Who Loves Post-Modernism? - New Video

[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 by Rishabh R

[r0ckyreed]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

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

Twice as juicy as Part 1.

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

Edited September 6 by r0ckyreed

[hundreth]

 

[BojackHorseman]

Am currently watching the video.

I really tend to place myself as post-modernist from what I understand, I often really annoy most people with always balancing things and trying to be empathetic to even horrible persons, but I think that being able to think in a fragmented way and seeing many perspectives does not mean some things can't be as we say they are right now on some level
It doesn't have to be everything or nothing/extreme in all regards

A few thoughts I had while listening :

1) "if you put an elephant in a vaccum you cannot tell if it's big or small"
But nothing exists in a vaccum. We don't. Also, this is a data about size, that is not relative. So the comparison to more complex problems, even as a simplificaction, seems wrong

2) Basically we're saying, and I agree, that no country is right. Depends on the perspective. That there is no one truth. But there is. The one truth should be avoiding extinction of living organisms and planets. Avoiding suffering. Therefore, you could objectively say that the best way to do this, is to take simple decisions as sharing ressources, avoiding violence, etc (of course, having an authority strong and connected enough to enforce that, as humans are right now, seems impossible)
You can admit that there are many truth. This is actually undeniable. But over those, the bigger truth is that we should get to this general well-being of the livings.

3) Some things, like some aspects of science, have to be true. It doesn't mean that you can't have a lot of fun questionning many many other aspects of life. But questionning that the Earth is round when we have visual proof of it (and therefore not just biased humans point of views) is a waste of time. Go question ghosts, ki, whatever you want after that, but the world we see with our human bodies is this one. (there might be a million more layers to it, but this one layer here, I think we kind of nailed it on some basic aspects)

4) "There are many facts that you will overlook"/being selective about science.
Probably. But then, what? Is there even a few valuable exemples to this, where people could actually say "damn, we should really study this, why didn't we think about it earlier ?"

5) you can interpret text differently and that's all that matters in the end.
But you cannot deny the intent of the one who wrote it. If they're saying homosexuals should be punished, no matter where this comes from, then they mean it. The "them" that they are at this moment, which is all that matters to describe them as a person when they wanted to communicate something, undeniably wanted to mean this. So why try and say you could interpret that they're actually all for lgtbt or whatnot?
There's plenty of space in your head and the world to find the worldview you resonate with about a given problem. 
No need to try and force other's views about it. 

I didn't finish the video yet (funny how this advocates against me considering the "we see everything selectively" point of view), so I might be surprised, but I think those aspects of it probably won't suddenly be changed as the video continues.
So there's that already.

tl;dr is probably : Lots of things have to be put into perspective, but not everything has to.

(sorry if this was hard to read, english is not my first language)

Not just here to say "Wrong !" by the way, I actually love the video so far, makes me think, I didn't even knew/think about those terms so far

 

Edited September 7 by BojackHorseman

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, BojackHorseman said:

That there is no one truth. But there is. The one truth should be avoiding extinction of living organisms and planets. Avoiding suffering. Therefore, you could objectively say that the best way to do this, is to take simple decisions as sharing ressources, avoiding violence, etc

No. This is precisely wrong.

You are not realizing that avoiding extinction and suffering are NOT the best. That is your bias.

You cannot say that suffering is bad, because suffering is an important part of life.

[Nilsi]

Nice video overall.

The version of postmodernism you’ve presented is mostly just Derrideanism, where it’s all about deconstruction and endless reinterpretation. However, many postmodern thinkers grappled deeply with what comes after "déconstruction" and weren’t simply nihilistic academics.

When Nietzsche (who, for some reason, you haven’t mentioned once throughout the entire talk) famously proclaimed the death of God—i.e., the death of grand narratives—in his 1882 work Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science), this was only the beginning of what is considered his "mature works." It also marked the start of his Umwertung aller Werte ("revaluation of all values"), a project cut short by his mental deterioration. From this, we get concepts like the "Übermensch" and "Eternal Recurrence," both of which are about affirming life and embracing one’s "Will to Power"—that is, one’s own values and highest vision—despite fully accepting that there is no rational or transcendent justification for any of it.

Similarly, Gilles Deleuze expanded upon Nietzsche’s ideas. To put it briefly, he developed a post-metaphysical metaphysics of absolute experience, anticipating and paralleling the teachings of your sacred cow, Peter Ralston (who, to be fair, is quite on point within his domain of thought). Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition argues for the priority of difference—distinction over identity—while Capitalism and Schizophrenia is about "deterritorialization" and "reterritorialization," which Ralston would call "opening" and "grounding." Deleuze’s unfinished work, Immanence: A Life, written shortly before his tragic suicide, centers on the singularity of "a life." This contrasts with your favored Heideggerians, Derrida, and Dugin, who still posit a "Sein" beyond "Dasein"—a "Being" beyond "being." For Deleuze, however, "being" is already absolute "Being." This is, of course, what the death of God signifies, which is why Nietzsche said things like, “Mankind, in its most profound self-abasement, in its most profound self-alienation, has dared to invent an ideal world of being in order to devalue and afflict with suspicion the only world that exists.”

It would have been nice if you had actually engaged with the thinkers and ideas behind postmodernism more deeply. We could have had a much more profound and nuanced discussion on postmodernism and made meaningful contributions to the discourse. As it stands, your presentation is just a collection of loosely connected ideas that you’ve appropriated for your own purposes (whatever they may be). Fair enough, but don’t expect any serious intellectual to give you too much applause for what you’ve done here.

