JosephKnecht

Daniel Schmachtenberger & Bret Weinstein

105 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I feel that species is such a dodgy concept (I can't imagine what kind of conceptual breakdowns the professors have to deal with xD). It can mean so many different things when you zoom out and look across different taxonomies.

You mean how it ultimately slips away into relativity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, erik8lrl said:

@tuckerwphotography You are me. It is a transcript of your mind in absolute sense. 

@erik8lrl I know. I’m just taking a moment to thank the Dream character in my movie :) That’s why I created us, right? To experience each other and to have this very dialogue. Beautiful!

Edited by tuckerwphotography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Meta-Man said:

You mean how it ultimately slips away into relativity? 

It's formally defined as "the species problem": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept

The books and lecturers would vaguely refer to it from time to time. I was most struck by it when we were trying to identify different types of butterfly and moth in pictures. To the untrained eye, some of them would look identical and somehow be a separate species, and some relatively different-looking ones would be the same species and just a different sub-species. Looking at the morphology is only one way to define a species, but it's central to identifying insects, and the defining characteristics are often completely arbitrary.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's formally defined as "the species problem": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept

The books and lecturers would vaguely refer to it from time to time. I was most struck by it when we were trying to identify different types of butterfly and moth in pictures. To the untrained eye, some of them would look identical and somehow be a separate species, and some relatively different-looking ones would be the same species and just a different sub-species. Looking at the morphology is only one way to define a species, but it's central to identifying insects, and the defining characteristics are often completely arbitrary.

Right. 

Ultimately everything spills over into everything in the non-dual soup, so there is no such thing as a species at all.

Edited by Meta-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Right. 

Ultimately everything spills over into everything in the non-dual soup, so there is no such thing as a species at all.

It's one illustration of how language fails to encapsulate the intelligence of reality.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2021 at 2:58 PM, JosephKnecht said:

A deep conversation between two intelligent people. 

If you can't watch the whole thing, just watch the speech of Daniel at (01:05:19 Markets, states, and the people),  

Okay, this one was brilliant!

What about Bret's other videos, are they worth listening/watching?

Asking— if you are a regular listener to his show!!!

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ajai said:

What about Bret's other videos, are they worth listening/watching?

He's a smart guy, but some of his political takes are dumb. Gotta be very selective about the ideas he feeds you.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 7:16 PM, Leo Gura said:
On 2/27/2021 at 0:13 PM, aurum said:

 

I don't know about wisdom, but we got plenty of selfishness to swing us full-circle.

Sometimes one is so foolish one stumbles into wisdom :D

That makes sense. If there’s one thing humans have been good at so far, it’s survival.

I don’t think we are heading for “self-termination” as Daniel puts it either. I do appreciate his perspective though, it’s a sobering bit cold water.

To not self-terminate still means we will have to make good choices. 

Perhaps even scarier to me though is that human beings survive, but only at a continual greater and greater sacrifice of what really makes life worth living. In some ways we are already doing that.

I don’t think that will happen either, but if it did, I’d rather self-terminate.
 


Follow me on Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/akourakin/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the kind of thread I have been looking for on this forum. Great exchange of ideas!

The Consilience Project is now online since end of February, I just started reading. Has anyone read into it already and has an opinion? 

On 1.3.2021 at 9:06 PM, aurum said:

To not self-terminate still means we will have to make good choices. 

Perhaps even scarier to me though is that human beings survive, but only at a continual greater and greater sacrifice of what really makes life worth living. In some ways we are already doing that.

I think this is more clear now since we are seeing the very real effects of climate change. Will we just let it happen and technologically create isolated structures to live in? Will taking a walk in nature be a thing of the past that we will tell our children about? I like your and Leo's thinking that we are too selfish to perish, although some part of me sees disaster arriving. If we're honest, we don't know. That's what makes this even more fascinating to me. On the one hand, I don't care what happens since I know nothing is lost, all is perfection and this is one of infinite beauties in the mind of God. But on the other hand, deep down, I care for humanity to continue and embody love further and further... Life is the best movie ever 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, peanutspathtotruth said:

The Consilience Project is now online

Is that all it is? Web articles??? O.o

No one is gonna read or share that shit. They need to be making videos.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Is that all it is? Web articles??? O.o

No one is gonna read or share that shit. They need to be making videos.

