Carl-Richard

If you want to help them and you do, that is completely ok. If you don't help them, what is your excuse? Do you have something better to do? Are your aspirations such that they could outweigh the action when spending time/attention/resources on them instead? But why help them and not their friends? "But being helping in local interactions is something you want to cultivate". That is one factor. "But having a sense of personal respect and personal life and right to one's own life is a right you should have, and respecting other people's choices". That is another factor. The answer really is aim at things you find valueable and do what you think is right with respect to that. That might help somebody locally or it might not; it might help more in a spread out way, or more locally again. As for JP "but if you're a psychopath, you value other people's demise if it benefits you in the short term, and that's a moral problem", you should probably factor in that too.

Theory is conceptual

You should donate all your savings to Malaria prevention. It's selfish not to.

Grandrew Bate. Fraden Ceters.

BPD = borderline, BP = bipolar. If the discussion is about relationships, most likely borderline.

Watch out I'll shoot you with my dick, buddy.

So let's put this straight: a guy used piggish language to describe women and sexual relationships and it spawned 700 posts of copium. That's what you're spending time and attention on.

Gregory Bateson, Fritjof Capra.

Come. It's the density of "fooks" and "girls" in combination that has exceeded Andrew Taint territory. Next you'll call me a brokie. Spiritual forum -> still getting one's dicks in a twist when talking about kundalini exiting the lower floors.

If you can't see there is something seriously wrong with Professor Dave, I don't know how to help you. Or I do, but we have to unpack that.

Bro hierarchy and survival is not some special thing. All social systems have them. Politics, ballet, NASCAR. The guy in the reel even says this. "Science" is a special pony only because Leo has a fixation on taking a dump on it because that is how he feels special.

Not really.

Also, not trying dry fasts is by definition closedmindedness.

Bruh how do antibiotics work then? It kills your body (the microbial part of it). Chemotherapy the same. You're not supposed to "function" during a dry fast. That's the point. You're supposed to go into dying mode, that's how you kickstart the survival processes in your body. That said, I don't actually recommend dry fasting, but I see the principle behind it. A near-death experience can make you have an awakening and shake you out of a depression. Drug addicts who fall so deep into the darkest depths of depravity where they realize at the very last step that if they don't turn around they will literally die, some of them completely turn their life around. Short bursts of extreme but controlled physical exertion and muscular rupturing (during exercise) unlock genes that change your body, making your body bigger and stronger.

Sack the jester and your kingdom leaves.

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

Forum has never been more dead after I lost green letters 🫠 #1 perk of being mod is attention 🥲

Recalling some memories: You can also see how I described several of the events I've recently mentioned here five years ago in the full response.

Here is a slightly different view of how the narrative-based vs detailed-focused approach manifests, with two great examples (Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins): It made me have a potential realization that the reason why Peterson has difficulties conceding frame in a conversation isn't "just" because he is a bit self-centered (although that is probably a component), but that his cognition is such that he views everything through "his" narrative (because his narratives are so all-encompassing, they ground in the very fundamentals of truth; "religion is truth"), so when you ask him to concede that, you ask him to remove his reality. It also made me realize why Jordan Peterson (in a discussion with Destiny) drew so clear but surprising connections between environmentalism and the tyranny of the 20th century (and leftist thinking). He thinks all of them could be (or are) anti-human in the guise of being pro-human (communism is for the common man -> kills 100s of millions of people — "in fact, it's not clear to me whether Hitler was more of a leftist than a right-winger"; environmentalists think about the plight of our children 100 years into the future but want to limit energy and economic development which empoverishes the children of the Earth today — "the WHO also says we are too many people on the Earth, and even uttering those words will have consequences"). In the name of "the good" (compassion), we will kill you. He also made what seems to me to be an erroneous judgement of what climate models (and economic models) have to do. He thinks they have to be able to simumate everything that is happening perfectly as if it's a computer rendering of a virtual world, and that if you can't do that, you can't say for sure whether the economy will go in the toilet or not because of some few degree increases in Earth's surface temperatures or if the temperature will increase at all. Yet in reality, you don't have to be able to predict everything happening in the atmosphere or in the econonomy to predict with some reasonable level of certainty that higher CO2 -> higher temperatures -> repeated ad nauseum -> planet becomes unliveable. It's like "you don't know with 100% certainty whether playing Russian Roulette will even fire the gun or whether it will hit you and cause you to become a savant rather than dead; so why not play Russian Roulette?". He seemingly has this expectation that if you can't predict or explain virtually everything like with his narratives, it's somehow not worth considering.

