zurew

Hopefully we do. I was referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity And more specifically referring to stage 15 there , because thats what labeled as cross-paradigmatic.

Can you walk me through the reasoning ,why Meta-Integrative Holistics needs to be categorized as cross-paradigmatic and why it isn't categorized as any other stage?

What kind of new field(s) have you created?

Coming up with actually original ideas and systems of thought is very impressive - if its actually novel. Gibberating and being vague about things and claiming that there is novel substance there, doesnt count though. The problem is that its hard to differentiate sometimes between gibberish ideas and between actually novel ideas. This is a tangent , but generally speaking it seems to me that people sometimes think that being vague about a given idea is necessary or it is an entailment if the idea itself is on an abstract level or if its a big picture idea. Verveake outlined this very well with the following statement "Do not confuse the properties of a theory with the properties of the thing being referred to". In other words, I should (if there is actual substance there ) be able to talk about abstract concepts in a highly detailed way if I am pushed on it and I should be able to point out in a specific way how that given abstract idea is different from other abstract ideas (without gibberating and with actually showing a distinction). The application of rigor and the ability to point out the specific differences are both compatible with abstract ideas and big picture thinking. One can be vague about abstract ideas and concepts , on the other hand one can be specific and detailed and make meaningful arguments and be nuanced and know the relevance of these concepts and ideas. One herusitic to check whether you are gibberating or not: Check whether you are context sensitive (whether you are aware of how your given idea changes and applicable given different contexts and check whether you know how and when your idea is relevant) and check whether you have a clear understanding of what kind of norms your idea can be or should be judged by and lastly check whether you can clearly articulate how your idea is different from other ideas that are highly similar to yours.

I could generate a bunch of bad arguments as well why should Kamala win and why that would change the beliefs of MAGA and Christians. Also your argument doesn't seem to rely much on the premise that Trump needs to win, because the main premise seems to be Trump doing an action that would be considered horrendous by Christians, and that premise is compatible with Trump losing the election (even though I still think that that main premise is stupid in the context of the argument you are trying to make, because it can be explained away very easily to maintain their beliefs).

You are dodging and not really responding to any of my earlier points ( you dodging those, speaks volumes about you not really having a response to any of them and you not being able to concede that you have a bad argument that falls apart). Trump being Antichrist is compatible with being a Christian. But again for the last time, they don't need to categorize him as being Antichrist , him doing bad actions can be explained away multiple ways (1) deny that those things happened, 2) deny that those were committed by Trump 3) Even if Trump did it , he was forced to do those things by bad and evil actors) You had 0 response to my eariler points and you are desperately upholding this very naive and frankly bad argument, where you end up making conditional claims like Trump needs to kill people or that Trump needs to say bad things about Jesus (after winning the election in order to flip christian beliefs) none of which is grounded in reality in any way and none which would change chrisitans beliefs because all of that is compatible with being a Christian.

You have a lot of assumptions and even if we grant all your assumptions your argument still doesn't work. The idea that most Trump supporters consider trump a prophet is an assumption , if you want to claim that the majority thinks this way, then do you have any empirical evidence to support that claim? Even going with the assumption that they think Trump is prophet and further going with the assumption that Trump would do an action that would be considered horrendous by Christians - even going with that, that can still be explained in a way where they can maintain their faith. 1) They can just end up concluding that they were wrong about Trump being a prophet and he was just another puppet by the deepstate and he was used to deceive MAGA. 2) They can just end up concluding that Trump was a false prophet. 3) Trump was forced by evil forces to do that bad thing or to say bad things about Jesus. Christianity is compatible with Trump not being a prophet and also with Trump being a prophet and with Trump being a false prophet and with Trump being a retarded prophet who end up cussing/cursing Jesus. All of those scenarios are compatible with being christian. There are an endless amount of narratives and justifications that could be generated to infinitely uphold the christian faith. Your argument just doesn't work even if I grant all the assumptions that you can't justify.

No its not, it fails - your idea is naive and you lack the imagination how many different ways they can still maintain their beliefs. Do you think the idea of "I believe in the christian God" is incompatible with Trump doing bad things ? 1) They can just say that it was God's plan to use Trump to test how strong they believe in him and this is the real test of their loyalty to God. 2) They can outright reject the idea that Trump did bad things and they can just think that those are actually good things for the country in the end. 3) They can think that Trump was forced by external factors to do those bad things (like by the deepstate or devil or something) 4) They can just use the idea that God gave us free-will and he respects our free will and its on us when we do bad things and its on us to correct sin. These are just 4 ways off the top of my head how to completely dodge the outcome you thought necessarily follows from the premses you laid out. And there are obviously many more other ways (than just four I mentioned) for them to maintain their narrative about God.

Cant tell if you are memeing or not.

I didnt provide a perfectly clear definition for bad intent , I gave a rather vague one, my main point was that if a definition is given then use that definition in a consistent way and dont equivocate or if you want to go with a different semantic then make it clear or use a new label.(This main point applies even if my definition is bad) But to answer - If its an entailment then its much harder to categorize . I need to make my ealier definition more specific and narrow it down in order to answer your question. I would change the definition to "Your main goal is to do damage or to harm someone " then you have bad intent. Given this more narrow definition , I think the answer to your question would be good intent (if the soldiers main goal isn't to harm or to do damage to the other country, but to protect their country).

Sounds like playing a wordgame where you define good intention in a way where there cannot be any bad intention. Which is fine (people can use different definitions for the same given phrase), but the issue is when we pretend that we address a problem that we don't really address - rather what we do is redefine things in a way where we don't even touch upon the original problem. So if I define X as Y and you give a different definition for X and say X is Z and then make an argument - that case you are not really responding to me (you are not really addressing the underlying fact of the matter in question [Y] you are talking about something completely different [Z]). So even though we use the same phrase [X] we talk about substantially different things (I talk about [Y] and you talk about [Z]) Now bringing this abstract thing inside the context of this discussion - If colloquially bad intention is defined something like "having an intent to harm or do damage to someone" and then you or Leo create a different definition for bad intention (for example - an impossible thing) then that isn't really responding to the original question of whether there is at least one person in the world who has an intent to harm or do damage to someone. You would just say that wanting to harm others or do damage to others would be still considered a good intention under your semantics, but under colloquial semantics it would be considered bad intent. So when you or Leo say there is no such thing as bad intent - you are equivocating and using a completely different definition compared to what a normie has in mind and you are not really solving or responding to the bad intent that the normie has in mind. The substance of ( wanting to do harm or do damage to someone ) is true and real under both semantics ,the difference is the label that you put on it. But giving it a different label wont make the substance go away. Be careful not to equivocate and try to respond to the underlying fact of the matter.

That statement can be cashed out in so many ways. I don't know what you mean by truth in that statement. Do you mean metaphysical truth or do you mean a more simpler like not lying about a given thing? Under my semantics power is not incompatible with truth - this is why i am asking what you mean.

What does that mean?

I agree with most of the things you said , but I would make a correction on this one. Logical possibility entails all possibility that doesn't entail a contradiction. This is relevant because, there are much more logically possible things compared to the things we can imagine. This is why we need to be careful when it comes to arguments and proofs to not appeal to incredulity ( to our lack of ability to imagine something being true or false) and to rather appeal to logical proofs where you actually rule out a given logical possibility being true, by showing that it would entail a contradiciton. If there are two sets (set A and set B) . Set A being all the things we can imagine and set B being all logically possible things, then these two sets would have an overlap, but each set would have unique elements to them (things that wouldn't be contained in their intersection) So for example, there might be contradictions that we can imagine being true , and there are things that are logically possible , but we are just not aware of those possibilities or simply lack the ability to imagine those things.

I don't see how that replies to what I asked you. Again, the claim wasn't that non-existence exists or that your non-existence exists , the claim by op was that you don't exist. Do you think the claim that "X doesn't exist" logically entails that "X exists"? To be clear if you just want to say , that the claim of "non-existence exists" entails a contradiction and for us to derive that contradiction we don't need to know the meaning of the word "existence" and "non-existence" - I agree with that.

If by observation you just mean that at some point in your life you had to have some access to qualia , sure I can go with that, although I would be curious if you can make an argument that can actually defend that claim. But regarldess, thats wildly different from claming that in order to form a concept about something you need to go out and observe that thing / object. Like - I have a concept of Mars, but I have never done any kind of empirical investigation or observation about Mars. Do you need to go outside and investigate the world to conclude bachelors are unmarried men, or the truth value of that statement is reliant on the definition of bachelor? Its not like you going outside and doing an investigation in the world will suddenly change the fact from 'bachelors are umarried men' , to 'bachelors are actually married men'. No amount of empirical investigation or observation will change the definition. Other example where you don't need any kind of empirical investigation - logical entailment and using the rules of inference: for instance : P1) All men are mortal P2) Socrates is a man C) Socrates is mortal. The conclusion that Socrates is mortal can be derived using a deductive inference without any kind of empirical investigation about Socrates' mortality or immortality. Seems pretty vague to me. I can parse that question using my concept of rationality, but its not clear at all whether you have the same concept in mind when you use that phrase. But wait, surely you can acknowledge that accepting contradictions in the context of metaphysics is very different from accepting contradiction in the context of justification or in the context of rules of inference.

