The idea of "noise" was brilliantly articulated. Having been struggling with the similar idea of being "nature's mistake" and an abundance of related intrusive thoughts, these videos really help in a way. As sad as it might sound, JrEg is the only person in the world that makes me feel somewhat understood and it brings me a lot of comfort. I am very grateful for that.
Wh-Wh-Wh-WHOOPSIE! Looks like you got PARASOCIALED, buddy! Tag a friend to totally PARASOCIAL them! Any opportunity for human connection is valuable and should be pursued as far as reasonably possible.
@Tom Meakin Sorry if this answer seems vague, but these kind of things are really difficult to articulate. I think in one way or another any depressed person could relate to this feeling, which complicates stuff. I guess for me it boils down to the fact that my mind gets obsessed with ideas too easily. Meta-thinking is something only humans can take advantage of and it's one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain, but I feel like in my case it is becoming detrimental to my well-being. Or in simpler terms, years of self-ostracizing and ruminating in my depression made be feel like the entire way I am is a mistake. Like, when I compare myself (and my problems, ideas, philosphy and worries) to "other humans" so to speak.
@@yainaya_ that is the function of the Default Mode Network. it's designed to analyze and criticize, but it's harmful to get stuck in a self criticism loop.
I'm only about halfway through the video, but I'm liking that he seems to be more straightforward in presenting his ideas than he usually is. I'm expecting it to take a turn any moment.
Oh fuck, this guy's actually smart. He understands frameworks. Hopefully he can use that 400 iq to dig out of the depression - we're all with you Jreg man
@@rowenhildreth6221 interesting framework. I disagree. Finance doesn't dictate intelligence. Rather daft people do exist in there, but also, people who go into finance are usually lacking in emotional and social intelligence.
When I first watched this, I thought this was a joke, just laughing at the ridiculousness of using the word framework to describe everything but ultimately meaning nothing. But coming back to this almost a year later, after being committed twice, I understand now. Thank you, JrEg, you set me free.
having frameworks is cringe, instead you should just take in all information as an indescribable superposition between true and false simultaneously and fall into a cycle of depression as reality loses all meaning. this is definitely not also a framework, don't question it.
Living in the noise certainly is depressing and eventually may result in suicidal thoughts, the comfort of a framework is far too tempting but it's hard to reject the noise once you've fallen there.
Summary: We cannot act without assumptions. We usually aren't aware of them, but questioning our assumptions too much leads to a psychosis like state (which is bad). You can avoid this state, by trusting your feelings more (most brain processes are subconscious for a reason). Bad ideas die out eventually.
Uh-oh, it looks like jreg has now gone completely sane. I'm afraid I now have to leave this channel, and instead go watch some video about posadist primitivist transhumanism.
JrEg I have loved your content specifically for this underlying sense that you're saying something deeper than the politics, like a philosophical undertone to it all. Please more like this.
7:58 I hope this poor emo fellow's dad let's him know its Plato who had the 'world of forms'. Aristotle rejected the idea, and believed form to be an intrinsic part of objects.
watching your stuff has always been comforting to me, but this video and your description of "noise" really hit me hard. in my life ive called frameworks lenses, and always fixated on trying to expose myself to as many as possible. i have begun to settle onto some actual structure for myself, and on the one hand it feels good to know i can draw from so many experiences, but sometimes i do wonder if the damage it did was worth it ahaha. for me, one main axiom in life revolves around understanding that people arent inherently good or bad, but adaptive to their enviornments. when dealing w a huge range of people (esp in irl gatherings) it can be really helpful for me to relate in a way that doesnt cause me to spiral in a weird existential way. anyway thanks for talkin abt this stuff ksjdnjff
No shit I was about to leave a comment about having a similar idea and using the term "lenses" haha. Whenever I deal with the "noise" I usually have an existential crisis for a while before I go on a walk and relax back down into my chosen frameworks. Fun to hear that others have had these thoughts floating about!
