Name: Rohan
Suh_Prance_Alot
Karma: 40
Apparently the world’s happiest man is a Buddhist (they studied his brain). Just one data point.
Studies like this one claim that it reduces the negative and increases positive states.
Yep. Plus fix insecurities stemming from actual issues that will come up in a normal interaction, which do “hurt” your sociometer.
Agreed. There’s a general sense of people being threats when you’re socially anxious, versus being opportunities for connection when you’re sociable.
Making Sense podcast.
The host speaks with great clarity and insight.
I like the science related stuff more than the politics.
Points to reliable sources and presents good arguments AFAICT.
The value of not needing to be special is understandable. But how do we view people at the top of some competence hierarchy as not special in some sense? (eg: Novak Djokovic or John Von Neumann)
Okay, yeah. I also found this recent video of his on “materialism and other views” clarifying. Still curious about whether he views the “self” in all senses of the word illusory (epistemic vs ontological for example), but I’m guessing he considers all of that irrelevant and is only interested in pragmatic liberation.
Nice one! Would you or anyone else mind sharing tips on how to cultivate emotional security?
Related video :https://youtu.be/c0_J998UD9s?si=t7tHm8aibsp1GFr_
They made full transcripts with notes here: All Transcripts—Meaning Crisis Collection
Could you elaborate on ways it could be/was better?
Is the Nordic model closer to Capitalism 2.0 ?
I also keep hearing China mentioned as the current paradigmatic Communist state ( or at least that it’s on the way, if you disregard censorship, mass surveillance etc)
Interesting, I never made the connection to Moloch. I think the claim would be that it works better than capitalism at reducing inequality, not that it would work better than FAI (like Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever—YouTube this video).
Sure. I just want a rationalist take on Marxism/Communism (preferably for the layperson, as I am not an economist or anything, just curious).
An analogy I’ve heard is to compare mental training to physical training. It is generally useful, but if you have injuries or limitations of some sort (say, a busted knee), you should find ways to work around those.
What are the thoughts on safety?
I’m hoping someone who is experienced in both rationality and meditation can weigh in here, and also resolve any possible contradictions (especially around Insights gained).
Could you tell me why?
Has this post been deleted? I’m getting an error message.
Could you (or anyone interested) elaborate on why practices like Self Inquiry might be maladaptive?
Is it a Chesterton Fence around the fragility of values in general, or some specific value, as indicated here?
If so, it could be useful in moderation, or to some agents in specific situations. Examples: 1) Someone serving a life sentence in prison or solitary confinement in a way that their ability to create value both for themselves and others is limited could benefit from weakening the DMN.
2)A Google Design Ethicist might want to hold off on this kind of mental training at least until s/he has a strong moral framework already in place.
| “I have no indication that directly trying to dissolve ego is a safe or fruitful goal”
Does Dzogchen practice (described in Sam Harris’ book “Waking Up”) contradict this? The sense of self is presented as a primary cause of suffering, and directly dissolving it (or noticing that it is already an illusion) as the antidote.
Oh, that’s right, thanks!
I think I misremembered/misunderstood Lotus and the concepts got jumbled together.
This triggered Valentine’s Lotus for me. Are the concepts similar on a deeper level?
Related phenomenon where romantic partners influence each other towards an ideal version.