Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Terell Kirby]

16 minutes ago, QVx said:

I have never heard of Jordan, let alone listened to any of his content, but I would say it’s fairly obvious that he is a long way from being god realised.

Yeah- you can tell he’s quite thoughtful, insightful, mature and articulate-yet not God Realized.

Yet God realization itself is not a direct indicator of the positive traits Jordan possesses. Understanding transcends any notion of moral makeup, character, eloquence or wisdom/integrity even. It’s something truly non human in every respect.

Edited Tuesday at 06:10 PM by Terell Kirby

[Nilsi]

You people do realize there’s more to life than “God-Realization,” right? Jordan Hall has never once claimed he's chasing some profound mystical union with God - his aim is explicitly about crafting a practical model for living as a human being.

That's the central issue with Leo's position. He fails to clearly emphasize - especially to those less discerning - that his entire philosophy explicitly hinges on the single-minded pursuit of "God-Realization." While that focus is fine and powerful, he complicates things by casually mixing in other topics like politics and ethics without clearly marking them as tangential.

This leads people to conflate ideas and assume everything Leo says can be taken as gospel, applicable to every domain of reality. Clearly, most people here do not share his obsession with "God-Realization," yet they remain fascinated by Leo (who himself is often ambivalent about the scope of his work) and adopt philosophical points as if these ideas inherently lead to prosperity and fulfillment across all aspects of life - when they clearly don't, due to profound trade-offs involved.

No amount of Neo-Platonism will ever provide practical guidance or even any clear inclination on how to live your life and its possibilities beyond "contemplating the One" - an approach that is clearly impractical, or even undesirable, for most people.

I would welcome it if the rhetoric around this topic were toned down a bit, and  other viewpoints were allowed to be taken serious and evaluated on their own merits, rather than against some external standard like "does it lead to God-Realization or not?" or even worse, "does this align with what Leo said in a particular blog post or not?" Politics doesn't face this restriction, despite having no connection to "God-Realization," so I'm wondering why philosophy can't be afforded the same standard.

Edited Tuesday at 06:37 PM by Nilsi

[Eskilon]

59 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

his aim is explicitly about crafting a practical model for living as a human being

Do you really think you could say that to his face or any Christian for that matter? Like "Your worldview is practical and what not but ultimately it is false, a fantasy and self-deception" he would get defensive I bet you any money. No one simply does things pragmatically or for practical reasons, even if they say otherwise. Identity runs deep.

Leo's post was to show people here how Christianity no matter how sofisticated will not lead to god-realization and there are clear blunders inside this worldview. Now, it is the responsability of the person to investigate this and not to blindly follow and agree with Leo. Leo always talked about this so I don't see your point in taking what Leo says as gospel.

Edited Tuesday at 07:27 PM by Eskilon

[Nilsi]

10 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Do you really think you could say that to his face or any Christian for that matter? Like "Your worldview is practical and what not but ultimately it is false, a fantasy and self-deception" he would get defensive I bet you any money.

Leo's post was to show people here how Christianity no matter how sofisticated will not lead to god-realization and there are clear blunders inside this worldview. Now, it is the responsability of the person to investigate this and not to blindly follow and agree with Leo. Leo always talked about this so I don't see your point in taking what Leo says as gospel.

There are even clearer blunders in Leo's worldview, yet most people here follow him blindly.

So if Leo feels entitled to point out flaws in Jordan Hall's worldview, I should equally be entitled to highlight flaws in Leo's.

Also, I'm sure Jordan Hall would agree that it's the individual's responsibility to critically investigate his worldview rather than blindly adopt it as gospel - so I'd say we're even overall.

[Girzo]

I hear this everytime I read about rats on the blog.

Rats

 

[Cireeric]

Jordan is really all over the place recently.

I would love to see Leo talking with Jordan and Jordans objections to Leos points. Im sure he would have reasonable counterpoints and the conversation would be challenging, but potentially fruitful for both. 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Cireeric said:

Jordan is really all over the place recently.

I would love to see Leo talking with Jordan and Jordans objections to Leos points. Im sure he would have reasonable counterpoints and the conversation would be challenging, but potentially fruitful for both. 

