Nilsi

it doesn't, because its existence is contingent on these survival challenges. it evolves forever, which isn't to imply some teleology; it could also devolve, depending on who or what defines these terms. but it always self-organizes, i.e., it is alive.

any complex self-organizing system (like society and life at large) can only exist against a background of chaos. for example, humans (and by extension society) couldn't have evolved if it weren't for the intrinsic survival challenges that bipedal ape-like species were facing. complexity is literally the product of the process of solving and adapting to existential problems.

You can trust a human to know what it’s like to be a human… the joy, the sorrow; the feeling of being in love for the first time; what it’s like to belong and to be a misfit; the wonder that comes from gazing into the night sky; the sensation of hot summer wind on your skin; how it feels to witness injustice and the fire it lights up within oneself to do something about it, and perhaps not knowing what to do about it at all; the utter importance of a hug… and any „intelligence“ that doesn’t have these experiences as the basis of its agency is not ever to be fully trusted.

Give these people some views. 19 clicks in 15 hours??? That should be criminal.

Wouldn’t you agree that when you’re in love with someone, you would want to be able to understand and empathize with them as deeply as possible, knowing fully well that their identity is infinitely complex and you will never get to the bottom of it for all eternity? And isn’t that desire and tenacity in loving and getting to know them the true mark of intelligence? Same goes for any object of desire. And why would you even care about understanding anything you don’t love? Isn’t that stupidity? Your point may hold for pragmatic purposes, like understanding enough about a toothbrush to know how to use it, but beyond that it doesn’t hold up.

To be fair, you’re not making it easy to grasp what you’re getting at, so I just ran with the associations that came to mind. That’s the only way I know how to respond to such obscurity, and it usually leads to more clarity, although in your case, I can’t say that’s true.

I’m all for complex arguments, but I realized that a conversation with a Jew is not the appropriate context for overly subtle and relativistic arguments about Hitler that could easily (and understandably) be misinterpreted. That’s why I apologized for being insensitive.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/raisi-iran-president-helicopter-crash/index.html WOWWWW WTF is going on???

You should listen to this:

This is like saying, "the faster you move through an art museum, the faster you can go do other things." There is actually a rather fitting Drake lyric about this mindset of spectacle: „I know a girl whose one goal was to visit Rome Then she finally got to Rome And all she did was post pictures for people at home 'Cause all that mattered was impressin' everybody she's known“

I hope Western leaders seize this opportunity to show solidarity with the people of Iran and emphasize that, beyond politics and ideology, we have much more in common. Tonight, death, the great equalizer, has reminded us of this truth.

Jane Remover >>>

This is not to say it’s all relative, though. I think a given piece of music can only be properly understood and evaluated in the context of music (and art more broadly) in its entirety. As you dive into the complexity and richness of our musical legacy, certain things start to click, and a sense of "objectivity" emerges. That doesn’t mean you won’t have individual preferences and „taste“ regardless.

Some of the best and most critically acclaimed music is intentionally poorly made and sung badly. Take the infamous "The Velvet Underground and Nico" record. For what it’s worth, this is probably my favorite record of all time (definitely up there) and perhaps one of the most influential records ever. So, it's more subtle than simply categorizing music as good or bad singing. There are many Aretha Franklin and Whitney Houston records that suck ass, even though the production is very neat and spotless, and both of these women are obviously incredible singers.

Cute girl at a houseparty: *hands OP the aux* "can you put on some good music?" 👉👈 OP: "sure, uh, what kind of music do you guys like?" Cute girl: "anything. just put on something we can have a good time to" 😏 OP: "well, uhm, ok, I guess... let me think... snap... ahh, I guess I got something" The speakers: *Goldbach Variations play*

If this was a freak accident and it ended up killing them, it would be akin to a "Putin was just found dead at his dinner table. The cause of death is believed to be airway obstruction by a foreign body. Kremlin officials state that he apparently choked on an artichoke while having a midnight snack. Investigations are still ongoing" situation. It's actually quite profound to contemplate the idea of such a banality leading to a significant change in the course of world history. I can already hear Netanyahu and his henchmen dm'ing each other with shit like, "Halleluyah, Jehovah listened to our prayers."

This gives me the ick and is the musical equivalent of people praising vegan food for tasting "just like meat."

So you're bumping Mozart's "The Magic Flute" when you get the aux at a house party, is that what you're telling me?

I suppose @Carl-Richard would even agree with you and call that „optimal experience“ or whatever as opposed to the „neuroticism“ i’m advocating for, if i recall his position on this correctly.

Are you saying that to truly understand Beethoven's 9th Symphony is to just assess that it’s made up of woodwinds, percussion, strings, and so on, and that it represents the musical form called a symphony, and that any deeper assessment of this work of art is merely a suboptimal use of your intelligence? I couldn’t come up with a more vulgar conception of intelligence if I tried. "The whole" you are referring to is infinitely complex, and I would define intelligence as precisely the ability to hold as much of that complexity in mind as possible.

Don’t get me wrong, I like being bigger and stronger than the average guy as well, just not excessively so. Brad Pitt in Fight Club is roughly my ideal body type, and I’m reasonably close (apart from abs, which i lack a lot of) I would say. What you bring up about not pushing yourself to your limit is precisely the disagreement, I think, because that’s the whole premise of Mentzer’s high-intensity training, and it’s what I like as well - it gives you that extra workout for your mindset. Anyways, I don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong approach, as you said. I was just curious about your perspective, since you obviously are way more knowledgeable and experienced in this than I am.

Let’s zoom in on that. Doing heavy compound lifts like squats, deadlifts, bench presses, and such multiple times a week, as you seem to suggest, strikes me as quite a lot. Mentzer recommended one workout per week, or even less frequently. The 3-day split is actually more of a compromise from his point of view, but he gave some guidance on that as well, so that’s what I’m running with. He doesn’t look natural to me at all, lol, and I don’t have any ambitions to get anywhere close to as big. Quite the contrary. I’m rather afraid of getting too big because that’s not what I’m aesthetically aiming for, and it wouldn’t work with my wardrobe and fashion preferences.

I'm on a Mike Mentzer-style HIT training regimen and a 3-day split, and I can reliably increase the intensity of every exercise in every training session. I don't know much about the science of training, and what I do might not be the most efficient way of training, but it feels very satisfying to know that when I show up, focus, and push through my psychological barriers, I can make gains every single time. Also, I usually don't work out for longer than 20 minutes in a given session, so this works quite well with my very busy schedule. Any thoughts on this training style?

Are you able to increase the intensity (weight or reps) of all these exercises every training session?

Also, basics like getting a good night's sleep, being well-hydrated, and eating a healthy, filling meal (preferably lots of vegetables, legumes, some good fats, and some quality animal protein, if that is congruent with your ethical framework) a couple of hours before your test will go a long way.