Carl-Richard

@Nilsi Some things can be described as arborescent and others as rhizomic, or sometimes you can describe the same thing in both ways. I don't see much of a problem. If you are to describe something, you have to describe it in some way. As long as what you do is compelled by your sense, that is what matters. You can choose to view the evolution of the universe as having nothing to do with levels or sequences. You're free to do that. This is why I think pragmatism is the ultimate worldview ;P

My point with this thread is that personal development needs intellect

That belongs in the spirituality section

That shows the dangers of spiritual bypassing. Spiritual bypassing is an example of when "transcend" gets imbalanced, repressing the "include".

True. It's at least more whole than not integrating anything, or not trying to do so. It's a bit like how most forms of psychotherapy seem to work, largely irrespective of the particular tradition. Merely attempting to build an alliance and looking inward in a systematic way seems to be better than not doing so. So merely attempting to produce a worldview that makes sense of the world, that creates a sense of coherence and structure to the world, is better than not doing it. So even nazism is in a sense better than nothing. Whether nazism is better than anything else is of course more subjective. That said, I think there are arguments to be made against nazism along the lines of the type of holism proposed here (which is grounded in perennial wisdom and therefore has cross-cultural value and thus a level of "inter-subjectivity", aspiring to objectivity), in the sense that building your society on scapegoating, hate and repression is neurotic and thus dysfunctional (maybe I'm strawmanning nazism as an ideology and ignoring their proposed utopia given that their project would've succeeded, but this is at least the historical basis of its existence). Such emotional expressions are appropriate as stress responses (short-lasting states that occur when a system is strained and trying to re-establish a functional baseline), but it shouldn't be the baseline existence (unless you prefer existing in a state of stress). Seems fun. Do it

This is something for example Jordan Peterson has commented on as well, but I recently came across a really interesting example of this from a scene in Ice Age 3. It blends bonfire stories (deeply archetypal), the hero archetype and curiously our evolutionary past as small mammals having to survive the age of the dinosaurs (obviously deeply archetypal) into an extremely captivating and clever scene that touches you somewhere deep. You could imagine that seeing this scene awakens some deep-seated memories from our mammalian ancestors. Also, nothing beats adult jokes in children movies Feel free to post any examples of archetypes in children's movies that spring to mind (or point out any archetypes that I missed from the clip above). I think children's movies that use wild animals as main characters (like Ice Age) are more likely to display this extensive use of archetypes.

That and a lack of moral reasoning that would counter such a position We can rise above our mere instincts 😇

@Yimpa Looks like a ladder.

Evolutionarily mismatched environments, activities and things

I guess you only read the title.

I'm arguing it's bad if you value human beings, and most likely, you do value human beings, just a limited selection, which is an arbitrary selection as you would probably have trouble drawing a definitive line (as demonstrated by the thought experiment). That is really what I mean by "a principled stance"; some principle by which you can establish a definitive standard for justifying your behavior.

Liv Boeree is 🥰

Work?

Ego is identification. Personality is behavior.

It's a term that tends to pop up once the status quo gets challenged (by a competing paradigm), or more curiously when the status quo challenges itself (inside its own paradigm). An example of the former is research on psychic phenomena, and an example of the latter is singling out the causes of the replication crisis. It can pertain to how we should do science in a particular field (e.g. using null hypothesis testing or Bayesian analysis, using survey data or direct observations), or which fields we can consider scientific (e.g. psychology, medicine, physics). There have been many classical attempts by philosophers of science to provide a clear demarcation criterion (what is science vs. pseudoscience), but today, many things we consider science seem to reliably fall outside those criteria, for example the criteria of falsification (Karl Popper), verification (logical positivists) or generating novel predictions (Imre Lakatos).

You need a group therapy session with Leo. I'm only half-joking.

Can you think one thought without invoking neuropharmacology? Thank you 😂

Wikipedia

If you never buy anything expensive, that is cheapness.

One man's Green is another man's Red 😆

It's not really that they have a more accurate sense of reality. It's that they have a different sense of reality than you, and they share this sense to some extent, which makes it seem like it's "Reality". There are probably things you are aware of which they aren't and which affect them in ways which they are not aware of. In that sense, you have a more accurate sense of reality than them. In a sense, it's like this for all people; we all have different perspectives unique to ourselves, which is one reason why you should be skeptical of other people's views, but you shouldn't completely disregard them either. You should learn from them, like you're doing now. You've so far focused on your lacks due to this new knowledge, but I'm telling you it's possible to focus on your strengths and positive sides as well.

Bro, if you disable watch history, you don't escape the algorithm. You get the normie algorithm 😭 Eliminating all entertainment from your life is going overboard. You eliminate Shorts because they are so undeniably garbage on so many levels.

Do it.

Astonishing person, astonishing speech. Other than having co-written and co-directed The Matrix Trilogy with her sister, she is an early trans activist who gives a detailed insight into the struggles that are possible with gender identity and how it interracts with questions around anonymity and privacy when entering the limelight. The message also applies more broadly to life. That part of the speech is actually the most inspiring and insightful. I just said "wow, wow, wow". And the way it's written, paced and delivered is just very good.

I've grown up with an irrational cheapness mindset forced upon me, and it took a while before I realized "but I'm supposed to save money to live life, no? What about living life?". Of course, that is not me being reckless and spending all my money. It's me taking careful steps to assess the places where my cheapness is indeed irrational and where I can open myself up to actually enjoying the life that the cheapness is supposed to serve. Maybe you can inspire a similar process in him (if he indeed considers himself a rational person). For example: I eat eggs everyday: should I buy the cheapest eggs or should I invest in something that I eat every day and choose the option that is better for my health (and probably tastes better)? For me, I buy the best eggs. I live in a small city by international standards: should I walk to class, to the store, to the gym and spend maybe 1-2 hours on that every day or should I invest in a city el-scooter membership where I cut down that time to maybe 15-25 minutes and use that spare time on studying and getting better grades? I pick the scooter membership. If I was really stingy, I would buy my own scooter, but there are practical downsides to that (charging, theft, breakage, parking, carrying). Simplifying practicalities can be a huge time saver, money saver and mental health saver in the long run. Even practicalities aside, do I want to live a life where I by principle deny myself access to the newest technological inventions and all the functional perks and aesthetic experiences that come with them (even if they don't improve my life in a strict productivity sense, which is highly unlikely, but let's assume that)? Probably not. Now, what do I not do? I don't buy new clothes unless my old ones need to be replaced (which is a highly limited and basic selection, not Leo level though with the same black/white shirt ), same with my phone, my computer or other technological gadgets. But when I do need to replace those things, I will buy close to the best I can buy (more so for technology than clothes), which goes back to the previous paragraph. As for engaging in things that might seem expensive to some (like an el-scooter membership), I do factor in other aspects of my budget where I'm less expensive than most people: I don't buy fast food, snacks or drinks, I don't eat out often, I don't go out or party often (and when I do, I don't buy anything because I don't drink and I always eat beforehand), I don't travel often, I don't gamble, I don't take drugs (I used to, which is expensive as fuck), not even caffeine (no coffee, tea, redbulls), and I'm generally not a materialistic person (I generally don't buy "things"). It's good to develop a sense of the whole picture. All in all, the way to counter irrational cheapness is by consciously examining places where your cheapness is counterproductive to your life.