I've been thinking a lot recently about how what really makes political/religious/societal system "tick" is mostly down to buy-in from the people participating in it. If everyone under a communist/capitalist system wants it to work, it most likely will, if everyone in a democratic/autocratic system wants it to work, it most likely will. Even to the point that I think a "bad system" with total buy in from its populace will succeed more than a "good system" that's unpopular. Glad you made this video Jreg, plenty to expand on.
There weren’t many revolts in feudalism, because even though lower classes had horrible rights compared to aristocracy, they had accepted that this was the way it was, and they couldn’t do much to change it (disclaimer I am not a historian and this is just my opinion)
It's not necessarily buying into the system as "the best" as much as it is doing the best you can within the existing system. As you said, if people want it to work, and are willing to put forth their own efforts in order to make it work, it will usually work. The problem is that humans are, on average, very bad people. The question then becomes "which of these systems is best able to compensate for human moral failings?"
@fredreich groypson All he did was state what he had been thinking about and the conclusions he reached. If that's evidence of a dismissive attitude, you may want to check your own.
@fredreich groypson I'm trying to figure out exactly where you get off adding nothing to the conversation other than basically saying "your close minded" then refusing to elaborate further. Me commenting how a RUclips video correlates with a concept I've been working with doesn't make me "dismissive" of other frameworks. If you think it does, how about you share a framework that rivals this one. Even doing that you still won't be showing how I'm being dismissive of it by simply not mentioning something I haven't spent time thinking about. Unless your point is that you're entitled to everyone you ever interact with echoing your own thoughts. So how about you add something of value to this thread or quit typing.
Translating Jreg to lacanian terms: Noise = Trauma Frameworks = Reality Meta-Framework = The Real (well, partially... in a lacanian sense the real could not be fully grasped by human beings, while Jreg's understanding of a meta-framework can still be grasped by a framework. But, I'm saying that lacanian's real is equivalent to Jreg's notion about meta-frameworks in the sense that meta-frameworks transcend pre-established axioms, pre-established ways of dealing with the real, and can easily lead you to noise, which is equivalent to the notion of trauma for Lacan. Trauma being when someone loses its sense of reality and are only left with the real, but since they cannot fully grasp the real, they just get in a stage where they're confused about everything)
I am sad that he described what I have been going through for years now. It is excruciating state of being. Funny how some funny political prankster can give one a diagnosis :D
Living in noise is just intellectual laziness. Write down all your ideas and frameworks, in other words: Write down the noise. You sure that all the noise sounds exactly the same? Then keep the noise you have preference for and stop the noise that you dislike. Now you have created your own ideologie.
@@GrandpaRanOverRudolf why is it dangerous to feel unsatisfied by every thought you can conceive of, to relentlessly feel like something substantive is missing in your life?
Hey man. I've really appreciated your expressions of frames on here. Very intuitively rich, it makes me smile. Thank you! Also- you remind me of pre algorithm internet craft.... like unperturbed 2004 clips that are unperturbed by a certain algorithmic possession. Basically I just think you bring a lot of humanity to my internet addiction- and I feel compelled to thank you.
If it’s solipsism then that version is the most prosocial of solipsisms: it might be your point of view only but your point of view is limited, so let others change your point of view for the better even if they may not exist.
7:58 “Aristotle’s world of forms” Finally, the time I spent reading every Aristotle writing for what was supposed to be a single page paper has proven to not have been wasted after all. *ahem* nO
A perfect framework isn't going to fall into your lap Jreg, you have to build your own, continuously and consciously over the course of your life. If you get old enough you'll have a thoroughly worked out framework (not perfect, but by process of evolution pretty solid) and people will call that wisdom.
In my mind, I always interpreted your art as a struggle with identity structures (so the right word was the frameworks), whether they were the political identities or the ones that you've been talking about recently. Tho here is the claim is that "I have a meta-framework which says you to have a framework beacuse you're disconnected without them.", it always came to me as the opposite: "This framework that you supposedly have is a rotten rope that you hold on to to not fell into the darkness of your baseless personality. The framework is stupid and you are lying to yourself." Idk that was just how I feel when I watch your videos and wanted to share:^)
Jreg is more articulate here than most of my professors in philosophy, literature, economics, and psychology. My libertarian framework tells me that the market has succeeded in naturally promoting him to a status where his information reaches thousands more people than my professors ever will.
