Carl-Richard

The thing that is reincarnated is the illusory identification with form (self-identity). You reincarnate every time you think a self-referential thought. That is why enlightenment is the end of reincarnation. You realize that both past life memories and current life memories are illusory.

They're the same in the sense that they're mobile flesh bags that whine when you poke them. Here is my non-autistic actually understandable version of "Name the Trait": 1. Name one human trait that animals lack. 2. Take a normal human and remove that trait. 3. Try to rationalize this human's suffering the same way you do with animals. 4. If you can't do 3, repeat points 1-3 until you exhaust all traits.

@fortifyacacia3 Sounds like Vaush has done some work on you ?

Hehe wow thanks! I agree, however, overly abstract concepts or formulations tend to lose nuance, which is kinda what I felt when I started writing this. On the surface, vitality and resilience seem almost synonymous with "health" and "strength" and even "good". On the other hand, I think there is a Goldilocks zone of abstractness; where it's both overarching enough and specific enough to provide some descriptive utility and serve as a springboard for a deeper (or wider) understanding. This is essentially what systems theory is able to pull off (understanding complex phenomenas from a multi-disciplinary and meta-theoretical level). Systems theory concepts seem a bit vacuous on the surface, and everybody has an intuitive understanding of them (e.g. words like "self-organization" or "adaptation"), but simply mentioning the words doesn't do justice in conveying the depth of the concepts. There is a lot of unpacking to do (which like I said, I'll probably do in separate threads, although you got a little teaser in that second comment).

Questioning one's assumptions can work to uncover unconscious biases and expose certain limiting beliefs and behaviors (analogous to cultivating "attention" in the paradigm I presented). This can open up the possibility and increase the potential for vitality and resilience, but there also needs to be a larger and more general/overarching type of attention (goal-directed purpose for your life) for this potential to manifest into actuality. This is for example why taking psychedelics without being interested in truth or personal growth often won't do much for you. They similarly open up the possibility for vitality and resilience by directing your attention for a moment, but you must align it with a higher-order purpose and work on it over time for it to create a consistent pattern of growth. If you feel that you lack a sense of direction and that your life isn't going anywhere, consciously setting a goal for yourself (like a life purpose) is useful for this. If you have problems with executing on that, therapy can help. Therapy is essentially about internalizing vitality with the help of a vital external regulator, a.k.a the therapist (which is analogous to how children learn emotion regulation from their parents). The therapist exposes you to challenges (exposure therapy) while teaching you to externalize emotional power to deal with these challenges (goal-directed expression of emotional energy), within a frame of higher-order purpose (overarching goal), which produces a consistent pattern of growth. As you refine your vitality and resilience, it becomes self-sustaining. It becomes its own goal. This is the lesson of meditation: true psychological independence. Once you've built up enough internal power to function independently of all non-essential external regulators, you're naturally turned off by them: you don't even want to take hedonic drugs, eat greasy food, engage in overstimulation. The only goal is to perpetuate health itself, in yourself and others: long-term, self-sustained, organic, internal stability: vitality and resilience; internal regulatory capacity.

1. Assuming that one's psychology is influenced by one's environment, there is no dichotomy there. Genotypes interact with the environment to produce phenotypes (observed traits/behavior). There is virtually never a 1-to-1 relationship between genotype and phenotype, maybe except for monogenetic traits like eye color (but these can also change due to environmental factors, e.g. being exposed to toxins or infectious disease that changes pigmentation). In other words, assuming there even is a genetic component to homosexuality (which is not clear), it's still both biological and environmental, because genes always have to interact with the environment. 2. We can observe animals having sex with the same sex, but you're saying you don't see animals having sex with prepubescent animals (have you checked?). Either case, that's not pedophilia. It's child molestation. It also doesn't make sense to apply it to animals as the definition has a social/psychological self-evaluation component that only applies to humans: you're technically not a pedophile if you don't feel difficulty conforming to social pressures (i.e. you feel an urge to offend but you can manage it without creating discomfort).

The points I've highlighted is more about misunderstanding personality as a concept and the faulty conclusions you can draw from that (about jobs etc.) rather than the potential flaws with personality tests in general. All psychologists know that personality is only a general pattern of qualities that persists over different situations and times. That is not to say this video isn't important, but I was expecting it to be more about the tests themselves (and maybe a comparison between different testing protocols or the specific tests for MBTI vs. Big 5).

I'm a privileged white kid.

I was actually kind of hesitant to say humans as I started thinking about animals and aliens. I guess this is what I was getting at: in our current world, only humans have an abstract understanding of morality as a concept and are able to discuss it, and this is both the origin of the diversity of values and the expression of disagreement itself. In other words, if I'm allowed to modify my previous statement again: "moral frameworks are about what humans want to say they are", which is basically a roundabout way of saying "humans make moral frameworks", which is kinda "duh!" But yes, I agree that morality is about preferences and that preferences exist universally for all creatures. I've basically said a bunch of nothing, so I'll try to save my ass: You can't truly know somebody's preferences. You can only infer it based on your own. Even communication itself is a reflection of your own preferences, because like your preferences, your cognitive interpretative structures were molded by conditioning and evolution. However, we can't even pretend to know somebody's preferences if they don't communicate it somehow. Whether that communication is verbal and abstract (a moral framework) or non-verbal and empathetic (a mammalian cry) is just a matter about information density. Nevertheless, in the words of the patron saint of pedos (joke), the path forward towards a global discussion of morality is mutual understanding, which requires finer communication, empathy and charity. Therefore, the future of animal rights is less about animal shelters and more about Neuralinks and Chinese lessons

Seems more like you're questioning the effectiveness of his methods than the sincerity of his intentions. Why not take his word for it?

I also said he is doing that.

Another way to put it: morality is about what humans want to say it is. In our current world, anyone that has anything to say about what morality is (or isn't) is a human saying what they want, thus morality is still fundamentally about what humans want.

There is no living from The Absolute perspective. He isn't just content with himself expressing empathy. He wants different people to empathize with each other, and he goes around on different online platforms literally creating dialogue on a practical level while also trying to create a dialogue between different perspectives on an ideological level. I reject the disagreement.

They are made up, just like memories from this life.

The Absolute doesn't speak. Don't speak for it It's literally how he introduces himself on every podcast. "Empathizing across party lines" 2:27 That's the point. You don't start with trying to change anybody else's view (because you actually can't). You start by trying to understand them and make them understand you, which is how you evolve to a place where you no longer dehumanize other people. Dehumanization is congruent with a lack of understanding (or willingness to understand).

No need to reflexively invoke The Absolute when thinking about relative matters. Reality doesn't care if all of humanity dies right now. Morality is about finding out what people want. What do children want? What do parents want? What do pedophiles want? What do everyday citizens want? The most moral person would want to find the best solution for everyone. The only problem is that nobody agrees on a solution. The Tier 2 approach is to not force anyone to adopt the value systems they're opposing, but to encourage them to evolve to a place where they no longer dehumanize opposing points of view, and Mr.Girl does this by creating a dialogue between different people.

Thank you No I haven't read any of those, but The Tao of Systems Thinking is obviously inspired by Capra's The Tao of Physics. I haven't even read much of The Systems View of Life

