Daniel Schmachtenberger, the third attractor part 2

[Devin]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

 thats why it matters what system you build.

For example: If you are living in a system where your survival is depended upon fucking up other parties, then of course the whole world will eventually end up in hell.

So

[Oeaohoo]

The perfect satire of Schmachtenberger and all of his kind:

 

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Devin said:

The "which are desirable and which are not"

Desire, as in the outcome you want right?

Desire as in not extinction or dystopia.

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

How on earth is that equivalent to nihilism?

What is your prescription for society?

[Oeaohoo]

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is your prescription for society?

What difference does that make? I have such little influence within this society - if there even are societies to speak of today - that my prescription might as well be that everyone can exchange their old car for a unicorn and live on nutrition-enriched air alone!

The same could be said for Schmachtenberger… Thinking on it, the main issue I have with him is that he seems to believe in the possibility of a “man-made” society. I don’t believe that a man-made society has ever existed or that it ever could: societies are created by God, preserved by God and ultimately destroyed by God. Of course, spokesmen for the cynical and truly nihilistic modern mentality will say: “Nonsense! Society is just human monkey business! There was no revelation or divine ordination and consecration in the past! That was all just a primitive superstitious fantasy which our modern, progressive and enlightened state has overcome”. So be it! Such people only say such things because the only business they are capable of is monkey business.

It is so funny that people around here talk all the time about the “non-duality” of God, the “transcendent becoming imminent and the imminent becoming transcendent”, “emptiness being form and form being emptiness”, and all the other Greatest Hits of the New Age parrot choir. Yet the idea of Revelation or of a society being ordered by and around God is as absurd to them as Fascism or Jihad. Truly bizarre!

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

It is so funny that people around here talk all the time about the “non-duality” of God, the “transcendent becoming imminent and the imminent becoming transcendent”, “emptiness being form and form being emptiness”, and all the other Greatest Hits of the New Age parrot choir. Yet the idea of Revelation or of a society being ordered by and around God is as absurd to them as Fascism or Jihad. Truly bizarre!

If you were listening to Schmachtenberger carefully, you would notice that his conception of reality is basically that it's a universal mind (hence all the talk about collective intelligence/interconnectedness etc.). Just because people don't say the word "God," doesn't mean they don't know what's up.

If you weren't so self-absorbed I wouldn't have to make everything so god damn explicit. Do I have to mention God and Infinity in every sentence or can we just communicate like two reasonable human beings?

Edited August 24, 2022 by Nilsi

[Oeaohoo]

13 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

If you were listening to Schmachtenberger carefully, you would notice that his conception of reality is basically that it's a universal mind (hence all the talk about collective intelligence/interconnectedness etc.). Just because people don't say the word "God," doesn't mean they don't know what's up.

If you weren't so self-absorbed I wouldn't have to make everything so god damn explicit. Do I have to mention God and Infinity in every sentence or can we just communicate like two reasonable human beings?

Whether or not he has some vague and woolly conception of everything being interconnected and part of one “meta-mind” (that would probably be his expression!), it is obvious that his proscriptions for society are essentially human-oriented.

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Whether or not he has some vague and woolly conception of everything being interconnected and part of one “meta-mind” (that would probably be his expression!), it is obvious that his proscriptions for society are essentially human-oriented.

To some degree all prescriptions for society will have some anthropic bias to them - we are living in a human society (by most standards) after all. He's making it a point to talk about all sentient beings and all Life though, and does so explicitly and consistently, so I don't know what your problem is. Again, we can either spell these things out everytime we communicate or we can just be reasonable. 

You would genuinely like and appreciate what he has to say if you weren't so arrogant. Don't think just because you know God, you now know how to create a good society - hint: you don't.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Nilsi

[Oeaohoo]

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

To some degree all prescriptions for society will have some anthropic bias to them - we are living in a human society (by most standards) after all. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You would genuinely like and appreciate what he has to say if you weren't so arrogant. Don't think just because you know God, you now know how to create a good society - hint: you don't.

You’re probably right. Obviously, I’m being one-sided and hyperbolic. I am only doing so because, like Leo, a lot of people here seem to esteem him much too highly. Even if the things he talks about are of some interest and value, it strikes me that their real value is not practical but idealistic. There is never going to be any Game B society: like the user Devin has tried to show above, it is a total pipe-dream. To the extent that anyone believes that this is what is coming, they deserve a bit of mockery. However, perhaps it is like what Plato said when people were criticising his Republic for being too idealistic:

Quote

“Well,” said I, “perhaps there is a pattern of it laid up in heaven for him who wishes to contemplate it and so beholding to constitute himself its citizen.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Oeaohoo why your profile picture ?

