Daniel Schmachtenberger & Bret Weinstein

[tuckerwphotography]

@Space I feel similarly about Charles Eisenstein. He's a bit more of a Green/Yellow thinker, so he often writes and speaks more from the heart, but I often wonder/ponder what his reality would be like with a few more blasts of mystical awakenings under his belt. Perhaps both him and Daniel, and others like them, will get there in the coming years. Can't wait to see how they evolve, and how (hopefully) humanity and myself evolves with them  

[Hello from Russia]

@Leo Gura

What would you say is the optimal ratio between Intellectual Understanding : Spiritual Insight : Something Else (Action?)?

By the way, I wonder, where would you peg true contemplation on this intellectual/intuitive/spiritual scale? Would it be more intellectual or spiritual? I know, depends on how you do it, of course, but in your experience, is it a more spiritual method of inquiry or there is actually more "intellectuality" and "rationality" to it?

It's really hard for me to judge these things to be honest. I love contemplation a lot and for me, it feels very different than the more traditional style of inquiry. It has a big amount of mystical feel to it. Sort of as though you download insights from the universe directly, as you often metaphorize in your videos. And it feels although to do it more effectively you need not a more robust logical mind per se, but better meditation abilities that would enhance your state of consciousness which will then give you a "soil" to receive better more juicer insights. It sort of becomes about learning how to "receive", in a sense.

Very curious about your take on that

Edited February 20, 2021 by Hello from Russia

[Leo Gura]

The mind has very serious limits as to what it is able to understand no matter how hard it works because the bottleneck ends up being one's state of consciousness. So releasing that bottleneck becomes the key after a certain point. And the more you invest in the mind the harder it can be to release that bottleneck. The mind ends up trapped in itself and digs its trap even deeper. That is the biggest trap for intellectual people.

Daniel needs to hit a bunch of DMT, over and over again to break his entire mind open.

He has intellectualized nonduality/awakening, but I sense he has no experience with what it really means to awaken.

A very dangerous aspect of Ken Wilber's work -- which I feel Daniel has imbibed a lot of -- is the idea that 1st person phenomena and 3rd person phenomena are two equally valid domains. But this is not true. 1st person phenomena is the only real thing. All 3rd person phenomena is pure illusion, and I don't see Daniel recognizing that. There is still too much attachment to science in him. He does not understand how deeply wrong the science paradigm is. It's utterly, foundationally wrong to the point of not being fixable. You cannot use science to understand the core of reality.

Something like evolution does not even exist. It's just a figment of his imagination.

Idealism is not a mirror to materialism. Both these guys are profoundly misunderstanding idealism, nonduality, and spirituality. Materialism is hallucinated by Infinite Consciousness. This point is so simple and clear. There is no doubt about it whatsoever. Classic problem here of "So smart he's dumb". This is why I tell people to do psychedelics because you won't get it otherwise. Your consciousness will not allow you to get it no matter how smart you are.

But I still admire his intellect. If you want to learn how to think clearly, he's a great role-model.

[Preety_India]

These terms are very difficult for me to understand. 

This is useless to me. I need simple understandable language with no jargon. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Preety_India said:

These terms are very difficult for me to understand. 

This is useless to me. I need simple understandable language with no jargon. 

High information flow comes with the cost of low accessibility. So he is strategic in some ways but less in others.

[mmKay]

@Leo Gura 

[Leo Gura]

@mmKay I was familiar with the "wise fool" concept from Jed McKenna, but never connected it with sophomore. That is a cool connection. But Jed McKenna uses it in the opposite sense. He uses it as a label for enlightenment. So paradoxically, the enlightened are wise fools, the rest are just plain fools

Sophistry is an interesting word in this context.

Sometimes words mean the opposite of what you think they mean

[IAmReallyImportant]

On 17/02/2021 at 10:28 AM, JosephKnecht said:

A deep conversation between two intelligent people. 

If you can't watch the whole thing, just watch the speech of Daniel at (01:05:19 Markets, states, and the people),  

You can only tell if someone is smart by what emotional/feeling state that person is in at any given moment. Not by how or what someone talks about.

You cannot see whether someone is intelligent by the state that person is in, nor by how or what someone talks about.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Sophistry is an interesting word in this context.

I believe sophistry became a naughty word in part because Socrates and Plato feared the sophists and their ethical relativism. In that sense, there is a lot of sophistry on this forum 

[Leo Gura]

@IAmReallyImportant If you can't tell that Daniel and Bret are smart guys, your head is screwed on backwards.

Of course smart does not mean awakened or God-realized or perfect. Smart people can still say dumb things. And I have heard both these guys say a few dumb things. But that doesn't mean they aren't smart.

Nuance.

[ttom]

https://www.magic-flight.com/pub/uvsm_1/idm_foundations_01.pdf

Have you come across Forrest Landry yet? He's a good friend of Daniels. This is his metaphysics ^ I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

Also, how do you relate to the wave of emerging thought that the Transjective ( relationship )  is more fundamental than subjective or objective.

@Leo Gura

Edited February 21, 2021 by ttom

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, ttom said:

https://www.magic-flight.com/pub/uvsm_1/idm_foundations_01.pdf

Have you come across Forrest Landry yet? He's a good friend of Daniels. This is his metaphysics ^ I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

Also, how do you relate to the wave of emerging thought that the Transjective ( relationship )  is more fundamental than subjective or objective.

@Leo Gura

I have not looked deeply into it, but sounds like BS to me. That kind of manner of thinking about realty will not get you to infinite consciousness.

But I could be wrong. I haven't read the whole thing, just skimmed a few parts.

Just by the fact that Daniel recommends it, I basically know it must be fundamentally wrong because Daniel does not understand what reality is.

[ttom]

@Leo Gura  Do you know of any individuals with an intellect like Daniels, that also have a god realization equivalent in depth to yourself?

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, ttom said:

@Leo Gura  Do you know of any individuals with an intellect like Daniels, that also have a god realization equivalent in depth to yourself?

Ken Wilber would probably be the closest. But I doubt how deep Wilber's consciousness really is. My guess is, not the deepest. He too is lost in intellectualizations and models.

Too much left-brain thinking is a very dangerous thing.

[IAmReallyImportant]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@IAmReallyImportant If you can't tell that Daniel and Bret are smart guys, your head is screwed on backwards.

Of course smart does not mean awakened or God-realized or perfect. Smart people can still say dumb things. And I have heard both these guys say a few dumb things. But that doesn't mean they aren't smart.

Nuance.

It's all quite nice what he does and he certainly contributes something to humanity. Certainly better than opening a fast food restaurant chain.
A lot of people are probably smart, that doesn't mean much. When judging people, I want to stay neutral anyway, because personally that always seems presumptuous to me. Whether "positive" or "negative."
The way he argues and thinks does not look extraordinary to me.
Sometimes simple facts are unnecessarily inflated so that they sound smarter than they actually are.
These are all nice concepts, but is it smart to talk a lot and not really get anything done? I mean significantly, so that's what this is apparently supposed to look like. So how are you supposed to know it's going to work at all?
Some of the arguments struck me as poorly reasoned and contradictory.

[Carl-Richard]

I swear there is like an universal internet law that whenever you mention the words "smart" or "IQ", you'll start to see the opposite of those things as the conversation progresses 

[Matt23]

8 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

These are all nice concepts, but is it smart to talk a lot and not really get anything done? I mean significantly, so that's what this is apparently supposed to look like. So how are you supposed to know it's going to work at all?

Do you mean like you see him being all talk but no walk? 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Matt23 said:

Do you mean like you see him being all talk but no walk? 

How do you walk something that heavy? 

[IAmReallyImportant]

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

How do you walk something that heavy? 

Exactly. To execute that and be successful would be a smart move. Because then you have to consider more details and come up with strategies that require real brain power. If a model or system has a part that doesn't fit, it's useless and just talk.

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Exactly. To execute that and be successful would be a smart move. Because then you have to consider more details and come up with strategies that require real brain power. If a model or system has a part that doesn't fit, it's useless and just talk.