Kastrup crybabies out of debate

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It absolutely is different.

But even if it was the same, just because some people don't react the same to your provocation does not mean you should be surprised when eventually someone does. You, similar to Kastrup, are way too logical about this, and you are just missing how human beings work, it's just completely obvious if you are not so stuck in your mind.

 

The hypocrisy is, if you are going to be so logic brained as to not admit to the obvious thing that is happening here, then you can't also at the same time be an emotional cry baby whose voice shakes from anger because the other person reacted in an arrogant manner. If you want to be the hyperrational robot then at least be consistent about it, otherwise you just seem childish.

 

 

Leo is also provocative with his speech, but imagine if Leo were to debate someone, make the statements he usually does, and then get completely furious at his opponent at the first glance of hostility. That would be mindblowingly immature.

What Kastrup did was socially clumsy even if nothing had happened.

 

Kastrup, if he had sufficient emotional maturity, could have easily laughed the arrogant response off, and cheekily apologizes to calling his opponents position groteqsue and moved on. If the other person were still this upset, he could have at some point said "Okay we clearly are not able to have a conversation here anymore, I don't know if it makes sense to continue.".

 But his ego got so riled up he immediately locked up and even refused any sort of explanation or attempt of reconciliation, even though the other person attempted to do so once he realized how absurdly upset Kastrup got, trying to explain himself "I only did this because you started it with the insulting language!".

The mature thing at that point is to recognize the miscommunication and try to move on, instead of being a stubborn crybaby.

 

The reality is, Kastrup takes himself way too seriously, he has a huge ego, and the sad thing is people even encourage it in him, praising him in conversation as if he was the second coming of Christ. The guy is not that special, he is arguing against an untenable position. This isn't the type of thing that requires genius.

   I actually think Bernardo Kastrup rage quitting was better than him remaining in the conversation, if he's that bothered by the push back. Only some people with thick skin and good comedic skills can keep on talking whilst dishing out insults and getting them. Seems like Kastrup's not the type to handle it well when it's pushed back.

   I take it you're not a fan of Kastrup?

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Scholar

   I actually think Bernardo Kastrup rage quitting was better than him remaining in the conversation, if he's that bothered by the push back. Only some people with thick skin and good comedic skills can keep on talking whilst dishing out insults and getting them. Seems like Kastrup's not the type to handle it well when it's pushed back.

   I take it you're not a fan of Kastrup?

I agree with much of what Kastrup is saying, I don't dislike him at all. I am just objective about him being a crybaby and stuck in his own ego.

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar I'm not denying that he is a crybaby. But you can still try to give logical explanations for why someone is a crybaby (like you're doing now btw). And the explanation you happen to land on doesn't have to be the only correct one (or correct at all). I think I'm taking this less seriously than you are.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar I'm not denying that he is a crybaby. But you can still try to give logical explanations for why someone is a crybaby (like you're doing now btw). And the explanation you happen to land on doesn't have to be the only correct one (or correct at all). I think I'm taking this less seriously than you are.

It's not about how serious you take it, but how logic-brained your approach here is. It's just silly because we are talking about basic social dynamics. To me, this is completely obvious, the reason why I am engaging in logic-brain myself is because you are so trapped in it you won't take anything else seriously.

Well, if we agree Kastrup it an immature crybaby who was stuck up in his own ego during the interaction then I don't have much more to argue about.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

It's not about how serious you take it, but how logic-brained your approach here is. It's just silly because we are talking about basic social dynamics. To me, this is completely obvious, the reason why I am engaging in logic-brain myself is because you are so trapped in it you won't take anything else seriously.

Well, if we agree Kastrup it an immature crybaby who was stuck up in his own ego during the interaction then I don't have much more to argue about.

Don't be afraid of engaging in logic-brained rationalizations. That's all this is.

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Don't be afraid of engaging in logic-brained rationalizations. That's all this is.

I did engage in logic-brained rationalizations, and it's interesting that once I did provide one you did not actually respond to the substance of what was being said, and started making a general vague point about multiperspectivalism.

You just do the switcheroo whenever it fits you. But like I said, none of this should even require much logic. The fact that logic is required here means there is a lack of competency in regards to social dynamics. It also is an indicator that logic is being used to simply confirm ones own bias, as Kastrup did in his explanation point.

You can rationalize all of this away, but the reality is pretty simple, and most people immediately will recognize it because they don't suffer from autism.

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar Speaking of social awareness, I've noticed (for a long time actually) that you have a tendency to frame an argument as a personal confrontation (e.g. "you are so trapped in it", or "you are just missing how human beings work"), when you could've framed it as an impersonal one (e.g. "being trapped in it entails...", "missing how human beings work entails..."). So you're very often risking to rile people up emotionally when that is maybe not needed. It's possible to communicate an idea without necessarily making it about someone.

And you can maybe use this to make sense of past interactions: is this why Forestluv doesn't seem to like you? Maybe he is not being "overly logic-brained" in his interactions. Maybe you're just being socially unaware. And to demonstrate my own point, do you see how emotionally cutting this comment is?

