Is Pyrrhonism the ultimate truth?

I’ve had a cold for a week, which gave me time to sit for a couple of hours with a video I found on this forum. It was a post that no one ever responded to by someone that we had all grown tired of at the time, a few years ago. No matter, it’s still good. The first 15 minutes are an introduction, but worth the time if you have an hour plus. It will help get the terms defined. I’m not sure if you can skip around, but hopefully my notes help. It’s the ancient Greek philosophy, pronounced pir-e-ni-zem.

17: He’s talking about the difference between dogmatism and skepticism.
Important point: Skepticism is not the ultimate truth. If you think it is then you are dogmatic about your skepticism. This theme will be repeated.

I couldn’t help but think about the thread with “inthedarkness”. The woo-woo people at Pathway to Happiness might be right or ITD might be right, neither of them know for sure. That’s the best we can do. If you can see that, the question then changes from ‘who is right’ to ‘how do we find happiness without knowing who is right’.

19: To avoid the trap of dogmatism, be skeptical, but “hold it loosely”. This begins a seemingly circular path to being skeptical about skepticism, but hang in there.

20:30 A quote from the Greeks. When pursuing good vs bad with the belief they can be found, the mind will be perturbed. True skepticism neither shuns nor pursues anything eagerly. The goal switches from right vs wrong to happiness. The game of chasing good or avoiding bad can’t be won. In that game, even if you get everything that you think is good and right, you will continue to defend that you are good and right.

23:30 Instead, change your position to not knowing. This will quiet the mind, leading to happiness. He addresses how the ego will fight you on this. After that he covers spirituality, as in the opposite of materialism, that when you think you win the game of getting something, you actually lose the game.

25:35 Does anything true exist? Another quote. The impossibility of cause-and-effect proof. He suggests working through this with any belief you have or know about. When (or if) you get to where you are accepting something on faith, just recognize that, be okay with it for now. If you can, refuse to take that position. If you want to pursue learning more, then do it, but do it for the pleasure of learning.

28: But is there an absolute truth? He doesn’t really handle this completely. It’s something that takes practice. It’s not something to chase or avoid. It’s just being open to possibilities. He seems to be leaning toward saying that absolute truth is not obtainable, and we should be skeptical, but if we said that’s true, then we aren’t skeptical. It’s hard to cover all this in one hour.

30: The funny result. I can’t really restate this one. It’s an experience. He calls it a “third possibility” that the Greek pyrrhonists left out. We understand consciousness better today and we continue to grow our knowledge of that, so all of this is always open to new discoveries and new data. He talks about “quietude of mind” and calls that the “absolute truth” but leaves that for further study.

He spends some time on “modern skepticism” and “hyper-rationalists”. It’s a valid critique but knowing when someone is or is not one of these is difficult. As he says, when rationalism is done strongly, it’s blind to itself. So, I could be doing it right now but not know I am. It’s a good discussion that looks at the religion vs science argument from outside of the usual paradigms.

37: True Skepticism. Be self-honest. His example of being dishonest fits the Pathway to Happiness (from the ‘Do we control our emotions’ thread) guys perfectly. They say they are debunking psychology and science of the mind, but they only stick to their arguments. They have become master debaters (the guy in the video smiles when he says that). They are not listening to the people they say they want to help and not showing them love or caring.

39:20 Be interested in the end of debating. To having an open mind, where happiness is. You can’t hate or criticize people when you don’t take a strong position. You can accept positions, consider them, and choose wisely after having heard them.

40:55 Spirituality. Not a belief in the supernatural but complete open mindedness, freedom from ideologies. He renames “God” as “peace of mind”. I’ll let that go because he says it’s not a belief. You don’t believe that you have peace of mind, you have it, or you don’t. You will find it when you stop taking ideological positions.

He gets a bit hyperbolic. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Near the end he admits there are other ways to approach all of this. The whole idea of it is to not be dogmatic, so picking “pyrrhonism” as the best ideology would be the opposite of pyrrhonism.

