Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@spiralsun1 says : Surreal to hear this interview when I used to write to Noam Chomsky as a kid about language and I met Jordan Peterson in 2000 at a conference we were both presenting at and we hung out and talked animatedly (hit it off) for a couple hours and I wrote one of 5 reviews, and the first serious review, of his first book “Maps of Meaning” back then—and there were only a few reviews for a long time. 😂❤ Later I came out transgender… right before he had the problems with the legal specification for pronouns law and all of that controversy. I actually agreed with his stance on that even though I’m transgender because I believe in free speech on principle regardless if I benefit or not.❤ When I was hanging out with what people would call “neo-Nazis”, while deep-diving into the esoterica of those views, I told them in a leadership meeting directly something like that I would work against white people if I found out they were doing something wrong or destructive 😂… because they had an annoying attitude about “our team” which had nothing to do with why I was there. I would work against myself if it was important 😂 and that’s part of why I was there-to see what was in me. And I did find out. And the main reason I was there was to see what it was like to be that in their social context and to argue for their ideas better than they did. Success on all fronts. 😊❤ But the #1 reason was truth. Sounds cliche or something you say but to me it’s #1 above all things. I wrote an entire comprehensive morality based on 1 thing: put the truth motive before EVERY other motive.❤ I don’t think that persistent patterns shaped our ethics, I think we formed imperfect approximations of the principles of truth behind ethics. And then we rationally embroider these elements into our social structures. Then they feed-back and solidify. That’s how evolution makes everything, basically. But humans are potentially different—we can use our higher intellect to get at what evolution has been trying to approximate (it doesn’t “try” really—it’s just the materialization of what works, at a more local level because short-term strategies trump long term and so people all need to be on the same page to overcome the short-term effectively). So this is what philosophy and then natural philosophy and science are about. Obviously in this meta-view, science and religion are the same, towards the same higher goal of OBJECTIVE TRUTH over individual illusion and fear, or desires. By taking god out of the picture in science, we are doing collectively what someone meditating does. Clearing out the contingencies of short-term concepts and worries and desires to allow room for the true higher self. To spend time with primordial unity. But the taking of god out of the picture in Buddhism and science is a methodology that keeps us from dead-end errors, or using old habits and ideas that served useful functions when we didn’t have large brains from usurping our progress and detailing us onto some atavistic cherished back alley where we beat the truth down according to our desires, stealing baubles from it to sustain a habit we were obviously meant to transcend since we have a large brain 😂 But that doesn’t mean that there is not something behind the idea of “god”. And people saying there’s no god is a perfect example of why god needed to be removed. The local ubiquity of current social order descending on brains that are less capable of operating beyond these things. So the problem was never religion “out there”, it’s whether the human in question could either see or operate by what is behind these things. I think my unique ability is to see through and behind. To see the efficacy and symbolic valences of science and meditation in an evolutionary context, for example. So I write books about how “God”, using the same word as in the past, is actually something we can understand in the universe. A real aspect of any coherent universe. Something with real creative and survival valences. Something we can and have gotten wrong in the past, and caused so much mayhem precisely because it has ultimately extreme survival and creative/adaptive valences. It reaches into us deeply by means installed in us imperfectly at every level of the process—such as the symbolic value of things in us. I wrote a book elucidating the symbolic structure of the eye, 👁️ a structure symbolizing sun, Earth, black hole—because these are also symbolic of fundamental principles that have been behind human evolution. Donald Hoffman gets a lot wrong because of hubris in his simulations of evolutionary contingencies. He goes off the rails by looking at the evolutionarily-limited spectrum of human perceptions and then making an “automated straw-man” argument in his simulations that leave a lot out because of EXACTLY the patterns at play that I have been talking about in this comment. Running with one aspect of a larger truth into a dead-end because of lack of contextual information of the larger patterns behind the local approximations. I tried to talk to him in 2019/2020 and we were trying to make plans to meet, before his book came out. I actually moved to California partly because he was out here 😂❤ (long story) among other things. But then the Coronavirus hit and his book came out and we couldn’t meet anywhere and he was overwhelmed because of the sensation around that… and then it wouldn’t have been as innocuous to point out the flaws in the simulation—which was already so delicate before the fame solidified his error into a social phenomenon. 