zurew

it means building a worldview from scratch where you collect pieces of knowledge and practices and epistemic and moral norms from everyone and then usually not being able to integrate them together to create a whole system where each part fits together in a comprehensive way. You have pieces of knowledge and practices floating around , but you are completely cluless by what metric or norm you should judge them by and then under what norm you should integrate them together. Because of the experimental nature - you don't know what your mixed bag of things will produce and because of your unique problems and lack of belonging to a community and to a wisdom tradition - you don't know where to find answers to those problems and how to deal with those problems . Thats not the claim. I don't think the disagreement is about "you shouldn't question this set of things", because both approach involve some that (even though actualizers don't like to admit it). As a collector, what you end up doing is essentially rebulding an unintegrated and fractured religion from scratch. You will have certain set of beliefs and methods that you will start with out of necessity (essentially dogmas) and you will have certain (often unjustified and unreflected) moral and epistemic norms that you will judge things by (your progress, the world, yourself etc). Its just that you won't have some of the good things that you would otherwise have from other religions. 1) Sense of belonging and connectedness to a community where they can answer your questions and help you psychologically when you go through tough phases during your journey. 2) The community giving you the necessary context and norms to judge and interpret the teachings and your progress by (because yes, this is new to most actualizers , but you cant just always use your own epistemic and moral norms to judge things by, because sometimes you end up completely misunderstanding things). Also sometimes understanding involves using a non propositional approach as well, where you don't just read stuff, but you actually participate in the tradition.

Very shortly - I don't think this community appreciates deeply enough the things Carl listed there and the pitfalls entailed by the "I will do everything on my own" approach.

Look at the sheep - just wants to uncritically accept all dogmas and not question and contemplate everything , and solve all his psychological and spiritual and meaning and intellectual questions and problems on his own - like how the non-suicidal, non-schizophrenic, non-dogmatic, highly skilled thinkers (actualized.org users/ actualizers) do

Yeah, well, Dawkins is right that its a category-error to ask what was before the big bang. It seems Piers wasn't able to track why. Terms like 'before' and 'after' are both temporal notions and time as we understand it , was created/came into existence at the big-bang. Its equivalent to asking "what was before the existence of time?". Its a nonsense question , because it assigns a property (time) to something that doesn't have that property. The other thing is that there are responses to the fine-tuning argument and nothing really new was said by that Stephen Meyer guy

What bait, you make claims and once you are challenged on them you run away. Don't be a snowflake, you know, you should question reality. You are surely used to not being challenged on your takes and you are surely used to being able to just make accusations and claims freely without being challenged on any of them. You have rambled so much on actualized being a leftist echochamber, but once you are challenged on your claims just a little bit, you are running as far away as you can. It was your time to shine by destroying the libtards and leftist here and showing how they are biased and how that contradicts the meta approach and meta values ,but of course you lack the ability to do so . It seems that there is no room for disagreement with you, because once a person disagrees with you on something you immediately bring out the "you are biased" card without engaging on the substance, and without considering that there is a reasonable room for disagreement there. Go ahead, posture more about you being the clear headed guy who can see through all bias and who can give balanced takes. It will surely give you so much actualized cookies.

Again just as I expected, you have 0 substance to offer, just the empty talk about bias, but nothing specific to give. Whats a meta-take my guy? Do you think you can spell out something useful for once, or you are here to gibberate about things you havent thought about more than 5 minutes in your life? Using actualized word salad and hitting the actualized bingo won't help you, because I will challenge you to actually deliver something which is not incredibly vague. Do you think 'both siding' every issue and not being able to be nuanced is a balanced take? Spell out what it means to give a balanced take, but don't just use "its something that lacks bias", but actually explain what do you think the idea 'more correct' means and then spell out how your take adheres to that. Lets see what you can offer - spell out what meta values you have in mind and how they are different from leftist values and then make a deduction where you show how those values are being violated in this context. This is cute, but I would love a justification for that. If this "meta take" entails something to the quality of "but Hitler drank water as well", then thats not going to be substantive. Would want a justification for this as well.

