Leo On Charlie and Ben Podcast

[Preety_India]

It was okayish. 

 

 

[Matt23]

11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Leo was great. Not sure why so much negative comments. 

I wasn't necessarily being negative.  Admittedly at times I was like "argh! You coulda answered that better" and wish he woulda, from my POV at least.  I was trying to give some constructive critiques of things I didn't like or/and thought he can improve on.   I think he's got good stuff to share and that from my POV he coulda said it in a way that might help others be more open to his content and understand it better.  Hopefully it's useful.   Maybe it's not.  Dunno. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Matt23

[Someone here]

@Matt23 wasn't meaning you. ? 

I meant the youtube comment section. 

[Forestluv]

38 minutes ago, Matt23 said:

 

• Addressing questions in more concrete ways and using more concrete examples and being less abstract.  
• Addressing questions more directly. 

Those were the main two complaints in the comments: that Leo was "Dodging questions" and spoke with "word salad". It can be challengeing for a big-picture abstract mind to give concrete examples.

For example, "Is science bad?". That question cannot be answered "yes" or "no". If the audience is only at a binary level of cognition, they will only accept a "yes" or "no" answer. Yet I think this audience is capable of at least some nuance. For example, we could answer "It depends" and then give a concrete example of how science got something wrong and a concrete example of something science got right. Yet it goes much deeper than this. There is the relativity of good and bad, there are degrees of good and bad, there are aspects that are partially good and partially bad. If we discuss these nuances, we are criticized for "dodging the question" or using "word salad". If we don't discuss these nuances, we stay at a surface level that is only partially true. We don't make much progress. 

Yet in fairness to the audience, exploring these types of nuances can take years of contemplation to be able to discuss. Before discussing the relativity of weather science is good or bad, one needs to contemplate and study what relativity is. 

It's super hard to dumb things down without losing accuracy and the point. It's like playing the game "Taboo". Tennis is super easy to explain, yet if we can't use the words: Sport, ball, court, game, racket or player - it becomes super hard to describe. 

[Matt23]

15 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

For example, we could answer "It depends" and then give a concrete example of how science got something wrong and a concrete example of something science got right.

Ya, this to me woulda made a big difference.  Like one question in particular that was asked was "can you give some examples of assumptions in the scientific paradigm".  I think he gave one or two or something, but to me, i think it woulda been great to just give a list of several examples to show people "ooohhhh ya, never thought about that.  There are lots" and then discuss why they are assumptions. 

Maybe a better speaking strategy is to first just go with the concrete answers and then go into the details and caveats etc.  Like when Ben (or Charlie, dunno his name) asked "how do you know absolute truth right now, since you aren't currently on psychedelics and are presumably remembering those experiences?"  I think it woulda been better if he just said "Because I'm directly conscious of it now." And then gone into what that means.

 

But hey, I could be way off or something.  

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Matt23

[Matt23]

18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Matt23 wasn't meaning you. ? 

I meant the youtube comment section. 

Hah, ya.  Just reread what you wrote and totally assumed it was about me.  

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that the questions Charlie asked were so deep it would require a 5 hr conversation.

Exactly I totally did not expect it to go that deep that fast but you handled it well with the time you had...it probably flew over a lot of heads though. 

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

I noticed that you were a lot less explanatory and in depth in this interview than in your usual videos.

Because it is impossible. Charlie would not know what questions to ask in what order to get something like one of my videos.

This is why I rarely do conversations with people. The interviewer does not know the depth of what he is asking. We waste most of the time clearing up confusions and defense mechanisms. To get a conversation as substantial as one of my videos the interviewer would need have a depth of consciousness and knowledge that I have. Such people nearly do not exist. And if they do, they don't have massive YT channels or general audiences.

There is a fundamental limitation in explaining these topics to a general, causal stage Orange audience. No amount of skill can overcome that limitation. The best that can be done is a bit better. But it will never be some homerun that leads to some profound awakening. Conversation is not suited to this work. Which is why I generally avoid it. If I want to explain something serious, having a person asking me question is actually an obstacle.

My videos are as dense and direct as things can get short of a book. Any conversation I have will be less dense because it will meander around and devolve into an infinite chain of follow up question.

Conversations are not lectures. They are just random questions. Imagine trying to learn calculus with little mathematical experience by asking random questions for 2 hours. It's impossible. It would all sound like word salad and woo-woo.