😐 Humans are beholden to social niche-constructing even when they don’t know what they’re doing. This is another reason why I say that putting the truth-motive before everything else and being willing to sacrifice for it is so important.❤ So the reason why you probably have not heard of me, is because I put truth above everything else. And that is a paradox in the modern world… one that is probably ultimately “The Great Filter” in the Fermi-paradox sense. Where we don’t understand the danger of lower ability for truth and the unconscious “niche-constructing” entailed by that which we see in the feed-back bubble of the Dunning-Krueger effect, which obviously (if you give it any thought) arises by having motives other than truth precisely because you can’t see “what you don’t know” like any other organism of evolutionary history that ever descended into a niche. So this invisible barrier exists between what I see and the status quo—where I give people who are motivated by things other than truth “bad vibes” 😂❤ and their brains will instantly come up with something as a barrier, and I have noticed also that they never cite me directly, while using my ideas in their lectures even 20 years later… like Jordan Peterson does. Lots of people have done this for a long time. And I have already talked about the reasons. They just think everyone does that and nobody knows me anyway so it’s ok. But it is most definitely not OK. It’s the same patterns that were the reasons behind religion and science in the first place. To give truth, to give the highest patterns of the universe life amongst us. To let go of a dark past of local necessity. Jordan likes to point out the darkness inside people, and that we have a shadow. But some people have shadows that aren’t bad. He should try to talk about that more—why someone like me initially had to hide who I am because of these kinds of contingencies at work in the world, and why when I tried to follow the academic program I eventually had to leave. One of the fundamental evils in the world is to become so enamored of the semblance of truth (idols) that we forget and ignore the real thing. But it is simple to reverse that. To turn the building blocks into a platform to see farther rather than an extinction cycle. It’s not something you can hide from or get away with. There is no place to hide from the unity behind things. Your eye is essentially the “brand name” of your maker built into you. Do you think it doesn’t see you? I’m not the “gadfly Socrates” you can shoo away. And right then, this was not the flesh-contingent being I inhabit speaking, to be clear. The universe speaks and has a voice in the silence between things, in the beating of your heart. I learned that language in order to let it speak. I come to make sure that you are aware, that there is no place where you can hide from yourself in your mind, clinging to your money or social structures, as substitutes for the sacrifice truth requires. I’m tired as a being here now, having fought all these people who seem to hold truth, but behind it lies a rottenness that blocks full truth out—lack of vision, fear, dislike of something that might burst their bubble. The longer you block out what made you, the stronger the death you bring. I am pro-life. Every organism that chose a niche and thought it was “correct” to do so will be sacrificed in time. It doesn’t mean that they are not loved or important. They are our memories. I love them, and simultaneously they are finite and I cry my tears into an ocean for them. I’m talking about you. The choices we make in life, the willingness to sacrifice above all, the primacy of larger objective truth, these are the true litmus of character. Who has these things? Where can we see them clearly? Can eternal life morally and ethically be given to beings who do not see or care? Even in the theories of science this pattern plays over and over again—lesser theories die, and more universal ones survive. The pattern of selection by truth is subtle, but like gravity is ubiquitous and inexorable.>> <<@wizamakouf says : so interesting between two knowledgeable men>> <<@vestibulate says : "Essentially, you're Hitler." That's a complete distortion of what Chomsky said in dismissing Peterson as a thinker.>> <<@jessemontano762 says : Plot twist: we don't exist>> <<@georgeh8937 says : curt's name popped up on youtube recently in relation to chris langan the man with an IQ of 200. if you know the IQ curve you know that someone with 15 points more than you is noticeably smarter. so someone with IQ 200 is six levels above an ordinary person with IQ 100.>> <<@sergiocastilho2700 says : Both were very incredible in the discussion. Great themes, great insights and true good intentions. However I need to pose a question, is “when the left goes too far?” The right question? I hardly think so, because the question itself has a “nested presumption” to quote Jordan, which is that tilting to the left is better than to the right and only “too far” is bad. This is tendencious in an itself and reveals how bad and how the indoctrination even of our best minds is. The should be “why should we assume left is better?” And given the history of all left governments, the second question should be “why we were indoctrinated to believe liberalism (not be confused with anarchism but or debauchery) is a left maker?” if you think about, it makes no sense. It was thought and defended by the UK anti-left thinkers from late 1800 and on exactly as an opposition to left thinking. Maybe we should aim at balance of liberalism and conservatism, however never confusing liberalism with Marxism of any sort, in spite of the fact that such confusion unfortunately is the defaulted teaching of the day. It is worth reminding that left and right are political (estate organization) concepts who oppose each other and the left seeks and depends on central and arbitrary planning, tilting towards authoritarian (even smaller and stand alone left leaning measures depend on it, not say such measures aren’t needed to some extent); while the right seeks and depend on individual autonomy and agency and subsidiary, de-centralized decision making (liberalism). It n the other hand, conservatism is a cultural scale rather than a political one and is opposed by libertarianism. In the same manner, conservatism privileges caution because it beleives the proper moral battlefield is the individual one and that each freedom is accompanied by a responsibility or duty (bottom up decision making); while libertarianism believes there is real moral and all should be free, what results in a paradox as full freedom of the one can only be achieved by restricting all freedom of everyone else, reason why it tilts towards tribalism and authoritarianism. When the cultural and the political landscape are analyzed separately, it is easier to understand that the left aligns with libertarianism rather than liberalism (as both tend to centralizing control and top down imposition) and mixing both dimensions is rather a rhetorical move from the left to disguise its authoritarian nature.>> <<@sergiocastilho2700 says : Both were very incredible in the discussion. Great themes, great insights and true good intentions. However I need to pose a question, is “when the left goes too far?” The right question? I hardly think so, because the question itself has a “nested presumption” to quote Jordan, which is that tilting to the left is better than to the right and only “too far” is bad. This is tendencious in an itself and reveals how bad and how the indoctrination even of our best minds is. The should be “why should we assume left is better?” And given the history of all left governments, the second question should be “why we were indoctrinated to believe liberalism (not be confused with anarchism but or debauchery) is a left maker?” if you think about, it makes no sense. It was thought and defended by the UK anti-left thinkers from late 1800 and on exactly as an opposition to left thinking. Maybe we should aim at balance of liberalism and conservatism, however never confusing liberalism with Marxism of any sort, in spite of the fact that such confusion unfortunately is the defaulted teaching of the day.>> <<@amoh5 says : As a Christian, I think we have 2 minds, the physical mind and the emotional/spiritual mind. The physical mind for physical matter and the emotional/spiritual mind for morality 😊>> <<@tamaralombard2916 says : The soul is the invisible consciousness that holds our instinct for meaning>> <<@tamaralombard2916 says : The soul is the invisible consciousness that has our instinct for meaning.>> <<@attackus333 says : @JordanPeterson If you decide, as I did at 12, to tell the truth always (yes I fail 100% it was obviously not achievable within hours of my decision). You have to revisit why and how to be truthful many times in my nearly 50 yrs since. There is a FOMO that I get and also see in those who have chosen the path of deceit. It becomes an increasingly easier decision though to stay the course as time passes as truth has much better outcomes but it is never easy as the enemy is well equipped to up his arguments.>> <<@attackus333 says : They have shaped the axioms of our ethics however, love hate sadness are all preemergent properties. Hoffman agrees that we are wearing low level resolution 3D glasses on.>> <<@attackus333 says : The initial framework is "The Constitution" for example. We can make another societal agreement but this is what needs to be agreed upon in order for talks to occur.>> <<@attackus333 says : Arrogance is always why people break the societal norms. It may be justified or not.>> <<@mohammadsharififard1686 says : Noam didn't call you Hitler at all!! He approximated his opinion of you to Nathan Robinson's opinion of you !!>> <<@special-t-419onurbandictio9 says : Here's one for you is your brain sharper then your soul and if so why is that? Why do you need so much of what you don't use why is are brains so big?>> <<@waggawaggaful says : I like that you often and sometimes even primarily view things through the lens of biology and biological evolution. God seems to be that which still persists at the end the universe after everything has else fallen away. Evolution is a process of refinement where the things that work are allowed to persist and the things that don't work have to go away. If evolution continues its course until the end of time or the end of the universe, all that's left in the end is whatever survives all those evolutionary processes. Teilhard de Chardin believed that an omega point exists at the end of time (and possibly also the beginning, with no distinction between the end or the beginning) and that all of the universe is engaged in a process of moving towards that final singularity. I was in the shower last night thinking about Argentina's new president and whether he is really as smart as he thinks he is and will be able to solve all of Argentina's economic problems. I started laughing when I realized that he's certainly not God because I'd have to wait a very long time (until the end of the universe) to finally find this level of perfection in a man. That was very funny to me after having eaten about half a THC gummy.>> <<@eikefreidank4567 says : 01:34:30>> <<@ikannunaplays says : [22:57] Lies for the greater good. This here would ruin the entire justice system in the USA>> <<@rickythompson2820 says : What is the comment at 24:00? I can't make out the name of the concept.>> <<@dominiqueubersfeld2282 says : All wrong dude! The answer to the question of Life, the Universe and Everything is 42.>> <<@ingabaronaitehammoud6495 says : I don’t agree about Jesus dying for our sins- in my opinion it’s a very wrong interpretation. Jesus was a gift to humanity to elevate its consciousness and make a better life, because of humans didn’t accept the truth and mistreated God’s messenger, he was taken away as a punishment for people to work on their sins, to repent and elevate to his level on their own.>> <<@sort_to_see_hidden_comments says : Capitalism is evil, I'm not one of your sheeple to be convinced by your smugness, and I'm not leftist. it is easy to moneybag like Jordan Peterson to oppose welfare. would he say the same if he was mentally, or physically disabled? would he say the same if he was forced to live in the streets when he was young? thank you.>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : Humans are a replica of Ants.>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : the causal process is insignificant!>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : The values of education based on values is based on profit in todays world.>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : Education is not respected. Period!>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : The Right sides with England.>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : Republican and Democrat ideology, between the two is truly a myth. The system is divisive methodology from 18th century USA!>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : We have too many mass murders in the USA. They are escalating in number.>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : Capitalism is just another transition from previous systems.>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : " We do not know" is a weak answer.>> <<@brigittemcdonough2385 says : When does the left go too far? I think of the French Revolution. I think of the American revolution. I think of the Russian revolution. I think of the Chinese revolution. I think of Germany's 2nd WW revolution.>> <<@andypresby6537 says : This whole discussion really drives me (as I think it did Heisenberg) back to Aristotle...>> <<@user-cg3tx8zv1h says : Into the hour, I think I am entitled to say that these gentlemen were confused about their roles in this conbersation... It surprises me that JBP has never heard of D Hoffman...>> <<@thehighwayman78 says : Great conversation!>> <<@tatarynowiczst1981 says : Green>> <<@jessemontano762 says : When curt said Chomsky says that Jordan is Hitler, I felt bad for Jordan.. I could see that it hurt. So shitty.>> <<@RealChrisLangan says : Well, how about that! I've just learned that "Logos is a very complex concept" and that Jordan is "driven by a central spirit to imitate...Sam Harris" due to Sam's enormous "charisma"! Come on now, Jordan. The Daily Wire promotes you as the leading public intellectual of the modern world. How about living up to the hype already? Just drop me a line, and I'l be happy to explain what that entails. Or simply recommend my writings the next time you wax profound, and your estimated IQ will skyrocket on that alone!>> <<@נעםהראל-ג5ר says : 00:33:18 - "I think I went sideways" - he means in indesicion like in trading.>> <<@markusluther1195 says : Amazing conversation!>> <<@brentheltonj6308 says : Maybe contact Douglas wilson from canon press, Jeff Durbin from apologia or dr James white from apologia Douglas debated Christopher Hitchens>> <<@jlmer616 says : Great interview of JP by Curt.>> <<@wehsee912 says : 🌚☄️❤️💫>> <<@1determinedlady says : Speaking of the far left and the far right, you find racism at both extremes. Rather than the continuum of right and left being on a straight line, as most of us think of it, it may be of benefit to think of the continuum being on a circle. It seems like going to extremes either way leads to the same place.>> <<@n-xsta says : Awesome Curt>> <<@luchiandacian8815 says : You are both from U of T.>> <<@OscarLimaMike says : Perhaps we all go to far when we imagine we are the sole arbiters of "the truth" ? Respectful dialectic is key. Along with a basis of freedom of speech.>> <<@jimduncakf4369 says : This is more about human perception than a scientific examination of provable realities that support a cosmos authored by a all powerful "First Cause, or YHWH.>>