Kevin Beal

Certainty is a subjective experience describing confidence in a conclusion. I'm responding to the suggestion that we can't know anything at all because we may be in the matrix, or a brain in a vat, or whatever. I'm talking about the possibility of knowledge, rather than the confidence one has in their own conclusions. Put another way: if you can't know anything, you can't know that you can't know anything. Does that help?

What evidence do you have for this?

Yea. That's interesting. I have actually done 4 years of psychotherapy with a Jungian analyst, so I'm pretty familiar with all the concepts talked about in the video. I think that the point about integrating the shadow into the whole personality is extremely important. I never quite understood the anima work that I did: what specifically about it was anima work, and why it is important, though. One thing about it that I did appreciate and get value out of was in the area of communicating ideas. When I started therapy, I would find myself, often, in situations with people where I was trying to argue something logically and I'd get that thousand yard stare. I was telling my therapist about this and she said "people learn through relationship". When I watch women talk about things and try to convince each other of something, they talk about it in personal terms, very anecdotally and what their emotional experience of something was. Sometimes it goes into the extreme of concluding that a man is a "creep" simply because she said that she experienced the feeling of being creeped out, even though the word "creep" describes nothing at all about the person, and only your experience of them. They could be very pleasant people, but they reminded her of someone who was a jerk to her at some other point, or something, but now the whole group thinks the guy is a creep. Guys, when they talk tend to be much more about what the facts of the situation are, without reference to how they felt about it emotionally. I find that a combination of the two approaches can be helpful. Stef in the call-in-shows is all about connection and wearing his feelings on his sleeves, right? But he's also, obviously, very rational and argues his points clearly. I think that is not unimportant that the best of both worlds is present. I personally regard the first to be more feminine and the second more masculine, but you may disagree. It's said a lot that balance to things is itself a virtue, and that if you find yourself on one extreme end of a conflict, then that is some sort of pathology. And you see that sort of thing in Jung's work which I found irritating. I mean, I have no compunction being an "extremist" with regard to treating children peacefully, and I vehemently reject any protestation that this is pathological. But one area that I think it does make some sense is in the area of gender. If I'm masculine, I'm masculine as compared to feminine. In some sense when we talk about these things, we are talking in opposing terms. And if independence is a masculine trait (and I believe that it is), then an extreme position is that you have almost no social contact with people, isolated. This is, unfortunately, where a lot of people in this community are A feminine trait being incorporated would be a focus on maintaining and creating positive relationships with people. The masculine compliment, and the reason for the isolation in the first place (probably) is a valid concern that a lot of people are not safe to be vulnerable around, especially for a person who has had little experience being vulnerable with people. A balance of the two would be something like making a concerted effort to make connections with people who share your values, rather than be friends with just anyone. If that makes sense. Like the gal in the video said about feminists being manly and insecure in their femininity, I think gender is definitely one of the bigger places that people feel insecure, since it could mean you don't pass on your genes if you don't fit into the very defined gender roles of the tribe. I suspect that my desire to be and appear masculine goes much deeper than social conditioning, and probably why, in Jung's model, the anima is even farther away from the conscious ego than even the shadow. And certainly there are parts of the brain involved in gender identification, which is why transexuality is a thing. If it's wired in the brain, then it's got to be pretty important, I would imagine. The pathological form causing extreme distress for the afflicted. I remember feeling insecure in my masculinity, and I imagine it's the same for other people: that it's got to feel like an existential risk, angst, if you appear unmasculine or feminine. It would make sense what people who are insecure in their gendered identity did whatever they could to make it arbitrary and socially programmed, the way that nihilists like to say that morality is arbitrary and socially programmed, or people who retreat into subjectivity when an argument doesn't go their way. Their ego is threatened and they attempt to poison the minds of others. Instead of adopting the positive masculine traits, feminists adopt all the worst ones, like being dicks, attempting to dominate, etc. I don't think they are trying to be like men. I think, rather, like all people who deny what they feel, they provoke those feelings in others. If I was facing Big Red at that feminist protest last year, I might feel overwhelmed, helpless, insecure, etc. To be screamed at like that and called all sorts of ugly names,... a person has got to feel so empty inside. I think that she feels helpless and insecure,... unless she's just a sociopathic sadist, or something. If all men are dicks, then particular men who were dicks are just being men, and can't really be blamed too much. And in excusing that behavior, you logically excuse it also for yourself. So, the worst traits that feminists apply to all men as being part of being a man, they will unconsciously adopt. This is getting way too long. I'll stop it here.