(These are just my thoughts, not an official representation of any authority on the matter. Some of the terms presented here use my own idiosyncratic definitions and may have different meanings elsewhere. It's also not at all a comprehensive view on the topic but only a rough summary based on my limited understanding.) I've spent the past year or so really trying to wrap my head around the essence of Tier 2 cognition (starting at Yellow), namely systems thinking. Just these past 6 months, after taking some courses in communication theory and community psychology, I've gotten some insights into the matter that really solidified my previous intuitions which I'd like to share here. I was truly surprised of how much these two fields were based on systems theory (mainly the theories of Gregory Bateson and Urie Bronfenbrenner respectively, although these two theorists only serve as lightning rods for the vast meta-theoretical space that is systems thinking). I'll open up with a quote from each of the aforementioned theorists: What these quotes have in common is that they emphasize relationships or interconnections. That is what a system is: a collection of relationships. But isn't it the case that anybody can understand concepts such as "relationships", "interconnections" and "systems"? What makes systems thinking so special? Now, you could actually argue that systems thinking itself isn't necessarily confined to Tier 2. However, I'll say that Tier 2 cognition consists of something called a "mature systems view." It's about a way to view the world; a worldview, and it's of a certain sophistication or maturity. To truly understand this worldview, we must first contrast it with a more common worldview, which I will call "analytical thinking." Analytical thinking Fritjof Capra, a pillar of the mature systems view, refers to this worldview and way of thinking as the "Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm." It's characterized by reductionism, mechanism, atomism and positivism. The Cartesian method approaches understanding the world by breaking it down into smaller components (reductionism). Newtonian mechanics describes the world as force interactions between physical objects that consist of atoms (mechanism, atomism). Positivism refers to the idea that we can formulate consistent laws based on this type of knowledge (e.g. "laws of physics"). Another way to think about it is that analytical thinking approaches the world "vertically": This vertical approach isn't just confined to the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology). It's also central to fields like psychology. The analytical tradition of psychology reduces problems down to components within the individual: symptoms, diagnoses, traits, drives, genes, beliefs, values etc. It lays the basis for individual psychotherapy (psychoanalysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy etc.), psychiatric medical treatment (antidepressants, anxiolytics etc.), personality psychology (Big 5, MBTI etc.), cognitive psychology (e.g. Beck's schema theory) etc. Jordan Peterson is a big proponent of this view. On the other hand, there is a systemic tradition within psychology called community psychology. It emphasizes relationships, connections and environmental factors when solving problems (social, economic, political, cultural etc.). Not coincidentally, Jordan Peterson is not a big fan of this approach. Without making this any more about our beloved JP, let's get straight to it: what is systems thinking? Systems thinking In contrast to reductionism, mechanism, atomism and positivism, systems thinking is relational, holistic, ecological and organic. A system is a collection of relationships between units, and holism is about focusing on the whole. Taking a systems view is about seeing the interplay as a whole, not just the individual units for themselves. The bigger the system view, the greater and more inclusive the whole becomes, and the more holistic it becomes. Ecology is about understanding the relationships between organisms and their environment, and an organism is an interplay of smaller living units ("organs" or organic units). Systems in nature and society are complex and can be described using different concepts from systems theory (e.g. "transaction", "self-organization", "adaptation", "feedback" etc.). In contrast to the vertical nature of analytical thinking, systems thinking is "horizontal": This picture represents a social system, however the horizontal principle applies to other systems as well: organ systems, cells, molecules, atoms etc.). These are «real systems» (natural/social systems). You also have abstract systems (e.g. scientific theories, ideologies, value systems, meta-systems, paradigms, meta-theories etc.), and that's where things like construct awareness come into play (more on that later). Meta-theories are "theories about theories", which try to understand how abstract systems work through meta-systematic observations. Fields like philosophy of science and models like Spiral Dynamics and Integral theory are examples of such meta-theories. Model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) is a good model to understand the different levels of abstract systems (e.g. "how complex is a paradigm?"). Context awareness, Construct awareness and Theory pluralism. I've already mentioned construct awareness, which is one of three main facets that I think are useful to further understand systems thinking: Context awareness refers to the general ability to understand the pervasive nature of relationships in the world: the vast array of relationships across different domains (physical, biological, social etc.). Any individual unit exists within a larger context (their environment or the larger system), and being aware of context is synonymous with a general form of system awareness. Bronfenbrenner's Ecological systems theory is a good illustration of context awareness: Construct awareness is the ability to the understand the relationship between the human and the world with respect to making sense of the world (knowledge, sensemaking and epistemology) and how it's a process of constructing abstract systems. People may manipulate these abstract systems without understanding how they work, e.g. what kind of system it is, how it's made, and how it relates to other systems, which would be an exercise in construct blindness. For example, it's possible to operate a car without knowing how it was made or how the engine works. To not be aware of how abstract systems work to construct your reality is to have a lack of construct awareness. Thomas Kuhn and his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a good example of construct awareness. After performing a meta-theoretical study on the historical development of science, he concluded that all scientific theories at