Post Your Disagreements With Leo Here

[Guest]

In interest of not becoming too complacent with what you hear from actualized.org, I want to create a thread with a sole purpose of accumulating disagreements with Leo. I think it is easy to suspend judgement to a very dangerous degree when you agree and like someone and are regularly exposed to his/her ideas.

 

To fight this complacency, feel free to post here. Also, keep in mind your unique perspective may make up for his blind spots and end up improving future content. Nobody is always right and everyone has one's own unique perspective. Let's work together to achieve a greater collective level of consciousness and build a better mental model.

Edited March 20, 2016 by FocusOnTruth

[Henri]

I`m not understanding your point...

You and I write more on this site than Leo does...

Leo makes it possible for us to throw down all our opinions, so what about `complacency`?

Focus on truth mate..!

 

 

[nbolt]

I think someone missed the point.

[Guest]

Nobody disagrees with anything he's said yet?

[Truth]

Every one here should be mindful to Leo being wrong. People who want to argue that Leo could be wrong about some things are 1. Defending their beliefs to be true about reality. 2. Being dogmatic and attaching to beliefs about reality (which Leo talks about holding no beliefs because they are all virtually groundless) any concept, thought or idea are just that, they aren't the truth itself. anything anyone blabbers about any concept (including Leo and me), yes even enlightenment, is not actual truth. Like Leo says, "the map is not the territory." you can fight, defend, say something is wrong, say somethings more correct, or true. It doesn't matter. because all concepts and ideas are groundless, the only way to do true self actualization is open mindedness, and holding beliefs and truths and principles KNOWING that it's groundless and could be 110% wrong. But until something new is "known" we use them to self actualize, it's the best groundless belief that we "think" is most true about reality. but it's still a belief, still a thought, still the map, not the territory.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Truth

[jip]

i disagree with his idea of making "strategic blunders" in life, especially some of the ones he listed. i had some of the best times of my life playing video games and would have never want to have missed that, not for 100 years of contentment. Same with partying/drinking, there is simply no ultimate way of living, and while certain things may be better from objective viewpoint, you can never really know in the end, trying to live life perfectly is just not going to work. he goes a little bit overboard in valuing truth at all cost and takes it all somewhat too seriously, life is a single awareness playing a game, but being constantly aware of that fact won't make the game very much fun i guess.

i also think he idealizes enlightenment and monks/yogi's a little too much. i sure see that the value in raising consciousness is big, but i also think there is more to life than just contentment. and he's too much a fan of the graves model imo, and seems to forget sometimes it's just a model, and aside from that, putting people in boxes of colors is somewhat sad.

that said, he has a lot of great advice and is one of the most wise people i've come across, but just like everybody has his blindspots, and one of those is not enough acknowledgement of the possibility of blindspots i guess.

just my take on some of his ideas, not any more or less valid than leo's or anyone else's perspective offcourse

[JOEE]

I would rather work towards advancing civilization and taking mankind to Mars or beyond than to be a yogi and meditate for the next 60 years of my life. 

No offense Leo ?

but that's maybe because I have a passion for learning.. I get enjoyment and fulfillment out of that. But that's just me

 

 

[nbolt]

1 hour ago, JOEE said:

I would rather work towards advancing civilization and taking mankind to Mars or beyond than to be a yogi and meditate for the next 60 years of my life. 

No offense Leo ?

but that's maybe because I have a passion for learning.. I get enjoyment and fulfillment out of that. But that's just me

 

 

That's exactly the point lol, we all have different passions. Leo is realizing his and hopefully you can yours.

[Philip]

Those critiques I'm about to express could also come from my own blind spots. Overall, Leo's one of the most intelligent beings I ever saw, and maybe the person I have the most resemblance with. Just older and more developed. But still, here are my critiques :

• He seems to belittle the difficulties involved with eliminating addictions, but more precisely drugs. His attitude seems to be "Stop doing drugs already ! That's so obvious, you should already be over this by now !" I'm clearly exaggerating his opinion here, but he does seem to lack a bit of understanding of why so much people around the world are stuck with this problem, Maybe he doesn't really know anyone who takes drugs, because he didn't have so much friends in his life. He never took drugs, so he probably can't imagine how addictive it is either.
• He seems to have way more vision for his own life than he has vision for society. I know he talks about solving lots of problems in society, about making reforms in different institutions, or about reaching stage yellow, stage turquoise and collective enlightenment. But he doesn't seem to develop a lot on how technology and science could radically change the nature of human life within the next decades. He seems to discard the possibility of avoiding death with the help of medicine. He doesn't talk a lot about transcending the capitalist paradigm of our modern society. Ambitious revolutions like this.
• I'm not a fan of the whole "becoming a yogi and spending the rest of your life in a cave in the Himalayas". Sure I'd love if he went there for 10 or 20 years. But as long as he comes back to share his unbelievable insights and wisdom someday. The world would really be emptier without his input.
• He should do more interviews with other Youtubers.
• He should already start working on his first book. 
• He should share more details about his life and his personal development.
• He should run for president.  Just kidding.
• He should release more videos so advanced that the title looks like they're from a philosophy lecture. For example : "Does Will Exist", "Why Rationality Is Wrong", "Radical Open-Mindedness", "How You Lie"

