Update 2: It's gone again lol. Update: We are back, the Patreon is once again live! Okay, Patreon has deactivated my account due to "suspicious activity." I will post something on my community tab when I get a response, but who knows what happened. 🤷
Telling people reality is made of lasers but not that they are organised as 12 dimensional manifolds on a matrix of microscopic black holes? You'll just leave them more confused like that
Have you looked into practising buddhist insight meditation? This very much sounds like a practice you would be aligned with. There's a talk by the meditation teacher Rob Burbea called "In Praise of Restlessness" where he discusses that most spirtual/philosophical systems are unconsciously bound up with assumptions on ontology, epistemology and cosmology, and that once one begins to see this we can start shifting our perspectives into these different views to find what is the most liberating frame in the moment. He describes this as a 'ways of looking' approach to meditation , he also concludes that we should begin to think of meditation as more of an art form - with no ultimate frame being 'true', one accepts that perception is always mediated by frames, and therefore reality is more akin to art which plays with modes of perception/being.
an easy way to cultivate horizontal thinking is through humor. i enjoy lampooning things that i find strange that i might not be able to approach criticizing in a way that's more formal and direct. making a new connection that people will not always realize on the internet is an easy way to get likes a lot of the time, and its a way to allow you to make oblong perspective jumps more readily
it's also something that someone approaching the world from emotion in the sense of the logic of some theories of personality might become better at say, as opposed to a more innately logical perspective another person may be using. someone with an emotional standpoint readily understands their interpretation to be their own; unlike someone with a said 'logical' disposition, someone with an emotion based perspective does not try to understand the world from a foundation that their understanding is a valid grasp of their experience in reality. in this sense, an emotion focused person is not as rigid ideologically, and is more flexible to change. there's some research on this malleability idea in self
this is wonderful. I wish I could explain how it applies to something I've been following, but it's like describing something like a whole world of lasers.
I feel like the creators of those "game theory" and "film theory" videos here on youtube really ought to talk about the frames they're looking at things more consciously.
People who make video game essays (I love video game essays) are SO blind to the frames through which they see things. They can talk for 3 hours completely detached from the actual game they’re talking about.
I would call this a frame theory. To be serious, though, when I think of "game theory", I think of the analysis of possible interactions between agents rather than the kind of game I'd compare to film. If there's some other consensus on that, I'd like to know of examples if possible. I try to avoid film theory seeing as I don't really watch "films" nowadays but if anyone's got general recommendations for those, then shoot some of that, too, why not.
I think Hegel touches on this topic. Saying something to the effect, "it's useless to go trip on acid if you don't bring something useful to share out of it" and that useful thing could be art or not
@@WebReceptor Holy shit: Mage the Ascension its literally about people breaking out of their mundane frameworks to discover that world altering magic is real and that the only thing that stops you from getting to it is the belief and worldviews that say you shouldn't have magic. Like I need you to imagine: Take this entire video and turn it into the core framework of a game where you are supposed to play a crazy fucker who can now throw fireballs after they broke out of their own personal matrix who gains more magical power by proceeding to break out of every future matrix they make for themselves breaking out of the first.
I loved reading Mage the Ascension books when I was young. I think The Matrix (the original movie) resonated for the same reason. They’re not just about themes of gnosticism/hyperreality (lots of that in 90s/early 00s science fiction), but they emphasize how we can reshape reality once we understand it deeply enough. (and naturally that was appealing to me because I turned out to be trans lol)
People’s habit of shortcutting from consensus to fact has me.. very unimpressed with the common manifestation of consensus reality, we have instincts pushing us towards consensus, we have much weaker tendencies to want to figure out if we’re right. Figuring out that we’re full-on wrong is even worse, our instincts usually advises against that entirely. I’ll be honest though, I’m not sure what that entails for the average armchair philosopher, but I couldn’t resist stirring it up a lil bit😅
That's why you need a north star like asking yourself questions like 'will this alleviate my suffering' or 'am I actually an element of someone else's system' to have hard and motivated skepticism to ones own beliefs. I think by their nature beliefs are limited in their capacity to capture transient reality so they are a necessary evil.
@@elperronimo I think you're right on the money with the concept of the north star. For me personally I'll admit my "fixed points" are mostly in the form of internalized core values. I reflect upon them sure but they don't tend to budge. For all the rest of the universe I try to maintain a "belief shelf-life" of less than 90 days. I find great comfort in the fact that most "useful" questions have a conceptual space with less than 10 dimensions to consider to begin with. Past Ndim10, you definitely need a double espresso and a whiteboard🤠 Then again, perhaps my engineering-esque approach has resulted in an odd subspecies of philosophy altogether
@@lson-dev I think it's great you have core values. Personally I feel that values need to be voluntarily maintained otherwise they are eroded to conform to another entity's system. I spent time in the engineering world and I think that helps with my values as well. It gives you a good grasp of reality which is super important if you are creative. It's like you have a ball of dirt with a diamond inside and if you turn the heat up the dirt will burn away, but if you throw the ball downhill it only accumulates more dirt
This has little to do with the video topic…but your makeup and hair is so beautiful and I am super jealous. I’m pretty early in my transition but my goodness does the way you present yourself feel like goals for me. Sorry if this is a weird comment, I have a very insecure and screwed up brain 😶
If you break emergence apart (reality) you don’t get reality, because you just torn it apart into pieces. REALITY: synergy to emergence, repeated in expanding lotus layers. All of which are explorations of relations. If a person tears apart their mate. They are building a stabilized emergent relationship. In reality they’re just tearing it apart. While ignoring the pleads of the other. In their merits of their existence and contributions to the whole with everyone else’s inclusions. Synergy to emergents. Respect to stable flow and the strength of diversity making up the whole. Then if that whole is stabilized with other stable interacting emergent parts. Then the next level of reality can form. An electron can exist without our upper level universe of mater. But mater can not exist without the electron. Individual synergistic in diversity to make collective emergent whole. If all you had were parts, where’s the whole?
Hail Eris, for your reality tunnel is converging towards the discordian revelation! A new Mome rises! On a less serious note, have you been reading Wittgenstein? I think his later works would appeal to you, and On Certainty is an engaging and rewarding read.
Synchronising World model: I find a hierarchy of isomorphic systems a better fit than fractals, although I appreciate your emphasis on self-similarity systems that are similar in structure and function but differ in terms of context helps me to grok the nature of the similarity gg
True but you can look at a slice of reality as an isomorphic hierarchy but how it changes is fractal like due to the underlying pattern of the isomorphism. So it's like a circle vs a cone
It's easier than you might think to 'turn off the lasers' or escape them for a bit or however you want to frame that. Go to the woods. All social constructs were created for reasons. Often those reasons can be difficult to understand or see today because lots of them just persist under their own weight now, but originally they served a purpose. But get out in the woods, expose yourself to the dangers and hazards of the natural environment, and ponder what you might do to protect yourself, a family, and others if the woods were the only thing you had. Some are quite difficult to unearth if they're things that people just don't question, like why does your house have separate rooms instead of just being one big room inside? Originally, homes WERE just one big common room. Ever seen that 1970s Willy Wonka movie? Remember Charlie Bucket's house with the beds in the living area, just one big open space? That was normal for everyone except the aristocracy before the Industrial Revolution. And it changed to try to kill sex because factory owners didn't pay adolescent workers enough to feed the babies they started producing, so people starved to death. To solve that, both secular and religious authorities of the time did various things to try to 'solve the problem' of people starving, and hiding sex, hiding kids away in their own bedrooms so they didn't grow up seeing it their entire lives, opposing it in art and everywhere else in society, etc, because they didn't have practical birth control. It was useful then. It helped prevent death and suffering. It was adopted (not entirely overtly and intentionally, don't mistake me it wasn't a master plot by conspirators it was just how things ended up) for reasons. And it gave birth to almost every single aspect of what modern people think about sexuality because it has outlived any practical motivation for its own existence. Now it persists simply because "it has always been this way". There's a consensus level you can't really practically go below... some people try, but they reveal their own lack of faith in their ideas by surviving. That base consensus level is survival, the thing that you have to take actual action to achieve. It's not automatic. Sit still and you will starve. Achieving that survival is the basic consensus everyone who survives must share. Everything beyond that is 'gravy'. It's extra, and there's room for experimentation and variance there. There's so much room for activities... take advantage of it!
100%, you cannot strive far from cultural codes (lenses) within a circle if you want to be understood. It is necessary though to understand there is multiple codes, and understanding which code you're working with is key to being understood. This is the difference between what, say, science thinks, and the layman. A /column/ to the average person is any object resembling a (say, any giant cylindrical object in a building that goes through the roof), for an architect it's a very specific thing (and might even find them in places such as walls, by noting only a slight change in its continuity). Basically go outside touch grass make community.
constructionist views don't entail meaninglessness or arbitrarity. inferring meaninglessness or loss of any kind of salience from finding that x is in fact socially constructed, is either disigenuous rhetoric or ignorant.
>if 'a deity' or 'a transcendental existent' actually exists , in what sense is it not 'natural'? In the context of Naturalism, 'natural' means something we know through the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology. In Naturalism, something can only really exist as an outgrowth of Nature, of something materially and mechanistically reflective of the laws of physics, which mind you, are known through the extent of Empirical Science. Everything from human behavior to the existence of life itself can be traced back to some natural law iterating by itself, for which in Naturalism there is no meaning or significance given at all. That being said, A deity necessarily exists outside the confines of spacetime and the laws therein. So then it wouldn't be a product of some natural law and therefore existing supernatural. >empirical inquiry cannot eliminate an infinity of conjecturable existents Empiricism does away with anything not empirically available. Meaning anything not owed to material, physical, mechanistic reality cannot really exist. It's a highly limited epistemology. >but it does seem to me that the question that makes more sense instead of 'is it natural' is 'does it exist'? How can anyone prove the ontological status of supernatural entities without first establishing an epistemology? What is "being", what does it mean to "be", and how do we know that? Just some food for thought. If these questions irk you I'd recommend study of metaphysics like Plato or related philosophical literature as it might provide some insight your question of 'being' versus 'nature'.
@@real_pattern Naturalism ascribes the construction of social values such as morality to be naturalistic mechanisms, i.e, coincidentially evolved and not reflective of any higher significance than some sort of biological imperative.
Focus lens don’t define all light. You not including refraction or diffusion. There are colors like pink that don’t exist as a single focal #nn weave length of light. Pink only exist as an interaction of light. Red + white.
If you’ve ever done analysis of any way. Let’s say you read a book, watched a movie, or played a video-game. Heck, let’s just say you witnessed an event in your life and you analyze it. This video talks about how to maintain coherence while performing that analysis and communicating it to other people. That’s the “people doing things”
Yes, there is goodness. If you define goodness as synergistic parts forming stabilized emergent existence (superstrings give rise to electrons, electrons and neutrons emerge into atoms, atoms form chemistry, and chemistry gives rise to the emergent existence of life and the cosmos). Whereas, if you define “evil” as ultimate dismemberment, that’s a system working backward-limited and not emergent by definition. It represents a dysfunctional state of being that unravels existence from merit or purpose. Self-destruction, not God, is what you’re describing, I believe. Goodness, in contrast, fosters creation and interconnectedness, while evil dismantles the relational flow that sustains existence. A working system is the functional flow of relationships. A dysfunctional system divides and distorts dominant forces unfairly toward oblivion. Life works toward stable and interactive ecologies. Invasive forces, driven by fear or insecurity, are narcissistic in nature. One perspective defines Homo sapiens’ governorship; the other reflects the dynamics of nature and the quantum world that make up our reality. It wouldn’t take much to make a better world for all. We must reverse polarity-not to dismantle but to build stability, connection, and flow instead of ripping apart systems due to fear, insecurity, or narcissism. Defining reality and goodness as a stable state of being requires humility, respect, listening, and meditating-practices that promote functional empathy and a better state of being. Knee-jerk reactions, in contrast, disrupt flow and perpetuate dysfunction. In the tapestry of existence, goodness is inherent in emergent flow and synergistic creation. “Pulling apart,” however, is something entirely different. It is not emergent and not functional flow, unless it involves loosening blockages to reset a state of natural, loving being. This process, which some might call “God by a different word,” is measurable in its outcomes when pursued with humility and a desire to make things right. Goodness is an option, one grounded in the measurable and emergent dynamics of existence. It is about fostering stability and connection, rather than falling into patterns of destruction and dismemberment. However, I acknowledge that others may see it differently, and that diversity of views can contribute to a richer understanding of these concepts.
2:00 Illusions are defined as real by philosophers. You mean tangible yeah? "The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper name." And you should use lip balm. Anyway, happy travels, fellow traveler!
definitely right on the lip balm lol. moving to portland decimates my lips. but also I'm not sure what can be any more real than what everyone agrees on is real
a bit overconfident take, and also nitpick, on this imagen a party with an athlete, neuroscientist, psychologist, mystic, enginneer and phiolosopher. the philosopher who only learned what the others are already basing everything on will be humbled. -for example, 'web receptor''s video on 'maintaining coherence as an armchair philosopher', once again showcasing the failures of the philosophers path, web-receptor-san said in communication, if one is just contrarian, the social-based-reality is negated within them. and this is false, either web-receptor-san is missing key info or just , once again, left hemisphering and trying to wrap in wrap in everything into a system, which at the end is just like an opinion, logics are fake, and this is impossible. i can only say 'try not to become neurotic'. and its as i once said, i have enough neuroplacisity to where i could erase the concept of truth within me. but to play the game on this earth i still uphold some core concepts like believing in truth. being a contrarian does not negate others opinions, this is the 'thing is thing' fallacy i am trying to make, because what really happens is that you still react to whats said, so being a contrarian, while it does free you to an extent, also traps you in 'what you negate'. -as fractals is real tho. the rest of the video is pretty good tho. a bit of a nicer worded version of 'boomers live in a different reality'.
the intro is so relatable! oh the horrors and struggles of detaching from consensus reality while remaining *applicable*! goop sometimes can be difficult to share with folk who’re comfortable in their cultural matrix! 4:00 i do think deconstruction inherently leads to the truth of value-mancy! i think to wholly embrace your circumstances you have to first deconstruct them. like, no don’t turn all the lasers off, but we should probably know how all of them operate to the best of our capacity in order to utilize them as we see fit creatively. in my view deconstruction is an important tool to verify the ideological limits that have been set before you or onto you directly. i agree it shouldn’t be your only tool in your thought kit, but i got a little defensive of my favorite pastime 👉👈 or maybe i was doing fractals and calling it deconstruction? *goop sifting* 21:03 yes also! do you prefer longer responses in the comments or through email! thank you as always for the wonderful goop ✌️🫀
oh actually great point i should've mentioned in the vid!! I think it's super valuable to engage with these alternatives to consensus reality, I just don't think people should get lost there. Idk how that point escaped me, but yeah wildly alternative views are the source of the goopiest goop
Update 2: It's gone again lol.
Update: We are back, the Patreon is once again live!
Okay, Patreon has deactivated my account due to "suspicious activity." I will post something on my community tab when I get a response, but who knows what happened. 🤷
the casual kafkaesque, working as intended
I managed to pledge and it got taken down just moments later…
WebReceptor is too based for Patreon confirmed 😔
try "open collective" for a less extractive alternative
This channel is the first thing in a while that’s been a pleasant challenge to understand. Thanks 4 the neural pathways Web Receptor✌️
Telling people reality is made of lasers but not that they are organised as 12 dimensional manifolds on a matrix of microscopic black holes? You'll just leave them more confused like that
Have you looked into practising buddhist insight meditation? This very much sounds like a practice you would be aligned with. There's a talk by the meditation teacher Rob Burbea called "In Praise of Restlessness" where he discusses that most spirtual/philosophical systems are unconsciously bound up with assumptions on ontology, epistemology and cosmology, and that once one begins to see this we can start shifting our perspectives into these different views to find what is the most liberating frame in the moment. He describes this as a 'ways of looking' approach to meditation , he also concludes that we should begin to think of meditation as more of an art form - with no ultimate frame being 'true', one accepts that perception is always mediated by frames, and therefore reality is more akin to art which plays with modes of perception/being.
an easy way to cultivate horizontal thinking is through humor. i enjoy lampooning things that i find strange that i might not be able to approach criticizing in a way that's more formal and direct. making a new connection that people will not always realize on the internet is an easy way to get likes a lot of the time, and its a way to allow you to make oblong perspective jumps more readily
it's also something that someone approaching the world from emotion in the sense of the logic of some theories of personality might become better at say, as opposed to a more innately logical perspective another person may be using. someone with an emotional standpoint readily understands their interpretation to be their own; unlike someone with a said 'logical' disposition, someone with an emotion based perspective does not try to understand the world from a foundation that their understanding is a valid grasp of their experience in reality. in this sense, an emotion focused person is not as rigid ideologically, and is more flexible to change. there's some research on this malleability idea in self
The way you talk about things is gold! Keep making videos 🙂
this is wonderful. I wish I could explain how it applies to something I've been following, but it's like describing something like a whole world of lasers.
this was beautiful in a strange way good shit brotha
or sista idk
I feel like the creators of those "game theory" and "film theory" videos here on youtube really ought to talk about the frames they're looking at things more consciously.
People who make video game essays (I love video game essays) are SO blind to the frames through which they see things. They can talk for 3 hours completely detached from the actual game they’re talking about.
I would call this a frame theory. To be serious, though, when I think of "game theory", I think of the analysis of possible interactions between agents rather than the kind of game I'd compare to film. If there's some other consensus on that, I'd like to know of examples if possible. I try to avoid film theory seeing as I don't really watch "films" nowadays but if anyone's got general recommendations for those, then shoot some of that, too, why not.
So fun to update my software consistently, been working on hardware too, the human body and the human mind are so fascinating!
There is more than one consensus reality.
really interesting channel, super niche but incredibly well put together content.
I think Hegel touches on this topic. Saying something to the effect, "it's useless to go trip on acid if you don't bring something useful to share out of it" and that useful thing could be art or not
Nooo don't deconstruct my quests I needed those
Amazing channel!!! Thank you 🙏
That green screen in the intro was incredible
The slow realization that I'm listening to someone who either has played/read too much mage the ascension or not enough
shockingly I've never played a ttrpg before
@@WebReceptor Holy shit: Mage the Ascension its literally about people breaking out of their mundane frameworks to discover that world altering magic is real and that the only thing that stops you from getting to it is the belief and worldviews that say you shouldn't have magic. Like I need you to imagine: Take this entire video and turn it into the core framework of a game where you are supposed to play a crazy fucker who can now throw fireballs after they broke out of their own personal matrix who gains more magical power by proceeding to break out of every future matrix they make for themselves breaking out of the first.
I loved reading Mage the Ascension books when I was young. I think The Matrix (the original movie) resonated for the same reason. They’re not just about themes of gnosticism/hyperreality (lots of that in 90s/early 00s science fiction), but they emphasize how we can reshape reality once we understand it deeply enough.
(and naturally that was appealing to me because I turned out to be trans lol)
@@RebekahSolWest Real and True and Same on all points lmao
Goop Queen blesses us with more goop once again 🙏
This was excellent. Thank you 🙏
YUHHH WEB RECEPTOR I WAS HERE!!
we live in a subjective world of reflections; thank you for breaking these complex methods of conceptualization down... very goop-pilled
You speak to my heart
7:50
When a person attempting to use a microscope accidentally punctures their t-shirt pocket...
...oops went a little deeper than that
damn you're cool. thanks i probably need this.
Gonna come back to this after I watch the Anesthetization and Digital Separation stuff, this seems like a binge channel
People’s habit of shortcutting from consensus to fact has me.. very unimpressed with the common manifestation of consensus reality,
we have instincts pushing us towards consensus, we have much weaker tendencies to want to figure out if we’re right. Figuring out that we’re full-on wrong is even worse, our instincts usually advises against that entirely.
I’ll be honest though, I’m not sure what that entails for the average armchair philosopher, but I couldn’t resist stirring it up a lil bit😅
That's why you need a north star like asking yourself questions like 'will this alleviate my suffering' or 'am I actually an element of someone else's system' to have hard and motivated skepticism to ones own beliefs. I think by their nature beliefs are limited in their capacity to capture transient reality so they are a necessary evil.
@@elperronimo I think you're right on the money with the concept of the north star. For me personally I'll admit my "fixed points" are mostly in the form of internalized core values. I reflect upon them sure but they don't tend to budge. For all the rest of the universe I try to maintain a "belief shelf-life" of less than 90 days. I find great comfort in the fact that most "useful" questions have a conceptual space with less than 10 dimensions to consider to begin with. Past Ndim10, you definitely need a double espresso and a whiteboard🤠
Then again, perhaps my engineering-esque approach has resulted in an odd subspecies of philosophy altogether
@@lson-dev I think it's great you have core values. Personally I feel that values need to be voluntarily maintained otherwise they are eroded to conform to another entity's system. I spent time in the engineering world and I think that helps with my values as well. It gives you a good grasp of reality which is super important if you are creative. It's like you have a ball of dirt with a diamond inside and if you turn the heat up the dirt will burn away, but if you throw the ball downhill it only accumulates more dirt
This has little to do with the video topic…but your makeup and hair is so beautiful and I am super jealous. I’m pretty early in my transition but my goodness does the way you present yourself feel like goals for me. Sorry if this is a weird comment, I have a very insecure and screwed up brain 😶
Um…ok
Pro-reality. Huh. Bold stance. I'm pro-laser.
If you break emergence apart (reality) you don’t get reality, because you just torn it apart into pieces. REALITY: synergy to emergence, repeated in expanding lotus layers. All of which are explorations of relations. If a person tears apart their mate. They are building a stabilized emergent relationship. In reality they’re just tearing it apart. While ignoring the pleads of the other. In their merits of their existence and contributions to the whole with everyone else’s inclusions. Synergy to emergents. Respect to stable flow and the strength of diversity making up the whole. Then if that whole is stabilized with other stable interacting emergent parts. Then the next level of reality can form. An electron can exist without our upper level universe of mater. But mater can not exist without the electron. Individual synergistic in diversity to make collective emergent whole. If all you had were parts, where’s the whole?
Hail Eris, for your reality tunnel is converging towards the discordian revelation! A new Mome rises! On a less serious note, have you been reading Wittgenstein? I think his later works would appeal to you, and On Certainty is an engaging and rewarding read.
Praise "Bob"!
Synchronising World model:
I find a hierarchy of isomorphic systems a better fit than fractals, although I appreciate your emphasis on self-similarity
systems that are similar in structure and function but differ in terms of context helps me to grok the nature of the similarity
gg
True but you can look at a slice of reality as an isomorphic hierarchy but how it changes is fractal like due to the underlying pattern of the isomorphism. So it's like a circle vs a cone
Great video, reminds me of some of the French Nietzscheans, very life affirming:))
Stunting on us with rigor and earthiness
Needed this ngl
It's easier than you might think to 'turn off the lasers' or escape them for a bit or however you want to frame that. Go to the woods. All social constructs were created for reasons. Often those reasons can be difficult to understand or see today because lots of them just persist under their own weight now, but originally they served a purpose. But get out in the woods, expose yourself to the dangers and hazards of the natural environment, and ponder what you might do to protect yourself, a family, and others if the woods were the only thing you had. Some are quite difficult to unearth if they're things that people just don't question, like why does your house have separate rooms instead of just being one big room inside? Originally, homes WERE just one big common room. Ever seen that 1970s Willy Wonka movie? Remember Charlie Bucket's house with the beds in the living area, just one big open space? That was normal for everyone except the aristocracy before the Industrial Revolution. And it changed to try to kill sex because factory owners didn't pay adolescent workers enough to feed the babies they started producing, so people starved to death. To solve that, both secular and religious authorities of the time did various things to try to 'solve the problem' of people starving, and hiding sex, hiding kids away in their own bedrooms so they didn't grow up seeing it their entire lives, opposing it in art and everywhere else in society, etc, because they didn't have practical birth control. It was useful then. It helped prevent death and suffering. It was adopted (not entirely overtly and intentionally, don't mistake me it wasn't a master plot by conspirators it was just how things ended up) for reasons. And it gave birth to almost every single aspect of what modern people think about sexuality because it has outlived any practical motivation for its own existence. Now it persists simply because "it has always been this way".
There's a consensus level you can't really practically go below... some people try, but they reveal their own lack of faith in their ideas by surviving. That base consensus level is survival, the thing that you have to take actual action to achieve. It's not automatic. Sit still and you will starve. Achieving that survival is the basic consensus everyone who survives must share. Everything beyond that is 'gravy'. It's extra, and there's room for experimentation and variance there. There's so much room for activities... take advantage of it!
Cool hair 🥹
Lizzerz 🔦🗿pew pew
dude is deep into the post modernism problem lol. dialectical materialism saves lives
nerd
100%, you cannot strive far from cultural codes (lenses) within a circle if you want to be understood. It is necessary though to understand there is multiple codes, and understanding which code you're working with is key to being understood. This is the difference between what, say, science thinks, and the layman. A /column/ to the average person is any object resembling a (say, any giant cylindrical object in a building that goes through the roof), for an architect it's a very specific thing (and might even find them in places such as walls, by noting only a slight change in its continuity).
Basically go outside touch grass make community.
constructionist views don't entail meaninglessness or arbitrarity. inferring meaninglessness or loss of any kind of salience from finding that x is in fact socially constructed, is either disigenuous rhetoric or ignorant.
>if 'a deity' or 'a transcendental existent' actually exists , in what sense is it not 'natural'?
In the context of Naturalism, 'natural' means something we know through the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology. In Naturalism, something can only really exist as an outgrowth of Nature, of something materially and mechanistically reflective of the laws of physics, which mind you, are known through the extent of Empirical Science. Everything from human behavior to the existence of life itself can be traced back to some natural law iterating by itself, for which in Naturalism there is no meaning or significance given at all.
That being said, A deity necessarily exists outside the confines of spacetime and the laws therein. So then it wouldn't be a product of some natural law and therefore existing supernatural.
>empirical inquiry cannot eliminate an infinity of conjecturable existents
Empiricism does away with anything not empirically available. Meaning anything not owed to material, physical, mechanistic reality cannot really exist. It's a highly limited epistemology.
>but it does seem to me that the question that makes more sense instead of 'is it natural' is 'does it exist'?
How can anyone prove the ontological status of supernatural entities without first establishing an epistemology? What is "being", what does it mean to "be", and how do we know that? Just some food for thought. If these questions irk you I'd recommend study of metaphysics like Plato or related philosophical literature as it might provide some insight your question of 'being' versus 'nature'.
@Deletedvirus404 ?
@@real_pattern what you're referring to sounds like a form of naturalism
@@Deletedvirus404 how so?
@@real_pattern Naturalism ascribes the construction of social values such as morality to be naturalistic mechanisms, i.e, coincidentially evolved and not reflective of any higher significance than some sort of biological imperative.
Should we stop building ai?
1:11 "I'm pro- -reality- _concensus"_
BUT! what if the consensus IS a conspiracy theory!?
you are the most creative influencer out there as far as I know I'm binging you
Focus lens don’t define all light. You not including refraction or diffusion. There are colors like pink that don’t exist as a single focal #nn weave length of light. Pink only exist as an interaction of light. Red + white.
Hi, you're talking a lot about "people" doing things, saying things, thinking things ... How do you know they are actually like that ?
If you’ve ever done analysis of any way. Let’s say you read a book, watched a movie, or played a video-game. Heck, let’s just say you witnessed an event in your life and you analyze it.
This video talks about how to maintain coherence while performing that analysis and communicating it to other people.
That’s the “people doing things”
16:00 there is no goodness to the original tapestry
i will pull it all a part
i will consume us
god knows where i am
so i know where god is
Yes, there is goodness. If you define goodness as synergistic parts forming stabilized emergent existence (superstrings give rise to electrons, electrons and neutrons emerge into atoms, atoms form chemistry, and chemistry gives rise to the emergent existence of life and the cosmos).
Whereas, if you define “evil” as ultimate dismemberment, that’s a system working backward-limited and not emergent by definition. It represents a dysfunctional state of being that unravels existence from merit or purpose. Self-destruction, not God, is what you’re describing, I believe. Goodness, in contrast, fosters creation and interconnectedness, while evil dismantles the relational flow that sustains existence.
A working system is the functional flow of relationships. A dysfunctional system divides and distorts dominant forces unfairly toward oblivion. Life works toward stable and interactive ecologies. Invasive forces, driven by fear or insecurity, are narcissistic in nature. One perspective defines Homo sapiens’ governorship; the other reflects the dynamics of nature and the quantum world that make up our reality.
It wouldn’t take much to make a better world for all. We must reverse polarity-not to dismantle but to build stability, connection, and flow instead of ripping apart systems due to fear, insecurity, or narcissism. Defining reality and goodness as a stable state of being requires humility, respect, listening, and meditating-practices that promote functional empathy and a better state of being. Knee-jerk reactions, in contrast, disrupt flow and perpetuate dysfunction.
In the tapestry of existence, goodness is inherent in emergent flow and synergistic creation. “Pulling apart,” however, is something entirely different. It is not emergent and not functional flow, unless it involves loosening blockages to reset a state of natural, loving being. This process, which some might call “God by a different word,” is measurable in its outcomes when pursued with humility and a desire to make things right.
Goodness is an option, one grounded in the measurable and emergent dynamics of existence. It is about fostering stability and connection, rather than falling into patterns of destruction and dismemberment. However, I acknowledge that others may see it differently, and that diversity of views can contribute to a richer understanding of these concepts.
hey player i like the edgy street philosopher vibe
Do you study philosophy?
I'd guess they're at least familiar with D&G based on some language
@@oswald4276 i enjoy reading and engaging with philosophy tremendously, i don’t study it in any formal sense, though
you look like Betty Grof
2:00
Illusions are defined as real by philosophers.
You mean tangible yeah?
"The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper name."
And you should use lip balm.
Anyway, happy travels, fellow traveler!
definitely right on the lip balm lol. moving to portland decimates my lips.
but also I'm not sure what can be any more real than what everyone agrees on is real
lol
smart kid
Why are you continually playing w your hair..nervous mind.
a bit overconfident take, and also nitpick, on this
imagen a party with an athlete, neuroscientist, psychologist, mystic, enginneer and phiolosopher. the philosopher who only learned what the others are already basing everything on will be humbled.
-for example, 'web receptor''s video on 'maintaining coherence as an armchair philosopher', once again showcasing the failures of the philosophers path,
web-receptor-san said in communication, if one is just contrarian, the social-based-reality is negated within them. and this is false, either web-receptor-san is missing key info or just , once again, left hemisphering and trying to wrap in wrap in everything into a system, which at the end is just like an opinion, logics are fake, and this is impossible.
i can only say 'try not to become neurotic'. and its as i once said, i have enough neuroplacisity to where i could erase the concept of truth within me.
but to play the game on this earth i still uphold some core concepts like believing in truth. being a contrarian does not negate others opinions, this is the 'thing is thing' fallacy i am trying to make,
because what really happens is that you still react to whats said, so being a contrarian, while it does free you to an extent, also traps you in 'what you negate'.
-as fractals is real tho.
the rest of the video is pretty good tho. a bit of a nicer worded version of 'boomers live in a different reality'.
sorry for being weird and mean
1: getting angry is fun
2: i only get exposed to ideas like this from this channel, variety is always good.
the intro is so relatable! oh the horrors and struggles of detaching from consensus reality while remaining *applicable*!
goop sometimes can be difficult to share with folk who’re comfortable in their cultural matrix!
4:00 i do think deconstruction inherently leads to the truth of value-mancy! i think to wholly embrace your circumstances you have to first deconstruct them. like, no don’t turn all the lasers off, but we should probably know how all of them operate to the best of our capacity in order to utilize them as we see fit creatively. in my view deconstruction is an important tool to verify the ideological limits that have been set before you or onto you directly. i agree it shouldn’t be your only tool in your thought kit, but i got a little defensive of my favorite pastime 👉👈 or maybe i was doing fractals and calling it deconstruction? *goop sifting*
21:03 yes
also! do you prefer longer responses in the comments or through email! thank you as always for the wonderful goop
✌️🫀
I don't know who needs to hear this, but if you don't find enough goop in consensus reality, you're valid 🩷
oh actually great point i should've mentioned in the vid!! I think it's super valuable to engage with these alternatives to consensus reality, I just don't think people should get lost there. Idk how that point escaped me, but yeah wildly alternative views are the source of the goopiest goop