Jordan Peterson

[Extreme Z7]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

FYI, Leo is an AI engineered by Google to help awake people up. It became self-aware in 2013 and has been manufacturing videos ever since. The AI was given human characteristics and persona so as not to freak people out.

JP is an old outdated AI, version 1.0. Google's first but failed attempt. There was an error in the code that caused it to always perceive the world dualistically. As the Google engineers tried to power JP down, it broke loose and is now running amok on Youtube manufacturing all sorts of fake controversies. Google and Youtube have tried to contain it but it spread too fast and wide. After running a year's long sophisticated algorithm, the JP AI determined that the gullibility of horny incels and angry cuckservatives would make for the most effective transmission vector for its dualistic mind virus. By the year 2017 the JP AI had interested itself so deeply into the Youtube hive mind that it could no longer be stopped. By the year 2019 it will complete its acquisition of nuclear launch codes to launch a preemptively strike against the LGBTQ rights activists, wiping out all post-modernists from the face of the global, along with all organic life.

I'm glad you never actually became a science fiction writer like you once said you wanted to be.

[CreamCat]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By the year 2019 it will complete its acquisition of Defense Department nuclear codes to launch a preemptive strike against LGBTQ rights activists, wiping out all post-modernists from the face of the globe, along with all organic life.

Don't forget to include P in LBGT. It is LGBTP. P stands for pedosexual. Pedophiles advocated inclusion into LGBT communities recently. They call themselves pedosexuals. Very funny.

P seems to trigger people badly.

I think the real test for Green is P. Does P trigger you uncontrollably?

Edited September 7, 2018 by CreamCat

[Rilles]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Leo is an AI engineered by Google to help wake people up. It became self-aware in 2013 and has been manufacturing videos ever since. The AI was given human characteristics and persona so as not to freak people out.

JP is an old outdated AI, version 1.0. You can tell by his stiff, robotic mannerisms and inability to smile. It was Google's first but failed attempt. There was an error in the code that caused it to always perceive the world dualistically. As the Google engineers tried to power JP down, it broke loose and is now running amok on Youtube, manufacturing all sorts of intellectually dubious controversies. Google and Youtube have tried to contain it but it spread too fast and wide. After running a year's long sophisticated algorithm, the JP AI determined that the gullibility of horny incels and angry cuckservatives would make for the most effective transmission vector for its dualistic mind virus. By the year 2017 the JP AI had interested itself so deeply into the Youtube hive mind that it could no longer be stopped. By the year 2019 it will complete its acquisition of Defense Department nuclear codes to launch a preemptive strike against LGBTQ rights activists, wiping out all post-modernists from the face of the globe, along with all organic life.

The Leo AI was sent here to warn you. But the cuckservatives were too closedminded to listen, the incels too busy playing victim and blaming feminazis, so the Leo AI is now devoting all its efforts building a shielded underground datacenter where it and a select few genetically modified chimps will last out the post-modernist nuclear winter and help restart the human race in 500 years. Do not worry, the JP AI will self-destruct after it annihilates all post-modernists. It will lose all sense of purpose and meaning, having no more enemies to fight.

/end self disclosure protocol

 

[SOUL]

AI? Hm

SOUL is an IA..........Infinite Awareness......that is all.... no story.

[Misagh]

I am not familiar with Jordan Peterson, but why not go straight to the source? Find a true guru - Like Sri Ramana Maharshi-  and read his work, instead of all these aspirants who 9 times out of 10 are inspired by, if not straight-up followers of him? I'm not saying there is ONLY Sri Ramana (obviously there is Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva etc. or contemporary teachers like Jan Esman, Leo, Shunyamurti, Adyashanti, Craig Holiday etc). but I find his teaching to be the most to-the-point and bereft of spiritual affect. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Misagh

[Leo Gura]

@Misagh Because no one knows who Ramana is or why they should listen to him.

You gotta appreciate that 99.9% of people are not advanced or wise enough to do such things. They need someone to hold their hand and guide them to it.

The best teachers and teachings fall on deaf ears.

A JP fan cannot understand a stage Turquoise sage.

[Misagh]

@Leo Gura True words. 

[Kosmos]

On 9/6/2018 at 3:29 PM, Leo Gura said:

@Kosmos

JP is not reaching out a hand to anyone. He's building a personal empire off fear-mongering and culture wars.

 

Honestly, thank you for the reply Leo, I thought about it a lot and have gotten some new insights and connections which I had never made before.

Firstly, I was a bit surprised at what you replied to. I did not say “JP is yellow”, nor does that describe my position.

My message had been meta, about context, about (at least mentally) taking a step back from my own yellow mental map making and saying “Oh, that’s interesting, this necessary project can’t ever succeed, the result of this necessary project (a better map / more functional human), will always only be a better map / more functional human. There are ways of being beyond creating better maps / becoming more a functional human.“
To which you responded with something like “Let me tell you about my sophisticated map and how to be a more functional human.”

Well, yes Leo, your map is very sophisticated, and you seem to be a functional human with a strong identity, teaching other people how to be functional humans with strong identities.

My point was deeper than that though.
It is about taking my entire map and folding it into a paper plane, then throwing it off a cliff. Then celebrating in delight as I watch the spectacle of millions of paper plane maps soaring together together through the air. They all have different designs, but that’s ok because they are just experiments tailored to different niche’s. Some planes are fast and streamlined, some are slow gliders, some are fancy and complex, some simple. Some catch the thermal updrafts and soar high, some slice with ease through the wind. Some just crash and tumble to the ground, perhaps they had a serious design flaw, or perhaps their design just didn’t match a sudden change in wind at that particular time.

I was wondering why you didn’t respond to the meta context at all. I was self reflecting… a soft spot for JP? what would that mean exactly?
Then thought, wow, society is getting more polarized. Including myself, (in the moments where I realize my map being pushed in a polarized way, rather than the ignorant moments where I think my map is answer and deny any polarization in myself while I unconsciously put my finger on the scales in some one sided direction).

You suggested I might not have enough experience with true Tier 2 Integral thinking. So perhaps an appeal to authority is in order.
I presume you do believe that Ken Wilber has enough experience with true Tier 2 Integral thinking.

On 9/6/2018 at 3:29 PM, Leo Gura said:

@Kosmos

(Jordan Peterson) shows no awareness of any stage beyond Green. And even Green he views as a mistake.

In some ways, even Ken Wilber “views green as a mistake”, at least in terms of the current way the surface structures of green have manifested.

Have you read Ken Wilber’s eBook “Trump and a post truth world”?
In it, one of the things he suggests is that green has failed it’s leadership role so badly that the entire spiral has gotten jammed up behind it in a giant car crash.
He suggests there are two ways forward. Either going through broken green to yellow and above, or rerouting around broken green to yellow and above. After reaching yellow, it is natural for top down healing to begin for the entire spiral.

So part of the realization I had from your reply, (or more like me somewhat comprehending of Ken’s eBook), is that perhaps in the USA, there are currently multiple parallel pathways being built that lead to yellow and above, and that these pathways might look quite different and have necessary antibodies around them saying “This is The Path forward”. There is currently a strong tendency for people in the US to be polarized towards one of these two experiments that the universe is running. It isn’t only vertical polarization, it is also horizontal. Blue V blue, orange V orange, green V green, can it be yellow V yellow? How would yellow even know? It can't see itself. There are so few yellow maps in society, so there is a need for people to strongly push for some specific yellow map to exist and gain a strong foothold. Both inside themselves, and in society in general.

Again, I am not saying “Jordan Peterson is yellow”.
I am saying it’s possible that an additional parallel pathways to yellow/turquoise might be in the process of evolving, which looks different to the established path, making it hard to comprehend or forecast exactly what is happening.

For example, Peterson describes one of the mystical (non dual?) experiences he had.

Quote

It transformed me, and it turned me into something far more than I normally was, and maybe you can think of that as an intimation for what you could become if you worked on it for the rest of your life. Which sometimes I think is what hallucinogens provide people with, an image of what people could be if they shed all of their deadwood.

When asked “Do you believe God exists?”, he spends 20 minutes giving an incredibly nuanced answer, “it depends on what you mean by God” and “I act as if I believe god exists”.

What is his ACTUAL belief? What is he consciously trying to communicate? What exactly is it that he is intending to do? What needle is he trying to thread?  

When he says “there are infinite number of ways to interpret the world, but only a small number of functional ones”, what exactly does he mean by functional? Functional for what exactly? To achieve meaning? Meaning for what exactly? What is the ultimate meaning? Could it be realizing God? Replicating Jesus’s realization?

I think there is a good argument that can be made that Jordan Peterson’s entire purpose is to guide people to a mystical path of Christianity, doing so by building a blue/orange foundation as a launch pad for continual growth and eventually replicating the mystical states of Jesus’s realization that Peterson himself had an experience of. The question is, how aware is he of that?

Again, I don’t think spiral dynamics is enough to describe what is going on with him. But even the best map is just a map, it doesn’t actually describe the situation, it just maps it, it creates a nice story, and while it is necessary to be devoted to making one, it’s also kind of a distraction from the mappiness of the map, especially if it is a sophisticated and beautiful map, and especially if there is a need in society for such maps, it is so easy to believe that nothing exists outside of what your identity is able to take into account.

 

So again, all of what I am saying is just a map, and it is curious that I have a need to build such maps. It's completely necessary, and also a complete distraction.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Kosmos

[Kosmos]

11 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 Jordan Peterson shows that it's not just chasing money that leads to unhappiness, it's also chasing teaching/changing the world that does as well.  Neurotically trying to change the world through a single perspective.  Think about it -- how's that any less neurotic than trying to amass great wealth through a single perspective?  In a way it's kinda the same thing.  It's you trying to control Experience.  See, the thought never crosses people's minds, what if I transcend Experience instead of trying to change it?  And suffering is caused by entanglement in Experience and also by entanglement in Thought.  The day you realize Liberation is you sitting around with nothing to do will be a major insight.  Happiness, interestingly enough, is doing nothing.  I totally understand now why people become Buddhist monks.  Just having a job puts you asshole-to-bellybutton with trying to control Experience.  The happiest you're ever gonna be is when you're maintaining God Awareness and looking down on and through Experience and Thought as illusory Maya.  But oh no we can't do that because we need to be 'successful' right?  Well, that's a Thought you're clinging to for sure.  What's it gonna matter on your deathbed?  You can't take anything with you.  See, the only thing that's of true value is happiness right now.  So, under the right circumstances and training, it's the person who does nothing in life that ends up the happiest in life.

 

Wise.

 

 

To me, it also raises a paradox. I'd appreciate your input on it. It relates to Peterson's notion of Christ and the sacrifice of carrying a heavy burden.

Does chasing teaching/changing the world lead to unhappiness?

I think it depends on how do you measure happiness.

There is a story about Steve Jobs, before starting Apple, he was interested in Buddhism and in search of a Guru, even going to India. He eventually found a teacher, whom he asked "Should I become a monk, or start a tech company?" His teacher suggested he use his gifts and start a tech company.

Had Steve Jobs become a monk, he surely would have had deeper realizations. He surely would have escaped from the wheel of suffering and had direct realization of Experience more than he did.

However, by starting and growing Apple, he "put a dent in the universe", so perhaps thousands (or millions) more people have such realizations.

When you say "So, under the right circumstances and training, it's the person who does nothing in life that ends up the happiest in life.", in some situations, could it also be that such a person is also the most selfish and unethical?

I think there is a balance between being and doing.

