Outer

But it does help both as they're two sides of the same coin. The point is to have complete understanding. A theory of everything.

Yes the ineffable is not linearly created by the brain, but it arises with it, so the creation of the brain/matter is the creation of the ineffable. Or rather there is the creation of the ineffable and matter.

Well don't you think that I was trying to make the ineffable describable? I'm just saying that the reason the ineffable is might be because it was "created", for a lack of a better term for it. Or emerged.

If the Self is ineffable, why can't it still be "created" from brain processes? The "creation" of the Self doesn't make it describable. "Creation" of ineffability means what it means.

If he's saying he has a way to lead you to enlightenment, then its like he picks your pocket and sells you your own watch. In his own words.

Jerry's Wormhole trip Homer eats strong chili T'Challa reunites with T'Chaka Jaguar eats Yage Bruce Wayne journeys inwards

What you're saying is mostly true.

Yeah, and making assumptions about his motives. He speaks about traditional gender roles like 0.1% of all of his speech, if even that. He MUST have a secret agenda of exactly THIS way his audience must interpret 0.1% of his speech. Or am I projecting, am I assuming? It's interesting how the human mind works. For a hammer everything is a nail. How it works is you search for something you want to hear Jordan's opinion on - once you did that you have ignored 99.99% of what he has said. About how news stations utilize the Availability heuristic to instill fear and clicks in the population, even though the world is proven to become better and safer every year world-wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic I've listened to quite some of his lectures, teachings female students to become good psychologists (high rating on ratemyprofessor), and he speaks about how it's important to tell the truth and so on. Even if he is regressive for Women's rights or whatever, or has traditional gender roles, or other traditions, you can still take the rasisins out of the oatmeal. I see Jordan say a lot of batshit crazy shit, sometimes just thinking out loud, but some of his content is beyond deep from the shoulders of the giants he's standing on. Just search for his lecture on phenomenology of Being. Confirmation bias. Appeal to Motive. Other logical fallacies. Someone's regressive since their uncertain about gay rights and bring up make-up to facilitate a discussion women-men in the workplace, or give advice to women that appears traditional. Let's forget 99.99% of his speech. Now if 0.01% of his speech is up for motive assumption, and that's how you decide what you think of him, really? Is that how we decide who is regressive? By assumptions? Seems like a witch hunt. It's best to let it go on. Truth wins. Truth is guaranteed.

I think it's best to have as little to no beliefs as possible. "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. ..." - Wikipedia

Do you think he is dishonest?

I don't think he's an ideologue with an ideology. They tend to have very narrow theory of everything.

You actually believe this?

I don't understand how self-inquiry is relevant to this. I'm not awake.

Yes, but it's one thing to say something is irrational it's another thing to explain why. So privilege is bias? What is relative experience?

So a nonbinary person isn't trans female or male? I don't know. You said they are irrational, but I don't know what you fully mean.

What's a traditional gender role? What is cis-genered l privilege?

What's the current problems with pronouns and society and how large are they?

I don't have anything against transgender and nonbinary pronouns. I don't think Jordan does either.

I'm not.

The uncertainty is built on his foundation as a mistake theorist in my view. http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ Edit: On this point he seemed to deviate from that foundation never mind, I heard wrong once I was listening to it. I thought he said that he didn't think there was any benefit for gay people (like there was data) but what he actually said he didn't think there would be any benefit to decrease the demands from the "radical left neo-marxist types". He should've just answered straight whether it's a good or not, based on the data like being a "mistake theorist", in my opinion. He just seems confused on that point, like he kinda implies himself. On raising children he doesn't seem so uncertain though.

I'm just saying I don't think Jordan was arguing that women shouldn't wear make-up or whatever to counter what I constitute sexual assault. He was just thinking but not arguing for it in the case of flirting, but he wasn't sure what level of flirting is or isn't acceptable and that's a conversation ppl should have.

They weren't even sure what the rules were at that point. What constitutes sexual harassment. I'm pretty sure Jordan was talking about flirting to different degrees. As he brought up some company banning hugs and later he brought up NBC asking people to report your coworkers if they suspect romantic entanglement.

What? You missed the part they cut out where he said "I'm not saying you shouldn't wear make-up". "I'm saying we don't know what the rules are.". Can people be manipulated? What's Vice's reasoning for cutting that out? Literally cut right before he says that. 7:43 and forward.