Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights

Why is it that reality is so difficult to define? Notice that every time you ask the question “What is X?”, in any field, about any thing, no matter how simple or complex, a definition cannot be readily given. For example, What is computation? What is gravity? What is space? What is time? What is an apple? What is red? What is reasoning? What is light? What is a number? Etc. Definitions are notoriously problematic and elusive in all fields of science and philosophy. But why? If reality is a just a dumb clockwork, this should be easy. Everything should have a single, discrete, clean, canonical definition. Yet that isn’t the case. Definitions are plagued by problems of ambiguity, nebulosity, subjectivity, perspective, framing, relativity.

Notice that no thing in science is ever absolutely defined: not energy, not matter, not time, not space, not life, not trees, not machines. Why? My claim is that this happens because of the most fundamental existential truth about reality. It happens because reality is Infinity. Infinity is by its nature Undefined. All definitions of reality must ultimately fail because all definitions are relative, finite, and perspectival while reality as a whole is Absolute. This most fundamental aspect is not understood nor appreciated by scientists and rationalists. Science and rationalism demands and assumes that all parts of reality can be well-defined and that reality as a whole has an objective, mind-independent definition. This is false. From this one fundamental falsehood many problems and stupidities of science and philosophy stem. Things do not have clean, crisp definitions because reality is a Mind and things only exist as conceptions within this Mind. That means all things are Mind-dependent and perspectival. No thing can truly be defined because the distinctions between all things have no absolute reality. There are no things per se, there’s an Infinite Field in which all things are conceived/imagined. The boundaries between all things are porous and collapsible because the ultimate truth must be Unity. Unity precludes definition since any definition is a division.

Absolute Unity is Undefined. What does definition mean? Definition means division of reality into parts. Definition is the explication of one part of reality in terms of another part, off-loading the explanatory load from one part of reality onto another part. This allows the mind to play a shell game with itself where it feels like reality has been explained but not really because all the mind achieved was deftly shifting explanatory load from one part of reality onto another. Definitions allow the mind to keep sweeping the Unknownability of Being from under one rug to under another in an infinite chain. But this only works as long as you divided reality into parts.

Science just assumes that reality is made out of discrete objective parts (objects), but this turns out to be a false assumption. If all parts are just a matter of perspective or imagination, then in the absolute sense there are no parts because all boundaries between parts can dissolve, leaving behind a Unity. And Unity itself cannot be defined because definition requires parts. How do you define a thing which has no opposite, no parts, no other? How do you define an Absolute? Thus you can see that Absolute Unity cannot have a definition. But scientists and rationalist take this to mean that Absolute Unity therefore cannot be real — since it can’t be defined. No! It just means that science and rationalism is unreal. But this radical idea never even occurs to scientists. Yet it is true. Science is unreal. Is it any surprise that scientists cannot grasp that science is unreal? Of course they can’t, otherwise they would stop being scientists.

I just explained the core limitation of all science and rationality. Does anyone care? Nope. Business as usual.

The more profound my explanations of reality are, the less people care. That's human-kind. How do you fix that? There's no fix for apathy.

The whole challenge of understanding reality is that your mind is not an honest actor, because its life is at stake. The prime methodological error in all of science, philosophy, and academia is the assumption that mind is an honest actor. If you assume that, you will never be able to unravel the ingenious illusion that is reality. Human beings do not properly estimate nor appreciate just how dishonest of an actor the mind is. Your mind is so dishonest that everything you understand is an elaborate self-serving illusion. You’ve been blowing smoke up your own ass your entire life, and so has everyone around you. By overlooking this one factor academia is forever doomed because it never deals with the elephant in the room: illusion.