Seems to be it - for now, quite underwhelming. I'm currently reading through the articles, they are solid. But I agree, from what they make themselves out to be, I am hoping for more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, peanutspathtotruth said:

for now, quite underwhelming.

no just perfect, if it reaches the people who would actually appreciate not less - its better this way, informing those who are interested.  it is neither disturbing nor clickbaiting too much. maybe its arrogant but for those it is not made it is not made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mememe said:

no just perfect, if it reaches the people who would actually appreciate not less - its better this way, informing those who are interested.  it is neither disturbing nor clickbaiting too much. maybe its arrogant but for those it is not made it is not made.

Yeah maybe you're right, maybe they know exactly how to proceed most effectively considering their goal of offering sense making skills. I'm currently finishing the first meta news article about the planted bricks and I just really love their choice of format for this. I still think expanding into extended video format would be a great idea at some point :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, peanutspathtotruth said:

Yeah maybe you're right, maybe they know exactly how to proceed most effectively considering their goal of offering sense making skills. I'm currently finishing the first meta news article about the planted bricks and I just really love their choice of format for this. I still think expanding into extended video format would be a great idea at some point :)

i still think in sense of seriousness written language is more tangible and informative, especially if information gets processed and broken down into other media formats and set into new contexts afterwards. you could not put so much information into spoken language as it would probably sound very complicated, also in sense of practicality, for many topics i usually prefer books before movies and guess a lot of people do. if you talk about documentary formats it would def be much more time intense than gathering information - so yes, documentaries are probably nice. mixed media can be sensemaking :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mememe said:

i still think in sense of seriousness written language is more tangible and informative, especially if information gets processed and broken down into other media formats and set into new contexts afterwards. you could not put so much information into spoken language as it would probably sound very complicated, also in sense of practicality, for many topics i usually prefer books before movies and guess a lot of people do. if you talk about documentary formats it would def be much more time intense than gathering information - so yes, documentaries are probably nice. mixed media can be sensemaking :) 

That's what I've been thinking as well, that this depth is best covered by text. What I meant though would be a video format where, for example, a discussion between multiple people takes place in which it is practically demonstrated how proper argumentation works, how to properly research, how to hold multiple perspectives etc. The most interesting point for me would be to make it practical, to show examples because the theory of it is already there. They also could show their own way of researching a topic with articles and data bases, using smart visuals etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very underwhelming, and the articles don't really show their sense-making process in detail or connect to the concepts they are trying to teach (at least not clearly enough to teach people). And tho most pieces are not nearly as biased as mainstream news and are very educational with their thinking process (it's still mostly speaking to a US audience from a US perspective, not a global perspective), it's not as whole or multi-perspective as I'd hoped. Tho their team consists of people in many varied fields, they are not as diverse as I'd hoped. It would be nice if they can have more people who have integrity, direct experience, and expertise but are opposite in perspectives on a topic to come together to makes sense of their differences in perspectives. And not only that, but also looking at the same topic from the perspective of many different fields and levels of abstractions. The level of wholeness and complexity in their perspective is not as whole/deep as I'd hoped. But it's only the beginning, and it's already better than most media sources. If most people in the US can do sense-making on this level, it'd be a huge improvement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2021 at 1:26 PM, erik8lrl said:

it's already better than most media sources.

Better than most, does that mean you know equal or better sources? Would you mind sharing those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@peanutspathtotruth

There are too many. 

It's impossible to find truly 100% unbiased sources, all sources are biased in nature, but each differs in its degree of bias. 

So it's best to find sources that are on the same level of nuance as this project, but with differences in bias/perspective. 

Every source of this quality has different aspects/nuance in their perspectives, so I can't just say one is better than the other in a general sense (some might be very deep and complex in their sense-making/research, but only cover a small range of topics/perspectives, while other are more shallow but covers a wider range of topics). But overall the best perspective is combining many different sources that come from a broad range of information landscapes that all reach this level (Consilience Project) of sense-making or deeper.    

What I do:

1. Find sources that are not in the extremes in terms of their degrees of bias. Sources that can look at both sides with facts and don't provide black and white opinions. Sources that are more nuanced and self-aware. They don't have to be completely neutral, but just not blindly pushing propaganda or only their perspective. The Consilience Project would be an example of this. It's fairly nuanced but still leans towards US/western interest.