I have a theory (not a conspiracy theory): the people who get strongly drawn to conspiracy theories are the same people who get drawn to supernatural ideas, like God creating the universe from their own predetermined plan (not simply evolving spontaneously through "natural law"). They are fine with explaining reality top down through an elaborate narrative. There is a seeming plan behind everything, behind world politics, behind alien invasions, behind wars, behind ancient history, and they all connect to a grand meta-narrative of control, of manufacturing, of conscious creating, rather than natural systems acting spontaneously. Those who criticize conspiracy theories point out how that level of organization, of top-down control, is unlikely if not impossible, because of the natural tendency towards spontaneous order and the infeasibility of controlling complex systems. In the "naturalist critique", everybody is a victim of systems, even the supposed people in power, while in the conspiracist's mind, the people in power are the controllers of the systems and the powerless are the victims. Whether one is more correct than the other is actually hard to say, and a naturalist that claims otherwise would then become a conspiracy theorist in their own right, thinking they have the level of insight and knowledge to be able to predict complex systems. As for myself, as a general predisposition, I've noticed I'm fine with either (naturalism or supernaturalism). While for example Bernardo Kastrup says he is strongly opposed to supernaturalism simply as a personal predisposition (which is why he says he sees no point in doing philosophy if nature is not simply naturalistic; no "God" at the top planning it all, intervening into nature and changing the natural course of things). But I would also challenge this idea of naturalism, that you could still try to deduce the "laws" behind God's planning so to speak, and it won't be a completely pointless endeavour, simply a more interesting one. Like trying to understand the psychology of God rather than the "physics" of God.

Who the fuck drinks three glasses of milk (750g) a day anyway? If you don't drink that amount of milk, you have to eat 400g of almonds (nobody does that), 150-200g of cheese (you fat pig), 780g of low fat sour cream (you drinking the stuff?), 1.5kg of spinach (you'll definitely get kidney stones) to hit 100% of RDA for a male my size. I only hit about 40% with a standard day's worth of food. How do you do it? Do you snort calcium-fortified soy?

What makes the human experience meaning? Grow that like a plant.

I'm gay. So gay. 💅

Cheese, sour cream and the like are really the only diary products I can eat without issues.

So I was doing N-Back training, which for me notably involves memorizing and rehearsing a growing string of letters and their positions in a three-by-three grid. Then I noticed that the sound of the letters I was rehearsing internally, could just as well have been me rehearsing some bodily movement, like a dance move, because the sound is a byproduct of a mouth movement after all, and because I'm just attaching meaning to the sound, it's not inherent to the sound. We all have experienced this before where we repeat something enough times and the word loses meaning and just becomes a weird sound. But this was special in that I was noticing it happening as I was storing relationships between different sounds in my memory, and I really got the directly felt experiental sense that all sort of language processing or storing and manipulating symbols and their relationships, their logic — all of it was first seen for what it is with its meaning attached, and then for a short moment, all of that meaning was seen through as a marvelous illusion, and all that was left was the bare bones of the structured noises underneath. Now, imagine if you had used bodily movements like dance moves to memorize things and communicate instead of sounds. That's what deaf people who speak sign language do after all. Imagine that if you were reading these letters, instead of sounds in your head, dance moves popped up.