War on Sensemaking 3, the Infinite Game: Jamie Wheal
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- How do we play the Infinite Game? And how will that help us make sense of a world in chaos?
In the hit film 'War on Sensemaking', Daniel Schmachtenberger laid out how the information ecology was profoundly broken, and how impossible it was to act if we didn't know what was true.
In this response, flow expert Jamie Wheal outlines his answer to Daniel's question, outlining what the 'Infinite Game' looks like, how we might uplevel human consciousness and what a 'Game B' society might look like.
Rebel Wisdom are now running regular Q&As with the interviewees from our films for our members, including Jamie on Wednesday January 29th, check out: www.rebelwisdo...
You can listen to podcast versions of our films on Spotify or Apple Podcasts by searching 'Rebel Wisdom' or download episodes from our Podbean page: rebelwisdom.po...
We also have a Rebel Wisdom Discord discussion channel: / discord
“There is no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾
Glory is a pretty good motivator. Ask Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar...
It’s all about the team. I don’t know why we elevate and celebrate individuals so much, other than being inspirational figures.
28:20 "Many of us have been carrying the burden, solo (...), have found
ourselves persistently misfit toys, you know, persistently cast out of the socially defined norms, persistently losing at Game A. Not because we are necessarily bad at it, we might have even been able to win at it, we've just found it distasteful or not satisfying or not congruent."
How many people felt relief that we're not alone
Here here.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
This hit me too. Big love. Hope you're well
That was exactly how I felt about David. His stream of consciousness is something to behold for sure. Keeps me coming back to see what else is happening in this space.
Simple question (to everyone): Can you spend time alone?
If you can't there's ego, demanding confirmations, affirmations, inflation despite the level of intellect that you possess. (This is one of many ways to know the degree of ego).
I used to wonder why all sages chose to spend time alone. I think I have a sense now, the thing is that there's always a game going on. Even during meditation, there's a game going on. That's why in many meditation techniques, it is advised to even break the feeling of bliss.
The pinnacle of 'losing the ego' is that you would no longer participate in any game.
I thoroughly enjoy time with friends and family...but that time aline is probably the best that there is.
Is it better to no longer participate in any game than participate in a game when you perfectly know the rules are definitely not beneficiary to you until the end
@@dominostimes2119 That's one way. The other way is to bring yourself into a state where you can just enjoy the game.
For the biggest game called Life, I prefer the second one, just because nobody knows what's outside the game.
For other games, I prefer the first one.
@@itsalljustimages knowing the frontiers of each is best to make better decisions but doesn’t happen overnight, certain amount of sacrifices is required
Gratitude that these conversation are happening. Listening to this is like mind massage and damn it feel good!
Thank you Jamie. Such an excellent conversation.
00:00
Daniel explained rivalruls dynamic in our world. Organs instead cooperate in win-win games is because of no egos and agency.
03:55 GAME A = RIVALROUS DYNAMICS, GAME B = INFINTE GAME
Game A: might makes right, Game B: right makes might (infinite game where we all get to keep playing it).
Game A lies on our evolutionary biology tendencies. To get to game B we need a mode of coherence, a strong attractor, that’s stronger.
06:18 EVOLUTIONARY TOOLKIT
We should start from our evolutionary toolkit. Our aspirations are fragile as fuck.
We don’t have to start from scratch. The western tradition is a starting point.
08:41 MAKING SENSE TOGETHER, THE WESTERN TRADITION
The Greeks, Roman republic, Magna Carta, Arthurian legends, French revolution, civil and tort law, American Republic, are the seeds of articulating the infinite game.
These are experiments of code based systems. Then a thousand distortions have corrupted them. But in US history there’s a constant coming back to recommitting to that dream (Lincoln, Marthin Luther King, civil rights, etc.)
Brits thought they were bringing justice and civilization to the world, but merciless colonialists.
Noam Chomsky has critiqued democracy as a public show scam (Manufacturing Consent), yet he’s been tenured professor at MIT.
We have been experimenting with the infinite game and there has been a mix with game A, but the promise we’re following is the best thing we have.
20:31 UPGRADE CONSCIOUSNESS
War on sensemaking has to turn into massive collaboration.
ego/ethno-centric consciousness → global-centric consciousness (homo ludens)
Egocentric: not me, ethnocentric: not us, globalcentric: not human (by glimpsing cosmocentric perspective)
Getting a somatic, experienced sense of having gone beyond my tribe is crucial to have globalcentric consciousness. Be a psychonaut if you can’t be an astronaut
27:12 COLLECTIVE COHERENCE
We found game A distasteful and we’ve been cast out. When we meet and see each other’s light we are enthusiastic. But then our rivalrous humanness shows up about who gets their name shown more etc, and it’s maybe contraction, maybe ego, maybe pride, we end up seeing each other’s shadow from each other’s shadow. Then we can encourage each other’s light.
We can’t be naive (watch out for covert game A players which pay lip service to game B), but we have to trust.
Trust = (credibility + reliability + intimacy) / self orientation
36:11 CODE OMEGA
Spirit of infinite game is I self police. Commiting to a code we don’t have to police each other. Ex: do to others what you would like to be done to you; tell the truth, lighten up, don’t make shit up, do your best.
43:14 EXCELLENCE VS INCLUSION
Group flow: when we get together and something bigger comes out. Theories about how to get into it are mostly about communicating better, which is weak against our evolutionary tendencies.
The conflict between trusting and not being naive makes us shrink, which is antithetical with our sense of scaling game B globally.
On the exclusivity side:
(+) small, agile, efficient group of people
(-) resentment of people left on the sideline, difficult to scale, can become elite
On the inclusion side:
(+) everyone is included, there’s variety
(-) any single voice can hijack the group or use weaponization, it’s fragile
52:51 DEVELOPMENTAL LEVELS
Globalization process is making many people skip steps in moving from ethnocentric to globalcentric. This creates dissociation from our story.
Research on kids that know their grandparents well shows they are more resilient than those who don’t.
In our consciousness we need to pass by ego and ethnocentric before levelling up.
Great sum up thx
GOAT comment right here...
Awesome, 5/5 dude!
Rebel Wilson really facilitate the way in which important pieces of the conversation come together.
... just came across this question in Commentaries On Living by J.Krishnamurti in his exploration of going beyond conflict in relationships: "Can the mind, whose very essence is time, catch love, which is its own eternity?"
#BeingMode
@@stephen-torrence "there is no becoming... There is this state and that state, but there is no in-between.... Becoming is a self-deception..." J Krisnamerti
Ok (doing/flow) vs. (being/Bliss) what lies between is BS
Thank you Jamie & David
I find myself conflicted between being disgusted and feeling sorry for the people who can not glean anything good from this, and only want to criticize.
The word you are looking for is contempt. People often feel contempt for anyone who provokes cognitive dissonance or threatens to shatter an illusion or reveal a con.
Both this guy and Daniel embroider samples of many valuable and truthful insights from others into a corrupted contradictory whole intended to support their own totalitarianism intended spiel. Being against rivalry is totalitarianism. It's smashing real accountability, agency and truthful free engagement with the world , neutralising growth and learning capacities. You be tripping up thinking that the borrowed sampled insights belong to these guys , or lend credit to these marketing speeches. Their borrowing if a credible cloak and selling slavery with nice quotes about freedom ( that they actually intend to smash ) shouldn't be a distraction from challenging this con , and this attempt to capture, " own" and neutralise all possible resistance inspiring ideas to remove any obstacles to cybernetics enabled totalitarianism.
It's terrifying how many younger people are falling for this . And no doubt they are falling for it in part because these guys are strategical and cynically borrowing some great and important ideas that many people have missed out on hearing in their compromised education.
