Great conversation as usual, one thing that happens to stand out to me among many others is this attempt to know the ultimate naturalness of balance specifically through the sexes. On long time scales we don't see the immediate media and cultural sensationalism around how nature adjusts itself for its needs and this is reflected, for better or worse, in the dynamics of the sexes of humanity. So simple examples are women are not allowed to freely express, so what emerges is anger, violence , negativity and toxicity etc. The same is true on the male side yes but in different ways. So we know that and what we are trying to address is the environment of the dynamics themselves being off, not the particular of each dynamic showing up lopsided. They will each be misaligned as long as the synergy is not nurtured correctly and part of that incorrect nurturing is blaming or focusing specifically on one side of the teeter-totter instead of what's causing the fulcrums integrity to be compromised. When speaking of the male responsibility as he did here he mentioned CEOs, military etc but a easy way to look at it through a Game~a lens would be the women competing for those spaces against men, and how it would benefit no one for women to be in those spaces if the narrative around their necessity is still centered by Game~a. Sacred naturalism and some of the teleological ideas describe everything as always having the potential for proper balance, nothing is existentially missing, its about using resources efficiently. Another example I like to use is that there's always been more than enough to go around on earth, we just didn't see it or couldn't realize it into being. All the modern industrial and technological of our day is made from materials that where always here in earth, we didn't have to bring anything from outside planets. A realistic collective inner dialogue around natural resources would be great right now as AI, electric cars and other advanced tech bring the biggest , highest stake investments in natural resources of all time while countries like Iran are on the verge of large scale war which could compromise even our ability to strive for unrealistic utopian ideals.
One other thing around the healthy cultural view of men in a time between worlds is something I recently noticed in media, specifically the movie The last Dual. The movie deals with a very graphic rape scene that is obviously done intentionally and artistically to bring raw attention to the matter and its context thought history. It did an amazing job of showcasing the treatment of women as property, the inclinations of a man to feel superior, and the normalization of women as inferior. The issue is in doing so it made no narrative of the knight on which the movie was based, the fact that he kills countless men is an after thought. The effects of war are somehow never considered neither are his place in providing a safe lifestyle for his family though the very riches of a war which compromises his outlook. The historical context would leave most women unable to bring an assault like that to authorities due to extreme poverty and the only reason she was respected and heard at all was because her husband was a well respected knight who gained his earnings by countless killings of which there would be no therapy or understanding of the toll at the time. Mentioning that for contrast of pop culture and media around the sexes but also on more fundamental levels.
great format, yet more talking past each other, than talking with each other. conversation asks more of words, because words are spells. the spell of 'out there' bigness, has no context, only a concept of fixed appeal to the imagination and romance. an emergent process either is from an emergency, or a realization of babble nobody can use in the physical reality, instead of infotainment, talking of earth, requires less objective relationships and more sensefull meaning, in the meaningless crisis now undergoing a mutation of cultural domesticide. ie: a woman, the ocean and the moon, is absent in these flat earth patriarchal importance's. did you know the dictionary is capitalist? Not even a childhood book of a savanna exists, the erasure is from the sickness in repetition to know everything with an agenda, importance and rage, while being cooked. not even the calendar is questioned of its dodo bird eaten with convenience, a convenience contemporary convention calls 'stupid' not 'domestic' of indigenous comfort to 'live among' and be 'among' with understanding and not fear. thanks giving is an excuse for domesticide to continue unabated while dressed in violence of words and judgement. what other calendar permissions are encyclopedic abuses?
I think the nuance is added later during the conversation. There's creating of some space concerning the true felt pain and frustration Sean airs here. I don't hear misandry within this context
@@GaianWanderer He is blaming men for the ills of society, explaining the root of this p-thology as... "The male identified Psyche is plagued by a fundamental existential anxiety, relative to embodiedness, relative to the wider circle of life, that is so overcompensated by this certain kind of reaching, and domination and power, and rapacious consumption." If I replaced male with female here, would you hear misogyny? Both would have equal empirical validity. I will just leave Gautama Buddha and Gina Rineh-rt here to demonstrate the arrogance and imprudence within this statement alone. He then goes on to say he is excused from this p-thological guilt because he is one of the few 'atypical' who has overcome his own condition.