Neither of them would care about the other's project on its own merits - so no, this wouldn’t be fruitful at all.

[Cireeric]

Just now, Nilsi said:

Neither of them would care about the other's project on its own merits - so no, this wouldn’t be fruitful at all.

Yeah, I also imagine the conversation would be quite weird. Still would love to see it

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

You people do realize there’s more to life than “God-Realization,” right? Jordan Hall has never once claimed he's chasing some profound mystical union with God - his aim is explicitly about crafting a practical model for living as a human being.

He is under the illusion that Christianity is the highest path to Truth, Good, and Beauty, and that his version of Christianity is not a religion. This is a mistake, not by my standards but by his own.

To be a Christian and then claim that it's okay that you never reach God because what you were after was just a practical model for living, is a serious self-deception.

In this work we don't just take for grant that a practical model for living is the correct priority. We question that to see its limitations.

Quote

That's the central issue with Leo's position. He fails to clearly emphasize - especially to those less discerning - that his entire philosophy explicitly hinges on the single-minded pursuit of "God-Realization." While that focus is fine and powerful, he complicates things by casually mixing in other topics like politics and ethics without clearly marking them as tangential.

1) My work is not all about God. It's also about making sense of all of reality and living virtuously. My work is not as narrow as you claim.

But a clear understanding of God is needed to achive this.

2) It's all interconnected. You cannot get politics right or science or anything else unless you are able to avoid self-deception. In case you haven't noticed, Christians also have shitty politics. Because it's all connected.

Quote

This leads people to conflate ideas and assume everything Leo says can be taken as gospel

The irony of accusing me of this in the context of Christianity.

Jordan is not doing Gospel, Leo is?

Quote

No amount of Neo-Platonism will ever provide practical guidance or even any clear inclination on how to live your life and its possibilities beyond "contemplating the One" - an approach that is clearly impractical, or even undesirable, for most people.

Which is why Actualized covers so much more practical ground that Neo-Platonism.

Quote

I would welcome it if the rhetoric around this topic were toned down a bit, and  other viewpoints were allowed to be taken serious and evaluated on their own merits,

Jordan's view was seriously evaluated, without any strawmanning, and it turns out to be just more religion.

In the end there is no argument I can make against religion if you just like to do religion. Go ahead.

Quote

rather than against some external standard like "does it lead to God-Realization or not?"

My job is to make sure people don't get stuck in traps of the mind. So yes, that is the standard.

I will set the standard for mankind because no one else has. My job here is to set the best standard. The reason people follow me is because of the unique standard I set.

If you just want to be part of a spiritual community, sure, go ahead and join any religion you want. This is a person who doesn't care about truth. This is religion as a social club. But it never stops there. These people then think they understand God and spirituality and the whole world. They are not humble social club goers.

What we're really talking about here is corruption and its spread.

Quote

or even worse, "does this align with what Leo said in a particular blog post or not?" Politics doesn't face this restriction, despite having no connection to "God-Realization," so I'm wondering why philosophy can't be afforded the same standard.

Because the point of philosophy is to understand reality. Without God-Realization reality has not been understood.

Philosophy suffers from people who do philosophy without understanding its ultimate goal. This is why we have so much shit philosophy and why philosophers like Plotinus are so rare.

A philosophy that misses God is junk and will lead to many other self-deceptions.

Yes, if you don't care about truth then my work is not for you. Most people do not care. My job is to be one of the few people that does. This makes the work niche.

It is the function of Intelligence to point out the traps that keep mind from reaching its highest Intelligence. That's what is happening here. If you don't care about reaching the highest Intelligence then any old teaching or social club will be good enough for you.

--------

In the end, if you just want to live comfortably inside Maya, there is no argument I can make against it. Enjoy your life in The Matrix.

Edited Tuesday at 10:09 PM by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, Cireeric said:

Jordan is really all over the place recently.

 

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, QVx said:

I would say it’s fairly obvious that he is a long way from being god realised.

I assume his usual discussions and talks imply otherwise? 

He does not imply otherwise. However it's very easy to get seduced into thinking Christianity can be reformed and salvaged.

