zurew

But relative propositions also have a fact of the matter about them once the additional relative context is provided in the proposition itself. (You can be wrong about relative propositions, once the context is added and they are not knowledge dependently true) The proposition (X) that "person A raped person B" won't change just because the jury doesnt know whats up with that rape case. Its just the case that the jury simply doesnt know what kind of truth value that relative proposition holds (whether it is true or false) , but its still a fact of the matter that the proposition is true. The relative facts surrounding the case is what makes proposition (X )true or false, not someone's knowledge about the case. (Person A raping person B is what makes proposition (X) true, not whether the jury has any knowledge about the case or not). I think you confuse where the proposition is located at with the content of the proposition. Even relative propositions' truth value are dependent on the content of the propositions and they are not dependent on where the propositions are located (it doesnt matter whether you are a platonist or non-platonist about propositions, that is a tangential question to this problem). The only way the location of the given proposition becomes relevant to the truth value of said proposition (whether the proposition is true or false) is if the content of the proposition is about the location itself.

But thats just an epistemic issue not an issue about metaphysics. There can be facts that we will never know about or prove given our epistemic issues, but from that doesnt follow that those facts arent true. Their truth value isn't dependent on our knowledge of them, unless you take it to be the case that all truths are knowledge dependently true. We can list here a large set of facts about physics that werent known by any person on Earth during the ice age, but from that doesnt follow that the laws of physics had to change or that the laws of physics were different back then. Or we can just go with a rape example, where one person rapes another - do you think there isn't any fact of the matter about one person raping another up until the point the jury becomes conscious of the evidence against the rapist? Or do you take it to be the case, that if there cant be sufficient evidence presented against the rapist, the rape just didnt happen?

Some philosophers will agree with you, because they dont buy into this divide. So far my understanding is that its a way to try to differentiate yourself from philosophers who you consider to be bad philosophers (because you take it that they are doing bad philosophy). I agree with you generally speaking (especially about your comment on mysticism), but I dont think that most philosophers who consider themselves as non-analytic philosophers are actually into mysticism or practice being a mystic , so I think most of the criticisms still apply to them (and that criticism largely contains the idea that they lack clarity, sometimes they are conceptually confused and their inferences are bad and or unclear and its not just that they have a hard time explicating their views, but they are sometimes reluctant to do so). I also take it that some mystics could actually and genuinely benefit from studying analytic philosophy, because even though they practice and do stuff, they can still get seemingly quite dogmatic about their views and they necessarily rely on some claims that are justified by not direct experience , but by analytic and conceptual tools (even if they dont want to say it out loud and even if they dont want to admit it). I also dont like most of the criticisms levied at analytic philosophers (that I consider to be low-tier) like the criticism that they make things harder by inventing new terms and by inventing new conceptual , analytic tools and frameworks and new ways of reasoning. Just imagine for a second if the same kind of criticism would be directed at mathematicians "Dude, why the fuck do you guys jerk yourselves off with inventing new symbols and why would you guys obscure things by rules and axioms and why do you make it so hard to count and to model things, and to make sense of equations, when you could just convey everything purely using natural language that a 5 year old could just immediately and perfectly understand? "). Its only when it comes to philosophy, where people have this general tendency that they dont need to learn anything new and they can just jump in and understand most stuff and can just do philosophy on their own - but they intuitively understand that none of that shit flies in any other domain (not in science and not in math, because you need to learn a fuck ton of background info and ways of thinking and conceptual tools). And this is not really about learning stuff in a dogmatic way, but more about learning new tools to gain ability to think more clearly and to think deeper about things. Its cool if you can dig 1 meter deep just by using your natural hands, but its better to use tools to dig deeper, if your goal is to go much deeper and to check whats up deeper down (in my view, there isn't any virtue in with just sticking to your natural hands there and your mind is already filled with all kinds of background info and ways of thinking that you pick up from your culture and you are also born with a bunch of cognitive biases anyway and you not learning about those not gonna make them to go away). The irony is that you need to learn some stuff about 1st principles thinking to get better at it, because people are naturally really bad at it.

