Daniel Schmachtenberger & Bret Weinstein

[JosephKnecht]

A deep conversation between two intelligent people. 

If you can't watch the whole thing, just watch the speech of Daniel at (01:05:19 Markets, states, and the people),  

[Leo Gura]

@JosephKnecht Awesome!

Smart people talk, how refreshing

[Matt23]

I'm interested to see how Daniel's Consilience Project goes.  I imagine it being something quite novel, informative, and aesthetically well developed.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Matt23 said:

I'm interested to see how Daniel's Consilience Project goes.  I imagine it being something quite novel, informative, and aesthetically well developed.

He's so intellectual, who the fuck is gonna understand him?

That's the fundamental bottleneck. You can develop yourself to crazy levels, but the rest of mankind will still be selfish morons. Such is the curse of being a sage.

[aurum]

@JosephKnecht

I watched this when it came out, really excellent. Refreshing to hear some deep, nuanced dialogue.

The last half hour or so they get into some nice epistemology.

1 hour ago, Matt23 said:

I'm interested to see how Daniel's Consilience Project goes.  I imagine it being something quite novel, informative, and aesthetically well developed.

I'll be following this as well.

[Matt23]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

He's so intellectual, who the fuck is gonna understand him

Ya, fair.  I can remember watching him and jordan hall and some other guys in that circle speak and at one point it just seemed useless to me, like him speaking was just frying my brain and I wasn't really growing in any way, just getting blasted.  I kinda got frustrated by it all because I felt he wasn't really offering anything that people could actually apply.  Like most people only having dinner plates and he was tossing out entire turkeys to everyone... like awesome... but also like "Fuck... how the hell am I going to process all this stuff, and like it's a waste since most people listening aren't in any position to be taking action or considering such things."  Like, I don't see the most optimum use of the average person's time and effort being global systemic risk n such.   

But it sounded like fancy tier-2 thinking so I listened  

Though, I think in other videos he speaks about making the Consilience Project something doable for most people.  Like offering basic epistemic concepts like steelmaning, checking one's own biases, and adequate 3rd pp reasoning.  

But I dunno, maybe that stuff is over people's heads too.  Though, I suspect that most people can understand it, but the issue is more of people not wanting to.  Like for me, I can understand this stuff and apply it, but I don't because I feel I need to take like a degree in this stuff to really do it properly, and I'm just trying to solve family, emotional, and financial issues at this point. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Matt23

[lmfao]

Listening to to the intellectual conversation in this video got me thinking about intellectual discussion generally. 

What I've found to be most important to remember during intellectual discussion is to make sure is that you don't become static or bogged down. It is very easy to talk about specific things in way which distracts you from where you're going.

That doesn't mean you can't focus on those specifics and that they aren't important, but it ends up being very possible to strain yourself in discussing it. 

Our mental activity is always faster than what our words can say. So words slow it down. Within a split second your mind will have an image for the next 2 or 3 sentences it wants to say, but it takes a lot longer to put them out or put exact words to it

One can't deny though that you'll always have to stick through dry and boring details though 

--

Here's the problem with detail and specifics. If you leave out detail in favour of optimal flow for yourself, many people will be unable to see where you're coming from. 

If you have to state every step of logic, which I used to do, it takes a lot of time and it's boring. So for communication we usually do multiple steps at once, and hopefully be wise about which steps and which parts to explain more thoroughly. But it becomes a problem when people don't understand you. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by lmfao

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Matt23 said:

I felt he wasn't really offering anything that people could actually apply.

Daniel actually offers a ton of wisdom and great insights that's super useful. I'm just saying it will be hard for most people to understand and apply it.

But if you're serious, there's gold in his skull for you. I'm learning  a lot from listening to him. He's a really good thinker.

[lmfao]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm learning a lot from listening to him

same 

I want to listen to things around this part of YouTube now. There are channels like "Rebel Wisdom". Another thing with long videos on YouTube, you can increase the speed at different parts if you get bored at times, and then decrease it again later after a section

[andyjohnsonman]

Yea his war on sensemaking series on rebel wisdom is absolutely brilliant 

 

 

[Matt23]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But if you're serious, there's gold in his skull for you.

Ya, I think one part of me intuits that, and I'm probably learning lots just from listening to him via osmosis.  But I guess I'm sort of trying to get basics covered and, I dunno, going deep with the kind of stuff he talks about doesn't seem like a totally wise move.  Not saying there isn't value still, just that maybe not focusing on him atm is best.  I dunno.  Something like that.  

 

Also, I'd recommend The Stoa.  They host Daniel and other like-minded (tier-2) thinkers as well and you can ask them questions in Q&As often.  They host zooms.  Even Shinzen Young, Daniel Ingram, and Frank Yang were on at one point.   Pretty sure they have a session(s) with Frank Yang and Daniel Ingram together in convo.  

