Unreal

Karma: 2,862

Unreal Mar 25, 2025, 6:15 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: plex’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
The benefit of fixing on the release/dissolve as a way of being is that it will release/dissolve itself, and that’s what makes it safer than fixing on anything that doesn’t have an ‘expiration date’ as it were.
I think the confusion on this is that
We have this sense that some process is safe or good to fix upon. Because ‘process’ is more change-y than something static.
But even process is not safe to fix upon. You are not a process. We’re not in a process. To say ‘process’ is trying to ‘thing-ify’ or ‘reify’ something that does not have a property called ‘existence’ nor ‘non-existence’. We must escape from the flattening dichotomy of existence and non-existence, which is a nonsense.
A “universe” cannot be fully specified, and I believe our physics has made that clear. But also our idea of ‘universe’ is ridiculously small-minded still. Science has narrowed our vision of what is, and fixated upon it, and now we’re actually more ignorant / deluded than before. Although I also appreciate the beauty of science and math.

Unreal Mar 20, 2025, 7:18 PM
4 points
0
in reply to: plex’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I’m pointing to something more extreme than this, but I’d say this is a good direction.
I will attempt, badly, to capture it in words inspired by your description above.
I say ‘badly’ because I’m not fully able to see the Truth and describe it, but there is a Truth, and it can be described. This process you allude to RE: dissolving and releasing is part of how Truth is revealed, and that’s what I’m training in.
So my re-write of this:
An ontology restricts the shape of [the perceived world] by being of a set shape. All of them are insufficient, the Tao [is beyond conceptualization], but each can contain patterns that are useful [if and only if] you [use them to] dissolve and continually release [all patterns] rather than cling to them.
You imply, maybe, that the point is to come back and reform. To get all the patterns ‘integrated’ and come back into structure.
But the thing around ‘flow’ and ‘faster’ and such—all of this is better achieved with no structure or meta-structure. Because structure opposes flow, period. The point isn’t to create some ultimate ontology or structure, no matter how fluid, fast, or integrated you think it is; this is returning to delusion, or making delusion the purpose.
This takes sufficient letting go to see, but it’s also logically sound even if you can’t buy it experientially.
Is there a place for structure? Yes, we use structure as middle way stepping stones to release structure. We have to use delusion (concepts, etc.) to escape delusion because delusion is what we have to work with. The fact that it’s possible to use delusion to escape delusion is the amazing thing.

Unreal Mar 17, 2025, 5:10 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: plex’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Hello! Thanks for the greeting. Do we know each other by chance?
Removing fixedness in ontologies is good. I claim it’s in the good direction. And then you go further in that direction and remove the ontology itself, which is a fixation on its own. The ontology is not strictly needed, in much the same way that you can be looking at a video of a waterfall—but it’s meaningfully better and more true to look directly at a waterfall. In the same way, you don’t need the concept of ‘waterfall’ to truly see it. The concept actually gets in the way.
Actively rooting out and removing the concept makes it sound like you are somehow reaching in and pulling it out with force, and that’s not really how it goes. It’s more of a letting go of conceptual grasping, like unclenching a hand.

Unreal Feb 19, 2025, 10:31 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: sapphire’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Huh. I don’t know if I get the bit on Statistical Learning.

Good poems—I haven’t seen those particular translations before.

Unreal Oct 1, 2024, 6:53 PM
−2 points
−7
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: How I started believing religion might actually matter for rationality and moral philosophy
Catholicism never would have collected the intelligence necessary to invent a nuke. Their worldview was not compatible with science. It was an inferior organizing principle. (“inferior” meaning less capable of coordinating a collective intelligence needed to build nukes.)
You believe intelligence is such a high good, a high virtue, that it would be hard for you to see how intelligence is deeply and intricately causal with the destruction of life on this planet, and therefore the less intelligent, less destructive religions actually have more ethical ground to stand on, even though they were still fairly corrupt.
But it’s a straightforward comparison.
Medieval “dark” ages = almost no technological progress, very little risk of blowing up the planet in any way; relatively, not inspiring, but still—kudos for keeping us from hurtling toward extinction, and at this point, we’re fine with rewarding this even though it’s such a “low bar”
Today = massive, exponential technological progress, nuclear war could already take us all out, but we have a number of other x-risks to worry about. And we’re so identified with science and tech that we aren’t willing to stop, even as we admit OUT LOUD that it could cause extinction-level catastrophe. This is worse than the Crusades by a long shot. We’re not talking about sending children to war. We’re talking about the end of children. Just no more children. This is worse than suicide cults that claim we go to heaven as long as we commit suicide. We don’t even think what we’re doing will necessarily result in heaven, and we do it anyway. We have no evidence we can upload consciousnesses at all. Or end aging and death. Or build a friendly AI. At least the Catholics were convinced a very good thing would happen by sending kids to war. We’re not even convinced, and we are willing to risk the lives of all children. Do you see how this is worse than the Catholics?