These guys are total top level propagandists . If you like a particular historical idea the are mouthing ,go explore the original. The crushing of dissent ( rivalry ) and of self , agency , relationship , and privacy ( including family and preferential relationships ) is their game. Look into Cybernetics and technocracy if you want to understand what this crushing of individual will is meant to serve Do you want to defend that ?
@@georginawhitby1320 Now that sounds like contempt.
tinker bell would you mind pointing out who these specific people are?
@@Orthodoxi It's obvious to at least 8 other people. Maybe use your own head, instead of asking loaded questions.
@@ransbarger , no , you are engaging in deflection / projection now . You literally and vividly described yourself responding with attitude of contempt ( disgust mixed with pity ) towards anyone who took a critical respinse to this propaganda piece. I took the time to reflect on some borrowed insights that someone might mistake for the message if the presentation , which is far from contempt - I wanted to offer you the benefit of the doubt in your intentions . And I also specifically pointed out the deception and malevolent direction of the presentation overall. There's no mere emotional attitude in that response , and wasn't presuming ill will in you for failing to register that . It's you who texting in a dehumanising mode to anyone willing to burst your wishful delusions about this particular presentation.
This one was really special. Thanks for these ongoing conversations.
great jamie! one point of contention: using shame does not work on sociopaths, meaning they are incapable of self-policing and playing fair. what then?
100% . need to be spotted and outed, not placated. Have already been witnessing that attempted infiltration into nominal Game B communities. This was the piece we cut at same time as this vid specifically speaking to that dynamic th-cam.com/video/t9_FcnECNS8/w-d-xo.html
Thats pretty unimportant in the big picture of creating game b. No need to be thinking about it imo
clear, clean and good timing to boot.
Overall a great contribution...thanks Jamie and David!
Wow, so well thought through this makes me unbelievably happy. Thank you!
"Can we become psychonauts? Can we explore levels of consciousness that give us the lived experience; the somatic sense of 'I have gone beyond my tribe'?" YES! Essential point! // Also, I agree with your re-discovery of Pinker. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. Incremental (yet let's pick up the pace a bit) change, moving us towards Game B. Thank you! Love.
Auto immune diseases are examples of where our body organs don't work together, i.e., weapons designed to fight outsiders get confused. We do this in society as well.
And even if there are solutions like nutrition, healing the leaky gut / food intolerances by going back to the evolutionary proven "simple" high-fat diet; in spite of plenty of positive research being made towards diets like paleo/keto, people still hold onto the consensus promoted by doctors uneducated in nutrition or any holistic approach, treating symptoms instead of the causes, actually believing in their hearts that they are doing the best they can due to following textbooks. Now tell me how much easier is it supposed to be to address an external cause like this, which can be researched directly, compared to a pretty much invisible psychological process that by definition cannot be proven to people who hold an incompatible mindset already... :)
Has anyone looked into the 12 Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous as a model for the Infinite Game? The common goal of "helping the alcoholic who still suffers while maintaining personal sobriety" is an incredible unifying force that brings people of considerably diverse views and opinions together promoting the qualities of Honesty, Open mindedness and Willingness. Also, the 12 Steps are a path to relating to others in an honest and integral way.
There are also 12 Concepts for Service that are working on a global scale.
Great ! Thank you people ! this is encouraging
HALLELUJAH! So many great points here on how collective action runs into problems or how it wud work more effectively!
Just commenting on Jamie's point about moving from global centric to beyond, it seems he's pointing to nature centric awareness. We don't have to go to space to get that point of view and connection, we just have to connect to nature. Exploring psychedelics is also great way to developing that connection, and that's been my experience, but it's also not for everyone!
I smoked real pot long ago
Felt nothing except I went sleep 10-15 minutes later
Some good ideas and interesting perspectives, but from my perspective crippled by too many errors.
And I don't want to be an example of the thing he spoke about - of attacking friends and causing problems - and I do see genuine problems with much of the thesis, even as I align with most of the general direction.
Where Jamie says the solution has to do with absence of egos and agency there seems to be a major problem. To me the major issue is much more about levels of identity. When we can create contexts that we can see all levels of our interest aligned with the interests of others - then we are in a low risk context. And from a games theoretic perspective that gets extremely complex.
That takes us into this whole game A vs game B scenario. And yes - that is a model that has some reasonable utility, and it vastly simplifies what seems to actually be going on.
Equating game A with evolution shows a serious failure to comprehend what evolution actually is.
Evolution is about optimising survival in contexts - nothing more nor less.
In the deepest sense, games theory gives us some tools to classify contexts.
Evolution is not about competition. And there are certainly contexts where competitive systems deliver optimal outcomes.
Evolution is about survival - at all time scales, days, weeks, years, generations, millennia, epochs.
Strategies can coexist if they deliver some significant survival probability in some set of contexts and do not pose too great a risk in other contexts.
One needs to be able to distinguish between genotype and phenotype (at all levels, genetic, mimetic, and beyond). The current phenotypic expression one sees is not necessarily of good indicator of the underlying genotypic systemic structure.
Sure - put people in a competitive context (like a market system) and Game A will dominate.
Change context and you see something else entirely.
The Buddhists were definitely onto something, but lacked a sufficient theoretical system to construct reasonably detailed model of it.
We can be the most cooperative species on the planet - given appropriate context.
Having a reasonable (subconscious) expectation of sufficiency will essentially set the context.
And this all gets deeply complex as there are two very deep sets of constructs working against each other.
At one level, all new levels of cooperation require a context where there is sufficient perceived threat that we can cooperate to avoid, that means that we can all see greater benefit in cooperating than competing. There must be such external threat - in some dimension of externality (and that can get fairly deep) - but for now, something like global climate change could be sufficient.
Counter to that, is the highly evolved set of subconscious systems that do in fact create more simple models of reality that become our experiential reality as threat increases. Over evolutionary time such systems have served us well as they allow us to make decisions fast enough to survive.
Today we live in a technological and social and theoretical/conceptual world that is so complex, that most people have no real idea of it, hence we see the resurgence of more simple understandings from our past. That is an entirely predictable evolutionary set of responses.
How to survive it?
It seems clear to me that there is only one class of approaches that gives any significant survival probability.
We need systems that deliver sufficient abundance and improved day to day security to all, that sufficient numbers of people can actually have both the time and the mental capacity to start to engage with some of the more complex aspects of our current reality.
At the same time, we need the threats to be sufficiently clear that it really is in everyone's best interests to cooperate, but not so overwhelming as to send people into anxiety. I have not managed that well with my family. My wife and children are all dealing with severe anxiety. None have my confidence that a positive future is possible. So I have not solved that particular problem space well as yet, except for myself; not in the communication of the complexities and possibilities actually present.
Simple models are characterised by binaries - things like true/false, friend/foe, good/bad, right/wrong, hot/cold, etc. Any time anyone experiences any such idea, it is an indication that the subconscious mechanisms of brain have decided that a simple context is required. If you cannot see an immediate threat that demands such simplification to deal with, then it is very likely that something has hacked your subconscious. Time to step up a meta level and look for what is causing the hack. Is it conscious deliberate, or residual evolutionary systems no longer appropriately tuned to context?
Ask the question - what is going on here?
Keep asking until you get an answer that feels reasonable to you.
If that answer is expressed in terms of right/wrong, rather than some sort of balance of probabilities, then you are probably not there yet - keep going.
Jamie does seem to me to accurately assess that our survival long term is predicated on cooperative (game B) game spaces; but does not seem to have a reasonable handle on the evolutionary and games theoretic systems driving the probability landscapes.
Jamie characterises us as Game A apes. That is not accurate.
Certainly - put us in competitive environments - we will compete.
But that is only one possible phenotype and definitely not the dominant one.
We are primarily a game B ape.
We cannot survive without game B. We are born helpless. We must get help to survive. Our primary systems are Game B.
We do actually need to deliver a world wide context that has enough for all.
That is not actually that difficult a problem technically. The technology is relatively simple.
The problem is the social and political and economic structures we currently have are not tuned to deliver that.
Our economic system is scarcity based. It cannot deliver universal abundance in and of its own internal incentive structures.
If you doubt that assertion, just think about air - arguably the single most important thing to any of us, but of no market value.
The technology to deliver universal abundance is easy, compared to changing the way people think about value.
Some sort of universal income seems to be a necessary transition strategy.
And this is seriously complex systems - 20 plus levels of complex adaptive systems.
Nothing simple.
And I have no shadow of reasonable doubt that nobody has a significant survival probability if the system goes over to all out competition. We have too much technology for anyone to have a significant probability of surviving long term.
The only significant survival probability I see for anyone is in creating a cooperative game space - and that is seriously complex - and will take a lot of work by all of us.
Ted Howard great points brother 🙏❤️👁
The lay person deals in day to day realities and won't be interested in the complexities of game A and game B theory, so you need simple ways to appeal to all levels of humanity.
How do you deal with fundamental suffering and introduce the infinite space for all humanity, meditation is the only way. If you want to deal with anxiety, first meditate. If you want to improve the health of the nation and reduce dependancy on big pharma, learn to breath and meditate. If you want motivated and self reliant individuals in society, first you must meditate.
Game A theory emerges from the ego, Game B theory emerges from self realisation. There is nothing more complex than that, as soon as you engage intellect as the source of 'I' then you always end up in game A.
Game B is available to all, no matter what your race, gender, age or privilege and it's available FOC now. The universality of all beings is found within, only from there can you find the joy that you seek.
Both this guy and Daniel embroider samples of many valuable and truthful insights from others into a corrupted contradictory whole intended to support their own totalitarianism intended spiel. Being against rivalry is totalitarianism. It's smashing real accountability, agency and truthful free engagement with the world , neutralising growth and learning capacities.
Some people here are criticising the " negativity " of people " failing " to see the good in this . I think they may be tripping up thinking that the borrowed sampled insights belong to these guys , or lend credit to these marketing speeches. Their borrowing of a credible cloak and selling slavery with nice quotes about freedom ( that they actually intend to smash ) shouldn't be a distraction from challenging this con , and this attempt to capture, " own" and neutralise all possible resistance inspiring ideas to remove any obstacles to cybernetics enabled totalitarianism.
It's terrifying how many younger people are falling for this . And no doubt they are falling for it in part because these guys are strategical and cynically borrowing some great and important ideas that many people have missed out on hearing in their compromised education.
These guys are total top level propagandists . If you like a particular historical idea the are mouthing ,go explore the original. The crushing of dissent ( rivalry ) and of self , agency , relationship , and privacy ( including family and preferential relationships ) is their game. Look into Cybernetics and technocracy if you want to understand what this crushing of individual will is meant to serve Do you want to defend that ?
Georgina Whitby you don’t need to misplace a bunch of fear to keep going down ur path, just keep on
Ted Howard Brillant analysis of Wheal’s talk. I agree we are Game B animals a cooperative species ala Bowles and Gintis Santa Fe Institute. Wheal is a ruthless flow strategist who thinks primarily from a war strategic position who has little patience with individuals who think differently. His observed tension between inclusivity v exclusivity is real, but not insurmountable, if survival is threatened. Global centric consciousness is the key to our survival and we need to be connecting now informally as well as formally via any means possible.
.
Committed to a code, rule omega and game b. The spirit of the infinite game is noble action - the rest is useful commentary.
Picture a hippie drum circle. Let that image be all our left eye can see. Then filling the right field if view is Seal Team special forces unit running down the beach.
What happens if we merged two extreme examples of community? Mix it up. On one side is the Community Vanguard (3%) that trains like a professional sports team and on the other side is the lazy 97% who just want to hang out and get challenged from time to time.
Basically that is what Jamie is calling for here. Hippy drum circle (visualize world peace) and a Police SWAT Team (ready for action)... merged into "Communion" (his word).
But how?
@@upheaval2024 those people already exists everywhere. They do not have to trained, I think they have a pattern printed within them. Listen to how those honest obsessed maniacs often sound, how they become who they are.
I think jocko willink maybe an example for a soldier. Others do combat sports, regular labor or something.
I think most people who have that pattern do not now how to use it. The feel it, but their use of it is incomplete. Because our environment often does not incentivise this behaviour, you have to do that yourself.
Jocko wrote extreme ownership, its, oversimplified, a less hippiesque manual for communication leadership within combat and how to use it to everyone's value. Except for the enemy. He explains how you can give orders as b game because a game orders sound retarded, lead to conflict, informationloss, insecurity and death.
Our culture has to be an anvil for these people in every aspect of live. If we see these people with a rebellious attitude you cannot repress, we have to teach them to be righteous. Righteousness is something everyone admires, except the lost. Righteousness from within has to be spread and encouraged. Not in the name of something externally, like an oath to a book of rules which makes you a tool of the books purpose. You may be a tool with honor and integrity, but that's not from some esoteric connection between the reasoning of your actions and some stupid text.
We can be chivalrous, honorable and positive without reason. Because all those warrior honor codes are self explanatory. Its just always a quagmire if you end up mixing the values with the underlying purpose.
If we punish them for being rebels they may leave us. They also may come back and spread terror.
Most rebels are also trolls. Jerks, jesters and jockers with a potential to use this to make you laugh. Not to put you down.
I think we have to do the drum circle for real. And never stop, ever.
Lot's of Ken Wilbur coming through Jamie in this one. Jamie without fail always vocalises things I have been thinking and keeping to myself for years. I think the best aim for humanity is to share a common cause and common enemy, space. We need a global space exploration program.
Bless everyone who is involved in this stuff . I’m parking my meat suit in the UK !!
Excellent talk. A bit different angle than the two original "War on Sensemaking" but very good stuff.
Not sure if all this makes sense to anybody but after listening to this talk I just could not continue listening to any other until I found out what was bothering me and until I put it in writing. The later not because I need somebody to read it, it is just the way my brain works. If I do not do it I often forget and often spend time on the same stuff over and over again. So here it goes. Maybe somebody reads it and even understands what I meant here? Who knows :) And no I a not asking for omega points etc I would have put it here w/o anybody reading it anyway. As stated above I think in this way about important issues - it makes my chaotic brain remember. If somebody has a view on this then, by all means, go on and make fun of it or put a reasonable comment. Appreciate it as it comes.
