Origins

Gotta be careful, so many PhD's that are just bullshitters because they need a cushy job to preach what they've been brainwashed by because they struggle to create original content. This person does not understand what their teaching here on a deep level, very, very shallow introduction. I've just gotta say it how it is. At the same time it's not really their fault, and I'm sure it gets beginners minds still thinking of interesting ideas. Thanks for sharing.

29:51 Genetic psychology has literally zero to do with studying the causes of mental phenomena. ZERO. Genetic psychology on the other hand has everything to do with how genes influence behaviour. Not cause. NEVER cause. This is merely correlational. Again, severe dunning-kruger here.

25:30- more dunning-kruger effect unfortunately - the distinctness between psychology and philosophy is purely based on your beginning position (i.e. questions) and has nothing to do with philosophy being fundamentally distinct and prior to psychology. You can't philosophise without psychology and you can't do psychology without a philosophy, its total nonsense, what we're looking at is different ends and varying means rather than entirely separate subjects. There is always an intrinsic overlap and this can be represented by a Venn diagram with separations owing to psychology and on the other side separations owing to philosophy, that is how they get their categories, where they diverge not where one begins and the other ends as that is the wrong question to be asking.

21:18 min/sec This is not only not factually correct its also overly simplified, for example when we're born for the first time we're not like this, we also experience this very differently depending on our psychological and biological development, a mental action that can also be highly influenced by things like drugs, neuroplasticity and other perceivable (i.e. social - for example, sometimes the social biases around conformity might actually dictate our prejudices more than our prior mental schemas) and experiential phenomena. Dunning-Kruger effect unfortunately so far, this just shows us how far behind philosophy is to basic reality.

17:41 Massive assumptions there regarding directionality, perfect description of someone Locke'd (pun intended) in Descarte thought. He's leading the audience as well, getting them to make the exact same assumption by assuming the assumptions that underpin his statements, of which he hasn't articulated very well, must be true.

15:54 min/sec First person experience is just a common experience but its likely a major, major assumption. Referentially speaking it has credibility, in that, consciousness refers to itself when articulating on and extending itself through the lens of experience, but this is more of a loop than a categorical static sensation that is often denoted as the first person experience. Firstly, what is meant by "first", "person" and "experience" and how exactly does this come before consciousness? There's A LOT of assumptions embedded in each of those words held together I'm suspecting.

He's also wrong about Locke's conception of the mind where he talks about Locke saying "Well how can I be certain that what I'm experiencing in my minds eye actually accurately represents the object in the world?" and then saying its impossible. All you have to do is look at a pencil close your eyes and draw it blindfolded then compare before and after.

Descarte's cogito I'd argue is false and I've reasoned up to a similar point in my own observations however I went one step further by realising that it could just be a loop. A loop doesn't necessarily have to exist but merely loop that it is existing, similar to his notion about a computer program but one step further, the appearance of "I exist" may actually just be a bug in said programming. Moreover, its been established that we have hundreds of cognitive biases so what makes us so confident that the appearance of "I exist" is also not just a cognitive bias. I don't know why I'm the first person I've come across that's established this very basic reasoning. Remember, the brain fools itself so darn easily by its own reasoning, its because our reasoning is so faulty that we believe ourselves to be faultless on some points sometimes.

So a simple diagram that illustrates what I'd argue is probably the position that a consciousness has to arrive at in order to configure itself properly for consciousness development. This isn't to say that development can't exist without being in a nothingness state, just that there will likely be many prior developmental expansions a consciousness has to go through before it can properly integrate to this point otherwise the consciousness will likely very easily delude itself along the path of work here. We don't have a map for higher levels of integration that are easy to follow (at least not to my present knowledge, probably is just not readily available) because we've only recently arrived at a point in history in which the path (not necessarily all the knowledge though) has become de-occulted and thus open globally for humanity as a whole to pursue as increasingly more persons arrive at the ability to do so.

Death meditation. They have died. You'll need a good imagination. Done enough times it'll alter the subconscious, even if you consciously know they're still alive if you do the visualisation enough times and well enough, the brain has no choice but to respond to that. There's a letting go process there that goes along with that too. Most problems are due to not understanding how to master the imagination or not putting in the work to master it. It's perfectly fine to love someone for the rest of your life and never see them again, what matters is how disruptive is it, do you still have the capacity to love others, is it beyond reason, etc. Generally speaking I'm always an advocate of mastery over technologies or mastery before technologies (from psychedelics to things like transcranial direct current stimulation). I've never had psychedelic's for example but based on some the ways that I interact with reality some might think I had.