Unreal Oct 1, 2024, 6:01 PM
0 points
−2
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
are you putting forward that something about worldviews sometimes relies on faster than light signaling?
OK this is getting close. I am saying worldviews CANNOT EVER be fast enough, and that’s why the goal is to drop all worldviews to get “fast enough”. Which the very idea of “fast enough” is in itself ‘wrong’ because it’s conceptual / limited / false. This is my worst-best attempt to point to a thing, but I am trying to be as literal as possible, not poetic.
No response can be immediate in a physical universe
Yeah, we’re including ‘physical universe’ as a ‘worldview’. If you hold onto a physical universe, you’re already stuck in a worldview, and that’s not going to be fast enough.
The point is to get out of this mental, patterned, limited ideation. It’s “blockheaded”, as you put. All ideas. All ways of looking. All frameworks and methodologies and sense-making. All of it goes. Including consciousness, perception.
When all of it goes, then you don’t need ‘response times’ or ‘sense data’ or ‘brain activity’ or ‘neurons firing’ or ‘speed of light’ or whatever. All of that can still ‘operate’ as normal, without a problem.
We’re getting to the end of where thinking or talking about it is going to help.

Unreal Sep 30, 2024, 11:29 PM
6 points
−1
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I don’t know if I fully get you, but you also nailed it on the head.
In such situation, I think the one weird trick would be to invent a belief system that actively denies being one. To teach people a dogma that would (among other things) insist that there is no dogma, you just see the reality as it is (unlike all the other people, who merely see their dogmas). To invent rituals that consist (among other things) of telling yourself repeatedly that you have no rituals (unlike all the other people). To have leaders that deny being leaders (and yet they are surrounded by followers who obey them, but hey that’s just how reality is).
So, basically… science.
Science is the best cult because it convincingly denies being one at all, disguising itself as truth itself.
I think it’s worth admiring science and appreciating it for all the good things it has provided.
And I think it has its limitations, and people should start waking up soon to the fact that if the world is destroyed, humans all destroyed, etc. then science played an instrumental and causal role in that, and part of that is the insanity and evil within that particular cult / worldview.

Unreal Sep 30, 2024, 11:24 PM
2 points
−2
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Or why can’t you have a worldview that computes the best answer to any given “what should I do” question, to arbitrary but not infinite precision?
I am not talking about any ‘good enough’ answer. Whatever you deem ‘good enough’ to some arbitrary precision.
I am talking about the correct answer every time. This is not a matter of sufficient compute. Because if the answer comes even a fraction of a second AFTER, it is already too late. The answer has to be immediate. To get an answer that is immediate, that means it took zero amount of time, no compute is involved.
Is it something that your reader should be able to infer from this post, or from their own experience of life (assuming they’re paying attention?)
Not unless they are Awakened. But my intended audience is that which does not currently walk a spiritual path.
Is this something that you think you know mainly because of your personal experience with pervious worldviews failing you? Some other way?
A mix of my own practice, experience, training, insight, and teachings I’ve received from someone who knows.
Merely having worldviews failing you is not sufficient to understand what I am saying. You also have to have found a relative solution to the problem. But if you are sick of worldviews failing you or of failing to live according to truth, then I am claiming there’s a solution to that.

Unreal Sep 30, 2024, 11:07 PM
5 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I am saying things in a direct and more or less literal manner. Or at least I’m trying to.
I did use a metaphor. I am not using “poetry”? When I say “Discard Ignorance” I mean that as literally as possible. I think it’s somewhat incorrect to call what I’m saying phenomenology. That makes it sound purely subjective.
Am I talking down to you? I did not read it that way. Sorry it comes across that way. I am attempting to be very direct and blunt because I think that’s more respectful, and it’s how I talk.

