Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 1:04 pm This is good shit right here: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxdGHopr4vfG ... 9olmzxbJlu

See what just happened there, Roy? U were suddenly captivated by her beauty and u started having impure dualistic unmetaphysical thoughts. Then u recognized how u were sizin her up when u glanced at your own video image on the screen (when your eyes shift). Suddenly embarrassed at yourself for lusting over her, u stop rubbing your chin and straighten your composure.

The best is at the beginning when they both try to stay still and silent (even though they are blinking, breathing and moving and thinking), and after about a minute of this Denisa nervously laughs at the awkward silence and asks him "How long did it take you to practice this? How many years did it take for it to become effortless to maintain this state?"

And in this video: https://youtu.be/W_Vslnj_evg?t=866

he talks about how he is rich in materialist fashion! What a joke this guy is. His only concern is for himself and that everyone else share in his delusions of grandeur.

So right there around those clips u pointed out to Denisa how the 'stillness' isn't like a part of the machine... isn't one side of a dualistic relationship between thought and the moving things of experience. Instead the stillness these zen guys are talkin about is rather the absence of the activities created by the relationship between the mind and the world of things... so it's a third category describing the state of the absence of physical movement and thought (mind), the two parts that compose the duality of experience. Like when she (if she did) associated the yang with stillness (as u allege). Yeah that wouldn't be right; the stillness can't be experienced becuz experience is a product of two interacting things - body (includes the physical world) and mind - and becuz the stillness is the absence of these things, it can't be a product of experience.

That's basically what is meant when u guys talk about the stillness, right? You're basically tryna express what can only be a paradox when it's (or is attempted to be) described with words and becomes a concept.

"What a joke this guy is. His only concern is for himself and that everyone else share in his delusions of grandeur."

That's why he needs Denisa becuz she'd straighten him out. And Roy D isn't a genuine dick. It's not like that. He does have the capacity for humility. Rather he overestimates the significance of what he's struggling to explain becuz of the ambiguity of the material he studies and his lack of any serious study of philosophy (the usual suspects like aristotle, hume, descartes, locke, kant, nietzsche). What's turnoffish is how confident and self indulgent he is in what is simplistic and uninteresting to u becuz of its amateurish nature. U see some guy who thinks he's a genius babbling some unintelligible crap about yin and yang who doesn't realize what a dufus he sounds like.

Editor's note: I do not claim Roy D is a dufus. What I claim, however, is that the nature of what he is trying to talk about is such that one can very easily and quickly start sounding like a dufus when talking about it.

At this point we can be sure that Roy D doesn't study Tarski's work, but that doesn't mean he's an imbecile. On the other hand, if he were just a tad bit better spoken, the content of the ideas he's into would be more agreeable and interesting. But again, u can only go so far with that stuff until you're just sitting there going 'woooooah man'.

So there is some real philosophical substance to the ideas he's into... it's just that those ideas are really very simple, limited in range, with little applicability in real life, and often very ambiguous due to the nature of the language used.

Okay it's the nothingness. I need to lose my ego. Everything is an illusion. The governments and the people of the world are living a lie like the veil of your momma... maya, rather. Excuse me. When i die i will either become the stillness or circle back around like Jen Psaki.

Then what? Say all this is true. What should i do now, Roy D, during everyday life, to be in accordance with the principles of nonconceptualism? Where's the chapters on work life and career and romantic life? What about politics... do i lean left or right and what's an ideal society of nonconceptualists look like? Do we still do the same stuff more or less or do we abandon the cities and live in agrarian mountain communities? Like could u be a Wallstreet stock trader and a nonconceptualist at the same time?

https://youtu.be/W_Vslnj_evg

Okay this one u gotta be careful with, TL. On one hand he does overexpress a petite bourgeois pomposity and vanity in how flippantly he mentions his wealth during the intro. But that's just a personality quirk and shouldn't detract from the coolness of the idea of having a sensory deprivation chamber. The problem is, we can't be sure Roy is the guy who'll make philosophical breakthroughs with the use of a tank. U could prolly put Roy in the swimming pool and you'd get the same results.

Zing!

No need to spend 10 stacks on a tank unless Roy is capable of having Huxley level insights during deprivation.

If Roy D is as wealthy as i think he is (would like to know the back story to that wealth), he should be investing in real-estate and having nonconceptualist communes built like any proper cult leader would with that kind of money. I don't know why he's fuckin around with youtube.

What we need is Denisa and like five of her female friends to get dual citizenship and come over here to america so we can get goin on the nonconceptualism stuff. First u need to decide on a place and how much u wanna spend/invest in this 'intentional commune' as they're called, Roy D. Once this is done and we move forward with the project, the brightest among us will devise a constitution for our new nonconceptualist society. This could totally go places, and we wouldn't be one of those crazy suicide people cults that wanna die by immolation so their souls can be collected by the aliens in the spaceship passing behind the moon. None of that shit. We would just plant our gardens, smoke weed, workout in the community's gym and discuss nondualistic nonconceptualism.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 4:22 pm So there is some real philosophical substance to the ideas he's into... it's just that those ideas are really very simple, limited in range, with little applicability in real life, and often very ambiguous due to the nature of the language used.

There isn't even any philosophical substance to his ideas. It's just a jumble of words - a word salad. These "Philosophers" think that they can put a string of words together that follow the rules of the English language but don't actually mean anything, or is not useful in any way, and then lay back and revel in how intelligent they sound. It's literally a language game - a social game they play to see who can be the most artful with words. They think that statements like, "This sentence is not true" has some profound meaning when it is just a misuse of language. These "Philosophers" create problems with their improper use of language where there are none just to hear themselves talk and think they are smart.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:26 pm "This statement is not being read."

There is no paradox.

You cannot capture reality and encapsulate it into a formal system because reality is infinite and so it will always escape any attempt to encapsulate it as it must, because reality is one thing, it is the self, and the self is capable of self-reference and when you're capable of self-reference this necessarily leads to a paradox.

There is No such truth as Dopson’s paradox.

graders must continue on with their education, and not settle for AI standards of understanding that will rewrite the dictionaries.
Dictionaries change over the years, the meaning of words dissolves in time.
Top
roydop
Re: The Theory of Enlightenment
Post Thu Feb 27, 2025 11:51 am

I created a new username and tried posting the following text and video under the "Math and logic" section. It has been hung up with the moderators for 5 days now. This morning I tried to log in with that username and it rejected the request

I think this is being repressed. I think it has the Philosophy Now folks in a panic. This is the greatest revelation in human history. No hyperbole intended.

This is the great deprogramming. School/academia has brainwashed and programed us to such a degree that people are unable to accept that it's all been false. But look at where humanity is. We are spiraling into madness and hell at an exponential rate. Why? How did it get so bad? Well this is how. And where.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67b38273-1378 ... 894b40734f

https://youtu.be/xnwklLGHFJ0?si=p4vLdaclqfFnFJ5_

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:26 pm "This statement is not being read."

That's not a paradox. Whenever that statement isn't being read, then that statement is in fact, true. There's no apparent contradiction at all. So, how is that a paradox?

Most paradoxes are a product of confusing linguistic representation for the represented.

Language represents a reduction of existential flux, to a static form.
When men confuse their semiotic representations for the dynamically real, paradoxes emerge.

In essence paradoxes are inherent in the methods the brain uses ot reduce a dynamic existence to a form it can process and store and use.

In this, so called Dopson's paradox - the mind confuses the linguistic representation for the act.

Another example would be the sentence:
Truth is there is no truth.
or
There are absolutely no absolutes.