He wants to "end the suffering of humanity" in very specific ways for specific people. Terms and conditions apply, offer not available in all areas.
He wants to "end the suffering of humanity" in very specific ways for specific people. Terms and conditions apply, offer not available in all areas.Facts are absolutes. So you are saying scientists are Sith? They need to be open to fantasies to keep their minds receptive to new possibilities. JP wants the world to be better. He wants to end the suffering of humanity. He offers all the advice he can give for this very reason. So what if there are some holes here and there in his reasoning? Overall, he has good intentions and maybe a bit confused on some matters like the Ukraine war.
I know, isn’t it horrible? The nerve of that guy spewing all that fake science attacking the one and only true scientifically divine doctrine we of the woke left clutch like pearls of light to ward off the darkness and gathering chaos threatening to engulf us that will destroy the comfortable bliss of certainty we feel in dutifully fulfilling our rolls as in the willingness to lay down our lives to preserve herd conformity and silencing heresy.yea, again no. Rogan is the vehicle, but JP made the statements.
I know, isn’t it horrible? The nerve of that guy spewing all that fake science attacking the one and only true scientifically divine doctrine we of the woke left clutch like pearls of light to ward off the darkness and gathering chaos threatening to engulf us that will destroy the comfortable bliss of certainty we feel in dutifully fulfilling our rolls as in the willingness to lay down our lives to preserve herd conformity and silencing heresy.
Did I mention that what turns liberals into conservatives is challenge to herd doctrine. You don’t toe the line, you get silenced by whatever means is at hand. If it deviates from the herd mentality of the left, it’s evil. Can you see any parallels in your behavior? Pretend you are looking for a feature rather than a bug.Wont you think of the poor strawmen :/
Can you provide examples that demonstrate your original and skilled analytical prowess that would make crystal clear what sounds to me like your suggesting he’s operating under malovelent intention.He wants to "end the suffering of humanity" in very specific ways for specific people. Terms and conditions apply, offer not available in all areas.
Did I mention that what turns liberals into conservatives is challenge to herd doctrine. You don’t toe the line, you get silenced by whatever means is at hand. If it deviates from the herd mentality of the left, it’s evil. Can you see any parallels in your behavior? Pretend you are looking for a feature rather than a bug.
Irritating no, e talking aboutthat all that political fracturing on the left just means that Republicans win. Fucking annoying. Why can’t those deviant thinkers stay in their lanes. Maybe if we heap the ridicule high enough they’ll buckle and get back in line.LOL, I guess that's why this sticker exists, huh? Leftists, a famously united and single front that allows for no independent thought.
View attachment 125208
1) It's a sticker, not a signIrritating no, e talking aboutthat all that political fracturing on the left just means that Republicans win. Fucking annoying. Why can’t those deviant thinkers stay in their lanes. Maybe if we heap the ridicule high enough they’ll buckle and get back in line.
Nice sign. Did you collect the examples I requested or was this your admission you had no idea what you were talking about?
Yes but that was not the point. I know you are making a value judgment and also that this is self evident. The point was to direct attention to the fact that one value judgment may not carry equal weight compared with to another depending on what standard you are using to judge by. One value judgment may be based on objectively rational values and another biased and based on twisted thinking. It therefore seems to me that when seeking to apply value based judgments in the real world that owing to the fact that actions have consequences, one is morally obliged to consider one’s options from as many angles as one can.If I'm making a value judgement by definition there are values behind it. Whether they are entirely unconscious to me, completely misguided, self-serving, coopted by others or anything else, if I'm making a judgement based on values it's a value judgement. That's what I mean by self-evident.
Yes. Consciousness is awareness in the present, being here now, a transcendental mystical state. It is a dissolution of boundaries between what in using words we call ourselves. It is the loss of self identity, the lover and the beloved are one. It is a state in which only awareness is present. It completely annihilates who you are.So consciousness and thought are antithetical and cannot exist together?
I hear in the above some skepticism as to my intent. I view that as natural as I see the same in myself, unfortunately.I believe I have.
Not your intention. Let's see what comes next.
I am a liberal with a liberal brain and that means I will defend liberal herd thinking axiomatically. It is who I am. Still not your intention? You read more into what I wrote than was there. You asked if I was aware of that study as you had mentioned it many times, and I am aware of it having read you talk about it. I have not read the study.
Okay, sure, but this thread is about Jordan Peterson and I have been talking about him and what he says. I'm not sure I would say attitude is everything, but the way we perceive the world is I would say at least in part a reflection of our inner state.
I have no problem with that. What you are attempting to do is to remind me of a minute fraction of the contempt I have for myself as if that minute fraction could ever measure up to the actual depth to which I have suffered. There was a time long ago when I could not protect myself from such intended contempt and felt pain to the maximum degree that I am capable of.1) It's a sticker, not a sign
2) I was not aware that you had requested anything of me. I do not work at your behest, for I do not respect you and find your endless blather to be of no value to anyone but yourself (if even you yourself find it to be of value)
3) I posted it because I was making fun of a stupid thing you said, and it amuses me.
