Who Wants A 2-hr Jordy P Analysis Video?

[Danioover9000]

7 hours ago, TheDao said:

Not saying that. But if you as citizin have to work longer and go later with pension because of al the money put into people from other cultures , it would be at least nice to hear a thank you, instead of being called names/racist.

   It's awful when that happens to some people. Spent time doing meanintful work, then later gets called names and stuff. If some people are not grounded, they get negatively affected, and quit early. Some can reframe and move on, but some can't. I especially feel sorry for lower to mid income earning locals that have to deal with decrease in lower to mid income jobs due to increase in immigration and less opportunities in available positions. Mix in advancements in technology and A.I taking over more labour based jobs, more people will struggle more.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

Noam Chomsky said The Republican Party is the single most dangerous organization in the whole ? - do you agree mr. Gura?

That's a bit dramatic, but it has a ring of truth to it.

[limitedunderstanding]

So, just to clear things up before people start assuming things. I'm not a JBP "fan". I haven't read his books. I do listen to a small fraction of his conversations. I've watched more than half of Leo's videos, and I think they are valuable. My criticism below is in good faith, and I'm trying to be constructive. So, with that out of the way...

I don't think Leo quite understands how JBP frames the world. I'll try to illustrate through one example. In the video, he says:

Quote

Therefore, Jordan Peterson would say, you need to construct some sort of hierarchy for your life of value and meaning, [...] and you gotta pick one of these values to put at the top of your pyramid of priorities, and that value could be God in the literal sense, or it could be god in the poetic or metaphorical sense, where, for example, if you're a wall street executive and all you care about is money, Jordan Peterson would say, that means money and success is your god. And if you're a scientist that is hyperrational [...] then he would say science or mathematics is your god. [...] And so on. And so he would say, pick one of these things and then orient your life towards that. Now he tells you g(G)od is the highest value, but he doesn't tell you why.

Jordan Peterson most certainly wouldn't say that value and meaning are relative, and you can choose whatever you want as your god because everything is basically the same. Because, you know, he isn't at the postmodern stage.

In his conversation with, I believe it was Bishop Barren, he explains what he means by God. Identity is layered, he says. So if you're asked "what are you doing right now?", you can answer "I'm moving my hand", or "I'm moving the pen by moving my hand", or "I'm leaving ink on the paper by moving the pen by moving my hand", or, skipping a few steps, you could say "I'm trying to slow down climate change by encouraging people to take action by educating them about climate change by completing a book by writing these sentences by writing these letters by leaving ink on the paper by moving the pen by moving my hand". These layers of justifications keep expanding in scope, always including the layer below as a part. At some point, he would argue, you will hit a point where you can't continue justifying. This is when you reach something like "good" or "happiness" or whatever. That is what he calls "God". He would also argue that this "God" thing is universal. (So people end up acting differently because their lines of justifications diverge due to differences in beliefs, I assume, not because they have a different "God" at the top.) And this "God" is objectively true, in the sense that it has the property that evolution of any social cooperative structure, human or otherwise, will naturally tend towards this point in the game-theoretical landscape. (So as far as I can tell here he makes a bold claim: that this attractor in game theory, fundamentally mathematical in nature, and the top-layer identity, fundamentally psychological, are two aspects of the same one thing.)

Yeah, not exactly stage blue. But I think this is one if not the most important point he's trying to make: that there is value in the universe, in the objective sense. Leo's interpretation is the exact opposite: that value is whatever you assign value to.

As a side note, this isn't the only case of Leo making this very error. In one of the videos about holistic thinking, he claims that a holon can be anything you want. Which I think is wrong. "Men", in particular, an example given by him, is not a holon. Now, there are possible world-states where "men" is a holon. But in our world, as a very obvious example, there are men living in uncontacted tribes in the jungle. Virtually no aspect of "men" is regulated internally to "men". Yes, "men" are gravitationally attracted to each other and whatnot, but none of that is internal to "men".

I'm going to stop here for now, but these examples are no mere nitpicking. I'm using these examples to try to point to a more abstract, more general bias in Leo's thinking.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, limitedunderstanding said:

This is when you reach something like "good" or "happiness" or whatever. That is what he calls "God". He would also argue that this "God" thing is universal.

Yeah, I see your point. You could frame it like that. That's basically one level of abstraction higher than money, sex, science, family, etc.

Of course everything boils down to something like "good". But what JP does not understand is that his definition of good is actually evil. What he calls good is ego/survival. The ego defined "good" as whatever helps it survive. And survival is in a sense the one constant for all of life. But it is not the Absolute, survival is the greatest bias/illusion/delusion that keeps you from realizing God.

Just because there are men living in uncontacted tribes does not in any way break the notion of men as a holon. A holon does not require physical contact.

[limitedunderstanding]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What he calls good is ego/survival. The ego defined "good" as whatever helps it survive.

