@roche's banner p

roche


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 February 14 22:38:18 UTC

				

User ID: 2878

roche


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2024 February 14 22:38:18 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2878

Until recently it was also natural that infant mortality rates were 30% to 50% during childbirth, and that a single cut from a rock may prove fatal. Natural too, then, is the fact that this mystical path really ends in no profound change, and this is owed not to the weakness of our methods, but the poor karma of most practitioners. So the Buddha is said to have stored countless lifetimes of accumulated good will, and that for any man to become awakened it is like digging through a mountain with a spoon. In the end it's all promises, and I've seen it too many times. Dig through the layer of promises and you hit the bottom.

I find profound benefits in this and was recommended to meditate even by my therapist in my psychiatrist's office.

Sure. Freedom from ADHD. Freedom from anxiety. These are all wonderful things. But it's not what was advertised.

This strain of analysis is limited, because one pillar of the Indian perspective we struggle to understand is the jewel analogy, the kaleidoscopic view of the capital-t Truth where it changes depending on where we stand, hence Kathenotheism, hence Syadvada. Hence Samsara as being an arrow that soars out of oblivion and lands in your rib. It doesn't matter where the arrow came from; it's a problem and it needs to go. Unfortunately, I don't see much in your quote. To me it seems like a rehashed and watered-down Schopenhauer's Will.

Sure, there are benefits to meditation both in the moment and long-term. But there's a massive discrepancy between what is being promised, and what is actually happening for long-term practitioners. People go in expecting something like Krishnamurti's natural state, where the qualitative nature of moment-to-moment experience and behavior is permanently changed, but all you really get is a mild feeling of equanimity and non-dualism -- though you can reach immensely powerful states during meditation and shortly after. There is an obvious mismatch between what manifests and the type of thing promised in the suttas. And yet, our meditation is entirely a reconstruction from the ancient texts; one that emphasizes vipassana while the ancients emphasized samadhi.

It is tragic that meditation is so closely tied to a religion, because this means effectively one side of the population will not take it seriously, while the other half embraces it like pure magic. And this extends to our scientists. Someone who's done his reading knows the almost cartoonish way our scientists flip on a dime when shown a few good proofs of eastern medicine. When the Greeks found their high arts among the Egyptian priests, they saw to separating the mystical from the material. It is a third position that is exceedingly hard to come by now.

Best to abandon all hopes of reading something interesting online in 2024. Put the onus on yourself to dig through old publications and research instead.

Sure, I agree. If you want ancient go to China.

But in defense of Japan, they view time differently. This is damn hard to explain if you're not really familiar with Asian cultures, but imagine a piece of taffy stretched out to infinity, and then suppose this taffy is infinitely divisible, and that you live on a random notch somewhere on this taffy, and that's how Japanese view time. There is a natural sense of eternity there, as if you're just a little ink blot on the letter of some word of a grand page in a grand book you know nothing about, and can never read or decipher. But you don't care, because things are safe and cozy and beautiful, and if there's anything you like it'll be around a long time. Driving to work, warm coffee, pleasant tunes. All of it will last.

AFAIK, caring about quantitative time is a Westerner thing. Even the ancient Greeks had a very different conception of it, where the past is like infinitely far away even for events that occurred 10 years ago, and you have dudes getting labeled demigods while their grandkids still walk around town.

Are there any trends in the media now that don't have a label yet?

Doubt it

Holding a thinking face expression for much of the day also creates wrinkles around the face. The greats have eye-areas marked out like world war trench formations

Keep in mind that religion is a social mechanism -- one of multiple nigh-invisible but indispensable mechanisms to keep us from clawing out one another's throats. In Japan's case what happened is not religion, but something functionally equivalent to one, which is that the entire country sort of melded into one enormous clan, and the operative faith here is that if one performs his duty in the clan to the nth degree he's going to get all the spoils of society, which is why Japanese elders make no bones about picking up trash or being a crossing guard, and why they're so reticent and polite. Japan is also by no means homogeneous, and that word is a phantasm unless you're talking about very old villages or uncontacted tribes.

and then they formed warm relations the formerly enemy distant genome.

Politeness is a social mechanism too

And what are tribal reasons? Differences in behavior. A symbiotic relation is made possibly only by very advanced social mechanisms, and when you consider the advancement of tribal peoples, you should take it to heart that failure to innovate in these systems more than anything concrete is the culprit for their failure. Someone very well read in Chinese history would probably get me, since this process is much harder to see in Western society, as low population density is the historical norm and we had generous time to figure these things out.

Had a random thought that really kinda depressed me. It was thinking about my father and extended family as a whole, and how I can naturally relate to them a lot, while in the world at large I butt heads against people all the time from the sheer fact we're just so different. I remember Westerners laughing at those little tribes in Africa or Brazil with 99%+ genetic similarity that murder fractions of their populations, and do it again yearly, and the punchline is supposed to be Hey look at these idiots killing each other when they're so similar!, and yet they never stopped to think hey perhaps those tribes lived separately because their ancestors hated one another and split off from the same tribe generations ago, like the valley vs. highland people, and this happens constantly in hunter-gatherer societies when there's conflict, and our society is a spectacular achievement in taming groups that should by all accounts loathe one another, by hiding who we are through politeness and living in Dunbar's number-adjacent circles of moderate genetic similarity.

Knowing the reason we fight is pretty much just genetics is a downer.

