SelfPeace

This always puzzled me. https://medium.com/the-mission/what-the-is-the-mainstream-fbdc4178547c ^ he provides some interesting insight on what the "mainstream" is and why it's cool. Mainstream = PRESENT MOMENT of information, or culture.

https://medium.com/@ramiaidy/what-the-is-the-mainstream-fbdc4178547c ^ he compares "The Mainstream" to the PRESENT MOMENT of culture (i.e. world of information). Very interesting read and take on the concepts of being cool from a consciousness perspective.

Good Quick Read: Why Elon is Wrong About Hard Work Elon prescribes a 80 hour work week. Leo prescribes lifestyle minimalism. Who do you think is on the right track?

@Waifu Yandere Just to expand a bit more, think of consciousness as a way to make "sense" of information. What would you call someone who makes good "sense" of information? You'd probably call them "wise". Think of the wisest people to live. Sages. What do sages technically do that most people neglect. They consistently try to establish a direct, unperturbed connection to consciousness. If we can say that creativity is just consciousness made manifest, then really sages are the most creative people on the planet. The greatest masters of history, in almost any "creative" endeavour have found a way to tap into this. They're in a state of pure flow, no-self involved, just consciousness doing it's thing in the world really. Notice you may not necessarily refer to these people as intelligent. There's a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is a tool, of the ego, and is used narrowly, in certain circumstances to "compute" information, not necessarily make "sense of it. Consciousness, or the process of information-processing, is the only thing that can make "sense" of all things, as all things in the universe arrive as information.

Nope, the complete opposite. Pure consciousness (or pure information-processing, awareness, wisdom, etc. whatever you want to call it) is not an object or a thing (i.e. No-thing). It's not of this world, its the light that illuminates the objects of this world. However, as conscious beings, the only way we discern information in order to act within the world of object (the substrate of our subjective experience) is through consciousness (i.e. information-processing). Naturally then, there needs to be a bridge between these two "worlds". That's what the ego is for. You can say then that pure consciousness, created (through the process of evolution) the ego in order to act within the world, as consciousness itself doesn't have a form. Therefore, we're defining creativity as pure consciousness made manifest. Think of it like this: consciousness (no-form) = creativity (form). We usually define creativity pretty narrowly, but I'm saying it's the ego's main aim. The ego is the mediator between the world of information (your subjective experience), or rather, novel information (i.e. chaos, or to the perspective of the ego, experienced as suffering) and the "world" of no-form, or consciousness (which is information-processing according to evolutionary theory). The process of mediation between the two is creativity. That's why the definition of true creativity should be one that aims to reduce suffering. Albeit, it's a bit to take in, try reading the "Individual, Consciousness" section more thoroughly, it's important to note that our sense of "I-am-ness" evolved as a means for the nervous system to better handle information from the environment. Let me know how I can clarify.

https://medium.com/@ramiaidy/the-evolution-of-organizations-consciousness-paper-ae537275a70b Read up to the part about creativity and tell me what you think.

Cool! I think I might have even had a similar experience one day as a child cause I was unusually introspective. I remember then having a weird existential crisis that lasted for months cause every concept seemed foreign to me (space, separation, language). Things eventually come back around though! But yeah I think he mentioned music for the theatrics he usually doesn't lol. I don't think he's making any presumptions on Beingness itself, I think he gets it quite well. His primary subject of study early on his life was politics and morality though, so I assume he's trying to derive meaning to put it in a social context. I may butcher the analogy but I think similar to how Maslow was developing a Psychology of Being, I think Peterson might be developing a Politics of Being. His views on religion seem quite similar to Robert Wright's and Jonathan Haidt view on social systems and morality. I totally agree though, I don't think all the teaching and debating is making him more conscious, he'd be better off spending some of the time doing consciousness work. It's hard to imagine pursing enlightenment while being a highly successful professor/intellectual. I used want to get a PhD but now I think what I'm doing is a lot wiser haha. Having said that though, don't you fancy an enlightened person can learn a thing from a Peterson/Haidt/Wright maybe even Harris, to develop understanding and avoid becoming a zen devil? (and I mean they're ideas not the persons themselves).