45: Pragmatism vs Materialism. Paradigm lock. Humility. Letting go of everything is probably not where most of us will get, but at least be tolerant.

50:15 Intellectual freedom. Study anything and don’t be bothered by the ramifications. Don’t follow one philosophy. See all of them as perspectives. Be holistic. He gets hyperbolic again but then returns to tranquility.

He begins his conclusion. It’s hard to say when he’s done and when he starts with some follow-up comments.

53:15 He discusses the dogmatism of being reasonable. It’s an interesting ‘religion vs scientism’ discussion if you’re interested. The problem is not in the content of the ‘ism’, it’s in how the position is taken.

56: The delusion of modern skepticism. “The people who think they know the most are the greatest fools, and the wisest people are the ones who understand the limits of their knowledge.”

57: Islam and fundamentalism are not the problem, dogma is.
58: the second generation of sin is rationalism when it creates the same structural problems
59: Materialism is running amok and eating our civilization

1:01 Dangers. The pursuit of skepticism can become a dogma. Instead turn inward. Nothing in pyrrhonism suggests you should be nihilistic, lazy, or cruel. Notice what disturbs you and see if it’s something you are chasing or avoiding.

1:06 Enlightenment. He states this as the absolute truth, but it isn’t something you can argue for. Pyrrhonism is a path toward that. It lets you see what is evident.

1:08 Here’s where he says it’s just one perspective, which is an important lesson on the way to enlightenment. Getting there is not the goal, because it’s not a place anyway. At least, that’s what I’ve heard.

He also addresses “false equivalency”. There’s a deeper game to play. Not the “what is better” game, but the “tranquility of mind” game. Your ego will keep looking for a position, even the position of letting go of positions. He ends with, “read the book”.

For me, I’ve heard some of this before, but had never heard of pyrrhonism specifically. It could be that I’m embracing it here because I’m retired and comfortable. I would note though that this guy is young and learned about it before he turned 20. I can’t live my life over with this new perspective.

I wonder how well it would work in a competitive boardroom or if you want to use a sports example. In many pursuits of happiness, healthy options like getting a promotion or excelling in a field require talking, or acting, like you know what you’re doing. Showing skepticism when you are trying to lead a group can result in you losing your leadership position or the confidence of the team. Switching that to “tranquility of mind” seems to be detaching as in ‘checking out’. On the other hand, I’ve seen people who remain calm in the face of threats and anger, and they remain engaged in whatever is happening.

Hope you’re feeling better. I didn’t watch but did read your synopsis.

I never thought of skepticism as an ultimate truth, or even an activity. To me, skepticism is my filter. I don’t feel like I’m practicing skepticism. As I experience the world, many things try to work themselves into my “knowledge” base.

Like, “Old panes of glass in old structures show how glass flows over time. The bottom of the glass is thicker than the top.”

Many people have come to believe that. I accepted it for a few years. But it is false. My skepticism is equivalent to an open mind. The only thing I know is that I don’t know anything. I actually enjoy being proven wrong. It brings me joy as my worldview has just improved. It’s exciting!

Unfortunately, this has not led to a quiet mind or necessarily happiness. But as I look around at my fellow travelers through time, I do feel advantaged by my dismissal of so much woo (homeopathy, gods, crystals, and so on). But I remain open to the woo since, as I said, I don’t know anything. So I guess I’m following his “don’t be dogmatic” rule. Is that itself dogmatic?

So far as an ultimate truth, it may or may not exist. If the multiverse theory is true then there may be many local ultimate truths but no global universal truth. And who decides what’s true? Does truth change with time? The worst answer to these questions for me is any of the ancient religious texts. They are so full of clearly “evil” gods, inconsistencies, and comic book physics that they force me to look elsewhere.

I think many philosophies can “work” in the workplace depending more on the person’s personality than on the philosophy of that individual.

Fun thought journey.

Seems to me,
this is where the magic words:

“Based on the evidence at hand.”

comes in handy.

Coffee your observations were spoken with the eloquence of a man focused on his journey.
That’s a good thing.

I did listen to the lecture though took most the day to get through it and I kept some notes.
Leo is cool, but he’s definitely more the salesman weaving his spell, than a true traveler.

I think Lausten did a nice job of describing the talk, and Leo definitely has his hyperbolic flights of fancy, I think required for the audience he’s trying to attract.

Leo - 27:33

and that’s what the Pyrrhonists recognized is that all other ideologies, all the dogmatists, all the other philosophers what they do is they accept something on faith without any justification

Come on, warning and advice to guard against our human tendency for self-delusion is as old as tribes. Leo erected these sorts of straw man a few times.


Mind what’s really interesting is that it turns out that
total quietude of mind
this is not just an ordinary notion of like oh my mind is sort of silent and quiet and it feels nice this is a much more profound thing
it actually is the absolute truth at the deepest level

“Total quietude”, don’t get me going. “Absolute truth” ? What “deepest level” ?


why do I harp about radical open-mindedness so much it’s because when I was young when I was still a teenager I learned about Pyrrhonism I sort of learned about it and invented it on my own at the same time it was an interesting process and that made me so open-minded that because of that I was able to **discover personal development self-actualization and then ultimately non-dual inquiry and ultimately the highest levels of consciousness that are so mind-blowing

and so amazing that if you even had a glimpse of this

even for a few seconds your entire life would change**
and that all was facilitated by Pyrrhonism.

This is where my tramp senses started crawling. What’s this guy promising? In younger generations I was more wide eyed, but I watched too many self styled self-actualized, in mind, not deed.

I don’t think self-actualization is about reaching the most mind blowing realm of consciousness. Whatever that is.

I’d say it’s more about becoming one with yourself. Understanding your body and mind and their respective places in the scheme of things. It’s not about bells and whistles and fireworks, it’s about deep down feelings of peace and belonging and balance, even within the crazy turmoil of dealing with oneself and what the world happens to be throwing at us.

As for eternity, for me eternity is my internalized appreciating for deep time and the flow of generations and knowing that I’m a fiber in the tapestry of this Earth’s evolution.
That moment my daughter was born was an Earth shattering moment for me, touching and joining that regression of generations - it’s never left me. Still, I settled back down to Earth and got on with getting on, and it has gotten lost in the sauce, as they say. But never forgotten.

Having enough sense to appreciate all I have including squeezing in all I can out of my todays.

1 Like

Pretty sure that’s what he said

A little tidbit:
The red panes in the glass-in- lead panels of old cathedrals are made from gold dust!

Is there gold in red glass?

Red Glass: Why is it so special? And, why does it fascinate us?

1 Like

He said a lot of things.

When we boil it all down this is another example of the prevailing philosophical attitude that we can logic it out. Philosophy starts with thoughts, argues in words, and ends in thoughts upholding a supreme conviction that we humans should be able to “logic-it-out.”

I’m insisting before we have any chance at actually resolving so many classical philosophical conundrums and tropes we need to internalize the reality of our own physical biological body, and its operations beyond our conscious thoughts.

You get upset at me calling traditional philosophy self-absorbed and self-serving - but that’s what we are left with after the acid bath.

This isn’t just another variation on some weird philosophical tangent.
It’s as fundamental as it gets,
absorbing the profundity in the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide
and the fact of being a biological being inhabiting an evolved generational creature body plan.

Consciousness being produced by our bodies, and not some higher being or thing, but a physical biological universe within itself. And very little in philosophy discusses it, although everything in the physical sciences is pointing at it.

Saying we know it isn’t enough. Absorbing it requires some work. But it has its rewards.


Upset? You would know if I was upset. (Mission Impossible, favorite line)

He was as paradoxical as it gets. Don’t pick an ideology, don’t believe, and you will be clearer in your thoughts, and understand better. Confirmed by science, experience, history, good leadership. But no, only the CC way, that’s the right one.