Edited September 7 by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

@Nilsi There is a problem in that we have a big difference between "postmodernism" as a broad idea in our culture vs the actual technical philosophical work of specific post-modern philosophers. There is a disconnect in how to summarize the work of all these PM thinkers into a cohesive thing.

Most of the so-called post-modern philosophers like Derrida would not even regard or call themselves postmodernist.

PM has become a sort of gross abstraction, made all the worse by right-wing renditions of it.

The challenge with this topic is that if you get really technical and scholarly with it, there's not even going to be a "postmodernism" at the end of the day. Yet people still talk about the postmodern era.

Laymen and right-wingers still speak of postmodernism as an ideological movement or broad attitude. That's what my videos are focused on addressing, not the individual works of Derrida or whoever.

The point of my video is not to present a lecture on the history of philosophy but to help the mind make sense of important epistemic insights that modernism and premodernism misses.

Making a video about the techncial arguments of Derrida or Deleuze is just not useful to our work. No one but philosophy nerds cares about that and it will not be applicable in everyday life. Even my video is already quite disconnected for most from daily application.

This is one of the problems I have with academic philosophy: it may be scholarly rigorous, but it has zero application in real life. Nothing is actually made sense of. It's just the parroting of ideas some dead guy has said. You can have perfect technical knowledge of Derrida and it will get you nowhere, but you will waste several years of your life to achieve it.

Edited September 7 by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nilsi

Laymen and right-wingers still speak of postmodernism as an ideological movement or broad attitude. That's what my videos are focused on addressing, not the individual works of Derrida or whoever.

Fair enough.

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nilsi

This is one of the problems I have with academic philosophy: it may be scholarly rigorous, but it has zero application in real life. Nothing is actually made sense of. It's just the parroting of ideas some dead guy has said. You can have perfect technical knowledge of Derrida and it will get you nowhere.

It depends on how you relate to it. Philosophy and theory orient your values and your life at large, which has radical implications for your everyday life—if you actually make the effort to live by it, instead of just writing dry academic papers, debating with other nerds, and jerking each other off over who has the most citations.

Nietzsche and Deleuze were explicitly anti-academic and practically oriented. This is philosophy to live by. But if you want to live your best life, you’ve got to get it right. I firmly stand by that.

[ryandesreu]

An elephant in a vacuum. It exists, and it is small, relatively. 

 

 

[CARDOZZO]

Great video.

Making your content inclined to 2-Tier/Construct-Aware is one of the most intelligent decisions that you ever made in the history of Actualized.Org

Your unique strengths as a deep thinker are shaped to synthesize and connect deep meta-metaphysical paradigms, insights & POVs.

I suspect that from now on your true colors can shine through to become a pioneer on the philosophy of non-human states of consciousness and alien minds.

Philosophy is a way to live life. We need more deep thinkers reshaping societal structures, building compelling meta-narratives, POVs, paradigms, original thinking and insights to reunite philosophical and practical aspects of life.

For all the people reading this message, I encourage yourself to develop your consciousness at deep extreme levels of awareness and creativity to build a new earth. I don't know if you are aware about the fact that you can become a Newton, Tesla, Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Ken Wilber. We are alive and responsible to reshape reality. WAKE UP, DO THE WORK.

Edited September 7 by CARDOZZO

[Scholar]

Academia is profoundly driven by peer pressure. In poland, in 2014, when the german ethics board declared that incest between adult siblings should not be criminalized, a polish philosophy professor posted on his blog that he thought that they should have an open discussion about the question of incest in poland as well, clarifying that he was not for legalizing incest.

The public was so outraged about this that he was put under investigation for conduct unbecoming of a university member. He was accused of secretly participating in an incestuous relationship himself.

 

And this kind of attitude against consensual incest is prevalent in all academic settings. Anything that is not a clear condemnation of incest, any investigation that could in any shape or form validate incest, comes at significant social and academic cost to university members, whether it be researchers or professors.

 

It's fascinating to see that people truly do not change over time. You would think that, given spiral dynamics, people over time would grow more sophisticated and not be driven by inherent disgust mechanism as they were with homophobia, especially in settings that are supposed to be progressive and sensitive towards unjust discrimination. Yet you see the very progressives spear-heading the judgemental, emotional outrage about this topic, and showcasing a complete inability to engage with this in the sensitivity it requires. Any and all shaming, social and legal persecution is justified, all because of how disgusted people feel about, and the consequent mental acrobatics they do to justify the indulging in that disgust.

Edited September 8 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You would think that, given spiral dynamics, people over time would grow more sophisticated

They ARE more sophisticated!

In the past they would have burned that guy at the stake.

[Scholar]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They ARE more sophisticated!

In the past they would have burned that guy at the stake.

True, I supposed my standards are just too high.

 

It just feels alienating to know that 95% of people are like this. How do I continue taking them seriously? It's hard not to feel like some sort of arrogant prick when everything everyone says and thinks is just so utterly ignorant.

 

It feels like I was born in the wrong century. Like, I'm walking around in ancient rome furious at how utterly stupid everyone is being.

Edited September 8 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

like some sort of arrogant prick

Welcome to my world 

[Emerald]

@Leo Gura I was just watching the video you made on Post-Modernism, and I came across the part where you were saying the Post-Modernist would say, "The whole bible is a joke" and that only those who get it would know.

And it reminded me of an irony that occurred to me regarding the Bible.

Like the whole first book of the Bible states that 'eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil'  and gaining knowledge of good and evil is the original sin... and that seeing the world through the lens of good and evil is what produces shame and casts us out of paradise.

And then ironically, the Bible proceeds to be regarded as a book about the knowledge of good and evil... and people still see the Bible that way.

So, the first book of the Bible is basically like "It's the biggest sin you could possibly commit to read this book and take it as a moral compass."