I kinda fell in noise but I used the thing that caused it (humanity being irrelevant to the universe in space and time) as a framework to build from physics up to humanity. What a gamer moment.
I really like how you described Anti-Centrism so now when people ask me what my political views are I can say more than just “the Overton window must die”
I expected to see a big-ass drop in quality once the post meta sudden death Jenga irony stopped, but I'm impressed. I really like this side of you, man.
I live in the noise and occasionally wear a framework like an outer shell to keep functioning but then I switch it after contradicting myself too many times and getting bored.
Jreg's framework, I am paraphrasing here, is something like: People make up stories to make sense of their experiences and decide what is true or false and how things should make them feel. These stories are called frameworks. To understand a framework, you need to believe it, and live within it. Only then, can you iron out the contradictions. Like how St. Augustine said that to understand you must first believe. Without a framework, you end up with noise. You are still absorbing all the information that you are getting, but you don't know how it makes you feel or if any of it is true or not. So, you can't make decisions. So, you have to pick a framework. But, Jreg also believes that even if you think that you don't have a framework, you really do still have a framework, even if its only implicitly, which prevents you from actually reaching the noise state. So, there is a contradiction in this framework. Of course, that is coming from someone who has not bothered to live within this framework and iron out the contradictions. I am just looking at this from the zoomed out perspective. Maybe it makes total sense if you live within Jreg's framework. Maybe that framework has some value that I am not seeing. But, that is irrelevant to me. I have my own framework that I need to work through the implications of. My framework is more like: Through our unique genetics and life experiences, we all acquire a framework. But any attempt to defend that framework will at bottom be a circular argument, because we can only argue from the premises of our own framework. Perhaps we can find a new framework due to our own efforts or someone else's efforts, or due to the impersonal forces of nature. But, even if we do, any attempt to defend that new framework will at bottom be circular, same as the old one. Not having a framework isn't an option, as any attempt to defend not having a framework would be self-refuting. So, we are all the prisoners of our frameworks forged by our unique circumstances.
The “noise” you speak of is when your mind starts interpreting everything “literally,” and you loose a lot of preconceived concepts. Your bedroom is no longer “my bedroom” it becomes “that bed and pillow” or not “Grandma” it becomes “that person of degenerated physical health” even “health” “pillow” or “bed” is broken down into its componentes because they are just frameworks for understanding larger concepts themselves.
@@lilsniper117 It’s just too much effort and you can’t function effectively. You will slip back into a non dissociative state eventually whether you consciously want to or not.
@@PointThree Not OP, but that's what I thought of too. Consider this: as a baby, you had to learn how to see. That's not metaphorical, babies can literally only see like 18 inches away from them and the rest, you guessed it, is noise, or blurriness. To become cognitively functional, the brain must make the noise coherent, e.g. whenever light hits my eyes this way, red thing there. The better you get at making these posits, the more structured the noise becomes. Eventually, you've smoothed out much of the information coming your way, even the abstract stuff like politics. All of this filtering and processing is your Default Mode Network. Psychedelics interfere with your ability to filter things like that, making you more open to the world and thus more noisy. This is good, in that it can open up new avenues you were suppressing due to trauma and dogma, and bad because you can find it difficult to choose just one state, leading to persistent dissatisfaction at the current state of affairs when carried over to every day life. Most people, after taking psyches, actually feel life is more valuable, and this is because of the constraining nature of modern day frameworks. But that's a topic for another time.
every framework is an infinitely regressive meta-framework. every axiom is a bundle of other axioms. the world we exist in is a framework and isn't the actual world, our representation of the world is the only thing we have direct access to
I refuse your framework and substitute my own. One can only abstract or granulate so much before you hit an eventual ceiling or floor. (On a less jokey note. how do you view the *entire* world as a framework? It’s in the name; *frame*work. it isn’t a building block. you can’t build a house out of them.)
