Daniel Schmachtenberger, the third attractor part 2

[Danioover9000]

   Great video on attractors and analysis by Daniel Schmachtenberger:

 

[Oeaohoo]

This guy is so lame. I’d never before seen anyone who has a head shoved so far up their ass that they have their head in the clouds! 

What are “Rebel Wisdom” rebelling against? The meta-attempt to destroy the foundations of sense-making in the neo-feudal exponential tech space? What a lot of rubbish.

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

This guy is so lame. I’d never before seen anyone who has a head shoved so far up their ass that they have their head in the clouds! 

What are “Rebel Wisdom” rebelling against? The meta-attempt to destroy the foundations of sense-making in the neo-feudal exponential tech space? What a lot of rubbish.

Yikes. This is the worst take here in a long time. Schmachtenberger is one of the most badass characters I've ever seen. I don't know how you can possibly come to such a silly assessment.

[Oeaohoo]

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Wow. This is the best take here in a long time. Schmachtenberger really is one of the most bad and asinine characters I've ever seen. I know exactly how you can came to such an accurate assessment.

Why thank you… Stop or you’ll make me blush! 

[Leo Gura]

@Oeaohoo Got a feeling I will have to ban you soon for the nonsense you spout with such confidence.

[spiritual memes]

4 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

I have my head shoved so far up my ass that I have my head in the clouds! 

wow ok.

[AtheisticNonduality]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Oeaohoo Got a feeling I will have to ban you soon for the nonsense you spout with such confidence.

????

[Devin]

@Oeaohoo I think he misses the boat as well

[zurew]

11 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

This guy is so lame. I’d never before seen anyone who has a head shoved so far up their ass that they have their head in the clouds! 

What are “Rebel Wisdom” rebelling against? The meta-attempt to destroy the foundations of sense-making in the neo-feudal exponential tech space? What a lot of rubbish.

Do some research before you criticize, brother.

11 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Great video on attractors and analysis by Daniel Schmachtenberger:

The first part is great as well. I really liked the "forced transparency" idea there.

Edited August 24, 2022 by zurew

[Oeaohoo]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Oeaohoo Got a feeling I will have to ban you soon for the nonsense you spout with such confidence.

Never mind that. To quote a much more profound man than the one above, the Italian esotericist Julius Evola:

‘His enemies claimed that Seth [the Egyptian God of destruction, chaos and foreigners who murdered his “good” brother Osiris] had abandoned his people, that he had confused them. But they couldn’t see beyond their noses. The confusion was in their heads. No, Seth had clear vision: you have to be a mischief maker in a society of idiots, of democrats, of molluscs. They of course will repay you with hatred, or indifference. Exile you to the wilderness of anonymity, to the desert of insignificance. They don’t realise they do you a favour. It is good being away from the riffraff! Seth had got it right. I could never have been a priest, not a priest of any monotheistic religion - my caste is warriors - but, a priest of Seth, perhaps…’

48 minutes ago, zurew said:

Do some research before you criticize, brother.

Thanks, sister. I think what bothers me most about these “intellectuals” is how neutered they are. They don’t call it neutered; they call it “nuance”! Isn’t it interesting that nuance is etymologically derived from the Latin word nubes, that is to say “a cloud, mist, vapor”? As what remains of our world slowly evaporates into the clouds of a tepid and bland universalism, it is only natural that an “intellectual” class would emerge who represent this trend; and that those who mistake this evaporation for “progress” would proceed to follow them…

What really is “nuance”? The failure to have the courage of ones convictions; a retreat into the abstract realm of ideas, the peace and renewal that come from this being mistaken for “love” and “acceptance”; a tacit acquiescence to whatever are the current “terms of the debate”, and the vague sense of belonging that may come of this; exploring the endless ramifications of a certain set of logical axioms, and even being willing to play with other sets in the same way. What does any of this have to do with truth?

Therefore, for those who would happily sing along to the French proverb “Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner!” (To understand all is to forgive all!) I would repeat this passage of Nietzsche’s Antichrist:

Quote

It was from this modernity that we were ill—from lazy peace, from cowardly compromise, from the whole virtuous uncleanliness of modern Yes and No. This tolerance and breadth of heart which 'forgives' everything because it 'understands' everything is sirocco to us. Better to live among ice than among modern virtues and other south winds!