There is a lot more more other stuff that I find useful (this is basically my main conceptual toolbox). Some of these are very time-consuming depending on how granular you want to get with your arguments and how many objections you want to handle/prepare against. But this is also not just about arguments, but also about improving one's thinking and actually trying to be less biased in one's position and be more intellectually honest. You can do the archetype stuff that I mentioned , and combine that with other techniques - like with the technique that I will label as collect-explain-snythesize: You can think of it as a scientific project, but in this case this is almost purely conceptual. You start with trying to collect all the avalaible data and facts that is relevant to the case or argument you try to build or that is relevant to the thing or phenomena you want to explain. After that, you can combine that with the archetypes and try to generate at least one explanation/case from the perspective of each archetype - less wordy way to say it , is to say try to steelman each archetype. After that, you can try to build some kind of overarching perspective that takes into account all those steelmaned perspectives (and can maintain some of the positive features of each perspective, and or can also dodge or have a response to the negatives of each perspective) Of course the meaning of 'positive' and 'negative' will be dependent on the goal of the project and what kind of function(s) a given perspective need to play or account for. ----- There is also something that I label as Neighbor Position Stress Test : This is somewhat similar to the archetypes, but different in some relevant ways. The tactic is that when you hold a position, try to generate an indefinite number of other positions that are extremely similar to yours (just a slightly bit different, like imagine a guy who buys into all the premises that you hold, except one or a few) and check how you would argue against them or think about how they would argue with each other. The reason why this is different and important is because this shows you how many independent lines of justification you have for your exact position. For instance, christians do this, where they will argue for a tri-omni God with an atheist, they will appeal to a bunch of things there , because they disagree on so many things (he can appeal to the content of the Bible, he can appeal to general arguments for God, he can appeal to arguments against materialism etc). But if two christians agree on literally everything (lets say except on the resurrection, or except on God being all powerful) - in that case, they will have an extremely hard time to argue for their specific position ,because there its not enough just to establish that God exists or that Jesus did some other miracles or that Christianity is overall true, but you have to argue for one very specific premise without appealing to anything more abstract. ------ There is also the affirm/deny/agnostic frame that you can apply on each premise. You can ask what would I tell to a person who believes in the negation of this premise, and what would I tell to a person who is agnostic on this premise? Arguing with the agnostic is much harder, because there you need to make a case why witholding judgement with respect to that particular premise given all the avalaible info is irrational or absurd. ---- There is also a more abstract tool that I call "Go one level of abstraction higher": After you map out some of the possible disagreements, sometimes you find that you have a hard time arguing and using this tool is one way to find out how those types of disagreements are navigated using other contexts. So the tactic is to find inspiration from other contexts where the exact same type of disagreement is present and then try to grab that and apply that to the context where your disagreement is / will be. So for instance, when it comes to analytic philosophy a bunch of disagreements can be categorized under the realist vs constructivist frame (these two categories dont necessarily exhaust the possibility space and there is sometimes room for other alternative frames ,but we will go with this for now). So if you have a hard time arguing why you are a realist about lets say math, you can take a step back, check how realist arguments are navigated and done when it comes to lets say art or beauty and try to grab a line of argumentation from there and check if it works in your context. A more intuitive example could be researching how you can generally persuade an agnostic person on any given premise and then try to use some of that that to persuade an agnostic when it comes to your specific premise. ---- The other research related tool is just simply checking what possible perspectives and positions can even be taken on the thing that you guys disagree on. This is related to how you can construct your archetypes, because sometimes its unclear how could a given archetype even respond or what position they could even take, if you go deep enough with the disagreements. --- And the last for now will be related to language stuff. Its often the case, that a given term can be used in multiple ways and its easy to make the mistake of equivocation when you construct your arguments. So you can combine this with the collect-explain-snythesize technique, where you dont just collect all the avalaible facts relevant to the argument or case you want to make, but you also collect all or most senses of a given essential term that you use in your arguments and construct an argument using each different sense of the same term (if it is necessary).

You dont necessarily need to argue for it, you can just stay inside their frames and let them explain why they go with certain perspectives over other perspectives and then after that you can lay down your version and frame it as a perspective and then check if they would buy into it or not and if not ask them why not. The only thing you need to establish is some hierarchy of perspectives (you dont need to necessarily establish that there is some kind of top to that hierarchy), and the case that certain perspectives are more inclusive and take more other perspectives into account. Perspectives dont necessarily need to be mutually exclusive, they can be inclusive. You can also remind them that they already take it that certain truths are not perspective dependently true- for instance, the claim that "all or most truths are perspective dependently true" cant be perspective dependently true or if it is, well then you can ask them why they buy into that rather than into the negation of that claim (and then whatever process or epistemology they will describe or appeal to there, you can just use that as a ground to build your case on). But I often times dont like these talks, because its unclear what they mean by perspective and most of the debate is dependent on clarifying that phrase and often times people have a hard time explicating what they even mean by it.