It does. The claim isn't that non-existence exist, the claim is that certain things don't exist (in this case you). I am curious if you can derive a contradiction from the premise of "you don't exist".

I reject this. Straightforward counter examples - analytic truths and apriori truths. For example: "Bachelors are unmarried men" doesn't require any kind of observation or investigation in the world - it is just true by definition. Most of these questions are hard to answer because they are vague. You would need to clear up what is meant by certain terms like "right" or "valid" or what is meant by "rational" and "more rational" and then after that more fruitful conversation can be had. Yeah, but there you are making claims about metaphysics and most "rationalists" don't really make claims about metaphiscs but make objections in the context of epistemology. Accepting or being open to the idea that contradictions may be a feature of reality is very different from accepting arguments that are inherently contradictory as justificatory or as a valid form of argumentation. But regardless, there are PhD logicians who hold the view that there are true contradictions. Btw , be careful and avoid category errors. Notions like "justify logic or justify justification or ground justification or logic" is meaningless or doesn't make sense under certain semantics.

Yeah and there are other options as well, I just layed out what seems most straightforward to me. Maybe they have completely different morals but they are well intentioned. Maybe there are some other reasons that I can't even comprehend right now. Maybe they are out there they just havent found us yet. Many options are compatible with their existence and with them being good or neutral. I just reject the idea that if they are caring and good that they would prioritize our free-will over our development and well -being . The free will argument is whats brought up in some esoteric texts like the law of one and thats what mostly brought up by new age people who are into this stuff. Channelers like Bashar (if I am not mistaken) says the same thing as well (as far as I understand, and basing it on the limited amount of content I have consumed about this)

The instance of good and caring and non-sociopathic advanced aliens I would expect them to make those changes on us, on the other hand, in the case advanced evil aliens - I would expect them to put us in a simulation, and constantly wiping our memory to the point - where we don't even remember that they fucked with us or fucking with us right now

I don't really buy the "you can't fix stupid" once you have extremely advanced tech. Imagine having access to stuff where your whole psychology is mapped out and you know exactly what each person gets persuaded by and how to change their beliefs and with what arguments and or with what actions and demonstrations. Also having access to knowledge where you can alter a creature's cognition in such a way that you can make it much more intelligent and spiritually inclined and maybe even enlightened. You can also alter human DNA or whatever else necessary in such a way where you 10x or 100x each person's ability to focus , concentrate and to self reflect and to do spiritual practices like yoga meditation contemplation. Once you have extremely advanced tech, you can probably even change our memories and deepest preferences and desires and likes and dislikes.

Whats the argument for why wouldn't mature aliens make obvious contact? The free will arguments seem to be similar to theological arguments when it comes to the problem of evil, but I don't find them persuasive at all. Like why not accelerate our development or why not make us more mature in a faster way? (assuming they have ways to do that)

How do you make sense of DMT entities in terms of metaphysics (I am specifically asking ,whether you would consider them as real as the aliens you are referring to in your above statement)? Btw - do you categorize DMT entities as aliens or do you give them a different label?

Arent you doing equivocation there? If you use a pragmatist definition of truth, then the objection you are mentioning in your sentence there is not really an objection unless you are doing equivocation and you are using a different definition of truth there. Asking this question in your title ( Are things true or just useful fictions) already presuppose a theory of truth and presumably what you are trying to do here (if Im reading you and understanding you correctly) - you are trying to make a case for pragmatist theory of truth. If thats the case, then under pragmatist semantics that question doesn't really make much sense , because under that semantics, things are true in so far as they are useful to a given end. Under different semantics though your question could make more sense, given that under those semantics things being true is different from things being useful.

None of these people will provide you a non-question begging argument that can establish that the hypothesis of (that there is no external world) is more probable compared to the hypothesis that there is an external world. Just as you mentioned - Talking about consciousness isn't enough to make one more probable compared to the other, more work and thinking needs to be done. It would be cool though, if people would lay down what they mean by direct experience and by knowledge, because its not clear at all whether people have the exact same definitions in mind when they use these terms. If knowledge just means justified true belief, then there is a further investigation needs to be done what is meant by justification and then after that we need to investigate whether people accept intuitions or seemings to be justificatory or whether people only accept inferences to be justificatory. If knowledge used as " a proposition that you cannot be wrong about" or " a proposition that is true in all possible worlds (or in other words , it is logically necessary) " then the discussion will be vastly different compared to the other definition of knowledge.