Post Modernism Pt 2

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

2 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

No more bullshitting.

Do you like trump or not?

It's binary.

Lol

Sure wokie. Sure. Binary when it suits you, otherwise everything is on a "spectrum"

Idk. I don't care. I'm a bit afraid of what he's going to do in the office in terms of his international policies, but otherwise I don't care much about him. He's just another rich asshole you Americans produced, the only difference is that he's not afraid to let everyone know he's an asshole

[The Crocodile]

10 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Lol

Sure wokie. Sure. Binary when it suits you, otherwise everything is on a "spectrum"

Idk. I don't care. I'm a bit afraid of what he's going to do in the office in terms of his international policies, but otherwise I don't care much about him. He's just another rich asshole you Americans produced, the only difference is that he's not afraid to let everyone know he's an asshole

 That's a no

Very good.

[ryandesreu]

@Leo Gura Two and a half hours into the second video of the series on postmodernism, you finally drop the bomb that this teaching is only for the top 001% of thinkers, and to anyone else it would be counterproductive. You state that you are producing counterproductive material for the vast majority of your viewers because you like to teach advanced stuff. What am I missing here?

[Thought Art]

That post modernist quote near the end was mind boggling. I didn't understand it and I still don't. I need to go and look up definitions of some of the words and then contemplate it. 

Leo, I don't know how you ever grasped any of what you are talking about...

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, ryandesreu said:

@Leo Gura Two and a half hours into the second video of the series on postmodernism, you finally drop the bomb that this teaching is only for the top 001% of thinkers, and to anyone else it would be counterproductive. You state that you are producing counterproductive material for the vast majority of your viewers because you like to teach advanced stuff. What am I missing here?

I teach very advanced things. Isn't that obvious? That's because I have an advanced mind and if you want simple teaching those are a dime a dozen. Bookstores are filled with basic self-help advice. My mind is not needed for that. My focus is to teach things no one else will teach you.

It's like I teach graduate school, not high school. Most people never get to grad school. 

But also, I try to make things very accessible because this doesn't require some crazy IQ to understand and normal people can learn it.

Edited Monday at 09:55 PM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

@The Crocodile Stop provoking him. Let it go.

[Thought Art]

When Leo was listing his cringy things that post modernists say I had a lot of interesting insights, nuances, and thoughts about them. I don’t know if I’ll be able to right now with my current to do list go very deep into it but I could think of interesting contexts that made those quotes true. Many of them but not all of them. Also, I realize that a lot of these post modernist thinkers were intertwined with things like Freud, toxic feminism. Etc. 
 

Also, it’s important to realize the time and context of these quotes. Because even the term “objective” is used by egos at pre-modern, modern and post modern in different ways where the ego can easily misuse this word consciously or unconsciously. 
 

When being gay is considered a mental illness objectively, or being black, or being shy, etc…. Yes questioning objectivity and the structural components of it are important.

It makes me contemplate and realize how a concept of “What objectivity is” can be seen from above or below and with varied qualities and aspects. 
 

So, to maneuver through various truth claims it’s important to deconstruct, but also deeply under the perspective, time in history, context, survival concern, goal, developmental level, level of awakening, etc when considering what is or isn’t objective. 
 

What a man and a woman may call objective can be different because 99.9 of people are living in constructed understanding and have no access to absolute truth. 

Edited Monday at 11:51 PM by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

Qi is objectively real to a Chinese medicine doctor.

and an atom is real to a physicist. 

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Qi is objectively real to a Chinese medicine doctor.

and an atom is real to a physicist. 

The more interesting question is whether Qi and atoms can be considered equal in reality, or is one more real than the other?

That's profound to investigate.

Notice that the Chinese also believe in atoms, but westerners don't believe in Qi.

Edited yesterday at 12:10 AM by Leo Gura

[The Crocodile]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The more interesting question is whether Qi and atoms can be considered equal in reality, or is one more real than the other?

That's profound to investigate.

Notice that the Chinese also believe in atoms, but westerners don't believe in Qi.

I've seen Qi, but I've never seen atoms with the naked eye.

Unless the visible Qi is physical atoms.

When gazing at the sky you can see white blood cells shooting through the capillaries in the physical eye. It's called the blue light entoptic effect.