I like this. It's funny you say that because Jordan Peterson mentioned that many of the viewers of the podcast mentioned that it was listening to the right brain trying to talk to the left brain, totally true. I'd recommend watching him if you ever get the the chance, he is pretty interesting. He seems to have a very interesting view on religion and myth and how it relates to Being. E.g. This sounds a lot like an experience I had while meditating the other day, almost like being abducted but with overflowing love. What's strange is he's had the experience while contemplating for a book he was writing "Maps of Meaning" and not necessarily meditating. What would be your take on that? Basically self-inquiry?

Wellll, I'm sure you keep doing what you do and if he's as committed to the "truth" as he claims to be, he may come around. Maybe Peterson will atleast help him see past his notions of truth but whatever. If you don't mind me asking, when/how did you get your first let's say major paradigm shift away from rationalism, cause I'm assuming it was before you experimented with psychedelics? For me personally, I think exposure to atleast the proposed implications of quantum mechanics early in my life put me on the way that psychedelics/meditation/mythology (or religion) kind of reaffirmed. I'm asking cause they're usually a large gap between the average person and someone who's willing to experiment with 5-meo.

@Leo Gura I feel you, as I've grown in awareness I get really put off when a friend wants to debate or wants me to listen to a debate, though I make exceptions with few intellectuals. Reality is reality is reality, we can observe truth without needing to debate about it. Harris seems to have grown an identity around debating cause he approaches almost every conversation as if it were one. Though he's claimed to have done months long meditation retreats and openly speaks of psychedelics, something I can't imagine Dawkins doing haha. Atleast he's treading the territory and may one day come across the mother of psychedelics. Can we try to make it happen though "5-Meo-DMT - Harris and Leo talk about God"? ?

I've been reaching out to both men, and more specifically Harris, over the past few weeks (though I admit the communication has been one-sided ?) trying to summarize each sides most significant points and make sure they're acknowledged by the other side. They will meet again next week and I'd like to continue trying to reach out and deliever the most important points to be heard. You're welcome to help out, as it is an opportunity to open the mind of a public intellectual whose growing very rapidly in popularity and importance to our contemporary thinking. @Leo Gura I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this conversation and what points you'd make to Harris's highly, materialistic/rationalist pov. I'm quite young and though I try to keep up with them, you're way more knowledgable about philosophy/psychology than myself, so I'd appreciate it.

If you watched Leo's video on realism, I'm sure you've been questioning your epistemological assumptions all week. Today, Sam Harris, probably the most popular of the "New Athiest" (with maybe the exception of Dawkins) released a podcast of a two hour debate on realism and the idea of Truth. Jordan Peterson has been the most requested guest to Sam Harris's podcast which naturally gives way to a very interesting conversation. I believe Peterson is better versed in spirituality and psychology in general, but Harris is an honarable intellectual and seems to be the most 'conscious' of the new atheist. Both men strike me as highly intellectually honest and educated (though no one is free of their biases). I'm really excited to see where this conversation will lead to as I have seen Harris evolve a lot over the years, espicially of have written his book Waking Up. I believe this conversation is at the forefront of this debate in the mainstream media (or atleast amoungst the ones the more learned of the crowd) and the outcome of it I think will be significant to society. I'm not going to spew my opinion or perspective on this debate and on realism just yet, but I'd like to see this thread turn into a highly philosophical discussion. I challenge you to listen to the conversation and share your thoughts/counter-arguments (it's less than twice the length of a typical video by Leo, so no excuses if you take this stuff seriously ?). P.S Intro until 4:20, they rail on about political correctness and politics until 24:00, then the conversation turns to Realism. They cover a lot of territory though never come to a consensus, but agree to meet again soon..

^ the podcast will become available next week. I found Leo's timing with his rant against realism to be impeccably timed for this interview. Btw if you are wondering what Dr. Peterson's case for Darwanism vs Newtonian view of reality is, I posted this video a while back: It's long but I promise it'll be a very interesting 3 hours if you're interested in the subject. You can search Youtube for shorter videos of his but you'll run into many other videos of his contraversies in taking on political correctness.

Someone I've been following a lot as of late and I think will play an important role of our contemporary cultures view on realism/postmodernism in the near future is a professor named Jordan B. Peterson of the university of Toronto. Today he went on Sam Harris's podcast and from studying both men I knew there I suspected there will be an idealogical clash on this very subject between them. Peterson tweeted this today:

Jordan Peterson is a brilliant professor of clinical psychology. The way he combines consciousness, with politics, psychology, and philosophy in general will blow you away. Serious yellow thinker and a treat to watch.