Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Skanky Mojo

Hrair
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Community Reputation

33 Lavender Lad

About Skanky Mojo

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

243 profile views
  1. Most recent episodes killer folks get on it; Aura Mystica EP13: "A Conversation With Myself" X
  2. Call her out on it, if you really care then you should give her the respect of telling her your true thoughts. When you do though, be open to the fact that really your working from an incomplete metaphysic too. Exchange your views with eachother, try to understand why she believes what she believes and explain why you believe what you believe to her. X
  3. I like to think of it as conducting experiments on your own mind/psychology. You have a base state that your mind occupies right, so take a "measurement" of your normal waking state. Then you perturb your mind with any stimuli your personally comfortable with (Drugs, Sex, Prayer, Meditation, Food, Exercise, etc. Anything you want.) and take measurements of the new state. Slowly you collect a "data set" broad enough, that you can build a modal and use that modal to optimize your action in the world. Drugs are just one way to collect data. So the drug itself has no defined possessive or negative, it's a tool. I could build some furniture with a hammer or kill someone with it. I should be held morally accountable for my use of a tool, not the tool itself. X
  4. @ShoesMelloy my election?.. Man you've fucked me now, I'm totally inclined to be like "election!? This is a coup!" and run on with this improv bit you pulled me into... but I'm thrown because it was the election today and you could be serious... 😓 Your guna have to help me here bro, I fear I've dropped the ball. 😜 X
  5. Yo, prisoner of Her Majesty here! Votes are in, no party won a majority so we have a hung parliament. The country has been split down the middle since brexit honestly, this is more of the same. This bit of satire sums it up best; X
  6. Their both round earth shills man, CIA implanted cultural manipulators! Haha, seriously though, I can't say I do. I mean they both have their agendas and sometimes their views conflict with my own but I wouldn't say either of them are "fishy". X
  7. One of my favourite songs. X
  8. I know I'm taking it to the nth degree, there's no denying that, it's just how my brain works. That's the position I've got to at present and why I can't pick a side in the Harris Vs Peterson truth debate. When discussing "Truth" or "Reality" we're like blind people discussing colour. I feel it's better we face our limitations instead of arguing over semantics for a 3 hour podcast and getting nowhere. X Oh and I like the analogy of the ledge @pattmayne that's a good point. X
  9. I'm not capable of providing a quote to back this up but if you require one I can do my best to find one in a day or two. Hopefully this will suffice. Sam is a self proclaimed atheist and a determinist. Atheists presuppose a metaphysic without a "God" and determinists presuppose a metaphysic where all events are determined by forces external to "Will". Now I make no claim to the validity of any ism but both the aforementioned have metaphysical assumptions that you can't escape. Say if I'm not making sense and I'll try to clear up anything I can. X
  10. Man fully with you, +1 for everything you just said. Honestly Peterson's lecture's have massively helped me reintegrate after a very messy life and a lot of drug use. It's like "Oh no wonder I'm such a fucking mess, I've not been doing any of this shit!" I genuinely feel more aware of why I feel what I feel and that is a very positive thing for me. X
  11. Yo! Sorry homes totally thought you we're the first guy. Full accept what your saying in terms of the definition of fallacy. I was getting my back up with the original poster on these grounds; The assertion was Peterson used a logical fallacy when justifying his position. I don't think that's the case but that's not the point. If your going to use the axioms of standard logic as a basis to bolster a position, you have to be capable of using standard logic to defend that position. In standard logic you have what are called "formal fallacies", an existing body of established fallacies. The straw man, The Ad Hominm, The Black and White, etc. If your asserting that someone is in conflict with standard logic and they're invoking a fallacy, I feel you should, at the very least, be able to provide me with a quoted example that uses a "formal fallacy". If you can't do that then your statement is fallacious in it'self. Hope that makes sense, I'm not trying to pick sides (Harris or Peterson) I just want the discourse to be meaningful. (The rest of your point I'm going to attempt to address with the next quote.) X Very good synopsis first I think that's a pretty damn accurate breakdown of it. The issue I see with both positions Harris's and Peterson's is that they're both nested inside metaphysical frameworks that presuppose one thing or an other. In my mind until humanity achieves a perfected metaphysic the foundation we place "Truth" on can be undermined. I mean for something to be "True" it has to be both in accordance reality and without variation. I'd go as fair as to say, humans have too limited a temporal existence to observe "Truth" externally. You can bracket a frame of time and make statements about that but you can't "account for eternity" so to speak. X Oh an I'm just a random dude, zero qualifications, talking fully out my arse, so please pick what I've said to shreds. I'd love to expand on this and see if we come up with anything interesting. X Edit: Typo
  12. A gun!? No... This... This is just a persuasion and pacification device, from time to time my subjects *cough* apologies "friends" need my guidance. I ask you what kind of dictator *cough* I mean "example" would I be if I left our flock with no shepherd? I would never forsake the forum to seek pleasures of the flesh in any York, old or new! Whats this I hear about a peace treaty party!? In my honour you say?.. Well then I must attend! Oh joy! I hope there's a buffet... X
  13. I appreciate that the first "waking up podcast" episode was a shit show, though I think both parties were at fault to some degree. Still I'm afraid you've not outlined a fallacy he's implemented as I requested and it could be argued that you yourself have implemented a straw man. I'm not arguing one side or the other, I just have to take people to task if they're bolstering their position with any theory of logic. If you can't define your axioms and can't state the fallacy he's implemented I'm not sure I can take your dispute seriously. I'm not intending to piss you off, just genuinely want to see if your capable of actually using standard logic to justify your statements considering that's where you claim to ground your position. Also if you yourself would offer a definition of "Truth" I'd greatly appreciate it. X
  14. Just watched the first one and loved it! I'm actually guna get a copy of the Bible for additional reading haha. X
  15. Care to out-line a fallacy you feel he's implemented? I have to say I'm pretty with the guy on everything he says. Totally open to your opinion though if you can share some points. X