Happy Lizard

The argument form meta-rationality is that cloud exits, yet you can’t find or accurately define its edge, where it ends. The human body is the same thing yet it’s not as obvious as a cloud, and so is the world. There is no reason why the world needs to be rock solid. also randomness depends on what you mean, similar to how a cross can be a sacred object to a christian or two sticks stuck together for an uncontacted tribal people. You are the one who is deciding what to call a thing random or not

@Leo Gura His main point is that logic is what makes discovering truth possible and its the foundation of all knowledge, but doesn't self-reference limit logic’s ability to explain everything? I also think he does not believe the world can be nebulous and it’s fundamentally a problem of language. Like I said this is not my main domain, so it is not immediately obvious to me how this book fits with paradox and meta-rationality.

I’ve picked up Square One from Leo’s book list after seeing that he placed it at the top of the updated list. I started reading it after Meta-Rationality (I’ve finished the first three parts). I have to say, I feel a bit confused. Leo mentioned that the book is foundational, but I think it contradicts Deconstructing Rationality series as well as the paradox video. Now, I haven’t watched the three-part series on deconstructing rationality yet, and I don’t engage in heavyweight philosophy, as it’s not my domain, but I feel like the two books have opposite messages. Basically, what the first part of Meta-Rationality is about is that you can’t precisely arrive at a perfect reference of a thing or pin it down as a separate object, since reality includes nebulosity. He gives the example that you can’t pin down the edge of a cloud. However, depending on your purpose, you can define an edge for the cloud that corresponds to what you want to do with it. This all makes sense to me. it continues in the first part to show how the rational project fails, since there is no universal way to reference or pin down a world of nebulous things, neither in language nor in any referential system. What Square One is arguing seems fundamentally against this nebulosity. The book says that as long as you are capable of referencing a thing to begin with, you can make a statement about its state, which you can then reason about. This is what makes logic seem like such a fundamental tool that cannot be limited. As a novice in reasoning about these topics, I can’t tell which argument is stronger, but I lean more toward meta-rationality. It seems like Square One is just saying that language is the problem, and that if you solve the problem with better language, the nebulosity disappears. But this is exactly the kind of argument that meta-rationality specifically attacks.

Genuine question: Is getting familier and understanding dark aspects of society a part of this work now? With Leo’s recent blog posts and the recent booklist update, I feel like there is a turn towards this direction, which wasn’t very much the focus in the past. I just wonder what you have to use for search terms to get these results.

Showing off with high end Luxury brands, Gucci, Louis Vuitton Versace etc Some of the designs themselves are good, way overpriced but good. Its the showing off thats the source of conformity. Edit: overpricing is conformity conformity feedback loop.

Sure but then you end up like telling a kid that sex exist, which is not the right way either. I think people will get hooked if you say you experienced what buddha experienced and beyond, or that it helped you be peaceful and made you make sense of many things in the life, I have no doubt that this is the case for you but you seldom talk about these things that you might think are minor or talk in this fashion in general. You could be just wrong that people will crave the intellectual stuff you say on its own. I think people will be more moved by how they would feel about your work and they could stick to do the work then afterwards.

@Leo Gura if you know that people would not compute the ultimate realizations you’ve had why not just talk about what makes it beautiful for you? Wouldn’t that be a more direct way to talk about these realizations?

Knowing Leo he will probably start with the corruption of video games, which is nice, but I hope he also does the corruptions of some type of thing that we rarely think about. Because the bad qualities of some of these on the list show very fast after a while. Its the hidden and the unknowns that blind sides us.

@Leo Gura he has tried 5-meo though and he often in his books do interview as many diverse opinions as possible. I don’t think he will have the depth you have but its a very good effort as an intro to your kind of topics, especially given how consciousness is often not talked about from a psychedelic lens.

@Leo Gura about the Art blog post, are you pointing out the fame-cult aspect of the art-world? Because that is different form the art itself and it’s value. Even though people blindly worship some of these artists and the price tags on these paintings are overblown, they were actually very skilled and original for there time.

@Leo Gura Regarding your blog post about Islam, I wonder if you know of a good source to learn about Islam form a high perspective view.

Saying or typing “lol”

Cant we get semi-frequent success and dating content on the blog for the us who follow actualized content for personal success? I enjoy the philosophy and see it’s value as years pass, and if I’m motivated to understand these complex topics now, then I think my general appreciation of it will sky rocket if I can only meet some personal success criteria. I think a lot who follow actualized will agree with with me on this.

Wedding rings. Dedication at the beginning of books.

Currently on ep 45 of AFTMC, almost done with part one of metarationalism.com and wont watch the new episode until I finish it. You are too pessimistic with these percentages @Leo Gura Life is uncertain. probabilities don’t work!