:hugs: perhaps irritated would have been a better choice.
Of course, I don’t know, I feel.

Ah, you see, you are irritated.

Why do you make this sound like some freaks fever dream?

The struggle of coming to grips between the mind and the body has been at the center of philosophical struggles, and endless mind-experiments) since for ever.

I constantly see the words and thoughts I strive to enunciate echoing within scientific writings

Besides, the fact that we are pro-actively destroying, not only our planet, but our civil form of government should be some clue that thinkers have gotten an awful lot wrong on pretty much every humanistic, intellectual, rational level.

But I better not use the description “Self-absorbed” and “Self-serving” ?

How can we hope for anything better - consider how people have lost most of their spiritual philosophical connections to other creatures and Earth.

And frankly, I been on that mythical “hero’s journey of seeking” all my life and it’s a thing I worked through everyday, I’m at the end of my successful journey towards “self-realization” and such.
I do embrace eternity everyday, with a taste for Earth’s ways and means. I used lots and lots of books, articles and talks, but in the end I lived the experiences myself and learned their lessons on a for real internal level.

So, when I hear something like:

“Discover personal development self-actualization and
then ultimately non-dual inquiry and
ultimately the highest levels of consciousness
that are so mind-blowing and so amazing
that if you even had a glimpse of this even for a few seconds your entire life would change.”

I smell chum.

Dismissing the simple concepts I’ve enunciated is as easy as plugging your ears,
and ghosting the writer.

But that doesn’t negate the fundamental reality & value in the observations presents, and that gets driven home to me with every serious science book I read.

I can see you’re upset. Maybe you need to have some chamomile tea and calm down.

Mmmm, the chum is strong in this one OB1.

You’re a hoot sometimes.
Chamomile tea isn’t going to help.
Dismissing the fact with contemptuous scorn doesn’t change the global trajectories we are documenting.

Well, I was referring to one specific quote:

It’s the same old promise. Learn my secret and the entire universe will open up to you. Your powers will be unlocked. Heck look at the title you put on this thread:
“Is Pyrrhonism the ultimate truth?”

Enlightenment has yet to create a superhuman, except in stories humans tell each other.

Enlightenment and self-actualization is about understanding oneself and finding peace in this wild wild world out here.

There’s nothing mind-blowing about highest levels of consciousness,
quite the contrary it’s about a feeling of peace via awareness, and having arrived at home,
and having de-venomized those little gremlins that used to run wild within your mindscape, because life is so difficult and none of us has all we want.

It’s about understanding who you really and truly are
which I contend can’t be done without a
profoundly deep understanding of one’s own body as an evolving generational creature
and how that body produces the mind that keeps giving you such a hard time.

Life itself has taught me to dismiss philosophers who doesn’t incorporate that reality into their story of what a human is, or how to reach our existential potential.

I mean that’s the foundation to what we are - and you are basically telling that it doesn’t matter, that casual lip service is all that’s needed and to get on with the same old dog chasing dialogue philosophers have been dishing up, or I deserve to have scorn heaped on me.
Then I get to see Hoffman and pals and all the air play they get.

Thing is I believe substance over facade matters.

that’s an amazing skill, to listen to something for over an hour and find one sentence that you don’t like. You should do a YouTube or a blog about that.

The question then, and this could be a Master’s Thesis; is the “fact” that can’t be dismissed, the trajectory that we are on that is documented, is it global warming, is it planetary destruction, is it that thinkers get things wrong and governments don’t have a clue, OR, is it that voices are drowned out even by the people who have been silenced for centuries but have just found their voice, has the competition for who is the most oppressed become the tool of the oppressor, and has the idea of loving your neighbor been replaced by community bubbles both physical and virtual?

Or the TLDR version, is it more important to fight over priorities or to hear all of the possibilities?