@@lava2istrue I'm referring to the idea that we don't actually interact with the world, but the model of the world that our brain synthesizes from the sensory information we receive from the world. The real world is out there but we're experiencing it via sensors like our eyes and ears and skin. A good way to think about it is that it's like Iron Man's suit. But instead of a metal suit its a meat suit
@@erikthegodeatingpenguin2335 thanks! I only started thinking in this way over the past year as well. I wonder if it's because I've been interfacing with the world so much more via the internet because of the pandemic. The weed is probably a factor as well
For the sincerity approach, watch the videos in a reverse chronological order. Love your videos JrEg, applying metacognition to life’s varied categories
One of things I hated about myself is how critical of other's frameworks I was. It made me feel like I was the worst person, because it was all blind hate: I didn't even get to know them, just heard of them. And this unwarranted hate kept on going and going and so did my hate towards myself. Watching this made me feel less bad about this situation. Of course, I still want to get to know those frameworks I blindly hate and judge then accordingly, but I'm glad someone told it's natural.
Operating in an “open-closed-open-closed” rhythm accounts for the oddity of framework maturation/development. “The older I get the more I align/malign this-that-the-other framework” is a common sentiment, and the shifting or “blinking” open-closed “rhythm” beats us toward that and away from what you refer to as “noise”. We operate within a meta-framework of collective expression(s), this influence divides sentiment and guides us to our contextual “openness” or “closed-ness”, and within the micro-frameworks that emerge therein, we become newer minds and selves until the next state-change. The more time we spend enmeshed in our framework(s), the more those rhythms work all states closer to that most compelling and comfortable one. I had a point but lost it along the way. I’ll continue on another video, another time. Much love.
So, with regards to having a framework to avoid noise, maybe it's best to have a framework that'll keep breaking down in little ways, so you get used to rebuilding and stay adaptable.
God didn't create us to factually know as much as we can, he can already do that on his own. Be created us to experience everything first hand. That's something an unlimited being can't do without creating limited versions of himself.
Interesting new direction to the channel and explanation of the anti-centrist era. It seems like you’re turning quite philosophical so you might be interested in checking out Kant’s critique of pure reason (the mind comes pre-loaded with certain concepts, i.e. a framework, without which we cannot perceive/understand the world) and also Montesquieies (wrong spelling lol) dogmatic universalism which basically says we have to be open to everything except the idea of not being open to things and also maybe Hegels dialectics which is a good example of a meta-framework
I’d say he’s always been quite philosophical, his satire was always heavily laden with philosophical points and themes. Probably slim chances he’s never read Kants work (iirc he’s referenced him before) or Hegel but that montesquieu is French so therefore he’s wrong and not worth reading.
@@ground_news I really like the concept (especially the Blindspot section) and hope it grows. Left vs right is very basic though, any chance you guys will add other axis like Authoritarian vs Anarchist? Not sure if there's a third party you could get that bias rating from, without it having it's own bias though.
@@covereye5731We are definitely open to it! We do understand that the binary left vs right isn't robust enough in some scenarios. However, as you mentioned, there aren't any reliable ratings of outlets that exist with that level of analysis as of yet. We can't rate them ourselves because keeping our team's personal biases out of the app is very important to us - it's one of our guiding principles. We hope that a reliable source makes these ratings soon, but for now, our seven-tier political spectrum chart is relevant in nearly all situations :)
Jreg: Starts streaming Me: FUCK, now I can't consume all of his content! I feel like I've been watching a tv show and I just found out there's episodes later on which may or may not be plot relevant that are just wiped from history that I'll never be able to watch
Seeing as you’re currently interested in psychology and “frameworks”, you might be interested to know some of the history of the myers briggs things compared to the Big Five, the latter of which is based more on regression analysis let loose upon people’s answers on questionnaires (and as such, more empirical and “scientific”, however lacking an underlying theory) while the MBTI is based upon Carl Jung’s ideas about psychology, who did attempt to build up a theory using what you could say are first principles, but cannot be scientifically proven seeing as, of course, the mind is ultimately a black box
From my perspective as a physicist, a framework, or model of understanding, doesn't have to be perfect or not have contradictions to still have use. It can be useful for certain applications, for certain times when it helps your thinking, and useless in other different situations. Imo, it's healthy to be open to multiple different frameworks but also be aware of their limitations.
@@pacotaco1246 why solve the Heirarchy problem when we, as anarcho-physicists, could just destroy the Heirarchy problem? Just reject use of any physical units (because units are a social construct) and then there's no way to know if two fundamental values are the same or different!
I agree that people should pick a framework and not live in "noise", but that doesn't mean that they should stop critiquing the framework that they choose to believe in. I understand that there may be certain risks involved in deconstructing ones worldview, but in my opinion there is an inherent difference between knowing the weaknesses of ones framework and trying to improve the framework or even just acknowledging them and completely destroying the framework because it doesn't work in certain scenario's. The general impression I get from this video is that you should pick a framework and not critique it or at least be hesitant in critiquing it, and while I share the concern that someone trying to critique their framework might accidentally destroy it I still believe that critiquing your framework should be encouraged. I have met far more people that critique their framework too little than people that critique it too much.
This both sounds like and does not sound like a metaframework to me, and I feel very strongly about being unsure about it due to my anti-framework framework which I am against.
It really is a recurring thing in the history of philosophy. Plato questioned the framework of the Sophist's relativism. Aristotle questioned the framework of everyone before him. Descartes and Kant, Neitzche and Sartre did the same thing. And of course, you can always go back around to adopting Plato and Aristotle, while still *critically* accepting some of the meta-framework views of a Descartes, Kant or Sartre, seeing their "skepticism" as a tool for refining that framework without destroying it completely. I personally prefer that last option. =D
As above, so below The anafabula rips from the prima to the meta to the supermeta to the pata, rendering them al back down to the prima and then down to nothing You think you’re moving upwards in a line, they say you’re just going in circles over and over, but the train of Framework just spirals deeper into a dark dark center, and you’re nowhere closer to the stars than when you began
Thats like a spiral. Also known as a framework that involves confirmation bias. It has limited scope because its too busy reinserting itself to gain any distance. Like a fractal. You can get lost in x dimension and see all kinds of a b c etc dimensions within x dimension, but at the end of the day its still x dimension, you are just dissociating with into a framework, so you can be closed minded *and still* dissociate. Kinda like Jordan Peterson.
Your ability to articulate things I have also experienced, but haven’t/ don’t want to dedicate the time to analyze is calming ngl (regardless of your sincerity). Your description of “noise” is perfect and it’s a relief to hear someone else put those kind of concepts into words
"Noise isn't good, noise isn't good at all" Idk, sounds like not liking noise is the basis of a framework I can radically unsubscribe from with great passion and unwavering faith
I really liked your background! It felt like the framework shifting through thr noise and protecting you. The dropping of the border when you started about meta-meta frameworks was also nice. I do feel like you could go on with adding meta- forever though.
This reminds me of that one time I adopted the metaframework of being some fictional performance art character and the meta-metaframework of being a regular person who happens to have a vested interest in having people believe that my genuine expressions online are fictional for various reasons. That brings me around to the meta-meta-metaframework of being a fictional performance art character who acts like a regular person that happens to have a vested interest in having people believe that their genuine expressions online are fictional for various reasons. Isn't being parasocial online just one big hoot and a holler?!
DMT user here. Noise isn't so bad after you experience it a couple times. Just stay humble, and be thankful you have a psychospiritual home to return to when it passes.
As someone who has never used any hallucinogen and who does not plan to do so in the future, I really appreciate you sharing your experiences! That sounds like an interesting one. Would you say that being able to be comfortable with the noise at times has changed your outlook on life?
@@agiar2000 It definitely impressed upon me the idea that, as a human animal, I will only ever be able to understand the universe through my own subjective framework (so long as I experience it through a human body anyway). It made me less emotionally desperate to hold onto that human framework, but much much more emotionally thankful to have that human experience.
You talking about "noise" makes me think it's like in inception where they were lost in a dream they thought was reality or thought reality was just another dream.
These serious and informative videos are some of my favorites that you do. I know you're artistry wont let you do serious direct learning, but know they're appreciated.
Olivian sound Greek cause yes an Jr s are’s the SC creators of olives which sounds liked what idvbsayiong even tough I know dat u dobtx meN day an u say something lilac that I just though it’s funny
Oblivion sounds Greek because they are the creators of olives which sounds like what you’re saying even though I know you didn’t mean that I just thought it was funny.
