Carl-Richard

He isn't a naive realist. All neuroscientists have to concede to some level of constructivism (it's in their models). Still, constructivism is compatible with materialism, and from the way he talks about the brain (at least most of the time), he sounds like a materialist.

From the locked duplicate thread: If you were a true fan of the flawed Occam's razor, you would choose ontological idealism over ontological materialism and treat the brain as just qualia ;D But having such a duality (as ironically opposed to non-duality) of mind and matter does not automatically prove all that other spiritual stuff. Bruh. Idealism is non-dual (in the monistic sense which you're referring to). It says everything is mind. Materalism says everything is matter, but it has problems explaining how mind arises from matter (the "mind-body problem"), and it appeals to things like strong emergence, which goes something like "we believe that matter somehow produces a completely new substance called mind, but we don't exactly know how", which doesn't really convince anybody. Occam's Razor favors idealism over materialism mainly because of the assumptions of things like strong emergence.

Bruh idealism is non-dual. Occam's Razor favors idealism over materialism because it skips strong emergence (creating mind from matter).

If you were a true fan of the flawed Occam's razor, you would choose ontological idealism over ontological materialism and treat the brain as just qualia ;D

The light technician knows all the songs down to each instrument, and the band is tight as a neutron star. This is synesthesia incarnate.

Seems like that's the answer to your question.

Try to not breathe and see how your stomach reacts.

Do you like your life to follow strict routines?

Does form have desire?

Do you think God is a person?

Hints of Yellow, far from solid Yellow.

Not everybody is privileged like you. You expect places where the modern medical industry hasn't fully penetrated keeps accurate count of causes of death?

I think they are good examples of online Green and the problems that arise in that context, but they're not representable of all Green. No individual person is.

True. Invaluable contribution to the field. I still find that "don't read about theology - it's a waste of time, but watch me spend decades criticizing it" is arguably at the level of performative contradiction and doesn't require much meta-systematic observation to realize the absurdity of (it's not merely an issue of paradigm lock)... or maybe I'm wrong. CosmicSkeptic is Green after all.

Ah. Interesting you made that connection. I intuitively went for representing each stage (except Beige) as the father and the mother in a dyadic relationship, probably because of the deep metaphysical nature of the dance between feminine and masculine, and because that is what parents are. The exact relationship between each parent was again derived methodically, which has its flaws, especially in how I was somewhat more guided by the aesthetic of the schematic rather than the conceptual underpinnings, but you can say that like intuition, aesthetics can confer truth in a way that is inarticulated but nevertheless more effective and useful than syllogisms. Most theories are anyway conceived through intuition and justified post hoc through syllogism, so I think conceiving it through aesthetics can be analogous to that.