The reason I could not let it go was that it reminded me of something else.For quite some time I was at odds as to what this could be. Finally I came to see it. In my young years, directly after university I did encounter the newsgroups (had to look for the word - this is just so long since the last time I have used the service). Back then I took up some obscure subjects that interested me and few others. Nothing special. Today people put cats on YT. One however was a bit more time consuming. A newsgroup about anarchism - oh boy there was some action there. Lots of interested and motivated individuals and lots of hair splitting as well as heating arguments about this or other aspect of society esp. in view of anarchism and personal freedom. I recalled these old dusted memories because of your talk here. For some reason I thought about these old un/finished. After some retrospective of the old good times I realized what was the most striking similarity with arguments to improve the 'information eco-system' etc reason - we discussed and proposed solutions that could be applied to society at large but in fact were only applicable to few Illuminati. Daniel has even mentioned something similar in his last talk - there are some individuals who do not change even if they declare their commitment - sometimes it takes years to spot that but some people just cannot change. I accepted this back then as this was a finding every one of us knows from daily life - some people vow to change and they do. The vast majority does not. I do not blame them, this is not a judgmental realization although this fact combined with the enlightenment that Daniel (and some others before him) brought is almost unbearable - why, even facing the truth about our miserable lives and with a path leading somewhere higher we still refuse to follow it? I guess the problem is the same as with other theoretical ways we could improve our lives. Gauss bell curve shows distribution of for instance IQ over percentages of population. I posit that similar curve can show distribution of interest and power of individual will needed to change one's ways. Even if the group of people willing to change is huge, the subsection of those that can, is much smaller, making it a minority undertaking. This is already a problem if the rest were just indifferent but this is hardly the case - the conflicting interests etc. Only on rare occasions huge groups of people make a coordinated effort for (what they perceive as) a good cause. Usually some sort of coercion is needed even if not of the sort most us would agree is a tyranny, sometimes it is external threat to our existence as society. In some sense this is not different from the realization one lonely guy, long time ago had: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Not much has changed since, except that we know a lot more about e.g. game theory, the idiosyncrasies of human beings, about the way the ideas spread and how we fail to hold to our resolutions etc. It probably even touches to the problem with the free will - if a growth inside my skull (or elsewhere in my body) may influence my behaviour then how much of a free will I really do have? But leaving this little problem aside (you have to deal with free will somehow or else many things we do, make no sense, but this is huge problem on itself, let us assume it is not there for a moment) we still have a problem that whatever nice scheme you invent (game A or game B and other useful terms we use here) not everybody (probably majority of us) is able to change and many do not wish to change either. In other words - the idea has to bring significant benefit to a human being while doing similar to a group such individual belongs to. Even then, groups of enlightened people may succumb to pressure from outside as such groups, till now, usually did. Religion is a nice example of a group and idea that did not but you see how the ones that survived, did it - just lookup history book (I guess none of us here really has to). I am not even saying religion is evil, just that the way ideas work on our society is similar to life in general and one way or the other causes pain, suffering and sometimes huge piles of corpses too.
So these talks are important. They helped me at least for a while (yes I am the weak one). Thank you for doing them.
Maybe we get there when we will have augmented our brains with some artificial extensions. I doubt because of the reason I mentioned above. Could this be that ideas are a subject to the same rules that original life did with evolution etc.? I mean the first cell was not alone - there were huge amount of other cells, some of nature creations back then were parasitic, some outright destructive w/o own benefit. This has not changed. What has changed is that life grew more complex and now we have intelligent apes cooperating or fighting and culture they have created. To me it looks like the soup of ideas that we are mixing ever since we learned the language, may be poisoned with bad ideas and parasitic ones etc because that is the nature of ideas creation.
This thought about ideas I had for a long time till I encountered different meme distribution schemes and recently clips of Gaad Saad on YT which made me think that I am not as crazy as I thought I was :)
I mean to see this fight of ideas even in commercial settings. We are supposed to contribute so that next month salary arrives as expected but a conscious effort is required to keep people thinking straight and even that does not always work.
Maybe at some point we will be able to see and do it differently but even if it is possible I doubt if this happens w/o losing what is our humanity.
It seems to come down to what we trust another person to do. There will be realms where we can trust but the more detail is known then it reduces the flow towards that person. Differences become more prominent in our mind if they deviate from our expected path. We can't see our own flaws too well to see the benefits of another fully, yet we can easily see conflicts in others.
I don't know if enough dissimilar people can rise above that.
In my mind, I see complicated shapes with a bubble at its centre where inside the bubble is our internal world and outside is what we externalise. We sometimes nicely fit as 2 bubbles meet but then shapes get knocked and get turned around. We are often more than what we show ourselves to a given person or group. It is hard to overcome that but..... I don't think impossible.
@Steve Wilkins Thank you, for your words, and understanding. And yes, if we focus on our internal fine-tuning we can provide and accommodate more in the external world. To be able to renormalize one's expectations skillfully, through our various contexts offers others hope. We should all try to get closer to this.
On a personal note, I accommodate my neurodiverse thinking in how I approach life, however, I've not successfully reconciled how I deal with my natural personality foibles and the convenience of hiding those difficulties. My personality and neurodiversity are internally indistinguishable, yet I do not feel they adjust to expectations, in the same manner. It might reveal why I am struggling with refined contextual trust.
Nicely done.
Thank you.
what a great series, thanks for this.
Thank you for this thoughtful, valuable survey of our challenges now in this great quest.
25:00-26:00 sums up a lot of logic that feels important to me
and then the idea to have inclusion in succession to excellence. Amazing talk all the way through!
Thanks
Another very good video. Excellent and thoughtful.
At 15:21 reference to the Charge of The Light Brigade is made, but the painting you cut to is in fact the charge of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo, “Scotland Forever”, by Lady Butler. There is a quite famous painting of the Charge of the Light Brigade, but it is...different
Great interview though! 😀
Sensemaking Squad! 🙌
Ironically the great sages and mystics have always had the answer. When the seeker asks 'who am I' and becomes aware of the source from which 'I' emerges you find the source of all humanity.
Andrew Phoenix God.
The only force I've ever observed that can stop game A tribal dynamics is Spirituality (elevated consciousness). That is, living the examined life of personal transformation. Whatever your background, unless you are personally transforming from sinner to saint and learning to love across tribal lines, you will be subject to Game A dynamics.
I do have a hope that we will reach a critical mass (usually ~10% of the population) who has developed the consciousness capable of playing Game B, and simply by virtue of the numbers those ideas and methods of being start permeating the society as a whole.
Spirituality often leads to non-reactionary behaviour, ego-less and selflessness (no self), discernment, love and kindness to others, more awareness, being present and slowing the mind. This should be the easiest thing to spread, especially because you don't have to even name it, you be it.
The question is can you have a reasonable outcome running game A and game B on the same server at the same time?
Maybe that is the Reality. Maybe it's the mystics who can see game B. And the rest of us are hoping it's more than just faith
Game Bæ 😉
Game B will be the baby of Game A.
Thanks to this "mess" we forget we're going to die, and that is the ultimate reason why we don't truly want to fix anything. We will never, ever, EVER be anywhere else but on the edge of existence, friends. THIS is the balancing point, and there's no way out of it. As for me, I come here because I enjoy witnessing intelligence, not expecting to find any answer. Sit back, do what you consider right, learn from mistakes, but most of all: enjoy the ride. THIS IS THE GAME OF LIFE. Ready-player-one... START!
Thank you for your work!
It occurs to me - we do have a model of the infinite game overcoming the Darwinian game or at least beating it back quite successfully in history. It's the Freemasonic model. The type of exclusion on quality may rely on gatekeeping working in this sort of way where an 'entrant' has to go through many levels of vetting prior to entry rather than being allowed in the conversation gratis and then have to be persuaded why they need to leave if they're inflicting cluster B dynamics on dialog. There are other ways of course to filter entry, like Jonathan Haidt's Heterodox Academy having membership based on credentials, but when the filterings not as simple as that then it might take application, interviews, symbolic initiation into norms, core values, etc.
Wouldn't we want to scale it to all of humanity though?
@@Paakku97 You need some kind of foundational structure to occur with a degree of isolation to test and fortify itself. Seems like most things that get hit by social violence right out of the gate without a chance to build defenses ahead of time lose quickly.
I like the infinite game idea. It reminds me of something Jordan Peterson talked about where he defined morality as that which works over the whole timeline.