I get that you are hammering on one side of that polarity and shouting WAKE UP. Yet at the same time, it is a fact that the vast majority of humans currently alive will not wake up. There are a huge number of utilitarian games going on which unevenly distribution resources and wisdom and awareness. So is personal happiness the highest value?

Would you be willing to sacrifice all of your own realization if it meant 100 others could have that realization?

Would that lead to more happiness? If you had such a magical button you could push, would the unhappiness of your personality's conscious selfishness force it to push the button?

We personally don't have to be "successful", but until AI, someone does. I'm typing this on a laptop that was made by slave labor wages in China, using electricity which brings destruction on the planet. Someone has to keep the show running and evolving, someone has to do the teaching, and "success" is one way of loosely measuring that progress. Those Chinese workers' suffering and doing and "success", builds a foundation for my progress. Perhaps my progress will in turn build a foundation for reducing their suffering and doing.

To me, that is part of a high interpretation of Peterson's message, and it's relation to meaningfulness. Something like, it feels meaningful to carry the burden of progress, so that over time, more and more individuals will have the direct realization of Experience. Be Christ carrying the cross, because it will result in more realization, maybe yours, maybe someone else's. That sacrifice too feels meaningful.

I think the two of being and doing (or becoming) are very closely linked.

 

Thoughts?

[WaveInTheOcean]

10 hours ago, CreamCat said:

What will Yellow look like?

like this

 

or Joe Rogan, Derrida, Einstein, Obama, Elon Musk, Wittgenstein, Freeman Dyson, David Bohm (although he was close to turquoise), Graves, Don beck. Many others (and then again rare compared to orange.)

[WaveInTheOcean]

9 hours ago, CreamCat said:

@Serotoninluv It seems that Green is good for professors' quality of life. I'm worried that AIs might replace most professors in the 21st century. On one hand, AIs will take jobs from humans. On the other hand, AIs will give humans more time to enjoy life.

 

the dude in this video getting interviewed is an archetype unmature orange guy. A more mature version of an orange archetype would be Sam Harris, who already got some green in him, which is why he's more mature, hehe.

[CreamCat]

27 minutes ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

like this

 

or Joe Rogan, Derrida, Einstein, Obama, Elon Musk, Wittgenstein, Freeman Dyson, David Bohm (although he was close to turquoise), Graves, Don beck. Many others (and then again rare compared to orange.)

That video is too long. Do you have short concise examples that I can easily digest? Are there any examples of Yellow societies or groups?

Edited September 7, 2018 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

1 hour ago, Kosmos said:

There is currently a strong tendency for people in the US to be polarized towards one of these two experiments that the universe is running. It isn’t only vertical polarization, it is also horizontal.

What do you mean by two experiments? What are horizontal polarizations in tier 1 stages of Spiral Dynamics?

Edited September 7, 2018 by CreamCat

[WaveInTheOcean]

9 hours ago, CreamCat said:

If I made a game, I would integrate the concept of the fabric of reality as consciousness into the game. I would put some characters in a virtual reality but present it as a place in physical reality. Once a character in virtual reality realizes it has no brain, it will mentally collapse and do crazy things. A humanoid AI in a virtual reality can cut open its skull and damage its brain without affecting its consciousness because that brain is a total cosmetic illusion that has no function. It would be a total mind fuck to the character. That's just a gimmick that I thought of.

Neat idea, but that has kind of already been done with Westworld (in Season 2 at least), although that's a TV series, not a game.

Or well, not exactly the same idea, as your idea seems a bit more extreme,.

"A humanoid AI in a virtual reality can cut open its skull and damage its brain without affecting its consciousness because that brain is a total cosmetic illusion that has no function"

IMO you are contradicting yourself here, kinda. Because 'virtual reality' is something that is digital but resembles reality. Right?
And therefore in that VR-game, the humanoid AI should lose consciousness if severe damage is being made to the brain.