Edited October 7, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar Speaking of social awareness, I've noticed (for a long time actually) that you have a tendency to frame an argument as a personal confrontation (e.g. "you are so trapped in it", or "you are just missing how human beings work"), when you could've framed it as an impersonal one (e.g. "being trapped in it entails...", "missing how human beings work entails..."). So you're very often risking to rile people up emotionally when that is maybe not needed. It's possible to communicate an idea without necessarily making it about someone.

And you can maybe use this to make sense of past interactions: is this why Forestluv doesn't seem to like you? Maybe he is not being "overly logic-brained" in his interactions. Maybe you're just being socially unaware. And to demonstrate my own point, do you see how emotionally cutting this comment is?

I don't have the sense that Forestluv doesn't like me, we have a long history of going back and forth in the way we did in our past interaction. In fact I am surprised that he did like me enough to give me advice, as our interactions always tend to end in that way.

I am aware of how I come across and you are correct that it could be emotionally cutting. I usually adjust my communication style to the person I am communicating with, especially logic brained people like you I tend to handle this way. Riling you up is part of my communication strategy.

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I usually adjust my communication style to the person I am communicating with, especially logic brained people like you I tend to handle this way. Riling you up is part of my communication strategy.

Rationalizing away your "social ineptitude"? ?

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Rationalizing away your "social ineptitude"? ?

I don't think it is necessarily ineptitude, although communication on a forum is harder than it is in face to face interactions, simply because you lack most social indicators. This is why online interactions tend to make people more autistic-brained, including me. Notice that this type of conversation would have never happened in voice communication. IRL, I would have just dismissed your cheeky provocation and moved on, and in the forum I feel like I can expand on my thoughts more, even though I know none of this will reach you at all.

Forest is an interesting case because he has a very impersonal communication style, but I do get the sense that behind that is a sensitive soul. So you could say I was inept in the sense that I was not aware enough of this when I made the honest comment about how I perceive him.

 

But notice that I did apologize to him and clarified that it was not a personal attack, without any direct prompt. The immature thing would have been to crybaby like Kastrup.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

38 minutes ago, Scholar said:

even though I know none of this will reach you at all.

You're so condescending 

 

38 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Forest is an interesting case because he has a very impersonal communication style, but I do get the sense that behind that is a sensitive soul. So you could say I was inept in the sense that I was not aware enough of this when I made the honest comment about how I perceive him.

 

But notice that I did apologize to him and clarified that it was not a personal attack, without any direct prompt. The immature thing would have been to crybaby like Kastrup.

When is the blog post coming out? 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're so condescending 

You should embrace his superior cognition that he has to strongly emphasize all the time (maybe to convince himself about it?)

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You should embrace his superior cognition that he has to strongly emphasize all the time (maybe to convince himself about it?)

I'm not so much emphasizing my superior cognition as a lack of cognition in you hyperrationalists.

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're so condescending 

If you didn't love condescension you wouldn't be a moderator on this forum.

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Scholar

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

I agree with much of what Kastrup is saying, I don't dislike him at all. I am just objective about him being a crybaby and stuck in his own ego.

   What are some points you agree with Kastrup on?

   You don't dislike at all Bernardo Kastrup, but you dislike him being a cry baby and stuck in his ego, rage quitting the stream in one moment. Is this a contradiction? What if him quitting is him realizing how lost Tim is in his rationalism and scientific theories, and he intuits that any conversation is a waste of time?

[Leo Gura]

Bernardo is a mature person though, judging from all his other talks.

I wouldn't make too much of this. Just some silly internet drama.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

I'm not so much emphasizing my superior cognition as a lack of cognition in you hyperrationalists.

I honestly don't know what makes you different from us "hyperrationalists".

Edited October 7, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Princess Arabia]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Bernardo is a mature person though, judging from all his other talks.

I wouldn't make too much of this. Just some silly internet drama.

Exactly, the mind loves drama. 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Scholar

   What are some points you agree with Kastrup on?

   You don't dislike at all Bernardo Kastrup, but you dislike him being a cry baby and stuck in his ego, rage quitting the stream in one moment. Is this a contradiction? What if him quitting is him realizing how lost Tim is in his rationalism and scientific theories, and he intuits that any conversation is a waste of time?

You can dislike something about someone without disliking them as a whole. I agree with Kastrup on the irrationality of materialism, and I like some of the ways he frames idealism.

I don't think he quit because of some greater realization. He just got offended and his ego got in the way.

 

36 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I honestly don't know what makes you different from us "hyperrationalists".

The fact that I can exist and engage outside of that framework. You will not witness that because when I engage with hyperrationalists I must speak their language.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

The fact that I can exist and engage outside of that framework.

Give an example.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[nuwu]

@Scholar Autists have 200 fold increased neuro-inflammatory mediators than nominal. R

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Give an example.

Transrationalism is presumably direct awareness, of unity, interconnectedness, awawakenings, randomness, etc. However, translation into inherently-biased human symbolism necessarily involves lightweight computational conceptualization, or rationality.