So there's no big disagreements here. Just details. But it seems like the only way to deeply disagree with Leo is to only watch a couple of his videos. Then to complain about the videos being too long. Then to criticize a couple of sentences that Leo said by ignoring all the nuance that comes with most of his claims. Otherwise, it would be weird to argue that Leo is totally wrong about everything. He's always questioning himself so much already...

[adramaay]

On March 20, 2016 at 3:16 PM, FocusOnTruth said:

I think it is easy to suspend judgement to a very dangerous degree when you agree and like someone and are regularly exposed to his/her ideas.

Suspending judgement is one of the things I'm paying serious attention to right now, and I have to say that it's very beneficial. Although I started from a point where I was already very open to what other people were doing and thinking, I can still see a huge difference. 
The idea of diminishing our judgements applies mostly to the emotional value of people or ideas, not the person or idea as a whole. I am trying to stop putting people on an axis of good/bad (which of course has different labels), but I'm still marking it on the right/wrong axis. You want to find out if an idea is true or false, in order to know if you should follow it in your life. What is important here - it's rather grading than judging. While analyzing an idea or a person, you don't affiliate with it; there is no emotional reaction attached to it, therefore it will not affect you in the future. After all, you should to know who are people around you. For example, in order to find the right person to help you in changing your diet, you have to know who is able to do so. And you know you have to exclude people that you graded "He doesn't eat healthy", but at the same time you don't have to judge them as "fat".

Following the thread, I am always trying to stay sceptic when I watch Leo's videos. I trust him a lot, but I think It's better to try to see the truth by myself even if I come to the same point at the end. I have never caught him though

[Guest]

@adramaay  I agree. Same sentiment as what I was trying to get at. Perhaps judge is an offputting word. I'm just advocating that we try to think for our selves and really understand instead of passively accepting and falling into group think.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Truth said:

Every one here should be mindful to Leo being wrong. People who want to argue that Leo could be wrong about some things are 1. Defending their beliefs to be true about reality. 2. Being dogmatic and attaching to beliefs about reality (which Leo talks about holding no beliefs because they are all virtually groundless) any concept, thought or idea are just that, they aren't the truth itself. anything anyone blabbers about any concept (including Leo and me), yes even enlightenment, is not actual truth. Like Leo says, "the map is not the territory." you can fight, defend, say something is wrong, say somethings more correct, or true. It doesn't matter. because all concepts and ideas are groundless, the only way to do true self actualization is open mindedness, and holding beliefs and truths and principles KNOWING that it's groundless and could be 110% wrong. But until something new is "known" we use them to self actualize, it's the best groundless belief that we "think" is most true about reality. but it's still a belief, still a thought, still the map, not the territory.

I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying. Do you think there's no way to disagree with Leo without being someone who is either just being defensive or dogmatic? Just because beliefs are ultimately groundless and that it is important to be open minded doesn't mean there is no room for disagreement. Thoughts can still be useful, even to the enlightened, imo.

[adramaay]

@FocusOnTruth You are completely right. That's exactly why I am persistently trying to find a hole in Leo's videos, even when I'm pretty sure it's not actually possible.  

[Guest]

Personally, I'd like more content on how enlightenment is compatible with other endeavors. So far, any sources I have found on the issue advocate complete separation from worldly existence to achieve the highest levels of enlightenment. I don't know any examples of people in more traditional/ ambitious societal roles who are enlightened, if there even are any. Personally, I plan on being very dedicated to my career in science and am afraid it will get in the way of the deepest enlightenment. Not so much a criticism, but I find there is a deficit of info on how both can be achieved.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, adramaay said:

@FocusOnTruth You are completely right. That's exactly why I am persistently trying to find a hole in Leo's videos, even when I'm pretty sure it's not actually possible.  

His earlier videos are rife with errors, I think. In fact, every video must have something wrong or something that could be better said-- that's just the nature of the beast. It's impossible to not have errors.

