Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Cireeric]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I have my own likes in musical genres, but I find exploring and sitting with albums and genres I wouldn't normally listen to, extremely beneficial. Often I have to sit with a piece that is grating, but I can find gems that resonate in unexpected ways.

 

What I also find very interesting and which overlaps wth Leos work is that often openness to some new music is highly dependent on state. Sometimes a new genre or album just doesnt click and some other day in a different mood or heightened state I can totally get it and from then on I can understand and feel it.

Edited Friday at 10:03 PM by Cireeric

[Leo Gura]

51 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

That’s a poor approach to epistemology. To understand a song or album - especially one outside your comfort zone - you have to take the time to listen to it in its entirety. Only then can you start grasping what it’s really about.

I understand your point, but in my experience it just isn't worth it. I have particular tastes which are difficult to please. Most people are not as picky as me. I am so picky that it's hard to find anything good. I am that way not just about music, I am that way about women, and many other things. I have extremely high standards. That's why my work is what it is.

Finding things that satisfy me is very hard. So I pay a higher exploration cost than most people.

Edited Friday at 10:10 PM by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Eventually you reach a point in life where you understand yourself well enough that you know what you like and don't like.

I get that. But I’d still argue that pushing the boundaries of your experience deepens your appreciation for what ultimately sticks with you. How could I truly understand my own taste in music if I didn’t explore what else is out there? Not only do I end up discovering music I never knew I’d love, but it also gives me a better sense of what I like and why.

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't understand how the framework you want is different from my position.

The highest framework would be to see the absolute beauty in everything. But I'm not sure that's what you're asking for.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily different - I was just curious about your perspective. In the end, I think it comes down to empathy. Metal still isn’t my favorite genre, but I can now appreciate why people love it. That, in turn, tells me something about the nature of art and aesthetics that I wouldn’t have grasped if I had simply stayed on the outside.

Ultimately, this is just a metaphor for a broader epistemic approach that I’ve always found lacking in you - one that also extends to your general suspicion of Western philosophy. Again, I’d argue that if you actually took the time to engage with these texts, you’d find many of them profoundly insightful, offering deep reflections on reality, and even on topics like God, Truth, and Awakening - albeit from a vastly different perspective and in a vastly different language.

And to be clear, I’m not saying this to push you into listening to music or reading books you have no interest in. But a bit more empathy - and a willingness to give things the benefit of the doubt - would be refreshing to see.

[Nilsi]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I understand your point, but in my experience it just isn't worth it. I have particular tastes which are difficult to please. Most people are not as picky as me. I am so picky that it's hard to find anything good. I am that way not just about music, I am that way about women, and many other things. I have extremely high standards. That's why my work is what it is.

Finding things that satisfy me is very hard. So I pay a higher exploration cost than most people.

I’d argue that I have ridiculously high standards myself - but it’s precisely because of that, not in spite of it, that I’m willing to dig deep to uncover the rarest and most beautiful gems.

That said, I think we mostly agree. We just have different approaches to what seems like roughly the same goal.

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I get that. But I’d still argue that pushing the boundaries of your experience deepens your appreciation for what ultimately sticks with you. How could I truly understand my own taste in music if I didn’t explore what else is out there? Not only do I end up discovering music I never knew I’d love, but it also gives me a better sense of what I like and why.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily different - I was just curious about your perspective. In the end, I think it comes down to empathy. Metal still isn’t my favorite genre, but I can now appreciate why people love it. That, in turn, tells me something about the nature of art and aesthetics that I wouldn’t have grasped if I had simply stayed on the outside.

Ultimately, this is just a metaphor for a broader epistemic approach that I’ve always found lacking in you - one that also extends to your general suspicion of Western philosophy. Again, I’d argue that if you actually took the time to engage with these texts, you’d find many of them profoundly insightful, offering deep reflections on reality, and even on topics like God, Truth, and Awakening - albeit from a vastly different perspective and in a vastly different language.

And to be clear, I’m not saying this to push you into listening to music or reading books you have no interest in. But a bit more empathy - and a willingness to give things the benefit of the doubt - would be refreshing to see.

I agree that I could be more open to things, in particular new experiences.

As far as Western philosophy goes, I avoid it because I don't want it to corrupt my own independent realizations of reality.

There is also a tradeoff and cost to letting human ideas affect your thinking.

Edited Friday at 10:55 PM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

@Nilsi There is a more interesting existential question here, which is: Why do people's tastes vary so widely at all? What actually creates those tastes?

That's a question I don't have a good answer to.

Edited Friday at 10:28 PM by Leo Gura

[Davino]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Why do people's tastes vary so widely at all?

Because every figment of reality must be loved by another

It's a network of Love

[ExploringReality]

I think I like particular violent music because when I'm training at the boxing gym and sparring, my mind is focused on training to hurt someone in the ring and to stay sharp. The low consciousness music does amplify my engagement even though I eventually get sick of it and decide to listen to sade, meditation music and the actualized playlist. 

The gang rap is catchy, but it gets more absurd as I listen and feel impurity within my own mind. I can see erasing my entire playlist filled with garbage that I picked up from my surroundings is my next step.

Edited Friday at 10:34 PM by ExploringReality

[Davino]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is an epic set of books about how to develop an objective aesthetics beyond post-modernism. It's called The Nature Of Order.

I researched deeper on the book. In case anyone wants to read a quick summary from my AI prompts. It's actually interesting, maybe one day I'll read through it.

Edited Friday at 10:44 PM by Davino

[Nilsi]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nilsi There is a more interesting existential question here, which is: Why do people's tastes vary so widely at all? What actually creates those tastes?

That's a question I don't have a good answer to.

I would say people tend to like whatever they’re repeatedly exposed to. If you grow up in a certain environment, surrounded by certain influences, your taste will probably reflect that - whether it’s music, aesthetics, or even the people you’re drawn to. A girl who spends their childhood watching Disney Channel will likely end up liking girly pop music. A tomboy hanging out with her older brother might get into rock because that’s what’s always playing; and if that makes them an outsider among their peers, they might gravitate toward something like alt-rock because it gives voice to whatever angst or alienation they're feeling. It’s all just contingencies stacking on top of each other.

Some people obviously take this further and exercise more conscious agency in the process by actively refining their taste rather than just passively absorbing whatever’s around them - maybe even creating their own art or becoming an object of desire themselves, pushing the boundaries of what taste can even be. But even then, the process remains messy and chaotic.

Same goes for everything else. If we take Freud seriously, your taste in women probably starts with your mother - whether you’re drawn to that image or react against it. Depending on your relationship with her and the twists and turns of life, your preferences could end up just about anywhere.

In the end, it’s like any other evolutionary process: you start somewhere, and through adaptation, selection, and random mutation, you end up somewhere else.

Edited Friday at 11:27 PM by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, Davino said:

Because every figment of reality must be loved by another

It's a network of Love

Not a good answer.

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

There is an epic set of books about how to develop an objective aesthetics beyond post-modernism. It's called The Nature Of Order.

https://amzn.to/3Fbvvo8 (aff link)

That's what I think you're asking for.

I've looked into stuff like this, but to me, it's ultimately just a desperate attempt to ground aesthetics in some particular symbolic system - in this case, one based on insights from complexity science, which, of course, brings its own aesthetic biases into what it claims to objectively describe from the start.

I don’t think you can reduce art to complex subatomic and microbiological pattern formation processes, even if you argue that this isn’t a reductionist paradigm and that it operates at every scale. When you're having sex with a beautiful woman, can you really explain the attraction you feel in terms of "local symmetries" and "fractal gradients" supposedly making it possible? Saying it out loud already makes it sound preposterous.

In this case, a poem by Rilke would be far more fitting - one that intimately describes the beauty and features of his lover in detail, evoking all the strong emotions and vivid imagery he experiences. Which is exactly why, in my opinion, a multidisciplinary approach is always king.

Of course, this doesn’t "solve" the problem or provide any definitive ground for the aesthetic experience - but it intensifies it and gives it a voice.

And to me, this is what aesthetics and art are all about - listening. Truly listening to reality. Taking in everything it has to say, not just what you want to hear or what confirms what you already know.

Edited Friday at 11:09 PM by Nilsi

[Davino]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not a good answer.

I'm sorry it didn't satisfy you

I'll keep contempalting, it was just an spontaneous answer to share.

[Nemra]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why do people's tastes vary so widely at all?

What actually creates those tastes?

@Leo Gura, do the following questions reflect yours?

• Why do people's experiences of reality vary so widely?
• What actually creates those experiences?

[LambdaDelta]

5 minutes ago, Davino said:

I'm sorry it didn't satisfy you

I'll keep contempalting, it was just an spontaneous answer to share.

I submit it's because Multiplicity is Absolute, just like the other aspects, and as such it must be rendered and experienced fully, not a single piece is allowed to be missed. That's for the first part, as to how the tastes are created on a 'technical' level is a really complex matter.

That too is a raw intuition, maybe I'll get something more concrete in tonight's trip.

[Leo Gura]

47 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

When you're having sex with a beautiful woman, can you really explain the attraction you feel in terms of "local symmetries" and "fractal gradients" supposedly making it possible?

Bro, who among us has not jerked off to fractal gradients.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Nemra said:

@Leo Gura, do the following questions reflect yours?

• Why do people's experiences of reality vary so widely?
• What actually creates those experiences?

No. There is no mystery why people have difference experiences.

Edited yesterday at 02:51 AM by Leo Gura

[Girzo]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Life is too short for listening to mediocre music.

Says man who puts totally mediocre chillstep and pop tunes in his ultimate music playlists 

Please, listen to some proper rock sometimes

 

Edited yesterday at 12:09 AM by Girzo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

 A video on artistic taste, vision would suite your long format Leo. I am surprised you haven't yet touched on this, but it could be a topic of lesser interest.

It is a simple subject that encompasses an array of sensory topics.

Back to the music topic:

I find the exploration of unknown sounds causes an internal friction for my being that reveals more about myself.

You could substitute sound with any other topic in the above sentence.

I feel it is through processes like the above, in friction, one learns more about themselves and their own consciousness.

For this reason, I am willing to sit with discomfort.

I am much less discerning with allocating time as being 'wasted' if I learn I dislike something. It reads to me as if Leo dislikes if he has wasted time exploring.

For myself, it is never wasted time if I discover something.

As I grow older my taste, also, has grown more defined.

My openness to experience has not narrowed.

I think Leo simply chooses where to apply that openness - music not being one of them. Exploration of truth is perhaps his chosen avenue to apply openness.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, Girzo said:

 

This is just noise.