integral

He might get that "raw vegan look"

A person's level of consciousness is like their IQ score except if we had a IQ score that actually measured the whole. People can score a five consciousness and be very lopsided and be more developed than one area and less developed in another but on average they are a five. In general self-awareness and a few utter metrics scales with consciousness it's gonna be hard to get to a certain level of consciousness if you have a really low self-awareness, if it's not impossible.

You guys are defining it in terms of functional capacity. To understand 2 + 2 = 4 were a donkey does not have this ability. The ability to comprehend. I was using it to mean less conscious as an umbrella term. I just want to clarify that. from my perspective there are no intelligent people, intelligence is relative and the level everyone is operating at is at a super low level of intelligence. Depending on how relative you want to look at it people are infinitely unintelligent A rat can only be so intelligent. Imagine if the brain was 10 times as large

Ignorance is a lack of consciousness. Lack of Consciousness is just the umbrella term

This is implicit to everything I'm saying but with all the baggage the word stupid has, it's being dumped onto this topic. The word stupid just means judgment in our culture there's basically no way to use the word in any other way.

im using stupid to mean lack of consciousness. Its not that complicated, its not low level judgement.

He might discover a new type of aging he didnt account for.

Is trump stupid? no hes just a narcissist phycopath. Is a parent stupid? no there just ignorent. Is a gf stupid? no there just forgetful. ... this is what everyone is doing. the word stupid has no meaning then. Replace the word stupid with, "lack of consciousness". That's basically what I'm saying

If a person doesn't have strong self-introspection self-awareness thinking process then they are stupid? If they're following the script Society is giving them, all their values are not a conscious thing to them, then they're stupid? When exactly do we draw the line?

I'm lumping stupidity as a lack of consciousness. The more conscious you are the more you can integrate all of that.

If you guys are saying this is not stupidity give examples and break it down further I have no idea what you mean.

It's unclear what part of this is not stupidity when living with other people? There are many Lifestyles that simply need to live apart that's fine but I'm not talking about that. If you wake up in the morning and vacuum at 5:00 a.m. while other people are sleeping and you refuse to adapt, what am I supposed to call this? If you own a dog for over 10 years and every time they poop in the house you get extremely angry and it disrupts your whole day, this is not stupidity?

I mean all of this in the context when you're living with other people and you have to function in an intelligent way to make all of the lifestyles work. And also in the context of knowing how to live a good life and to design your lifestyle intelligently which no one does. A ugly toaster that works should not be replaced for a prettier one. These kinds of practical things people cannot handle because every time they look at the toaster they don't like it and they don't know why they don't like it and there's constantly this itch inside them that has to buy a new toaster. And they can't rise above these attachments. People are just blindly following their programming as there lifestyle, it's not a consciously designed lifestyle. And when you're living with someone else your whole lifestyle has to be a flexible conscious thing and there needs to be priorities and hierarchy of priorities above other things. Like people have sleep schedules and you don't wake up at 5:00 in the morning and start vacuuming. When you're managing money you have to be able to put function over Aesthetics and be practical. These are all things Society doesn't teach anyone

For God its true alot of us are along for the ride, we dont have the equipment to verify alot of it. His work is very broad and it all ties into itself in a unified framework were every branch is easy enough to make sense of. It then all comes together into one metaphysics. So its not all pure naive following him, his work has so much value in every domain, i cant say Ralston or others really capture such a unified scope.

@zurew but Leo's whole point is that epistemology can lead to direct knowing of reality. So it's not about logical reasoning within a paradigm vs other paradigms. It's about doing epistemology to know what Paradigm is true