You dont understand that your argument is weak and it works both ways. I could have claimed that the moderators were biased, but towards Trump, since he was given the extra time to speak and since he had the last say every round. And then you could say, but he was fact checked. And then I would reply with "just because he was fact checked doesnt mean they werent biased towards him". The fact of the matter is that if you want to deal with raw reality and question reality as your name tells you to do so, then you should be intellectually honest first and don't play the centrist enlightened preacher here and acknowledge that there is counter evidence to them being biased. I have seen you trying to play the centrist game here multiple times now, but I havent seen you being able to give nuanced takes about anything - you are just both siding most issues and pretend that they are either closely or equally the same / bad. Thats one thing , the other thing with you guys who preach about bias, is that you almost never point to the meta values that are being violated and in most cases its not even clear how leftist values are incompatible with those meta values. If the sentence "you guys are being biased" is just translated to "you guys are adhering to leftist values", that doesn't really hit hard as a criticism and that doesn't have much substance to it, although it sounds good rhetorically ,because you can sound smart and enlightened while doing so and maybe you can earn some brownie points by actualizers who care about empty rhetoric and virtue signaling.

Are we talking about you going on the bridges podcast or you having a private talk with Destiny? Btw I am curious how DGG-ers will react, given that they like Turkey Tom and Turkey Tom already made a negative video about you.

And, you claimed bias and they gave Trump the last word almost every case. Why do you suddenly talk about her strategy, when this specific thing wasn't about her, but about what the moderators did. Also the thing you are saying there doesn't make any sense, because they could have let him ramble on without giving him the last word in almost every round Which is a made up rule you created. Trump didn't get fact checked on everything. If you want to argue there shouldn't be any fact checking by the moderators in principle - go for it, but if you want to argue bias, you will need to make a seperate argument for that , because so far you had no good response to the times where Trump got almost all the last words in the debate and other than that, the moderators could have gone 100x more harder on Trump if they really wanted to.

Thats why they gave Trump the last word every single round. Also thats why they let Trump to not answer any question in a direct way and to ramble on. You would shout "bias", in a scenario where there are two people - one who shat his pants and gets called out for it, and the other who didn't shit his pants doesn't get called out for the same thing.

It doesn't.

Its perfect to illustrate the absurdity and the entailments of such a position. That was just one thing, but obviously I could have listed a 100 other things that would have been all bullet bitings. He isn't even consistent with it - neither with his morals nor with his epistemology. Obviously he has certain standards for both and he isn't treating other positions on epistemology and on morals as equal. Actually true, that is one of the biggest bullet to bite for him . No, I don't really see it. I have my own concept why bias can be bad, but Im not even sure, whether we have that same concept in mind. Mostly, the word "bias" is just thrown around as a negatively loaded term on here and you can win that label if you disagree with someone on a point they feel strongly about, but can't argue well for it.

Yeah sure - are you neutral on the holocaust?

He just like everyone else - thinks that his standards are better compared to others and that others should apply and use his standards. I don't know why you imply that neutrality is better in principle compared to non-neutrality. Calling others who are transparent about their biases as "internet trolls" is interesting framing , especially given that Lex is not forthcoming about his baises and he is trying to paint himself to be more correct than others since he can pretend he doesn't have the same blindspots as others. Also the negative load from the word 'bias' won't really work there, depending on how deep we want go down regarding values and principles. In fact, not being biased towards certain fundamental epistemic norms and moral values carries much more negative load than actually adhereing to and being biased towards those things.

You might be able to find some those past posts by using wayback machine. http://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/reddit.com/r/plantarfasciitis This is also another option, but this is slow: https://oldweb.today/?browser=op12#20240901000000/https://www.reddit.com/r/PlantarFasciitis/

None of that happened by these influencers. What I am talking about has little to do with Russia and more to do with grifter influencers, who pretend to be patriots. It just happend to be the case that Russia paid these and now you are all up and arms because you want to defend Russia. This is the kind of grifting I am talking about: https://x.com/xgigglypuff/status/1831709850226536801 He is obviously reading a script that he doesn't fully believe in and he is so fake and dramatic about it lmao.

Actually as Destiny said: When a conservative accuse you of doing something, that is basically a confession from them that they did it or doing it. In short, every accusation is a confession. and they and their followers call themselves patriots. Lmao

https://x.com/BoxLoner/status/1832473253933101112

You are confusing people again because you are equivocating between different notions of consciousness. 1) Is about metaphysics 2) Is about what a person became conscious of or is conscious of right now These are different things and if you are not clear about which time you want to use the term with which meaning - you will confuse people.

