Joshe

That is the very idea! Maybe I didn't communicate well.

A lot of folks make a habit of skipping the discernment step (over-reliance on judgement), while others spend too much time there, burning time and energy out of fear of error or perfectionism. We need discernment about how much discernment is needed. Ideally, we can learn to judge accurately via discernment, and then rely on those sound judgements without getting bogged down in trying to discern everything there is, because there's simply not enough time.

So what makes you get up to do the dishes? Maybe you value things being clean, tidy, or done, or maybe you fear your friends will think you’re a slob or you fear the dishes will pile up and bite you in the ass later. For some, it’s good to do the dishes - for others, bad. Even in the most trivial of things, we’re making judgements. What’s regarded as neutral can be and often is recognized in higher consciousness, but it’s almost always glossed over so we can get to the stuff that we think matters. It takes effort to force oneself to look at something they deem unimportant or less worthy of attention, because we all usually have something of our own that we place at the center, and we want others to acknowledge it and engage our center but we don’t want to engage the center of a grandma knitting sweaters. The grandma sees it as valuable, and so engages it. To me, I gloss right over it because I don’t care about knitting, but I do understand the grandma cares about it and it doesn’t go unnoticed. I judge her activity as unworthy of my time in a matter of milliseconds. Grandma knitting sweaters is neutral to me. But something like fishing, hunting, and watching sports - I see those as negative and I judge them as stupid and harmful wastes of time. If the grandma is nice and sweet and wants me to engage her about knitting, I will, because I like nice and sweet (judgement). But if she’s nasty, I will add that on top of my judgement of knitting and soon bounce. A very important thing to know is that judgements often happen in milliseconds because we’re pulling from previous assessments (cached data). I feel people need to be able to see this. You have to understand what 500ms is and how it differs from 1 second or 200ms. You can have Claude build you an artifact with 5 buttons, where each button opens a small popup at different speeds. There is significant difference in 50ms and 500ms, and the button popups can reveal it to you. Actually, I set it up so you can see: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d0f033db-aeb2-4e8f-abe5-cd06d240b269 Most people would gloss over this, but understanding the speed of psychic phenomena is crucial for understanding the mind. If you pay attention to this and see what I’m saying, you can start to become aware of just how fast thoughts, judgements, and their implications occur, so that you can then contemplate the larger implications of it. Lastly, when we encounter something we’ve never seen before or never considered, we take time to form a judgement. We might judge the thing as potentially good for us but we don’t have time now to engage it, or we might judge that it is not for us at all, and the next time we encounter it, we quickly access our previous assessment and place our judgement. Some do this quicker than others but everyone does it, because they must. Imagine trying to navigate a bookstore without judgement. You must use judgement to find the books you're interested in, then you use discernment to figure out if you should buy the book. Without judgement, you're like a deer in headlights, not knowing what to do. The main role of judgement is to move forward. Maybe another good contemplation would be the distinction between judgement and discernment.

Good to know. Thanks

Same. 500 codes are server issues. Not the first time this happened.

It’s characteristic of intelligence. Lest you wind up shitting in a colostomy bag.

An assumption can be a stepping stone toward a judgement, but it doesn't have to be. assumption → assessment → judgment Assessment is where personal values and morality come into play. The point of a judgement is to move forward, out of perpetual assessment. "Given what I know, here's where I stand, and here's how I'll move forward". Regarding assumptions, we have to operate on assumptions because we don't have time to question them all. We'd be paralyzed by analysis. And even if we did, like if we questioned our assumption about gravity, that's not a very fruitful endeavor unless you're a philosopher or scientist. That is my judgement - based on my assessment.

😂 Thanks. Glad someone got something out of it. lol

So, if God came down and gave you the full answer directly, you would say "no thanks, I'd rather come up with it on my own". That's the thing I was talking about in the other thread where contemplation is being done without a purpose, merely for the sake of contemplation because one enjoys it, but I'm sure this plays out like "I'm not just doing fun stuff here, I'm doing serious stuff, developing my inner faculties". Hmmmm. If it's truth you seek, do you only appreciate truth if you toil in your mind and find it yourself? Or are you happy to find it anywhere and through anything, with little effort on your part? If an AI could lead you to the whole truth of what context is, you would reject that path. That's worth contemplating.

Maybe for you. For me, the point of contemplation is to make progress. Smarter, not harder. That doesn't mean to let the AI steer the ship. You're selling me short. AI would never have came up with such a robust definition. I came up with each of the points in less than 20-30 minutes of contemplation, and then used AI to flesh them out. Why don't you give a go at providing an all-encompassing definition and let's see what you come up with. If you come up with something and then use AI to flesh it out, I wouldn't knock you for it. But if you went to AI and asked it "what is context", then I would knock that, but that's not what I did. Like I said, AI would never come up with a definition as robust as mine. My shits original bruh. lol

The rocks on mars exist in an objective context before you perceive or interpret them. Variables and constants are things that comprise the space. Variables change, constants don't. Variables = weather, mood. Constants = gravity, location. I constructed the definition, AI helped me articulate it. Trying to wrap it all into a terse definition that satisfies the philosopher isn't easy. I tried to capture the essence in as few words as possible, but it's difficult to do without sounding abstract because each facet is highly complex. Point-by-point breakdown Dynamic Context is always changing and evolving. It’s not fixed; conditions can shift, variables can fluctuate. Nested Context comes in layers — local, regional, global, universal. Each context exists within a broader one (e.g., a conversation inside a culture, inside history). Possibility space Context defines what can happen, not just what is happening. It sets the range of potential actions, meanings, or outcomes. Shaped by constraints Constraints = the limits or rules that narrow down possibilities (like gravity, social norms, logical rules). They structure what’s possible by ruling certain things out. Structured by variables and constants Variables = things that can change (weather, mood, circumstances). Constants = things that remain stable (laws of physics, core principles). Together, these give the possibility space its texture. Objective aspect Exists independently of anyone perceiving it. Fully defined by constraints, variables, and constants. Example: a rock on Mars is under the Sun’s gravity whether or not anyone is watching. Subjective aspect Emerges when perception or perspective comes into play. Still tethered to the objective conditions (can’t make up reality), but: Selects what to notice. Frames what it means. Interprets it in a way that can add or distort meaning. Example: two people see the same rock in the desert — one sees beauty, the other sees useless dust.

