Carl-Richard

Thank you ? The understanding of the lower levels is required in order to perform the operations in the lower levels, so in this sense, the higher tasks always involve the lower tasks, but maybe more in an implicit way rather than explicitly. The hierarchical structure means that you can start at a higher operation and trace it all the way down to the first level. I'll try: Cross-paradigmatic (14) : Crossing two different paradigms (e.g. evolution and economics) means seeing how they interact, e.g. the competition between market strategies fulfilling the conditions for adaptive evolution. Paradigmatic (13): To see how they interact, you must have a basic understanding of both paradigms (evolution and economics). That means you need to have an understanding of specific aspects of each paradigm (or the relationships between different metasystems): e.g. in evolution, you have the relationship between reproduction and different selection mechanisms; or in economics, you have the relationship between scarcity and supply and demand. Metasystematic (12): There are different systems under each of those. For example, for reproduction and selection, you have assortative mating and directional selection respectively (let's stick to evolutionary theory for now). Systematic (11): Examples of systems within those metasystems could be inbreeding and splitting selection respectively. Formal (10): To understand these systems, you have to commensurate synthetical statements (empirical observations) and analytical statements (logical facts), formulate hypotheses and make logical deductions, a.k.a the scientific method (or "the hypothetico-deductive method"). Let's take inbreeding as an example: "if individuals in a population with a shared ancestry mate with each other, they're practicing inbreeding. Me and my cousin are related and are mating, therefore we're practicing inbreeding". Abstract (9): To perform these operations, you must be able to form variables and quantify propositions, e.g. analytical statements ("inbreeding is when individuals in a population with a shared ancestry mate"), or synthetical statements ("me and my cousin are related and are mating.") Concrete (8): That requires the ability to understand complex interactions, plans, deals e.g. "me and my cousin mate every sunday, because that seems like a good time with respect to our responsibilities". Primary (7): This requires an understanding of times, places, actions, e.g. "me and my cousin mate every sunday, because that is when our parents are gone". Preoperational (6): This implies "when, then, why etc.". e.g. "me and my cousin mate every sunday, because it's fun". Sentential (5): "me and my cousin mate every sunday". I think I've made my point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity It's one of the few Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development. It seems useful framework for understanding how big-picture thinking relates to ordinary ways of thinking (holistic vs analytic thinking), concepts like construct awareness, context awareness. It's a spiraling model like SD ("transcend-include", integration). When people say things like "why don't actual scientists see the links between mysticism and quantum mechanics?", you can clearly see here that it's sufficient for a scientist to operate from the lower stages most of the time (1-10). One the other hand, taking one field (Quantum Mechanics) and seeing the connections to another field (mysticism) initiates cross-paradigmatic operations (stage 14). When that is said, just because an operation is at a lower hierarchical complexity doesn't mean it's not complicated or difficult work. It's precisely why they don't have time to think about the big picture, because it might cost them their job. That's why most scientists are technicians and not innovators. Being a career scientist (staying within your paradigm) is not the same as being a revolutionary scientist (initiating paradigm shifts). The physicist Lawrence Krauss once said "physicists feel sorry for the social scientists, because physics is simple and social systems are complex". What more do I have to say?

Just a correction: I did watch the video of Professor Dave in its entirety. You might've misread what I wrote. I recently made a thread about a model that is useful for understanding construct awareness. I used this exact topic as a way to demonstrate the different levels of the model, so I highly recommend reading it (that and the video underneath about Lagrangian mechanics) What is accepted by society is to eat carcinogenic foods, drink toxic chemicals (alcohol), and watch the same news channel every day. It's obvious that this work is not going to resonate with that. This goes back to how to approach sensemaking: do you intend to think your own thoughts or not? Of course you're always going to rely on other people's thoughts, but intention is key. The intention is that you want to understand; you. When something resonates, there is a feeling of understanding rather than confusion. It happens when you have an internal framework that is able to accommodate what is being presented. That framework can be based on things like logic (rationality), or it can be based on thing like experience (personal empiricism). You've accurately pinpointed the problem, which is that the teachings have a lot more to do with experience rather than logic (although they might overlap from time to time), so the correct solution is to grab that experience. That might not be possible from someone like Professor Dave who is stuck on rationality, but there the solution is development.

It's not a complete representation of the phenomena. It's a visualization for the means of deconstructing falsehood and point to truth. Truth can never be represented. It can only be presented.

Every distinction can be deconstucted.

The thing is that not all communication involves sound or intentional signals. Like the communication theorist Paul Watzlawick once said: "you cannot not communicate." Communication and sharing of thoughts happens in a shared environment, and it can be broad and subtle. The environment also isn't limited to a specific locality in space and time. It stretches across past and present (past events, interactions, interpretations, thoughts; general behavior patterns). This is why telepathy tends to occur more easily among relatives and close friends, because they're more behaviorally locked in to eachother. If you have strong empathic abilities (the ability to "see the other"), the amount of information you can gather from perceiving behavioral patterns increases. That is how a guru can simply look you in the eyes and know your past, present and future. Spirituality increases telepathy because it dissolves the boundaries between self and other.

You might want to watch this: 00:22:35 Chris Langan, the CTMU, and Distributed Solipsism

If we're going to have yet another covid debate thread, please keep it civil. No personal attacks.

The mistake materialists make is that they think telepathic abilities have to be equal to moving your fingers or taking a leak. It's more like seeing a squirrel or meeting an old friend. Besides, reading thoughts doesn't require an ethereal transfer of information from one head to the next. All you need is empathic awareness of the other and a similar internal framework ("what would I think in her situation?") Many thoughts arise more or less dependently on the environment. In communication between two or more people, the environment is shared. It's not so wild that thoughts can be shared as well. In fact, that is what communication is about: acknowledging your shared experience.

Every rockstar in history.

Systems theory (relationships, feedback loops, externalized costs), cross-paradigmatic operations (evolutionary theory x economics x policy) and focus on sustainability across different domains.

58:14 - 1:07:42

Growth. If it happened in aliens, it can happen in humans.

At least I'm not alone in feeling this way

27. Criticizes itself constantly

Speaking of the vatican, you should change your name to St. Peter Jordanson

Yes it is.

Ah, so it's a normie trait. Got it!

Fancy Death Metal?

We don't discuss the particulars around obtaining drugs on this forum (drug sourcing). You can talk about practices around safe use, but no detailed information about how to acquire illegal substances (buying practices, sites, extraction methods or growing kits). Please read the forum guidelines : https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/

When you say experience, I understand that as Absolute Truth. Relative truth is thought.

Case in point

Integrating all aspects of yourself.

The truth is not in the communication. Communication is a means to an end; utilitarian. Truth is existential. Truth cannot be spoken. Speech is noise, Truth is silence. If there was any intention behind the communication, it was to put an end to it

Opeth is unmatched in its versatility and creativity: