SaWaSaurus

Member
  • Content count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaWaSaurus

  1. if you can't sniff out the incredible insecurity in someone like Tate then your senses are off
  2. I've wondered this too. Still don't really know, but this hypothesis seems reasonable:
  3. I'm only comparing him to JP in the sense that the argument is the same, just from a higher level. The CEO says we need to clean up our own mess as a nation before focusing on the messes of other nations, and JP is saying me and you individually need to clean up our own messes personally before focusing on the messes of the country we live in.
  4. I think there's nuance to what he's saying. He's doing to Jordan Peterson 'clean your room before you clean up the world', except on the scale of national government instead of the individual. How many people needlessly die each year because our health care system is corrupt to its core, where folks cut their insulin because the price is 1000% more than it should be? Uigher genocide sucks, but for most people it's just an easy virtue signal since everyone knows genocide bad - it's much harder for people to comprehend the abstract harm done by corrupt institutions, but genocide is pretty clear cut.
  5. I'm guessing it's because this CEO billionaire is an outspoken liberal or leftist and Ben is getting his shots in wherever he can
  6. I don't understand the technicals of the article, but the OP made some sus posts in the comment section that seems off for the character he's portraying..
  7. He said a *LOT* of things, yet the one thing people know about him is that he's some crazy 2012er lol. You can be a genius polymath with impeccable communication style, yet make one wrong prediction (which you admit could be wrong), and all the sudden your legacy is 'just some nut job'. When he talked about his novelty theory he's stated outright that he could be wrong about knowing the precise date of the omega - this was a speculative part of his theory.
  8. By materialist argument, I mean the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain/body. When I refer to consciousness here, I'm talking about the colloquial meaning which is synonymous with awareness, or the ability of perception. As the argument goes, consciousness arises within you at some point after your conception, and continues to exist until you die or when you temporarily lose consciousness during sleep or some disruption to the brain. The reason I find this argument so convincing is because it seems to be true in my own experience. When in deep sleep, I seem to lose awareness entirely. If I were to get hit hard enough in the head, I'd seem to lose awareness entirely. If I were to be put into a chemically induced coma, or put under anesthesia, I assume I'd lose awareness entirely. Also, my awareness seems to be emanating from my body, particularly around my eyes and face. All of this would suggest that consciousness is obviously a product of the brain, right? I don't necessarily believe of disbelieve this argument, and I've heard some teachers say things like 'deep sleep is just consciousness without content', but to me it seems more like a total ceasing of awareness, and even if it is technically consciousness without content, I still wouldn't see any difference. On the other hand, consciousness is a fundamental requirement for experience, so without it there would be no difference between things existing and not existing, since there would be no one there to experience. Not sure if that made sense, but I think it suggests that consciousness must be prior to everything, since nothing would exist without consciousness being there to perceive it. Anyway I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on all this.
  9. Dude bought an abandoned mining town for 1 million dollars and documents his adventures there. The content is more entertaining than it might seem imo. This channel speaks for itself:
  10. Become a philosopher, not someone who memorizes philosophical ideas of other philosophers. Assuming you were brought up in traditional education systems, it might take time to break the habit of memorizing the 'right ideas' and adopting them as your own. You've probably been conditioned to not bother thinking for yourself, since smarter people have certainly figured out the answers to whatever questions you have... scrap all that. It's good to read and listen to smart people, but you are your greatest teacher and you'll only know wisdom if you learn to contemplate for yourself.
  11. Necessary, no, but I can't think of a better and faster way to have experiential proof of divinity. That may take years with non-psychedelic methods, and once you have a taste of it at least now you know that you can't trust beliefs about reality, and then can pursue whatever method you prefer thereafter. People refuse a 15 minute DMT experience because they think it's all nonsense, they're even less likely to spend hundreds of hours meditating for one peak experience that might all be nonsense. They'll likely give up before any spiritual awakening.
  12. @Leo Gura have you contacted Destiny for a discussion? Among the debate lords I think he's quite open minded to non-political discussion. He's also had an interesting character arc over the past few years where he used to be 'straight edge' (zero drugs/alcohol/etc), but is now open and into psychedelics. He's currently in the 'how do I really know anything' stage where some of his concrete beliefs were shattered with mushroom experiences.
  13. I've never been too into metal but this 1 band I listened to a lot when I was younger. Don't know what genre of metal it is, but sounds kind of like the power metal you linked.
