Feedback about the Curt Jaimungal interview

[Gregory1]

Hey Leo, I'm not sure wether you're interested in this but I thought that it might be helpful for your future podcasts to get some feedback from the viewers. I am a long term follower of yours, on a theoretical basis fully understand your ideas about reality/Weltanschauung, however you want to call it (not concious of it though).

I think these interviews are great because your persuasiveness when you're talking about the truth PLUS the fact that you can think logically and have really thought this stuff through get people interested in these matters and can help more people that way.

Also by putting yourself out there and answering real world questions you're showing that you are completely comfortable with getting your views challenged and answering to all sorts of questions. 

Overall I really like the interview and for me it is insightfull even though I already "know" most of the stuff you're talking about. However, there were some things that "triggered" me and as I believe might lower the positive impact, things you could correct rather quickly I believe.

I'll share these things down below and other people might disagree with me or bring up other points, I only do this because I think it could easily without much work improve future podcasts:

• You sometimes lost track of the question that was originally asked and didn't answer it because you were so excited to share other insights / concepts. It made me really sad because some great questions got lost that way:(. I think it would be helpful and attract more viewers if you would keep the original question in mind and answer it. This does not mean you shouldn't elaborate on important other points as well! If you forget the questions, maybe you should wait a bit longer before giving your answers and  try to see what the interviewer wants to know and think a bit longer how to best formulate a to the question fitting answer
• You sometimes used Actualized.org vocabulary without defining it first which creates unnecessary confusion. At the beginning of the interview you should maybe take things slow and give a brief overview about the most important vocabulary we use at Actualized.org. I think you realized that in the middle of the podcast were you said we forgot to explain the "epistimology basics" but then you forgot about it again
• Fully understanding the question the questioner is asking you. Sometimes (rarely, didn't happen often) I got the feeling that you didn't understand the question. I think it might be helpful to ask yourself wether you know exactly what your interviewpartner wants to know. If you are not sure, maybe ask him/her to restate question
• Last thing; You were really excited to share your great insights and your wisdom. I get that. However, I got the feeling that you were interrupting Curt to oftenly. At least for my taste. Wait for your partner to fully state his/her question (sometimes it's obviously also ok to interrupt but you interrupted to often for my taste)

All the critique is just my perspective, feel free to disagree. I ask anyone who reads this to make a comment down below on wether he agrees or disagrees on the points I've mentioned. Peace out:)

[Terell Kirby]

Sounds like Leo bashing, honestly lol

[Carl-Richard]

You can't Neil deGrasse Tyson this shit.

[Leo Gura]

@Gregory1 I agree with most of your feedback.

The biggest problem is that we jumped around so much that to newbies they will totally be lost and it will not make sense.

It's hard to give simple answers to some of his deep questions because it requires a lot of laying the foundation.

If he asks me something like, "Does free will exist?" that answer requires so much preamble. Just saying Yes or No isn't gonna cut it. And then as I try to lay down the preamble, the original question easily gets lost.

I am definitely drawing lessons from this interview to improve in the future about how I articulate things. I could certainly have been more clear and concise.

[Preety_India]

I think Leo was a bit too fast paced for the interviewer. 

Also Leo tends to understand the question intuitively and jumps on it before its fully stated, hehe. 

But it's a tough thing to do. You can't answer complex questions so directly. 

Leo just needs to slow down a bit. Take a few breaths between every few sentences. 

I remember your Martin Ball interview, you were laughing a lot but it was way too chill than this. It seemed like this one lacked a certain order or flow, you know what I mean. 

 

 

[Preety_India]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Gregory1 I agree with most of your feedback.

The biggest problem is that we jumped around so much that to newbies they will totally be lost and it will not make sense.

It's hard to give simple answers to some of his deep questions because it requires a lot of laying the foundation.

If he asks me something like, "Does free will exist?" that answer requires so much preamble. Just saying Yes or No isn't gonna cut it. And then as I try to lay down the preamble, the original question easily gets lost.

I am definitely drawing lessons from this interview to improve in the future about how I articulate things. I could certainly have been more clear and concise.

Also you should have used better lighting. The light was intense. Made you look like a Star Wars character. 

Should have used softer lighting in your room. 

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I remember your Martin Ball interview, you were laughing a lot but it was way too chill than this. It seemed like this one lacked a certain order or flow, you know what I mean.

Yes, I felt I had to rush because there was too much to say and not enough time to say it.

The Martin Ball interview as totally different because I was interviewing him. I wasn't trying to explain all of reality there.

The challenge with the Curt interview is that its purpose was to explain all of reality. Which is basically impossible in that short amount of time. You cannot explain all the errors of materialism and rationalism within 5 hours. Especially when I am asked questions in an unstructured, random way.

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Especially when I am asked questions in an unstructured, random way.

It felt like the homework wasn't complete from the questioner's side. It felt like questions were thrown randomly at you and i agree it can be hard to answer when there is no flow to the discussion. 

 

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

It felt like the homework wasn't complete from the questioner's side. It felt like questions were thrown randomly at you and i agree it can be hard to answer when there is no flow to the discussion.

Well, I can't really expect him to be very structured in his questioning. Interviews are not the same as my own structured lectures.

An interview cannot ever be a college lecture.