For sure. Some of these conversations are 100x more harder than they seem (if we want to actually have a substantive one and not one where we pretend that we talk about something profound when we are not) and most of us are not equipped to have these conversations, but a lot of people won't admit that they don't have their semantics figured out regarding a specific topic and they will jump in anyway. And not just semantics but most of the time they havent even thought about what kind of norms should things be judged by given a particular topic, and that will make the whole conversation confusing and gibberish. You know that people havent thought about it more than 1-2 layer deep about a topic when they cant give answers regarding what certain words they use mean. When you start to stumble after 1-2 questions about your semantics thats when you know, that you need to step back and think about what you actually about and clear up your thinking.

Again, you are wrong on this, and Lex disagrees with you, but you won't change your mind because you are viewing everyone on this forum as lesser compared to you and you start with every conversation with you being right by default, without actually making an argument - you are just asserting your opinions. There are multiple episodes when Trump is brought up in a negative way and Lex isn't just letting his guest to talk, he is providing pushback against a lot of points that are negative towards Trump. One is this: This is the Lex who just lets his guests talk , right Leo? https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ea48ot/lex_fridman_being_a_centrist/. Also here is Lex literally disagreeing with your characterization of him just being Larry King: So again, let me reiterate - Lex is characterizing himself as a voice of reason, who provides enough pushback and who can see through the biases of the left and the right and who is a responsible platformer - and he doesn't characterize himself as Larry King. Also your comment about "you got your agenda and cant see beyond it"whats the argument for that Leo? Where did I say that you cant do interviews Larry King's style? What I said was, that if you want to do that you should make that clear and own it in a way where you acknowledge the negatives that comes with that style and also own it in a way where your audience knows that you are just a voice amplifier and you are not there to challenge anyone in any kind of way.

You can take that position, but then you shouldn't complain when people give valid criticism ,because that kind of attitude comes with certain negatives as well - such as what some of us already pointed out - you are just a microphone for bad faith people, who can further their agenda, or can literally spread lies without any pusback. I don't know why you have an issue with people who point that out. Also this bias talk is completely and utterly useless, just address the criticism that is made. You always pivot to the meta, and by that you undermine some of your own points as well. And again you are wrong about Lex being a non-judgemental dude - he doesn't hold himself that way. Again in his mind he is a rational dude who can see the limitations in both sides ,and in his mind he is a person who provides enough pushback. So no, from his pov he isn't just trying to be a platform for everyone, it is just that he is bad at giving pushback. But even if he would truly just trying to be just a microphone the criticisms would still stand. If he would want to be that way, he should own it, that that kind of platforming style will come with certain negatives and no one should pretend otherwise.

Lex is just a microphone for anyone who he is platforming and he usually is never prepared enough to have the ability to provide quality pushback. It seems that people here and in other places as well have a distorted view about what centrism is. It doesn't mean that you pretend that when it comes to all issues that both sides are bad the exact same way and you are incapable for any nuance when it comes to your political analysis. It also doesn't entail being non-judgemental , which btw would be false for Lex, because he is judgemental, but he only holds a standard for the left and not for the right. He multiple times downplayed Trump's actions in the past. Centrist either means having values that would put you roughly in the middle, or it can mean that you have the ability to call out any side that you think should be called out. Lex getting criticism shouldn't be labeled as "radical", because nothing is radical for having the spine to actually push Trump on his bullshit. Providing a platform for the guy before the election without almost any pushback obviously is incredibly irresponsible and pretending otherwise would be dishonest and naive. So lets not pretend that pressing Trump should only be expected from the radical left - Any real conservative should call out Trump , let alone a "centrist". In Lex's mind he is not Larry King, in his mind he is a centrist who calls out both sides for their shit and he provides enough pushback when it is necessary.

I don't think talking about spiral dynamics is relevant or necessary or helpful here. You can make arguments why or how practicality can undermine sensemaking or why it doesn't necessarily undermine sensemaking, without needing to bring in all the unnecessary baggage of SD.

Yeah I can agree with that. I guess we can get into the nuance of how one can lie even if one exclusively use facts (by manipulating the context), but I think thats very different from what the right is doing most of the time. I don't have a well thought out process for how good rhetoric should look like, but right now all I would say is that in practice, it would be something like an information reduction rather than sharing actual falsehoods. So basically providing talking points to a targeted audience, where the audience wouldn't necessarily know all the underlying facts about a given argument, but they could still use the talking points as a justification and if they want to - they can still dive deeper into the facts and the arguments, but the truth value of the talkingpoints would still stay the same.