Party. It's a gross phenomenon when parties tailor their every little motion to match the flow of the crowd (or really a clumsy, out-of-touch notion of the people), and even uneducated Americans can probably sense they have no other real motive. Like parents who spoil their children and bend their will to match the kid, the whole process feels backwards. Presidents are leaders, but these apparatuses don't select for actual leaders because a tough guy maverick will refuse to play by the rules. I get the ick looking at parties; How's a bunch of followers going to produce a leader? It's backwards.

Self-replication is the primary one, and it goes for both sides.

Right, but if the main road to political domination is military genius, the selection pressure falls on tactical brilliance.

Charisma is undeniable, but it's a holistic product of concrete things. Trump's charisma is not his background or his manner of speech or suit, but they all play a part in forming his charisma. So what's the nature of that charisma? Why does it work when Trump does the funny hand motions and says "I've got a deal with China, it's the greatest deal, you're gonna love it", when if any other candidate did this it would be suicide? Answer: It appeals to that old old American mentality I mentioned. That sort of enterprising, ungarnished, take-no shit ambition which historically defines this nation's existence. It's because Trump actually embodies these values that it works for him, and for that reason republicans can't produce a replica, because these are not their values. Which is really a failure of democracy: Like every system of morality known to man, when you optimize for trait X as seen from outside, you don't end up with a society full of trait Xers, you get a dog-and-pony show great at convincing swathes of the population someone has trait X even if they don't, and only that; Not actually getting trait X. But for this reason, red tribe could totally produce new Trumps if they recalibrate. The big obstacle is they're so divorced from the common man, they too can't quite fathom his appeal.

Calling it charisma is circular reasoning. People like him because he's charismatic. He's charismatic because of... his voice? His hair? His smile? What about him can't be replicated, exactly? Undeniably what he's giving us is rare, but it revealed to us something undeniable, this type of mass appeal we haven't seen before. He's like a businessman without the bullshit, like an old old American, so old that a huge subset of Americans can't even really fathom his appeal or why it works. And I think that in all honestly is the origin of TDS -- it's because they don't get his main appeal that they assume he's popular because of x/y/z -ism. Not even reds understand it, but crack the code and we'll be seeing more Trumps some day. Not soon, but it's coming. This isn't a stars-aligned moment, but rather a 'we've accidentally stumbled into something huge, and almost a decade later we're still working out what it means' type thing. This is clearly not a fluke.

Hi all! I'm cooking up a new history of science blog with a side of book reviews, a pinch of games, deep dives into obscurities, and cultural observations. I've put a healthy amount of time into branding, and then let the first batch of ideas simmer until they're fairly strong. As I have (close to) zero audience coming in, I'm optimizing for quality on this first run (1-2 months), shilling it in some relevant spaces, and then basically praying. If you have any tips or suggestions, I'd appreciate it!

Why do you disagree that they selected for it? The link is undeniable. Especially because consular appointments are annual, and it's very hard to judge the wider decisions or impact of a consul on that time scale, and conquest is one of the lone things that's obviously an immense positive, just like rhetoric, except proconsular appointments shatter that dynamic and form an even greater imbalance of power. If we're not selecting for great orators or great generals, then what are we selecting for?

Late Republic

I mean that on paper, the Roman system was designed to select for any number of positive attributes, but what it really ended up selecting for is military genius, to a point where they became the real heart of the Roman world, and the republican institutions were like some awkward growth inessential to its subsistence in later years. And to the extent the senate tries to justify its continued existence in the face of obsolescence by staking claims on the military, it faces immense pressure not only from the generals, but from the populares who feel the senate's authority is far out of proportion to their real importance.

This may be naive, but screw it -- do you think Trump style populism is here to stay? Our political system is evidently a failure in regards to incubating genuine talent, and the biggest figures now emerging from the private sector seems to say a lot. Like, just as the Roman system acted as an insane pressure cooker for military talent until they could outcompete the elites, perhaps the same will just happen here along a different vector and real politics won't even occur along the old lines anymore.

Yup, pretty much. Would have felt better undeniably.

There's also the shit pacing. Look, I understand that BG3 is an early access, multi-year-spanning project, but hot damn does the story have such an awkward and spasmodic flow to it. Act 1 is good, act 2 starts off barren and then builds up into this bizarre crescendo that (vibes-wise) could pass as the end of the game, and then spits you out into act 3 which is completely anticlimactic because it feels like you were just at Mordor but now you're back at Tom Bombadil's.

I said old, not Old.

I'm not the only one who loathes old English poetry, right? Chaucer is great, Shakespeare is great... and then it's about two and a half centuries until you reach something enjoyable again. Awkwardly mythology references, cloying saccharine language, each stanza flowing out like a nursery rhyme and resolving itself in that lame self-satisfied way, with an aftertaste like stale bread. It is a wonder that they who read the King James Bible produced it.

Working memory is a passive process, it's not what we use to consciously model things. Not sure what we'd call the modeling area of the brain, I've heard sensorium used.

It may be that the ability to hold slightly large/more concepts in your mind is responsible for the spontaneous causal associations you describe.

It's a bit of a mystery really. All we know for sure is, working memory/modeling ability/intelligence are strongly correlated. When you and I say modeling ability we're probably thinking about shape rotation or figures and so on, but I believe each form of intelligence has its own type of modeling ability, which is accompanied by a strong working memory (at least in that field). So I suppose there's no knowing which is the 'essential' component, the two always occur simultaneously.