[zurew]

@Oeaohoo Its clear from your reply that you haven't looked deep into what Daniel Schmachtenberger and what the game B guys are saying and representing. I would encourage you to take a much deeper look into it, beacuse it is actually nuanced and what you are doing now is attacking modernity and globalism without knowing what their positions and thoughts are on those matters.

 

Notice, that you started with attacking his personality and you didn't really make any points or counter points to his ideas. Modernity and globalism are vague concepts in themselves ,thats why you need to take a deep dive in what Daniel Schmachtenberger trying to say .

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

What really is “nuance”? The failure to have the courage of ones convictions; a retreat into the abstract realm of ideas, the peace and renewal that come from this being mistaken for “love” and “acceptance”; a tacit acquiescence to whatever are the current “terms of the debate”, and the vague sense of belonging that may come of this; exploring the endless ramifications of a certain set of logical axioms, and even being willing to play with other sets in the same way. What does any of this have to do with truth?

No, this is a bad faith summary of what nuance actually is.

Nuance is the recognization that things are complex and they need to be recognized as they really are, without oversimplifying them and without being reductive. And by oversimplifying - losing meaning ,sight ,vision and understanding.

 

Ask yourself this question: Were you really trying to understand their ideas deeply before your wrote your "critique" or you got triggered  after the first few minutes and you wrote your text in a reactive manner?

Edited August 24, 2022 by zurew

[Oeaohoo]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

 

Nuance is the recognization that things are complex...

Things may be complex but what about the “one thing needful”?

Have you noticed how all philosophers of the last hundred years or so use an extremely idiosyncratic, rarefied and abstruse vocabulary? Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan... One has to study their works for months to have the slightest idea what they are on about. Why do you think this is? I think it is because the appropriate analysis of contemporary civilisation is so obvious that one has to create an elaborate system of thought so as not to see it for what it is!

The obvious truth is that there is no Game B. Degeneracy has triumphed everywhere. All the nuance in the world is not going to be able to put all of this evil back inside Pandora's box. And do you remember the one evil which remained in Pandora's box after all the others had been unleashed? Hope. That is all these people are providing you with: false promises that team "nuance" is going to triumph over Satan himself...

[Nilsi]

27 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Things may be complex but what about the “one thing needful”?

Have you noticed how all philosophers of the last hundred years or so use an extremely idiosyncratic, rarefied and abstruse vocabulary? Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan... One has to study their works for months to have the slightest idea what they are on about. Why do you think this is? I think it is because the appropriate analysis of contemporary civilisation is so obvious that one has to create an elaborate system of thought so as not to see it for what it is!

The obvious truth is that there is no Game B. Degeneracy has triumphed everywhere. All the nuance in the world is not going to be able to put all of this evil back inside Pandora's box. And do you remember the one evil which remained in Pandora's box after all the others had been unleashed? Hope. That is all these people are providing you with: false promises that team "nuance" is going to triumph over Satan himself...

Comparing Foucault and Derrida with Schmachtenberger is beyond ignorant. The analysis of "contemporary civilization" is not obvious at all, and that's precisely why all that nuance and complexity is appropriate to make sense of it. Some ignorant Nietzscheesque "The world is will to power and nothing besides" take will not cut it.

[Oeaohoo]

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Comparing Foucault and Derrida with Schmachtenberger is beyond ignorant.

I was just pointing out a way in which they are the same: mentally masturbating so as to avoid the obvious reality that confronts them. Obviously they are very different thinkers in other ways.

12 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

The analysis of "contemporary civilization" is not obvious at all, and that's precisely why all that nuance and complexity is appropriate to make sense of it.

Not obvious, to the spiritually blind... You know that Al-Dajjal, the Islamic Antichrist, is one-eyed? He only has an eye for the material dimension. Only a one-eyed man could fail to see contemporary civilisation for what it is!

13 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Some ignorant Nietzscheesque "The world is will to power and nothing besides" take will not cut it.

Probably not. Then again, even if he ultimately failed, Nietzsche was one of the last philosophers with the capacity for a holistic vision. The problem with people like Schmachtenberger is that they are so addicted to their compartmentalised and "nuanced" worldview that they fail to ever look upon reality with a complete and unwavering gaze.