My understanding of JBP's understanding of good is that it isn't a human ego, or an ego that exists. More like an idea, in the Platonic sense, of what the collective ego of Life could be. This is totally my interpretation with a pinch of anthropomorphizing, but one framing is that "God" is what the collective ego is longing to self-transcend into. (There's a reason I write "God" as opposed to God. He isn't talking about the (no-)thing for which you use the word God.)

 

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because there are men living uncontacted tribes does not in any way break the notion of men as a holon. A holon does not require physical contact.

By "men", do you mean all men who have ever lived and will ever live, or men alive right now? If the former, then I just misunderstood; that is a holon.

A holon does not require physical contact, but it does require some sort of internal interaction that enables or constrains it's own state (be it based on causal interaction or acausal trades or whatever weird shit). Men currently alive in uncontacted tribes don't enable or constrain anything about my life. No, their gravitational pull doesn't constrain me, especially not in a way it doesn't constrain women just the same.

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, limitedunderstanding said:

My understanding of JBP's understanding of good is that it isn't a human ego, or an ego that exists. More like an idea, in the Platonic sense

Of course he will not agree that his version of good is ego. But that's his ego talking.

The point is that Good is an Absolute which cannot be defined and it has nothing to do with human ideas of what is good. Human ideas of what is good is ego.

Absolute Good is when you realize that even the Holocaust was good. And JP is not willing to go there. Whatever his ideas of good are, they will be limited and egoic. Absolute Good is an extremely radical thing that an ego cannot handle. Absolute Good is EVERTYHING: sex, money, family, and even murder.

See, if I ask JP if Stalin is Absolute Good, he will say No! And he is wrong.

Quote

By "men", do you mean all men who have ever lived and will ever live, or men alive right now? If the former, then I just misunderstood; that is a holon.

However you want to define it. The definitions of holons are always relative and flexible.

Quote

A holon does not require physical contact, but it does require some sort of internal interaction that enables or constrains it's own state

I would challenge you on this. Your notion of constraint is too narrow and limited. Even uncontacted tribes are part of larger society -- even if they don't know it -- because larger society works around those tribes not to disturb them (or it disturbs them). An island is still part of an ecosystem and it won't stay an island forever.

Again, this will be relative to how you wish to draw your boundaries and what kind of perspective you wish to take.

[limitedunderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would challenge you on this. Your notion of constraint is too narrow and limited. Even uncontacted tribes are part of larger society -- even if they don't know it -- because larger society works around those tribes not to disturb them (or it disturbs them). An island is still part of an ecosystem and it won't stay an island forever.

Yes. Hence, "all humans alive today" is a holon. But none of that disturbance or lack thereof is internal to "men". But this is very tangential to my point.

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

However you want to define it. The definitions of holons are always relative and flexible.

This can be true, but you are wrong. You aren't wrong by having a false belief. How do I put this... There is a frame in which the four-element set containing this hydrogen atom on my fingertips, my pet unicorn, the color yellow and the set of all sets not contained in themselves forms a holon. But you can't apply holonic theory from that frame. Even just talking about holons implies a frame in which holons aren't relative. (Of course, this last sentence isn't true from the relativistic frame either. There is nothing whithin the relativistic frame that forces you not to continue to be stuck in it.)

But even that is tangential. These are just examples. I believe that you have a tendency to jump to relativity. I think that this is a bias you have and that this might be holding you back. I can't prove this to you, of course. I do care whether you realize something here or not - but I don't care about defending my points, unless I think it's productive. It's getting very close to the point where that stops being likely.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, limitedunderstanding said:

There is a frame in which the four-element set containing this hydrogen atom on my fingertips, my pet unicorn, the color yellow and the set of all sets not contained in themselves forms a holon. But you can't apply holonic theory from that frame.

Treating all of mankind as a holon is not some crazy idea. All of mankind has one common ancestor. Basic evolutionary theory treats man as a holon regardless of what island they live on.

Like I said, it's a matter of your perspective.

I jump to relativity because it's a deep feature of all these problems and debates. Once you really grasp relativity you will stop this kind of silly hairsplitting. You'll just be at peace knowing it's all a matter of relative perspective.

Grasp so deeply that it's all relative that your mind just shuts up and sits in silence.

[limitedunderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Treating all of mankind as a holon is not some crazy idea. All of mankind has one common ancestor. Basic evolutionary theory treats man as a holon regardless of what island they live on.

I meant "men" as opposed to "women". Are we even talking about the same thing?

[BTW I think you quoted the wrong section]

[limitedunderstanding]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I jump to relativity because it's a deep feature of all these problems and debates. Once you really grasp relativity you will stop this kind of silly hairsplitting. You'll just be at peace knowing it's all a matter of relative perspective.

Oh well. I think that settles it in the sense that I understand your perspective and you declared that you have no intention of changing it. I have the time to continue this conversaton if you think there is a point, by from my part, I don't see any.

[AuthenticSelf]

Really good video, the balanced and nuanced approach to a complex individual like Jordan Peterson was perfect. Something for everyone to agree with in it while considering the other side's viewpoints.

[Raze]

Upload the interview you did with Shinzen Young