Mega-Thread of Low vs High Perspectives

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats roughly what Jordan Hall is saying.

Jordan Hall would say that we have no fucking clue what we are doing and from where our motivations come from and we should connect to God and act based on that not based on our ideologies or random motivations.

The idea is that whatever our intellect will come up with will be dogshit and useless , so we might as surrender and let the transcendent show the way.

So what’s the point here? That God’s going to show up with the secret blueprint for Game B? Come on.

If you actually followed the logic you’re invoking to its end, it would completely unravel your own ethical position. So I honestly don’t even know what we’re arguing about anymore.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

So what’s the point here? That God’s going to show up with the secret blueprint for Game B? Come on.

If you actually followed the logic you’re invoking to its end, it would completely unravel your own ethical position. So I honestly don’t even know what we’re arguing about anymore.

I dont share his idea, I just shared his view, which is simiar to yours in that we have no fucking clue what we are doing.

[Nilsi]

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont share his idea, I just shared his view, which is simiar to yours in that we have no fucking clue what we are doing.

It’s not similar to mine at all. Even the idea that you could “turn to God for answers” is absurd. What would God even say? Probably something like, “Get a life and stop bothering me with your silly questions.”

My point is that your whole Game B framework is what’s actually trapping you in a kind of fatalistic logic - you think you're solving a crisis, but you’re actually creating one. You could just let go of all that, break the loop, and become totally unbound in your own becoming.

But hey - if you prefer the chains on, that’s your choice. There’s nothing “wrong” with that either.

Edited Sunday at 06:42 PM by Nilsi

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

My point is that your whole Game B framework is what’s actually trapping you in a kind of fatalistic logic - you think you're solving a crisis, but you’re actually creating one. You could just let go of all that, break the loop, and become totally unbound in your own becoming.

Is this the classic move of "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao' ? - the moment you try to formalize and strategize a plan you've already lost.

But regardless, what does "become totally unbound in your own becoming" mean in practice? 

Edited Sunday at 07:00 PM by zurew

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

But regardless, what does "become totally unbound in your own becoming" mean in practice? 

It means that there is no goal. No arrival. No ethical imperative you're subordinating yourself to.

It means your desire flows freely - without being redirected toward some transcendent purpose.

And most of all, it means recognizing that there is no unified self running the show. Just an assemblage of drives, impulses, intensities - constantly shifting, competing, overlapping. And instead of trying to control that, you let it happen. You let it move through you. Without naming any one drive “God” and forcing the others to serve it.

As for what that means in practice?
It’s precisely unknowable. Because you're no longer organizing your life around some fixed ideal or outcome. Instead, you let it unfold - spontaneously, unevenly, irrationally.

And not even that. Your present being becomes so expansive that even the idea of “unfolding” starts to dissolve. You're just carried - momentarily - by whatever intensity arises. Swept into the noosphere, perhaps. Dissolved in it.

Yet you always return. To this body. This moment. This breath.
Without agenda. Without knowing.
And - maybe most importantly - without even wanting to know what happens next.

And what a difference that is from clinging to the idea that "oh my god, there’s an actual crisis happening" - something I have to fix, or at the very least perform some empty gesture toward, just to relieve myself of the guilt and existential weight that thought places on me.

[Nilsi]

Just now, Nilsi said:

It means that there is no goal. No arrival. No ethical imperative you're subordinating yourself to.

It means your desire flows freely - without being redirected toward some transcendent purpose.

And most of all, it means recognizing that there is no unified self running the show. Just an assemblage of drives, impulses, intensities - constantly shifting, competing, overlapping. And instead of trying to control that, you let it happen. You let it move through you. Without naming any one drive “God” and forcing the others to serve it.

As for what that means in practice?
It’s precisely unknowable. Because you're no longer organizing your life around some fixed ideal or outcome. Instead, you let it unfold - spontaneously, unevenly, irrationally.

And not even that. Your present being becomes so expansive that even the idea of “unfolding” starts to dissolve. You're just carried - momentarily - by whatever intensity arises. Swept into the noosphere, perhaps. Dissolved in it.

Yet you always return. To this body. This moment. This breath.
Without agenda. Without knowing.
And - maybe most importantly - without even wanting to know what happens next.