Jordan does not pretend to be more than he is. However it's easy to think that his way of making sense of reality will work. It will not. Much more skepticism is needed towards all these Game B theorists. I see it becoming the next trap.

I've spent a lot of time closely studying the flaws in their thinking.

Edited Tuesday at 11:18 PM by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

 

Same instrument, different story:

 

[Terell Kirby]

1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

 

The ego on Micheal Jordan was astonishing, it's what made him a Hall of Famer, greates BBall player of all time.

Ego isn't all bad ..

[integral]

When I saw the testosterone referral link, I was like: ”Leo what the F is this link…”

Then I clicked it… 😂 this is the first time that meme actually got me. Well played.

[Nemra]

19 minutes ago, integral said:

Then I clicked it… 😂 this is the first time that meme actually got me. Well played.

He's so serious that it's funny.

[Yimpa]

Kiwi:

 

[Nilsi]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He is under the illusion that Christianity is the highest path to Truth, Good, and Beauty, and that his version of Christianity is not a religion. This is a mistake, not by my standards but by his own.

To be a Christian and then claim that it's okay that you never reach God because what you were after was just a practical model for living, is a serious self-deception.

In this work we don't just take for grant that a practical model for living is the correct priority. We question that to see its limitations.

1) My work is not all about God. It's also about making sense of all of reality and living virtuously. My work is not as narrow as you claim.

But a clear understanding of God is needed to achive this.

2) It's all interconnected. You cannot get politics right or science or anything else unless you are able to avoid self-deception. In case you haven't noticed, Christians also have shitty politics. Because it's all connected.

The irony of accusing me of this in the context of Christianity.

Jordan is not doing Gospel, Leo is?

Which is why Actualized covers so much more practical ground that Neo-Platonism.

Jordan's view was seriously evaluated, without any strawmanning, and it turns out to be just more religion.

In the end there is no argument I can make against religion if you just like to do religion. Go ahead.

My job is to make sure people don't get stuck in traps of the mind. So yes, that is the standard.

I will set the standard for mankind because no one else has. My job here is to set the best standard. The reason people follow me is because of the unique standard I set.

If you just want to be part of a spiritual community, sure, go ahead and join any religion you want. This is a person who doesn't care about truth. This is religion as a social club. But it never stops there. These people then think they understand God and spirituality and the whole world. They are not humble social club goers.

What we're really talking about here is corruption and its spread.

Because the point of philosophy is to understand reality. Without God-Realization reality has not been understood.

Philosophy suffers from people who do philosophy without understanding its ultimate goal. This is why we have so much shit philosophy and why philosophers like Plotinus are so rare.

A philosophy that misses God is junk and will lead to many other self-deceptions.

Yes, if you don't care about truth then my work is not for you. Most people do not care. My job is to be one of the few people that does. This makes the work niche.

It is the function of Intelligence to point out the traps that keep mind from reaching its highest Intelligence. That's what is happening here. If you don't care about reaching the highest Intelligence then any old teaching or social club will be good enough for you.

--------

In the end, if you just want to live comfortably inside Maya, there is no argument I can make against it. Enjoy your life in The Matrix.

I’m not here to defend or critique Jordan Hall or Christianity - I’ve got no stake in either.

My point is about philosophy more broadly. You said, “the point of philosophy is to understand reality,” and that’s where I fundamentally disagree. Yes, philosophy involves understanding - but the real question is: when does understanding stop being the highest aim, and what could possibly justify putting it second?

I don’t think you need to privilege understanding above all else to live virtuously, do serious philosophy, or engage in good politics. If your highest values are beauty or creativity or whatever you value, chasing pure understanding will inevitably undermine them. There are real trade-offs. I'd be surprised if you'd deny that.

Same goes for you. If you care about teaching, conscious politics, and advanced personal development, then being too rigid about "understanding" as the supreme goal will probably jeopardize those pursuits.