Unreal Sep 30, 2024, 1:14 PM
5 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
First paragraph: ³⁄₁₀. The claim is that something was already more natural to begin with, but you need deliberate practice to unlock the thing that was already more natural. It’s not that it ‘comes more naturally’ after you practice something. What ‘felt’ natural before was actually very unnatural and hindered, but we don’t realize this until after practicing.
2nd, 3rd, 4th paragraph: ²⁄₁₀. This mostly doesn’t seem relevant to what I’m trying to offer.
...
It’s interesting trying to watch various people try to repeat what I’m saying or respond to what I’m saying and just totally missing the target each time.
It suggests an active blind spot or a refusal to try to look straight at the main claim I’m making. I have been saying it over and over again, so I don’t think it’s on my end. Although the thing I am trying to point at is notoriously hard to point at, so there’s that.
...
Anyway the cruxy part is here, and so to pass my ITT you’d have to include this:
“It’s not a meta-process. It’s not metacognition. It’s not intelligence. It’s also not intuition or instinct. This wisdom doesn’t get better with more intelligence or more intuition. ”
“I’m more guided by a wisdom that is not based in System 1 or System 2 or any “process” whatsoever. ”
“The “one weird trick” to getting the right answers is to discard all stuck, fixed points. Discard all priors and posteriors. Discard all aliefs and beliefs. Discard worldview after worldview. Discard perspective. Discard unity. Discard separation. Discard conceptuality. Discard map, discard territory. Discard past, present, and future. Discard a sense of you. Discard a sense of world. Discard dichotomy and trichotomy. Discard vague senses of wishy-washy flip floppiness. Discard something vs nothing. Discard one vs all. Discard symbols, discard signs, discard waves, discard particles.
All of these things are Ignorance. Discard Ignorance.”

Unreal Sep 30, 2024, 1:01 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Just respond genuinely. You already did.

Unreal Sep 30, 2024, 1:00 PM
4 points
0
in reply to: romeostevensit’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I don’t know how else to phrase it, but I would like to not contradict interdependent origination. While still pointing toward what happens when all views are dropped and insight becomes possible.

Unreal Sep 26, 2024, 9:59 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: AprilSR’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I appreciate this attempt… but no it is not it.
What I’m talking about is not the skill to combine S1 and S2 fluidly as needed.

Unreal Sep 26, 2024, 1:07 AM
5 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I will respond to this more fully at a later point. But a quick correction I wish to make:
What I’m referring to is not about System 1 or System 2 so much. It’s not that I rely more on System 1 to do things. System 1 and System 2 are both unreliable systems, each with major pitfalls.
I’m more guided by a wisdom that is not based in System 1 or System 2 or any “process” whatsoever.
I keep trying to point at this, and people don’t really get it until they directly see it. That’s fine. But I wish people would at least mentally try to understand what I’m saying, and so far I’m often being misinterpreted. Too much mental grasping at straws.
The wisdom I refer to is able to skillfully use either System 1 or System 2 as appropriate. It’s not a meta-process. It’s not metacognition. It’s not intelligence. It’s also not intuition or instinct. This wisdom doesn’t get better with more intelligence or more intuition.
It’s fine to not understand what I’m referring to. But can anyone repeat back what I’m saying without adding or subtracting anything?

Unreal Sep 25, 2024, 6:08 PM
10 points
2
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Yes we agree. 👍🌻
I think I mention this in the essay too.
If we are just changing at the drop of a hat, not for truth, but for convenience or any old reason, like most people are, …
or even under very strenuous dire circumstances, like we’re about to die or in excruciating pain or something...
then that is a compromised mind. You’re working with a compromised, undisciplined mind that will change its answers as soon as externals change.
Views change. Even our “robust” principles can go out the window under extreme circumstances. (So what’s going on with those people who stay principled under extreme circumstances? This is worth looking into.)
Of course views are usually what we have, so we should use them to the best extent we are able. Make good views. Make better views. Use truth-tracking views. Use ethical views. Great.
AND there is this spiritual path out of views altogether, and this is even more reliable than solely relying on views or principles or commandments.
I will try out a metaphor. Perhaps you’ve read The Inner Game of Tennis.
In tennis, at first, you need to practice the right move deliberately over and over again, and it feels awkward. It goes against your default movements. This is “using more ethical views” over default habits. Using principles.
But somehow, as you fall into the moves, you realize: This is actually more natural than what I was doing before. The body naturally wants to move this way. I was crooked. I was bent. I was tense and tight. I was weak or clumsy. Now that the body is healthier, more aligned, stronger… these movements are obviously more natural, correct, and right. And that was true all along. I was lacking the right training and conditioning. I was lacking good posture.
It wasn’t just that I acquired different habits and got used to them. The new patterns are less effortful to maintain, better for for me, and they’re somehow clearly more correct. I had to unlearn, and now I somehow “know” less. I’m holding “less” patterning in favor of what doesn’t need anything “held onto.”
This is also true for the mind.
We first have to learn the good habits, and they go against our default patterning and conditioning. We use rules, norms, principles. We train ourselves to do the right thing more often and avoid the wrong thing. This is important.
Through training the mind, we realize the mind naturally wishes to do good, be caring, be courageous, be steadfast, be reliable. The body is not naturally inclined to sit around eating potato chips. We can find this out just by actually feeling what it does to the body. And so neither is the mind naturally inclined to think hateful thoughts, lie to itself and others, or be fed mentally addictive substances (e.g. certain kinds of information).
To be clear:
“More natural” does not mean more in line with our biology or evo-psych. It does not mean lazier or more complacent. It does not mean less energetic, and in some way it doesn’t even mean less “effort”. But it does mean less holding on, less tension, less agitation, less drowsiness, less stuckness, less hinderance.
“More natural” is even more natural than biology. And that’s the thing that’s probably going to trip up materialists. Because there’s a big assumption that biology is more or less what’s at the bottom of this human-stack.
Well it isn’t.
There isn’t a “the bottom.”
It’s like a banana tree.
When you peel everything away, what is actually left?
Well it turns out if you were able to PEEL SOMETHING AWAY, it wasn’t the Truth of You. So discard it. And you keep going.
And that’s the path.