• Stealing the Culture with Dialogos: Awakening w/ Daniel M. Ingram, Michael Taft, Frank Yang, and Evan McMullen. February 22nd @ 8:00 PM ET. Patreon event. 

https://www.thestoa.ca/

Edited February 18, 2021 by Matt23

[Carl-Richard]

What is so cool about Daniel is his strategic approach to language. He has incorporated so many systemic words into his vocabulary that he always speaks at a very high level of generalizability without losing information density.

It's the art of making broad statements without becoming too vague. Infact, in a weird way you're being more accurate by using those types of generalizations, because it saves you from needing to perform long deductions where you otherwise increase the risk of running into more ambiguous words.

Systemic words contain the crux of a wide range of concrete things. It doesn't make you immune to having to elaborate, but it's still a very effective way of communicating. Some of the terms make intuitive sense, but some are also taken from literature which can sometimes make it hard to follow.

Here a few of examples from only a couple of Daniel's sentences:

Game-theoretic, catastrophe weapons, planetary boundaries, confidence margin, generator functions, collective action problem, local optimums, global minimums, multi-polar traps, fully globalized exponential tech etc..

Edited February 19, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Game-theoretic, catastrophe weapons, planetary boundaries, confidence margin, generator functions, collective action problem, local optimums, global minimums, multi-polar traps, fully globalized exponential tech etc..

It can be good, but it's also jargony. Laymen will not be able to follow it. I can follow it but it takes effort. Which means most people will be lost. You have to read like 200 books to know what he's talking about.

Who the fuck knows what a strange attractor is? Like 1% of people. It's a powerful concept but you gotta read a book on chaos theory to understand it.

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I can follow it but it takes effort. Which means most people will be lost.

Yeah. I can't do much but be fascinated 

[Leo Gura]

Be careful though. Daniel's view of reality is still missing the highest understanding. It's sorta trapped in all that stage Yellow logic.

You're not going to reach God/Love through all that systemic thinking and jargon.

So it's great stuff, but still limited.

Don't forget, "the better the model the bigger the problem."

The truth is that there is no world to save from collapse. All that is just a game his mind made up to keep him distracted from realizing he is God.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

All that is just a game his mind made up to keep him distracted from realizing he is God.

This is so true. After all, my first post on this forum was about me freaking out after experiencing the dissolution of myself and asking for advice about how to make it stop, and while it wasn't my intention (atleast initially), these more intellectual ideas turned into a way of distracting myself from that 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Be careful though. Daniel's view of reality is still missing the highest understanding. It's sorta trapped in all that stage Yellow logic.

You're not going to reach God/Love through all that systemic thinking and jargon.

So it's great stuff, but still limited.

Don't forget, "the better the model the bigger the problem."

The truth is that there is no world to save from collapse. All that is just a game his mind made up to keep him distracted from realizing he is God.

I agree, he seems mostly peak Yellow to me. He clearly has had some nondual experiences and is open to spirituality, which makes him very different than Orange. And he's much more systemic, self-aware and integrated than Green. But he seems to be holding onto materialism to a certain degree.

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, aurum said:

But he seems to be holding onto materialism to a certain degree.

Why do you think that?

[tuckerwphotography]

I've gone deep down the Daniel rabbit hole at times, and I agree with many of the comments above: he's an intellectual genius for sure, but it's so painfully clear how this worldview is also limited and often times can feel empty and lacking. It's equivalent to someone in Stage Orange making a billion dollars and realizing, "Oh shit, I'm still not happy." Listening to Daniel is like the Yellow equivalent, "Oh wow, I understand maps and concepts better than 99% of people, but I still feel empty." At least that's how I've felt at times listening to these guys, including Rebel Wisdom and The Stoa (both of which are great for what they are btw). 

In comparison listening to a Turquoise thinker like Osho or the Dalai Lama, there's a depth and energy being transmitted both in the words but also in the silence, which Yellow thinkers like Daniel haven't yet mastered. They're two different frequencies - one is mainly activating my mind and the other is striking a deeper, more heart-centered place. Ultimately I flow between the two, as I find both super stimulating and nourishing in their own ways. 

[Space]

1 hour ago, tuckerwphotography said:

I've gone deep down the Daniel rabbit hole at times, and I agree with many of the comments above: he's an intellectual genius for sure, but it's so painfully clear how this worldview is also limited and often times can feel empty and lacking. It's equivalent to someone in Stage Orange making a billion dollars and realizing, "Oh shit, I'm still not happy." Listening to Daniel is like the Yellow equivalent, "Oh wow, I understand maps and concepts better than 99% of people, but I still feel empty." At least that's how I've felt at times listening to these guys, including Rebel Wisdom and The Stoa (both of which are great for what they are btw). 

Yes I agree. He's clearly an incredible integral thinker. But it's like he's just maxing out on the intellectual mind stuff and is hitting up against an invisible wall which he might not fully understand how to go past yet. He needs that quantum leap in consciousness to get outside of the wall, so to speak. 30mg of 5-MeO will do the trick! Watching the video below really shows the limits of Daniel's thinking imo. Tim tries to ask Daniel questions like 'What is all of this?' and Daniel just seems kinda confused and unable to answer.