I'm with you up until your last paragraph. The mere fact that someone is a psychologist does not imply much less prove that they are an ethical person seeking ethical solutions. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Also, despite having claimed to be a neuroscientist, Peterson is not a neuroscientist by any commonly accepted understanding of 'neuroscientist'. He was trained as a psychologist, not a neuroscientist.Yes but that was not the point. I know you are making a value judgment and also that this is self evident. The point was to direct attention to the fact that one value judgment may not carry equal weight compared with to another depending on what standard you are using to judge by. One value judgment may be based on objectively rational values and another biased and based on twisted thinking. It therefore seems to me that when seeking to apply value based judgments in the real world that owing to the fact that actions have consequences, one is morally obliged to consider one’s options from as many angles as one can.
Furthermore, owing to factors like, honesty, sincerity, empathy, charity, etc.all manor of factors that go into a philosophical discipline like ethics which seeks to clarify what characteristics undergird a morality itself, two facts at least should be apparent. The greater the intention one pays to questions like what is the good out of a desire to personally function that way, the more one will progress and see the need to progress on two fronts.
First off the more understanding one has of life, the greater one’s scientific knowledge base, the greater one’s erudition the more understanding and wisdom of the less nonsense and ignorance one can potentially bring to the ‘ethics table’ or whatever term you want to use. We can call this Understanding the World
Secondly, owing to the fact that the development of the intention to act with an ethical character requires self examination, how do I measure up honestly to what my developing worldly information is telling me is true, a deepening understanding of the self becomes mandatorily self evident. We can call this just that, Understanding the Self.
This hopefully without further elaboration should answer one big question, what can a neuroscientist and psychologist bring to the search for ethical solutions to climate change? I would say little good will come from the actions of scientists no matter the genre of competence they have mastered climate science if they lack the character and habits of ethical behavior self awareness brings. My opinion
So we need both thought and consciousness to exist?Yes. Consciousness is awareness in the present, being here now, a transcendental mystical state. It is a dissolution of boundaries between what in using words we call ourselves. It is the loss of self identity, the lover and the beloved are one. It is a state in which only awareness is present. It completely annihilates who you are.
But antithetical is not the right word. The first thing the Buddha did according to a story I heard, after almost dying from the practice of self mortification such that he hadn’t enough strength to cross a river and then attained self realization under the Bo tree, and proclaimed to his disciples anxious to hear the wonders of the truth he had seen was LET’S EAT.
Being able to think is a really good thing. It’s basic to being human.
Who determines whether I have escaped my conditioning? Who confirms that I am not simply a liberal who defends the liberal herd-think axiomatically? Or is it a permanent condition that all liberals must accept?I hear in the above some skepticism as to my intent. I view that as natural as I see the same in myself, unfortunately.
My suggestion is to ask your inner state is factually based or the product of conditioning. Can the mind free itself of conditioning? If the self he see ourselves can dissolve in an experience of awakening the complete loss of who one is, that would suggest to a thinking mind that attachment to self, self identification by memory goes away when you become nobody at all. I believe that Socrates had that realization. I think reading about him as a young man left cracks in the nut shell of my self identity. Some guy that knew nothing was the wisest man in the world? How does that make sense.
Imagine the truth is a blackboard and you are searching for it, but you can’t see it as it is covered by words you keep reading. Those words are thoughts you keep thinking are real. Enter doubt. The word on begin to self erase as the belief in the word meaning burn away by doubt. Eventually nothing is left but what can’t be erased, the blackboard itself.
Imagine the same thing but you read the words and they say the finger pointing to the truth that there is a blackboard that is what truth really is and that by reading all these words you will never see that on which they are written. Thought is time, thought is fear, thought is separation from being. You can’t make thought stop thinking you are lost with no way out and you collapse and let go of the effort. The words on the blackboard say you will never find your true self my thinking and trying to think of how to stop thinking is more of the same. And suddenly a strawberry appears, some distraction occurs your attention shifts and grace appears.
OK I buy that his degrees are as a psychologist. I wonder if I unconsciously said that because it makes for a stronger case because thinking back I believe I was at some time in the past aware he was not a neuroscientist by training. Anyway I do believe that any psychologist worth his or her salt and in my opinion, would be deeply committed to knowing what's happening in that field. Would that seem correct to you. I am a nobody who is very interested in how it is that people know things I believe they actually can't possibly know, that what they are doing is assuming without question that they know. I have looked at what neuroscience has to say about that even though I already know the answer. I have only to look at my personal experience having that condition.I'm with you up until your last paragraph. The mere fact that someone is a psychologist does not imply much less prove that they are an ethical person seeking ethical solutions. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Also, despite having claimed to be a neuroscientist, Peterson is not a neuroscientist by any commonly accepted understanding of 'neuroscientist'. He was trained as a psychologist, not a neuroscientist.
We have to be careful with the word exist. A stone can exist. I am not sure a stone is capable of having as much fun being stoned as adults do in adultery. That suggests to me that people can plod along quite easily at some low level of conscious while being able to think just fine.So we need both thought and consciousness to exist?
It's not about who determines that. Seems to me that comes from worrying about being judged and being defective in some way. And that in turn is the product of being told long ago we were worthless. believing it, and hiding from that because it's too painful to survive feeling night and day so we feel it unconsciously night and day instead, stuck in a catch 22Who determines whether I have escaped my conditioning? Who confirms that I am not simply a liberal who defends the liberal herd-think axiomatically? Or is it a permanent condition that all liberals must accept?