How is this not just another way of saying "there may be things that we don't understand about matter and energy"? If you are talking about anything in particular then we can talk about that particular thing, but as far as I can glean from your challenge is that there may be things we don't understand, which is obviously true. Empirically reasoning about things in the world is portrayed as presumptive here, but asserting that there are things that cannot be measured empirically in any way, but which still exist is far more presumptive. So, if your issue is with presuming things, then to focus on the empiricist is irrational.

Thank you for the kind words and the shout out! I want to get really good at this, so I'm glad the improvements are noticeable.

You are assuming that matter and energy are real when you responded to my post.

You tell me. I'm here to learn. Part of the reason for these videos is to spark discussion. It's feedback from my videos that gets me thinking about things and wanting to make another video. I'm starting to really enjoy doing it. I'm a pretty decent thinker and writer, and I'm getting better at presenting, so if I can help get important information out there for people to consider, I'm happy. But, like I said in the conclusion, I am a n00b and I'm counting on people like you to help me out in understanding these issues more deeply. So, seriously, man. Give it up. Tell me what's the dealio with men's motivation to pursue multiple relationships and for women to discuss veiny foreskins? I want to know.

I made a new video. This time it's about sexual objectification and the absurdity of feminist depictions of male sexuality. There are some decent jokes, a photo of me as a young boy and a sneak peak at Fifty Shades of Grey, the movie. I had a lot of fun writing and shooting this one, and I think you'll like it too.

Also, I don't think he ever claimed to be a genius (the first part of my message is awaiting moderation)

I work in technology, work in multiple programming languages and build interfaces. There is politics everywhere. It's not monopolistic violent politics, but in the colloquial sense, of people picking certain standards arbitrarily and having them be accepted as deterministic truth. Your point about programming languages being good because that's what people chose is actually pretty interesting. Javascript is by far the most popular programming language in the world, and it is a great language in a lot of ways, but it's also terrible in many other ways. Things that have nothing to do with the scope of the language, but are just dumb decisions chosen at the beginning that we're stuck with. Serious programmers who work in Javascript have been pushing for additions to the language for a decade now, and finally a new version with some important new design decisions is going to be rolling out this year in the major browsers and used more broadly in a year or two after that. The standards body in charge of Javascript is so ridiculously full of politics that people have been desperate to get away from javascript if they can in the last few years, using javascript as a transpilation target for other languages to be reinterpreted in, so that it would work in the browser. The window/file/application approach works for a lot of projects, obviously, or else we'd be in much more trouble right now, but accepting it as the only approach gets certain things put into standards and only allow things to interface in that particular way. Ted Nelson has produced software and is working on multiple pieces of software which use his design principles, which he demos in other videos on his channel. He claims to have come up with the back button, and he further claims that no one else thought it was a good idea at the time and he had to fight for it. I believe that Ted Nelson is also on the Google payroll, serving as a consultant, is highly acclaimed and respected among people who've been in the industry a long time. Ted Nelson is not saying that we cannot have the lump files, or hierarchical organization, but that the implementation of these things in computing informs bad user experience where those paradigms don't work. And implementing alternatives on systems that already are locked in that paradigm requires a certain level of abstraction that shouldn't be necessary: using a system to create the opposite of how it works. You can produce lump file systems and hierarchical organization in other more flexible systems that don't require you to stick with lump files and hierarchical systems at the expense of every other alternative structure.

Ted Nelson is awesome. He is an 'American pioneer of information technology, philosopher, and sociologist' who talks about the history of computing like Howard Zinn does United States history. There are certain paradigms in computing that are so ubiquitous that you wouldn't ever even think to question it, but which are nevertheless false and have caused a lot of problems in information technology today. I just sort of assumed that everything has sorta been worked out, ... scientifically or mathematically, or something. I mean, their computer scientists for corn's sake! Anyway, watch this shorter video that will give you a sense of what I mean (below) and then watch a longer video below that.

Javascript says that it is, in fact, a number: // 'NaN' stands for "Not a Number", // which means it's a double negative below isNaN(Infinity) => false PHP says that it's not a number: // var_dump outputs something // is_nan() is the same idea as above // +INF is a representation of positive infinity var_dump(is_nan(+INF)); => bool(false) But I think if it can be bigger or smaller than a number, it is itself a number.

I would disagree. Even the most radical existential nihilist and solipsist has to accept that there are things we can know for absolutely certain. Because many things are true by definition, or are axiomatic. There is no possible way that "A is A" (The first law of logic, the law of identity) can be false, for example. But consider what the logical consequence is of making your statement a rule: we can't know anything for absolutely certain. If it is a rule, then the rule also applies to the statement itself, right? Which means that the statement is false, since it is an absolute statement. If it's not an absolute statement, what you would be saying is that it's only some things that we cannot know for absolutely certain, in which case, I'd absolutely agree Ontology and epistemology rely on each other. It's more complicated than saying that one is more fundamental than the other. The reason that we can know anything about the world is because of the properties of matter and energy (ontology) which produce logically consistent, observable conditions that we can independently arrive at true conclusions because of (epistemology). But there are also many ontological questions that require an understanding of epistemology. They are different categories of questions, rather than stages in the questioning process. First principles are principles that go all the way back to the beginning. The 3 Laws of Logic are first principles: Law of Identity: "Whatever is, is": A = A Law of non-contradiction: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A = NOT-A) Law of Excluded Middle: In accordance with the law of excluded middle or excluded third, for every proposition, either its positive or negative form is true: FOR ALL A: A OR ~A These are first principles, and principles we accurately derive from these are also first principles. First principles is getting confused or not knowing where to start and going back to the drawing board. It's starting from what we know to be true, rather than having a result we want and making everything else conform to that. When the company Tesla Motors was building their electric car they had to make the battery last for as long as they could make it, but also be able to have the throttle needed to accelerate quickly. Instead of looking at the batteries in other electric cars, they started from first principles. Elon Musk (the man behind the company) said this: “First principles” is a physics way of looking at the world. What that really means is that you boil things down to the most fundamental truths and then reason up from there. That takes a lot more mental energy. Someone could – and people do — say battery packs are really expensive and that’s just the way they will always be because that’s the way they have been in the past. They would say it’s going to cost $600 / KWhour. It’s not going to be much better than that in the future. [...] So, from first principles, we say: what are the material constituents of the batteries? What is the spot market value of the material constituents? It has carbon, nickel, aluminum, and some polymers for separation, and a steel can. Break that down on a materials basis, if we bought that on a London Metal Exchange, what would each of these things cost? Oh geez, it’s $80 / KWhour. Clearly, you need to think of clever ways to take those materials and combine them into the shape of a battery cell, and you can have batteries that are much cheaper than anyone realizes.

Within psychology, there are different approaches to psychoanalysis with different and even mutually exclusive premises. The model of subselves in the IFS model is different from Jung's ideas around multiple centers of consciousness and Active Imagination. They do not overlap very well at all, and yet both are valuable in terms of developing a much stronger sense of self, and awareness of what could be called the "shadow". There are logical inconsistencies in every science, even mathematics. I can't find the Numberphile video right now (I don't remember what it's called), but they were claiming that there was a math problem with at least two right answers based on the methodology you employed, but it was the same math problem and both answers were correct. Something like that. I'm terrible at math, if someone knows what I'm talking about, please correct me. Is that sort of what you mean?

Actually, yes. Metaphysics is the area of philosophy that is most fundamental: epistemology, ontology and ethics (or, more accurately UPB). Epistemology is more fundamental than mathematics, for example. UPB is more fundamental than political theory. Ontology is more fundamental than biology, physics. Epistemology: How do we know? Ontology: What is it's nature? UPB: How ought we act? Mathematics is a formal science. It is a domain that examines very particular kinds of truth claims. Within mathematics are methodologies for determining truth from falsehood. The basis of these methodologies is epistemic. By saying that it is epistemic, I'm basically saying that it conforms to a standard called: logical consistency (as well as many others). When a new science is being developed, this is a philosophical concern. How do we know what is true within this domain? What is the nature of the objects in this realm? How ought we go about applying this new science? There is a philosophy of economics, a philosophy of psychology, etc. Working from first principles is starting from what we know for certain, the most basic principles and building on that. Having a science to explore a particular domain is possible because that first principles philosophical basis has been established and when I ask a question about beaver taxonomy, I don't have to start again from "A is A", to non-contradiction to the excluded middle until I make my way up to biology each time I want to arrive at new, true conclusions. That's the incredibly condensed version. Does that make more sense?