Unreal Sep 25, 2024, 2:59 PM
3 points
−21
in reply to: Unreal’s comment on: How I started believing religion might actually matter for rationality and moral philosophy
I would also argue against the claim religious institutions are “devoid of moral truths”. I think this is mostly coming from secularist propaganda. In fact these institutions are still some of the most charitable, generous institutions that provide humanitarian aid all over the world. Their centuries-old systems are relatively effective at rooting out evil-doing in their ranks.
Compared to modern corporations, they’re acting out of a much clearer sense of morality than capitalist institutions. Compared to modern secular governments, such as that of the US, they’re doing less violence and harm to the planet. They did not invent nuclear weapons. They are not striving to build AGI. Furthermore, I doubt they would.
When spiritual teachers were asked about creating AI versions of themselves, they were not interested, and one company had to change their whole business model to creating sales bots instead. (Real story. I won’t reveal which company.)
I’m sad about all the corruption in religious institutions, still. It’s there. Hatred against gay people and controlling women’s bodies. The crusades. The jihads. Using coercive shame to keep people down. OK, well, I can tell a story about why corruption seeped into the Church, and it doesn’t sound crazy to me. (Black Death happened, is what.)
But our modern world has become nihilistic, amoral, and vastly more okay with killing large numbers of living beings, ecosystems, habitats, the atmosphere, etc. Pat ourselves on the back for civil rights, yes. Celebrate this. But who’s really devoid of moral truths here? When we are the ones casually destroying the planet and even openly willing to take 10%+ chances at total extinction to build an AGI? The Christians and the Buddhists and even the jihadists aren’t behind this.