  14. Agreed! Sunshine was my absolute favorite movie as a teen. Still the best soundtrack of any movie I've seen. People give the movie shit for the final act being sub optimal, but the movie as a whole is 10/10. Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream has one of the best performances I've seen from an actress. The movie is an experience. Donnie explains the smurfs. The movie is much more bizarre and heavy than this scene conveys. 10/10 movie. If anyone hasn't seen the BSG remake, highly recommend
  15. Ok here it goes. You could have been like @Scholar and provided any sort of context, instead you just make outlandish claims and condescending one-liners instead of giving me anything to reply to. My conclusion is that your avatar is extremely ironic.
  16. Much better context. And it's basically about what I was assuming his position, but haven't seen a ton of stuff from this guy, certainly not a clip this old. Some incredibly awful rhetoric, but his underlying point seems clear: political violence can be justified depending on the circumstance. If I were a Jew in Nazi Germany, I'd be justified in murdering an SS officer, obviously. Does anyone legitimately think vaush wants all capitalists to die because he disagrees with them? That would be next level bad faith interpretation of his position imo.
  17. lol.. so he never actually says what you originally posted. If people were to take what you said at face value, Vaush would want to kill like 98% of the population. This is why you were called out for bad faith. 'Political violence' is so broad you'd have to get him to narrow it down, and then you could nitpick at him if you wanted, but that's not what you did. Every war fought is political violence. Bombing up Nazi facilities during WW2 is political violence. Native Americans forming hit squads to attack the colonizers is political violence. Uyghurs Muslims fighting the CCP is political violence. Your original statement was not this, and so laughably far from this that I can't take anything more you say seriously. Yes there are criticisms for Vaush, and if he believed in like killing all capitalists, or assassinating republicans in congress, I'd say that's taking political violence wildly too far, but I seriously seriously doubt he believes that.
  18. Did it ever occur to you that when Vaush said this he might have been like, joking? The fact that you can't tell it's a joke shows your extraordinary bias against this person.
  19. I love this metaphor. Also ironic since your username is 'holygrail'.
  20. I highly recommend the book The Inner Game of Tennis by Tim Gallwey. It applicable to all disciplines, not really about tennis. The inner game is all about increasing concentration, being in the present moment, stilling your mind. To the degree that your ego mind is active, you will be less able to concentrate on what's happening in the game. Thinking about the glory of victory and the torment of defeat, and the feelings that accompany those thoughts, will take you out of the present moment and hinder your ability to concentrate. When you're 'in the zone', you have no time for anxiety, anger, fear. The idea of winning or losing is just an afterthought, something that doesn't even pop up until after the game. You feel joyful and at ease, and your effort is effortless and graceful. All the cells in your body sing with joy, commanding you to move faster. It's like you love the game so much you can't hold it in.
  21. If you're saying that competitive gaming as a life purpose doesn't do much good for society, then I agree. However if that's your point of view, you're going to have to lump in a lot of different life purposes into that same category of which is something I'm not sure if you'd agree or disagree with: things like art, dance, sports, culinary arts, music, comedy.. with the caveat that these aren't used as mediums for political or ideological messaging (George Carlin, Pink Floyd, etc.). Competition is something that is misunderstood, especially in the spiritual community, and understandably so. For 99% of people, competition is an ego game for feeling superior to other people. People get off on the thrills and dopamine rushes of winning and losing, and the idea that they're more special or talented than their opponent. Observing this in people would make it seem obvious that that's all there is to competition, but there exists another perspective of competition that very few will experience. At the higher levels of competition, an inner game develops where ego gratification becomes the obstacle. In order to reach higher levels of concentration, the ego mind must be silenced. Competition then becomes an avenue where the stronger your opponent is, the more concentration is required. The strongest opponents let you fly the highest. Winning and losing no longer have much emotional weight on them, and in the moments of competition you feel a relaxed joyfulness and effortless effort. You'll be so 'in the zone' that you aren't thinking about what's happening, you're just letting your body act on its own. If someone asked you details about what occurred while in the zone, you'd have to go back and think about it because you were so focused you'd be unable to remember. Competition can be a powerful tool for increasing concentration, which is useful in all areas of life. If we're talking statistically and generally, then ya video games are a useless time-sink that can potentially become a life ruining addiction, something to distract yourself from greater aspects of your life. That's not where it begins and ends though, for a small minority of people these games (heavily depending on the type of game, btw) can be useful tools. I find this true for sports as well. Neither will be sufficient for a meaningful life purpose, but tools for honing concentration, yes.
  22. Lol can't wait for that episode