Aside from what already was mentioned, try to learn the basics of analytic philosophy. Especially learn about inferences and how not to jump big in your logic. You need to practice how to walk people through your ideas(train your mind how to handle objections - once you map out the premises you can ask at each premise: what would i say if the person wouldnt buy into this given premise?) and see multiple pathways how to get to your conclusion with more granularity. But yeah just writing down your thoughtprocess and then reflecting on it and checking how easy it is to follow and how easy it is to track what your inference is will train you more than enough. A more advanced move is to try to create an archetype or multiple archetypes in your mind about the type of person you want to write your response to and then try to think about what kind of objections that kind of archetype would bring up and try to get clear about at what level the disagreement will be and think about how to navigate those types of disagreements.

Okay , that makes sense as a personal advice, but i dont see how that responds to this thread. This is the question - If you were the owner of this forum ,then what would you do with respect moderation (if anything) and why would you do that?

Either way, the exact same issue applies to that as well. Not everyone is living from or acting from that empty/silent mind all the time. You need to provide an answer thats applicable to the types of people who are on this forum

Maybe you use a different definition for constructiveness maybe you dont. But look, even if you take it to be the case that being enlightened is the only and necessary way to achieve constructiveness that still doesnt really engage with the question surrounding the rule vs no rule. The reason why is because you need to deal with a bunch of us with here who are not enlightened. So the question is about how can you run a forum where a bunch of people are not enlightened. But I personally dont buy into the premise that enlightened people dont crash out time to time.

Not necessarily, if the definition of constructiveness is cashed out in something purely descriptive and empirical, then there is a fact of the matter about what kind of outcome it generates once it is employed. You are confusing clashing subjective values with how a given particular value can be achieved. The how it can be achieved is not a value question, it is an empirical one. This question about moderation vs no moderation is just simply an empirical question. Your claim that no rule is better for achieving constructiveness than some rules is also just a belief, unless you can show empirically how no rules can achieve the desired outcome better than some rules.

Can you point to something that substantiates that your theory works in pracitce - like a site where there is 0 moderation, but given your standards the discourse quality is better or an example where there was moderation and after it was completely lifted the discourse quality overall got better.

Nah dude your post was definitely indicative of closed mindedness. Im not sure about Leo though. Hold on dude, some people are doing real work here. Godspeed to you, as some would say.

Let me try this untransparent, vague targeted ,insincere way of writing a message ,where you dont tag or name the people who you try to target with your message , but you will make a couple of passive agressive and belittling remarks along the way and if they respond to your message, you can claim that you didnt directly target them. Our skeptic standard allow us to confidently psychoanalyze and confidently make assessments and claims about why others would dare to criticize our "equal" that we praise and run more defense for, than for any of our other "equals" - based on a couple of their posts ,while not knowing any of them (like not even remotely close). Im not sure where the loving charitable attitude and standard applied there, when you need to make those assessment and judgement about others? It seems to be the case, that its only applicable to one special equal of ours and it seems to be the case, that certain equals are less equal than others. But its also the case, we cant be sure about other things that we have orders of magnitude more content avalaible on (like about the obvious fact that Leo is not open minded). Its also the case, that interestingly, we have no substantive disagreement with Leo on spirituality and we are "open minded" to the fact that he might be more awake than anyone else, but when it comes to all of our other "equals" we are infinitely more skeptical and we would never entertain and give the same credence if they would claim the same. In fact, Interestingly, we will endlessly debate everyone who disagrees with this specific equal of ours on spirituality, but we dont have any single substantive line of questioning or debate with this special equal on spirituality. We contemplate the idea that we will leave being a mod , but we dont say a single thing when the unhinged behavior is done by this special equal of ours - in fact, we do the exact opposite, we give a hardcore "dont yell at me 😳 👉👈"message to our biggest equal and then we proceeded to say nothing when the "I could beat you up with a crowbar" claim occurs (in the exact same thread), and we also have nothing to say when our biggest equal bans flowboy and makes his unhinged threat statements. The only single person who had the spine to stand up, speak up and leave being a mod when the unhinged behavior occured was @Ulax. And btw, the unjust insecure childish behavior from Carl was literally just him creating this thread where he linked a couple of Leo's posts from the past.

Appealing to a couple of average guys assessment is more terrible and less reliable even though they dont know any loaded background info about the person and they dont have any emotional attachment to the person who they will consume 5 years of content of and with that will make their assessment about; but a guy who has been a fan of him for years and who has been modding for him for years - that guy is more reliable to make an unbiased and accurate assessment about him. Lets be precise and lets go step by step then - specifically focus on your closed mindedness implications and claims. You said that you dont know Leo well enough to claim that he is closed minded (again you are not sure about a guy who has been consistently claiming for years now that he is the most awake person and the guy who banned multiple people because they disagreed with him on spirituality) and at the same time, you had more confidence in claiming that Carl was more closed minded even though there is much less content avalaible about him and he doesnt have a history claiming to be more awake than everyone in the Universe. Based on one claim your standards allowed you to infer that Carl might be closed minded, but applying the exact same standards you are agnostic about Leo, given all of his past claims and content. Perfectly believable and if you put a couple of more smile faces there it will be even more believable.

