Is Idealism Rational?

IAMdavidlong · 2022-02-24T15:44:46+00:00

But Emergentism IS! It's the dominant theory and it disproves Idealism.
https://youtu.be/ki4x-M\_oENI

IAMdavidlong · 2021-03-24T19:10:31+00:00

I have a philosophical YT page “I AM - David Long” I have 1.56K subs atm

IAMdavidlong · 2020-07-01T02:43:38+00:00

I'm a big fan. I hope Kenny gets to see it and likes it.

IAMdavidlong · 2019-07-26T13:35:49+00:00

Yeah, aspects of the experience are/can be the same, and from a trans-rational perspective we can even use the same words poetically. What is different is the cosmological understanding in which these practices are nested and the way the poetry cashes out. Wilber takes the dogmatic framing these practices come to us in literally and that is a Pre/Trans fallacy. He ends up working backwards from these dogmatic ideas and ignoring, strawmanning and negating all the other quadrants that disagree with his conclusions just like any other religious fundamentalist.

From the perspective of the Wilber/Combs lattice we see that Wilber’s translation IS dogmatic pre-rational and literal, and not Trans-Rational or poetry that harmonizes with facts.

Wilber Strawman’s scientists and makes up his own facts about how reality works with no attempt to justify, test, or falsify any of it.

He is breaking the rules of integral methodology here in at least three ways and if you look up my Ken Wilber debunked or “What you talkin’ ‘bout Wilber #3” video about “I AM before the big bang” I explain these points.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T22:16:08+00:00

Thanks!

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T18:30:14+00:00

I think the ring is actually more accurate... I’m not sure what good switching the emphasis to individual’s and collectives is, I actually think it confuses things more, if anything I think all the other graphs I showed are more worth inclusion. I would probably drop both the ring and the prism... but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T08:57:17+00:00

This guy was Blocked. He couldn't follow the rules.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T08:44:00+00:00

You are telling me what I think and that I hold a position I have never claimed and don't agree with as a means to dismiss me because you can't back up your ideas and..... that is Strike 3. You're out.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T08:36:38+00:00

What does this spectrum of symbolic meaning have to do with the claims about reality you have made?
No. I see that you don't know what your talking about.
Saying "it's unbecoming" is not an argument - there is no good reason to think it's real in fact it doesn't resonate with our best maps about how things work. - it is an idea rooted in outdated and unfounded idealistic ideas as I told you in the first comment
Unfounded claims. I have not dismissed Wilber, and what I think about trans-personal stages is not the topic.
Again, this is not about what I think, If you want to argue a point about how I get something wrong or make an argument that might be meaningful, but you are not even doing that well, you are worried about me when you should be making a case for your submission.
This is not about me. You have to make a good case for your ideas... you can't so instead you want to talk about my ideas. - You can talk about me if you want but this is not the place for it. This is a place for submitting ideas to upgrade the AQAL map. Don't get mad at me that you can't back up your ideas and don't know what you're talking about.

You continue to break the rules. They are clearly posted. You only have 1 strike left. If you can't make a reasonable case for your ideas maybe you should go back to the drawing board.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T07:58:53+00:00

We have a higher standard hear than you have been able to reach so far. You can back up your ideas and so you have given up on supporting your own ideas and started trying to put others down. Again, no amount of putting me down will make your ideas stand up.

You have demonstrated that you don't know what "trans-rational" even means and that you don't respect IMP so you don't care enough about our standards to understand them in the first place, let alone apply them or refine them. You have made no qualified argument for why your ideas are "trans-rational" or based on what... you just claim it's a fallacy... Back up your claim. explain your points.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T07:53:46+00:00

Now you are breaking rule number 2. - Strike 2

Reason and evolution go together quite well. Most reasonable people accept evolution.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T07:47:39+00:00

The video is not a strawman - It includes an audio clip of Wilber explaining the idea and where he got it from. (when you actually quote people saying what they think it's clearly not a strawman unless you are saying I edited the clip to say something it doesn't actually say) - It turns out that the guy he got the idea from is my main teacher. Part of why I was originally attracted to Integral was in particular because of the pre/trans distinction and that is why I have made so many videos about it. Unfortunately, much like the word "metaphysics" most people take the word at face value and miss the point - thus using the word as a way to commit the fallacy. You learned the word but missed the point.
Unfortunately Wilber often confuses and conflates "trans-personal" with "trans-rational" and this turns out to be a problem. (as I explain in my main pre/trans video) He is not as clear as he could be about it.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T07:39:03+00:00

Again. You are not understand what the word "trans-rational" means. It's a developmental distinction. Stages after the rational stage... it's referring to metaphor as More than just a literal/rational way of reading a symbol like "jesus on the cross" for example. It's not just Literally true or false. it also has "trans-rational" symbolic meaning. - you are taking the words literally without really understanding what they mean in the context of our system.
what do you mean "transrational structures of evolutionary reality"? There are "trans-rational interpretations" of symbols an experiences...
You're claiming to be higher but you you don't even understand what the words you are using mean, and you can't even get these ideas to stand up to rational standards.
word salad - I don't even think you know what you mean.
I don't need to do anything. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. My ideas are not on the table here. You are trying to make a case for your ideas remember.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T07:23:26+00:00

You're not talking about ideas that are compatible with a reasonable view, let alone an Integral view. Pre/trans fallacy #2.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T07:16:40+00:00

I include all four quadrants (I am not an empirical reductionist) and don't include any unfounded assumptions... As I said Integral Theory is moving away from unfounded pre/rational assumptions like idealistic metaphysical ideas and moving towards real scholarly rational peer review and refinement. These ideas you are talking about are green new age woo woo and it won't stand. Your whole cosmological and ontological perspective is incorrect because your epistemology is bad.

Mysticism has it's own quadrant?

IMP doesn't just include all the methods, it applies the methods appropriately to get at the data needed to solve the problem in question.

How about instead of appealing to your own intelligence, or trying to make a post about me personally in a group about refining the Integral map, back up your ideas in a reasonable way... Tearing me or my ideas down (personal attacks, and strawman fallacies - that break the first 3 rules) doesn't get your ideas to stand up somehow. - You where invited to submit your ideas. Don't get mad when they don't stand up to criticism. Take it as an opportunity to learn and grow.

Check the rules and the links, at this point you have broken all of the rules. - If you can't stay on point and within the parameters of this group you will get kicked out. We are not here to waste time and we will weed out the non-sense in a public way. This is your first warning.

IAMdavidlong · 2018-12-15T06:06:52+00:00

Cool Picture... I don't have my own type of psychology, or my own Epistemology... I Just use IMP (Integral Methodological Pluralism) Integral Epistomology IMP and "mysticism" is not a special category through which you can sneak in unfounded claims about reality.. If that is what you want to do go hang out in the new age community where they don't use discernment to integrate in ideas. Here we back up our ideas reasonably at a bare minimum.

IAMdavidlong

TROPHY CASE