Thanks. People do not, or are not able to, reflect on the true motives of their actions, which are for the most part, narrowly focused on self preservation. We need a renaissance of spiritual metaphysics: materialistic atheism through the story of futility is creating hell on earth.
The founding fathers of The United States of America would agree, but also i remind you that every single man having the microcosm if the powers of the Almighty Creator, are also given the Agency that entails without the requisite Wisdom to do what is right over what is shallowly profitable. We need an awakening to the origin of the problem, holistically. God inspires man, man inspires law, and corporations, and law has a recursice effect back on Man but ONLY if we allow it.
This was so soooo good!! I’m definitely with you. But the story is ALREADY WRITTEN AND IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SPEAK ABOUT!!❤ But you will find: Truth is not relative in humans at the highest level. This is the blessing of being human. We can see actual truth. The idea that truth is somehow relative is responsible for all the horrors of history. Because humans are meant to read the universe-it’s an actual language. Our human stories can be wrong, or worse, partially wrong so they ring true when they are not. Real truth rules out instrumental use of our need for stories. (AKA lies or partial truth). Thanks for this. I wrote a book about this stuff 20 years ago and it is finally coming out all over. ❤👍🏻
i was thinking so many of these things myself. i look around. i listen. i hear others saying similar things. i feel it coming in the air tonight, and i find this just now. more pieces fall into place. there are pieces in this i was missing. thank you, friend
interesting video and ideas. I like the thesis after establishing binary foundational drivers: through hyperstition, stories render our reality, every conscious human apart of the story a co-creator with the ability to decide between creating or controlling. i also enjoy the power and wisdom relationship with how and what, and the relationships between narrative/vision and illusion/truth. for me there is lack of cohesion in your narrative (also using the term narrative as the autopoiesis of fear seems odd to me) around an explanation for what the noosphere is, what the metacrisis actually is aside from its existential risk, and why fear and love are your choices for directions of perception. im surprised you didnt mention the traditional tao dualism of order and chaos though using the emotionally spun dualism of fear and love makes sense in this context. also the notions of relative and absolute truth are not coherently connected to your ideas of narrative/illusion and vision/truth though i understand what you mean and agree with your general notions here. I appreciate the efforts you undertook striving for a 1st principles underpinning. overall i think you are saying that to appeal to a rational humanity is to sharpen the edge of the blade of being (and through being, vision) on the edge of doubt. just as we sharpen the edge of our ability on our reflection of it.
Beautifully expressed, David! The concepts are very deep and you've expressed them extremely succinctly. I'm wondering what a slower, more experientially-oriented exposition might look like. Wonderful work you're doing. Keep it up!
Very insightful. I honestly find it hard to believe that you pumped out this much of a comprehensive world view without a catch. “Who are you and where are you getting this from?” would probably help in trusting the information more. Regardless, these are the exact conclusions and observations I have come to (besides the truth is relative, good is absolute. Idk if or how these can have this kind of opposites relationship), but there is still one major hole I can’t work around. I still question if this kind of thinking is, itself, a set up narrative (working exactly as you point out structurally here) that would lock us into a totalitarian system with leverage of Love itself. Kind of like the perfect narrative, one that has vision and that can adapt to the desires of us as people and keep us insulated in the system forever. Like even the fear of the Meta-Crisis would be the crux underlying the need for this Love philosophy in the first place which isn’t technically a vision but rather a fear narrative, as hopeful as it is. There’s nothing obvious in this presentation that would counter that scenario. Maybe nothing can really counter such a scenario, but that’s the problem I’ll be working on and thinking about while you work on this project. I still think this was a really well done explanations and presentation and looking forward to hearing more. I really endorse this kind of wholistic thinking and want to push it to the limits.
@5:48 I agree with most of what this video is saying so far, my only problem so far is that you seem to be elevating the Liminal mind or the love side over the fear side. But I think that this misses an important part because these should be thought of as equal sides of the same thing, just varying in degrees between. That's what the spectrum of love and hate is. Each end can then be thought of as having it's own positive and negative or you could just saw when either is taken to their extreme ends of the poles, that they become dangerous. You say love would have no desire to control, but it does. The devouring mother archetype is driven by empathy and compassion or love, but taken to an unhealthy extreme. In the example you give you can see this play out. If you become too loving to the trees then you have to begin depriving people of chopping, harming or utilizing them in any way. This would lead to a lot of people being unable to build homes, heat their homes, or live in the areas that they want to live. You would also be condemning every beaver because of some instinctual behavior that they can't help but act out. Are beavers wrong to chew, cut and utilize trees for their own needs?
🌱🌱🌱another way to frame the love/fear pair is explore/explain. this shifts the distinction from a motivational frame to a behavioral one. take not that I'm in the explanatory mode. this has the same tendency towards stabilization/control. now we're going to switch the exploratory mode and take note. what is the embodied energetic response in your body to me explaining shit to you? what is the difference between that and the vibe of your noticing? now I'm going to switch back and check this shit out. for me the sensation of explanation often triggers a sort of defensiveness that feels like a frog in my throat which blocks my breath, my "I know mind gets activated and I look for reasons to ignore the explanation rather than even argue with it. as I switch into exploration my curiosity comes back on line and I notice my eyebrows and shoulders relax. now I have going to switch back and check this shit out. explanation as a mode exists almost exclusively in the propositional frame (of truth) where openness is moderated by difference or relative agreement. that openness closedness is highly personalized, meaning I like similarity and dislike difference.where exploration of the somatic experience is a perspectival lens that is much easier to maintain a neutral ANS position to. and once we have built a history of having done that together a higher tolerance for explanation and subsequent differences often develops
I like how you think about this I think you might be right about love/fear being similar to explore/explain with whats explained in the video and outside it
Its not that we can't change the world, it's that everything you do changes it. How to get the changes to align in one direction? (That seems like the tricky part).
Lol would such a person enjoy"" fame tho? Fame seems unenjoyable.... Maybe u just mean there's a bunch of people out there we never know about... Who are "enlightened" ....I would say yes
Alright, You have me. Though it does need a few tweaks, in my opinion,but its an awesome start!!!! Also, I am a "left hand pather", so i can give you that perspective and communicate with otbers of this path. Let me know how I help and where we would start?
At 3:35, “separation” is misspelled. The choice to symbolize the “love” mind with the creepy, angry eyes is surprising. This notion presented here seems ultimately to be suggesting that all people are capable of experiencing love and feeling love for the world. I believe it is true, but dependent on one’s upbringing; trying to get those who wield power and are love-defective to become love-effective may be a problem. Assuming they retain their power, do we need those people to change in order to avoid our crisis? If we begin now to try to foster a world where everyone is raised to be love-effective, which seems to be the suggestion here, we’ll likely be too late to avoid being wiped out by our crisis. If we cannot get those in power to learn and become what they thus far have failed to learn and become, they need to be removed from power, or perhaps superseded at their “natural” exit by those with those who are love-effective.
The ideas communicated in this video are very well done, but I have to ask how is this any different from any of the world religions? You are deriving religion from first principles. You are reinventing the wheel. It will fall on deaf ears because it is set purely on an intellectual substrate and not also on the aesthetic, ritualistic, metaphysical and prophetic bases the major religions are based on. Your message is also highly susceptible to corruption because there is no mechanism to maintain the integrity of the messages that reflect the primary and unchanging principles of this system. There is no chain of transmission to keep the unchanging principles pure. Just saying things should be based on "love" does not encapsulate the levels of complexity involved in the breadth and depth of human experience when you get down to the nitty gritty. At a high level this idea sounds great, but when you have to roll up your sleeves and do the actual implementation and "manifestation" you are just going to end up mimicking one of the world religions out of frustration. Regardless, I'm still excited to see where your analyses and design takes you.
Ok. I accept your derived implication with love, beauty & the doubt verses belief hypotheses whereby we heal what needs to be healed, furthermore giving you also the benefit of the doubt, hence faith inasmuch as possible, which evidently, now, we can effectively continue towards the next objective as “for the benefit of all”, offer my love ignition partnership to this collective. As offering myself to participate toward the ultimate achievement of the desired story we wish to of course set motion to the beautiful story; What is next? Assuming this is where my timeline enters your time of the story, is it correct to now say; we are then at the beginning of the story? Or is that the end of this particular story? To scale? Or simply I ask you, where do we go from here? Thank you Gr8ful i am, for you. 🔥💧🌹♾️🙏🏾🤷🏼♂️😀🎼 Gr
the janitor of the noosphere must clean up trash and vomit left by the psydenizens... Each day he roams the halls of the noosphere with his bucket and mop, and nose-plugs to mask the stench. Yum.
YOU'REA A *PROPHET* ... just didn't get how truth being relative implies that goodness must be absolute ... means it feels the same way to everybody ? ..
I was mostly with you until you reached the part about beauty. Beauty is transcendental. Beauty appearing in "the eye of the beholder" is merely a byproduct of our limited ability to recognize it. Beauty appears to you as coherence because coherence denotes the limit of recognition. Everything in the video after that moment doesn't really make sense to me. Why map male and female onto cold and warm expressions of beauty? Something seems causally inverted here-perhaps you mostly experienced male and female as cold and warm, and so project masculine and feminine over your vision of the world as such. But what if you had experienced the opposite? You also extrapolate thought and feeling, as well as truth and goodness, as respectively masculine and feminine. Again, it seems like you map the limit of your experience onto the transcendental that precedes it and makes it possible. All of this is unnecessary and confusing. Why is truth masculine? And even if this were true, why do you immediately assume that the properties of transcendentals must be opposites of their counterparts? That is, even if truth were relative, that would not mean that goodness is necessarily absolute. But the good truth is that both truth and goodness are absolute and primary, male and female, cold and warm, narratological and visionary, and beautiful. But the lies and fear are also beautiful! That is the nature of the transcendental, you understand? So, beauty should not be confused with goodness and truth! It is rather that beauty is something more like the inescapable majesty of being itself, and goodness and truth are love for that majesty as opposed to envy for, despondency in the face of, or pride because of it.
Of all videos on the Noosphere, this is the one I disagree with the most. These mindsets are on a scale, and not the most relevant element of the Noosphere. As well, it puts too much of the universe onto the Noosphere. It is Humanity that the Noosphere comes from, there is biology without Humanity. - it is more accurate to say that only as relevant to Humanity, does the Noosphere create action. And the Fear-Love binary is classic populism. It even calls against elites and dictatorship. It is not so simple, and to bring political Populism into the Noosphere will result in its death - Populism always claims to fight against what it embraces. Whether it intends to or not.
bunch of fallacies ... add the qualifier "classic" to something and suddenly you don't need an argument .. relying on the audiences self aggrandizing delusion of "knowing the classics" ... cause you're speaking to that kind of audience fear-love "binary" is not populism let alone classic ... go away ..
Thanks. People do not, or are not able to, reflect on the true motives of their actions, which are for the most part, narrowly focused on self preservation. We need a renaissance of spiritual metaphysics: materialistic atheism through the story of futility is creating hell on earth.
The founding fathers of The United States of America would agree, but also i remind you that every single man having the microcosm if the powers of the Almighty Creator, are also given the Agency that entails without the requisite Wisdom to do what is right over what is shallowly profitable.
We need an awakening to the origin of the problem, holistically. God inspires man, man inspires law, and corporations, and law has a recursice effect back on Man but ONLY if we allow it.
This was so soooo good!! I’m definitely with you. But the story is ALREADY WRITTEN AND IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SPEAK ABOUT!!❤
But you will find:
Truth is not relative in humans at the highest level. This is the blessing of being human. We can see actual truth. The idea that truth is somehow relative is responsible for all the horrors of history. Because humans are meant to read the universe-it’s an actual language. Our human stories can be wrong, or worse, partially wrong so they ring true when they are not. Real truth rules out instrumental use of our need for stories. (AKA lies or partial truth).
Thanks for this. I wrote a book about this stuff 20 years ago and it is finally coming out all over. ❤👍🏻
Wrong? Or incomplete, omitting the context?
This is one of those things that feel so obvious and yet so hard to put into language. You sir made a wonderful job. Thank you so much.
i was thinking so many of these things myself. i look around. i listen. i hear others saying similar things. i feel it coming in the air tonight, and i find this just now. more pieces fall into place. there are pieces in this i was missing. thank you, friend
interesting video and ideas.
I like the thesis after establishing binary foundational drivers: through hyperstition, stories render our reality, every conscious human apart of the story a co-creator with the ability to decide between creating or controlling. i also enjoy the power and wisdom relationship with how and what, and the relationships between narrative/vision and illusion/truth.
for me there is lack of cohesion in your narrative (also using the term narrative as the autopoiesis of fear seems odd to me) around an explanation for what the noosphere is, what the metacrisis actually is aside from its existential risk, and why fear and love are your choices for directions of perception. im surprised you didnt mention the traditional tao dualism of order and chaos though using the emotionally spun dualism of fear and love makes sense in this context.
also the notions of relative and absolute truth are not coherently connected to your ideas of narrative/illusion and vision/truth though i understand what you mean and agree with your general notions here. I appreciate the efforts you undertook striving for a 1st principles underpinning.
overall i think you are saying that to appeal to a rational humanity is to sharpen the edge of the blade of being (and through being, vision) on the edge of doubt. just as we sharpen the edge of our ability on our reflection of it.
I ❤ This Video..Excellent..Thanks for the information ..it's more than the icing on the cake..this is the whole cake
What have we here! Please keep relaying these Divine expressions of the One. 💜 in Unity✌️🙏
Beautifully expressed, David! The concepts are very deep and you've expressed them extremely succinctly. I'm wondering what a slower, more experientially-oriented exposition might look like.
Wonderful work you're doing. Keep it up!
May I recommend this channel exploring a more feminine perspective on this vision? :)
www.youtube.com/@rememberthefuture4894
Thank you for this amazing video! Logical and love together, both sides of the brain needed here❤.
Bro you're mad as this is wicked, thankyou for your work and popping up on my feed :)
Very insightful. I honestly find it hard to believe that you pumped out this much of a comprehensive world view without a catch. “Who are you and where are you getting this from?” would probably help in trusting the information more.
Regardless, these are the exact conclusions and observations I have come to (besides the truth is relative, good is absolute. Idk if or how these can have this kind of opposites relationship), but there is still one major hole I can’t work around. I still question if this kind of thinking is, itself, a set up narrative (working exactly as you point out structurally here) that would lock us into a totalitarian system with leverage of Love itself. Kind of like the perfect narrative, one that has vision and that can adapt to the desires of us as people and keep us insulated in the system forever. Like even the fear of the Meta-Crisis would be the crux underlying the need for this Love philosophy in the first place which isn’t technically a vision but rather a fear narrative, as hopeful as it is.
There’s nothing obvious in this presentation that would counter that scenario. Maybe nothing can really counter such a scenario, but that’s the problem I’ll be working on and thinking about while you work on this project.
I still think this was a really well done explanations and presentation and looking forward to hearing more. I really endorse this kind of wholistic thinking and want to push it to the limits.
What a gift. What an astoundingly clear Being. Grateful for you and your extraordinary Stories. Thankyou 💚
Thanks for the video. I believe in what you are doing. Keep up the good work!\
This guy has serious talent 🤙💜
@5:48 I agree with most of what this video is saying so far, my only problem so far is that you seem to be elevating the Liminal mind or the love side over the fear side. But I think that this misses an important part because these should be thought of as equal sides of the same thing, just varying in degrees between. That's what the spectrum of love and hate is. Each end can then be thought of as having it's own positive and negative or you could just saw when either is taken to their extreme ends of the poles, that they become dangerous. You say love would have no desire to control, but it does. The devouring mother archetype is driven by empathy and compassion or love, but taken to an unhealthy extreme.
In the example you give you can see this play out. If you become too loving to the trees then you have to begin depriving people of chopping, harming or utilizing them in any way. This would lead to a lot of people being unable to build homes, heat their homes, or live in the areas that they want to live. You would also be condemning every beaver because of some instinctual behavior that they can't help but act out. Are beavers wrong to chew, cut and utilize trees for their own needs?
Potentiality + observation + story ----> Actuality oh heavens!
Amazing vid
Omg! Thats never been broken down ito such logical sense to me before. Why Haven't i or anyone else never looked at like this. Mind blown
Thank you for this video
🌱🌱🌱another way to frame the love/fear pair is explore/explain. this shifts the distinction from a motivational frame to a behavioral one. take not that I'm in the explanatory mode. this has the same tendency towards stabilization/control. now we're going to switch the exploratory mode and take note. what is the embodied energetic response in your body to me explaining shit to you? what is the difference between that and the vibe of your noticing? now I'm going to switch back and check this shit out. for me the sensation of explanation often triggers a sort of defensiveness that feels like a frog in my throat which blocks my breath, my "I know mind gets activated and I look for reasons to ignore the explanation rather than even argue with it. as I switch into exploration my curiosity comes back on line and I notice my eyebrows and shoulders relax. now I have going to switch back and check this shit out. explanation as a mode exists almost exclusively in the propositional frame (of truth) where openness is moderated by difference or relative agreement. that openness closedness is highly personalized, meaning I like similarity and dislike difference.where exploration of the somatic experience is a perspectival lens that is much easier to maintain a neutral ANS position to. and once we have built a history of having done that together a higher tolerance for explanation and subsequent differences often develops
I like how you think about this
I think you might be right about love/fear being similar to explore/explain with whats explained in the video and outside it
Makes me think about the writer's strike.
Woow, I'm speechless!
Its not that we can't change the world, it's that everything you do changes it.
How to get the changes to align in one direction? (That seems like the tricky part).
Well done.
There are more enlightened people on this planet who enjoy no-fame, than there are enlightened people who enjoy fame.
Lol would such a person enjoy"" fame tho? Fame seems unenjoyable.... Maybe u just mean there's a bunch of people out there we never know about... Who are "enlightened" ....I would say yes
@@SimEon-jt3sr that's exactly what I meant
The transcendental philosophy of physics and mathematics.
Hi, thanks for the news
Alright, You have me. Though it does need a few tweaks, in my opinion,but its an awesome start!!!! Also, I am a "left hand pather", so i can give you that perspective and communicate with otbers of this path. Let me know how I help and where we would start?
Truth and goodness are united like sisters only in beauty ;)
At 3:35, “separation” is misspelled. The choice to symbolize the “love” mind with the creepy, angry eyes is surprising.
This notion presented here seems ultimately to be suggesting that all people are capable of experiencing love and feeling love for the world. I believe it is true, but dependent on one’s upbringing; trying to get those who wield power and are love-defective to become love-effective may be a problem. Assuming they retain their power, do we need those people to change in order to avoid our crisis? If we begin now to try to foster a world where everyone is raised to be love-effective, which seems to be the suggestion here, we’ll likely be too late to avoid being wiped out by our crisis. If we cannot get those in power to learn and become what they thus far have failed to learn and become, they need to be removed from power, or perhaps superseded at their “natural” exit by those with those who are love-effective.
Our only sincere wish is to become healthy immortals and control the fabric of space and time. Of course fear and anxiety are part of this process!
The ideas communicated in this video are very well done, but I have to ask how is this any different from any of the world religions?
You are deriving religion from first principles. You are reinventing the wheel. It will fall on deaf ears because it is set purely on an intellectual substrate and not also on the aesthetic, ritualistic, metaphysical and prophetic bases the major religions are based on. Your message is also highly susceptible to corruption because there is no mechanism to maintain the integrity of the messages that reflect the primary and unchanging principles of this system. There is no chain of transmission to keep the unchanging principles pure. Just saying things should be based on "love" does not encapsulate the levels of complexity involved in the breadth and depth of human experience when you get down to the nitty gritty.
At a high level this idea sounds great, but when you have to roll up your sleeves and do the actual implementation and "manifestation" you are just going to end up mimicking one of the world religions out of frustration. Regardless, I'm still excited to see where your analyses and design takes you.
Ok. I accept your derived implication with love, beauty & the doubt verses belief hypotheses whereby we heal what needs to be healed, furthermore giving you also the benefit of the doubt, hence faith inasmuch as possible, which evidently, now, we can effectively continue towards the next objective as “for the benefit of all”, offer my love ignition partnership to this collective. As offering myself to participate toward the ultimate achievement of the desired story we wish to of course set motion to the beautiful story;
What is next? Assuming this is where my timeline enters your time of the story, is it correct to now say; we are then at the beginning of the story? Or is that the end of this particular story? To scale?
Or simply I ask you, where do we go from here?
Thank you
Gr8ful i am, for you. 🔥💧🌹♾️🙏🏾🤷🏼♂️😀🎼
Gr
@@ospeak copy
the janitor of the noosphere must clean up trash and vomit left by the psydenizens...
Each day he roams the halls of the noosphere with his bucket and mop, and nose-plugs to mask the stench.
Yum.
The earth sustains us
gut.
🌏🌎🌍✊
Galahad lead me here. 👁️⛓️
Me too, friend. Much love, and blessings on your journey.
Do you have a discussion community somewhere?
🙂
YES.
YOU'REA A *PROPHET*
... just didn't get how truth being relative implies that goodness must be absolute ... means it feels the same way to everybody ? ..
Truth is not relative. Look up “Natural Law”. Also, we live in a triune/triad universe, not a dual one. Remember, you always have a third choice
Are you German by any chance? Would love to meet more people like us in real life
238 like❤ (including my own like to myself)
This is so underrated it makes me angry. 😂
6:41
La mente Bellaca y la Mente Bellaca. I see.
meta-crisis sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh
I was mostly with you until you reached the part about beauty.
Beauty is transcendental. Beauty appearing in "the eye of the beholder" is merely a byproduct of our limited ability to recognize it. Beauty appears to you as coherence because coherence denotes the limit of recognition.
Everything in the video after that moment doesn't really make sense to me.
Why map male and female onto cold and warm expressions of beauty? Something seems causally inverted here-perhaps you mostly experienced male and female as cold and warm, and so project masculine and feminine over your vision of the world as such. But what if you had experienced the opposite?
You also extrapolate thought and feeling, as well as truth and goodness, as respectively masculine and feminine. Again, it seems like you map the limit of your experience onto the transcendental that precedes it and makes it possible.
All of this is unnecessary and confusing. Why is truth masculine? And even if this were true, why do you immediately assume that the properties of transcendentals must be opposites of their counterparts? That is, even if truth were relative, that would not mean that goodness is necessarily absolute.
But the good truth is that both truth and goodness are absolute and primary, male and female, cold and warm, narratological and visionary, and beautiful.
But the lies and fear are also beautiful! That is the nature of the transcendental, you understand? So, beauty should not be confused with goodness and truth! It is rather that beauty is something more like the inescapable majesty of being itself, and goodness and truth are love for that majesty as opposed to envy for, despondency in the face of, or pride because of it.
Of all videos on the Noosphere, this is the one I disagree with the most.
These mindsets are on a scale, and not the most relevant element of the Noosphere. As well, it puts too much of the universe onto the Noosphere. It is Humanity that the Noosphere comes from, there is biology without Humanity. - it is more accurate to say that only as relevant to Humanity, does the Noosphere create action.
And the Fear-Love binary is classic populism. It even calls against elites and dictatorship. It is not so simple, and to bring political Populism into the Noosphere will result in its death - Populism always claims to fight against what it embraces. Whether it intends to or not.
bunch of fallacies ... add the qualifier "classic" to something and suddenly you don't need an argument .. relying on the audiences self aggrandizing delusion of "knowing the classics" ... cause you're speaking to that kind of audience
fear-love "binary" is not populism let alone classic ... go away ..
Eh.... Why are you watching all the noosphere videos if you know so much about them :|
@@heerakathakor6016 because I like the subject and like to listen to others ideas and views. - and then to discuss in the comment section.
i. love. the. internet.