Carl-Richard

What a weird synchronicity. Yesterday, right after I turned down your Tarot reading (because "fortune tellers spook me out"), I was watching this video where they were suddenly talking about synchronicities, and one of the guys started telling a story about a spooky synchronicity that involved a Tarot reading So maybe my apprehension was highly intuitive 1:31:09 - 1:36:13

I recently watched Bernardo Kastrup touch on this topic (one's relationship to good and evil) which you might find interesting: 37:25 - 51:45

My best ideas tend to be a synthesis of my core values, of what I consider maximally meaningful. My mind is less prone to sporadic brainstorming nowadays. (Systems thinking is of course not my idea, but the visualizations and neologisms came mostly from my own mind).

Nice! One day I'll post my 9 year all natty transformation, both muscles and hairline ?

I probably had something resembling GAD in my high school years. My way out was a spiritual awakening spurred on by meditation. I couldn't recommend anything else.

Very random, but Bernardo Kastrup's wife after taking psychedelics

Welcome! Idk, fortune tellers spook me out

@Scholar I was mostly talking about how intuitive ideas themselves are inherently difficult to express in words, in the sense that anybody would have problems expressing them. You seem to be talking more about a thinking process that is specific to intuitives, which probably has some truth to it as well.

No. Excessive, compulsive and recursive self-criticism can be.

@charlie cho I don't think the most brilliant logicians you can think of ever spent their time doing practices to better their logical reasoning specifically, just like a climber doesn't just do finger crunches all day. In life, logic tends to be a subset of a larger process.

I generally don't believe in reductionistic approaches when it comes to bettering yourself in broad and overarching aspects such as logical reasoning (I'm more "learning by doing"/"practice makes perfect"), but also in this case, learning some philosophy wouldn't hurt.

Well, the raw predictive utility of such science isn't lost just because of its metaphysical packaging. Science works. It's just that the way we talk about it is different (while also adding or omitting some additional conclusions, but again, not in a way that fundamentally negates the science).

Yeah. Bernardo talks about how Whitehead presents alternative descriptions of known phenomenas through neologisms more so than a framework of explanations that links different concepts with previously known phenomena (i.e. "reductionism": explaining one thing in terms of a simpler or more understood thing). That is for example one of the appeals of Analytic idealism in that it provides an explanation of the decombination of universal consciousness into seemingly separate points of view by referring to the empirically verifiable phenomena of DID or dissociation.

That's called being an intuitive thinker. Imo, masterfully expressing intuitive ideas is mostly a matter of repetition, not necessarily about increasing raw memory capacity. I have a friend with a nearly photographic memory who is not very verbally sophisticated at all. It's more like a delicate process of articulation than a retrieve-from-storage type deal. It's dynamic and recursive. It's also more about how you make the pieces fit, not necessarily which pieces you use (structure over content). In a way, verbal expression is a kind of feminine thing, like a dance (however cliché that sounds). You have to give yourself up to it, but also not too much that you lose balance, or else you'll become a poet, or even worse – word salad. Terrence McKenna comes to mind as somebody who likes to float a bit over on the poetic side, such that it becomes almost more about the aesthetics than the ideas (which is actually a symptom of mania in bipolar disorder; "clanging"). So maybe that's a place where you want to take a modicum of inspiration from, however limited that may be (genius and madness are indeed related) That happens to me all the time

Whenever I meet a genuine intuitive, I'm afraid I'll scare them from how crazy I am

>:D

If you ever meet me irl, I'll battle you on how little we'll talk >:) or tbh I can't keep my mouth shut around intuitives so nvm ?

?Whaaat but I'm so not extroverted lol

Simmer down, people ?

No. There are so many options out there. I think extroversion as a trait, at least as conceived by laymen, is mostly defined relative to the general population, which would probably create a 50/50 split of intro/extrovert, but don't quote me on that No. Idk. Functionally speaking, yes, but things like agreeableness, conscientiousness and stress tolerance are probably more important.

Yeah, like trauma. I don't know why you pulled the meditation card

Loool don't worry If you're talking about developmental-psychological stage theories and their rampant empirical WEIRD-bias, then you have a point. That said, it's not necessary to project a normative conception of progress onto the core of these models, which is fundamentally about describing the movement from lower to higher complexity. It's perfectly possible to have a highly complex civilization that buckles under its own weight, which could compel you to associate complexity with decay. Well, although science cannot settle metaphysical questions, if your metaphysics is in conflict with the existing science (and you care about science), it's a problem.

It might be because these eschatological visions don't have much in the way of empirical evidence (historical or experimental), meanwhile the structural stage theory of SD and related theories do have some. Remember that Wilber's synthesis is not merely about theology or ontology, but also science.

Conversation between Analytical Idealism and Process-Relational metaphysics. Yup, Whitehead makes my head implode. Man what a time we're living in that we can listen to these galaxy-brained individuals causally drop nukes of wisdom on your head for free.

I think you're expecting a bit much of the model in terms of what specific things it can tell you. It's not a very specific model. It gives a very broad and general overview, and you lose some details in the process (there's a trade-off in choosing a particular level of analysis; specificity vs. generalizability). Its purpose is metatheoretical in that it places already very wide categories into an even wider context. Eschatology seems to be a rather narrow category in this context.