1) Because thats one way to check who is actually biased. 2) Because the average person doesnt have a dependent relationship on Leo and has nothing to lose, and you have at the very least your mod status to lose and even your account to lose. What do you think this thread is about? This thread is about showing you how he has been consistently claiming for years that he is more awake than anyone in the universe. Like my dude, you couldnt look any more lost and biased here. I disagree with the standard that you are suggesting that I should apply. This is not about not being compassionate, this is about having a standard that allows you to evaluate situations hopefully in more accurate ways and with that you can make more accurate assessment about somone's character and predict how they will behave and what they will do or not do to you. If I were to consistently apply the standard that you are suggesting there, I would be scammed and fucked over by literally everyone, because it wouldnt allow me to make any assessment about anyone. Demonstrably, you dont take your own advice because you dont use the exact same standard on me and on Carl, so no im sorry but im not interested in playing this game. With regards to the "why are you here then, no one is forcing you to be here" - I enjoy interacting with certain people on here and given that I still have freedom to express my opinion I still do so. Unless you take it to be the case that as long as there is a disagreement that alone is good reason to immediately leave a community and to never engage with them anymore.

Do you take it to be the case that if an average person would to read through all of Leo's posts in the last 5 years, do you think that they would come to the conclusion that you came to, or they would come to the conclusion that I came to about his closed mindedness? Because given your responses, I dont think there is any state of affairs or post that Leo could write or do where your credence about him being closed minded and unhinged as fuck would ever shift if given all of the data you have consumed about him you are still agnostic. I could also put it this way - if you were to read through Leo's posts over again not knowing who wrote those posts, you would definitely not run the defense your are running now. You would say who the fuck is this arrogant closed minded guy? Like the "charitability" and the "skepticism" that you are asking for to maintain your agnosticism about these things is such that you would never ever even entertain when it comes to any single other person.

Hold on, just to spell out and to give others a temperature check how incredibly absurd what you just said there - you are agnostic on the fact, whether Leo is open minded or not, because you dont know him (even though there is more content avalaible about him than about anyone else on here and you have also consumed more content about him, than about anyone else here), and at the same time - you are more sure that Carl is closed minded, even though you know him less and you have consumed much less content about him. You are unsure about the guy, who has been consistently and explicitly claiming in the last 6-8 years of his life, that everyone else is wrong about spirituality and that he is more awake than all other beings in the universe; made claims about what depth others managed to reach (even though he has no direct access to any of their awakenings and to their minds) ; and fucking banned multiple people for disagreeing with him on spirituality. With regards your charitability claim and with regards to the where is the love claim - I dont know dude, where was the love when he said that I could beat you idiots with a crowbar. You are like a pack of degranded dogs lapping up bullshit while eyeing me. and where was the love when he said that he wants to kill the guy for disagreeing with him on spirituality, where was the charitability and love when there is any spiritual disagreement with him on anything? Or was that tough love, because in that case this is just tough love as well.

Do you take it to be the case that Leo is closed minded?

Look I appreciate that, but thats not my main issue. I have some unhinged posts (not as unhinged as what you said, but still unhinged), but thats just one thing. A much bigger issue is being unhinged and then thinking that you were perfectly justified in being that unhinged and then combining that with using a plausible deniability tactic later when pushed on it and reframing things in a way thats dishonest given all the context of a given case. For instance you didnt ban flyboy because you had the wellbeing and the development of others in mind, you banned that person mainly because you were angry and you had an outburst like all people time to time. I don’t think Flyboy did anything particularly exceptional in that thread, that people who strongly disagree with you on spiritual matters don’t usually engage in. You had to edit that post to give a false explanation why you did what you did, and you also had to edit it because you included the sentence "If you try corrupt my teachings, I will fucking kill you". https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/11xndwf/is_this_enlightenment/ You just layed down your rhetorical tactic in front of us in this thread - if an apology is given to strategically avoid drama and not because you genuinely think you engaged in a behavior that you shouldnt have engaged in - then that perfectly explains why you always fall back on a general tendency and it isnt just about your personality, but it is about what you genuinely believe in and about how you see the world and other people. Like you thinking more about "Look I dont give a fuck about any of this human drama shit, can we move the fuck on? Let me think about what behavior should I engage in and what I need to explicitly say and how I should pretend that im sorry, so that I can reach and realize my goals on this forum and avoid drama the most effective way" rather than having an internal dialogue driven by your conscience like "Where did I actually fuck up and did I actually engage in an unfair treatment, do I really think that I fucked up somewhere and if where and how and how can I change that?" As others have already layed down, you seem to have this general tendency in how you approach things and how you think about others and how you seem to look down on others. And the story that you tell about it how thats not the case and how you dont feel superior just simply doesnt match the general tendency that you outplay. You value intelligence a lot, probably the most, given you take it that intelligence is whats needed for understanding and in your model intelligence is just how much consciousness you have. And given that you take it that you had orders of magnitude higher consciousness than any other being in the Universe, you dont even look at yourself as a human anymore and you almost take it like you belong to a completely new and different species. There isnt any single instance where spiritual disagreement with others isn't automatically interpreted by you as them lacking intelligence rather than as them being equal and there being a genuine disagreement or as them offering something that you dont know or lack. Given the lack of behavior change (your natural tendency is to fall back on a particular behavior over and over again even if your skill to consciously overwrite it gets slightly better over time) and how hard it is for you to change that and how you need to exert consciously a lot of power to no want to look at forum users as just some incredibly stupid pigs and rats, it makes me think you do actually deep down think that everyone other than you is just like that. And the reason probably why you say you dont is to strategically and consciously avoid drama and to calm people down when they get offended by not just what you explicitly call them , but by your general treatment of them. For instance, you almost always end almost all disagreements with "You dont understand what im saying, im more awake than you, I wont explain this to you cause you wont get it" etc. All this stuff about behavior change feels more like about being a strategic tactic to do things more effectively to reach and actualize your goals and feels much less about you having a deep conscience driven desire to change because you genuinely think that you fucked up and you genuinely think and belive that other people are not below you. Improving your behavior feels more about improving your ability to actualize and reach your goals, than about having an internal desire to become a better person.

Who is doing the formal pedantic thing now? You know that by "developed" I meant awake. I mean this whole fucking thread was created for the reason because you have been claiming to be the most awake for years now. Explitictly you never said that exact thing, but you did imply it when you had a completely uncontrolled outburst and then framed it as if it was consciously done for the greater good of others. I didnt just invent those plausible deniability moves, if you really want to I can show you when and how you used them, but I dont think its necessary - unless you deny it to be the case. Not just sloppy , you did say some pretty fucking unhinged shit and the reason why it is brought up over and over again, is because you either deny it or you make it seem like its nothing or your brush it off or you make excuses for it. You make it sound like there is some kind of impossibly high standard is suggested here, when it is not.

You need to put the subtitles on, but this fucking guy said "I despise non-analytic philosophy, but I dont want to say that it is all bad , because im sure there were some good nazis" 😂

You make me die from laughter dude, whats your issue with the fucking dinosaurs? 😂

Just to keep this thread alive - Can anyone (who buys into Leo's frame) give a substantive reply to the issue that I brought up there? 1 Main issue is about the credence you can have about your current deepest insight and the second is about what claims you can even make about the mechanism of consciousness if all of those are perspective and depth based. If the claim is that not all of that is depth and perspective based, then the next question is about how do you justify that (at least to yourself) and in that case you just dont buy into Leo's frame. I want people here to track why I say that this problem cannot be solved by more awakening (if you buy into Leo's frame, where you can delude yourself with partial awakenings and where you take it that more depth can completely restructure your depth perception - about how deep a given past insight was and your idea about what is ultimately true). If the claim is that Christians can delude themselves by a given awakening because of the lack of depth (and they lack the ability to percieve how their awakening lacks depth), then you can also delude yourself about your current awakening and about the depth of your current awakening. To my understanding the only way you can dodge this problem is either if you ditch the y axis and say that there is only comprehensive awakening or if you maintain the y axis but you make the claim that there is some end to the y axis where you can have an actual comprehensive awakening, (where the previously mentioned problems wont apply anymore). Or if you take it that there are insights that wont change by more depth and you can be sure which ones wont change by more depth (here you will obviously have a problem with justifying to yourself "how do I know which insight wont change by more depth"). And you gonna obviously have an issue with "how do you know that you had a comprehensive awakening" but at least your frame in these cases will allow you to give a response to the problems I just raised.

Okay, then we dont disagree.

Its not impossible. You can just run the convo periodically again and see how he responds to it. If he responds with something similar to "I am the most awake, and everyone else is still full of shit" then from that you can safely infer that he still holds the exact same attitude and position.