The case for original thought

[Nilsi]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm basically just expanding upon the ideas that Leo presented in his latest video (which was really eye-opening and inspiring to me).

I'm a great admirer of philosophers like Kastrup, Wilber, Schmachtenberger etc; but I think it has to be made explicit, that they have reached a local maximum of understanding. They have reached the highest postulated levels of human development; they managed to synthesize eastern and western thought into a holistic framework; their own experiences are coherent with mysticism; and they are now championing their own conclusions of what it all means and what we can do about it - this is truly remarkable and they are in a sense the great sages of out time.

The problem with these grand narratives and meta-theories is that they create an upper boundary of the kind of insights and understanding that is possible; you can still work within those and make original discoveries and there is A LOT that they can contribute to society, but they will lock you into certain ways of thinking and being, if you cling to them too much.

You could have been a philosopher in middle age europe, studied all the great ancient texts and really saw the big picture of what they were talking about, but then Columbus discovers the new world and suddenly your theories don't look so grand anymore.

We are now approaching the age of intelligent machines, space travel and genetic engineering. There will be infinite ways to express yourself, to think, to talk about your discoveries and to live your life. There is an infinitude of understanding beyond that which we currently possess, and I strongly intuit, that it will not necessarily just be more of the same. So yeah, my point is, hold those frameworks loosely and stay open to new groundbreaking insights; I'm sure they are out there, just waiting for you to discover them.