite the undertaking, but I don't wanna become Leo 2.0 yet, I love my hair!
5. I like how everyone keeps pushing me about Coral, while the thread's just chilling there

[Keryo Koffa]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Be careful assuming it has integrated them. Maybe it hasn't.

If it integrated them, wouldn't it turn yellow and PPM because of reconstruction?

Edited September 5, 2024 by Keryo Koffa

[LambdaDelta]

19 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Sounds like PM relativity

Precisely, I've been in a playful mood to consciously explore the aperspectival madness since the PM video. We basically agree on everything, I just chose that style for my responses haha 

24 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

where's Yellow and Holarchies

You hoarded them all 

 

26 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

You transcend and include, but karmic attitudes dissipate outwards as you tire of them

If I interpreted it correctly, yep. As my intellectual understanding deepens, the emotional rift grows further. I no longer experience the world from those states, they're more like concepts at the back of my mind. That's the burden of higher awareness, it's on you to bridge the gap. Which's why I can outwardly seamlessly interact with all sorts of people (basically channeling/translating whatever is required in context), but internally it doesn't feel authentic (I'd be in the looney bin otherwise. Or on this forum), so it can be energetically taxing. It's like the difference between a chameleon that can camouflage really well, but its essence remains, and Teotl, that can completely shift into any other mode of being. In human mode the chameleon is about as good as you can realistically hope to be. Paradoxically though my empathy and compassion are at all time highs, probably because whatever challenges I'm facing, the other states have it harder, without even knowing why. But anyhoo I rambled on long enough.

25 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Lower = less aware, not worse

Absolutely 

[thurT]

well, thanks for answering my queries forum. Helpful as always. 

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, thurT said:

One of the things i wanted to ask. As i am one of those who's youtube gets hit with your jordan petersons/jonathan pageau's/alex o'connor, john vervake.

And whilst i do agree with Leo's assessment that Jordan's shadow is primarily motivated to speak through his anger and emotional reactions. 
 

One of the criticisms he has laid out of the post modern ideology which i don't necessarily disagree with and Leo didn't adress other than he is consumed by his shadow when talking about this topic. Is that the post modern perspective deconstructs everything through the lens of power, who has it and who hasn't. And reducing all of history through that lens is a terribly destructive attitude to have. Because you essentially assume the worst from others. 

Whilst i'm not saying power is not an issue, of course not. The world moves from so many different tides, that reducing it to merely a power struggle is...childish. 

I tend to lean into agreeing with his analysis on this. 

And i'm inviting people here to offer a different perspective. That perhaps i haven't considered yet. 

 

[Leo Gura]

My Part 2 outline is nearly complete and it's super juicy.

Twice as juicy as Part 1.

[psychedelaholic]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

My Part 2 outline is nearly complete and it's super juicy.

Twice as juicy as Part 1.

Looking forward to it! :' )

I can't emphasize enough how much I love the total expansion of the introductory topic in your multi-part series'. Listening to hours of deeply nuanced concepts being broadly extrapolated on from many different perspectives always feels like a brain massage, lol. Specifically spiral dynamics helped me a ton in dealing with Academia. Having a dynamic framework to better understand ego development made me much more clear in how to meet people where they're at, relative to my own mind. The other topic that surprised me was the video you did on assumption, the amount of things in life it's possible to just assume, without ever realizing an assumption was ever made, is frankly insane. A ton of suffering is caused by assuming a specific outcome, without communicating, or not being aware of internal assumptions being made and being let down when expectations are not met.

This work is so sticky that I'll integrate it to the point of becoming so aware of something as benign as making an assumption, that I nearly never fail to observe and acknowledge when there's assumptions being made. This applies to any thought mechanism I contemplate thoroughly, if it becomes easy to see, and I can always catch it, it's not at all difficult to maintain the clarity to not get wrapped up, or pulled into things. I'm certainly not infallible, but I can't understate the amount of drama, stress I've been able to avoid simply by being aware of the larger picture, knowing where to place my energy.

I feel post-modernism is pertinent towards breaking down preconceived notions that collectively perpetuate many dysfunctional systems within our society. It's enjoyable to contemplate as it can be essentially applied to any idea, any concept, any construction of belief and attempt to question or undermine it without taking away it's validity, being radically open to infinite possibility. Relative to using established beliefs and what one already knows to say what isn't possible, why it's the blame of x or y, and that it cannot change.

I recently had a conversation with someone, the premise of it is I was providing hopeful perspectives in relation to people with mental illnesses deeply stigmatized by our society, they're marginalized as people, having a label planted on them that paints them as if they have less value than others. I'll quote what I wrote, I'm speaking loosely to the implication that the current system is inadequate in providing purpose & meaning.

