zurew

@UnbornTao Do you have any book recommendation that roughly describes what you mean by enlightenment? As a sidenote - to elevate the productivity of the convos around enlightenment it would be probably helpful to make actualizers to read into the same materials, so at the very least those can be used as a reference for wtf is being talked about. The idea that some of you guys need to start almost all conversations from scratch and you need to establish what is meant by awakening and enlightenment is a job that is close to impossible - but if you can refer to a given book or a work, that gives the advantage of communicating with hopefully more clarity and in more detail. There is just too much nuance and detail that needs to be described in any given thread to even lay down the groundwork to start the conversation. I would say the exact same thing for more philosophical convos - it would be good to have familiarity with the same set of concepts and not using private language that no one understands, but of course, again ,this would require us reading and engaging with the same set of books and materials in detail.

That again seems to be an issue with lack of justification rather than with anger or with anything like that. You try to point to the fact that you think they are not knowledgeable enough to take the action or they are not justified in taking the action. You use anger as a proxy to infer that they are not justified or that they don't have good reasons to do what they are doing - but thats just a proxy. One can be angry and justified and knowledgeable. Those things are not mutually exclusive. There are scenarios where the certainty for a given thing is indeed high and an argument can be made for that and it is not just cope - you need to entertain this possibility - although yes, this is often not the case.

That case, what you now pushed back your take to is "if you are not justified in believing that you are right, then dont take an action" , which everyone here would agree with but that wasn't your original take. Your original take was that given that one can be always wrong, one shouldn't take any action. Which is very much different from your current take. Now given what your new take is , you should have started with this and make a case for why you think the protestors are unjustified in believing what they believe , rather than just dismissing them and saying "but they can be wrong though, why are they arrogant". Make a case for why you think they have a false sense of certainty and that they are not justified in believing the things they believe in. - this is where the substantial conversation lies, not in the "but you are arrogant though"

So protesting is out of the picture at all times, because there is always a possibility that you can be wrong , but voting is okay even though you can be wrong there as well . That kind of skepticism eats itself, because it can be mirrored, so you end up saying nothing of substance. Not doing an action is an action as well. You not protesting (and being wrong about the effects of not protesting) could have horrible consequences as well and you being passive by your logic entails that you know that you should be passive over not passive. The argument of "you can be wrong" can be applied to everything and therefore changes nothing and is not an argument for passiveness.

Another banger from Salvijus. Using your logic every time you go vote for a political party its entailed that you have self deception and plain arrogance since you "know" whats good for the country and how things will play out. You don't think for 2 seconds before you post your thoughts - do you?

The goat oeaohoo is back. I think you would be right, if most people would be actually voting based on substance and not on perceived good and bad. That perceived good and bad in most cases backed up by feelings that a given propaganda machine created in you and then circling this back to your claim - this eventually becomes a psychological issue (where the ability to persuade you will be constrained by the aritficially created feelings in you) and not an issue on disagreeing on substance and about policy. Even in the context where one actually cares about the facts and open to be persuaded on a descriptive ground - Most of the convos go like this: "I don't like policy X because it has effect Y" - well you are wrong about X creating Y, here is the evidence - "Well ,okay ,maybe but it will have effect Z as well" - You are wrong about that as well, here is evidence. And then this goes on after a while where you end up at a place where we start to talk about values rather than just about outcomes and effects. The disagreement eventually becomes about why you hold the values that you hold and why those values important to you (which also eventually becomes a psychological discussion).

Comparison doesn't meant that you compare two things across all dimensions - you can compare two different things just on 1 dimension. What happened here is that I outlined the sillyness in your logic. The idea that one can only validly judge someone if one has the exact same lifesituation (like having the same amount of kids, having the same amount of money , having the same career etc) is silly. Again when I apply your logic to other situations like to Jeffrey Epstein, you immediately backtrack and you don't want to use your logic anymore. It seems that in those situations you are perfectly okay with judging those people and you don't qualify with "well my judgement isn't credible , since I am not in a similar life situations as Jeffrey Epstein". The interesting thing is that you are not consistent with your skepticism. Because if you would be, you wouldn't even make positive judgements about Elon and Trump you would stay completely agnostic about both of them, since as you said you cant credibly judge them. But if you cant credibly judge them , that also means that you cant say any positive about them. When people judge Elon and Trump they judge them based on their actions. If you want to put a % on how much good vs bad a given person has done, then again we are going to go back to your silly skepticism problem, where im gonna say "Well you know little about Epstein, how do you know that you can correctly assess all the bad and good things that he did, maybe he did much more good than what you know about and your % about him is very much off". The other thing is that even if you can establish that given all publicy avalaible knowledge about a given person makes that person more good than bad (based on their actions) , even then one can still make comments about their negative and their bad actions.

Wait, how do you know the system is corrupt, if you werent there personally witnessing directly the corruption? Are you telling me and other people, that you believe in biased sources informing you about corruption? Wow, you don't only purely rely on your direct experience when you make an analysis?

You guys dont need to deny the spiritual development of sadhguru , you can just say that spiritual development doesn't entail that you will have an informed and well educated analysis on every single field (including politics). As I said in other threads, being a system-thinker or being spiritually developed doesn't entail that one won't give trash takes and trash analysis about a given field. You need to study that given field and you cant get around that no matter how developed your cognition is and no matter how spiritually developed you are. You need to study a fuckton, you need to understand fallacies and you need to be careful with how you make your inferences.

" You cant judge Jeffrey Epstein for what he did - I mean think about it, he had so many billionaire and millionaire friends and you have no idea what Jeffrey Esptein was in person or what he was standing for - maybe he was a great husband, maybe he was a great friend. All you have information about is what the extremely biased media told you and there is a reason why you only know about his crimes. Maybe those huge companies that provide so many jobs to so many people around the world wouldnt be there today, if Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't have been who he was. He was an extremely great middle-man for networking and probably managed to connect so many bright minds and wealthy people together. Would those wealthy people have managed to get to where they are today, without Epstein's great networking ability ? Well, we will never know. No one here can compherend the responsibility of navigating meetings and conversations with a bunch of billionaire and millionaires who are all power hungry , therefore no one has the credibility to make any judgement about what Epstein did. "

All of these people wave system thinking as an aesthetic - I have seen even Schmachtenberger giving surface level takes about certain subjects - all of these people need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Yes, some of them are very good in certain domains, but they are very bad at other domains. The fact is that you need to have some level of specialization in a given domain to not give trash takes about it. There is no getting around this. No amount of system-thinking is going to shortcut the necessary learning and reading that you need to do. You need to spend some time and if you don't, you are going to inevitably say some dumb things . She made literally a vibe based analysis, without engaging with any piece of fact and she bases her whole analysis on a spiritual model that ranks emotions. You could literally grab any random person from the street and that person could give a political analysis with the same if not better quality.

Im not saying just content specific, im trying to point to the difference in generating functions. Its not just what kind of beliefs the majority of each party holds (which would be the issue about content), its how you get there and how you form your beliefs and based on what criteria you accept and reject things (its about your epistemic methods ). Im saying there is a qualitative difference in generating function.

Yeah but your "both siding" doesn't work when we get into specifics. Again, half of the republicans deny the result of the 2020 election even after all the lawsuits, they deny climate change , they collectively believe in a bunch of conspiracy theories. You cant make a similar case for the left. The two side different and not even close. When someone brings up insane lefty positons , most of those wont be held by the majority of the lefites, they are hold by extremely fringed twitter kids - on the conservative side though, thats not the case. It needs to be acknowledged that the two side operates differently when it comes to epistemically engaging with facts and the world. As long as we pretend that both sides are the same, we won't be able to solve things. It doesn't work in that it wont persuade already radicalized people in changing their beliefs and opinions but Im not convinced how it doesn't work for people who aren't already bought into a bunch of conspiracy theories and on people who aren't radicalized yet. At the very least - not amplifying the fuck out of ragebaits and conspiracy theories would be a good start to slow down radicalization.

Except the exact opposite thing that happened and happens in real time. People cant engage with facts and by allowing conspiracy theories what you end up with is creating completely alterantive realities - so much so that people cant actually be reached anymore and there is no common ground anymore. Right now half of the republican still thinks the 2020 election was stolen. There is literally no substantial argument that could make them think otherwise. No amount free speech will fix this. But more free speech where all conspiracy theories freely go or even intentionally fed by the platform will make people even more radicalized and not less.

https://x.com/KyleKulinski/status/1853641364669391214

Are you trying to imply it was a good episode where Rogan hardcore cornered the debate partner of Hancock with completely irrelevant twitter and political and personal beef that were all tangential to the debate proposition?

