Carl-Richard

You can call it a type of intuitive, meta-cognitive, post-rational or holistic ability. It might be why women tend to be a bit more conscientious, because they're also more intuitive, verbally complex and emotionally attuned. After all, language, symbolic thought, human social bonds and nurturing capacity mainly evolved around the mother-child relationship. The voice of conscience is often felt like your mother telling you what you should do.

@DocWatts All of that seems to make sense. I believe I have an underlying intuitive understanding of it, but I'm kinda new to academic philosophy, so I just have to acclimate to that language. Two things: 1. How exactly does ontology and metaphysics differ? Or rather, in which cases does the distinction matter? 2. There are two other concepts that I've been a bit confused about recently but that I believe I have figured out (or rather one of them): "ontological reductionism" vs. "methodological reductionism." Ontological reductionism is the least problematic one for me: you explain something by reducing it to an ontological primitive. For example, if you're an idealist, then you can say that cars, dogs and humans are fundamentally just consciousness, while a materialist would say it's all just matter. In other words, you explain something by stating what it is. However, what exactly is methodological reductionism? Is it simply when you reduce things to some scientific model? Tell me if this is correct: Scientific models always have to rely on some ontology (like you said), but also like you said, only in so far as it can serve as a vessel for empirical investigation ("Newtonian mechanics tells us that nature behaves as if there's a Universal Law of Gravitation"). So it's not that ontology and science are dichotomies, but it's more like a 90%/10% respective split (i.e. "science" is really just "90% science" and "10% ontology" and vice versa). (I also got this impression while listening to Bernardo Kastrup; "ontology informs but doesnt settle science, and science informs but doesn't settle ontology"; so if you agree, then that's additional confirmation.) Anyways, so to call this process of explaining something using scientific models "methodological reductionism" simply refers to the fact that the "essence" of the scientific process is methodological/empirical (the 90%), or in your words, how it "behaves", and that the ontological aspect is just implied or taken for granted. For example, you can use the humanistic paradigm in psychology and say that self-actualized humans experience heightened levels of positive emotion, and because it's a scientific paradigm, it's an explanation primarily based on empirical observation (90%), and thus it primarily tells you something about how humans behave, not what humans are.

That is the video I'm talking about. I made a comment under it 3 years ago.

@DocWatts How would you pin these different paradigms along the categories you mentioned: the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm of science and the humanistic paradigm of psychology? I have trouble gauging the exact overlap between especially ontology and science when it comes to specific examples of models/disciplines/paradigms (but I know the theoretical distinction).

I can teach you ?

My roommate's cat

It literally isn't. I changed the title for you.

If we're talking about the same thing, I believe he discovered the voice of conscience, which is a powerful realization in its own right. It's the ability to distinguish between different qualities of thought rather than thought and no-thought.

Ramana Maharshi

You mean sue them and take them to court? Well, you see, if you want to be really technical about it, the legal system only enforces laws. It's not really about protecting "rights." Cmon, you know very well what I mean when I use the word "right." It's something that is fundamental to human flourishing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

Why are you not allowed to drive drunk? Depends on the situation. I don't have a strong stance for or against mandates. I'm just pointing out the other side of the equation, and like axiom, I say "make of that what you will."

Why does the CDC exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

Do I also have the right to good health and protection against disease?

Precognition.

I didn't say you were... Are you sure you're OK?

0:00 - 2:00 Two minutes of just pure ESTP (SeTi). It's actually wild

Vitality and resilience. You're unhappy because you can't handle the truth.

I can't even jump into a pool that is slightly colder than room temperature

Tl;dr: the dichotomy between "mental" and "physical" exists only through receptor-level neuropharmacological mechanisms of dependence, not addiction. Addiction is defined neuropharmacologically at the level of networks and behaviorally by various criteria, which makes it a psychological/mental phenomena, thus there is no such thing as "physical addiction." There is mental dependence, physical dependence, and there is addiction which is mental.

I don't get which part of your post is illogical?

Depends on which type of religious person it is. Many famous psychologists have divided religiosity into two types: Gordon Allport: Intrinsic and extrinsic religion: religion as an end to itself vs. as a means to an end. Abraham Maslow: Religion based on deficit needs (safety, belonging, esteem) vs growth needs (self-actualization, self-transcendence). Erich Fromm: Authoritarian vs. humanistic religion: submission, duty, sorrow, guilt, obedience, worship vs. self-unfoldment, happiness, love, belief in oneself, the empowered human, the mystical experience.

Progress is most often not visible on the surface. It's generally slow and boring.

@Danioover9000 6:46 I distinctly remember watching this segment live a couple of years ago. I felt that Dr. K was being a bit pushy with his conclusion ("you're on a mission to save kids") and that Reckful didn't truly resonate with it. It becomes much more obvious when it's cut like that. 39:05 Man that's really fucked up. After talking about how he might have BPD and that such people specifically struggle with the fear of abandonment, he said he would stick with him, but then he changes his mind and abandons him. Yeah, this is a mess. My main takeaway is that therapy ethics is a pool of collective wisdom which has been gathered over decades of clinical practice by thousands of highly knowledgeable people, which is not something that should be taken lightly. To undermine the importance of ethics displays a lack of awareness of the complexities of human interactions, power dynamics, the illusion of control, and systems of wisdom.

I think this exemplifies the dangers of working with frameworks that go beyond one's own level of development (using DocWatts' idea of "epistemic bypassing"). Instead of organically going through life and exploring different perspectives from the bottom-up, you apply a partial, top-down understanding to bootstrap and brute-force yourself up to a perceived place of superiority. Pretend to forget everything you know and sit down and feeeeel! What do you really want? Pursue that.