Unreal Sep 25, 2024, 2:56 PM
12 points
0
in reply to: quiet_NaN’s comment on: How I started believing religion might actually matter for rationality and moral philosophy
My second point is that if moral realism was true, and one of the key roles of religion was to free people from trapped priors so they could recognize these universal moral truths, then at least during the founding of religions, we should see some evidence of higher moral standards before they invariably mutate into institutions devoid of moral truths. I would argue that either, our commonly accepted humanitarian moral values are all wrong or this mutation process happened almost instantly:
This is easy to research.
I will name a few ways the Buddha was ahead of his time in terms of ‘humanitarian moral values’ (which I do not personally buy into, and I don’t claim the Buddha did either, but if it helps shed light on some things):
- He cared about environmentalism and not polluting shared natural resources, such as forests and rivers. I don’t have specific examples in mind about how he advocated for this, but I believe the evidence is out there.
- Soon upon getting enlightened, his vow included a flourishing women monastic sangha. For the time, this was completely unheard of. People did not believe women could get enlightened or become arhats or do spiritual practice. With the Buddha’s blessing and support, his mother and former wife started a for-women, women-led monastic sangha. It was important that men did not lead this group, and he wisely made that clear to people. The nuns in this sangha had their lives threatened continuously, as what they were doing was so against the times.
  - Someone who digs into this might find places where things were not ‘equal’ for women and men and bring those up as a reason to doubt. But from my own investigation into this, I think a lot of reasonable compromises had to be made. A delicate balancing between fitting into the current social structures while ensuring the ability of women to do spiritual practice in community.
  - I do not personally buy into ‘equality’ in the way progressive Westerners do, and I think our current takes on women/men are “off” and I don’t advocate comparing all of our social norms and memes with the Buddha’s implementation of a complex, context-dependent system. I do not think we have “got it right”; we are still in the process of working this out.
- The Buddha’s followers were extremely ethical people, and there are notes of people being surprised and flabbergasted about this from his time, including various kings and such. Ethical here means non-violent, non-lying, non-stealing, well-behaved, calm, heedful, caring, sober, etc.
- Also extremely, extremely taboo for his time, the Buddha ordained from the slave caste. Ven. Upali is the main example. He became one of the Buddha’s main disciples. The Buddha firmly stood on grounds that people are not to be judged by their births. Race, class, gender, etc. There are some inspiring stories around this.
- I think it can be reasonably argued that Buddhists continue to be fairly ethical, relatively speaking. The Buddha did a good job setting things up.
  - Unfortunately, Jesus died soon after he started teaching. The Buddha had decades to set things up for his followers. But I would also claim Jesus just wouldn’t have done as good a job as the Buddha, even with more time. Not throwing shade at Jesus though. Setting things up well is just extremely difficult and requires unimaginable spiritual power and wisdom.
There are also amazing stories about Christians.

Unreal Sep 25, 2024, 2:16 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: quiet_NaN’s comment on: How I started believing religion might actually matter for rationality and moral philosophy
I mean, if moral realism was correct, i.e. if moral tenets such as “don’t eat pork”, “don’t have sex with your sister”, or “avoid killing sentient beings” had an universal truth value for all beings capable of moral behavior, then one might argue that the reason why people’s ethics differ is that they have trapped priors which prevent them from recognizing these universal truths.
This might be my trapped priors talking, but I am a non-cognitivist. I simply believe that assigning truth values to moral sentences such as “killing is wrong” is pointless, and they are better parsed as prescriptive sentences such as “don’t kill” or “boo on killing”.
In my view, moral codes are intrinsically subjective. There is no factual disagreement between Harry and Professor Quirrell which they could hope to overcome through empiricism, they simply have different utility functions.
I don’t claim to be a moral realist or any other -ist that we currently have words for. I do follow the Buddha’s teachings on morals and ethics. So I will share from that perspective, which I have reason to believe to be true and beneficial to take on, for anyone interested in becoming more ethical, wise, and kind.
“Don’t eat pork” is something I’d call an ethical rule, set for a specific time and place, which is a valid manifestation of morality.
“Avoiding killing” and “Avoid stealing” (etc) are held, in Buddhism, as “ethical precepts.” They aren’t rules, but they’re like…
a) Each precept is a game in and of itself with many levels
b) It is generally considered good to use this life and future lives to deepen one’s practice of each of the precepts (to take on the huge mission of perfecting our choices to be more in alignment with the real thing these statements are pointing at). It’s also friendly to help others do the same.
c) It’s not about being a stickler to the letter of the law. The deeper you investigate each precept, you actually have to let go of your ideas of what it means to “be doing it right.” It’s not about getting fixated on rules, heuristics, or norms. There’s something more real and true being pointed to that cannot be predicted, pre-determined, etc.
Moral codes are not intrinsically subjective. But I would also not make claims about them being objective. We are caught in a sinkhole dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity. Western thinking needs to find a way out of this. Too many philosophical discussions get stuck on these concepts. They’re useful to a degree, but we need to be able to discard them when they become useless.
“Killing is wrong” is a true statement. It’s not subjectively true; it’s not objectively true. It’s true in a sense that doesn’t neatly fit into either of those categories.

Unreal Sep 25, 2024, 12:48 PM
3 points
0
in reply to: Jonas Hallgren’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I use the mind too. I appreciate the mind a lot. I wouldn’t choose to be less smart, for instance.
But we are still over-using the mind to solve our problems.
Intelligence doesn’t solve problems. It creates problems.
Wisdom resolves problems.
This is what’s really hard to convey. But I am trying, as you say.

Unreal Sep 25, 2024, 12:46 PM
6 points
0
in reply to: Adele Lopez’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Yes non-attachment points in the same direction.
Another way of putting it is “negate everything.”
Another way of putting it is “say yes to everything.”
Both of these work toward non-attachment.