support the show…


H37: Life-Purpose: To Have fun? To Grow? Or um... What?


In my final four (“Season Six”) interviews with Daniel Mackler, I’ve decided to let our conversations (and therefore, these podcasts) remain mostly unedited, and to surpass their usual length.  So you’ve got a whole hour to listen to here!

Today we talk about all kinds of things, like: who is Daniel’s audience (and the brand new essay on his site); the difference between “teaching” and “sharing;” clues that Daniel gives and how to test his theories; the idea of “shoulds;” the purpose of life; and more debate (is that the right word?) about Amy’s methods vs Daniel’s.

To be continued, as always…


1 comment to H37: Life-Purpose: To Have fun? To Grow? Or um… What?

  • Paul

    Great to hear you guys back on the cyberwaves.

    It’s interesting for me to come to your new discussions with the slightly changed perspective that has come about since listening to you both a month or two ago.

    I find myself less enamoured with Daniel’s perspective now than I was then. I would be interested in a rigourous philosophical critique of Daniel’s ideas which seems somewhat lacking in cyberspace at the moment.

    I’m interested to know the theoretical underpinnings of Daniel’s ideas, for example, the model of the psyche implied. For example: In what ways is Daniel a Freudian? What does he think of Lacan’s ideas? What is the basis of the idea of the inner child?

    I’m finding that Daniel is coming across as something of an authoritarian father figure. Without going into details, I’m getting a general impression of him and his ideas coming across as unquestionable truth. If you put that to him he would probably disagree but then later he would continue on in the same manner.

    I found the talk of ‘levels’ problematic. For example, Daniel says that his website is written for level 10 in terms of the degree to which one has worked through ones traumas and that this is why someone who has not worked through their traumas will not take to it. I disagree. I can understand and relate to more or less everything Daniel is saying in his articles and I am open to the possiblity he is right and I do agree with a lot of what he says. I don’t run a mile when I read his ‘higher level’ stuff. On the contrary, I am drawn in by the quality of his reasoning and what I see as the truth in his insights. However, I don’t think that I am at a high level in terms of having resolved my traumas. Rather, I just question what he is saying and react according to my current perspective.

Leave a Reply