Kevin Beal

Then there is absolutely no reason for you to debate or correct me. It's not an understanding of my position, or a desire for true beliefs, or a desire to correct me where I've gone astray, that has caused you to advance your own arguments. It's electrical and chemical activity in your brain that has caused you to advance your position. Your consciousness is just along for the ride. You have no choice in the matter. So, there's no reason for me to debate you. I'd just be talking to a flesh robot.

I was terrified of approaching women. Seriously, full on panic attacks with tunnel vision, dizziness, disorientation – the whole deal. I decided to take the self knowledge route so that I might be able to convince myself that I was just overreacting and that I shouldn't be so anxious. Looking back though, I don't think that I was ready to be in a love relationship. That anxiety might have actually saved me from some bad relationships, since I was totally desperate and probably would have made endless excuses for these women. I would have literally killed for some female approval. All that has to do with my history, and I haven't totally processed the history, or even the annihilation panic (I later discovered it was called). So, I'm hesitant to comment anymore on your problem. In any event, I'm glad that I was able to be of some help and that you found philosophy

It's FDR2715 No One Left Behind - Wednesday Call In Show June 4th, 2014. It's the third caller who starts at ~2hr 18min. The mecosystem conversation starts ~2hr 35min. It's not exactly the same thing as IFS parts work, but it's very similar, from what I gather. I haven't done IFS parts work, though. So, I defer to Joel on that.

If your argument is that if we can talk about something, then that thing must exist, then, you're wrong. We can talk about gods or unicorns, but that doesn't mean that they exist. Trees and rocks are easy. I know they exist because I can touch them. But, where are these "concepts"? Can I touch them? If you cannot measure them in any way except through people's reporting of their own conscious states, then you can run into logical problems when you use the same word to describe both things. As Stef points out, countries do not exist like rocks and trees. And yet we ascribe properties to countries as if they were like living breathing human beings. Things worthy of protecting and fighting. But you cannot protect or fight a concept. That a country is somehow different and separate from the individuals and / or land mass that make it up is the kind of logical problems that come up when you use the same word for both things. Stef and Ayn Rand and a lot of other thinkers' solution is to say that concepts do not exist and use "exist" to describe rocks and trees, and not concepts. And I would agree if not for the fact that concepts and other subjective experiences are causal. My concept of a chair causes me to expect four legs and it causes me to sit down expecting to be supported when it might be the case that one leg is missing and I fall backwards as the chair falls apart underneath me. And that's, I think, the reason that Plato invented his realm of perfect forms. How can that subjective experience cause anything? And honestly, I have no idea. I suspect that advances in cognitive science will solve that one. A materialist, determinist perspective would be to say that it's not the concept that was causal, but rather electrical and chemical signals in my brain which caused me to have those expectations. That the concept is just fluff on top in an epiphenomenal sense, and that neurological activity causes the conscious experience and never the other way 'round. I'm inclined to think that my thoughts of a hot naked chicks caused me to feel aroused, rather than the thought and the arousal originating from some common underlying process. If it were an underlying process that caused it all, my experience of the thought causing that arousal would be illusory. And maybe it is, but that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. When I use the word "exist" I mean to say that it is causal. The way in which it is causal is either subjectively experienced or occurs in the world and is something we can measure (objective). And that's why I really like the distinctions John Searle makes between different senses of the words "objective" and "subjective". It's a much more accurate way of looking at these issues to avoid any potential equivocation.

I don't think that's the sense in which Stef is using the word in the video. He mentions a few times that it's an abstraction, like a category.

The google definition of concept is : "an abstract idea; a general notion." I'm not sure there is such a thing as a concept of a particular tree, rather that would be a perception, right? I think "concept" is a little more specific than all that, if that makes sense.

I think you're right. It can go either way, I suppose. Thinking about it some more, I think the point you made about having the least to lose is probably a more important factor than severity of abuse.

P1. You told me I'm wrong about how I am addressing your challenge. P2. You told me that telling people that they are wrong is disrespectful to their perspective. C1. You are not respecting my own perspective about how to address your challenge. C2. You put forward a rule that I must follow, but you don't have to. If we can't hammer out something as simple as this, I can't imagine we could make any progress in a discussion about advanced metaphysics.

Okay. Just change what I said from "me" to "my perspective" then. It's the same point. I don't think this can be productive unless we take things one thing at a time.