That’s a pretty gross misrepresentation.

through it because you start to recognize that it’s never ever going to work this is a game that is rigged against you and that even when you think you win the game you will actually lose the game and now lastly

Let me be clear, I’m enjoying this speaker and his talk, I’m not trying ripe him or his presentation in anyway. Still, he’s a philosopher conveying the current lines of thought - and it’s the whole of that modern philosophical milieu, outlook with all it’s unrecognized underpinning to the dark ages*, that I find my thoughts increasingly at odds with - and wanting to publicly discuss at whatever venue I can find.

*”Dark Ages”: Pre modern geological, biological, evolutionary understanding.

“let me quote to you one
more segment and here this gets to the heart of the reason why skepticism is opposed to all position and all ideologies:

“So This concerns the matter of the ultimate truth he says quote does anything true really exist it is impossible to decide the controversy because the man who says that something true exists will not be believed without proof on account of the controversy of course … and if he wishes to offer proof he will be disbelieved if he acknowledges that his proof is false of course so he has to declare that his proof is true but if he declares his

Proofs are for mathematician and booze, we humans gather evidence and we biological creatures are stuck doing the best we can with what we have.

The matter of the “ultimate truth”

Another descent into the cogs of the mind: “the matter of ultimate truth” endless talk is invited by inquiring minds. I remember when I loved it, but I’m getting old and so much is a repletion and guess my dealings have simply made me more cynical. This search for truth, seems a farce, and dancing with those thoughts I’ve come to realize how much academic profession philosophy has always been a competitive sport every bit as much as rugby or football or big business.

Instead of physical brawn or cash’n power, it’s all about brain power, intellectual brawn coupled with performance art.

Philosophy, the Olympics of the mind, where humans with talent do what humans have always done. Compete, going for the glory and gold.

Cheer the winners, dismiss the losers.

Ego, intellectual brawn, onto the field of battle with ever new skills and weapons and strategies. Always going for the glory, but seldom arriving anywhere.

It’s like philosophy can deconstruct everything and anything, but when it comes to constructing some orienting benchmarks, I don’t see anything beyond a crisis of philosophical relevance.

We rather keep rehashing the old conundrums with occasional fresh variations on a theme. That theme being the search for God, Truth, Answers that ultimate question.

With my, not so new found, “Earth Centrist” perspective built upon the foundation of Earth’s Evolution as seen through the eyes of the physical sciences, with it’s profound appreciation of one’s own body as a Biological Creature, (in that regard brother and cousin to all other living creatures). A part of Earth’s ever unfolding continuum, with this moment being mine, followed by nothingness and melding back into Earth.

Appreciating that my mind is the product of my biology engagement with living (inside & out). Appreciating that our Gods, as well as our Sciences are the products of our human minds, built upon one generation after another.
Appreciating that fact about me, is fact for every other human and living creature alike, each to our own form.

You are you because you possess your body and live life through that body - there simply isn’t much more to explain. We each have to make our own sense out of the stark fundamental reality of living as part of Earth’s pageant of evolution, this moment is yours. It’s up to each of us to make what we will of that moment.

What greater goal are we looking for? What could be greater than living a life that leaves one ready to die content and at peace with the memories of one’s own life and deeds? Having some loving folks around is icing on the cake.

Leo - 27:33

and that’s what the Pyrrhonists recognized is that all other ideologies all the dogmatists all the other philosophers what they do is they accept something on faith without any justification

Pretty extreme. Or would agree with Leo?


Mind what’s really interesting is that it turns out that total quietude of mind this is not just an ordinary notion of like oh my mind is sort of silent and quiet and it feels nice this is a much more profound thing it actually is the absolute truth at the deepest level

Quietness of mind is absolute truth - how do you figure that?


problems with it

there’s a deeper game here being played than just between religion versus science that is a trap we’re talking about something much deeper here we’re talking about how the mind uses Concepts and ideas to entrench itself and to become a tool of the ego if you’re following and embodying true skepticism then your mind sees its own limitations and it’s actually a tool for dismantling the ego when you’re embodying false skepticism this is a tool for becoming more egotistical more entrenched in your paradigms and

this is the greatest danger of false skepticism is that it leads to Paradigm

true skepticism questions every single assumption that is made by the mind
in any sort of reasoning about the world true skepticism is actually
non-dogmatic unlike false skepticism it’s conscious
of itself it’s conscious of its ability to deceive itself and therefore it questions itself
and for a true skeptic his one of his favorite targets to question is him his own self and his own philosophy it’s one of the few philosophies that is self-reflective it really cares about not committing the same mistakes that it sees other philosophies