Certainly the expression begins not solely from a place of dispassionate reason, but then, in so doing it opens to the truth of a tension which, dependent on the recipient's perspective, may be met with repulsion or some other immunological response, without closing to a final judgement. In tension is the possibility of onward movement. Is not repulsion a prejudice? a pre-judgement? It cannot be helped that any person communicates in accord with their judgements, which may appear pre-mature from the perspective of another; but this cannot be taken, in fairness, to reflect a broad brush-stroke judgement of whole 'circles'. Indeed, the spirit of this conversation speaks an affirmative no to the question of whether misandrist ideology reigns supreme. So then, where does the question spring up from? Perhaps the insidious ideology of anti-ideology. Out of curiosity: what's in a repulsion? To pinpoint one hiccup in a greater flow is a very curious thing.
@@jurm9891 Do you have any standards of personal t,ast,e? For example do you eat whatever you s,mell in the d-um,p, or do you re.ject most things out right? I'm sure if you de.vour what is feti.d, you will be brought to a higher position of tension and onward movement. A bow requires te,nsion in the string but also that it's wood is str.aight and balanced. There is already the correct tension between the g-nders as they are. It's so dull to point out that c-rruption is not determined by s-.x. No wonder people are leaving the univer,sities if this is the quality. Philosophy began with S.ocrates as anti-ideo,logy, so I don't really understand what your game is here? I'm here to listen to some greater minds show what they have discovered and are further discovering, in the hope that it is useful.
Wonderfully done everyone! This was fruitful and framed what needs to be focused on today. Enjoyed it a lot!
Currently listening to your recent convo with Cadell. Brilliant! Looking forward to speaking tomorrow.
@@Voicecraft Oh thanks so much Tim! I had an excellent time with Cadell and look forward to us speaking tomorrow! That's always a joy.
Really enjoyed this. Thank you, gentlemen.
Great lineup.
Wonderful convo. Appreciated Layman's reflections on the role of humans in/as/to the biosphere
Great conversation as usual, one thing that happens to stand out to me among many others is this attempt to know the ultimate naturalness of balance specifically through the sexes. On long time scales we don't see the immediate media and cultural sensationalism around how nature adjusts itself for its needs and this is reflected, for better or worse, in the dynamics of the sexes of humanity.
So simple examples are women are not allowed to freely express, so what emerges is anger, violence , negativity and toxicity etc. The same is true on the male side yes but in different ways. So we know that and what we are trying to address is the environment of the dynamics themselves being off, not the particular of each dynamic showing up lopsided.
They will each be misaligned as long as the synergy is not nurtured correctly and part of that incorrect nurturing is blaming or focusing specifically on one side of the teeter-totter instead of what's causing the fulcrums integrity to be compromised.
When speaking of the male responsibility as he did here he mentioned CEOs, military etc but a easy way to look at it through a Game~a lens would be the women competing for those spaces against men, and how it would benefit no one for women to be in those spaces if the narrative around their necessity is still centered by Game~a.
Sacred naturalism and some of the teleological ideas describe everything as always having the potential for proper balance, nothing is existentially missing, its about using resources efficiently. Another example I like to use is that there's always been more than enough to go around on earth, we just didn't see it or couldn't realize it into being. All the modern industrial and technological of our day is made from materials that where always here in earth, we didn't have to bring anything from outside planets.
A realistic collective inner dialogue around natural resources would be great right now as AI, electric cars and other advanced tech bring the biggest , highest stake investments in natural resources of all time while countries like Iran are on the verge of large scale war which could compromise even our ability to strive for unrealistic utopian ideals.
One other thing around the healthy cultural view of men in a time between worlds is something I recently noticed in media, specifically the movie The last Dual. The movie deals with a very graphic rape scene that is obviously done intentionally and artistically to bring raw attention to the matter and its context thought history. It did an amazing job of showcasing the treatment of women as property, the inclinations of a man to feel superior, and the normalization of women as inferior.
The issue is in doing so it made no narrative of the knight on which the movie was based, the fact that he kills countless men is an after thought. The effects of war are somehow never considered neither are his place in providing a safe lifestyle for his family though the very riches of a war which compromises his outlook. The historical context would leave most women unable to bring an assault like that to authorities due to extreme poverty and the only reason she was respected and heard at all was because her husband was a well respected knight who gained his earnings by countless killings of which there would be no therapy or understanding of the toll at the time.
Mentioning that for contrast of pop culture and media around the sexes but also on more fundamental levels.
We are made of star stuff, we will go among the stars or die trying. This is an "is" that no "ought" can contest.
Ad astra, nec tamen sine nostra domo.
great format, yet more talking past each other, than talking with each other.
conversation asks more of words, because words are spells.
the spell of 'out there' bigness, has no context, only a concept of fixed appeal to the imagination and romance.
an emergent process either is from an emergency, or a realization of babble nobody can use in the physical reality, instead of infotainment, talking of earth, requires less objective relationships and more sensefull meaning, in the meaningless crisis now undergoing a mutation of cultural domesticide.
ie: a woman, the ocean and the moon, is absent in these flat earth patriarchal importance's.
did you know the dictionary is capitalist?
Not even a childhood book of a savanna exists, the erasure is from the sickness in repetition to know everything with an agenda, importance and rage, while being cooked.
not even the calendar is questioned of its dodo bird eaten with convenience, a convenience contemporary convention calls 'stupid' not 'domestic' of indigenous comfort to 'live among' and be 'among' with understanding and not fear.
thanks giving is an excuse for domesticide to continue unabated while dressed in violence of words and judgement.
what other calendar permissions are encyclopedic abuses?
@54:40 this misandrist diatribe was repulsive to me.
Is that an accepted ideology in these circles?
I think the nuance is added later during the conversation. There's creating of some space concerning the true felt pain and frustration Sean airs here. I don't hear misandry within this context
@@GaianWanderer He is blaming men for the ills of society, explaining the root of this p-thology as...
"The male identified Psyche is plagued by a fundamental existential anxiety, relative to embodiedness, relative to the wider circle of life, that is so overcompensated by this certain kind of reaching, and domination and power, and rapacious consumption."
If I replaced male with female here, would you hear misogyny? Both would have equal empirical validity.
I will just leave Gautama Buddha and Gina Rineh-rt here to demonstrate the arrogance and imprudence within this statement alone.
He then goes on to say he is excused from this p-thological guilt because he is one of the few 'atypical' who has overcome his own condition.
Certainly the expression begins not solely from a place of dispassionate reason, but then, in so doing it opens to the truth of a tension which, dependent on the recipient's perspective, may be met with repulsion or some other immunological response, without closing to a final judgement. In tension is the possibility of onward movement.
Is not repulsion a prejudice? a pre-judgement? It cannot be helped that any person communicates in accord with their judgements, which may appear pre-mature from the perspective of another; but this cannot be taken, in fairness, to reflect a broad brush-stroke judgement of whole 'circles'.
Indeed, the spirit of this conversation speaks an affirmative no to the question of whether misandrist ideology reigns supreme. So then, where does the question spring up from? Perhaps the insidious ideology of anti-ideology.
Out of curiosity: what's in a repulsion? To pinpoint one hiccup in a greater flow is a very curious thing.
lmfaooo theres no such thing as misandry. cope harder pathetic whitoid.
@@jurm9891
Do you have any standards of personal t,ast,e? For example do you eat whatever you s,mell in the d-um,p, or do you re.ject most things out right? I'm sure if you de.vour what is feti.d, you will be brought to a higher position of tension and onward movement.
A bow requires te,nsion in the string but also that it's wood is str.aight and balanced. There is already the correct tension between the g-nders as they are. It's so dull to point out that c-rruption is not determined by s-.x. No wonder people are leaving the univer,sities if this is the quality.
Philosophy began with S.ocrates as anti-ideo,logy, so I don't really understand what your game is here? I'm here to listen to some greater minds show what they have discovered and are further discovering, in the hope that it is useful.