@deci belle Have you read, “The Conditions of a Prideful Poop”?, it’s very analogous. Written by Filippe Deleone of Tour de France-poop, in "Memories of Shouvonlu". Otherwise these and or poetry in general are great for reticular activation reconfiguration in the stereotypical right brain kind of way, opens up gateways of disidentification and reidentification of value through lateral thinking. Thanks for sharing , as it concerns your actual poem my observation is based on the utility of the poem itself, its great for encapsulating fictional character personality design and depiction for example, its fascinating how just a change in one aspect of the poem can lead to a complete change in the overall perception of the poem. As for "sings very softly" or any of the characterisations, for me it just depends on how you personally wish to characterise the poem and what you wish to take away from it, I certainly don't entertain any identification with poetic moulds myself at least not at present though I get the utility in doing so, aesthetically for certain cultures in particular Taoist eastern like will do so as a means of aiding the formatting of their lenses, to bring it back full circle there. Best.

There is no need for me to comment back, there is also no need to comment in any such way that I may comment for at the end of the day the persons lens on the situation will describe what will be automatically omitted, omitted by choice or omitted by the overall capacity of the lens on the perception, otherwise known as a gestalt. Lens cannot ever be non-admissible as that is the only place upon which one can begin to describe their present context, my point relative to the, albeit off-topic relative to the main topic but on-topic relative to what you've brought up so far, is that it is by inclusionary measures we can exclude automatically rather than through conscious exclusionary measures, the former is achieved via contrast (right lighting and so on) and the latter is achieved via conscious control. Think of a painting, when the painter starts out if he puts a small dot in the middle that automatically becomes the centre of attention, but as he adds layers and layers upon layers to the piece, the dot can no longer be seen as it is held in the balance of the rest of the overall gestalt (possibly more than one depending on the painting), so it is removed through expansionary rather than contractionary measures, this is the basis of my initial comments as originally stated. Otherwise okay, I'll think about the poem and comment back accordingly later today.

Was responding to as quoted is all .

Some creative thought experiments that may help you on your way if you're at all interested in the universal jar (equals everything) is simply things like: - How can I gather motivation from this simple box sitting on the ground? How about this dust particle floating around in the air? - How about an ideological convention like a certain religion, government institution, extremist movement? - How about a fly you may be seeing buzzing around the room? - How about this pain in my back? Many people use pain as a source of demotivation, so how can you creatively practice doing the exact opposite of what most people do there? - How about a social pain you may be experiencing? Not just obvious things like bullying but maybe you just had a simple argument with a friend, instead of being a source of demotivation how can it be a source of positive motivation (so not things fuelled by things that harm your actualisation and overall psychological integration of the universe)? - How about Earth as an entire planet? How about Mars? How about any planet? How about any planet we've never discovered? Because after all that's still technically a planet in the universe, it just solely for all we know only so far can be discovered inside your imagination for the amount of time you're able to hold it and remember it. I'm sure you get it now , it trains creativity and overall mental flexibility insanely, like I mentioned well worth it.

In this sense, once you master the imagination in the context of: (1) ability (2) attitude (as it concerns using it as motivational fuel) (3) perspective You're on your way. But you're talking about hours and hours of consciousness work. If you're starting off though there's no better person I could imagine than David, I'm naturally a person that's always going to try and individualise it because that's just where my mind goes, I like to synthesise everything in the context of the whole as much as possible.

@Shunyata David Goggins has this thing called "the cookie jar" [just research it], mine is "the universal jar" [self explanatory but feel free to ask]. For the latter its sort of tricky and requires some realigning of the minds automatic tendencies regarding its perspectives of memory of the outer world and the outer world itself in the context of motivation which seems like such an individual rather than universal thing but its doable and worth it, for me its a nuanced aspect to raising consciousness and will overlap with many other paths there.