Epistemology is metaphysics. Your definition of Metaphysics is actually incorrect. What you're referring to is Ontology. And it actually is very important and nothing to dismiss. The exact properties and functions of objects, whether material or abstract, their causal nature (objective or otherwise) requires serious accuracy. Neglect of ontology results in a lot of bad philosophy. Metaphysics is an umbrella term for Ontology, Epistemology and UPB. The things necessary to develop any kind of science. Each science has a basis in ontology, epistemology and UPB. What is the nature of the objects we are observing (stars, numbers, etc), how do we come to objective knowledge about these objects, and how we ought to go about exploring this domain.

Welcome to the boards! I love your enthusiasm. Tell us more. What's got you so passionate?

I think that's very reasonable and can't fault you for that. I did just want to point to one of many reasons to be suspicious. Christina Hoff Sommers is awesome, and calls herself a feminist, so there is at least one NAFALT out there, but she reports on a long standing feminist myth surrounding the "rule of thumb", which refers to the supposed rule in the ancient world that says that it is permissible for men to beat their wives if the implement that they beat them with is no thicker in circumference than his thumb. So, he could hit her with all sorts of nasty, even if they aren't blunt, instruments. Feminists have claimed for decades that this law comes from English Common Law, but it appears nowhere in any laws ever recorded. It's actually attributed the Roman emperor Romulus, who in all likelihood, did not exist. But it is taught in women's studies courses throughout the world. Christina talked to some of the people who write the women's studies textbooks perpetuating this myth, and they refused to take it out. Maybe feminists have a ton right about the history of women's oppression. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that if there's good evidence, but it is indicative of a general disregard for historical accuracy in feminist study. Similarly, with the wage gap, and keeping women out of business and university, the truth is much more interesting than the feminist account. Christina's video series is pretty good, and I would recommend it to y'all.

Welcome to the boards! Tell us a bit about yourself. Have you been listening to the show long?

I think women have got it harder in many respects. People tend to minimize and excuse the shit that women do. I think that's a terrible thing that encourages and incentives things which are not healthy. I think that is actually the reason Feminism appeals to so many women, is because of the craziness of people doing that to women messes with their sense of reality. I'm actually grateful to feminism. If it weren't for feminism, men would still be very keen on being the patriarchal hero slave for women's express benefit. The ugliness of feminism has woken us up to the raw deal that gynocentrism is for men. I think that women face some real problems, I just don't think that feminism does anything but make them worse. I think it makes it tougher for the unicorn women out there that men are beginning to form these expectations as they shake off the propaganda of "women are wonderful". Establishing trust will be harder, but I don't think men will ever stop wanting a good woman in their corner.

Thanks. I think what you've been doing already, sharing and giving feedback and suggested topics, is what is probably most helpful. I really appreciate that

The reason for running out of breath is actually because I have a pretty bad Cedar pollen allergy this time of year and I don't get as much air in through my nose. But I got the same flat delivery feedback from others, and it's a fair criticism. I'm still getting used to the camera, but I'd like to get better at it, for sure. Practice, practice, practice. Thanks for the feedback. It helps.

I made a second video. This time about gender equality. I don't think it's such the great thing that people love to say that it is, and here's my thinking on that: I'd love to hear what you think!

I don't doubt it, but how do you mean it?

It seems like you are equating "unstated" with "sinister". I, personally, have no compunction at all with testing people, but it could just be that I'm not understanding what you are asking. If they ask why I ask certain questions, I'll tell them. The kind of tests I do are along the lines of seeing how receptive people are to an idea so that I can feel more comfortable talking about why I care about it, or testing how people respond to lighter criticism so that I can feel more comfortable bringing heavier criticisms, or testing to see how sympathetic someone is in the hopes that I can share with them something which has sadly shaped my life. That sort of thing. I wonder if this concern you have is you holding yourself to higher standards than other people, maybe in a way that parallels the childhood you had. Did you have to deny yourself your own thoughts and feelings a lot while growing up? Because bringing it up with other people, especially when you feel the stakes are higher, can trigger old patterns: you putting yourself down, that you aren't doing it good enough. Maybe I'm totally off base, but if that rings true, then please cut it out! Be kind to yourself.