For example,in his latest video of rationality (this is really nitpicky) he said it is possible to have a valid and sound argument be wrong if one of the premises are not true. By definition, a sound deductive argument cannot be based on a false premise. However, it can be logically valid but not sound due to false premises, thus being false. I suppose its not a big deal because I get was he was trying to say, but still I think its important to note little screw ups like that to keep ourselves on our toes and not just blindly accept everything, lest we become a cult.

[Electron]

13 minutes ago, FocusOnTruth said:

he said it is possible to have a valid and sound argument be wrong if one of the premises are not true.

I think what he meant was that the premises we base things on and regard them as fundamental truths are mere assumptions and they are only accepted on faith. For eg. The fact that everything that goes up, comes down is regarded to be a truth but what if you wake up tomorrow and it changed. Its only said to be a rule and a truth of nature because it has always been that way, there is nothing more to it.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Electron

[Guest]

@Electron I know. Perhaps, I worded my issue with it poorly as well. A deductive argument cannot be false if it is sound. The thing is, we can never really know if it can be sound since there is no way to truly verify any premise. Which I know is what he was saying, but the wording is my issue. It is still the case a deductive argument cannot be false if it is sound, but the think is accepting it as sound is really a leap of faith  we take when we see that it is valid and we just happen to accept the premises, which can only be taken on faith.

 

Content wise,I have no issue with Leo here. It's just nitpicking on the language, which may not be substantial, but I think helps in being an active listener rather than a sheep/zombie.

[Mary]

I disagree with his views on emotional problems like depression. He paints it as though it's nothing and it doesn't exist... I've been through depression and recently I got out of it. The treatment isn't like he says. A depressed person has lots of wrong thinking patterns  which many of them comes from childhood experiences. You have to unwire most of these thinking patterns and replace them with healthy ones. It's no easy. It takes lots of work. Cognitive therapy helped me a lot. 

His video on anger was also bad.

He just can't help people with serious psychological problems.

I don't like some of his views on relationships either. I know he doesn't want to marry and he doesn't want a family. These views have a very clear effect on his videos. It was most apparent in his "Avoiding dysfunctional relationships" video.

Also when he talks about success, he pretty much sacrifices every other aspect of life for it like his  "27 qualities of successful people" video. I'm not for that either.

Also he always says meditation will solve your problems. Well I don't agree with that. Maybe it helps the process but none of it would change your thinking patterns. You have to face those problems (like anxiety and depression) head on.

I also am not much for enlightenment which I'm not going to expand on it now.

 

I actually prefer psychologists advice for self development. I only use some of his videos as a  complement. Like " How to comparing yourself with others", "How to stop caring what other people think of you", "willpower" and a lot of others...

Edited March 22, 2016 by Mary
I wanted to add sth

[Guest]

@Mary Shinzen Young is a good enlightened teacher who addressed some of these concerns. If you are still too opposed to enlightenment, I understand, but if you'd like a different take on the issue, Shinzen is great. I personally enjoy Leo's style, but I can see how some of it would be off putting. 

Shinzen's youtube channel is expandcontract, and in one of the videos he actually discusses that enlightened people aren't perfect and without behavioral issues to workout, they are simply much more aware and free from the suffering caused by these issues.

[Truth]

34 minutes ago, FocusOnTruth said:

I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying. Do you think there's no way to disagree with Leo without being someone who is either just being defensive or dogmatic? Just because beliefs are ultimately groundless and that it is important to be open minded doesn't mean there is no room for disagreement. Thoughts can still be useful, even to the enlightened, imo.

No, I'm undermining the whole paradigm of right and wrong, agreements and disagreements, what I'm saying is unless your in the paradigm of "holding no beliefs" whether you are in agreement or not in agreement of Leo or anyone else becomes irrelevant. Because the gray area is a massive iceberg that can't be seen or known because of subjectivity. so the whole paradigm that "this is more true", or "this is wrong" or "I'm disagreeing with this here", is living in falsehood because it's all bullshit, it's still your belief, it's still a perspective of subjectivity. To be accepting or rejecting beliefs is a paradigm that you think you know what's true and is not true even if you're not aware you are thinking that way. What I'm saying is don't believe ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS. It's still a belief that can be attached to as TRUE in your world view. If you're saying "This is true" or "this is wrong." or "I don't agree with that" you're living in falsehood. because IT'S ALL GROUNDLESS.  just because your belief might be better or worse than someone else's belief doesn't change the fact that it's still a belief, still a concept, still not the territory. No ones telling you to blindly follow what people say, or accept everything Leo says, the only people who fall into that trap have no awareness at all. They don't recognize that it's still just a belief. they confuse the map for the territory. We should be independent thinkers and hold no beliefs with the help of awareness. Not accepting beliefs or disagreeing with them but using them as tools for the territory which is why I agree they are incredibly useful as you said.