You yourself have described his work as "analysis". Do you think that mere analysis will cut it? At least Nietzsche understood the relevance of immanence and not just transcendence...

[zurew]

44 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

I think it is because the appropriate analysis of contemporary civilisation is so obvious that one has to create an elaborate system of thought so as not to see it for what it is!

I highly disagree with this statement. I can agree that there are times when people are making things more complex than what they need to be, without adding any meaning to them, but on the other hand, what i mostly see is that people oversimplify things so much so, that their message lose most of its meaning and unfortunately lack of meaning leads to poor understanding. We can't start solving problems without recognising what the real problems are and without knowing/understanding why they emerged in the first place.

I can see that you really don't like nuance. How would you summarise the "what it is" part in simple terms, that everyone could understand (without getting nuanced about it)?

47 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

All the nuance in the world is not going to be able to put all of this evil back inside Pandora's box.

I understand your pessimism, but you don't know that. One thing we can do is to actually try. Not trying will necessarily lead to disaster, but with trying we have the chance to find solutions.

48 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

That is all these people are providing you with: false promises that team "nuance" is going to triumph over Satan himself...

I don't really like this binary good and bad framing. They don't make this good-bad framing themselves, they actually say to take more responsibility for our actions, to become more conscious and they actually give frameworks, tools and understanding how to do that.

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Probably not. Then again, even if he ultimately failed, Nietzsche was one of the last philosophers with the capacity for a holistic vision. The problem with people like Schmachtenberger is that they are so addicted to their compartmentalised and "nuanced" worldview that they fail to ever look upon reality with a complete and unwavering gaze.

You got it exactly backwards. 

3 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

 At least Nietzsche understood the relevance of immanence and not just transcendence...

What are you talking about? If Schmachtenbergers philosophy doesn't scream immanence to you, then you must be deaf.

[Oeaohoo]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

I highly disagree with this statement. I can agree that there are times when people are making things more complex than what they need to be, without adding any meaning to them, but on the other hand, what i mostly see is that people oversimplify things so much so, that their message lose most of its meaning and unfortunately lack of meaning leads to poor understanding. We can't start solving problems without recognising what the real problems are and without knowing/understanding why they emerged in the first place.

Of course but these two phenomena really go together: a dumbed down mainstream culture and an overly "nuanced" crowd analysing it from the sidelines. Both of them "miss the boat"!

17 minutes ago, zurew said:

How would you summarise the "what it is" part in simple terms, that everyone could understand (without getting nuanced about it)?

Hell on earth. Mistaking itself for a new Heaven...

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't really like this binary good and bad framing. They don't make this good-bad framing themselves, they actually say to take more responsibility for our actions, to become more conscious and they actually give frameworks, tools and understanding how to do that.

Of course they don't! They are too "nuanced" for that... This is exactly what I mean. These people are such spineless effeminate molluscs that they lack the capacity to ever stand up for anything. Just a bunch of cosmopolitan intellectuals convincing themselves that they are saving the world simply by analysing its destruction!

[Oeaohoo]

In hell, Schmachtenberger chooses to analyse the flames; I choose to try to wake whoever I can up before getting the hell out of here!

[Danioover9000]

@Oeaohoo

8 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Of course but these two phenomena really go together: a dumbed down mainstream culture and an overly "nuanced" crowd analysing it from the sidelines. Both of them "miss the boat"!

Hell on earth. Mistaking itself for a new Heaven...

Of course they don't! They are too "nuanced" for that... This is exactly what I mean. These people are such spineless effeminate molluscs that they lack the capacity to ever stand up for anything. Just a bunch of cosmopolitan intellectuals convincing themselves that they are saving the world simply by analysing its destruction!

   Dude, why are you salty? I buried that feud you started with me with my rhymes yesterday, so please behave, before you flip that egg on your own face even more, trying to play mind games like a wild bore on me, boring.

   @Nilsi

   I think it mainly has to do with Rebel Wisdom, more so than Daniel Schmachtenberger.

 

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

In hell, Schmachtenberger chooses to analyse the flames; I choose to try to wake whoever I can up before getting the hell out of here!

So you're a nihilist is what you're saying?