I have spent more time studying these issues than you spent years learning mathematics. And you still suck at math.

And I consider Charlie a good stage Yellow interviewer. Just imagine how bad it would get if I was speaking to a defensive Tier 1 person like Richard Dawkins. It would get real bad. And that's exactly as it should be, because the interviewer and his audience are playing a game of defending their constructions of reality.

What is not understood by people is that a conversation is never a genuine inquiry into truth. Truth cannot be reached via conversation, ever. Because the person you are talking to does not even exist but in your own mind.

If you were conscious of the truth you would not be having a conversation in the first place. Conversations are for entertainment, not truth.

If you expect my podcast appearances to deliver you some epic deep understanding, you should drop that fantasy now because it won't happen. The format does not allow that. If you want some deep understanding of anything I talk about you'll need 10 hrs minimum. Just to understand Spiral Dynamics takes at least 20 hours of study. And that's way easier to understand than something like science or God.

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Cykaaaa said:

@Leo Gura I've listened to the first 30 minutes. A suggestion you might consider:

When your time is limited during a conversation and you can't go into much depth (which is very likely to happen), maybe don't spend so much time talking about confusions and defense mechanisms and instead try to get to the point asap. I feel like you didn't really address the questions Charlie asked because of your strategy.

It all depends on what your goal is. If it was to have a deep intellectual conversation in which 2 people are trying to get to the bottom of the truth, well, your strategy would be good I guess. So, so many thing need to be clarified first. But I presume that your goal was not that - it was to spread the word and get some new people on board. In that case I think your best course of action would be to just present your ideas boldly without talking about objections, clarifications and all that kind of stuff.

I really liked the boldness in your latest video on gender. You could have used some of that in the interview.

Well, it's extremely fucking tough to navigate. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my suggestion would have resulted in Charlie and the audience getting more defensive. I don't know. It's a difficult thing you're trying to do here, lol. Good luck

 

People in the comments say they found Leo arrogant, condescending, overconfident, lacking in humility and so forth. Leo doesn't do interviews often, but I found some of the answers a bit clumsy, where he avoided answering the question directly because he seemed to have not immediately an precise answer at hand, so he kind of did the politician talk. That's atleast what the optics were, I think Leo is not as skilled in this kind of rhetoric because he has not done many of these conversation. It's something that needs to be developed.

 

In terms of optics what was especially bad was when he didn't have an answer at hand when he was asked about what science got wrong in terms of their methodology, he could have expanded more clearly what the assumptions in the methodology, not merely ideology, of the newtonian worldview were and how that changed. Also, to answer questions about "How do you know X?" with "How do you know Y?", usually look pretty bad in terms of optics aswell, especially for stage orange people. Just by framing that a little bit differently I think this problem could be avoided. I found in general there were too many assertions made that went on unexplained, and because of how radical most of these assertions are to people, they will view any avoidance of explaining in detail any of them as problematic and untrustworthy.

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Cykaaaa said:

@Scholar I saw only one comment about him being arrogant. A bunch about being a cult leader (classic) and many about not bringing the point home, not answering clearly, etc.

Yeah

Exactly

Well, I wonder what Leo will be able to do with the conversation format in the future. I'm rooting for him 

I think Leo would greatly improve in these conversations if he would engage fully in R-Mode during them. Leo's mind is too fragmented, he spends too much time in L-Mode, making him unable to experience the process of conversation in unity. It causes awkwardness and a general conversational clumsiness, a lack of flow.

The best evidence for this is that at some point Leo was asked if he right now was in a state of Awareness/Love. A beautiful teaching moment for Leo, if he is able to see it as such. You could see it in his face, his surprise. Then he took a moment to engage into the Unity, and exclaimed "Now I am in it!". This means that Leo has not integrated this awareness into his life, and it is because he engages L-Mode most of the time, especially when he is lecturing and explaining things. If the conversation had been done from a place of Unity/R-Mode, the audience would have felt it, and the impact would have been greater than any of the explanations Leo made.

 

In my opinion, Leo's attachment to intellectualism is what is holding him back the most. And it is interesting how sneaky his mind justifies the disunity he causes by way of putting that very intellectualism on a pedestal.

[AtheisticNonduality]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think Leo would greatly improve in these conversations if he would engage fully in R-Mode during them.

More like R-Modafinil mode.