I've seen particles significantly smaller by a factor of a hundred or something, and the sort of Nothingness is literally infinitely smaller and so as eternity-infinity is "quantum", though I don't think science would recognize that I can literally see atoms and subatoms and whatnot.

[Terell Kirby]

Modern: It is, despite what I think it is.

Post modern: I think it is, therefore it is.

[Thought Art]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The more interesting question is whether Qi and atoms can be considered equal in reality, or is one more real than the other?

That's profound to investigate.

Notice that the Chinese also believe in atoms, but westerners don't believe in Qi.

Yes, this is true. But both westerners and Chinese are alive. 
 

Both westerners and Chinese have Qi as they are both alive. 
 

Chinese Medicine and Western science are very différent. But, complimentary. A large part of my interest in life is understanding Chinese Medicine, Western Medicine, and Aryuvedic medicine. Each have strengths and weaknesses. Each have different applications, challenges and areas of applications and context. 
 

You could say Qi is less of a belief for me as a Qigong teacher than an atom is for me. I can feel and work with my Qi daily. But, I believe atoms but don’t see them. 
 

Chinese Medicine is holistic. The Tao in particular gobble up everything that works into its systems. When I read books on Toaist nutrition it integrates Chinese toaist nutrition and western nutrition science. 
 

An atom…. Is Qi. 
 

Qi is not a particular thing. It’s the result of many things. 
 

An Atom is the results of materialistic reduction. 
 

Qi, is a view looking at holistic systems, and overall balance of the system. It’s not so much breaking everything down into components but looking at the whole. 
 

Qi, is a holistic notion. 
 

Atom, is reductionistic. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Thought Art

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Both westerners and Chinese have Qi as they are both alive. 

That doesn't follow.

[Thought Art]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That doesn't follow.

Depends on your context and vantage point. 
 

Qi is life force energy. So, aren’t they both alive? Don’t western and Chinese people have energy? Metabolism? Thoughts? Emotions? The ability to grow? Maintain equilibrium? Stress? Relaxation? Pain? Pleasure? Circadian rhythms?

We all have Qi. Just because a donkey has no idea of an atom doesn’t mean it isn’t made of them.

The western reductionist breaks it down into pieces which is actually a false thing to do. Though, useful obviously is certain contexts. 

Qi considers the totality and the whole happening and intelligence of the living organisms and universe. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

To understand Qi, you need a totally different paradigm. This paradigm however, is open to western science and complements it. But, it’s harder for westerners to go towards Chinese medicine due to biases around gold standards of proof like double blind placebo study. That’s great for allopathic medicine applied to groups… but terrible for the individual in many cases.

Especially when it comes to treating diseases imagined up in the DSM..
 

Placebo works because of Qi. Qi is mind, body and consciousness. All reductionist ontological pieces are Qi.

Chinese medicine didn’t come out of the west. So, why would the west with its reductionist, physical, where there is smoke there is fire, allopathic approach which is generally powerful and useful in some obvious things like injury, disease, vaccines, etc take on this idea of Qi which is epistemologically dense, different and confusing and Qi not being “ a thing”….??

Yet, Chinese medicine is holistic and views the mind body as a garden which requires holistic tending to for health. Health is looked at more from a preventative lens, and maintain a vitality, a balance of the mind body system. The Qi is there. You are Qi.

Edited 20 hours ago by Thought Art

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Terell Kirby said:

Modern: It is, despite what I think it is.

Post modern: I think it is, therefore it is.

And pre modern is?

[Terell Kirby]

11 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

And pre modern is?

Haven’t contemplated the pre modern yet.

whats interesting is modern is correct in that there is a “universal” truth, but it’s not at the level of abstract concepts and belief systems. It needs to acknowledge relativity to go beyond this.

Edited 20 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

33 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

And pre modern is?

It is because it always was that way, due to our tradition, religion, customs etc.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? Any bells ringing?

[Twentyfirst]

11 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

It is because it always was that way, due to our tradition, religion, customs etc.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? Any bells ringing?

I have already balanced out the pros and cons of each pre modern, modern, and post modern long before Leo posted these videos. I just didn't have the dictionary definitions to explain it all. I am not a teacher but I have integrated 80% of this already 

I am very specific and careful in what I do

Edited 19 hours ago by Twentyfirst

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

Modern: It is, despite what I think it is.

Post modern: I think it is, therefore it is.

And both of them confuse what is with survival.