And what a difference that is from clinging to the idea that "oh my god, there’s an actual crisis happening" - something I have to fix, or at the very least perform some empty gesture toward, just to relieve myself of the guilt and existential weight that thought places on me.

So really, I’m just advocating for a radically immanent life. The kind of immanence an animal probably lives in - no higher purpose, no transcendent goal, no story about where it’s all heading. Just presence. Just movement. Just sensation.

There’s no notion of anything beyond.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no desire, no imagination, no thought. It just means all of that becomes immanent too - no longer pointing elsewhere, no longer in service of some higher ideal. Desire isn’t a ladder out of the world - it’s part of the world. So is thinking. So is dreaming.

And honestly, that’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole time - beneath all the arguing, the theory, the critique. That’s the core of it.

[Schizophonia]

10 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

So really, I’m just advocating for a radically immanent life. The kind of immanence an animal probably lives in - no higher purpose, no transcendent goal, no story about where it’s all heading. Just presence. Just movement. Just sensation.

There’s no notion of anything beyond.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no desire, no imagination, no thought. It just means all of that becomes immanent too - no longer pointing elsewhere, no longer in service of some higher ideal. Desire isn’t a ladder out of the world - it’s part of the world. So is thinking. So is dreaming.

And honestly, that’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole time - beneath all the arguing, the theory, the critique. That’s the core of it.

You want basically become a woman lol.

I half kidding.

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

If you agree with the premise that there are problems that pops up and maintained by Game A dynamics  , then if your solution doesn't involve something that takes care of that , then it might help with gaining time, but its not really a solution that prevents from shit breaking down in the future.

Shit will just break down and we will deal with it, as mankind always does.

Quote

I don't think you can realistically maintain a game A world without there inevitably being civilizational collapse.

Then bring on the civilizational collapse. Because the human race will sooner kill itself than operate in Game B fashion. If Game B is needed for mankind to survive, then mankind is already dead. Which I cannot buy.

Game B requires humans to behave like a different kind of animal than they are. Which is a non-starter. Game B thinks it can just bypass ego and all of human psychology and survival. Which is why it cannot be taken seriously.

I would rather prep for WW3 than believe that Game B will work.

Game A is how mankind will keep living and thriving. Invent solutions that work within that.

Edited Sunday at 10:36 PM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Thats roughly what Jordan Hall is saying.

Jordan Hall would say that we have no fucking clue what we are doing and from where our motivations come from and we should connect to God and act based on that not based on our ideologies or random motivations.

That's not going to work because God will tell everyone different things, based on their unique survival needs and biases.

God is relativistic, which Christians don't understand.

Trump thinks God is on his side. Dugin thinks God is on his side. Iran thinks God is their side. Neo-Nazis think God is on their side. Rapist thinks Jesus is on his side.

Edited Sunday at 09:44 PM by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Game A is how mankind will keep living and thriving. Invent solutions that work within that.

I would imagine those solutions would be inherently corrupt due to influence of the Game A system.

Not saying it's a bad thing- though I feel most Game B champions refuse to look at the necessity of corruption in mankind's survival.

Edited Sunday at 10:45 PM by Terell Kirby

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

I would imagine those solutions would be inherently corrupt due to influence of the Game A system.

Mankind has been massively corrupt for 10,000 years. That doesn't stop progress.

You can't fix corruption from the top down. There is no system you can invent to fix corruption because the human mind itself is corrupt and no one is going to change that.

[aurum]

Game B in a nutshell.

High: broad ego identification, systems thinking

 

[aurum]

22 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Here is a challenge: find me a high perspective that you dislike.

Here you go:

High: heart > head, ecology, high ego-development

 

[Leo Gura]

What I dislike is spiritual hippies who support Trump and RFK.

[mmKay]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What I dislike is spiritual hippies who support Trump and RFK.

I call it chocolate peppermint. Eww

[Pox]

I dislike naive disillusioned westerners who have positive views of china, falls for comically obvious propaganda because of their low media literacy, don’t realize they’re being instrumentalized as useful idiots in a geopolitical narrative war(aka falling for psyops). and unconsciously holds the mentality of "If it's broken here, it must be better over there," idealizing the “Other” to fill a void in themselves.

Edited 2 hours ago by Pox