Its why christians get mad when u tell them god isn't real. But its not really true, because coming out of that framework can be liberating, like allegory of the cave.
One of my favorite videos from you was "Frameworthless". I remember finding the idea of frameworks very interesting. I have since then started realizing that my current framework was very different from that of my parents. That dissonance was perturbing, and I think I started to doubt everything. If what my parents taught me was this flawed, is there anything that isn't flawed? I got very susceptible to noise. Very nice way to put it, "noise". The word is very evocative to what I was going through. I really like this video.
The issue is that when you take some set of ideas like panpsychism or "capitalism good", it isnt simply that those ideas axioms are used to build a world; rather this "framework" is already created by a totally different framework. Psychoanalysis seeks this original framework, hence its use as a tool of the critique of ideology. Of course, that too is a framework
You speak to me from the soul! I've been dealing with this problem for a while now. Meta-Frameworks deconstruction has helped me a lot in healing my mental illness, but now I am losing control and it is doing me more harm. Thank you JrEg for creating a Meta-Frameworks that makes me happier :)!
Honestly i think the part about noise was very accurate. While not using the exact same words i realized that as i learnt to appreciate other perspectives, or frameworks if we go by how you articulate, i also started questioning all those frameworks and even my own frameworks. I find myself not believing into any of those frameworks while also accepting them, which truly does feel like noise.
Dune has some cool meta frame work stuff and control of the mind ideas in it. Plus there is a movie coming out soon, idk thought I should mention it, reading it currently.
Various factions and figures in the Dune series manipulate the frameworks of others from a metaframework that sees faith as instrumental. It gets complicated quickly. Sometimes you have to start a religion to free people from a religion. Also, the galaxy is changed in drastic ways with consequences that ripple out for thousands of years because of the different frameworks of a few powerful seers.
Small Detail about frameworks I find interesting: something in your framework has to match with other peoples framework. For example, in our day and age, something in our framework has to let the idea of a brand exist. Around 500 years ago brands weren't something that existed in peoples framework. So with history you can analyse what in your framework is just in your framework because its in most peoples framework of our time. But that's just my framework. Great Video JrEg
Something important to remember about the big five model is that it's more a practical and over-arching model of someone's personality. There are of course many nuances to someone's personality, particularly in interests, which are completely absent in the big five model. However, where the model is useful is in science and statistics, and as a predictor of various decisions and outcomes throughout someone's life, because it turns out that these spectrums correlate reliably with how people's lives end up, in various ways. It's not very nuanced, but you can use it to, say, explain things like how men and women are different on average. While there are important differences that aren't in the big five, like interests and proclivity towards risk-taking, you can use things like neuroticism and agreeableness, I think the most differing traits between men and women (on average), and it explains differences between men and women on a societal scale, like the greater rate of female depression, as well as the likelihood of men and women to try get raises in their jobs, which men tend to have an advantage in, fitting with their lower agreeableness on average. I wish the Big Five was something like the Big Ten instead, including things like interest and risk-taking proclivity. Especially since Jordan Peterson talks so much about those along with the big five, lol.
No; integral theory. Ken Wilber et al, though Wilber hasn't had an original thought in 30 years and gets poststructuralism wrong. goggle Murray Bookchin! Tho AOS n Phil Hine &c are cool.
JrEg is the teacher that will be "cool" for the whole semester, telling you that the exam "doesn't matter it's all theory anyway", will joke with the class, show 2 or 3 movies instead of giving class, and in the end the exam is "easy" but is actually "open ended" as in only as open as the teacher allows and you end up with a barely passing grade, and will then give the class a speech about how he's so disappointed despite his subject being "easy" and not actually believing in scores.
wow greg you actually really understand my mind. thank you so much bc i was feeling very confused and i know that i'm not alone in my experiences but god it really felt like it and it just sucks in general sometimes(a lot). always looking forward to new videos and music from you 💗💗💗
What about Peterson? He talks about a lot of different things, which would involve many frameworks. Talking about frameworks themselves isn't a major topic of his though from what I remember.
