Carl-Richard

Want to blow your mind even more? Psychedelics decrease net brain activity.

Like with most things, it's the extremes that are problematic. You have little to worry about unless you're a professional athlete or completely sedentary.

Nothing wrong about having ambitions (you just need to find the right ones for you). It keeps your senses sharpened, you get to apply yourself and do meaningful things. Maybe you even get to tap into your deepest potential (what you were "born to do") and experience flow states. Of course, it all has to be grounded in the sober ground of being, but removing one or the other will most likely leave you incomplete. Intrinsic joy is found in the marriage of meaning and being.

So you have no problems with non-duality as a philosophy, only the people who talk about it?

Which philosophy do you feel is being misconstrued?

whY nOt bOth? ?

Use the force

Hehe. I've kinda taken the path of "surrender" in the sense that I see debating and passionately sharing one's opinions as something one just does as a human, and that I neither hate myself or others for doing it. I just try to keep it as civil as possible, and also that when it does get heated, I'm not surprised or demoralized by it (like "why are humans like this???"). It's like every time I get the thought "oh well, this is just ego", I'm like "duh!"

@Michael569 I considered locking the thread earlier, but you beat me to it It doesn't work as well when you're not also blocking her (it's not mutual blocking), but again, it's not an effective solution. It's about pragmatics: making people less likely to get into conflict. It doesn't stop people talking about you, but it stops people talking to you. It might seem stupid right now, but I think if we tried it out, it would have more positive effects over time. However, I'm not sure how to know for certain when somebody is blocking somebody or not

Yes. Metamodernity is when postmodernity re-integrates some of the aspects of modernity (progress, meta-narratives etc.), more specifically a metatheoretical/systems/biopsychosocial evolutionary lens. It says that we have to work with the natural impetus of evolutionary systems and not against them. Examples are Game B, Spiral Dynamics, Integral Theory and Nordic metamodernism. You get ideas like radical inclusivity/pluralism ("don't hate the hateful"), "transcend and include", "don't abolish modern society/technology and escape to nature; marry them!" You get increasingly more useful models/fictions for addressing the survival challenges that you've defined as important. An example is again zooming out and seeing the relationship between biological, psychological, societal and evolutionary factors. The postmodern critique helps to keep that within the pragmatic frame, rather than making hasty conclusions of universality or objectivity (e.g. "my model applies to everything/everyone" or "my model is not merely an useful fiction; it's absolute truth"). True objectivity lies outside all relative contexts and constructs (the transcendent, the formless, the absolute, God etc.), so in that sense, there is a way out (mysticism), but it's generally not a good survival strategy on its own. If you care about survival, the intellect (rationality, science, morality etc.) and its relative biases should not (and cannot) be abandoned, as survival is inherently a type of bias. Mysticism that outright denies intellect leads to naive skepticism and nihilism, loss of order, direction, purpose etc. For the sake of functionality, being (the East) must be married with meaning (the West).

It still has its place in a dialectic between deconstruction and construction, which is how metamodernity and beyond keeps itself sober. There is otherwise a danger of thinking that zooming out through levels of analysis is a way towards true objectivity. The postmodern impulse will then correct course and say: despite how meta one's worldview appears to be, it's still mediated by context&construct.

@Loba @Preety_India Anybody fancy some coerced mutual blocking? Pros and cons?

If you see something that is against the guidelines, report the person. You want to revolutionize moderation? Write your own thread or debunk mine.

Ask them personally whether they think that.

Postmodernism is an important part of context & construct awareness.

It's a definition of God that emphasises "the logos", and he probably thought mathematics was the purest or most fundamental version of it, or the most sacred symbol of God.

Points are the problem

@Preety_India No matter how many points anyone makes about the specifics, it only provides additional confirmation to my understanding that it's a systemic problem, and the solution will remain in accordance with that.

?!

It's quite obvious that it's environmentally caused, or that the individuals and the environment are entangled. It's the first point of my "thesis" here (1.1), namely that it's generally not a simple problem caused by one individual or one action (linear causality), but rather a complex systemic problem (cyclical causality). On the other hand, my solution, is actually an individual one, but as a result of acknowledging the systemic factors: it's up to the individuals themselves to make the change that they desire every time they click the report button, which is to block or stop reading journals of people they don't like, stop contributing to the mess. The solution is individual responsibility because the moderators are supposed to deal with simple problems with linear causality as defined by the guidelines, something which minimizes ambiguity and bias, and preserves the trust of the moderators. We're not family therapy counselors. All we can really do in this context is provide encouragement, which was the purpose of this thread. Although, maybe in the future, I'll consider enforcing mutual blocking using warning points on a case-by-case basis, which is also commensurate with the systemic problems: avoiding individual solution => perpetuation of collective problem => collective punishment / coerced individual solution. I'll have to contemplate how authoritarian that truly is.

Is their behavior also environmentally caused?

The Piagetian correlate to Stage Blue.

They're not gone forever. Emotions. Let me correct you again. Actually, let me not. HEY

??

I'm way too privileged to even comment on that ?