I don’t know, this sounding like a bit of a red herring. Or is a straw man? Although when he says scientists, I have the feeling he’s talking about Professors of theology and what not, areas of study that encompass the human mind as opposed to material based Earth science, evolution, biology, geology and such.

Regardless, here again the basic failing is in not starting out by acknowledging the material biological evolutionary fact of our body with its inescapable observation that our biological body produces our consciousness, that is our mind.

This Earth Centrist paradigm shift, short circuits so many of these idealistic challenges and assumptions that classic (dark ages, god fearing) philosophy has been wrestling and dancing with for centuries.

Skeptic, modern skeptic, false skeptic, it’s just words. Scientists and thinkers have known since forever that we need to be self skeptical, there’s nothing new about the notion.

What’s new is billionaires and mega megaphones, and a profound disregard for anything beyond the self serving. Oh and also the simple competitive sport of intellectual oneupmanship drive that we humans possess.

philosophical positions and then you need to play the whole game of justifying having proofs and evidence and arguments and then so you become an arguer and a debater a master debater that’s what you become a true skeptic is not a debater he’s not interested in debating he’s interested in the end of debate he’s interested in having an open mind because his ultimate goal is happiness you see the false skeptic’s ultimate goal is ego gratification he creates a whole identity around arguing

“Ultimate goal happiness” ??

Now “Debate” is the enemies?
What about defining the basic types of debate, rather this nebulous condemnation - at lease he’s sure sounding pretty harsh here.

and so on.


Lausten how about quotes some of your defining moments of this talk.

But you’ve heard about skepticism and you’ve heard about the greatest skill a scientist can have, that is self-doubt and skepticism for one’s own thoughts, isn’t that what peer review is all about?

We need each other to keep each other honest. These things have been part of our awareness, I’ll bet, since we started telling stories about hunts, around the first campfires.

Can enunciate what you found special or unique about Pyrrhonism?

How often to we have to listen to the same record repeating itself?
It’s one thing to hear all possibilities, it’s another thing to be stuck in a rut.
Why ignore that we people have our knowledge base to build upon,
and that at some point decisions need to be made, and life needs to be lived.

Oh and no, every hair brained thought shouldn’t need to be rehashed endlessly,
again at some point decisions need to be made and life needs to be lived.

Oh and for all your consternation, you never seem to recognize that I’m discussing something very simply and straightforward. Instead of starting our philosophical discussions from within our minds, we need to take a moment to appreciate the reality of our material physicality -
you are your body,
you body produces your mind.

Come to terms with that first, then go off into the playgrounds your mind.

And again lip service to our evolved biological substance, isn’t the same as a deep understanding evolved into appreciation, for said facts. Time for philosophy to catch up to the physical Earth and biological sciences. Leo was not doing that, Leo is focused on selling a product.

Talk about a master class, this time in obfuscation, confusing the issue.

Thinkers get thing wrongs,
(people) don’t have a clue,
global warming,
planetary destruction.

Don’t you see how they are all intimately bound together?

How about sharing one major trajectory that’s moving into a sustainable “good” direction?

What ever. I’ve never been much for riddles.
I do believe imaging we should entertain every notion that’s ever been uttered by persons know or unknown is a tad unrealistic.
Come on, you’re always busy, don’t tell me you don’t recognize that every day is an exercise in triage?
What will you be present to? Because you can’t be present to everything.

This is why you are not being heard. Seek first to understand then to be understood. You come into conversations already always having decided what will be said by the others. It’s over before you get there.

Perfect example.

So you don’t recognize that I, and the links I link, do that.

