Why Daniel is a genius

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

I'm reacting to @Razard86's over generalization of genius.

I struggle to see that. When did Razard mention anything about "Game B, Daniel Schmachtenberger, John Vervaeke, Jamie Wheel, and other systemic thinkers?"

Edited November 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I struggle to see that. When did Razard mention anything about "Game B, Daniel Schmachtenberger, John Vervaeke, Jamie Wheel, and other systemic thinkers?"

   I'm reacting to @Razard86's claim that everyone's a genius, and everyone can be a genius. If we go by what genius is defined by, that's not possible. It's not possible that everyone can have supernatural/paranormal experiences like me, can see ghosts and interact with imaginary constructs. It's not possible that everyone has photographic memory and knows every little detail in a date. Genius as defined conventionally, means that there's a small percentage of the population that is god gifted, talented, and genetically hardwired for a specific task everyone will struggle. That rarity and uniqueness gives meaning to genius. When @Razard86 attempts to flatten and destroy that meaning, it devalues genius and makes all equal 0.

   I can't post the definition of genius here as I got a warning for copy and pasting definitions and increasing post length, so I have to short hand define genius, as I use it, as very rare and very unique traits and skills very few people have from birth and from training, that most of the population doesn't have nor the time/energy/attention to develop. For example psychics and mediums are geniuses, as it's both nature and spiritual training that allows them to perceive what isn't obvious for the majority. The majority haven't got the time/energy/attention nor the potential genes for psychic and medium paranormal experiences. Another example is Nikola Tesla, born and with massive time/energy/attention spent mental constructions of objects in great detail, so much so he created the alternating current that is used everywhere today. Majority simply can't visualize every machine part, nor have the extra time/energy/attention to develop that skillset and capacity. @Razard86 refuses to admit this because he thinks he's the next @Nahm, and just wants to talk neo-Advaita without being clear himself. 

[Danioover9000]

On 2023-11-24 at 0:02 PM, Danioover9000 said:

@Carl-Richard

   I'm reacting to @Razard86's claim that everyone's a genius, and everyone can be a genius. If we go by what genius is defined by, that's not possible. It's not possible that everyone can have supernatural/paranormal experiences like me, can see ghosts and interact with imaginary constructs. It's not possible that everyone has photographic memory and knows every little detail in a date. Genius as defined conventionally, means that there's a small percentage of the population that is god gifted, talented, and genetically hardwired for a specific task everyone will struggle. That rarity and uniqueness gives meaning to genius. When @Razard86 attempts to flatten and destroy that meaning, it devalues genius and makes all equal 0.

   I can't post the definition of genius here as I got a warning for copy and pasting definitions and increasing post length, so I have to short hand define genius, as I use it, as very rare and very unique traits and skills very few people have from birth and from training, that most of the population doesn't have nor the time/energy/attention to develop. For example psychics and mediums are geniuses, as it's both nature and spiritual training that allows them to perceive what isn't obvious for the majority. The majority haven't got the time/energy/attention nor the potential genes for psychic and medium paranormal experiences. Another example is Nikola Tesla, born and with massive time/energy/attention spent mental constructions of objects in great detail, so much so he created the alternating current that is used everywhere today. Majority simply can't visualize every machine part, nor have the extra time/energy/attention to develop that skillset and capacity. @Razard86 refuses to admit this because he thinks he's the next @Nahm, and just wants to talk neo-Advaita without being clear himself. 

   Speak of the devil, this episode 8 of fate extra encore, saber tells the protag and the viewers what a genius is, at the 7 minute mark:

https://www.netflix.com/title/80185145?trackId=14170286&trackIdJaw=14170287&trackIdEpisode=14170289&trackIdTrailer=14170288&dpRightClick=1

   Seems like Saber and I are pretty consistent with my definition of a genius. Ironically a fictional character agrees with me way more than @Razard86 or others like him trying to erode the meaning of genius to everyone, as everyone's a genius, which flatlines genius into normalcy, devaluing genius, so what's the point of genius then?

Edited December 1, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

   Update, Daniel Schmachtenberger the genius has a YouTube Channel!

   Like and sub, and comment nice things!

[Carl-Richard]

@Danioover9000 That's a pretty cool discussion. I'm 44 minutes into it.

[zurew]

@Danioover9000 John and Daniel collab is really cool , good share!

I hope they will collab more in the future, because these topics are extremely valuable. The more they get to know each other and each of their frameworks and works and word usage, the better and more deeply they can engage and converse with each other in the future.

[UnbornTao]

@Danioover9000 @Carl-Richard @zurew In short, what are they talking about?

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Danioover9000 @Carl-Richard @zurew In short, what are they talking about?

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing "the crisis" ("the meta-crisis", "the meaning crisis", "the master and the emissary"). Daniel has a social/economic/game-theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing the "crisis" (the metacrisis, the meaning crisis, the master and the emissary). Daniel has a social/economic/game theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

Ok, thank you.

[Yimpa]

Damn, Daniel.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

On 2023-12-09 at 6:46 PM, Yimpa said:

Damn, Daniel.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

On 2023-12-09 at 2:50 PM, Carl-Richard said:

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing "the crisis" ("the meta-crisis", "the meaning crisis", "the master and the emissary"). Daniel has a social/economic/game-theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

   It's still interesting how they're able to communicate in good faith and maintain good body language, with a few moments when John Vervaeke looked a bit bored and a few overt illustrations, especially pointy fingers, a big no-no in the body language community if you want to build rapport as pointy fingers are like spears to the subconscious mind. Just rewashing this video is very interesting, Iain McGilchrist slower in pacing while Daniel is much faster.

   But I'm still confident I can battle rap each person there, and draw better than them.