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

it is obvious that his proscriptions for society are essentially human-oriented.

Whats the alternative, be universal oriented? Thats sounds good, but you need to have the capability and the level of development first to do so.

41 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

societies are created by God, preserved by God and ultimately destroyed by God

What's the logical conclusion to that premise? To not do anything because everything is predetermined and whats the logical conclusion to predetermination? To not take responsibility for anything.

Or if we want to get nuanced about it, and even if assume that everything is predetermined we could say that God wanted us to make and to create our own prescriptions for ourselves, so here we are. If we don't have any free will and everything is predetermined, then even if we end up "creating" or "making" our own prescriptions for society it will be God's will, so everything is good, right?

Edited August 24, 2022 by zurew

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Devin said:

So

So if you don't want to end up in hell you will try to do your best to avoid it. Still don't understand whats your problem with this.

Its clear to me,that with these premises:

• actions have consequences 
• we have some agency over things

Then this conclusion to me is reasonable: Why not try our best to use our influence consciously, to move towards a beneficial direction?

Edited August 24, 2022 by zurew

[Nilsi]

15 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

You’re probably right. Obviously, I’m being one-sided and hyperbolic. I am only doing so because, like Leo, a lot of people here seem to esteem him much too highly. 

I haven't seen anyone here overrate Schmachtenberger. If anything, people vastly undersell him and strawman him like crazy (kinda like you did here). 

 

15 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

There is never going to be any Game B society: like the user Devin has tried to show above, it is a total pipe-dream. To the extent that anyone believes that this is what is coming, they deserve a bit of mockery. However, perhaps it is like what Plato said when people were criticising his Republic for being too idealistic:

Game B is not supposed to be this fixed thing. Whether a society will ever exist that orients towards what Game B represents remains to be seen. I would say it is exactly like Plato's Republic. The point of it is to be an ideal form of society, not an actual thing. Plato did what he could and so does Schmachtenberger - ultimately it's up to the people (or whatever forces you want to evoke instead) whether these ideals will be actualized in some way or not.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Nilsi

[spiritual memes]

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

The same could be said for Schmachtenberger… Thinking on it, the main issue I have with him is that he seems to believe in the possibility of a “man-made” society. I don’t believe that a man-made society has ever existed or that it ever could: societies are created by God, preserved by God and ultimately destroyed by God.

Both can be true. societies are created by god through humans.

[Carl-Richard]

On 24.8.2022 at 9:16 PM, Oeaohoo said:

The same could be said for Schmachtenberger… Thinking on it, the main issue I have with him is that he seems to believe in the possibility of a “man-made” society.

I don't think Schmachtenberger or the other Game B guys are saying "this will work". Many of them are actually rather pessimistic. They're rather saying "if it were to work, this is how it would work". So whether Game B is actually possible or not is not settled. They're entertaining the possibility, sure, but at least somebody has got to do it.

However, we know that humans are able to make massive adaptive changes to their culture. After all, the current game ("Game A") was preceded by "The First Game", i.e. pre-agricultural collectivist tribes. In a sense, Game B is about reintegrating some of those traits in a modern context (the "Global tribe", or an "Archaic Revival"). It's not really a new project, only on a different scale.

I guess your question is about whether this change will mainly have to come from the "inside" of culture (i.e. "man-made", or figured out by some genius), or whether there has to be a strong outside force pushing it (like what agriculture was for Game A), and the latter is certainly possible if we look at technological growth. That is what agriculture was in the first place; technology. You can say all you want about society being in decay, but you can't say that technology is not progressing

[Devin]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:05 PM, zurew said:

So if you don't want to end up in hell you will try to do your best to avoid it. Still don't understand whats your problem with this.

Its clear to me,that with these premises:

• actions have consequences 
• we have some agency over things

Then this conclusion to me is reasonable: Why not try our best to use our influence consciously, to move towards a beneficial direction?

It's the" do your best to avoid hell" and "beneficial direction" parts. It sounds like pure fear motivation to me. The attempt to do it isn't wrong, the thing for me is the motivation.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Devin

[Carl-Richard]

29 minutes ago, Devin said:

It sounds like pure fear motivation to me. The attempt to do it isn't wrong, the concern for me is the motivation.

???

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

???

!!!!!

[Danioover9000]

   High quality posts guys, please keep it up!

[Danioover9000]

   Part 1 of this video, for more context: