Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights

This is very true:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZ0CtjyOzAu

Despite what my critics love to call me, no, I am not a narcissist. Not even close. I am less narcissistic than the average American adult, as measured by clinical assessment. I couldn't do what I do if I was a narcissist. However, it does take a fair amount of ego to dare to deconstruct all of science, philosophy, academia, religion, and even stuff like nonduality and Buddhism. Yeah, the reason I'm able to do that is because I have insane self-belief. I genuinely believe that I can understand Reality better than any human who has ever lived. Is that narcissism? It is what's required to achieve big things in life, whether it be business, art, or God-Realization. If you don't believe you can, you've already failed. I'm not going to surrender before I even try. That would be foolish. You have to dare to think big. The people at the top have big enough egos to dare to think and dream big. This can overlap with narcissism but isn't narcissism per se. You can dream big, think big, set big goals, and not be a narcissist. In fact, that's what I recommend. But, beware, if you do that, people will definitely gaslight you about being a narcissist. Unambitious people can't understand ambitious people.

Does it take a big ego for a non-scientist to lecture scientists on how badly they do science? Yeah! Lol. But it just so happens to be true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Note: This is not a license for narcissism. Narcissism is a sick form of mind. You are not going to understand Reality through narcissism. That's why I'm not a narcissist. If you think I'm a narcissist, you are deeply mistaken. Again, this word, like the word cult and the word gaslighting, is much misused these days by people with superficial understanding. Be ware of superficial pop-psychology words. They are oft misused by inexperienced people and internet trolls.

Note: Robert Greene has great practical wisdom. Perhaps a little too practical. He is the Stage Orange whisperer of our times.

Science can’t be truth simply because there is so much false science. If science were truth, there could not be any false science. You can’t argue with this logic. The very existence of false science tells you that science does not have a clear distinction between science and non-science. Of course science doesn’t have that! How could it? The only way to know the difference between science and non-science is to be Omniscient. You’d have to know the complete truth of the universe in order to be able distinguish true from false science. Scientists are begging the question when they act like they already know what is and isn’t science. You don’t know! Really, grasp that you don’t know what constitutes valid science. This is the proper epistemic position. See, from this position your mind becomes open to radical possibilities like that God, psychedelics, and mysticism could be true science. Which, of course, they are. When you realize that you never knew what valid science was, you become open to expanding what “science” means. Your mind becomes intelligent enough to realize: “Oh! My initial ideas about what science was, were wrong and way too narrow. Science is a much, much deeper and broader thing than my narrow ideas about it lead me to believe. Wow! That’s a huge leap for science! This is a scientific awakening!"

Again, notice that everything comes down to the question of: How do we distinguish truth from falsehood? This is the existential vexation that scientists keep hitting their head against because they underestimate the depth of the question. They think the answer is obvious: SCIENCE! But that's false. Science is not the answer to that question. The answer is: CONSCIOUSNESS.

In the far future, science and Consciousness will become integrated. But today they are divided. My work is to unify that division. That's why I write this stuff. That's why I write my book.

“But Leo, you criticize science for being unscientific, but aren’t you yourself unscientific when you do so?” This is not a contradiction for me because I never professed to be “scientific”. I don’t have the burden of "being scientific”. That's not a bug but a feature of my work. Scientists place that burden upon themselves, I don't. But once you place that label upon yourself, you've opened yourself to having your hypocrisy pointed out to you. So is it wise to place that label upon yourself? I only call scientists unscientific because they call others unscientific so readily. That is their phony standard, not mine. But if they use it, I will use it on them, so they get a taste of their own medicine. I would not use it otherwise. I simply use their own weapon against them. It's intellectual Jiu-Jitsu. If you're going to stab me with that knife, don't be surprised when I pull it out of me and stab you back. That's how lessons are learned.

My point is that “being scientific” is human bullshit. I don’t defend human bullshit; scientists do. They are in contradiction, I am not in contradiction for pointing this out to them. I don’t need to be scientific because science is not my God. My God is Consciousness. When you worship the wrong God, shit happens.

The simple point is, "being scientific" is a bullshit notion. Throw it out. You don't need it. It is limiting your Mind. So what should you be instead? Be truthful. Just be truthful. After all, Truth is God.

Scientists have forgotten that their loyalty should be to Truth, not to science. It's such an elementary epistemic mistake. That's why it's tragic. But what makes it doubly tragic is that when this is pointed out to them, they dismiss it as "unscientific". That is the unforgivable part. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The tragedy is that the very medicine that would cure science of its disease, they refuse to swallow because their diseased mind calls it "unscientific". That is the epitome of paradigm-lock. The disease blinds you to the cure.

"But Leo! Isn't it a contradiction to criticize science when science gave you the technology you use to criticize it, like computers and video cameras?" Not as much of a contradiction as it is to call God "unscientific" when God gave you the universe. When science corrects its contradiction, my contradiction will disappear because there will no longer be a reason to criticize science. Pointing out problems in the foundations of science is not and cannot be a contradiction even if I use scientific technology. After all, doesn't science claim to be self-correcting? Well then, enjoy your correction while I enjoy the technology.

Science is not winning this argument. So give it up. Check mate.

The following is an example of scientists misusing science. I mean that Sabine Hossenfelder and Alexander Unzicker are both misusing the notion of falsifability under the  guise of "real science". They dismiss theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity under the rationale that they are unfalsifiable and therefore "unscientific", however, it is impossible to know whether a theory is unfalsifiable. Just because you can't imagine how to, or lack the technology to falsify it today, does not mean that it is unfalsifiable. You can't dismiss a theory or perspective just because it feels unfalsifiable to you. And that's all it is in this case, a feeling. So the irony here is that these scientists are criticizing what they feel is bad science, but their criticism IS the bad science. It is bad science to close your mind to a theory just because you lack the imagination to see how it might be falsified. Scientists misuse this notion of unfalsifiability commonly. It is just closedmindedness. It is a highly rationalized "scientific"-flavored closedmindedness. This is a real-world example of how rationalism turns into self-deception. An example of the stupidity of overly rational people.

This is what I mean when I say science is unscientific. The scientist "cries out in pain as he strikes you." Any time you hear a scientist cry out "unscientific!", you should immediately ask, "But is your crying 'unscientific!' itself scientific?" Almost always the answer will be: No, it's just a feeling.

Calling a perspective "crap" without scientifically demonstrating that it is crap, is of course unscientific. However, most scientists feel perfectly comfortable doing this precisely as they cry about others being unscientific. It is a sick kind of gaslighting that comes from epistemic sloppiness.

Perhaps string theory is crap, but the issue is, they don't actually know that, they are just guessing and calling it science. This is what happens when scientists refuse to take philosophy seriously. The rejection of philosophy guarantees bad philosophy. I wanted to show you a real-world example of that, so now you have it.

Understanding Reality requires way more intelligence than just looking at a perspective and saying, "This looks unfalsifiable to me, so it's crap". Are you crazy?! You can't solve epistemology like that!

Epistemic slop ends in scientific slop.

Every time I get a new insight, I write it down in my phone in a text file. I just counted it for the first time. I have 450,000 words, or 1000 pages of these insights. These are not my notes on others peoples' work, these are just the insights I generate from contemplation. I generate so much insight that I don’t have time to publish it all. For every 1 insight I publish, 3-5 insights go unpublished. This does not include the insights generated for my YouTube videos. This is just the non-video insights.

Jeffrey Mishlove is doing great wok. He's one of the rare academic PhD types who is openminded enough to understand mysticism and God. Of course he does not work inside of academia any more for that reason. I recommend you explore his channel because it has many great spiritual interviews like this one: