Misunderstanding Deconstruction

By Leo Gura - December 24, 2025

Science misunderstands how deconstruction works.

Imagine for a moment that all of science was a construction. Now… Could you know that through science? Obviously not. Do you see how absurd it is for science to demand a scientific accounting of itself? Do you need scientific proof to deconstruct science? Of course not. That would be like needing Biblical proof to deconstruct the Bible. Obviously the epistemic and ontological errors of the Bible are not written in the Bible. To see that science is a construction requires looking at it from outside the frame of science. But when we do that some scientist will stand up and cry out, “But that’s pseudo-science! That’s not scientific! No respectable scientist should take that seriously!” Of course it’s not scientific. Just as the deconstruction of Christianity is not Christian. Is the Christian allowed to cry, “But that’s pseudo-Christian!”, when an atheist deconstructs Christianity? Of course not. Of course atheism is pseudo-Christian. That’s the point. Why is this so obvious with respect to Christianity but not science? Of course science is deconstructed from outside of itself. All deconstruction lives outside the construct. All deconstruction is perceived by the construct as invalid, false, dangerous, evil, demonic. A Christian sees the deconstruction of Christianity as Satanic. And a scientist sees the deconstruction of science as delusional pseudo-scientific woo. That is the paradigm lock!

Every paradigm perceives its own deconstruction as death, and resists it by every possible connivance.

Scientists who complain about pseudo-science reveal that they don’t know what a paradigm is. Sure, they know the word “paradigm”, but they don’t know how serious a paradigm is. They don’t understand its implications. You don’t understand what a paradigm is until your realize that your worldview is a paradigm and that it unconsciously, mechanically, deviously refuses evaluation from outside its own frame.

Anything that can be deconstructed is not fundamental. Science is not fundamental. Christianity is not fundamental. What’s fundamental is understanding. Understanding has nothing to do with science just like it has nothing to do with Christianity. Understanding is how you know that science and Christianity are wrong. If you were only using science you could not recognize when it is wrong — which is the very definition of scientism. Scientism is when understanding is made the slave of science. This is self-deception. Properly, science is the slave of understanding, and understanding can drop science whenever it wants. This is true intellectual rigor. Making understanding subordinate to science is not rigor, it’s self-biased slop.

This understanding here is not science. It is too deep, too serious, too true to be comprehended by science. You cannot get this understanding through any amount of studying atomic facts. No scientist will ever do a laboratory experiment showing that science is a paradigm. You cannot get a scientific consensus that science ought to be deconstructed.

Of course science will always tell you that science is good and true. That’s what every ego does. You could ask Hitler if he’s good and true, and he will tell you Yes. But you shouldn’t believe him.

Science will never tell you it’s wrong, for the same reason that Christianity will never tell you it’s wrong. I don’t mean wrong at the edges, I mean wrong in principle. We don’t care about how science is wrong at the edges — that’s a distraction — we care about how science is wrong in principle.

Everything I say here is completely obvious. Yet scientists do not understands it. If you are a scientist and you think you understand it, you don’t. You’ll understand it when you quit science. You can’t understand a system your survival depends upon. What I teach is not hard to understand, but it requires radical levels of objectivity and selflessness. Scientists have plenty of IQ to understand me, but they don’t have the objectivity. IQ minus objectivity = self-deception.

You need to be so objective that you don’t treat science any better than any other paradigm. As soon as you favor one paradigm over another, you are epistemically fucked. The genius behind my work is the principle of non-bias. I am truly unbiased when it comes to evaluating paradigms. I don’t play favorites. I apply the same skepticism to science as I do to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, Nazism, Scientology, Marxism, Post-Modernism, whatever. Of course this doesn’t mean all paradigms are equal. Some are more truthful than others. Science is a better paradigm than Nazism. But this is only knowable after a serious, openminded investigation, not by assumption. And, by the way, many Nazis were fine scientists. And, I did in fact read Mein Kampf with an open mind. Because I live non-bias. I was the only kid in class who bought Mein Kampf because I wanted to be fair to Hitler — a garbage book, by the way, in retrospect. But it’s the principle that matters.

I treat scientists and Nazis equally. Why? Because I care about truth. I will even treat Satan fairly, because that’s what truth demands. That’s why my work is next-level. Nobody is able to do this. This is an intellectual super-power that I want you to learn from me — that I am modeling for you.

And no, God/Awakening/Truth/Love is not a paradigm. It’s what dawns after all paradigms are deconstructed.

CONSCIOUSNESS is not a paradigm. All paradigms are figments of Consciousness. You can’t deconstruct God because God is the Consciousness you’re using to do your deconstructions. You can burn all the books in the world but you cannot burn fire itself.

Truth is the eternal flame in which all paradigms burn to ash and scatter to the winds.

See how Beautiful it is? These ideas are more beautiful than science. Meta-science is more beautiful than science because it is more true.

Click Here to see ALL of Leo's juicy insights.