Kyle Kowalski - How to Synthesize Wisdom Like a Wizard | Elevating Consciousness Podcast #47

Рет қаралды 746

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 16

@markporteous6835 3 ай бұрын

This was a fantastic interview! I have listened to hundreds of podcasts, studied consciousness for over 20 years, and have been a mission-driven entrepreneur for decades. This is the first time I've listened to a 2-hour interview. I am inspired by both of you and feel aligned with your message about bridging money and meaning. Slow Living is an additional term to my understanding of minimalism and intentional living.

@ArtemZen 3 ай бұрын

Thanks Mark very happy to get your comment and to hear that there is deep resonance

@wonderland5868 3 ай бұрын

Minimalism definitely changes my life!!

@ArtemZen 3 ай бұрын

Thanks for tuning in 🙏

@slowwco 4 ай бұрын

Thanks for having me for Round 2, Artem!

@ArtemZen 4 ай бұрын

My pleasure thanks for coming on again 🙏

@thinkerythunker616 3 ай бұрын

This felt like a rapid crash course for a myriad of related topics. Left me feeling overwhelmed by all of these concepts, which seem like they each could easily be a two hour conversation by themselves. I don't feel like I really comprehended anything from this, but it certainly left many seeds in my mind. Seeds of the awareness that this and that are a conceptual thing out there that people think about, that I can potentially look into at some point. I don't really understand what's so novel about "synthesis." It strikes me as a superfluous concept, on first impression. Like, of course we're trying to organize all of our understanding of the world in our heads in a kind of web of interconnected concepts. As opposed to what? Schizophrenic compartmentalization? I liked the conversation about ego-development. I don't know shit, but I'd probably align with this Nora Bateson lady on this. Ego-development stages sounds like BS. I think it all comes down, very simply, to the free will question. Not believing in free will just completely undermines the ego. To me, "ego" is our sense of relative inferiority or superiority to others, on a kind of mystical, holistic level. And if we don't have free will, then all of that just goes out the window. Everyone's just observing an evolving web of causality from the unique perspective of their consciousness. And there's no sense in which anyone is better or worse than anyone else on some fundamental level. It's a completely flat moral landscape in which decisions are but outcomes of processes. What is there besides for this insight, in terms of "stages of development"? To me, it's like, you either believe in free will, and you have a sense of ego, or you don't believe in free will, and you are completely free from any sense of ego. I really like what Kyle Kowalski is doing. I like to think about how philosophy can be monetized myself. Like, I think it can be a kind of therapeutic consultation. I daydream sometimes about getting really well versed in philosophy, and offering one-on-one consultations to people seeking clarity in their lives. There's probably a market for that!

@ArtemZen 3 ай бұрын

Theres a lot here but I think regardless if you believe or don't believe in free will everyone has an ego. I think the ego is a far more complex phenomenon than the superiority/inferiority thing although that's part of it. To me spiritual work is seeing through the ego and allowing awareness to remain as free from being identified with ego. It's there & it's not, its a character, it's useful and it's not what we ultimately are. I've gon back and forth on free will but I lately I hold it as a paradox, we both have and don't have free will or in other words we have a choice in every moment but we don't have ultimate free will. It's not the easiest thing to explain. I do think many people who say they don't have free will Kyle included still act as if they have free will. Jordan Peterson says "You want to know what you believe look at your actions." People act as if they have free will so I don't know if they actually believe they don't have free will. But yea belief is one of the most fascinating & complex things to me and humans can certainly hold contradictory beliefs hence both believing & not believing in free will.

