@CrashedPsychonaut's banner p

CrashedPsychonaut

squarecircle.substack.com

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 17 22:26:19 UTC

Spirituality is entirely fake until you make it real


				

User ID: 1884

CrashedPsychonaut

squarecircle.substack.com

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 17 22:26:19 UTC

					

Spirituality is entirely fake until you make it real


					

User ID: 1884

I seem to recall Thomas Kuhn claimed evolution was not science but "a metaphysical research program", but I can't find the quote or his thoughts on evolution for that matter. Does anyone what I'm talking about, and if so, point me to what Kuhn thought about evolution?

Does it have to be actual far-right? To the woke, non-woke is far-right, and there's ample firepower and facts there.

But that's the thing, it isn't capable of accomplishing all sorts of goals as seen in this thread, because it lacks understanding. It will need that understanding to ever get to a point where it becomes an X-risk.

No, I don't think so, there are likely way too many edge cases that all require genuine understanding to solve.

Was that essay on metaculus written by you, and do you have a blog?

Cool username BTW, have you tried lucid dreaming with cholinergics?

Thanks, and nope, never heard of that.

Btw, in that article, the source listed for the claim of peptides being miracle cancer drugs was written by an undergrad. Do you have a better source? I found that particular bit very interesting.

Why would academia cancel the researchers? Is believing in X-risk from AI cancellable?

"we want to make vague and incoherent demands so that we have an excuse to exercise power over you".

That's what alignment looks like, no? I don't think AI researchers or AI itself should have power over AI.

The truth cannot be racist

I think he needs to argue why more explicitly. There's no particular reason the truth can't have negative repercussions, such as lowering the status of black people, which I think most would agree would be racist.

Which is not an argument for censorship in my view, whatever can be destroyed by the truth should be, and so on. But it's a tricky bullet to bite, in this environment where preserving the clout of certain groups is oh-so-important.

No, I think most people will consider the idea that blacks have a lower IQ than whites to be racist, even though they probably couldn't explain exactly why they think that.

Good comment, but then, this makes it sound like he should have said "The truth cannot be racist*", with the asterisk expanding out into the kind of impossibly nuanced argument that would allow one to claim "yes, they are generally dumber than you, but you should still respect them!".

I mean, can one respect someone while simultaneously claiming they're duller? Seems like it would take some real contortions, common-sensically, once you feel someone is not at least your equal, you don't respect them. Sure, you can still feel compassion for them, but it sounds very disempowering to say "whites should be compassionate towards blacks". Arguably, that's the attitude wokes take, but I think that's the reason they often say things that sound awfully racist.

I think some truths are value neutral, but not all of them, and this particular one has nasty implications under common sense reasoning. Yes, you can't derive an ought from an is, but that's only true at max rigor, which isn't how most people operate most of the time. With good reason: with enough rigor, the world dissolves into a fine mist.

If this is the case, why did Scott come up with that "at least two of true, kind and necessary" posting rule? It only makes sense if some truths are unkind, which is one way a truth can have moral valence.

As far as I'm concerned, treating other people politely, refraining from insulting them, and such is perfectly adequate

The problem is, people are asking for more than that. But yes, it is true respect is a spectrum and not a binary. It would be interesting if the case of the janitor could generalize to race relations, but it doesn't seem like it can because of the commitment to equality. It still seems impossible to attempt to use an analogy like that to handle a genetic explanation for the black IQ gap.

One can respect people who are not one's equals yes, but I think this is conditional on one not thinking very often, or at all, of the ways in which one is superior, particularly if intellect is the disparity. Which suggests a way forward here, since it doesn't seem like individualism will be making a comeback: the truth about black IQ can't be in the water supply. It probably can only be safely handled in the ivory tower, though even there there's a vigorous effort to squelch it. But no, it would probably be healthier to come up with a way to process it.

Do these memes and so on really serve a deeper purpose than communicating the vibe 'TECHNOCRACY BAD'? Paul Kingsnorth for example, seems to see Schwab for what he is, though I grant Mr. Kingsnorth is hardly a central example of a rightist:

A smooth, clean, ordered world, free of dangerous melons on little market stalls, free of small businesses and anarchic commercial arrangements and awkward human interactions of any sort - a world run by efficient, clean, digitised corporations offering ‘e-solutions’ for any activity that might threaten our safety and wellbeing: this has been on offer for years now, but the pandemic - as Schwab openly acknowledges - has been a blessing for those behind it. We are prepared to accept things now which would have been inconceivable three years ago. What will be conceived next year? And who will listen to the ragtag mob of conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, fascists and nutters who want us to say no to it?

This is the sort of thing that fuels the genuinely weird ‘conspiracy theories’ around Schwab and his agenda. But it’s not necessary to believe that the virus was deliberately released or doesn’t exist, to simply observe the wider picture. For decades now, nation states and their political leaders have been progressively disempowered by globalisation, and power has been concentrated in the hands of those who create and control the world’s technological infrastructure. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Klaus Schwab, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Ray Kurzweil and the like have been moulding our reality for decades, and the limbic capitalism they pioneered has been hyper-charged by covid - as has awareness of it, and a growing counter-reaction.

We are living through a time in which the conflict between technocracy and democracy has spilled out into the open: the battle is being fought daily now on street and screen. Schwab has caught the spotlight because he is publicly attempting to put a storytelling framework around this conflict. Only last month, at a conference in (where else?) Dubai, he made this ambition explicit by rebranding his Great Reset as the ‘Great Narrative’. The world needed a new global story to unite it, he said. He and the WEF would help to ‘imagine the future, design the future, and then execute the future.’

Well, I used to shill my substack with no issue back on /r/themotte. I went by AntiDyatlov, and previously mooseburger42 over there. We have spoken before, though sadly mostly when I was in a psychotic or semi-psychotic state.

As to speak plainly, I don't know, people understood me in /r/sorceryofthespectacle and /r/RationalPsychonaut. But yeah, maybe The Motte is not really in the target demo for this, it's just that I always viewed the main page of this place as a free for all.

Though I think there is definitely something to be said about rationalists, about how there is no fire to their equations. But that is not this article, even if it is related.

When I do come up with a version of this article but for rationalists, think you will let it through?

So how does one fix this mass of suffering?

Kanye West famously said "I like Hitler". He also said more:

“I see good things about Hitler also. I love everyone. Jewish people are not going to tell me you can love us, and you can love what we’re doing to you with the contracts, and you can love what we’re pushing with the pornography. But this guy that invented highways, invented the very microphone that I use as a musician, you can’t say out loud that this person ever did anything good, and I’m done with that.”

This is, of course, insane. But there is a method to the madness, a signal in the noise. It is this: the implications of never forgiving Hitler are nasty.


Hitler did evil of a particularly noxious sort. It's not just that he aroused the passions of the hearts of millions to serve his purposes, it's also how he bent science and reason into doing so much harm. It's like if someone got it into their head to fully manifest the meaning of the word infernal, an ultimate perversion of ordinarily good things.

We do, however, have to let him go. Because to not do so would be to grant validity to the idea of anger, resentment, outrage, even hatred, because Hitler would always remain a valid target for these sentiments. And to believe these sentiments are good and beautiful is just poison.


We don't, of course, consciously think that of these sorts of emotions. But unconsciously, we do think outrage can be good and proper, else we would just have collectively tut-tutted or smirked at Kanye. Few would attempt to mount a defense of hatred and outrage, so what is the point of allowing them to exist in your soul? Can you really look inside you and call your outrage beautiful, regardless of its cause? What is the point of carrying around ugly things in your head?


To forgive Hitler is not a fundamentally novel idea, but it hasn't sank into the consensus yet. Even so, Eva Kor, an Auschwitz survivor, did it. And in a sense, so did World War II veteran Kurt Vonnegut in The Sirens of Titan: a segment of the novel features Martians who are hypnotized into invading Earth. Their invasion is pathetic and swiftly crushed, so pathetic that the Earthlings are ashamed of what they did and the memory of the Martians becomes part of a new religion. That is a way forward for forgiving Hitler and the Nazis: not to see them as evil, but as sick and deluded. Because the sick are a target of pity, not of outrage.


Ah, but I say these words, and even as I say this, I sense a smirk in me at what I myself am saying. It is just a smirk: I cannot question it, I cannot reason with it, I can only amplify it and see what it has to say. And here it is:

Oh silly, don't you see? We must have hatred, we must have outrage, or else, where would we be?

And once said, it dissolves. Everything arises and passes away if you will let it. Did you smirk too at what I have said? What did your smirk have to say?

And can you tell me that it was a good thing?

Substack

I heard keto can screw up your kidneys or have other side effects. You ever heard of that?

Do you have principles? I mean, you are letting lust get in the way of love here, and if your principles cannot override your emotions, well, you don't really have principles then!

I mean, it's not like you can affirm this lust as some kind of important value. It's just a strong emotion. It can't even be that strong: 2 or 3 new partners a year? How long were the dry spells then? Were they so unbearable? This time, it's not like you won't be having sex, so it's not like you're signing up for one long dry spell either.

Well yeah, Israel is pretty much Fitzcarraldo. It should never have existed.

“It’s time to be cruel,” and Knesset member Ariel Kallner calling for a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48,” a reference to the massacre and expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians upon Israel’s founding.

So I looked up more on this Nakba:

Before, during and after the 1947–1949 war, hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were depopulated and destroyed. Geographic names throughout the country were erased and replaced with Hebrew names, sometimes derivatives of the historical Palestinian nomenclature, and sometimes new inventions. Numerous non-Jewish historical sites were destroyed, not just during the wars, but in a subsequent process over a number of decades. For example, over 80% of Palestinian village mosques have been destroyed, and artefacts have been removed from museums and archives.

You shouldn't be able to get away with this sort of thing right in the middle of the 20th century. After that, it's no wonder if there are Palestinians who will never accept Israel, and I also think Israel doesn't really have a leg to stand on to negotiate, as it's not really a legitimate state, just a top-down imposition.

Debating this elsewhere, some reactions were "Oh, but the Arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan", but why should they, why does the UN have the right to just impose that on them? Actually, the UN involvement just makes Israel seem like another High Modernist fuck up, another of the numerous errors of the first half of the 20th century.

Addressing something Ike Saul said below:

I don’t view Israelis and Brits as colonizers any more than the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Romans or the Mongols or the Egyptians or the Ottomans who all battled over the same strip of land from as early as 800 years before Jesus’s time until now. The Jews who founded Israel just happened to have won the last big battle for it.

No, I am not moved by appeals to ancient history. That cycle has to end at some point, and the end of WW II seems like a good stopping point for that sort of shenanigan.

Also, you can't have your high officials expressing themselves like the guy above and like this:

Gallant said that he had ordered “a complete siege of the Gaza Strip,” which is home to 2.2 million Palestinians, nearly half of them children. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” he said. “We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.”

Netanyahu:

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.

You can't talk like this and then pretend you're the civilized party here! Though of course, looking at the so-called developed nations, especially America, maybe they don't talk like this, but they sure behave like it, so maybe there actually are no or few civilizations around.

But that doesn't make me think Israel is legitimate, it just makes me think the developed world is fake too.

Sam Kriss had a great article on Israel from some time ago:

It was almost inconceivable that this wasteland had been made by Jews, that my people and my religion could have created something so ungodly. I did not recognise myself in this mirror. Jews—like Mel Brooks, like Franz Kafka, like Albert Einstein, like Bruno Schulz, like Woody Allen, like the Coen brothers, like Walter Benjamin, like me. People with sexual hangups and a good sense of humour. Bookish men with overbearing mothers. Latkes and lokshen pudding. Candles on a Friday night. Jews, the guilty conscience of Europe, the bearers of messianic hope through every generation—reduced to this.

American support for an ethno-nationalist state can't last. All it takes is a sufficiently left-wing administration coming around to undo this by simply withdrawing support, which could easily happen in the next few decades.

Apologies if this is too much heat, but looking at the circumstances of Israel's founding, Israel genuinely just seems to me to be an injustice. Maybe Israel could have happened legitimately if they hadn't been in such a hurry, and maybe the hurry could have been excused because of the Holocaust, but not to the point that you pull a Nakba.

EDIT: And of course, Hamas' attacks were barbarous, but that doesn't really conjure up legitimacy for the state of Israel. Why should they?

Are you sure about that? They may be the most pragmatic solution after all. Why do you think they're doing it if they're not necessary?

They should have handled the situation differently back then, do anything other than the Nakba, but the way they acted shows they don't respect anything but their own power. Reading up more about the history, I'm just against Zionism as it was practiced, the people actually living there weren't liking it, and I really dislike that a displaced people could just decide to pass the buck on and displace other people, particularly when the ones doing the displacing are supposed to be civilized.

Either pack up and leave, or adopt a semi-pacifist policy towards Gaza: beef up the defenses around it, but there is to be no retaliation.