Scientific method is incapable of dealing with the situation where reality happens to be an ingenious illusion. Science is naïve like an innocent child. A child does not understand the notion of a dishonest actor. Science has no comprehension of the tricks reality is capable of. Science is like a child and the mind is like a pedophile luring it into its white van with candy. This is why science naively asks for evidence, reasons, logic, equations, proofs, models, sources, consensus. Oh, you sweet summer child! It asks for these things without ever considering that the whole scheme could be an elaborate illusion. What if scientific method was an illusion? What if rationality was an illusion? What if human-kind was an illusion? What if life and death was an illusion? What if objects were an illusion? What if space/time was an illusion? What if all limits were an illusion? What if other minds were an illusion? What if society was an illusion? What if knowledge was an illusion? What does science say to all this? Science never takes any of this seriously. Science just says, “Oh well, those are some wacky ideas for armchair philosophy debates. I just want to get to the business of doing science. I want to be practical.” But no! You can’t escape the issue of illusion like that. Illusion is not optional. You can't opt-out by being pragmatic. This is to sweep the elephant under the rug.

The bottom line is that neither scientific method nor rationality are methods for dealing with intelligent illusion nor dishonest actors (the mind). This is why scientific method must fail at grasping the deep mystery of reality. Reality is an ingenious trickster. Reality bites back. Science assumes otherwise. Science assumes that reality is a dumb passive machine that a scientist can poke with a stick. That attitude is the fatal flaw. Science fails because it grossly underestimates the inherent intelligence of the beast it has undertaken to study. Science projects its own lack of intelligence and creativity onto a Infinite Mind. What arrogance! I am not arrogant, I am humble. I take illusion seriously. Science does not. This is why I am able to understand things no scientist can. Not because I am a high-IQ genius, just because I take illusion seriously.

The issue of illusion is so profound, so serious, that it transcends scientific method. But good luck getting a scientist or academic to understand that.

What's necessary to solve the riddle of reality is a science of trickery, illusion, and deceit. This is a branch of science that barely exists. Actualized.org is a contribution to this branch by cataloguing and explaining how the mind constructs illusions and self-deceptions. Two of the most important illusions to understand is the illusion of science and the illusion rationalism.

The reason Nazis hate and seek to end democracy is because they do not want to share power with minorities, who they view as naturally and inherently inferior to themselves. This is a quintessentially conservative position. This is a critical insight for understanding the conservative mind. Nazis believe that the strong must rule the weak, otherwise it’s a violation of nature and God. Conservatism is about preserving and restoring traditional hierarchies of power. Liberalism is about redistributing power equally between the weak and strong, which requires taking power away from the dominant and corrupt majorities and giving it to weak minorities. Conservatives abhor the very idea that weaker people and groups should be given equal power at the expense of the naturally stronger. Do not assume that everyone wants democracy — those who benefit from inequality hate equality.

This is why conservatives hate the idea that women should have equal power to men, that browns should have equal power to whites, that gays should have equal power to straights, that trans should have equal power to cis, that the sick should have equal power to the healthy, that animals should have equal power to humans, that foreigners should have equal power to locals, that workers should have equal power to bosses, that infidels should have equal power to believers, that subjects should have equal power to rulers, that individuals should have equal power to corporations, that the lower class should have equal power to the upper class, that the dumb should have equal power to the smart, that children should have equal power to adults, that the out-group should have equal power to the in-group, that the uncivilized should have equal power to the civilized, that all nations should have equal power in the UN.

Political worldview hinges on this question: How should power be distributed? If you are liberal it is hard to believe that most people in the world believe that power should not be equally distributed and fight like hell to ensure it isn’t. Conservatives are not even conscious they are doing this, to them it just feels like the natural, right thing to defend “tradition”. But tradition always means unequal distribution of power. Notice, no tradition treats people and animals as equals. Why not? Because the further you go back in time, into tradition, the less developed, less conscious, more animal-like humans were. Which means the more they unconsciously dominated and exploited whoever they could: animals, women, children, blacks, gays, minorities, the disabled, the poor, foreigners, Jews, slaves, aboriginals, freaks, gypsies, etc.

Conservatives are so unconscious that they do not understand why they are conservatives: to increase their own survival at the expense of some other group. This is why someone is a Zionist, Nazi, fascist, Taliban, Jihadist, Islamist, Buddhist, Christian, orthodox, Mormon, nationalist, anti-immigrant, racist, KKK, royalist, monarchist, MAGA, totalitarian, strict constitutionalist, corporatist, etc. But all this goes unrecognized.

Very few conservatives wake up in the morning and tell themselves, "Okay, which minority group can I take power away from today? Which minority group can I keep repressed?" But in effect this is what preserving tradition means. Tradition is not some innocent neutral thing, tradition is valuable because survival advantages to the majority group at the expense of some minority group is baked into it. So when a Zionist wakes up every morning he goes to defend Zionism without an ounce of awareness that the benefits of Zionism come at the expense of a minority group like the Palestinians. To the Zionist it just feels like Zionism feels good and natural. But underneath that, the actual survival function of Zionist tradition is that it feeds off some other group. So Zionism is not just an ideological fantasy, it confers survival value by surreptitiously leeching it from a minority group. As Nazism leeched off Jews, Zionists leech off Palestinians. Christians leech off natives in Africa and Latin America. Libertarian capitalist bosses leech off ununionized employees. Sexist men leech off women. Locals leech off immigrant labor. Islamists tax infidels. Etc.

This entire process of "tradition preservation" is unconscious. Making it conscious reveals the corruption baked into the tradition. But if you are invested in the tradition, you need to remain blind to its corruption. Therefore, conservatism boils down to a game of avoiding seeing and acknowledging the corruption and power imbalance of whatever favorite tradition the conservative is trying to defend. So, denial of reality is baked right into every form of conservatism. That's the unseen function of conservatism. The conservative is not conscious enough of his own survival to understand that he is doing this, and any time you try to point it out to him he gets threatened, hurt, angry, and goes into denial mode, otherwise he would have the consciousness see his own corruption and evil, which is the last thing he wants to admit to himself because he's always assumed that his tradition is what makes him good. He's in too deep. It's like getting someone in the mob to see how corrupt and unfair the mob is.

What I'm saying is that all human tradition is laced with evil and because this evil benefits the survival of the tradition's adherents beyond their awareness, they must deny it or surrender its survival benefits. This doesn't just apply to political parties, it applies to every tradition. Even, science & academia!

Do you see how sneaky and clever survival and politics is?

Politics is so clever that no one understands how clever it is. Because to understand its cleverness is to lose the survival advantage that unconsciousness gains you. What I'm saying is that a core function of tradition is to make you so unconscious that you benefit from exploiting others while being blind to your exploits. The unconsciousness isn't a bug, it's a feature! The more unconscious you are the more of a dick you can be to others. This is true even in intimate relationships. The function of ideology is that it allows you to benefit from being a dick while honestly thinking you're not a dick by keeping yourself blind. Because if you ever saw how much of a dick you are, you would be so horrified that you'd stop it. This is the ultimate reason why conservatives are so touchy and defensive. The conservative mind is always under threat of being exposed for defending evil. This is critical to understand whenever you see a conservative arguing. This explains the deep psychology of their behavior that they themselves do not know. Watch Jordan Peterson argue. This is what fuels all of his antics and mental gymnastics. Conservatism is about rationalizing inequality by appeals to tradition because one benefits from it, usually at the expense of some minority group.

- - - - - - - -

Leftist: Let's ban eating meat because it's unfair.

Conservative: No! That will ruin our cherished Thanksgiving Day tradition! Our tradition goes back 200 years! It's sacred! God says so.

Leftist: But it's unfair to animals!

Conservative: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.... animals don't really matter... Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.... Tradition must stay! Stop destroying our culture! I don't see anything wrong with eating a turkey. Our ancestors have been eating turkey for 200 years, so how could that be wrong? It's absurd to treat animals well. Bible says animals and women and browns are here to serve white man!

Leftist: And who wrote the Bible? Man. How convenient.

Conservative: BUT IT'S TRADITION! YOU FASCIST! YOU AUTHORITARIAN!!! FREEDOM!!!!!!!

Leftist: Equality feels like oppression when you've been benefiting from inequality for centuries.

- - - - - - - -

This is the depth of insight necessary to truly make sense of politics. That's how profound this is. This is why I study and teach politics — because its roots go all the way down into spirituality. It's just that nobody is conscious nor objective enough to see these deep connections.

I'm trying to show you what a serious understanding reality and psychology yields.

