Daniel Schmachtenberger & Bret Weinstein

[peqkno]

On 2/20/2021 at 4:55 AM, Leo Gura said:

There is still too much attachment to science in him. He does not understand how deeply wrong the science paradigm is. It's utterly, foundationally wrong to the point of not being fixable. You cannot use science to understand the core of reality.

Something like evolution does not even exist. It's just a figment of his imagination.

Maybe get Daniel for your discussion for the Science Deconstruction series.

(Yet again, ... you may find better candidates, dunno your ideal requirements.)

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, peqkno said:

Maybe get Daniel for your discussion for the Science Deconstruction series.

(Yet again, ... you may find better candidates, dunno your ideal requirements.)

He would probably agree with that whole series. We have a very similar understanding of epistemology. It's just that his metaphysics is lacking.

Daniel is the only guy I've seen who has as deep an understanding of epistemology as me. But his still cannot reach all the way because to finally understand epistemology one must realize that epistemology = metaphysics.

[Hello from Russia]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He would probably agree with that whole series. We have a very similar understanding of epistemology. It's just that his metaphysics is lacking.

Daniel is the only guy I've seen who has as deep an understanding of epistemology as me. But his still cannot reach all the way because to finally understand epistemology one must realize that epistemology = metaphysics.

@Leo Gura Do you have any tips on how to study epistemology? Is direct contemplation the best or there are some actually good books on it? or maybe some good technique you could recommend? Been reading some academic philosophy books on a subject but to be honest your take on it feels much deeper than those books

Edited February 21, 2021 by Hello from Russia

[aurum]

On 2/19/2021 at 5:17 PM, tuckerwphotography said:

@Space I feel similarly about Charles Eisenstein. He's a bit more of a Green/Yellow thinker, so he often writes and speaks more from the heart, but I often wonder/ponder what his reality would be like with a few more blasts of mystical awakenings under his belt. Perhaps both him and Daniel, and others like them, will get there in the coming years. Can't wait to see how they evolve, and how (hopefully) humanity and myself evolves with them  

Yeah I love Charles, his social commentary is off the charts. And he hints at deeper spiritual truths, like at the end of The More Beautiful World. But it would be fascinating to see how his perspective would change at even higher levels of consciousness.

[tuckerwphotography]

4 hours ago, aurum said:

Yeah I love Charles, his social commentary is off the charts. And he hints at deeper spiritual truths, like at the end of The More Beautiful World. But it would be fascinating to see how his perspective would change at even higher levels of consciousness.

Charles seems to be pushing a more and more Green-centric agenda lately. I feel as if his writings and essays have become somewhat radicalized since COVID. I was at his Esalen retreat the week before shutdowns started last March, and it was clear he was going through a lot in his personal life. It seems to have darkened his worldview, and that is clearly reflected in his latest work. To me it feels he’s lost a bit of his integral meta perspective in favor of a more radical Green agenda. It’s a subtle change, but since I follow his work closely I’ve noticed the shift in nuance. Wondering if you’ve noticed the same, @aurum ?

He just announced he’s taking a step back from his essay work to focus on some personal life stuff as well as to write a screenplay about “the more beautiful world” he’s envisioning...excited to see what he comes up with!

 

[aurum]

45 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

Charles seems to be pushing a more and more Green-centric agenda lately. I feel as if his writings and essays have become somewhat radicalized since COVID. I was at his Esalen retreat the week before shutdowns started last March, and it was clear he was going through a lot in his personal life. It seems to have darkened his worldview, and that is clearly reflected in his latest work. To me it feels he’s lost a bit of his integral meta perspective in favor of a more radical Green agenda. It’s a subtle change, but since I follow his work closely I’ve noticed the shift in nuance. Wondering if you’ve noticed the same, @aurum ?

He just announced he’s taking a step back from his essay work to focus on some personal life stuff as well as to write a screenplay about “the more beautiful world” he’s envisioning...excited to see what he comes up with!

 

I can’t say I’ve noticed a shift. But I also have never met the guy. 

I would say he seemed discouraged in his last essay that mentioned the screen play. Perhaps he was just burnt out. And maybe the screenplay is the thing to put life back in.

What do you feel was an example of his perspective shifting to a more radical green?

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Hello from Russia said:

@Leo Gura Do you have any tips on how to study epistemology? Is direct contemplation the best or there are some actually good books on it? or maybe some good technique you could recommend? Been reading some academic philosophy books on a subject but to be honest your take on it feels much deeper than those books

Well, that's why I'm writing my book. To explain it all. It's a very complex and tricky matter. See my older epistemic videos what give you a taste of it.

[tuckerwphotography]

38 minutes ago, aurum said:

What do you feel was an example of his perspective shifting to a more radical green?

This is what I sent to my friend when we discussed the topic last week:

What I found off about Charles’s latest essay is the implication (which perhaps I’m constructing and is not what he’s actually saying) is that if it weren’t for “the system” Q supporters would be environmental hippies advocating for love and harmony. But because of “the machine” these humans are victims to conspiracy theories. I see this perspective as failing to take into account the evolutionary nature of human psychology. Most Q supporters are also Evangelical Christians, so even before Trump they believed crazy shit (from our postmodern perspective). Q is just a new iteration of the same mythic level beliefs that people at that level of ego dev and consciousness tend to believe. For me the question is how to help people evolve in their worldviews rather than blaming the worldviews they hold on the powers that be, since ultimately the powers that be are just a reflection of the people they serve. For me this perspective is more empowering and creates agency rather than despair, which I sometimes sense in his writing lately. Both perspectives contain an aspect of the truth, but I feel he’s veering too far in one direction while losing the more meta perspective which he usually holds.

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

if it weren’t for “the system” Q supporters would be environmental hippies advocating for love and harmony.

Haha

No, for that they would have to be open to stage Green. Which they aren't.

Be careful not to romanticize ignorant people. An ignorant person is not capable of love and harmony.

[tuckerwphotography]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Haha

No, for that they would have to be open to stage Green. Which they aren't.

Be careful not to romanticize ignorant people. An ignorant person is not capable of love and harmony.

@Leo Gura Yes that's my point. I'm saying that I felt Charles Eisenstein was subtly suggesting this in his latest essay, which I take issue with, per your point.

Edited February 22, 2021 by tuckerwphotography

[Leo Gura]

@tuckerwphotography Ah, okay. Got ya.

[aurum]

50 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

Both perspectives contain an aspect of the truth, but I feel he’s veering too far in one direction while losing the more meta perspective which he usually holds.

I just looked over his QAnon essay and I can see what you mean.

He definitely went hard on the “it’s the system” side of the argument.

Obviously systems do matter. Someone who is unaware of the systemic view is going to be helplessly lost. And we don’t want to fall into the trap of blaming individuals for obvious collective failures. That would almost be the moral or psychological development equivalent of the “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” argument conservatives make.

In other words, Charles is arguing that our systems generated the alienation and ignorance that then lead to alt-right conspiracies and Trumpism.

However, I think you are also right that it’s not that simple. Even systemic thinking is just a lens, and we have to know when to put it down. Just viewing everything through “the system” may leave important things out.

Which, ironically, tends to be something Charles is very good at noticing. He often calls out our tendency for reductionism and simplification of our problems, and yet talking about “the system” could fall into the same trap.

It may be that some people are just not ready for love and harmony. It doesn’t serve their spiritual journey at this point. They still have lessons to integrate.

If we try and push people too far too fast, that could really be our own agenda sneaking in the backdoor. An agenda that wants them to be the way we want them to be.

That would definitely be a potential Green trap.

Edited February 22, 2021 by aurum

[Leo Gura]

The people ARE the system.

There can't be a wise system when fools make up a majority of the base.

The people are as much to blame as the elites.

Which is why democracy requires well-educated people. The American Founding Fathers said this explicitly and they knew what they were talking about.

[tuckerwphotography]

@aurum Well said, I resonate with your comments. 

Again, it's super subtle, but I'm perhaps on the lookout for these types of one-sided-leaning arguments as I recently spent three months at a Green-centric spiritual community in Costa Rica where conspiracy theories about "the system" were rampant and out of control. When I read Charles' essay, I feel it subtly gives fuel to this fire which is burning down logic and reason, which like you said is ironically something Charles normally delivers in spades. I feel we/society need his balanced Yellow-leaning perspective more than ever, and I worry his burnout and disillusionment with the world is shadowing his perspective in an unfortunate way. But okay, life goes on. There are bigger fish to fry

Edited February 22, 2021 by tuckerwphotography

[tuckerwphotography]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The people ARE the system.

There can't be a wise system when fools make up a majority of the base.

The people are as much to blame as the elites.

Which is why democracy requires well-educated people. The American Founding Fathers said this explicitly and they knew what they were talking about.

An overly simplified perspective: The People created the System which created the Problems that the more evolved People are now complaining about and blaming the System for when in large part it's the People themselves that are ultimately responsible. Green wants to solely blame the System because blaming the People isn't very kind And perhaps it's easier to play victim than to take responsibility for our collective reality. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by tuckerwphotography

[aurum]

29 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

Again, it's super subtle, but I'm perhaps on the lookout for these types of one-sided-leaning arguments as I recently spent three months at a Green-centric spiritual community in Costa Rica where conspiracy theories about "the system" were rampant and out of control.

Totally, I see that in some of my new age friends as well. Seems like you and I always end up talking about Green traps, we must both be spending too much time around greenies 

33 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

I feel we/society need his balanced Yellow-leaning perspective more than ever, and I worry his burnout and disillusionment with the world is shadowing his perspective in an unfortunate way.

Some people do regress down the spiral. And that is concerning since I also see Charles as one of the most important voices out there for social change. 

My perspective is that he is still solidly in Yellow. He has been doing this for years and years and has consistently demonstrated that integrated awareness over time. If he did legitimately backslide, I’d be pretty shocked.

[mmKay]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, that's why I'm writing my book. To explain it all. It's a very complex and tricky matter. See my older epistemic videos what give you a taste of it.

Would you saw understanding reallity is more important to you than explaining it or viceversa? 

[tuckerwphotography]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

My perspective is that he is still solidly in Yellow. He has been doing this for years and years and has consistently demonstrated that integrated awareness over time. If he did legitimately backslide, I’d be pretty shocked.

I don’t think he’s backslid in terms of his actual level of development, I just suspect he might be writing from a slightly shadowy aspect of his intellect / intuition rather than his usually clear cognition. But of course, that’s just my perspective. Maybe I’m the one projecting the shadow, and he’s bringing the clarity

Edited February 22, 2021 by tuckerwphotography

[tuckerwphotography]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

Totally, I see that in some of my new age friends as well. Seems like you and I always end up talking about Green traps, we must both be spending too much time around greenies 

@aurum Haha perhaps! Though to be fair I started this thread talking about Yellow traps!  I guess the traps are everywhere...it’s almost like God boobytrapped his own game ?

Edited February 22, 2021 by tuckerwphotography

[Hello from Russia]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, that's why I'm writing my book. To explain it all. It's a very complex and tricky matter. See my older epistemic videos what give you a taste of it.

@Leo Gura Damn, didn't know you have an "Epistemology" playlist. I watched every video, though, but now I am skimming through them again a little bit and yeah, man, holycrap. These philosophy books are so self-biased, it's ridiculous. It's such a sneaky phenomenon, holyfuck. Ordinary folks definitely will barely notice any of this stuff. Our epistemic standards are so dangerous'ly shitty. This topic needs to be taught in all schools for sure if we want at least a tiny beat of a conscious society. Self-bias and survival are so fucking everywhere. I now start to connect a lot of dots from my life experience and I just can't trust anyone anymore with placing the truth above these things. Can't trust people to not be self-biased

Edited February 22, 2021 by Hello from Russia