I would partially disagree with Daniel's idea of reading everything on the spectrum of bias because it's too time-consuming, and the more extreme they are, the less insightful they are (in terms of sense-making, you can still read to gain insights on epistemology or ego development). However, if you cannot find any sources that lean somewhere in the middle, then your only option is to read both sides and then piece them together by drawing a line somewhere in the middle.   

2. Check the funding source for these sources. Who is behind these sources can basically tell you how biased they are and what they will bias towards. A lot of mainstream media in the west are funded either by the government (BBC as an example) or by those who work for the government or by corporations. For example, the CIA has been creating off branches of companies that spread misinformation or funds the media to manufacture consent since they cannot do that as a government body. 

It's best if the source is independent, but if they are funded by a political group, you just have to keep that in mind when you check their sources. 

Or it's also okay if the political group funding the source is more neutral/nuanced, likely with less survival bias involved. A political group that is a third party between the perspectives of the issue for example.  

3. Find sources that provide facts, direct experiences, and integrity. If a source is very clearly trying to invoke extreme fear, or hate, or any form of extreme negative emotions, they are likely not a good source. With good sources, even if they are biased towards a perspective, they don't demonize the opposite but bring understanding and context into them. If the source is clearly trying to play with words to manipulate your perception of the narrative, you just need to be aware of it while consuming their information. 

4. Find sources in different parts of the world. If you see an issue happening outside of your country, don't just read your country's news. Check out sources in that (or around that) region to bring more insights and context into their perspective, even if they are in different languages than the one you know. 

It's best if you can find sources in that location that has integrity (that follows all of the above) but also speak your language. Because if you just translate sources, often the translation can misinterpret/mistranslate the source leading to wrong assumptions and interpretations.   

It's really best if you can speak their language as well, this way you can truly understand what they mean. 

I find that a lot of great sources are simply hidden in a different language on the internet. For example, if you want to find good sources on China, the best sources are actually all in Chinese, with the most balanced/nuanced ones coming from Chinese in Singapore since they completely understand both the western perspective and the Chinese perspective. But there is no way for you to find them if you don't know Chinese. You wouldn't even know how to search for them since they will only show up if you search in Chinese. The same applies in every language, there are whole rabbit holes of sources that are simply segmented into different parts of the internet in that language bundle. Once you find those sources that really bring great insight into their perspectives, it becomes very easy to make sense of that perspective.  

5. Use different search engines, or look for sources that are lower on the ranking and that are different perspectives from the top ones. Search engines can easily censor information by de-ranking them since most people only check what is ranked on the top. Which is often very biased and low quality. You have to dig a little deeper to be able to find good sources. And every search engine has a different bias in terms of their ranking.

A good way is to use the algorithm (Youtube for example) to consciously filter information that is extremes in their bias and only consume sources that are potentially balanced. This way over time the algorithm will start to recommend more sources that are good naturally. 

6. Verify with direct experiences. The only way to truly make sense of different perspectives around the world is to gain direct experience on it, either by traveling to those places and meeting people and talking to them or talking to someone who has integrity and direct experience but holds an authentic perspective (deep understanding of their culture, history, and politics) of that region of the world. It's best if they are just a normal person in that environment and not someone trying to sell their perspective for survival.

When someone is doing perspective selling as the main part of their survival source, they will be very biased, to the point where they will do anything to keep creating narratives for that perspective.

However, it's also okay if the source asks for monetary support but only if they are very clearly nuanced (follows all of the above) and accept both perspectives and are not using fear to oversell their bias. Then they are a quality independent source. 

7. Understand that everyone only has a partial understanding of everything and never the complete whole (since it's infinite). Most beliefs and believed-truths are likely to be made out of unself-verified partially false/partially true assumptions, not the actual truth (this applies more to those who are below yellow, and the lower they are on the spiral, the more this applies). But the more conscious and developed they are, the closer they are to the whole. So take everything as a partial truth even if it comes from very high integrity sources (follows all of the above). Always assume that what you know is not 100% of the full picture, even if you have done a lot of good sense-making/research. Because even if you have 99% of the picture, that 1% could still change the context of the entire whole.

If you do all of the above, you will understand things much closer to what they are in reality, but also you will start to reach a non-duality/unification between all perspectives that is filled with love and the brilliance of existence.      

 

Edited by erik8lrl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now