[ChadT]

I thought it went really well.   Enjoyed the back and forth.  You're both smart mother fuckers!  I got a lot out of it.   One thing I did notice and kinda got a chuckle out of, was when Curt would jump in and say "I got it" from time to time, when you were listing examples of something.  

[Hello from Russia]

50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Gregory1 I agree with most of your feedback.

The biggest problem is that we jumped around so much that to newbies they will totally be lost and it will not make sense.

It's hard to give simple answers to some of his deep questions because it requires a lot of laying the foundation.

If he asks me something like, "Does free will exist?" that answer requires so much preamble. Just saying Yes or No isn't gonna cut it. And then as I try to lay down the preamble, the original question easily gets lost.

I am definitely drawing lessons from this interview to improve in the future about how I articulate things. I could certainly have been more clear and concise.

You're already improving, man.

I am currently only 2-3 hours in

This introduction of your was really good and on point. It sets the frame really well for these sciency people. Kinda showing them that you too CAN into rationality and that you understand their worldview and their objections deeply

Also, this background with tons of books is a very smart move too. It is appealing as fuck for our societal image of how a top notch philosopher is supposed to look like. Much better than palm leaves in a "Charisma" channel interview (no disrespect to palms, I love them)

Edited September 8, 2021 by Hello from Russia

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, I can't really expect him to be very structured in his questioning. Interviews are not the same as my own structured lectures.

An interview cannot ever be a college lecture.

What topic/subject  would you choose for discussion if you were to interview yourself? 

 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

What topic/subject  would you choose for discussion if you were to interview yourself?

Basically it has to start with epistemology. There shouldn't even be talk of God before first talking about epistemology for 5 hours.

People cannot handle the higher truths until they get their epistemology sorted out. And Curt didn't really want to talk about epistemology. I tried to nudge him in that direction but he kept avoiding it.

We didn't talk about deconstructing science at all. Which means his scientific audience will be stuck in science while trying to understand things which are beyond science. This is not possible. But Curt wasn't really interested in deconstructing science. I'm not blaming him. These are just such tricky topics and I don't expect him to foresee all these nuances. Because if he could, he would not need to interview anyone.

[Gregory1]

6 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

Also, this background with tons of books is a very smart move too. It is appealing as fuck for our societal image of how a top notch philosopher is supposed to look like. Much better than palm leaves in a "Charisma" channel interview

the poor palm, plants are also humans:(

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

Also, this background with tons of books is a very smart move too. It is appealing as fuck for our societal image of how a top notch philosopher is supposed to look like. Much better than palm leaves

It's very telling when humans ascribe more intelligence to a book than to a palm

But when in Rome, do as the Romans.

I should have had a giant altar to Sam Harris in the background. That would have made my ideas 2000% more acceptable to Curt's audience

[Gregory1]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Basically it has to start with epistemology. There shouldn't even be talk of God before first talking about epistemology for 5 hours.

People cannot handle the higher truths until they get their epistemology sorted out. And Curt didn't really want to talk about epistemology. I tried to nudge him in that direction but he kept avoiding it.

We didn't talk about deconstructing science at all. Which means his scientific audience will be stuck in science while trying to understand things which are beyond science. This is not possible. But Curt wasn't really interested in deconstructing science.

You could maybe create a video on your channel just for interviews. The people who interview you should watch that one before the interview and the people that watch the interview as well. There you could explain the fundamentals and basic vocabulary

Edited September 8, 2021 by Gregory1

[ChadT]

I think your personality came through a bit more in this interview also.  You came across as a likeable guy. 

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, ChadT said:

I think your personality came through a bit more in this interview also.  You came across as a likeable guy. 

Lmao. I guess Leo is already much more likable. 

 

[Matt Skinner]

I guess this is typical of Frank’s perspective on Leo’s teachings right?

It always seems to me like Frank emphasizes a “you’re already awake” mentality or like, “There’s nowhere to go, awakening is just an experience so don’t place too much meaning on it.” And dismissing psychedelics.

I haven’t watched most of the interview yet, nor am I super familiar with Frank’s work, for context. Just sharing the comment.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Matt Skinner
Cropped first photo for higher resolution

[Inliytened1]

Great interview so far.   I am about half way through and the first half was terrific.  I am at the part where Leo is explaining that there is nothing behind the scenes - that appearance is reality and Absolute Truth.  And when Curt said well how do you derive that without assuming and Leo says "well how do you derive that there is something behind the scenes? - show me a quark somewhere! And you don't have to prove it its right here!!!"  Then I was waiting for Curt to say well you can look in a microscope and see a quark"..but then Leo could have said -  that would be still be qualia!!! Haha.. there is always only what is in your direct experience and what is "behind the scenes" will always be something imagined..but in terms of proof...honestly to realize this it just takes awakening and to become directly conscious that this is a dream.  However I get that he probably doesn't wanna use that answer all the time for a lot of deep questions because it might seem like he is evading the question to a normie.  However as we know some things cannot be proven one just has to become directly conscious of it..  he did mention that as well on several occasions.

But great job Leo keep them coming.  What i really like about these is you cover a broad range of topics and it's actually really good to give to someone new to this but with an open mind and already spiritually intuitive...they can get a lot out of it and then maybe go back and listen to your videos on the various topics that were covered.