@@warb_of_fire But he doesn't actually seem to realize that the perspective that he preaches from is in fact another framework; he can't seem to accurately explore the framework of The Left™ because he can only see the broad Left™ as "post-modern Neo-Marxists" and makes sure to reference "Cultural Marxism" which is just the newfangled term for "Cultural Bolshevism" which funnily enough, is literally what Nazi propaganda would use. [Not to say Peterson is a neo-Nazi himself or anything, just pointing out the curious parallels that he doesn't seem interested in noting; hilarious, given his lectures that go in depth into how fascism rose to such prominence in Europe in the 20th century, yet he's so blind to see that his stance seems to be aiding and abetting modern fascists to gain prominence in the 21st century] The longer he's stayed in the public eye, the worse he got about being able to see different frameworks. idk if he's just being paid phat stacks or something, and thus is compromising his values for dat monay, but he has walled himself off from being able to objectively observe or understand any framework other than his own.
@@TheKarret Of course he has trouble understanding leftists; everyone has trouble understanding opposing frameworks. It's not like he doesn't know this; he keeps mentioning in his political interviews that he's looking for Democrat politicians to interview. He was also a socialist and worked for Canada's far left party as a teenager... As for aiding fascists, I doubt they'd hate him so much if that was the case... He's pretty centrist on most topics, he probably pulls in people from both further left and further right.
@@warb_of_fire From what I've seen, people on the left more easily understand the right than the right understands the left. Also, Democrat politicians aren't leftists, generally. Bernie's probably the closest to that. He should talk to leftists who comment on shit - the same level as him, like Hasan, Vaush, ContraPoints or maybe even Khadija Mbowe. Vaush and Contra would probably be the best to talk to. But how much you wanna bet Peterson would never ACTUALLY agree to talk to them? Same way Ben Shapiro won't, or Steven Crowder or Dave Rubin or Joe Rogan... They only want the over emotional dumbfucks who aren't the best at articulating their points because it makes The Left™ look dumb, which helps the far right and fascists. Also, one's views and stances and what one supports can change as they age - doesn't matter what he once was... Hunter Avallone used to be a right winger, but he's grown and changed since then, it wouldn't make sense for him to try to still claim being a right winger just because he was as a teen... Peterson can't do that, either. I don't think fascists are so unwilling to work with him and he with them, though, if they see him as a useful idiot, which, best case scenario, is their opinion. And it's easy for him to be a conduit for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people to fall further right towards fascism than any would be pulled further left, then thanks to his lack of considering the effect of his words, then he's got a fundamental failing of understanding the framework that he's unwittingly supporting.
Now that you pointed it out for me, the internet really is good at tearing apart frameworks, isn't it? Maybe the greatest web of human knowledge, without context and sincerity, is just an ocean of noise.
11:12 - 11:17 *"noise is some kind of psychosis"* indeed. Being a sufferer of schizoaffective disorder I can vouch for that. Once you see patterns in what other people think is merely noise, you're probably already psychotic.
A Politic Show. A single politic. Only one politic.
Or is it a show that's "seeming sensible and judicious under the circumstances"?
Just one politic
@@JREG Hell yea. Pure focus.
No pol
Sounds pretty centrist to me...
@@ima7144 diversity is destroying polítics.
EUGENISE!
The idea of "noise" was brilliantly articulated. Having been struggling with the similar idea of being "nature's mistake" and an abundance of related intrusive thoughts, these videos really help in a way. As sad as it might sound, JrEg is the only person in the world that makes me feel somewhat understood and it brings me a lot of comfort. I am very grateful for that.
Can you expand on the "nature's mistake" thoughts and some of the related stuff? And say what you're struggling with? I'm curious
We are not “nature’s mistake”, *nature is the mistake*
Wh-Wh-Wh-WHOOPSIE! Looks like you got PARASOCIALED, buddy! Tag a friend to totally PARASOCIAL them!
Any opportunity for human connection is valuable and should be pursued as far as reasonably possible.