Quote

Society and capitalism essentially values one's ability to provide value and services to others, in order to then take the value and services you require to survive from others, over anything else.

There's some nuance to it depending on how conscious the people you're interacting with are, but basically it's contribute to society in a socially accepted way or become a leper. If your mind isn't operating on the same frequency as the society, you're outcast to a lesser or greater extent being that people perceive you as not capable, poorly adjusted.

We apply labels to almost everything, but the deception with a label that people commonly succumb to is that the label is not the thing it's describing. Stigmatization comes from collective attachment of positive or negative thought attributed to a label. Things like psychosis are hard to overcome largely due to the way you're perceived if you have this label stuck on you, when your experience is just that, an experience, it's no more or less valid than anyone else's, but you will be constantly made to believe otherwise.

In a more conscious world there would be a place for those tuned to a different frequency. Everyone has something of value to offer, whether one can truly explore who they are depends on how they're perceived in society, and if you're labelled as a detriment to the systems of values and beliefs that uphold the society, life will be made difficult for you.

Unfortunately when one doesn't understand another, it's much to easier pass judgment, or stuff them into a conceptual box (the label of schizophrenia) so you don't need to put any effort into truly understanding who they are, or what their experience of life is like. Which makes it hard for a mutual understanding to form, causing suffering, inhibiting growth.

The person who decided to argue with me about this I would say had a Modernist perspective, that frankly made me sad. They pedantically debated my description of capitalism, saying it's not give and take it's "voluntary free exchange" as if that isn't simply a different way to describe the same thing; ie there's only one valid way to describe this system, and you're wrong if you take an alternative perspective.

Furthermore they refused to view anything through open mindedness, placed blame onto the society and the marginalized group for being "free riders" and said that it's not realistic for everyone in society to have an equal standard of living. Which is a twist of my words, as I never said that. They then went on to paint economics as the limiting factor in why we cannot address the marginalization of a subset of people. The issue is that they are "free riders", demanding that I describe to them a system of economics in which we could deal with the issue of these people not contributing to society.

Yet, does this type of response not perfectly illustrate a total unwillingness to take a perspective that challenges or goes outside of what you know? So instead of saying "you know what, these people are marginalized" and taking the perspective that the system that upholds the stigmatization narrative that leads to a group of people being marginalized, may be the actual problem; and not the god damn implications the marginalized group has on the system. The system can be changed, it's a bunch of constructed beliefs, so to sit there on your ass and demand answers to impossible problems within a confine of rules that you believe to be truth, instead of focusing on entertaining perspectives based outside of what you already know, it's unproductive, headass.

People would rather say "this is the only way it can be" due to x or y, and when you float them a perspective outside their paradigm, they'd rather say you're talking nonsense, or attempt to invalidate it by forcing it to conform to the set of rules the perspective seeks to question.

[Leo Gura]

@psychedelaholic It's very rare to find anyone who is interested in doing original thinking. People act out their biases like monkeys grabbing at bananas, and all their thoughts are just a tool to serve that end.

[KingCrimson]

I wanted to share some reflections on Leo's recent video about Post-Modernism.

I appreciate the new direction for Actualized.org, with its focus on advanced epistemology and the highest stages of cognitive development. It's a great fit, and as Leo mentions, there aren't many others exploring this niche, whereas there's an abundance of spiritual teachers and gurus already available.

The points I'm going to make should not be seen as personal criticism, but rather as intellectual engagement with the topics discussed in the video. Leo is likely aware of many of these points and may address them in future videos.

Pre-modern, Modern, and Post-modern Generalizations

Firstly, while the broad categorizations of pre-modern, modern, and post-modern are useful for a general overview, they can break down when examining individual personalities and philosophies from different eras.

For instance, the worldview of ancient Greeks was primarily mythological, with gods seen as actual beings living on Mount Olympus who directly intervened in mortal affairs. However, this view was mainly held by the general population (demos). The most advanced thinkers of these societies, particularly philosophers, often held more sophisticated views. This disparity is one reason why Socrates was sentenced to death – his philosophical ideas were perceived as dangerous by the more conservative elements of Athenian society.

Plato and Aristotle (depending on interpretation) already presented non-dual philosophies, far surpassing their contemporaries in cognitive and spiritual development. The Eleusinian mysteries, an elite gathering inaccessible to the general populace, further exemplify this intellectual stratification. Later Neoplatonists like Plotinus and Proclus made the non-duality implicit in Plato's work more explicit, and they were far from mere armchair metaphysicians – they took their philosophy seriously and engaged in contemplative and spiritual practices.