You are telling me that I am wrong about how I did that. You are not respecting me according to your own definition of respect. And you make a claim in exactly the respect that you say is bad (how is it disrespectful?). You cannot ask me to do what you won't do. And it is respectful to correct other people. I don't think that it's a philosophical question rather than a physics one, I know it is. Physics is fine to bring up, but physics already assumes a very particular definition of existence that it borrows from philosophy (previously "natural philosophy"). The subject of physics is limited to the ontological objectivity of atoms and physical forces. The objectively epistemic claims it makes all have to do with ontological objectivity. It completely ignores ontological subjectivity (as it should) and thus is not fit for an inclusive basis for what is meant by the word "exists", for the reasons I've already stated. Ontological objectivity: those things we can touch / measure (rocks, trees, etc). Ontological subjectivity: things like perceptions, consciousness itself, dreams, status functions we project onto objects which only serve that function insofar as we agree that it does, things like that (money, job titles, countries, governments, etc). Epistemic Objectivity: truth claims which conform to reality (I am 26 years old) Epistemic Subjectivity: personal preferences (vanilla is worse than chocolate) And tigers do absolutely exist in the same way as rocks and trees. The tiger I wrongly perceive because I mistook a stripe pattern in nature for a tiger does not exist. Otherwise illusions are not illusions. My perception of the tiger exists subjectively, that tiger itself doesn't exist in any sense at all. I think you may have completely misunderstood the point I was making about the tiger. I was simply talking about perceptions, not actual tigers. And please don't tell me how I need to respond to you. That is really irritating.

I wonder if high intelligence is really necessary. Stef and Cheryl seem to agree on the issue of people having the least to lose by being honest about the cult of the family and all the other anti-normal stuff talked about within the community and on the show. (see FDR1551 Why We Are Different). Daniel Mackler says repeatedly that there is no level of trauma that he believes is irreparable, but I'm inclined to agree with Stef when he says that at some point the false self becomes the personality. I would imagine that people who have become abusers and have done serious damage to children themselves might be tempted to kill themselves if they were ever to have their evil become conscious to them. And repression is designed to keep exactly that sort of thing out of consciousness for that reason: survival. I don't know if that's exactly what you were asking, but that's what comes to mind.

I'm single at the moment, and I have never been in love, so I might not be the person to ask about that, but a thought had occurred to me. I am betting that you are a good guy. Getting yourself in therapy and committing to working on yourself is very admirable. And it sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) that you have a habit of undervaluing yourself, if only implicitly by committing to things because other people would like you to and that sort of thing. Maybe you're not as unworthy as you think. But in any event, that's sort of up for her to decide, right? Maybe an occasional painful situation is worth it to her, especially if she gets that you are committed to the relationship. I don't know what you should do about that, honestly. I have my own issues around dating. And I've definitely had those kinds of thoughts before around being unworthy of love. I didn't really know how to answer that question for myself. I ended up taking the advice from FDR989 How to meet a nice girl!, which was to focus on working on myself and being happy with who I am, and letting a romantic relationship come out of doing that. It hasn't happened yet, though. Damn you Stef! But I don't really meet eligible women often. The social engagements I go to tend to be sausage fests, and most of the women I know are taken or, ... not my type.

I love this kind of indie stuff

The Psychology of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden is very good. Not specifically about assertiveness, but provides a fantastic framework for looking at issues involving self efficacy, self worth, self respect, etc. Something from the book that kinda blew my mind was addressing this voice, I'm sure most of us have, which says "who am I to..." and this sort of self talk. He argues that that sort of self talk is, and he didn't exactly use this language, but..., is like neuro linguistically programming your mind to keep yourself small in whatever ways you might be small. What I've done since then is to notice as quickly as possible when I use that sort of language, since you can't really stop something you're not aware of until later. Noticing that I do that has made me more curious about whether or not I really want to do it, and if so, how I might start going about it. Another thing that isn't really from a book, but I wanted to share was something my own therapist helped me out with, especially with overcommitting to things. Which is to try and treat myself, my time, my emotional energies as highly valuable, scarce resources and whenever someone asks me if I will do something for / with them, to always start from the default: "I have to think about it, but I'll let you know". People asking for things from me can trigger my anxieties around disappointment and approval and I want to go into anxiety management mode and give a quick answer. I have noticed it enough that I can usually catch it and say "let me get back to you about that". I totally just assumed that's the kind of thing you were talking about. If it's not helpful, feel free to disregard.

"You cannot connect with anyone, except through reality"

I think it's a cool idea. I vaguely remember hearing Stef say that he hopes that people do connect job-wise thru the forums, and it doesn't look like there is anything in the guidelines that says you can't, but it's a good idea for a sub-forum too.

I remember there used to be such a feature like 3 years ago or so. I don't know if it's still around somewhere or not. I think @JamesP was the one who put it together, if I remember rightly. The best way to meet people locally might be by starting your own meetup location and then invite people to join you.

