• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About limitedunderstanding

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Location
    European Union
  • Gender
  1. Oh well. I think that settles it in the sense that I understand your perspective and you declared that you have no intention of changing it. I have the time to continue this conversaton if you think there is a point, by from my part, I don't see any.
  2. I meant "men" as opposed to "women". Are we even talking about the same thing? [BTW I think you quoted the wrong section]
  3. Yes. Hence, "all humans alive today" is a holon. But none of that disturbance or lack thereof is internal to "men". But this is very tangential to my point. This can be true, but you are wrong. You aren't wrong by having a false belief. How do I put this... There is a frame in which the four-element set containing this hydrogen atom on my fingertips, my pet unicorn, the color yellow and the set of all sets not contained in themselves forms a holon. But you can't apply holonic theory from that frame. Even just talking about holons implies a frame in which holons aren't relative. (Of course, this last sentence isn't true from the relativistic frame either. There is nothing whithin the relativistic frame that forces you not to continue to be stuck in it.) But even that is tangential. These are just examples. I believe that you have a tendency to jump to relativity. I think that this is a bias you have and that this might be holding you back. I can't prove this to you, of course. I do care whether you realize something here or not - but I don't care about defending my points, unless I think it's productive. It's getting very close to the point where that stops being likely.
  4. My understanding of JBP's understanding of good is that it isn't a human ego, or an ego that exists. More like an idea, in the Platonic sense, of what the collective ego of Life could be. This is totally my interpretation with a pinch of anthropomorphizing, but one framing is that "God" is what the collective ego is longing to self-transcend into. (There's a reason I write "God" as opposed to God. He isn't talking about the (no-)thing for which you use the word God.) By "men", do you mean all men who have ever lived and will ever live, or men alive right now? If the former, then I just misunderstood; that is a holon. A holon does not require physical contact, but it does require some sort of internal interaction that enables or constrains it's own state (be it based on causal interaction or acausal trades or whatever weird shit). Men currently alive in uncontacted tribes don't enable or constrain anything about my life. No, their gravitational pull doesn't constrain me, especially not in a way it doesn't constrain women just the same.
  5. So, just to clear things up before people start assuming things. I'm not a JBP "fan". I haven't read his books. I do listen to a small fraction of his conversations. I've watched more than half of Leo's videos, and I think they are valuable. My criticism below is in good faith, and I'm trying to be constructive. So, with that out of the way... I don't think Leo quite understands how JBP frames the world. I'll try to illustrate through one example. In the video, he says: Jordan Peterson most certainly wouldn't say that value and meaning are relative, and you can choose whatever you want as your god because everything is basically the same. Because, you know, he isn't at the postmodern stage. In his conversation with, I believe it was Bishop Barren, he explains what he means by God. Identity is layered, he says. So if you're asked "what are you doing right now?", you can answer "I'm moving my hand", or "I'm moving the pen by moving my hand", or "I'm leaving ink on the paper by moving the pen by moving my hand", or, skipping a few steps, you could say "I'm trying to slow down climate change by encouraging people to take action by educating them about climate change by completing a book by writing these sentences by writing these letters by leaving ink on the paper by moving the pen by moving my hand". These layers of justifications keep expanding in scope, always including the layer below as a part. At some point, he would argue, you will hit a point where you can't continue justifying. This is when you reach something like "good" or "happiness" or whatever. That is what he calls "God". He would also argue that this "God" thing is universal. (So people end up acting differently because their lines of justifications diverge due to differences in beliefs, I assume, not because they have a different "God" at the top.) And this "God" is objectively true, in the sense that it has the property that evolution of any social cooperative structure, human or otherwise, will naturally tend towards this point in the game-theoretical landscape. (So as far as I can tell here he makes a bold claim: that this attractor in game theory, fundamentally mathematical in nature, and the top-layer identity, fundamentally psychological, are two aspects of the same one thing.) Yeah, not exactly stage blue. But I think this is one if not the most important point he's trying to make: that there is value in the universe, in the objective sense. Leo's interpretation is the exact opposite: that value is whatever you assign value to. As a side note, this isn't the only case of Leo making this very error. In one of the videos about holistic thinking, he claims that a holon can be anything you want. Which I think is wrong. "Men", in particular, an example given by him, is not a holon. Now, there are possible world-states where "men" is a holon. But in our world, as a very obvious example, there are men living in uncontacted tribes in the jungle. Virtually no aspect of "men" is regulated internally to "men". Yes, "men" are gravitationally attracted to each other and whatnot, but none of that is internal to "men". I'm going to stop here for now, but these examples are no mere nitpicking. I'm using these examples to try to point to a more abstract, more general bias in Leo's thinking.