Jamie is brilliant and much appreciated here on this end, however his finger snapping into my head phones blew out a few nerve endings and caused my tooth fillings to come lose
Game A is not inherently bad and game B is not inherently good. Both have their utility and both have shortcomings. How is this not clear? Wisdom is knowing which game is appropriate for a given situation.
Bingo !
Are they using infinite game in the sense James Carse uses it? He wrote a book called Finite and Infinite games.
Who are you ? OMG so refreshing. You are speaking my language. I was the shiny one who then something happened, Im not supper vulnerable.
Pinker gets some rather unfair criticism from several Rebel Wisdom contributors, mainly for leaving out spirituality or for cherrypicking his data. So thank you, Jamie, for not misrepreseting Pinker's work.
I love this talk. I have just one correction. What Rav Hillel said was actually different from what has become known as the "golden rule" (Treat others as you would like to be treated). Hillel's injunction is far more powerful--> "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary; go and study." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a).
Our likes are often benign and personal: vanilla ice cream, walking on the beach. Our hates tend to be universal: being shamed in public, being betrayed by friends.
The painting at 15:20 is not the Charge of the light brigade it's Scotland Forever! an 1881 oil painting by Lady Burler depicting the start of the charge of the Royal Scot Greys, a British cavalry regiment that charged alongside the British heavy cavalry at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.
Jamie is smart and has definitely given me some new insight. One critique is that he wants us to play the infinite game BUT also seems negative on game theory?!? Why not use game theory to advantage? Seems that competition is a pretty strong, hardwired aspect of us, why disavow it?
agreed! reckon if we really want something stable to build on top of nasty brutish and short defaults, we need to meet and then exceed all of those drivers rather than try to spiritually (or conceptually) bypass them. "Mercy's a business, but we all gotta eat!"
I read Theory U and took part in the first of Otto's Theory U course. Some things it does very well; my interest was as a designer, and as a detailed description of what happens internally when going through a collaborative creative process, or cycle of a design process I think it is exceptional. It even offers some decent practices to use.
My main criticism was and still is, is that Theory U doesn't consider the people who are taking part of the group but don't attempt to leave their agency at the door. There are people who through sociopathy or otherwise are unable to empathise and these and others can and willl play these groups for their own advantage. Ignoring these weaknesses is irresponsible when "going through the U" involves cultivating a suggestive state.
Being asked to " leave agency at the door " is an indicator of a cult dynamic, and the manufactured amplification of vulnerability , and the increased opportunities for exploitation and trauma aren't unintentional in such dynamics .
I'm hope you noticed that the feature speaker in this piece actually meets your described fear of the kinds that exploit such opportunities.
It feels like he was breaking down the reasoning of Ozmandias in the Graphic Novel Watchmen. Now, what I would like to see is how do we get to not have to generate an artificial common threat so we can get together and overcome our primate selves?
Joshua, I want to play Global Thermonuclear War.
How about a friendly game of chess?
Game B and Private properties ... I cannot understand his logic..at 22:24.. Any suggestion ???
So when are we starting a school?
This is very relevant, thank you.
I hope I would be able to contribute my piece of puzzle to the Game B one day. Having my meat suit parked in Poland ;)
would you please find a way to minimise annoying background noise.
Beautiful 🙏
I feel Jamie's definitions of Guilt and Shame are way out of sync with what most people's definitions are. I've always taken guilt as feeling bad about what you have done and shame as feeling bad about who you are. But maybe i'm just not fully following.
agree. I understand it in the reverse of how JW presented it. (for those wondering, it starts around 41:15) from a Psychology Today article: "Guilt involves the awareness of having done something wrong; it arises from our actions (even if it might be one that occurs in fantasy). Shame may result from the awareness of guilt but apparently is not the same thing as guilt. It's a painful feeling about how we appear to others (and to ourselves) and doesn't necessarily depend on our having done anything."
spiral dynamics talks about shame being one of the very lowest frequencies. interesting to hear about the potential social benefits.
What he said about shame also didn't land for me. He used the word "shame", but seemed to describe the process of repentance and redemption.
you got me wondering Gabriel, as you weren't the only person to have the opposite sense of the terms! So I went back to Chambers English Dictionary (the gold standard in the UK) and sadly, in technical terms, they're effective synonyms--both have definitions that fit for either case. But here's what I was trying to communicate (and it may be that it's easier/better to switch them going forward if more people are confused than informed)--in deliberately using a charged term like Shame, I was engaging in a rhetorical pattern interrupt, (and kind of "wait...what???") similar to using the term Ethical Cults in another RW bit. But I was really thinking of that famous phrase "Senator McCarthy, have you no shame sir?" that ended the Red Scare (meaning, "have you no inner sense of common decency that might inform and constrain your actions, sir?") . Throw in Cirsei's walk of shame in GoT, and that's more the zip code of what I'm trying to explore. Instagram shamans selling workshops after "apprenticing" for a couple of years. Wannabe tantrikas teaching sexmagick that they barely understand. Manifestation/Abundance MLM schemes exploiting folks to max out credit cards--current politicians trampling civic norms and tradition. That's the kind of "have you no shame???" self policing I think would be helpful these days to counterbalance the "but this is my truth, and I'm owning my own desires, etc." merrygoround. But if the concept is still too jarring to be helpful, consider what we're really talking about on the positive side of the ledger--namely, is there a code of chivalry, ethics, honor, etc that good people can agree to live by (and trust each other to live by) rather than the moral relativism and opportunism we see too much (IMO) of these days--thanks for your thoughts!
@@jamierwheal I think where a lot of us get tripped up on "shame" is in how it has been absolutely weaponized by the social justice movement with cancel culture.
I think Jamie's still hanging around the comments, so I'd like to try to connect some of his puzzle pieces around trauma and Code Omega and see what he thinks.
Centering around this point, my emphasis added: 42:16 "if we can use those peak experiences to affirm our shared humanity, and *come back and mend and integrate our trauma,* so that we don't get triggered, so that we don't go back down the slide to evolutionary, biological, game-theoretical, rivalrous bullshit, if we can then connect with each other in communion... then we've got a shot".
53:27 to 54:30 - "skipping [developmental] steps leads to dissociation and pathology", and then pointing at how atomized we've become.
40:40 - self policing - "when the ball is out, I call it, even when I lose that point or the match".
1:37 - reference to Daniel's example of the body as a collective of entities in nonrivalrous cooperation.
There seems to be a clear picture emerging in psychology about childhood trauma and childhood emotional neglect as serious pathologizing forces behind developmental arrests and mental illness. Trauma seems to create a person who is more likely to pass further trauma on to their children via *emotional* neglect, and emotional neglect in turn generates a disconnect, a pathological lack of connection/access between the thinking and feeling parts of the nervous system. So this cyclically generates people less and less capable of accessing emotion. It seems to follow that if emotional neglect takes that nonrivalrous collective of entities called a body, and severs connections within it (in this case by failing to develop them), it starts to be at war with itself. This disconnect also seems to be implicated in lack of developing self-regulation skills, the things called "executive function".
So it looks like people who have experienced trauma and emotional neglect are particularly at risk for not being able to self-police under a Code Omega. And I think Jamie recognizes this as hard, but I think it needs to be emphasized as *_the main bottleneck_* for this problem: I have to imagine that people who are being systemically kneecapped developmentally need access to psychological healing and aren't going to do so well coming into collective coherence until they do, because they're not at a developmental stage where they have access to that capacity.
This channel might not be the place to address development and trauma, but I think folks interested might look into Dr Gabor Maté, Dr Jonice Webb, & Pete Walker.
>Trauma seems to create a person who is more likely to pass further trauma on to their children
Yes and no. I believe it is the case that most propagators of trauma were themselves traumatized, but most survivors of trauma do not propagate it. At the very least I'm skeptical of such a broad generalization over a class of people who seem to rather display impressively diverse responses to their troubled pasts, by all accounts.
