I appreciate your willingness to take this book on, Daniel, given that some of their criticism hits close to home. I haven't read it yet, but I listen to their podcast regularly, and it sounds like the book mirrors the podcast's strengths and blindspots. Much of my work and worldview overlaps with esoteric traditions and practices. I fin…
I appreciate your willingness to take this book on, Daniel, given that some of their criticism hits close to home. I haven't read it yet, but I listen to their podcast regularly, and it sounds like the book mirrors the podcast's strengths and blindspots. Much of my work and worldview overlaps with esoteric traditions and practices. I find that the podcast, at it's best, serves as an 'inoculation' against the seductive but incoherent (and often covertly predatory) messages and practices in the field. At it's worst, the podcast comes across as reductive, patronizing, and self-serving. I'm all for calling out predatory 'influencers' and 'thought-leaders' (which they do quite effectively) but if you're someone who's been victimized by the field (e.g. seduced into a cult, given up life savings as an offering to G-d, purchased snake oil at high cost, gaslighting after abuse, etc) listening to conspirituality might only serve to shame you more without honoring the parts of you longing to escape the dominant cultural paradigm that also causes tremendous harm
I also listen to their podcast and feel the same. Parts are very well researched and informative, others are snide takedowns. For example when Charles Eisenstein came on in good faith then they had a snarky chat afterwards about why everything he'd said was wrong. But they were polite to his face of course. They just seem to typify the smug coastal liberal that, with some justification, the Trump fan finds so condescending. But they can't seem to see it. They do provide a service in taking down the likes of Teal Swan though.
I listened to the Conspirituality podcast early on in the pandemic and had also recently discovered Charles Eisenstein. I also thought their takedown of him was unfair. I think Daniel nails it when he says they’ve gone too far to the other side by only believing in reductive materialism.
I listened to that as well, and while I probably agree more with their perspective than Charles's, I found their behavior to be so smarmy and cowardly that I never listened to them again. Sincere disagreement is healthy, but what they were doing was deeply uncool.
The free adult human being learns most by making mistakes. There is no shame in that. Mostly we are driven by legitimate longings that arise from fundamental goodness.
I appreciate your willingness to take this book on, Daniel, given that some of their criticism hits close to home. I haven't read it yet, but I listen to their podcast regularly, and it sounds like the book mirrors the podcast's strengths and blindspots. Much of my work and worldview overlaps with esoteric traditions and practices. I find that the podcast, at it's best, serves as an 'inoculation' against the seductive but incoherent (and often covertly predatory) messages and practices in the field. At it's worst, the podcast comes across as reductive, patronizing, and self-serving. I'm all for calling out predatory 'influencers' and 'thought-leaders' (which they do quite effectively) but if you're someone who's been victimized by the field (e.g. seduced into a cult, given up life savings as an offering to G-d, purchased snake oil at high cost, gaslighting after abuse, etc) listening to conspirituality might only serve to shame you more without honoring the parts of you longing to escape the dominant cultural paradigm that also causes tremendous harm
I also listen to their podcast and feel the same. Parts are very well researched and informative, others are snide takedowns. For example when Charles Eisenstein came on in good faith then they had a snarky chat afterwards about why everything he'd said was wrong. But they were polite to his face of course. They just seem to typify the smug coastal liberal that, with some justification, the Trump fan finds so condescending. But they can't seem to see it. They do provide a service in taking down the likes of Teal Swan though.
I listened to the Conspirituality podcast early on in the pandemic and had also recently discovered Charles Eisenstein. I also thought their takedown of him was unfair. I think Daniel nails it when he says they’ve gone too far to the other side by only believing in reductive materialism.
I agree these guys are as mean spirited, as righteous as the comedian Ricky Gervais.
I listened to that as well, and while I probably agree more with their perspective than Charles's, I found their behavior to be so smarmy and cowardly that I never listened to them again. Sincere disagreement is healthy, but what they were doing was deeply uncool.
I nearly turned them off for good too but I decided it's good to have multiple perspectives so I do occasionally still listen.
Ooh never heard of this podcast before today, but now I’m def going to listen to the Teal Swan episodes. Thanks for this!
The free adult human being learns most by making mistakes. There is no shame in that. Mostly we are driven by legitimate longings that arise from fundamental goodness.