@thinkerythunker616 3 ай бұрын

@@ArtemZen But what does it mean to "act as if you have free will"? How would you expect a person who does not have free will to act differently? One of the problems with the concept of free will is that there doesn't even seem to be an answer to those questions. There isn't even a clear way of defining what it means to have free will. Whereas, not having free will seems very clearly comprehensible -- you are entirely an outcome of a complex web of causation. Simple! There just doesn't seem to be any other way for ANYTHING to occur -- things are either CAUSED by something, or they are completely random, and there is no other possible conceivable alternative! So, free will just strikes me as a completely incoherent concept. I think what people mean by "you still act as if you have free will" is that we still utilize the same language, which assumes free will. So, we still use words like "decision." But I think that's simply because we lack more accurate words. What else do you call it? When a robot makes a "choice," is there a different word for it? I just think of choices as "outcomes of processes." But I do feel like the word "choice" inherently implies something else, which is incoherent to me. And then I still resort to using the word, because there just does not exist a more accurate alternative. Or do you mean something different? Could you verbalize what you mean by "acting as if you have free will"? I'm sorry for such a long response, it's just that I have heard this line before, and I've thought a lot about it, and wanted to share my thoughts on the matter. And yeah, I am equally as puzzled by a "more complex" conception of the ego. To me, "a sense for how we compare to other people, holistically" seems to be a comprehensively complete definition of it. I have a hard time trying to understand what more is there to it. If it's such a complicated concept that it's too difficult to define, then why do we use it so commonly, as if everyone is on the same page about what it means? I think "too complex to define" is a red flag for something being an incoherent buzz-word that people throw around just to sound cool. Do you feel like you have a clear understanding of what precisely does it mean? Thanks a lot for your response! I know this is a lot, but I feel like it's impossible to be brief about these things. This is me trying to be brief! Haha!

@ArtemZen 3 ай бұрын

@@thinkerythunker616 I think what I mean by people act as if they have free will is that they are attached to the outcomes in their life, they strive to reach certain goals and become upset when they don't. Listen I'm sure there are some people that live in a spontaneous flow and like Krishnamurti used to say don't mind what happens but that's not most people and not even most people who say there is no free will. Anyway you bring up good points that just make me further feel that free will is a paradox that we can debate forever. I don't think ego is too complex to define although different people will understand it and define it slightly differently.... a simple definition for Ego is - who you THINK you are. Also I feel like I understand it experientially better than I can explain it. Most people don't understand what health is until they get sick. In the same way, it's difficult to understand what ego is until you dissolve it. Ego is an illusion that creates a sense of being a separate and discrete being in time and space. When the ego dissolves so does any sense of time, space, locality, separation, etc. Also, ego is not bad it's a necessary and useful fiction that only becomes problematic when we take it seriously. I appreciate your thoughtfulness & inquisitiveness would be cool to discuss some of this on a zoom call one day.

@thinkerythunker616 3 ай бұрын

@@ArtemZen Debate?? Hahah! I am not writing any of this to persuade you! I just wanted to clearly communicate my perspective, and clearly understand your perspective. That's the objective of conversation to me -- to arrive at a mutual understanding of each other. But I wouldn't want you to actually change your mind about anything just because of something that I said. And I still don't understand what you mean. Why would not having free will entail "living in a spontaneous flow"? Why would people not feel attached to the outcomes of their lives or want to strive towards goals? Wouldn't that, to the contrary, only serve to further demonstrate a lack of free will? Because it shows that people's decisions have been CAUSED by their desires? And their desires CAUSED by past experience? I don't see how there is any escape from causality in that. And this conception of the ego as a "self-awareness" seems confounding to me. Because if that is what the ego is, then why do we not just use the term "self-awareness"? And also, what word would better fit the concept of "our awareness of how we compare to others," if the word "ego" isn't it? Broadening the definition of it just strikes me as a muddling of concepts. If you would want to talk over a zoom call, I'd be honored! I would have to install zoom, I have managed to avoid it all along. I like Discord instead. But if you prefer Zoom, that can be arranged. It would be great to talk to another English-speaking Artem!

@ArtemZen 3 ай бұрын

@@thinkerythunker616 email me artem@artemzen.com

@wonderland5868 3 ай бұрын

I think one of the missions is that people learn Minimalism