I have to admit that what I'm presenting is merely based on a flash of insight and is probably incoherent on some level or at least not very substantial in the grand scheme of things, but it has a certain beauty to it, and it was really fun to make. I still maintain that the methodology I used to derive each category is consistent on at least a superficial level (without reading too much into the Jungian concepts, treating them mostly with your intuitive understanding from simply hearing the words). All in all, treat it mainly like art, and whatever ideas I present, take it with a grain of salt (or none): I'll try to explain some of my thought process, but first let's agree it looks pretty aesthetically pleasing (thanks to my Paint skills ), and the fact that the colors of the arrows display some type of trans-symmetry (remember chemistry?). Interpreting what the arrows mean is pretty straightforward once you read the next paragraphs (or not even that). 1:24:52 - 1:27:38 Jordan Peterson says that when he looks at what is happening on the "far left edge", what he sees is an "existential issue", or an issue of archetypes and their relationship to values, which consists of "the Tyrannical Father", "the Benevolent Father", "the Tyrannical Mother", and "the Benevolent Mother." Let's use his implication that the far left edge (Green) are primarily characterized by the Tyrannical Mother (TM) as a working hypothesis. Let's also say that "mother" generally denotes collectivism. According to SD, each stage both reacts to and contains some elements of the previous stage, and that each consecutive stage oscillates from individualistic to collectivistic. For Green (a collectivist stage), the preceding stage was Orange (an individualistic stage), which means it has to contain an individualistic element, denoted by "father", but in a sub-ordinate position, hence "mother - father." For now, let's stick with Green as "TM > xF" (Tyrannical Mother - x Father): Let's get the easy ones over with first: a) fill the Tier 2 stages with benevolence and b) fill the lowest Tier 1 stages with the opposite (tyranny): a) Yellow is "BF > BM" because of individualism, and Turquoise is "BM > BF" because of collectivism: In other words, in the transition from Yellow to Turquoise, or the flip from "BF > BM" with Benevolent Father in front to "BM > BF" with Benevolent Mother in front, denotes the transition from an individualist, fatherly, self-improvement perspective to a collectivist, motherly, community-based perspective (which still retains some Yellow individualism, hence the BF sub-ordinate position). b) Here I opted to make Beige individualism-only because there is no preceding collectivist stage that it can draw from, hence it's only "Tyrannical Father" (TF). It also kind of makes sense when you consider the traits of Beige (autistic, narcissistic, "survival at all cost"): Purple and Red each mirror Turquoise and Yellow (Purple: "TM > TF" ; Red: "TF > TM"): the flip from Purple "TM > TF" with Tyrannical Mother in front to Red "TF > TM" with Tyrannical Father in front denotes the transition from a collectivist, motherly tribal perspective to an individualist, fatherly kingdom perspective (which indeed still retains some Purple collectivism, hence the TM sub-ordinate position): Next up is Blue. The logical next step would be to ask ourselves what distinguishes Blue from Red: What is added? What is retained? What is added is arguably a more inclusive collectivist component that isn't merely tribecentric (one tribe) but ethnocentric (many similar tribes/societies with similar values, rituals etc.), hence a more "Benevolent Mother": "BM > TF." Here too of course, the Tyrannical Father component from Red is retained in the sub-ordinate position: With Orange, you simply flip it around, just like with Purple&Red and Yellow&Turquoise : "BM > TF" to "TF > BM." Again, the collectivist component (now from Blue) is integrated in the sub-ordinate position: it's the re-awakening of the Tyrannical Father (flashback to Red) with the Benevolent Mother in the back, further evolving the circle of concern to sociocentric/early-worldcentric, fueled by the self-assertive claim to truth and personal autonomy through individual thought and rationality: free speech, free thought and free governance (democracy): Finally we've gotten to the last missing piece; Green's sub-ordinate position: the "xF" in "TM > xF" (Tyrannical Mother, x Father). Who is the missing father? Can you guess who? It's the Benevolent Father ("TM > BF"): This is probably the most anomalous change in terms of line up (and maybe that is the point): the Tyrannical Father evolves for the first time into the Benevolent Father, and the Benevolent Mother turns into the Tyrannical Mother. Did the Tyrannical Father internalize the Benevolent Mother in order to become benevolent? I'll leave that for you to decide. Regardless, it seems to fit well with how the Green Tyrannical Mother is a flashback to Purple just like the Orange Tyrannical Father is a flashback to Red, and also the progression into Tier 2, where the tyrannical aspects of Green are finally subsumed by Tier 2's benevolence. Thank you for reading my pseudo-intellectual art project!

Ah thank you. So many vertical letters, it confuses me

When I was younger, I used to view people like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens as logically infallible, undeniably good faith and generally argumentatively rigorous. This view kind of stuck with me after my worldview changed, explaining my change in worldview as merely a change in values, not as a change in logical capability. However, then I watched this young atheist criticizing Hitchens' flawed argumentation: I also rewatched a Harris debate with William Lane Craig and noticed that Harris completely derailed the debate into a pathos-fueled stone throwing match, using his speaking time to just shit on anything and everything about religion that doesn't fit his values, completely disregarding the debate format and Craig's good faith philosophical arguments. 58:35 I haven't done a deep dive on Richard Dawkins regarding these issues yet, but considering his general neopositivist disregard of philosophical sensitivies ("science, yay! - philosophy, boo!"), I have a feeling I won't be surprised. EDIT: Here Dawkins literally argues "don't read up on what you're criticizing." It initially looks like he concedes the point, but later he says "no it's actually not worth my time". It's really disappointing. 38:32 Then again, nobody is infallible. I think everybody engages in fallacious argumentation from time to time, but as mentioned here, the frequency and consistency of Hitchens and the absolutely malicious and sociopathic Chess move of Harris really surprised me.

What do you think about Hitchens?

This goes into decades of research and theory behind the mechanism:

How do you know your life is real when it's temporary?

It's the entire premise behind the scientific method.

Many people initially feel very confused by psychedelics, then they might discover a new paradigm that is more able to articulate those experiences. You're always seeking coherence between beliefs and experience.

Been stuck in Dark Night limbo since March 10th, 2020. Current strategy is to work on worldly foundations (interpersonal and occupational). Then hopefully it's up and out from there.

or I assume so based on the stability of their worldview over the years. I haven't directly interrogated them about their ontological viewpoints.