Does this guy watch Leo?

[Nilsi]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

He could've said "syntax vs semantics", "algorithm vs computation", "form vs being", but no, he chose "structure vs content" (🤓)

I just realized Sat-Chit-Ananda or the Holy Trinity or Brahman-Shiva-Shakti describes the same thing as Marr's Three Levels (Computation, Algorithm, Implementation), but that is just me being Jordan Peterson and interviewing myself 

This is precisely the kind of dirty Platonist game that Ken Wilber loves to play, where everything is just a different name for some ideal, eternal image.

But of course, it’s not - as you correctly pointed out, each of these are completely distinct discourses dealing with entirely different realities.

And the idea that this is sufficiently acknowledged in Wilber’s work by distinguishing between some silly quadrants and colors is absolutely laughable.

This is where I think the critiques of Foucault, Derrida, Butler, etc. are properly applied, as much as I usually find them to be a pain in the ass.

Edited October 30 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I understand the Brahman-Shiva-Shakti dynamic as follows:

Brahman (Chaos) represents the nondual and undifferentiated ground of existence, the pure essence beyond distinction.

Shiva (Complicatedness) embodies this ground as perceived through logic and intellect - the realm of the virtual, encompassing ideas and concepts.

Shakti (Complexity), represents this same ground as experienced through the senses - the tangible, natural world of complex phenomena.

Systems theory describes systems. A system is necessarily a set of relationships between parts and thus "logos", structure, Shiva. The relationships can either be chaotic, complicated or complex. That is what the Cynefin framework describes.

Shakti is usually associated with "chaos", or energy, which dances upon structure (Shiva) to create manifestation (physicality, the world of sensations).

Brahman is what "is"; being, or the core of all existence. Each part of existence, at its core, even Shiva and Shakti, can be said to be Brahman, and therefore Brahman represents all parts, all units. Every concept is fundamentally Brahman.

Edited October 30 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Or in Freudian terms: Unconscious-Thanatos-Eros.

Again, it's a stretch - I get it.

There are many tripartite theories I refused to name because they didn't fit, and one of them came from Freud. Many of them are similar but not quite analogous to Marr's Three Levels.

Edited October 30 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Systems theory describes systems. A system is necessarily a set of relationships between parts and thus "logos", structure, Shiva. The relationships can either be chaotic, complicated or complex. That is what the Cynefin framework describes.

Shakti is usually associated with "chaos", or energy, which dances upon structure (Shiva) to create manifestation (physicality, the world of sensations).

Brahman is what "is"; being, or the core of all existence. Each part of existence, at its core, even Shiva and Shakti, can be said to be Brahman, and therefore Brahman represents all parts, all units. Every concept is fundamentally Brahman.

Whatever, I was just free associating.

"Brahman" is ultimately a construct of your imagination; there's no "Being" beyond your human-being, if you're honest.

Even Peterson gets this. I actually took the time to start reading his books, and in the overture to 12 Rules for Life, he explicitly names Heidegger's "Dasein" as a significant influence on his concept of "Being" - which is surprisingly insightful.

Edited October 31 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

Just a quick wild connection I made:

Destiny and Alex O'Connor discussed how in the vice president debates, Tim Walz not answering the question about something innocuous like exaggerating a story about being in Tiananmen Square got compared to J. D. Vance not answering whether he believed in the results of the last election. That's valuing structure (algorithm) over content (computation).

Same when Destiny said "when you lost on the substance and fight on the logic". It seems like computation, or values, or facts, is where virtue and wisdom lies, while algorithm or logic is easily corrupted. For example, sophism gives the appearance or emulates the structure of wisdom (fluency, confidence, charisma), but of course, the substance isn't really there, or it's bullshit.

Same with when he commented on how Biden speaks vs how Trump speaks. Biden might speak slower and struggle to get a sentence out, but he is actually saying something of substance, which is hard and takes brain power. Trump speaks more fluently, but he speaks 3rd grade level ideas and just gibberish. Who is really the cognitively weaker person?

Edited November 3 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Nilsi said:

"Brahman" is ultimately a construct of your imagination; there's no "Being" beyond your human-being, if you're honest.

It's worse. It's language. Chose your reductionist poison.

Edited November 1 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's worse. It's language. Chose your reductionist poison.

Now you’re being the post-structuralist.

There’s a vast body of phenomenological and existentialist philosophy that develops a language for the “modern” human-being to understand being and their place in it - such as Heidegger’s Being and Time or even Peter Ralston’s theoretical work, which people here are likely more familiar with.