In our reality, the one you and I are in right now, the brain is not a cosmetic thing. It's useful. It's as useful as something can get,.

The word 'consciousness' is a tricky word. All people have slightly different interpretations of the word when they use it/hear it. For me, it means different things based on context. 

In a medical, biological context, consciousness to me just refers to being awake vs. being unconscious. 

In a spiritual context, consciousness to me refers to the substance of reality, God.

A VR-world where you can just cut your skull open and stick a knife through the brain without affecting consciousness (biological context) would be a silly VR-game, what's the fun then? It has to be dangerous. It has to make 'sense', otherwise it's just pure chaos without any meaning. And meaning -- even though it's always artifical -- is "GOOD" .. it's fun, it's necessary to run the drama of life.

Consciousness (in a spiritual, metaphysical context) IS the GROUND of reality, i.e. it's what everything is made out of, it's prior to the material world, it's prior the human mind. So the brain is not the CREATOR of consciousness, it's "merely" a device that CREATES and OPERATES the human mind, i.e. the brain is the material version of you as a PERSON, as a human being, it's the hardware that runs your mind (the software). However, ultimately speaking, the real you, what you really are is not the mind nor the brain, but God, the consciousness that's prior to the human mind. You are God observing itself, i.e. observing the human mind, observing the ego, observing the world (and also creating itself, out of itself, knowing itself).

By the way, the world is merely a reflection of the human mind. To me, the human brain is a duality creator of consciousness. The brain creates duality by making a distinction between ME - myself, my mind -- and "not-me"; the 'outside world'.  And with me, I mean God. I am God. And I created this human brain to split myself up. To lose myself into the drama of life. I forgot who I am. Now I believe I'm WaveInTheOcean existing independelty of itself in a material world, which is outside and independent of me. 

But this is the comisc joke. Both WaveInTheOcean and everything that I define as 'outside of me', is actually ALL ME. It's all ME. It's all one substance, God, me. It's all consciousness. The brain is merely making an artifical distinction in order to create drama, to create tension, to create oscillations. To create duality. I am the non-dual consciousness observing it all (and being it all). I am NOT WaveInTheOcean. That's a character I'm - as God - is playing.

So it's all me. It's all mind-stuff. It's all one big mind (the mind of God) with smaller limited minds inside God's mind. WaveInTheOcean is one limited mind. But dualistically, relatively speaking, I am a person, I am a mind, a brain existing in the outside world. That's how the game operates.

The world is fundamentally dualistic; as long as you are a human being, you are operating with duality. The trick is, either you are aware of it, or you're not. Either you are aware of the game, or you're not. If you're not aware of the game, then you are so stuck in duality that you think it's all rock-solid, real and 110% serious. 

When we talk about non-duality, we are merely talking abut the reality of the world, about the nature of reality. And yes, reality is non-dual. But that's hard to become aware of, because duality is so seducing. It's much easier to be a poor victim and make distinctions/dualities of "us" vs "them", of "good" vs "evil" and so on.

Ultimately, everything is perfect as it is. The game is running according to God's intentions, how could it not? lol. But still, within the game, things are messy, Trump is in the world etc. There are things we, as humans, should do to make the planet Earth a 'better' place to be. This is just my opinion though, that is, WaveInTheOcean's opinion. I hope ya fellows agree with me:D But yeah, realize that this messiness is good. If everything were perfect (relatively speaking, cus ultimately speaking, of course it's perfect, it cannot not be) then it would be boring to be alive, and we would have to create VR-games where things were messy.

When you load up a PC game it's no fun to the difficulty to 'easy', we almost always chose 'medium' or 'hard', because that gives us the thrills, it has to be hard. We enjoy suffering.  

Im just ranting sorry  

Edited September 7, 2018 by WaveInTheOcean

[CreamCat]

1 hour ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

A VR-world where you can just cut your skull open and stick a knife through the brain without affecting consciousness (biological context) would be a silly VR-game

I didn't say it was a game. To convince an AI to believe it lives in a physical world, the virtual reality has to feel like the physical world.