It's a function of moving forward, whether that be by solidifying one's identity or moving forward with practical matters, such as in business or basic life management. One would be paralyzed without making assumptions and judgements. They are necessary to move forward. To evolve. Even if they're wrong, there comes a time when one must move forward.

Yeah, it does seem like a good thing to contemplate, or at least mentally stimulating. Impartiality is a virtue that one cultivates. The impartial evaluation of evidence is a process aimed at arriving at what is true, but that process itself is not a judgement. Maybe a judgement is a position taken based on the assessment. The position can be one of practicality and/or one of morality, but usually, probably both. We do it all the time. When Leo makes a judgement about something, he's asserting the findings and their implications of all the things he's carefully considered. It can be objective. If it couldn't be, the very word "objective" need not exist. The real gold would be in contemplating how to cultivate impartiality.

Judgements can be neutral and objective. Like those passed down from a court judge.

We can ask “what is it”. What is a thing, then identify as much as we can about the thing, including it’s similarities and differences that distinguish it from another thing. But if we were to put significant resources into making distinctions about every two similar things without discretion, that’d be a good way to squander life. I see some threads that I can tell contemplation is being done for contemplation’s sake, where people just want to play around for fun first, and they’re actually not interested in what is true because that would mean the theorizing would come to an end. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a trap that thinkers should be aware of.

Even lower, all the way down to preschoolers. There are several states now influencing parents to use PragerU. And I think some even use it in public schools IIRC. Looked into it a while back. Sick shit.

Ok, “Grill the fuck out of her” was too strong, but if you think they would have treated her like every other candidate, that’s not the way it would have went down. Theo Von probably would have, but not the others. Hundreds of millions of views, yes, but imagine if it wasn’t the “bro podcast circuit” and instead was the “sister podcast circuit”. Where shitting on Trump and the right was the norm and Kamala fit in like a glove. She could hop right in and start laughing and easily build rapport. Now, do you think it would be wise for Trump to go on those same podcasts? I don’t. The polarization effect would not be worth the relatively few viewers you gain, and the risk isn’t worth the reward, at least not for a personality like Kamala.

From higher consciousness: Assumption: used to substitute fact for the purpose of moving forward Judgement: something you assert as true, often based on subjective values, and also for the purpose of moving forward. Lower levels of consciousness make both of these unconsciously, usually to serve the ego. In higher consciousness, they are tools for ideation, testing, and progress, and they can be discarded upon seeing they are incorrect/inferior. Judgements are the trickier ones to let go of because identity is usually involved. it is an interesting question to ask “am I acting from assumption or judgement?”. But I’m failing to see how this contemplation bears any fruit. I assume you are seeking clarity. And if you are seeking clarity with no goal in mind or no problem to solve, I will judge this endeavor as fruitless, to put it mildly. Lol. Maybe that gets some juices flowing.

It would have gone even worse for Kamala if she did go on those shows. It was smart to refuse IMO. Plus, many of the podcasts are not respectable enough. Presidential candidates going on Aiden Ross’s stream just for votes turns the whole political process into a goddamn circus. Joe Rogan isn’t far from it either. Bill Burr recently gave a good talk about why he wouldn’t bring a candidate on his podcast, and it’s the idea that it turns politics into a circus. So not only was it disadvantageous for Kamala to go on those, she would have been contributing even more to the deterioration of our society. But it’s a double bind because if she turns her nose up to the common vulgarity, she’s seen as a politically correct out of touch bitch snob. And if she did go on, they would have grilled the fuck out of her and just joked around with Trump. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Young men were clearly targeted. What do you think Trump going on all the bro podcasts was about? Adrien Ross.

Lol. True, but the thing is, it caught like wildfire via brainwashing, which made it okay to wear your foolishness like a badge of honor. Memetic something another.

Context: a dynamic, nested possibility space, shaped by constraints and structured by variables and constants. Its objective aspect is fully defined by these conditions, existing prior to perception or interpretation. Its subjective aspect emerges when perspective interacts with this field, constructing interpretations that are partly defined by the same conditions but also shaped by selective framing and meaning-making. Lol.

It doesn’t matter if the poster actually lives by their own words. If someone drops some bomb ass knowledge, I could care less if they believe it, embody it, or practice it. I take what I find valuable. If the problem is you aren’t sure who’s words to pay more attention to, that is solved by discernment and it should become clear over time. Look for originality, depth of insight/analysis, and track record. Emotional intelligence is a good heuristic. The ones to avoid are those who try to sound smart and mimic those atop the forum hierarchy, who pose as if they’re deep in the work, but they’re mostly here for social validation. These types will waste your time.

Sure it was in your head and not your arm? Lol. People say “I was thinking in my head …”. No shit. Where else would you be thinking. Lol. I actually use the term similarly. Something that is known and confirmed to be true. If I say I know something, it means I’m sure of it.