- - - - - - - -

Note: Be careful. I am not saying that perfect equality is possible or even good. Politics requires just the right balance between equality and inequality. Knowing how to strike that balance is what makes politics so hairy and nuanced. Just mindlessly pushing for endless equality is not intelligent politics and it will fail. This is the biggest trap of the left. The left needs to learn why equality cannot be had. Conservatives want and rationalize power inequality. Sometimes this power inequality is warranted, sometimes not. Figuring out which is which is no trivial matter and cannot be done with ideology.

If a conservative ever tries to tell you that Nazis were leftist socialists, ask him this simple question:

What kind of books did Nazis burn? Conservative books or liberal books?

If Nazis were leftists, please explain why they burned leftist books.

Nazi Book Burnings

They burned books written by Jews, half-Jews, communists, socialists, anarchists, liberals, democrats, pacifists, sexologists, LGBTQ.

And remember, "Jew" here doesn't mean literal Jews, it's Nazi-speak for anything of the left. Even anything of the democratic center. Anything that contradicts the far-right is considered "Jewish". This is how Nazis think.

Left, democratic, and "Jewish" literature was priority #1 for burning.

Joseph Goebbels delivered an address: "No to decadence and moral corruption! Yes to decency and morality in family and state!"

Who speaks like that? All conservatives.

What was burned:

• Marxism, Communism and Bolshevic literature
• Pacifist literature
• Anything written by Jews, Albert Einstein, etc.
• Liberal arts, "decadent" art
• Writing on sexuality and sex education
• Pornography
• Popular entertainment literature
• All books degrading German purity
• Authors from foreign countries

"The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end. The breakthrough of the German revolution has again cleared the way on the German path...The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear of death, and to regain respect for death – this is the task of this young generation." — Joseph Goebbels

"Jewish intellectualism" is just a code-word for anything leftist, liberal, democratic.

Today, which side — left or right, liberal or conservative — is banning books about sex education, LGBTQ, gays, trans, gender theory, "pornography", "pedophilia", critical race theory, black history/slavery, post-modernism, DEI, Marxism?

I'm not asking whether you agree with these books. I'm asking which political faction wants to ban them? Which political worldview is outraged and offended by the existence of such books and such art?

If you want to know someone's true political philosophy, just look at which books they want banned. This cuts through the BS.

This channel some intelligent and thought-provoking AI doom debates.

As intelligent as the doomer host of this channel is, I don't think his conclusions are ultimately correct. I doubt that a super intelligent AI would deliberately exterminate humans. I think the really serious problem with super intelligent AI is that it will eliminate 95% of all jobs and give mankind no reason for existing. The job losses and lack of purpose for humans caused by even much less than super AGI is perhaps the biggest political problem on the horizon for mankind. I don't see how this problem is solvable. If mankind creates a machine that can do everything better than any human can do, the purpose of human existence is over. It's like giving every player in a game infinite money. It sounds good in theory but in practice it ruins the whole game. Humans needs interesting challenges to solve for life to be worthwhile. We don't want a super AI who solves all our problems for us, but humanity is too stupid, greedy, and lazy to hold off from creating such an AI. So this is a very serious problem.

The problem of AI is not an evil Skynet, it's 95% unemployment. Imagine a world with 95% unemployment. That's not a world I want to live to see.

The second half of this video is especially good and practical.

Start at timestamp: 44:00

Tom Bilyeu is pure pragmatism — which then becomes his biggest bottleneck. Pragmatism is not fundamental enough to understand reality, since pragmatism conflates survival with reality.

What he said towards the end about first principles thinking is so correct. And if you apply first principles thinking to epistemology, ontology, and philosophy — and you avoid all self-deception — what you end up with is Infinity. That's the basis for all my work. I do the most fundamental first principles thinking of any intellectual in the world. My thinking is so first principles that it transcends human sanity because sanity is not a first principle. Rationality is not fundamental enough to understand reality. The reason I know that is because I questioned absolutely everything. I questioned spirituality so deeply that I discovered entirely new categories of Awakening.

Actuaized.org is a monument to the power of first principles thinking. That's what I teach because it's the only way to understand God. God cannot be understood through any kind of social consensus or incremental thinking. This is why even something like Buddhism or nonduality is not enough to understand reality.

Infinity will outrun any attempt your mind makes to capture it. You can't capture God in a bottle like a firefly.