Why go to the fucking Upanishads, or whatever, and their mystical, pre-modern language when Heidegger offers a more “accurate” and pragmatic language?

If you’re still talking about “Brahman” in a post-Heideggerian discourse, I have to assume you’re referring to something wacky.

Edited November 1 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

18 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Same with when he commented on how Biden speaks vs how Trump speaks. Biden might speak slower and struggle to get a sentence out, but he is actually saying something of substance, which is hard and takes brain power. Trump speaks more fluently, but he speaks 3rd grade level sentences and just gibberish. Who is really the cognitively weaker person?

This assumes that a presidential debate is more than just a spectacle. Trump and his team understand how media works, while the Democrats remain stuck in a modernist fantasy of what politics should be.

It’s actually the Democrats who need to “grow up” and accept the postmodern condition we’re in if they genuinely care about being effective and practical. Instead, they seem more invested in upholding an image of being “good and rational” actors in service of “democracy.”

You can see Kamala Harris wrestling with this - desperately trying to create her own viral moment. I actually thought the “Kamala is brat” moment was quite genius; it captured the zeitgeist and youth culture and could have been the perfect segue to position herself as the voice of the youth against Trump, the out-of-touch figure who still thinks going to frat parties at 40 is cool. But they couldn’t sustain the momentum, and now some 20-something dudes still see Trump as “cool” (and I can’t blame them) - which will ultimately cost her the election. I’m afraid it’s too little, too late this time.

Edited November 1 by Nilsi

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

This assumes that a presidential debate is more than just a spectacle.

Trump and his team understand how media works, while the Democrats remain stuck in some modernist fantasy of what politics should be.

Don’t hate the player; hate the game.

I don't think that the both party is persuaded by the same kind of approach or at least to the same degree.

If one party actually cares more (or in any way )about facts, then it might not be enough to just use rhetoric to win their vote.

For example, don't you think that a more substance and fact based approach (alongside the usage of good rhetoric) could actually persuade more left wing people to vote for Trump?

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's valuing structure (algorithm) over content (computation).

Who created the algorithm vs computation dichotomy? It sounds a little bit weird to me - I like the structure vs content much better.

 

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

For example, don't you think that a more substance and fact based approach (alongside the usage of good rhetoric) could actually persuade more left wing people to vote for Trump?

No, I don’t.

It‘s all about the image.

 “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.” - Jean Baudrillard

Edited November 1 by Nilsi

[zurew]

Just now, Nilsi said:

No, I don’t.

It‘s all about the image.

Could I use only rhetoric to make you change your philosophical positions?

[Nilsi]

Just now, zurew said:

Could I use only rhetoric to make you change your philosophical positions?

Absolutely. I’m far more moved by a poem than some dry academic writing.

And the psychology of masses only exponentiates this effect.

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Absolutely. I’m far more moved by a poem than some dry academic writing.

And the psychology of masses only exponentiates this effect.

Is this grounded in a similar kind of argument as what Peterson uses about archetypes?

or maybe even the rejection of the fact value distinction?

Edited November 1 by zurew

[Nilsi]

26 minutes ago, zurew said:

Is this grounded in a similar kind of argument as what Peterson uses about archetypes?

If by that you mean the argument that humans are more deeply moved by unconscious, irrational drives than they’d like to admit, then yes.

However, I think he has it completely backwards in terms of how that influence actually manifests. It’s not the deepest, most archetypal images that have the greatest impact but rather the highly particular, of-the-moment ones that stick and go viral - like the Brat meme Kamala Harris used to leverage for her campaign.

Edited November 1 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, zurew said:

Who created the algorithm vs computation dichotomy? It sounds a little bit weird to me - I like the structure vs content much better.

David Marr. It sounds weird because it uses the language of computer science (computational neuroscience), but really, the split is metaphysical. It's the what, the how and the where.

Here is Chomsky summing it up in 20 seconds:

5:18-5:43

What task does the computation solve? How is the task solved? What are the physical correlates? (and "where" are they: in a brain? In a CPU?)

But yes, it's generally more clear to use more common words like structure vs content. The point was just to the draw connections and point out the many different areas you can find the same fundamental idea.

Edited November 2 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

On 1.11.2024 at 4:29 PM, Nilsi said:

If by that you mean the argument that humans are more deeply moved by unconscious, irrational drives than they’d like to admit, then yes.

However, I think he has it completely backwards in terms of how that influence actually manifests. It’s not the deepest, most archetypal images that have the greatest impact but rather the highly particular, of-the-moment ones that stick and go viral - like the Brat meme Kamala Harris used to leverage for her campaign.

Another case in point:

I just read about Heinz’s move into pasta sauce and their push for category dominance.

You’d think a successful pasta sauce campaign would lean on “archetypal” Italian imagery to tap the “collective unconscious.” Instead, Heinz looked at trending pasta recipes on TikTok.

They stumbled on a viral clip of supermodel Gigi Hadid making Pasta alla Vodka and teamed up with Absolut to create a Heinz x Absolut Tomato Vodka Pasta Sauce, netting 500 million impressions and a 50% increase in pasta sauce sales.

And this was the go-to strategy from a global food giant with hundreds of millions in yearly R&D spend.

 

[Nilsi]

56 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Another case in point:

I just read about Heinz’s move into pasta sauce and their push for category dominance.

You’d think a successful pasta sauce campaign would lean on “archetypal” Italian imagery to tap the “collective unconscious.” Instead, Heinz looked at trending pasta recipes on TikTok.

They stumbled on a viral clip of supermodel Gigi Hadid making Pasta alla Vodka and teamed up with Absolut to create a Heinz x Absolut Tomato Vodka Pasta Sauce, netting 500 million impressions and a 50% increase in pasta sauce sales.

And this was the go-to strategy from a global food giant with hundreds of millions in yearly R&D spend.

 

Here’s another redpill for you:

I came across this in a McKinsey & Company whitepaper on the state of marketing in 2024.

For those unfamiliar, McKinsey is one of the “Big 3” global consulting firms - a group you can hire to conduct deep market research and solve specific issues for your company. They also produce independent reports and whitepapers, like the one I was reading.

There’s also the “Big 4” - firms that started as accounting giants but shifted heavily toward consulting over recent decades, drawn by its higher profitability.

What these companies essentially offer is a giant brain for hire -

- now, here’s the kicker:

In 2021, the combined revenue of the Big 3 and Big 4 was about $242.1 billion.

For comparison, the entire research budget for U.S. universities and colleges was around $86 billion.

The CIA’s budget that same year? Just $60.8 billion.

Draw your own conclusions about where the real cutting-edge research is happening (- of course they don't teach you about that in academia, do they?)

Edited November 2 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

I can't stop myself, but the three O's (omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence) also seem to reflect the metaphysical tripartite structure (I'll name it the "MTS"). Omniscience is the knowing (of all) of being; the contents, the "what". Omnipotence is the shaping (of all) of reality; the structure, the "how". Omnipresence is the spatio-temporal manifestation (of all) of reality; the physical correlates, the "where".

And here is more: ontology is concerned with the "what" ("what is reality?"). Science is concerned with the "how" ("how does reality act or behave?"); causal relationships, correlative relationships, relationships between parts, structure. Applied sciences like technology and engineering is more concerned with the "where" (how does science get implemented in the physical world?). Now, there are of course overlaps: a lot of science is deeply concerned with physical processes, and proponents of science might even place these processes as the ontological primitive (physicalism). However, idealistically, or most fundamentally, these splits lean more to one of the sides than the others.

You might also feel Wilber's Four Quadrants sneaking up as an alternative. Now, the way it's usually used, it seems more like a meta-theory for existing human knowledge than a metaphysical model. It's very concerned about the macro level (e.g. describing human worldviews, cultures and systems). But we could assume that it extends down to the micro level as well (e.g. atoms, atom-atom relationships).

If we assume that, then the "what" and the "how" could be argued to fall under Interior (mind), as they are contrasted to "where" which definitely falls under Exterior (physical). Of course, materialists won't be happy with that, but at the same time, even they would probably have the intuition that something like math ("how") or Redness ("what") is not merely physical. Also, the "what" and the "how" could fall under Individual and Collective respectively (but not both). A "what" necessarily describes one thing (Individual), and a "how" necessarily describes relationships between two or more things (Collective).

Maybe it would be interesting to make a Four Quadrants -esque meta-theory specifically for metaphysical models (which might have been done already by people like David Chalmers; "meta-metaphysics").

Edited November 4 by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

@Carl-Richard I have no idea what you just said, but boy was it intelligent! 

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Omniscience is the knowing (of all) of being; the contents, the "what". 

Do you take Omniscience to mean knowing all true propositions, or do you take it to mean something different?