Carl-Richard

When you're in the statistical worldview, - you are acutely aware that many things can influence one thing, and their relationship is statistical (quantitative). Some things can have a strong influence, other things less of a strong influence, and some things only a weak influence (e.g. the butterfly effect). In reality, there is a huge web of influences, where each influence is a particular node or string on the web, and each node is weighted with a certain strength of influence or statistical value. For example, ADHD can be influenced by beliefs, experiences, genetics, etc. Even if you think one of these things have a stronger influence, it doesn't mean it can only be reduced to that thing, and talking as if it can be reduced to that thing can lead to problems with accurately talking about and perceiving reality. Words like "partially", "mostly", "some of", "many", are often used. - you often say things are "probably so", "most likely", "less likely", "probably not". It does not preclude you from making firm and exclusive analytical statements (e.g. "given x and y, z is true or false, coherent or inconsistent"). But you are very acutely aware when something is statistical and probabilistic so you don't overstep or overgeneralize or oversimplify. - you realize a thing can be many things at the same time. There is often not just one way to do things, or one thing you can do at any one time. "Should I meditate every day or should I do retreats where I meditate more deeply?" Why not both? "That's the placebo effect". Why can't it be a real effect and placebo at the same time? "Trans is social contagion". Why can't some of it be real trans and some of it be social contagion (both within and across individuals)? "Yes — both" is very often realized to be the answer. The statistical worldview is a way to conceptualize nuance and holism, as opposed to black-and-white thinking and naive reductionism. It's also related to the modern scientific framework of putting numbers and quantities to these relationships. Modern science, especially human-oriented science (e.g. medicine, psychology), primes this kind of statistical thinking where everything is viewed through statistical associations (mediation, moderation, correlation) and ways of quantifying them (effect sizes, correlation coefficients, measures of statistical significance). If you do enough scientific thinking, in the right fields of science, you will eventually end up viewing a large chunk of the world this way.

There's like a 2007-2010s haircut, and that's it.

@Natasha Tori Maru What about size? Steve Vai has giant hands. By the way, the most seductive song that has ever been written.

I won't try, but I will try through a story: I one time went with some from uni to a bar, and I was with one girl, and then we met some other people (guys) and they were like "your eyes are so amazing, oh my god!" (and they were right to be fair; I even said kinda lowkey "I'm mean it's not wrong..." which was kinda not the best move to be fair but anyway). I've later imagined in that moment that after they left (which was quickly), I could be like "don't you think it's sometimes better that not everything has to be spelled out?" and she would ask "yeah, what do you mean?". And then I would just look her straight into the eyes like a horny predator (and kiss her???).

But do you promote pursuing spirituality/awakening knowing it might increase the chances of a spontaneous kundalini awakening (and dissolution of self which is arguably just as dramatic as kundalini energy)?

Systems thinking is thinking with emphasis on relationships and challenging simple analytical thinking (naive reductionism: "a -> b"), often dealing with notions like complexity, circularity, context. I'm not necessarily invoking systems thinking as much as multiplistic thinking, simply acknowledging there are multiple things, and these things are related in degrees. "Multiple" is statistical, "degrees" also. Probabilistic thinking acknowledges degrees of probability of multiple outcomes; that's also statistical. Bayesian thinking is a very specific framework. The probabilistic aspect I'm talking about is simply about acknowledging probabilities. It's very simple. Everybody should be familar with the concepts I'm talking about. It's just some are maybe less deeply practiced in it or less able to spot the common errors our mind makes. Especially the last paragraph about spotting how things can be two or more things at the same time. For example about the Placebo effect. People often seem to have an idea that once "placebo" is invoked, every other effect is somehow irrelevant. But it doesn't have to be that way, and it most probably isn't that way in most cases.

God is like: Who cares about Leo's argument? Leo's not God.

You're alright, don't worry.

@Never_give_up Also, beware that it's not "you" that reincarnates (you as the ego-mind-body complex, what you think you are). "You" will die, "you" will disintegrate, "you" will become nothing. That is ultimately what you are. And then what reincarnates is a seeming husk of whatever carries the life-force that births the ego-mind-body complex. And then this husk is what connects you to prior ego-body-mind complexes associated with it (but as far as you are concerned, basically only retroactively were you to recall a past-life memory). If you are heavily identified with your current mind and body, physical death will feel like true death to you. You will feel like you're disappearing forever. The experience of death can be quite real for definitely most people. So using reincarnation as some insurance against whatever fears and desires you have, that's ultimately futile, because you will have to face all of it, and the nature of the thing you think you are right now will vanish, relinquished to the memory of nature.

What does taking your life to try to advance in a next life signify? It's an earthworm digging itself into the ground, or a mosquito trying to suck the blood of reality. It's probably not meant to be taken literally, but the trend is that stuck patterns perpetuate themselves, and the way out is "through". If you decide your life is not worth living, that's a pattern you probably will have to work through in your next life, unless you work it out in this life.

Thing is, 90% of the comments you see under that video are the people who watched the Shorts (like I did before I found the full episodes) and maybe a bit of the first episode. The Shorts are clipped to make the women look like absolute babies while the men look like superheroes. But if you watch the rest of the episodes (I've watched three now, I think I misspoke earlier), it becomes increasingly clear that the struggle is not that one-sided.

