fortifyacacia3

"Afghanistan/Somalia withdrawal scam"

@Leo Gura No, I'm nearly positive he always uses Postmodernism as a stand in term.

@Leo Gura Peterson hasn't used the term "Cultural Marxism", from what I've seen articles and video titles do. He says "Postmodern Neo-Marxism." Not sure how meaningful the difference is though & not a fan of defending him lol.

"Creating the Horror Chambers: Noam Chomsky on the tyranny of libertarianism, the need for media democracy, and Latin American resistance to US imperialism" Noam Chomsky interviewed by Dan Falcone https://chomsky.info/072015-2/ Chomsky is a proponent of anarcho-syndicalism and has described himself before as a libertarian socialist. Though, he's very critical of how Libertarianism has actually played out, especially in the US. What made me look into this was that someone once called him a "left-wing libertarian". I find a bit of needless incoherence in this, but perhaps a contribution for synthesis.

Here's a whole video on that statistic I highly suggest.

Watch 14:00-20:00. If I find his videos where he addresses this statistic specifically I'll link it. Many of his videos can help give you an understanding, if you can bare through his edginess there are great points.

@electroBeam Who hurt you? So sounds like you've found his aspects useful thank you.

Anyone read "Eidomorphism: The Philosophy of Ontological Mathematics" by Neven Knezevic? It seems interesting but, from the excerpts I've read, it almost sounds like he misunderstands Gödel. Wittgenstein misunderstanding him also for that matter.. is there insight here in understanding Gödel? I'll definitely draw my own conclusions once I read, but curious if people here have any familiarity with it.

Recognize the multi dimensional aptitudes. Your hunch is correct in the value of Being and Becoming. Becoming happens to be the hurdle of our time. Becoming hinders Being in ways that Being does not. Because Being is prior to Becoming, Being creates Becoming in ways that Becoming does not create Being. Being is more fundamental and Becoming is more significant however, Becoming must be significant TO Being because it's prior. Being offers you direct experience to Nothing with a capital N, and becoming is not conscious of it. Being ultimately rules out the need for Becoming beyond survival.

Wooo! happy I saw this recommended already, but WAKING LIFE by Richard Linklater. This movie will focus soley on your mindfuck rather than a storyline. It's about lucid dreams and dialogues of philosophical concepts. Rotoscoped beautifully/trippy.

How would you explain how Leo and Putnam's argument compare? Does Putnam's Semantic Externalism grasp the role of consciousness enough in this scenerio?

@oMarcos survival/ego dynamics are typically inseparable with everything. ego death can be experienced from being-cognition for example, as a glimpse relative to the survival you come right back to. These states have significance to us but they are not at odds with survival, moreso it finds synthesis. partnership is survival, the "worldview" or values here is compatible with a relationship that fosters the flowering of being alongside a healthy ego. Having a partner in ways would hinder a mystic pursuit, but can also benefit ones being. It's really a trade off but surely you could have mystical insights. Unless you spend the majority of your life meditating or other radical means of attainment it shouldn't be a huge hindrance. Accounting for another person to the degree relationships call for can support non dual aspects in all relationships. one

Leo would make a good video explaining where they are at. I was wondering if anyone has something good to read or watch that analyzes, compares, and finds synthesis of different great philosophers. Perhaps both purely rational and stepping into trans rational contributions as well as where someone starts to take on some negative shape.

@Surfingthewave Thanks I think it was first brought up to me by Alan Watts you can probably find by searching choice/choicelessness.

@Raptorsin7 cease the circular speculation around the backslides. Be skeptical sure but establish when you will and when you won't do something. don't beat yourself up if you do backslide and understand why you chose to. accept the backslides, but if your trying to stop the habit it is best not to be displaced by simultaneously continuing the habit and being against it. Take your values more seriously if that's what you want and set limits that are practical for you. But yeah, the surrendering has alot to do with beating yourself up over falling back. You need confidence to act optimally. You can take it as acceptance too. Watch the video for inversion ritual questions, but what comes up must come down, the cyclical impermanent nature of reality, work with it!

Inversion rituals are seen across cultures throughout time, from carnivals to Halloween. People need a pressure release valve like the concept you see in the Purge. Logic needs to go upside down before it returns in it's cycle. Necessary, yes until you use this to justify wrongdoing. So in other words in order to maintain your efforts you need to orient yourself with your opposites in order to know your own orientation. Further, calling certain things bad is what makes them all the more desirable. If you have to avoid something, it means you still want it. If your avoiding something you are implying that it has a place in happening. If you ground your decisions with certainty and own your choices your desires will actualize. If you surrender and allow yourself to junk food who knows, maybe you'll realize it really isn't what you want. After all, the surrendering to the junk food happened before you decided that it isn't what you want in the first place. Allow your desires to enter the freedom of authentic choicelessness.

Also don't compromise your sleep or health for anything. Can't expect anything without your foundations in line. And again, taking breaks can reduce fatigue.

I think selfishness can spoil desire, so if you want it for prestige or personal gain it could cloud your judgement. It's not inherently bad to do this but you just might smother the fire trying to feed it. Notice the defensiveness arising saying that it's not bad to desire this. It's not, but you need a degree of letting it go. My most concrete advice would be just look at what this is doing to your confidence. Keep just enough desire to continue the activity, and let go of this aching clinginess for progress. Imagine going the whole day without the faintest improvement and not caring. That's what you need, the endurance to fail. If you didn't care about failing you wouldn't have asked the question because it would be answered. Asking for advice is looking for a shortcut and sure, we want to find the best ways to do things but the problem of what you are looking for lies in your looking. If you are willing to put in the hard work there would be no need to look for shortcuts. The answers are always here, just do the hard work. So yeah, the problem is in the question. Don't worry about observing growth.

A critique of rationalism is a pretty good starter to accept nuance

You could get much higher quality advice if you share what it is you are practicing. if there's something in your mindset or in your procedure we won't be able to help you identify it. People perform best with their authentic desires. You want the results to the core of your bones, not to perform it. I understand many things require a level of rigor that isn't as immediately enjoyable as people say it should be for it to be authentic but don't blet that discourage you. You sound purpose driven, which is okay but check with yourself if you actually like something or if you just like the idea of it. 10 hours a day sounds like you've surrendered to an extent. Are you practicing optimally? As counterintuitive as it sounds try doing it for 5 hours