@@robbydyer4500 Thank you for engaging with my comment. I agree with your sense here, and especially with "display impressively diverse responses to their troubled pasts". I believe we are using the same words a bit differently. Let me try to clarify my phrasing.
First, I may have been extending the word "trauma" past its expected sense for most people, but I think I can argue for extending it.
Pete Walker, in _Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving,_ uses the word this way: "Trauma occurs when attack _or abandonment_ triggers a fight/flight response so intensely that the person cannot turn it off once the threat is over."
Further: "Physical and sexual abuse are the most obvious traumas that a child can experience, especially
when they are ongoing. However, much that is also traumatic goes unnoticed in Cptsd-engendering families. This often occurs because parental acts of physical abuse are more blatant than acts of verbal and emotional abuse and neglect. It appears to me that just as many children
acquire Cptsd from emotionally traumatizing families as from physically traumatizing ones."
So in this context "trauma" refers to not only physical abuse, but verbal and emotional abuse, and most critically, emotional neglect.
This emotional neglect is the particular aspect of this definition of trauma I meant to be highlighting when I was expressing the way it propagates.
Jonice Webb defines emotional neglect this way: "Emotional Neglect is a parent’s failure to respond enough to a child’s emotional needs. Because it’s a parent’s _failure_ to act, rather than a parent’s _act,_ it goes unseen, unnoticed, and unremembered."
In _Running on Empty: Overcoming your Childhood Emotional Neglect,_ she explains the propagation this way: "Emotionally neglected children grow up with a blind spot about emotions, their own as well as those of others. When they become parents themselves, they're unaware of the emotions of their own children, and they raise their children to have the same blind spot."
It seems pretty clear from this that emotionally neglect *_-ed_* people will tend to become emotionally neglect *_-ful_* people: Person P with a blind spot naturally fails to notice child Q's analogous blind spot, thus fails to teach Q to see into it; thus Q, without outside help, will continue to have it and will fail to see anyone else's.
The particular details of one's response as you say are "impressively diverse"; _Running on Empty_ gives a broad sampling of what those look like.
However, that particular pattern of emotional self-ignorance is the underlying stable factor propagating emotional neglect, and (if you'll accept the extension) thereby propagating trauma.
Does that help?
@ Robby Dyer: Thank you for offering the essential point of variant experiences. I know exactly what you are bringing forward. And agree entirely; both from an empirical position and clinical.
Compartmentalizing any scenario is a negligent and limiting method of analysis. Just as the individual physiology of one illness is entirely unique to another’s with the same categorical disease, thus requires its own unique and specific approach to understanding and thereby healing; such is the same model of individual human emotional and psychological wholeness.
This was mentioned repeatedly in this video, in terms of relinquishing the ego (aka: the attachment to being “right”; righteousness).
I understand the human process of sustainable evolution, as one where we each are learning to step back and away from being “right”, from the belief programming of thinking we know what’s what. This is a powerfully difficult process of restructuring. So it’s understandable that folks will resist and lock jaw onto what concepts and theories continue to permit the old status quo (in a slightly newer variation).
Anywho... I digress. My point: Thank you for speaking up for those of us trauma adult children that are finding effective ways to break the cycle. It’s arduous and consistently feels impossible. Yet, it does work and what sits on the other side of that cannot be described. 💗
Having been in the military and knowing what it is to work as a cohesive unit for the greater good, where everyone has your back, you have theirs, and your contribution is valued. It was very difficult then to live and work in civi street as everyone's looking out for themselves, with a short term view. The UK has historically relied on selfless decent people as the bedrock of the community/society who were happy with 'enough', valuing their way of life ahead of wealth. As you stated, we play by the rules, always routing for the underdog, and not tolerating bullies. The unfortunate events over the last 10 yrs or more have shown that we can no longer rely on our governments to rein in the bullies/psychopaths/narcisist's. The resulting cost being the societies of the western world can no longer afford to sustain their ethical way of life.
This is a ridiculous comment considering the actual role of the military (any military) and specifically of Great Britain in crushing the world and robbing every tribe they could locate in order to build their "ethical way of life." You are kidding yourself here.
Wow, thank you for this. Loving Jamie’s ideas. I think he has “guilt” and “shame” reversed. See Brene Brown’s work? Still, the point he makes feels right on!
Reglas y Requisitos mínimos del juego.
1) 3 personas ( A, B, C )
2) A,B y C serán los vértices de un triángulo equilatero.
3) A, B y C pueden conversar sobre cualquier tema que surja o les apetezca pero deben de seguir estas reglas:
_Regla Sintáctica/Semántica.
a) No se puede usar ninguno de los pronombres de la Primera Persona del Singular ( Yo, Me, Mí, Mío, Conmigo )
a.1) Por consiguiente, las conjunciones verbales asociadas a ellos.
Sin embargo, si A, B ó C quieren realizar una frase autoreferencial ( ejemplo, «A» quiere decir algo acerca de «A» ), sencillamente, se pueden referir «a si mismo» usando El Nombre, conjugación y/o pronombres de la tercera persona del singular, plural y/o la «voz pasiva» ...
( ejemplo, «A» es llamado Miguel.
Miguel ( A ) quiere decir a B y/o C algo acerca de « si mismo » ( Miguel ) ...
Entonces, Miguel ( A) puede hablar acerca de « Miguel » hablando de Miguel .
_Regla Perceptiva Espacio Temporal
b) Si «A» habla, B y C se miran y no ven a A. ( A habla y observa el espacio entre B y C )
Si «B» habla, A y C se miran y no ven a B. ( B habla y observa el espacio entre A y C )
Si «C» habla, A y B se miran y no ven a C. ( C habla y observa el espacio entre A y B )
Regla de Autocorrección y Asimilación Cognitiva
c) Practicar reglas a y b hasta conseguir una fluidez espontánea en el «triálogo» ...
Se requiere que los participantes hagan saber al grupo cuando las reglas no se cumplen.
.....
Estas son las reglas básicas del «Juego» ...
Una vez asimilado hay más variantes.
on point.
He mentioned Joe rogan episode 1081. Guess which episode you won't find on TH-cam?
Best way to utilize thia information is to look inward.. not any external group or situation.
I agree that the end-gamers (or intermediate-gamers) are on the wrong track - and infinite-gamers are on the right track.
However, the universe plays a big serious (or not-so-serious) game of diversurdity.
I'm not sure if human infinite-game "play" is compatible with diversurdity, but I don't see why not...
Very good lecture only one glaring mistake, no two people are created similar. We're only equal before the law, nowhere else.
except for all the studies showing we dont treat people like that.
I feel the man's conveying useful, honest and helpful information. My only disagreement with him is shame.... It's just not a great motivator, for me personally. If the entire (more or less) species is committed to a such a code(s), then yes maybe shame can be utilized as a form of getting one's attention, to let them know deeply, that there is a problem, issue, offence made towards fellow men, whatever.
Does anyone know of a video or text where one of the Game B folks discusses how Game B survives contact with Game A? Wheal discusses this sort of thing starting at around 29:00 in this video, but at a very personal level (which is also important), but I’m looking for a discussion at the community level. That is, how does a Game B community survive in the context of a Game A society?
My concern is that Game A doesn’t want Game B to win. So, those winning at Game A will damage the communities playing Game B at every opportunity. How does the Game B community respond without compromising the integrity of Game B?
(Later...) The first 15 minutes of this gives a sketch of how the infinite game replaces the finite game without a competitive context being triggered: th-cam.com/video/vPSXsOeX6lM/w-d-xo.html
At about 49:00 he talks about how the Game B group dynamics breaks down from within. My goodness. If Game A self-destructs after hundreds of years and Game B self-destructs after 3 meetings, I don’t see how Game B can go very far. Now I’m not sure Game B will ever meet Game A, it may not survive long enough even in isolation. Still, you have to respect people who look for ways to preserve the best parts of our civilization and try to stop us from destroying our own biosphere or engaging in other other civilization-collapsing activities.
Here's another short one: th-cam.com/video/sVMeZwT9SMI/w-d-xo.html
Our ability to think and our acute sense of self awareness is our downfall.
20:00 You referenced Steven Pinker, did you mean Hans Rosling?
Gotta plug *The Glass Bead Game* here. Hesse grokked this. 👍
Re: exclude/include. Two thoughts. Think of concentric circles. The innermost circle is the "high/hard" most skilled Game B players. The next circle out are the B+ players. And so on. The more inner the circle, the more power and responsibility. And because there are many circles, many are included. // And -- an emphasis on merit. Both seeing merit in others, and seeing myself clearly -- what merits do I have? What am I not good at? And then I self-limit myself, putting myself only in roles where I am highly merited.
Just imagine if benevolent game theory was taught in schools ☀️
How does this video only have 43k views? What happen to the folks that watched part 1 & 2? xD
part 3 😮 ... batting to cover all bases
1: trust but dont be naive
2: when seeing shadow, commit to A priority
3: know ahead of time, your code
sweet! thank you ... will revisit as soon as home base is in view 😊
When are Jamie Wheal and Jordan Peterson going to have their sit down??? 🙏
You have five digits on your hand. Four fingers and one thumb. Opposition in conjugate relationship manipulates the environment in a physiological sense.
It looks like GamebB is the next level after GameA
Currently, one should first be best at winning mercilessly at GameA - gather resources and gain influence. Next, she/he can use the already gathered money and power to work on GameB... - nobody can win in the game skipping level A and going strait to B...
I think the organs do have rivalry behaviour, system insult too. Brain and liver initiate hunger. At times there is a rivalry if you smell fresh cookies and you want them which is the psychological initiation to convince brain to signal liver to cooperation. At times it'll get rejected! Cooperation evolves when there is a interdependence and understanding as well as acceptance of this dependence.
27:00 this is where Hanzi theory of adult developement and evolutionary history really shines. We must ultimately include and transcend purely material equality and recognize that truly flat equality is an unattainable denial of the the human condition. We must strive materially towards a ubiquitous sufficiency, but what is attainable is a ubiquitous reasonably high level of lived experience for all sentient beings that respects the authentic asymmetries that are endemic to all life.
I am a very concerete thinker and a lot of this information is new to me. I am interpreting this in a nutshell as exploring ideas around the question of: how can we shift individually and collectively from being a Game A rivalrous ego/ethno centric prideful shadow culture - to more of a Game B Infinite global-centric post egoic culture of being united and aligned and trusting and cherishing and valuing civil law and striving for the wellbeing of one another and the ecology of the planet earth culture. Does anyone have any ideas about applying this framework to the impeachment of Donald Trump? To me it looks like the Republican Senators are mostly doing Game A while the Democrat leadership is mostly doing Game B. So... in the context of the framework of this discussion, what steps could Americans utilize to help nudge the current Republican Senate to shift toward Game B? I'm not putting Democrats on a pedestal but the impeachment is a very concrete robust example of dyanmics that need to be transformed if we are to have any hope of maintaining our collective existence on this planet.
is a very concerete thinker, prone to fall in to the trap of thesis antithesis and the game of polarity within politics ?
An anti-rivalrous game, in modern video game terms, would be a co-op game.
For global centric view, Go watch One Strange Rock on Disney+
Having "egos and agency" is not the complicating issue. Instead, illusion is the complicating issue. We are in conflict because we inherited beliefs that said human beings are lacking and flawed. This alienates us from ourselves and so we compete for happiness. That leads us into harming ourselves and others, and so we feel bad, which further fuels the cycle of struggle. In reality, the innate happiness of being is always available. We don't need to seek it. We only need to clear away the illusion that we are lacking and flawed. This will solve all our problems.
@Alex But upon achieving security, which most people in most developed countries have done, then we don't need to compete for survival anymore. Survival is only a rudimentary stage of development. After that comes realisation of happiness, ideally.
It got so good at 43:05 he had to stop and shave
This is tough because who the hell am I to correct Jamie Wheal... but you’ve got shame and guilt inverses. You’re wrong there. Guilt is “I did something bad,” shame is “I am some thing bad.” Shame is directly correlated with negative and self-destructive behavior. Guilt is directly correlated with improved behavior and growth.
Global centric is a nice start, but biosphere centric is the thing ultimately ..and within this there are challenges and conflicting constraints. Omni considerate is a nice trans finite ideal but never attainable in finite time...Omni win/win as Forest describes seems problematic in some ways. What does win mean and how would we define it in an essentially infinite dimensional locally semantic space? Further, it is conflicting constraint and asymmetry that makes any dynamics including life itself possible in our universe, Omni win/win is heat death.
34:35 rule omega
Wow!
Ned messed up thinking he can play game B in a game A arena
I love these talks, but they are locked in Anglo-Saxon cultural roots. I can hear the echo chamber active here. Please try to connect culturally with the other groups and sensemaking will become easier.
Let me give a simple example, only in this sub-community I hear concepts like plan-A versus plan-B. No links to e.g. the commons. The commons as a concept is an active topic with the digital nomads, while it is historically a strong concept too. The concept of the Intellectual Dark Web has no links to communities like Anonymous. Those links are close, but we can see many more relations with other groups. If you can take the more holistic view, many of the difficulties will discover.
Like the link to the hard sciences, for example, many of the topics are about the evolutionary meta-system transition of humanity and we do have concepts describing the change, like the Singularity (the American view) or the Global Brain (more European view). For a compensation between the two, watch this video: th-cam.com/video/Jsf6vdt3COs/w-d-xo.html
How can a concept have links to communities? What?
@@epictetus9221 the concepts, like game B, infinite games and rule Omega can be observed in emerging (innovative) communities. If you do so (see my Phd for example), you notice how some of the assumptions, (e.g. shadows, converting back to game B) are not the essence. I've noticed in particular the dynamics of tropical cascade. So like often in the study of complex adaptive systems, we hit the "hidden order" dynamics.
Forgot to give credit to the Haudenosaunee Nation regarding the creation of America's emocratic sacred documents.
sounds like the Quakers yet they define TRUST as "shining from within" ...so how do we as light beings deal with those that would rule by dark if that is there Truth
The problem with Jamie Wheal is that all of his knowledge is of western tradition's worshipful stories about itself and isn't based in the reality of where those traditions were borrowed from or how they were borrowed and to what effect. It's layered, wrapped, and dipped in conceit so it's hamstrung between itself and itself. He's gleefully ignorant via conceit of all of the other non-western cultures that informed the western tradition.
The wild Franks, Jews, Carthaginians, and Vikings who would dominate Rome militarily and philosophically to create the Papacy and France who would learn to abolish lettres de cachet and make Anglo Saxons into the English who would eventually get the Magna Carta, the Umayyads and Abbasids who turned medicine and math from esoteric superstitions about the empirical world into science that would allow the age of exploration, The Iroquois confederacy, The Egyptian pharaonic tax system, Slave labor (or low-paid equivalent) constructing the railroads, agriculture, textiles...That allowed the Americas to replicate Roman hyper-connectivity by rail pre-war then post-war by highway. All of which has been cherry-picked contorted toward the project of creating and sustaining and concentrating wealth within a hereditary aristocracy in the US which allows dynastic presidents, functionally infinite terms in congress and SCOTUS, and political families like the Kennedys...And an impeachment trial for Trump without the prosecution being allowed witnesses or evidence, walking back the core elements of the Magna Carta.