That’s where things get tricky - when people try to “catch” philosophers with their pants down, as if they’ve lost the plot, when really they might just be pursuing different values. Unless you're looking at someone like Plotinus, fully and single-mindedly committed to metaphysical inquiry, it's hard to say whether someone “gets” God or not. Those who move on from the pursuit of pure understanding aren’t necessarily lost - they may have reached some profound threshold in their own development and begun exploring new directions: What else is worth doing? What does it mean to live well, not just to know? How might the divine express itself through love, through art, through embodiment, through failure, through joy? What does philosophy become when it’s no longer just about understanding, but about becoming? etc. etc.

So what I’m really getting at is epistemology - how we read and interpret philosophers. I know you gravitate toward thinkers who dwell explicitly in metaphysics, but someone writing literary criticism, or making art, or crafting narrative, might be doing equally profound philosophical work. They’ve just chosen a different medium - one that doesn’t always announce its implicit metaphysics, but often cuts just as deep, if one really pays attention.

Hope that makes sense.

Edited Wednesday at 06:34 PM by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I’m not here to defend or critique Jordan Hall or Christianity - I’ve got no stake in either.

My point is about philosophy more broadly. You said, “the point of philosophy is to understand reality,” and that’s where I fundamentally disagree. Yes, philosophy involves understanding - but the real question is: when does understanding stop being the highest aim, and what could possibly justify putting it second?

I don’t think you need to privilege understanding above all else to live virtuously, do serious philosophy, or engage in good politics. If your highest values are beauty or creativity or whatever you value, chasing pure understanding will inevitably undermine them. There are real trade-offs. I'd be surprised if you'd deny that.

Same goes for you. If you care about teaching, conscious politics, and advanced personal development, then being too rigid about "understanding" as the supreme goal will probably jeopardize those pursuits.

That’s where things get tricky - when people try to “catch” philosophers with their pants down, as if they’ve lost the plot, when really they might just be pursuing different values. Unless you're looking at someone like Plotinus, fully and single-mindedly committed to metaphysical inquiry, it's hard to say whether someone “gets” God or not. Those who move on from the pursuit of pure understanding aren’t necessarily lost - they may have reached some profound threshold in their own development and begun exploring new directions: What else is worth doing? What does it mean to live well, not just to know? How might the divine express itself through love, through art, through embodiment, through failure, through joy? What does philosophy become when it’s no longer just about understanding, but about becoming? etc. etc.

So what I’m really getting at is epistemology - how we read and interpret philosophers. I know you gravitate toward thinkers who dwell explicitly in metaphysics, but someone writing literary criticism, or making art, or crafting narrative, might be doing equally profound philosophical work. They’ve just chosen a different medium - one that doesn’t always announce its implicit metaphysics, but often cuts just as deep, if one really pays attention.

Hope that makes sense.

Also, just as a sidenote: at 30:30, Jordan Hall shows his cards when it comes to his direct apprehension of infinity - which, in my view, is precisely the hallmark (no pun intended) of someone with a clear understanding of God. He argues, very precisely and clearly, that any attempt to grasp or formalize God is ultimately futile. That moment recontextualizes his Christian framing as just one attempt to gesture toward the ineffable.

Another sidenote: Ken Wilber never makes that kind of move, which is why I’ve never understood why you hold him in such high regard. To me he is just a highly sophisticated ideologue. In contrast, Jordan Hall and Daniel Schmachtenberger clearly strike me as way further along. So I don’t get why Wilber is treated like some sacred cow here.

And to be even more heretical - many European philosophers do give this kind of honest signal in their work. Hegel, Nietzsche, Lacan, Deleuze and many others. Yet their work isn't framed around “God-realization” per se. In fact each of them pursues a radically distinct philosophical trajectory, yet at the core of their work is a shared, implicit understanding of reality. Which should give you a real epistemological crisis, if you take what I say seriously.

Also, this is exactly Žižek’s point with the cup of coffee without cream:

It’s not what’s explicitly said that reveals one’s true position, but what’s left out. The absence itself structures the meaning. What’s omitted isn’t just nothing - it’s constitutive.

Edited Wednesday at 08:35 PM by Nilsi

[ExploringReality]

@Leo Gura!!! I've just been rick rolled!! Hahaha 

[Nemra]

@ExploringReality, maybe Leo has always been Yimpa.

Edited Wednesday at 11:04 PM by Nemra