Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

lorry

Member
  • Content count

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

lorry last won the day on October 26

lorry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About lorry

  1. Damping down emotions. How?

    No thanks, barns. I just wondered if it clicked with anyone else because then maybe someone links to to something else, maybe not. Take it easy. G.
  2. Damping down emotions. How?

    Well, I don't think you turn off your feelings as such, but they can absolutely be dampened. Just take a look at someone who is nihilistic. Or rather, listen to a call in show when someone is discussing an issue of meaningless or lack of purpose and ask "Does this person seem to me to be emotionally muted?". Conversely, have you ever witnessed someone in pursuit of well defined goals, who is also emotionally blunt?
  3. Damping down emotions. How?

    Hey, barn. 0. Well, sort of. Because what I chose is a function of both available choice, and my values. If my values are corrupted, say I have been indoctrinated with altruism, I would chose something which would be, objectively, not in my interest. But I would (incorrectly) think that it is. Ethically, I make no distinction between force, and lies. They are both characterized by someone benefiting by me being worse off, and acting to make it so. That is the essential characteristic. 1+. Not looking for an answer, as such. I am trying to figure out the chain of causality (but I think the correct identification will make a difference to what I choose to do in life). Thank you for the response, helped a lot.
  4. Damping down emotions. How?

    No doubt, and that you for the book reference. I don't have this issue myself, though I did (high ACE). I was wondering more specifically how it is done. How do you turn off feelings and how do you turn them back on? Or, if you will, how is it that my feelings were damped down, how did I turn them back up (all the way up to 11), and what is generally turn about it? So in my context, my feelings were damped down by casting down that which I valued (what I sought to gain and keep). You might call this the development of Me+. (In my case, Me+ was sports) They were turned back up by the rediscovery of my values (not sports to say the least). So, I might generalize that emotions follow values. Then, in the context or the on goings in society, the issue of societal apathy in the face of demographic collapse is a function of the values held by society. So I think to work on the societal situation, one needs to work on the values of society (people). And do you do that with arguments, or do you do that with art?
  5. Damping down emotions. How?

    See, I don't think you can alter an emotion according to choice. I think they are outside of your control. If I feel cold, because it is very cold outside, I can't choose to not feel cold. If you value something, and it is taken or destroyed, you can't choose to not to feel lose. Well, unless you re-evaluated the thing that is lost. Say.... I lost something I really care about. I experience an emotion. I re-evaluate the thing I lost such that I don't care about it. I do not experience the same emotion. But I haven't chosen to feel differently, not directly, I have re-framed the context of the lose. I now have different value hierarchy and feel what I feel in accordance with this new hierarchy. I was thinking more about how it is done. I think I should define values, it might make more sense. By values I mean: that which one seeks to gain or keep. I want to keep living, thus my life is a value (to me). So the emotional blunting of people follows from destroying what it is that they value, destroying ones values as such (or replacing them). So I guess the relationship that would exist in ones life is that emotional blunting goes with the negation of values, and the (re)discovery of values goes with emotional (i don't know the right word, i want to say something like) flourishing? Two sides of the same coin?
  6. Nonsensical.... for you (do the voice). Perhaps read my third post? Meh, to precise time stamps. If you have watched the source material from post 2 and didn't catch it, it is probably because you don't have a correct concept of information. If you don't have a correct concept of information you don't need time stamp sources, you need a book or kahn academy. If you are not interested in the concept of information, like, if your first response wasn't "What do I think the definition of information is, and is it true", then we can have a chat about whatever your first response was, if you like.
  7. Do you want to take my bants on the chin and read my second post? Or is that your final answer?
  8. Say your punished for expressing emotions. So you adapt by damping down your emotions. How do you do this? Emotions are outside of our immediate volitional control. They are experienced as primary, as arising from nowhere, eh? But they arise as a function of environment information filtered through our values. You see a wolf (or an abuser), you experience fear as a function of the information: this thing is a danger. A danger to what? To my life (that which I value). So you dampen down your emotions..... by working on your values? So as to not experience emotions, say because you are punished for it, as the emotional response is outside of your immediate volition, you work on your values? Negate or invert them? Like, if you are punished for exhibiting fear when seeing an abuser, you can't stop the fear (outside of volition), but you can corrupt, invert, and destroy your values (that through which your environmental information is filtered to produce emotion). Ex: I see an abuser, who is a danger to my life, so I experience fear (and other appropiate emotions) because I value my life. So if I work on my values, so that I do not value my life, then when I see an abuser, irregardless of the fact that the abuser is still a danger to my life, I will not experience fear because I no longer value my life. Does that make sense to anyone else? I think that is why therapy can, supposedly, be replaced with a supreme moral effort (Jung). Or that therapy mainly involves mainly involves the identification of an objective ethic (Peterson). If this has all been said before, which it probably has, drop me the podcast number pls.
  9. Read my second post. p.s. MUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRDDDDD! (that is my impression of you).
  10. @barn No worries. Give me a shout if there is anything I can do to help you grok information. JP has a great track record, and JP doing objectively good things. And, by virtue of my previous consumption of content, this must be true in my context too. None of this is lost on me. I wouldn't assume that my characterization is necessarily harmful to me though. I think my characterization is a function of something (I think) I have identified. Predicated upon the truth of my identification I think my characterization is a way on burning this into my values. Then, with this new information burned into my values, I should (unconsciously) react differently to JP. That is a bit floatey. Basically, I think I have identified something, which, if true, would entail that I should treat everything JP says with a lot more caution than I previously did. So as to effect this caution, I characterize JP in a certain light (as something somewhat more harmful, thus more dangerous), recasting him in my hierarchy of values. As my emotions and motivations are outside of my immediate volitional control (being that I think my emotions are an automated response to my environment, filtered through my values), by characterizing JP as such I change my values, and thereby change my emotional and motivation state in response to JP.
  11. Understanding Germans

    Sorry my dude, I was not concentrating when I read OP. My mistake.
  12. Both lecture series, appearance 1 on FDR (not 2 about DaMore), Sam Harris 1 and 2, Joe Rogan + Rogan and Weinstein, some interviews with some guys (I don't recall anything interesting about them). Enough, I think. I didn't have a negative emotional response to JP until I read up on epistemology, now I have pretty strong emotional responses. O yeah, interview with Camilia Pagiea. Using information flow across boundary to entail flow of people? Latest video with J. Haidt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA&t=2128s Somewhere between 20:00 and 35:00. I don't recall when exactly. Introduces the literal concept of maximum information without even understanding he just used the concept of maximum information? Appearance with Bret Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast. I don't recall where in the timeline. But the definition occurs wherein they discuss the correct interpretation of a story as, and I paraphrase, "the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI The definition of 1 bit of information? You can just wiki this, or YouTube information theory. Information is the reduction of uncertainty. 1 bit of information is the amount required to correctly choose between two equally likely outcomes. How does that relate to above? The correct interpretation of stories, and thus the solution to the post modern "crisis of infinite interpretation" being "the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time" is, literally, the interpretation that maximizes information. So, JP doesn't know what information is, whilst using the concept of information to rationalize some boomer-tier horse shit about information flow across boundary entailing people flowing across borders. Silo-ed (intellectual silo) boomer (the era to which the horse shit belongs, I mean FFS! we need a flow of people across boarders for information flow...... BEING SAID ON THE INTERNET!) intellectualism (in the pejorative sense). I really mean a post-hoc rationalization (see below) of boomer liberalism. This isn't to say he isn't fantastic in other contexts or that his content isn't of tremendous value in other contexts. But, I'm an exceptionally disagreeable person (so, for me, into the underworld he goes).
  13. Jordan Peterson has no idea what information is, but he talks about information all the time. "The flow of information across boundaries" justifies "The flow of people across boarders". Boomer-tier silo-ed intellectualism. >Talk about information >Never define information >Never discuss information theory Dropped.
  14. Career choices

    My dude, please consider a call to Stefan and have a convo. Again. I am a dude on the internet projecting myself. I don't know what you should do, because I don't know you, but there is some information in your posts and I have something of an idea about myself. You have a business. This is awesome, well played. But, how is it that you are currently making business decisions? Are you gathering information and analyzing it so as to predict the most likely outcome of your decisions? Or are you somewhat flying by the seat of your pants, throwing stuff out there, and seeing what sticks? Have you actually measured your business and empirically proven that it is not viable (so as to support a family)? And what exactly does viable mean in your context? $50k? $100k? If not, how do you know that you can't be a "successful" music teacher or run a music teaching business? Like, is your music teaching optimized such that you are actually maximizing your potential as a self employed teacher? Are you targeting higher paying customers? Do you have different prices? What does your churn rate look like? What do your customers look like? Where do they live? Is there a difference in churn between customers based on where they live? Dude, there are so many questions. I don't want to snow you in, but have you answered them, or are you running on intuition? And it is OK if you are running on intuition and know you are running on intuition, but you have to know, eh? A few to consider: ------------ Am I running on intuition or am I measuring things empirically? In my context, what is the definition of success (how much money do I need)? If I am running on intuition, what is required to measure things empirically? If I am running on intuition, and I don't have the skill to measure things empirically, what is required to gain the skill to measure things empirically? ------------ Given the skills to measure things empirically..... What is the current state of my business and am I maximizing the profitability of my business as it exists currently? If I am not maximizing the profitability of my business, what choices can I make differently and what is required to inform those choices? If I made those choices, what difference would it make relative to attaining my goal? ------------ Full blown projection time? Call in and chat to Stef if you can. Define what you mean by success. (Super projection starts here) Learn business analysis. You have a business, it behooves you to be able to make informed business decisions. Incidentally, this is a very, very, very valuable skill. Every single question you are asking, is a business analysis question. Every. Single. One. Once you know business analysis. Optimize the shit out of your business (and record every thing you do as a project, write it up in log books and reports and publish that online somewhere, a blog or something). Once you have optimized, measure your business and prove it can't achieve your goals. If you can't, then consider the youtubes and the ebooks and what not, but again, measure it, research it, prove it. (I just looked, there are alot of teaching music youtube channels, not to say you can't do it better, but fucking stiff competition). After all that, then look to using your music skills and your analysis skills. Can you provide analysis to other self employed creative types? (you speak their language after all, right?) Do you want to build on your analysis skills in a musical context (can you analysis a song and predict it's chances for success? or who will buy it? or what emotions it will evoke?) You could (possibly) dominate these kinds of problems because you have so much musical experience to draw on that you will intuit a lot. Again. I do not know you. So I am projecting myself onto what you wrote.
  15. Understanding Germans

    Has anyone considered that, given the never ending bombardment of guilt upon Germans, it would be rational this think of all Germans as having a minimum ACE of 2 or 3? And then you look at Germany and think OK, everyone in this country has a minimum ACE of 2 or 3 from never ending abuse about "the holocaust" and that is what 64 million abuse victims look like. Bottom point in OP, homeschooling is illegal. Got to make sure you torture these kids into understanding how fucking evil they are because "6 million? 11 million? 500,000? 182,000? 6 million Jews were killed by electric floors? roller-coasters that threw them into ovens? masturbation machines? giant electric chairs which fried 10,000 Jews at a time? poison gas" and if they question the reason why they are evil? Jail. Germany is a nation of abuse victims and they act like a nation of abuse victims.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.