[Florian]

@Leo Gura  I feel like you were talking a bit too fast even though it seemed like you noticed that yourself and adjusted your talking speed after some time.

And also it was hard to follow what you were trying to bring across, which I think is because it was a conversation and a conversation works differently then you just talking alone. In a conversation the partner also plays a role with the direction of the converation and if there is a big gap between the understanding of the topic that destroys the coherence and clarity of the communication, but since you said something similar in a reply above I guess you are aware of that.

[Roy]

I've been enjoying the podcast so far, Charlie seems like an open minded and good dude. 

Thanks for opening up and getting some of this stuff out there @Leo Gura! 

[Matt23]

Good job though in just going ahead and doing something new and sticking your neck out.  I did enjoy the parts you spoke about spirituality, love, and consciousness/god etc.  Those to me were some of the clearest interestingly. 

I felt the need to balance some of the criticisms with some positive reinforcement. 

[traveler]

@Leo Gura I would have no chance of knowing what you were talking about if not I had awakened to the same truth myself. From the perspective of "absolute truth" there is no person trying to teach another person something. There is just infinity being infinity describing infinity to infinity through a human body. Finding an awakened interviewer is where things could get real fun. A conversation like this one: 

 

[diamondpenguin]

Yeah Leo. It was fun watching you talk to Charlie! Good fun indeed. Can't wait to see what other podcasts you'll be on! I loved how Leo was literally lecturing to Charlie the whole time. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by diamondpenguin

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Cykaaaa said:

maybe don't spend so much time talking about confusions and defense mechanisms and instead try to get to the point asap.

That is not possible because without addressing the confusions and defense mechanisms it will not penetrate the mind.

The mind has an immune-system-like shield which instantly gets activated when any serious metaphysical issue is brought up, or any serious deconstruction is done.

Quote

I feel like you didn't really address the questions Charlie asked because of your strategy.

It may feel that way to you, but if you listen to the entire thing, I answered all his questions. It just took some time.

If you ask me a question like, "What are the problems of science?" or "How important were psychedelics in your life?", there is no quick way to answer that such that a normie would get it.

[RedLine]

This super scheptical/scientific/non-bias attitude that Leo is proposing in the interview doesn't make sense since it would lead you to nihilism because chosing survival over non-survival is a bias, why would we consider survival good? Isn't it an assumption society is taken for granted and need to be questioned? Why don't just suicide?

 

This hiperational attitude doesn't make sense. There's profound knowledge in the common sense.

Also, he assumes that there are narratives (as the big bang scientific narrative) that models our understanding our reality, which is ver doubtful. Again, he is incurring in a hyperrationalism, where the ideas -scientific narrative here- frame our regular understanding of reality.

Edited May 8, 2021 by RedLine

[diamondpenguin]

5 minutes ago, RedLine said:

This super scheptical/scientific/non-bias attitude that Leo is proposing in the interview doesn't make sense since it would lead you to nihilism because chosing survival over non-survival is a bias, why would we consider survival good? Isn't it an assumption society is taken for granted and need to be questioned? Why don't just suicide?

 

This hiperational attitude doesn't make sense. There's profound knowledge in the common sense.

Also, he assumes that there are narratives (as the big bang scientific narrative) that models our understanding our reality, which is ver doubtful. Again, he is incurring in a hyperrationalism, where the ideas -scientific narrative here- frame our regular understanding of reality.

I mean everyone is getting lost in the context of the thing. What is the purpose of the podcast:

1. To better science 

2. Promote the discovery of the universe through psychedelics

3. And market that stuff to mainstream human culture

[RedLine]

10 minutes ago, diamondpenguin said:

I mean everyone is getting lost in the context of the thing. What is the purpose of the podcast:

1. To better science 

2. Promote the discovery of the universe through psychedelics

3. And market that stuff to mainstream human culture

 

What does the purpose of the podcast has to do with I was saying? I was just discussing a point he made in the video.

Regarding the points you are making, are you sure it is a good thing normies access to that kind of stuff? You will have a bunch of Connor Murphys, this path is very dangerous. I personally think people should keep their regular lifes if they are more or less ok with them and I never talk in public about mysticism.

 

Also, the state of the sciences is ok, the problems arise precisely when scientific doesn't make scientific and make asserts about other stuff out of his field, like ontological or theological claims

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by RedLine