Nuances in Christian Philosophy

Leo primarily presents Christianity as an example of pre-modern thinking, referencing medieval scholasticism and modern American Christian Nationalism. While not entirely inaccurate, this characterization overlooks the sophistication of early Christian theologians like the Cappadocian Fathers and Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (essentially a Christianized version of Proclus). These thinkers were not unsophisticated Stage Blue types who accepted biblical authority uncritically. In fact, some of their ideas contain proto-postmodern elements.

A prime example is Gregory of Nyssa's letter "Ad Ablabium." Responding to criticism about the concept of the Trinity, Gregory argues that the Bible should not be taken literally. He contends that ordinary language is inadequate for discussing the nature of God and the Trinity (reminiscent of the much later "linguistic turn"). Gregory posits that reading the Bible is a co-creative, interpretative endeavor (echoing postmodernism, but in the 4th century CE). While God's nature remains ultimately mysterious, Gregory suggests that meaningful discourse about the Divine is possible, albeit in a manner different from ordinary speech.

Gregory proposes that in articulating the Divine, we continuously fail with our language, yet paradoxically spiral towards a more adequate understanding. This possibility arises from our inseparable connection to God as the eternal Logos made manifest. In Gregory's view, Christians sacrifice words (logoi) rather than animals or virgins, offering refined articulations of Divine Nature as their devotional act.

This perspective aligns with the Apostle Paul's statement in Corinthians: "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (In the original Greek, "Spirit" is "Logos.")

Ironically, many modern Christians take the Bible literally, falling short of the intellectual sophistication their Church Fathers achieved nearly two millennia ago. This observation also challenges the coherence of Luther's "sola scriptura" doctrine in Protestantism.

Aesthetics and Taste in Philosophy

The video prompted thoughts about the role of aesthetics and taste in philosophy. While modern analytic philosophers often don't consider aesthetic judgments as modes of knowing, more artistically inclined philosophers like Nietzsche, Abhinavagupta, or Aurobindo view taste as a crucial, if not the primary, mode of understanding the world.

From this perspective, philosophy and science become forms of art, with practitioners developing increasingly refined aesthetic judgment. Nietzsche exemplifies this when he states that although he can't logically prove Kant wrong, he can "smell the rat" in his philosophy – referring to this kind of aesthetic discernment.

Kant and German Idealists

Kant and the German Idealists are notoriously misunderstood, especially by analytic philosophers. Kant distinguishes between Vernunft and Verstand:

Verstand corresponds to what we typically call "reason" or "rationality" – the individual human capacity for logic and mathematics.

Vernunft is quite different. Even for Kant, Vernunft is not personal but universal. Its root, "vernehmen," means "to hear" or "to grasp." It's a more direct, intuitive, synthetic kind of knowing, akin to the Indian concept of "buddhi."

Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel further developed Kant's ideas, denying the existence of a "thing in itself." However, their work was only possible because of Kant's groundwork. Many modern analytic philosophers, especially in the Anglo-American tradition, often misunderstand Vernunft (unfortunately mostly translated as "Reason" in English) as a personal intelligence rather than something closer to the Greek Logos or buddhi.

It is also worth mentioning here that Hegel especially is quite difficult to place, because, on the one hand, his philosophy is one of, perhaps THE greatest example of an overarching grand narrative (typical of modernism), while at the same time, he already anticipates insights from later postmodern philosophers.

On Schizophrenia and Worldviews

Regarding the section on schizophrenia and schizophrenic worldviews, while the example effectively illustrates the relativity of concepts like "normal," "healthy," "crazy," or "sane" in epistemology, some additional context would have been beneficial.

The discussion might resonate with Stage Green thinkers who romantically view schizophrenics and autistic individuals as misunderstood potential shamans in our materialistic culture. However, as someone with nearly a decade of experience working with mentally ill individuals, I can attest that this is largely a misguided notion.

The schizophrenic experiences I've encountered more closely resemble acute intoxication with substances like datura or diphenhydramine, or the hallucinations during delirium tremens, rather than insightful psychedelic trips. These experiences involve auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory hallucinations, extreme paranoia and fear, and an inability to formulate coherent thoughts. Without medication, many of these individuals would pose a danger to society and struggle to survive, let alone lead fulfilling lives.

Furthermore, anthropologist Robert Sapolsky's research on a Stage Purple tribal society revealed that a schizophrenic woman in the tribe was not revered as a shaman or guru but was instead an outcast, feared by others and unable to adhere to strict social norms.

While the example still serves its epistemological purpose, explicitly addressing these points would prevent the spread of misconceptions about mental illness.

 

 

That's it for now, hope you found my thoughts valuable and I am looking forward to engaging in dialogue with you guys. 

(Note: While the content of this post is entirely based on my own thought process, Claude.ai has been used to refine grammar and word selection since I'm not a native English speaker)

[Rishabh R]

@Leo Gura As a request could you do videos on survival and shadow work ? 

Edited September 6, 2024 by Rishabh R