Hi Charles! Welcome to the boards Could you speak more to the introduction of philosophy in your life? Was it like an enthusiastic lightbulb moment, or more ambivalent? How'd you come across the show?

Right. That's important, I think. Ideally, we can be at least as compassionate toward ourselves as to another person in that situation.

"Freedom is nothing if there is no freedom to make mistakes" I think the biggest thing is feeling secure in yourself and your relationships. Not trying to manage other people, because you trust that it's not going to explode the relationship if you say the wrong thing. It's kind of like a methodology vs the conclusion. What's important is not so much what people think, but how they think. If you act according to your own values consistently, even if people disagree, I can't help but respect that anyway. And I think decent people who aren't entitled and narcissistic will feel the same way. And lord knows you aren't the only one. Also, hey dude!

Daniel Mackler has pointed this out before that the people who are most likely to break from their parents are people who have the strength to do that because they had relatively better childhoods. Still traumatic and terrible childhoods relative to an actually healthy one like the peaceful parenting more and more people are getting into, but typically not as horrifying as Stef's. It's kind of amazing that he made it out, and I'm very grateful that he did. (Thanks Stef for the work you've done on yourself and to help others). Compared to a lot of the accounts I've heard from people in the community, my own childhood was (maybe) one of the better ones. And mine was terrible in a lot of ways, so I guess it depends on who you are comparing it to. And neglect is harder (at least for me) to see as compared to physical abuse, so I think something like the ACE study (as you suggested Wes) is a good idea. Mine is around 5 (I wasn't sure whether or not to count something).

Correct. I did not assume what you were thinking.

You do. This ugliness started with your response to James. He asked an honest question and you passive aggressively accused him of manipulating and acting out. Passive aggressive because you suggested it, didn't confirm it, and then doubled down the rest of the exchange. And further evidence of passive aggression is the red text above. You made several of these claims about the intentions of James, Mike and I. You have no idea what we're thinking, but you keep talking like you do. That is ripe for projection. Always assuming the worst in what people say is incredibly passive aggressive. Because what the fuck are they supposed to do about that? It sets up a double bind where they are fucked if they act with dignity and call you out because that is only going to be used as "corroborating evidence" and fucked if they don't because you've set a narrative where they are the bad guy.

You said it was bad to just make claims and not arguments, but your response is full of claims and only a couple of arguments that are just repeats of arguments you already made. My aim is to provide a framework, a series of definitions and distinctions to most consistently and accurately describe what it means to exist. I have done that with reference to many examples of where and how that distinction works. It's not exactly like arguing for something where we already agree on the terms. I have to frame the discussion a bit so that we are definitely talking about the same thing. The tiger bit specifically where I said "no it doesn't" is actually an appropriate response. A claim made with no evidence can be rejected with no evidence. You provided no evidence (as I already pointed out) that the tiger I wrongly perceive exists. You simply claimed it. And I don't have anything against assertions, I just don't like them posing as arguments.

It is. That is by design. "What is existence?" is not a physics question, it's a philosophical one. I'm not really sure how to respond to what you said about the tiger. I couldn't glean any argument counter to my own, just an assertion that the tiger I (wrongly) perceive does, in fact, exist. And I assume that you mean it exists in the same objective manner that rocks exist. And as I've already said, no it doesn't. I looked up the references that you put forward for your definition of information, and you are in fact incorrect for the reasons I've already stated. "Information" in the context they provide refers to patterns. This is actually an important distinction, since "information" and the pattern are the flipside of the other here. The pattern exists in the ontologically objective sense insofar as the pattern can be measured, observed, etc. The "information" is actually the functional description, in that the pattern means X, or serve the end Y. Meanings and functions do not exist in the way rocks and trees exist. For me to say that the job of the heart is to pump blood throughout my body, I'm already presupposing some values like the fact that blood circulation fits my definition of "healthy". If I held that dying from poor circulation was healthy, I would portray my heart as being dysfunctional. To say that the information means something rather than being something random or static already assumes values in the same respect (that W pattern means Z). My heart exists like a tree exists, and blood pumping is a phenomena that exists like a rock, but the "job" that I assign the heart is a "status function" whose existence is entirely subjective. My body exists objectively, my job as a front end developer exists subjectively. DNA the pattern exists objectively. The "information" it "carries" is subjective. The function it performs is subjective. Ontologically speaking, it just does what it does, and that's as far as we can penetrate without going into the realm of ontological subjectivity. We can have epistemically objective claims about ontologically subjective phenomena. Blood pumping throughout my body is healthy in an epistemically objective sense. (Epistemology referring to claims about knowledge rather than existence).