Go and review your glib dismissals,
pot meet pan.

Well that’s true enough.

Show me where Leo touches on the mind body divide and our biology.
Find me a different video, I notice he’s got many.
Show me where philosophical discussions of human mind, that begin with recognizing that our consciousness is produced by our bodies in action.

After my first few minutes of listening, I stopped and made a copy of the transcript, and followed along, so don’t imply I’m not paying close attention to what he’s saying and the words he’s using. But there’s only so much that can be said about skepticism, or lack thereof, before staring to repeat one self.

You are so busy being offended by me, you’ve erected your own wall.

And yeah, it sucks I do kind of condemn modern philosophy, it’s repetitive, self absorbed and self-serving, just as the society it’s a part of is. That’s hard candy to swallow, ironically it’s exactly my interaction here and the happenings with the philosophy club that have forced me into better understanding what was once simply an underlying feeling and effort to make sense of why I was so different in outlook. I spend decades dealing with my “craziness”, but turns out I was onto something, and as I’ve watched all these awful wrong choices we (as a society) have been making to create today’s living nightmare, and confronted my demons as they came, I’ve come to have a much clearer understanding and have learned to appreciate that I was on way more solid ground than most around me. So here I am, wishing my writing didn’t intimidate so much, but there it is.

Yeah and climate scientists aren’t being heard either - doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Perhaps it’s the populous that refuse to hear what they don’t want to hear, honesty be damned.

I understand why the avoidance, the reality is too horrendous to truly face, at least without some serious spiritual/intellectual grounding, that classical philosophy has totally failed to supply.

I mean it’s one thing to be able to deconstruct anything and everything.

It’s a whole different accomplishment to build some meaningful bench marks and mileposts.

I’m don’t mean to offend you, but the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is today’s societal priorities - they speak for themself.

Is this Sapolsky interview on how stress comes from early lizard brain functioning, what you mean? Our reaction to a crappy boss is related to this. He also goes into birth lottery issues and how our mental abilities are related to our biology. Is this what you think is more important than talking about it.
I’m only 15 minutes in, but, seemed like it applied to this conversation

The Shocking New Science Of How To Manage Your Stress - Dr Robert Sapolsky (

(I’ll get back to your post a little later)

Okay still going. at 26:45 he talks about how parenting styles affect epigenetics and that affects physical ailments or health. I don’t see how you can talk about the evolutionary body without including the things we do, the way we talk, the thinking we do.

Right, he’s a scientist, please notice I was referring to philosophers.

Just the other day I was pointing out how these things I’m focusing on are echoed in countless scientific sources, where to you think I learned from.

Please think about what I’ve written. Philosophers need to do a much better job of incorporating modern scientific understand and stop so with the ultimate answer folly which to my eyes is simply and echo of the entire God fearing thing.

But instead folks like Hoffman become big shots, peddling utter folly that if focused on would more likely drive a person crazy, than offer any clarity.

I don’t either, I’m simply talking about explicitly recognizing the difference between your thoughts and your physical body - oh and that your thoughts are not limited to that voice you’re listening, that the body itself has levels of generational awareness, and so on.

As for Leo, like I said there’s a difference between lip service and explicitly confronting and absorbing.

Leo also implies that true enlightenment comes with bells and whistles beyond what a mere mortal can imagine. That’s the promise of heaven, enlightenment is a state of mind.
Sorry if Leo’s characterization sticks in my craw, while a vague mention parental influence hardly registered. (Beside’s that misses my point anyways.)

I’m of the feeling that if a guy tries to sell me snake oil, I tend to distrust his entire product line.

Not looking for a fight, simply trying to enunciate my thoughts. Oh and there is no ultimate truth.

Truth can only mean anything within a framework of defined parameters.

It what happens in a world with countless individual biological creatures doing their thing, for their own good.

Oh, I agree with that… image

Moreover, Science itself has become so fractured with “specialty” and “protected” knowledge, that it becomes impossible to find cohesion in science today.