The Living Force
Niall said:I've been engaging with some of Haidt's W.E.I.R.D.s on Sott and I tell ya, it's like we're using the same script (English) but speaking two completely different languages with it. It's not just that we disagree: we use the same kinds of points to make our arguments and counter-arguments, only... theirs are completely inverted! We're completely impervious to them, and vice versa. Two totally different value systems, and never the twain shall meet.
Do you have some examples of those interactions you feel like sharing? The bolded portion just seems to contradict Haidt's findings in that they're not exclusive value structures, per se. According to Haidt the liberal values are formed out a subset of the values that conservatives possess.
Could this Conservative-Liberal split be, more or less, the 'splitting of Earths' described in an old session? Where we're in '4D Earth' but observing and interacting with '3D Earth'? An early phase or manifestation of it perhaps?
I don't think it was described quite like that, but dang if we're not in Kansas anymore!
How do you define reality? Is reality defined by what we believe theoretically about the world, or by how we act in it (or perhaps more accurately how the world responds to our actions), or by the emotional bonds we have with others (to the extent that that is distinct from action or response to action)?? (Thinking of the pragmatists and existentialists here when defining truth/ethics). I ask this because it seems like they both matter somehow.
I ask for a particular reason. I practice strategic enclosure with many "normie" individuals who just would NOT be able to have a conversation about ufos, vaccines, Russia, etc., but I still hang out with them and enjoy their company and so on. We are a part of eachother's lives, although our views on reality are different in the higher echelons. But we both agree about the quality of the menu at the restaurant we're attending, the humor of the jokes shared, etc... all of which is much more immediate, concrete, and has greater intimacy. Ditto with some close family of mine also.
Jordan Peterson's insistence that we always tell the truth seems to lead to the result that such relationships would be under greater strain until they either break off (leading to fully separate realities) or converge further (leading to a more coherent shared reality). Gurdjieff's emphasis on external considering and practicing "smart insincerity" seems to create conditions where we can navigate more nimbly among people whose realities are more divergent from our own. These seems good in some situations but not others, since if people start lying to make things easier on themselves more often you end up with a totally fragmented and chaotic world like that in a 20th century pathocracy like Stalin's Soviet Union. Telling the truth as you see it leaves the door open for the best of a person to come forth, according to JP.
I worry sometimes about having certain relationships that are emotionally rewarding but sometimes lead to my listening frustratingly to off-the-cuff remarks that remind me of how small their worlds are. Do I risk dragging them into a reality they don't want? A part of me, for example, wonders if my hanging out with a more or less asleep person is the reason they are living in a reality where the evil Donald Trump got elected, or where Putin's Russia intervened in Syria and so led to that heartbreaking Netflix documentary that made them cry... The flip side, of course is, does my associating with them harm me as well somehow? Is my reality decaying into entropy in subtle ways by association with people who don't believe as I do about the world? To me I think the decisive point would be the energy draining aspect, and to what extent the association fulfills certain aims. But aims can be abstract things, and sometimes meaningless unless they have action in them. It's just sometimes hard for me to see how someone's beliefs about some obscure topic affect the day-to-day material/emotional interactions, unless we draw connections from Samenow about there being some fractal or self-similar patterns in all our actions, thoughts, and feelings, both world-altering or inconsequential.
A part of me also thought about certain people in reality acting as anchor points. Things have relative reality, and some are more real than others. I feel like I am less observable to the universe than Caesar or Putin or Laura by virtue of not having impacted or influenced people in as large a way as they have. But that I value and respect the work they do, and do my best to use them as examples, maybe adds to them, and in a way informs of my own reality also, similar to how migratory birds shape the air currents (or groove the information field a la morphic fields).