If Jamie Wheal could stop sucking the western tradition lollipop for a few minutes, he would learn that it is rotting his and everyone else's teeth. Colonialism is sub-optimal because it is a greedy algorithm that has no critical feedback or antithesis other than it's own destruction. It creates plantations, monopolies, and mercantilism instead of global trade and free markets. It is trapped in local maxima until it exhausts its fuel, kills the host, and dies. It seemingly always creates, abuses, and exploits a permanent underclass of sentient beings as its economic undergirding. It thanklessly and clandestinely sits on those shoulders to make its advances without ever acknowledging that, favoring instead to declare itself the most meritorious...It is born on 3rd base and thinks it's hitting grand slams...It condemns untold numbers of Einsteins, Teslas, and Hawkings to gas chambers and flop-houses or 3rd world destitution....To glorify itself and choke competition in its cradle.
The critical pitfall of the western tradition is its fundamental failure to acknowledge cradle-to-cradle/permaculture philosophy or the interconnectedness of systems or the value of running on all cylinders at the expense of occasionally denying the ego of a few cylinders. It over-emphasizes the rugged individual and sating that individual's desires in a vacuum and critically ignores the role of the environment on the emotional well being of the individual which can CAUSE the individual to put the collective well-being before its own. It fails to learn from the example "Christmas time" or similar "Festival" culture where you can feel the energy of song and good-will and charity...instead it only feels/reinforces the importance of commercialization, monetization, greed, aesthetic value from that holiday rather than the feeling in the air that is uniquely achieved by the real-time performative synergistic cultural creation of that event.
This is why you have a "hippie" culture of people addicted to music festivals and burning-man-like events...They are tapping into that "Community support creation and benefit receiving" that transcends individual glory.
You want demonstrative? Observe women (trauma responses aside)women know how live cooperatively, non- competitively, concerned with the well being of all. Women are HARD WIRED for this and have been this way forever. It seems like really the problem is men. Don't get me wrong, I am so grateful for you guys bringing this to the public but really it's just intellectualising what women already do naturally. We have a model- We just need to get the masculine ego out of the way. All the rivalry games and killings have always been because of men.
Men def are the larger part.. but we all have unhealthy areas or shadow.. women have animus.. and ego.. but ultimately we can only work on ourselves
There will always be a stinky mattress. This is not because of us and them. The physical finite is reliant upon contrast. Square=finite Circle=infinite
SQUARING THE CIRCLE is what we're doing. Rt?
Both this guy and Daniel embroider samples of many valuable and truthful insights from others into a corrupted contradictory whole intended to support their own totalitarianism intended spiel. Being against rivalry is totalitarianism. It's smashing real accountability, agency and truthful free engagement with the world , neutralising growth and learning capacities.
Some people here are criticising the " negativity " of people " failing " to see the good in this . I think they may be tripping up thinking that the borrowed sampled insights belong to these guys , or lend credit to these marketing speeches. Their borrowing of a credible cloak and selling slavery with nice quotes about freedom ( that they actually intend to smash ) shouldn't be a distraction from challenging this con , and this attempt to capture, " own" and neutralise all possible resistance inspiring ideas to remove any obstacles to cybernetics enabled totalitarianism.
It's terrifying how many younger people are falling for this . And no doubt they are falling for it in part because these guys are strategical and cynically borrowing some great and important ideas that many people have missed out on hearing in their compromised education.
These guys are total top level propagandists . If you like a particular historical idea the are mouthing ,go explore the original. The crushing of dissent ( rivalry ) and of self , agency , relationship , and privacy ( including family and preferential relationships ) is their game. Look into Cybernetics and technocracy if you want to understand what this crushing of individual will is meant to serve Do you want to defend that ?
What arguments do you disagree with most? I take the infinite game idea is a mind framework. Whether Christian, toa ching, and much of religion gives ardent followers to play an infinite game.. otherwise are people only thinking on a game theory level and comfort? Thia is a big problem when talking about millions or billions of people. .
I have such a hard time listening to ppl who sound like they’re trying so hard to sound smart.
Don’t get me wrong I love these conversations Bc I do think there is substance to them but I find it so incredibly counter productive when guys like this feel the need to woo up their speech with terms like “elevated consciousness” rather than trying to find ways to simplify their language, making it more accessible.
Like explain to me REALLY what is consciousness. Now explain to me how it’s supposed to become elevated. Or maybe it’s just his way of saying he’s smarter than most other ppl.
Sounds to me this ideal shared communion he talks about us uniting around to overcome the tribal stuff sounds to me like God.
Sure there’s lots of tribal stuff that goes on within religion but that’s no failure of God. The Bible May be that source of unification but it’s up to us as individuals to discipline against letting tribalism go too far. And I think the key to that is a deeper understand of what makes the individual sovereign. Personal freedom and liberty and all that Jazz. And I think there are just aspects of history that we can’t gloss over, we all need to study history to ensure we actually learn from it.
Both him and the other feature speaker in this sequence of presentations show extremely obvious deception and masking patterns in their speech. They are umtimately wanting to sell you some kind of hive mind concept , with dissolving of all individual will , all boundaries , all privacy , and all resistance. Banning " rivalrousness " us the mark of totalitarianism ( these guys just invented a new word , which should actually make it fairly obvious to people , but for some reason isn't for many ).
It feels like there’s a lot of misunderstood conjecture and assumptions altering the underlying point - based on misconceived projections vs simply the art of deeper listening.
Would it be possible to take what resonates, release (without the need to define) that which does not, and hold compassionate presence that everything and everyone is intentionally fallible by design? It seems universally intrinsic as the entire purpose to our common goal - reaching new and higher evolved states of equilibrium.
All points are valuable... until the moment they are delivered to invalidate or diminish another.
Merely a consideration.
@@LillyD.R. well i don't think i'm projecting anything because im a big rebel wisdom fan and i do think there is substance and usefulness to what they're saying but I just don't understand why guys like this feel the need to encrypt what he's talking about. part of what i think made jordan peterson such a smash hit with people is because he speaks in plain terms. or he'll stop and try to break concepts down in simpler terms to make them more understandable. Here i feel some guest speakers like this guy take concepts and dress them up in more sophisticated language when I don't think it needs to be. but i'm a pleb, maybe that's my problem. or maybe it would offend him to have a pleb understand him. i dunno. like when you say "deeper listening". You're either listening or you're not. You're either open to new ideas or you're just interpreting things uncharitably and cherry picking things to make the conversation more agreeable to your own preconceived notions. when you say deeper listening I think you really mean try to decode a lot of these made up words to try and understand what he's really saying. And for the most part I think I see what he's trying to say and It's still a useful conversation but I'm just frustrated because my energy is going into trying to decipher his language rather than let the ideas ferment in my own mind to possibly build onto these ideas. maybe i'm in the minority here, i probably am. But i think i'm also coming across a lot more negative than i intend lol.
@@georginawhitby1320 i dunno if i'd go so far to label the guy manipulative for choosing such a cryptic way of speaking and i totally acknowledge we are surrounded by books full of wordplay to make us think there's something of value there and it's all just a ploy to sell books. I think hidden behind all of this exploration by rebel wisdom is a genuine curiosity and attempt to change perspective when that change is necessary. But i kinda feel like guys like this use big words bc he's just secretly super insecure he's a dumb dumb. truth is we're all dumb dumbs and suckers more often than not.