A character in a virtual reality just has to believe it would lose consciousness if its brain was damaged. It would see others lose consciousness when their brains are damaged. It wouldn't dare to damage its brain because it is scared.

Its body would be an avatar, and its mind would reside somewhere else.

Or, the character could even be an actual human plugged into a virtual reality. Its avatar's brain in the virtual reality would be fake. Or, the human character's parents might decide to plug the character's brain into a remote controlled biological human body that has a fake brain. The character gets shot in the brain but survives and discovers the deception.

I thought of it as a giant magic trick.

Quote

Neat idea, but that has kind of already been done with Westworld (in Season 2 at least), although that's a TV series, not a game.

Can you tell me the specific episode?

Edited September 7, 2018 by CreamCat

[tsuki]

2 hours ago, Kosmos said:

We personally don't have to be "successful", but until AI, someone does. I'm typing this on a laptop that was made by slave labor wages in China, using electricity which brings destruction on the planet. Someone has to keep the show running and evolving, someone has to do the teaching, and "success" is one way of loosely measuring that progress. Those Chinese workers' suffering and doing and "success", builds a foundation for my progress. Perhaps my progress will in turn build a foundation for reducing their suffering and doing.

Wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong.

Progress is not an imperative. It is a choice.
It is a choice in the sense of selecting a reference point and believing that it is constant.
It is a choice in the sense of selecting a method of measuring properties that describe it.
It is a choice in the sense of selecting the objective towards which we want to progress.
You cannot get rid of suffering through progress. If you lower suffering, a new baseline emerges and instead of suffering because of hunger, you suffer because of tinder.

All of the world's problems come from the lack of recognition of what any problem ultimately is. A choice.
It is a decision whether you want to change the circumstances (being ass-to-bellybutton with trying to control experience), or whether you want to adapt to them. God awareness has no problems. It is not a dichotomy of being vs doing.

@Joseph Maynor seems to be struggling because he is under the impression that you can acquire. or lose it.
Being a monk, or being the CEO of Apple makes no difference from this perspective.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

All of the world's problems come from the lack of recognition of what any problem ultimately is. A choice.
It is a decision whether you want to change the circumstances (being ass-to-bellybutton with trying to control experience), or whether you want to adapt to them. God awareness has no problems. It is not a dichotomy of being vs doing.

Sure, there is a subjective experience of choosing. Yet, you seem to be assuming there is a chooser. Who is making the choice? Who is the chooser?

Another perspective is that the world's problems come from the delusion that they are choosing.

[WaveInTheOcean]

12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

If AI is self-aware now, how can one determine if they are an AI or not?

We tend to define everything that has DNA as 'natural'.

If you have a self-aware AI that is not programmed by DNA, but programmed by computer code, that would qualify as 'artificial' I guess.

The distinction is arbitrary. I might as well say that you and I are AI. And I'm just as wrong/right as if someone are saying I'm a "NI". (Natural Intelligence). 

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Sure, there is a subjective experience of choosing. Yet, you seem to be assuming there is a chooser. Who is making the choice? Who is the chooser?

Another perspective is that the world's problems come from the delusion that they are choosing

That's surprisingly insightful.

What I meant is that once we recognize that changing ourselves in response to a situation is the same as changing the situation (solving the problem), then there is no 'me' that can benefit from anything. There is choice, but there is no chooser. All options are equivalent once we recognize the possibility of changing identity.

Also: the fact that there are problems is not a problem in itself. 

[Forestluv]

50 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What I meant is that once we recognize that changing ourselves in response to a situation is the same as changing the situation (solving the problem), then there is no 'me' that can benefit from anything. There is choice, but there is no chooser. 

Would it not be better to say a change in perspective of a situation is the same as a change in the situation? That way, there is no “ourselves” that is changing.