Perfectly normal relative most societies present conditioning across the world overall. They've done so many scientific studies now that it makes perceptions to the contrary ultimately redundant, what really matters overall is: (1) what's the competitive context (2) what's the competitive perception (including what attitudes, beliefs, etc make up said competitive perception) Both fuel each other, the less competitive the context then the more cooperative the dedication will be towards collectively moving towards a shared goal. At the core of it, you probably see other people as different to you, so simply work on enlightening yourself overtime. It's probably never fully going to go away, especially if you're male as its correlated with things like testosterone, but the more mature your consciousness comes in its reference frame for self versus other combined with aligning its attitudes towards competing against personal narratives rather than other peoples narratives you'll have a much greater fighting chance.

To add on lens: 1. size 2. scope 3. perspective (i.e. from time of day to a different being the perspective of even God or an entire planet, in short, to wherever your imagination wants to go, heck even from the perspective of a film or a book or a thought experiment, and even, all, some or more of these [aspect of quantity]) 4. other qualities and quantities Sometimes we don't need to get rid of but merely include more of for greater perspective on what we're trying to get rid of. Kind of like someone we dislike we wish to remove, we wish to remove them up to the point that our perspective on their existence has not reached the point that we're comfortable having them around. Of course, there's relative instances of this and therefore veracity, like a swarm of mosquitoes for example just eating away at your arm there's little expanding your lens is going to do on the event if you want your arm for the long term but you get the point. Our pain points regardless are relative to the size, scope and perspective of those contractive lenses that are larger than our lenses that are more towards the expansive end. I recommend doing all various kinds of experiments to teach your consciousness how to handle various modes here. Imagine experiences that conjure up painful emotions then try to transmute those experiences not by trying to ignore or remove them but by simply expanding your lens of perception and experience, the same too with physical pain. For the latter right now I just banged my knuckles against the table which created a sharp pain of course, without dissociation I imagined myself being fully in that experience while at the same time in the clouds of the sky near an aeroplane which I paired the feeling of pain with. So the plane was experiencing the pain not myself [edit: which greatly reduced the pain]. These sorts of experiences, they teach consciousness all of its possibilities, understanding all of these modalities is something we're yet to master as humans. Mastering consciousness via conscious experience (inclusive of emotions and sensation) and imagination is something that would give any human not only a superficial incredible advantage but also just a comparatively pretty cool and easy breezy human experience when it comes to reaching their potential.

@deci belle Might I suggest not to try and get rid of anything per se, but to simply move towards higher expansion. If you think of perception as a lens and our preoccupations as preoccupations merely because of the size and qualities of that lens, then if we expand the lens and therefore increase the probability that the variety of textures that become a part of that lens will also increase, then any weaknesses in the perceived psychological construct we believe ourselves to inhabit in that moment will likely diminish with equal proportion (relative to say energy levels). It's just that I tend to associate "getting rid of" with more of a contractive state than anything else, which may be necessary in the heat of battle but if we're not in the head [edit: heat] of battle then its probably more conducive to learning to expand towards more of a state that enhances learning than one that may cut away at the perceived beauty of existence.

All of Jordan Peterson's words just being burned away inside his endless mental loops that lead him no where other than his own arrogance and further depersonalising his relationship with his daughter. Maybe as a meditative experience you can watch this

@Mvrs Death is just an invention used to associate with the complete passing of the human body. All neurosis created about death is thus synonymous to all neurosis created about life. What needs to become a cultural norm in our society is we have to have an understanding of how the concepts we use to figuratively kill ourselves with were generated. If we understand the source, in this case, the motivational system pairing itself with a momentary story of self separate from the universe about the passing of its physical existence, we will understand why fear or literally any kind of emotion and subsequent neurosis (if dissonance is persistent and stressful) develops at the same time as the pondering of death. It's not that we're dreaming [edit: meaning in a dream / that life is literally a dream], that's merely an assumption, its that we're dreaming of existence when we think about it, perceive it. Saying "life is a dream" in the literal sense is just dreaming that life's a dream, its self defeating because we simply don't know. If we're dreaming, we know we can't know what lays outside the dream. I don't believe anyone can know anything in this life. All we can do is upgrade our perceptual, sensorial and inferential ability inside the dream we create regarding existence. This is the foundational principle behind the slow rise of trans-humanist movements, none of which I've ever been strongly inclined towards though they're an important trend to consider to juxtapose our present non-sensical narratives like fanfares around self absorbed charlatan's like Jordan Peterson as well as an interesting contrast to present abilities and the words we will create with a massive increase in our baseline on a number of indicators. My recommendation is to spend time contemplating how much of life that exists which does not revolve around your internal narrative and consequently, how much life will be devoted to giving you godlike astral ability after your body ceases to remain. We have billions of people and billions of species in the known universe, its probably the case that given godlike is a relative term, there is no story in the universe that involves either making or already making Godlike astral entities nor would a Godlike astral entity likely spend its time inside the dream of being a human for the rest of its life. All of these species have beautiful lives though, Godlike is just a part of ones motivational system if you think about it, to be Godlike means that one gets to "survive death and conquer survival" so it seems just a normal consequence of the potential of the human narrative is likely a very common phenomenon. Right now on planet Earth, you're likely probably one of many, many humans that feel this way, but that this is most likely a consequence of our need to move away from suffering or feel greater than our any potential suffering than it is an actuality. It could be, you could be and or could become all sorts of strange things into strange worlds, but in attempting to answer for the non-fictional, I doubt it, but to that non-fictional, if you're a writer I recommend it, stretch your mind and you'll stretch your psychology, just watch out for those psychological bumps in our motivational system that can sometimes make us feel like the centre of the universe just a little too much. Oceans of whales turn into lands of tigers turn into trees of hawks turn into crocodiles of swamps turn into pharmaceutical industries of benzo addicted narcissists who can neither see the oceans for the lands and to both, all of space and time much larger than they. It's a disease. It. Will. Hurt. You.