all times are validated relative to a historically contingent framework of philosophical assumptions (a paradigm, a collection of constructs), and thus all scientific knowledge is fundamentally relational in nature. So not only are the external aspects of human behavior dependent on context (as in social interactions; Bronfenbrenner), but also the internal aspects (mind). If we go back to Gregory Bateson, in his systemic communication theory, he in fact defines "context" not as something external, but as an internal psychological framework. He does this because of the insight that the mind is constructing the external world. Alfred Korzybski's "the map is not the territory" is also a staple of construct awareness. With enough context and construct awareness, you'll inevitably end up with theory pluralism: the ability to explore and understand a wide range of different abstract systems (theoretical frameworks). In a sense, theory pluralism is both a prerequisite and a consequence of construct awareness (they're co-created). However, to really develop a wide knowledge of theory, you must have a deep meta-theoretical understanding which is able to see the larger picture – the essence of construct awareness. Ken Wilber is a great ambassador for theory pluralism. His vision of integrating all domains of knowledge into a single, comprehensive framework is the pinnacle of systems thinking. Fritjof Capra should also be mentioned here with his book "the Tao of Physics", where he not only makes profound observations about context and construct in his writings about Quantum Mechanics, but he also makes theoretical comparisons to Taoism and non-duality. I mentioned earlier regarding having a "mature systems view" that systems thinking is not necessarily confined to Tier 2 cognition. This is because Green is very open to context awareness and will easily appreciate models like Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. What Green struggles with the most is construct awareness. It might be able to deconstruct a lot of Orange systems, both from a rational place and an intuitive place, but it struggles to pick up the pieces, both theoretically and practically. Construct awareness also makes you more prone to grasping the concepts in systems theory, which unlocks key concepts like the meta-theoretical evolutionary lens (Beck & Cowan, Wilber, Kuhn), which Green crucially lacks. So that is the gist of it, but there is so much more I could talk about, e.g. the history of systems theory (deep ecology, cybernetics, Gestalt psychology etc.) and different systems theory concepts like I've alluded to earlier. There are also other aspects of Tier 2 cognition that could be expanded upon, like the ability to hold paradox, understanding holarchies, or different real-life applications (that's a big one). I would anyways like to hear what you guys have discovered about systems thinking that I've left out. I would never turn down the opportunity to deepen my theory pluralism Additional notes and clarifications: Expanding on this: Analytical thinking and systems thinking must not be thought of as diametrical opposites, but as generally expressing different dimensions of movement through abstract systems (vertical vs. horizontal). Neither of them are pure expressions of either "vertical" or "horizontal" thinking, because technically all abstract thought utilizes both dimensions to navigate the cognitive landscape. An alternative description could be hierarchical movement vs. cross-hierarchical movement. The categories explored in hierarchical movement tend to have a corresponding familiarity or similarity of kind, while the ones in cross-hierarchical movement have corresponding distance or diversity of kind (in that it's possible to have many qualitatively very different things interacting with each other in a system). One reason why horizontal movement tends to be more readily associated with complexity might be due to the relative simplicity of postulating it abstractly, because meanwhile it's possible to have interactions between many qualitatively different things, it doesn't actually necessitate or force a qualitative difference (e.g. you can simply have interactions between many molecules of the same kind), meanwhile a comparably complex vertical scenario is much harder to postulate, as the different levels of a hierarchy always forces a degree of difference (e.g. molecule > atom > sub-atomic), and thus most abstract hierarchies tend to be simpler (because models are supposed to simplify). In other words, the tendency towards horizontal complexity could simply be a bias of abstraction, and that in reality, systems are equally infinitely complex across all dimensions, both vertically and horizontally. Thinking is nevertheless about abstraction, and therefore horizontal thinking serves as a litmus test for complex thinking. So from this alternative view, what is systems thinking? Well, the more you refine your general ability to abstract both vertically and horizontally across categories (symbols, concepts, classes and domains), the more expansive and complex your thinking becomes. Therefore, the proclivity towards the mature systems view simply depends on the size and complexity of one's perspective. Horizontal thinking is nevertheless generally an indicator of complex thinking.

I was hopeful when I saw this video, but sadly, you were correct: You really get the feeling that we're living in different universes.

It's fine if you want to go on a cynical treasure hunt for contradictions, but I've already clarified that he has merely demonstrated some cognitive aspects of Tier 2. Maxing out Tier 2 across all developmental lines is a much broader project. Even so, I doubt that Tier 2 magically solves every problematic personal interaction. Communication is complex stuff. Also, don't forget about the power of hindsight. The compulsion of having to incessantly purity test everybody for their SD development is a bit shallow and annoying.

@Roy I just spent 30 minutes re-watching the Vaush conversation and 5 minutes watching this one while mainly focusing on the chat, and it's sad how much it magnifies the contrast between the two approaches. He looks like a saint in comparison, and it makes me emotional. I think we're underestimating how important his mission is, despite how futile it may look. We've become so numb to the default state of unconditional hate from all sides. He is doing God's work, and he'll probably sacrifice himself for it as well.

It's a statistical question. Public figures tend to have more expertise than the average person.

Is that brunette Lauren Southern?

@Scholar I feel like I'm overdosing on Mr.Girl content. I just watched 4 hrs of the Christmas eve talk with Destiny ?

If you have, can you present some of his points to me? I've watched earlier interviews with him.