14 men and 14 women each live on their own deserted island in the tropics and have to survive for 5 weeks. WhO hAs wHat it tAkes to sUrviVe? I've watched three episodes so far and it's pretty fun. I can't be asked to join the "haha lol women" thing before I've watched the entire thing. But there are some differences of course, as you would expect. If I was stranded on a deserted island, I would take @Natasha Tori Maru as medical grade shelter builder and @integral as contamination specialist I would be the jungle shaman or whatever; let me spend some time meditating and I'll maybe give some intuition-based navigation tips or just some wacked-out shit. When watching episode 3, I randomly came up with a possible hunting technique for sting rays that were swimming in the shallows on the beach and some of them tried to catch (if you're interested and you're ever on a deserted island without food ):

I'm so sane I vomit instinctively when I read AI "x, not y" sentence structures.

Haha it's fucken huge now. But it's going off tomorrow or before 17th of May (Constitution Day in Norway). It's getting more and more ratty as we go. Shaman mode can be on a rotation. I figure everything is doable anyways, building a shelter in the jungle has always seemed like a breeze to me (but who knows, I have only assisted in building a shed, a greenhouse, a wooden enclosure for trash cans, a concrete wall and the grounding for a patio and other minor stuff before lol). I also built kind of a hut before when I was little (a horizontal tree was used as the main ceiling beam), not really much of a shelter that though (maybe for one tiny human). Actually, true survivors do group meditations and shamanic rituals together 😆

Lol. I asked about the cowshit part because I recently walked across a field that was newly fertilized and my clothes smelled like shit afterwards and I couldn't concentrate (I got distracted or whatever). Even when walking on the road next to the field, the smell was just as bad if not worse at times. I think you could've caught the same amount of shit smell from just that. Farmers can just fling shit everywhere and it's totally acceptable 💩 Imagine going to a job interview smelling like shit because you walked next to a field. They should put up signs like "⚠️ Shit ⚠️".

School (or rather "education") is a rule, it's mandated by law; all but 11 countries in the entire world have it. And if you want people to follow the law, you need them to understand the law at a basic level and perhaps be able to read and write, and mandatory schooling is supposed to ensure that. You could say "but I don't want schooling to be a rule", but then I would say you underestimate the impact of 200-300 years of mandatory schooling in the West and how it has created the well-functioning society you see around you. School can be improved, but you would probably still want something similar to the current system if you want people to follow laws. Interesting fun fact: Norway was the first country in the world to get mandatory education laws in 1739, beating Sweden by over 100 years lol. As opposed to what? Consuming YouTube videos? Obedience was not a problem when you said society needs rules.

When I got to zoology and botany in biology in uni (I took a year of biology back in the day), I was plagued by the fact that we had to learn about some classes of animals and not others, and there was seemingly no good reason why. And we had to memorize like 20-30 species of birds and plants. Yep. But evolutionary biology on the other hand, that was my jam. Everything made sense, everything had a reason why you were learning it. But this is maybe more about "coherence" than "application" ("does it make logical sense?", "does one concept connect to the next?"). Perhaps more Ti than Te.

Emperor with this song is something like progressive black metal. The chord progressions are like straight out of jazz fusion and the song structure and dynamics is brilliant. Dimmu Borgir almost sounds like pop music in comparison (I still love them though).

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

Mr. Air man, I have a question: what happens when you fart inside your room? And what does walking past a newly fertilized (they threw cowshit and piss on it) field do to you?

Then I think we might be watering down the concept as you've said. Is teaching your kids to not break the law abuse? Sadhguru did not put his child in school before 12 years old, specifically to avoid indoctrinating her (he even told people not to teach her anything vaguely school-related when interacting with her). But he made her travel with him all across the country. She did not have a say in that. And of course that affected her beliefs a certain way than if she had "decided" not to travel with him. At some point, treating school or church as a concrete thing or place you can choose to go to or not is a bit simpleminded and reductionistic. The very environment you are born into is technically a place you can choose whether to be in or not, and it affects your beliefs just the same. The only strong difference is that school and church has an organized and strong agenda behind it, people having an intention to teach something to somebody. But this intention exists in micro-versions as Sadhguru was aware of in daily interactions with people, and even without any intention to teach or even the active intention to prevent teaching from happening, you are passively being molded by your surroundings, happenings and events in a just as significant if not a more significant way. Bringing up a child has an element of coercion if you want them to live successfully inside a state (a place with a government) or simply a community with behavioral expectations. They have to conform to either laws or norms or both, or else they will be punished. And of course if all of this is abuse, then what is letting them "choose" to be independent of these things, letting them go live in the jungle alone (let's assume a kid, a very young kid, just keeps wandering into the jungle any time you let them out of sight)? Maybe laws and norms can protect children from neglect, as you've alluded to, a form of abuse. So can abuse maybe depend on other things than coercion, influences of beliefs, and teaching, and perhaps social responsibility, expectations, duty? Can coercion be a social expectation, a duty, and can it even be morally good?

Is putting your kids in school abuse? School surely affects their beliefs, and they usually don't have much of a choice whether to go or not.

Enlightenment is perfect, unconditional flow.