zurew

That doesnt contradict what I said. But what you still fail to engage with is the fact that what I or you consider to be obvious and what my or your sense of rationality is - those things are subject to be wrong. All of what is absurd, what is rational, what is nonsense - all of that shit is informed by things that are subject to be wrong. You labeling that abstract or intellectual or nonsense doesnt show that your considered nonsensical thing is actually false, what it shows is that given your current understanding of reality (Which may or may not be accurate), that thing goes against it. So if we want to talk about honestly - lets be actually epistemically honest about what our sense of absurdness, rationality, experience, and nonsense is actually informed by.

I agree - thats why we shouldnt make claims with certainty what is fantasy and what is not. It wasnt me who claimed that it is true, it was you who labeled it as a "fantasy". All of this shit comes back to what I said - if you dont want to entertain it, thats fine, but the moment you start to make claims about it you are in trouble.

I could just negate this and say "Your notion of closedness is superficial and merely intellectual". But in any case, I dont think you know what I mean by openness. Openness doesnt mean that I assign a high probability to the given proposition being true , I just mean that unless I actually explicitly know with 100% certainty (which is almost never the case) that given thing is false, the door remains somewhat open. And in certain cases that openness could be 0.00000000000000000001% ( but still its different than the claim that "its definitely false", because there it would be actually 0%). Its nothing more than an epistemic attitude of "I can be wrong about this".

Wait, what do you think you are doing here other than purely intellectualizing about it? You are not doing anything more than expressing your skeptical beliefs about it. Yeah and thats fine. But I am not as myopic and superficial as "X thing isnt true in my current experience right now, therefore X is definitely false". X might actually be false, but an appeal to my current experience is a super weak appeal.

If by "fantasy" you mean "I dont have good reason to entertain it or I dont have any good reason to think its true", thats fine. But if you want to say - "that thing is definitely false" - then I would ask for a supporting argument for that claim.

Once you have different notions of impossible, you can make more precise claims like "okay, I say that x thing is bullshit , and by bullshit I mean it violates the law of biology - and by that I mean the biology given our current scientific understanding) But I dont even think that in most cases one can even spell out the nomological violation, its just some super unexpected thing that is probably even compatible with your current understanding of nomological laws.

You need to differentiate between different notions of impossible. You can have logical , nomological, metaphysical impossibility. Logical impossibility would be something generally that would violate the laws of logic or generally things that would actually entail a contradiction. Metaphysical impossibility is more blurry and more complicated. Nomological impossibility would be things that would violate the laws of nature. The math example is logically impossible, but when it comes to nomological laws (anything science related) there are a lot of weird things that are logically possible that you dont even want to entertain and you dont even have the capacity to entertain and at the same time nomologically impossible (where it would violate some scientific law) You can say that we shouldnt entertain all logically possible things ,and we should only focus on the nomologically possible things and thats fine, but your sense about what is nomologically possible is grounded in your current understanding of the Universe and all of that is subject to be wrong. Almost all of that shit is based on inductive reasoning that is super subject to be wrong - just take a look at how many things we adjusted in the 20 and 21st century about our understanding of science and the Universe. You can also think about it this way - go back to the 10th century check what set of things would be rational to accept given the scientific knowledge they had back then and tell me how you wouldnt be the guy back then who would make the exact same argument you are making right now. Think about what sense they had back then about what is nomologically possible. When it comes to your claim about openness, i agree with you in 99.9999% of the cases , but not when it comes to claims about what is logically possible, because none of what you did shows how those things are logically impossible, at best it only show that given your current understanding of the Universe some thing might be violated (but even that claim is often times too strong) - and again to be clear, I agree with you that when it comes to appealing epistemic norms - we shouldn't appeal to what is logically possible and we should appeal to our sense of rationality that is grounded in our current understanding of the Universe, but not when it comes to philosophy and not when it comes to claims about impossibility. It doesnt matter how weird or absurd a given proposition is to you, because that doesnt prove that the proposition is actually false. Its fine to say that we shouldnt entertain it, or that we dont yet a have good reason to entertain it (again an appeal to our current understanding, which is totally fair), but its not fine to say that it is therefore definitely false.

You can make this move where you claim that anyone who tried to help others definitely werent enlightened and by that move you can maintain your theory that anyone who tries to help others in any way is lost and has an inflated ego. We dont need to rely on Buddha or Jesus, we only need to find one person who was enlightened that you agree with who tried to help others. If you say so.

But you dont want to claim that its impossible, at best you can only say that given your priors its extremely improbable or unlikely to be the case. None of your thing is grounded in a non-conceptual sense , because you are making inferences about biology based on your and others experience but those inferences can be wrong. Your thing is subject to criticism just as much any other theory about biology. Even if you are realist about scientific laws, thats compatible with you having a wrong understanding about those laws

I dont think he is a realist about laws, but its more about having certain priors. When you are presented with a weird/unqiue relative proposition you dont evaluate it apriori, you include your baggage of priors (your beliefs about the world that you have abductive and inductive arguments for). Before evidence is considered, those relative claims will be evaluated/judged using your priors. Of course your priors should be adjusted once evidence is delivered and given this approach you should aways be open to change things no matter how outlandish or weird the claim is (but as you said, in most cases, epistemically you just cant meet the challenege and therefore you probably wont adjust those priors much. Its almost practically impossible for one person to construct those arguments and to collect enough evidence).

This is as low level engagement as someone saying that aiming for Nirvana is a bitch running away move, where you cant be bothered to actually help others using the wisdom you acquired/embody. Just take a look at most enlightened beings and you immediately realize that a good chunk of them are/were interested in helping others even though its all just Maya bro. You say that it makes sense for Buddha to teach, but given your logic it shouldnt make any sense to you , because why be bothered with reminding yourself about teachings if you could just leave any given time? Why not just dissolve and go for mahāsamādhi? Jesus also could have done that move , but he didnt, and we could include here a bunch of others here.

I agree with that. I would even say that they dont just expect it, but they are probably inclined to put pressure on the husband (if it is necessary) to play the masculine role.

I wouldnt say that they are more feminine though. Being a baby machine is one thing ,but if you take a look at their traits - they have a bunch of masculine traits as well. They have a lot of say in their relationship and they are ready to kick the husband's ass if the husband is bitching about things or if he doesn't act how she wants him to act. If you picture a typical russian woman in your head, then I doubt that you would picture a very submissive woman or I doubt that you would picture a woman who is any more submissive than any other western woman.

https://pastebin.com/ug0vH78L https://pastebin.com/JbrN02Kk

Will the episode involve you laying down what epistemic norms one should care about if one wants to be rational and laying down how that word meant something completely different than what it means nowadays? Because most "rational" people only care about not having contradictions, but you can add more epistemic norms like performative contradiction and more (for instance - when someone says "I dont exist" - thats not a logical contradiction , its just a false statement and you cant derive a logical contradiction where you show p and not p from that statement apriori, but it is a performative contradiction, because you can only utter that statement if you exist). The more epistemic norms you add to the "rational" stack the more you narrow down the space in which one can deny things.

Sounds like an accusation of derailing the thread, which is kind of fair, but the thread was dead silent. If someone is interested in others pov then they can still read the first 2 pages , but also - this discussion is still very related to the thread (imo).

What do you mean by "more fundamental" there?

You are also gesturing towards a new and different type of cognition that can process info and reason in completely alien ways , right?

No it doesnt necessarily imply that it makes decisions or that it has a teleology or that it is an individual - thats only true under certain specific versions of idealism, but bare idealism doesnt entail any of that. It doesnt even need to have a sense of self. Seem compatible with certain versions of idealism (depending on what certain terms that you use there mean - like depending on what is meant by limitless)

The goal isn't to replace spiritual work with talk and conceptualization. This is mostly an attempt from me to understand his view a little bit better.

I dont think it is misleading, because under how I interpret it, "mental" doesnt entail any clear limitation. I dont know though what you mean specifically by absence of limitations and how that is incompatible with bare Idealism (by bare, I mean only making the claim that everything is mental and not subjecting yourself to any specific version of Idealism - so not subjecting yourself to solipsism or to non-duality or to analytic idealism or to any other specific version of Idealism). I have more questions and issues, but lets go step by step.

He isn't just an academic, he is much more than that. You are framing this whole thing as if a good chunk of Vervaeke's work wouldn't go completely against most of academia's group think. You know that he is the dude who introduced multiple ways of knowing and that philosophy is much more than just conceptualizing about things, right?

Thats not what I meant by those terms. Given how you interpreted my question, it seems that there was 0 tracking between us. You are not really giving a direct answer to the metaphysics question - which is what is actually the nature of the ripples/fluctations/microvibrations. Im not asking a physics question there, because we can agree on all the physics and still disagree about metaphysics. It almost seems like you have a monistic model of reality where everything is created from a non-mental,non-physical 3rd category and everything can be reduced down to that 3rd category and that 3rd category is irreducible. But im not sure about any of this, because you selectively respond to things and its very hard to make any progress in understanding your view.

You cant have a metaphysically ambigous micro-vibration. What is that micro-vibration fundamentally, metaphysically? If that micro vibration is fundamentally not consciousness, then that micro-vibration wont have any possible connection with a reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness.

Your absence of limits talk is just a poetic way to express an infinite number of seperate realities. You have a reality where physicalism is true, you also have a completely seperate reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness, you have a seperate reality where everything is fundamentally something thats neither physical nor mental and so on. The "Everything is interconnected" doesnt work in your case. You have completely seperate realities, where there is no possible connection between them. You talk about absence of limits, but a reality where fundementally everything is physical that reality is limited to that metaphysics and there is no absence of limits there, the reality where everything is consciousness that reality is "limited" to that metaphysics and there isn't any absence of limits there in the sense that that reality cant be metaphysically anything other what it already is. So for example - what could possibly be the connection between a reality that is fundmentally physical and a reality that is fundamentally consciousness?