Look at the way Jordan interacts with his daughter in their latest interview together, guy has serious relational issues.

Jordan Petesron is a freaking cartoon character. What does that say about his followers? What does that say about his critics? He is mentally ill. It's not enough to have compassion for the guy, people need to ignore him as it only makes his problems worse and people who have actually done the inner work and are ready to step up to be leaders for those drone followers ought to continually step up where they can.

Oh and just briefly - A picture tells a thousand words (albeit not the best picture quality for upload oh well haha point still made). Amazing creatures I never even knew existed located on the dandelion weed. Regarding the technique, you become just so much more open to life around you analogous to what Leo says about the power of observation. This is the same but in the form of focusing in on raw patterns (so as non-linguistic as possible in the beginning stages because then you're not really seeing patterns per say but just playing with linguistic symbols so it'll be much harder to de-condition the brain). We all live on tiny islands, not even the smartest of the smartest realise just how tiny that island they live on really is. No body sees the world. We are these tiny creatures on this dandelion, sitting on top of one another trying to convince each other of what ideology is better than what, etc, starting wars on this dandelion when all we will ever know is this dandelion and the rest of the world will pass us right by.

The purpose of our brains for example is to invent narratives for the rest of our bodies to follow (purpose is of course different to ability - we can invent whole imaginary landscapes who's purpose is no greater than to serve our entertainment). This includes the adage "life purpose", its a total and utter fiction. Complete rubbish. But. Taking in ideas like this helps us conceptualise the 21st century where we don't have to run away from lions anymore, so it has a lot of utility when perceived in the right way. You'll have to learn to master your mind, it's the only path forward. A good purpose could probably be defined as something that reflects a good understanding between oneself and the world that they inhabit. This is the subject of introspecting on the patterns of ones consciousness and ones life. Often, peoples inner patterns have nothing to do with constructing utility in ones life and the patterns that do are often still just a kind of conditioning the person isn't highly aware about which makes it difficult for them to make adaptations when its wise to do so. Unfortunately, we have a pandemic and its not COVID-19, its on peoples ability to introspect on the contents of consciousness, decondition themselves from the patterns of conditioning that have been injected into them and map an increasingly more coherent narrative between themselves and the outer world. This is the greatest problem of the 21st century, it's not climate change, extinction, AI or the next pandemic, its simply on our ability to discern and develop patterns that improve our relationship between our inner to perceivable world. I describe in a comment just previous about a technique that I've undertaken which is increasingly releasing me from the conditioned patterns of my brain. Be observant of the pattern though between (edit) de-conditioning oneself and having a few further existential bumps to get over as you transmute prior false realities you took to be true but can clearly see are false. Something like that in depth would take 12 months of training though. I won't say anything more about it though because that'll just be preachy, in short it would cure Jordan Peterson, and its a good option for him being someone who'd obviously be perhaps now too cautious around experimental drugs. Okay I'll be off again. Good to stop by the forum haha wasn't gone for long but stopped by for the purpose of making that previous comment. Peace out.