Thats fine, I think its not impossible to make the argument possibly why you wouldn't necessarily want to include intersex people in women's sports. I do think though, that its not straightforward and requires some reflection on a lot of things ( I personally havent thought deeply about any of these things, so im just going to throw stuff out there) So for instance: Creating a more clear concept and boundary around what it means for someone to have an unfair advantage. Reflecting on the reasoning behind why you would or wouldn't want to maintain seperate categories and then ideally backing it up with empirical evidence (if empirical claims are made) Before arguing about the purpose of dividing sports based on sex, maybe its more easy to argue whether the division between natural and not natural categories should be maintained (or created in some cases) in the firstplace.

Having XY chromosomes is compatible with being intersex. If you think having XY chromosomes is sufficient to be categorized as a man, then its entailed under your definition that a man can give birth.

Having both of these features at the same time seems to be a contradiction on its face (Impermanence, Shape-shifting). There might not be a contradiction entailed, but I need to know what you mean by impermanence first. I don't grant you that being in form necessarily presupposes being bounded by time and therefore necessarily being subject to change. There is no getting around this, you either need to bite the bullet that God could create something like heaven, where no one dies and can be in permanent bliss (unless you can show whats the contradiction entailed by the creation of Heaven or by something similar to heaven where death isn't logically necessary) or you can go with a set of metaphysical constraints that you put on God, but then the big bullet that you need to bite is that the existence of God (as you outined it) is not logically necessary ( which would mean that there are possible worlds that can exist - independent from the existence of God you are talking about ). What you guys always miss and this (includes Leo as well), is that as long as you don't demonstrate or establish why God is logically necessary, you can talk about metaphysics as much as you want, but you guys showing how 1 specific version of metaphysics can explain the world, from that doesn't follow that other types of metaphysics wouldn't be capable to do the same, if not more. This is why if you want to rule out all other possible metaphysical explanations, the way you do that is by spelling out a contradiciton (in this case spelling out such a contradiction thats entailed by all other types of metaphysics except the one you think is true). Obviously this task is incredibly hard if not close to impossible (but this is where real philosophy begins in my view), and this is where all of you guys get completely lost (including Leo) and none of you can successfuly make the argument. The way you get out from this burden is by toning down the confidence in your claims and not claiming that the God you are talking about is logically necessary but only claim that your metaphysics is better compared to other metaphysics (when it comes to a set of theoretical virtues or whatever virtues you want to use to differentiate between different types of metaphysics).

You keep asserting that, but you havent given any supporting argument in favour of it yet. What Im saying is not even remotely controversial. Why couldn't an omnipotent God create a universe with different laws of physics ,where he just spawn humans into existence without any need for evolution or for death to occur? Or if you don't like the concept of an omnipotent God, you can think of it this way: What is the contradiction in saying a universe can exist with humans in it where there is no death? (you pointing out some physical limitation won't be sufficient, because what Im talking about is a logical possibility not physical one, there is no reason to presspose the current laws of physics and there is no contradiction entailed there being universes with different laws of physics)

Creating a Universe without death is compatible with multiple models of God, but it seems it isn't compatible with yours . But God being a system seems to be compatible with a Universe where there is no death. But I would also expect a universe where there is suffering and death being more probable where a non-loving God creates the Universe or where a mindless set of rules creates the Universe and there are other possibilities as well, but generally speaking I wouldn't expect it to be created under a loving God who has the ability not to create it this way.

I would personally be more sad and pissed about missing the opportunity for someone intelligent to actually challenge my views than being worried about me spending time clarifying my framework and terms. There will be probably people on here who can challenge your views in a deep way, but you will probably miss out on it, because you don't want to cuck out with clarifying stuff. But you know , at the end of the day, you do whatever you want, and thats all good.

Do you hold the value to get across the meaning that you want, without others misunderstanding you?

As long as your metaphysics is compatible with clarification, I dont care about any of this. I dont think you are able to spell out why specifying context is impossible on your view. I also don't think you can spell out why would assuming a platonic idea or truth would be necessary for clarification to be possible. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

Im not saying it has nothing to do with it, but what im saying is still true. You could in principle maintain all your views and still engage in clarification. There is a difference between your metapysics constraining and limiting and informing what kind of norms you can engage in and your subjective preferences informing the same. Talking about metaphysics in this case is a big red-herring.