@Tom Meakin Sorry if this answer seems vague, but these kind of things are really difficult to articulate. I think in one way or another any depressed person could relate to this feeling, which complicates stuff. I guess for me it boils down to the fact that my mind gets obsessed with ideas too easily. Meta-thinking is something only humans can take advantage of and it's one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain, but I feel like in my case it is becoming detrimental to my well-being. Or in simpler terms, years of self-ostracizing and ruminating in my depression made be feel like the entire way I am is a mistake. Like, when I compare myself (and my problems, ideas, philosphy and worries) to "other humans" so to speak.
@@yainaya_ that is the function of the Default Mode Network. it's designed to analyze and criticize, but it's harmful to get stuck in a self criticism loop.
I'm only about halfway through the video, but I'm liking that he seems to be more straightforward in presenting his ideas than he usually is. I'm expecting it to take a turn any moment.
The turn is...
That there is no turn.
@@Eggscargot for someone so predictably unpredictable, he was for once predictable and therefore unpredictable.
Maybe he finally realized his messages were getting lost on basic bitches like myself
@@TacticalTypos the idea of "basic" is another framework
@@littlejarofhopes But bitchery is a priori?
We are truly in the "hes not playing a character anymore" era of jreg
The jrEGG has hatched I guess
@@dylanjulve5374 😆😆
Nah, the action itself becomes the art I'd say
@@toasteroftheomnissiah1372 im not sure how that relates to my comment, but sure
or are we??
Can’t believe I’ve actually been reading/writing smut fanfics about frameworks and not political ideologies.
always has been 🔫
Yo idk what you wrote but I prolly read it
The smut fanfics about frameworks are my favorite meta-frameworks
Link?
Link please
Oh fuck, this guy's actually smart. He understands frameworks. Hopefully he can use that 400 iq to dig out of the depression - we're all with you Jreg man
If he truly smart, he’d be in finance!
(ruclips.net/video/hHLXNe8tdM0/видео.html )
@@rowenhildreth6221 interesting framework. I disagree. Finance doesn't dictate intelligence. Rather daft people do exist in there, but also, people who go into finance are usually lacking in emotional and social intelligence.
He is smart, but you shouldn't take JrEg's claims about frameworks, or anything else, as facts, you know
At least the Clown is dead
When I first watched this, I thought this was a joke, just laughing at the ridiculousness of using the word framework to describe everything but ultimately meaning nothing. But coming back to this almost a year later, after being committed twice, I understand now. Thank you, JrEg, you set me free.
having frameworks is cringe, instead you should just take in all information as an indescribable superposition between true and false simultaneously and fall into a cycle of depression as reality loses all meaning. this is definitely not also a framework, don't question it.
Living in the noise certainly is depressing and eventually may result in suicidal thoughts, the comfort of a framework is far too tempting but it's hard to reject the noise once you've fallen there.
@@yewleaf If you weren't analyzing any, they'd be indescribable, there would be no data to make a probabilistic determination from.
@@eldarlrd it's not that hard once you realize that since logic is a framework you can build it yourself
All frameworks have noise, to get rid of such entirely all must be made obsolete. The posterity shouldn’t have to deal with this absurd.
@@Wonderingax this is both true and false, there are no frameworks because I use every possible framework simultaneously, so you are very wrong/right
Summary: We cannot act without assumptions. We usually aren't aware of them, but questioning our assumptions too much leads to a psychosis like state (which is bad). You can avoid this state, by trusting your feelings more (most brain processes are subconscious for a reason). Bad ideas die out eventually.
Uh-oh, it looks like jreg has now gone completely sane.
I'm afraid I now have to leave this channel, and instead go watch some video about posadist primitivist transhumanism.
This is not the alien cyborg dolphin content I subscribed for
Primitivist transhumanism? How does that work? Wooden peg legs?
@@crimsonqueen751 Primitivist transhumanism means expanding your consciousness through rock-based lobotomy.
@@crimsonqueen751 cyborg hunter gatherers
@@finnanut3921 ah yes, NieR: Automata
Mmmmm, the noise. The static keeps me warm. I will bathe in the endless contradictions, accepting and rejecting everything and nothing...
ah yes accepting futility only to be devoured by it
Based noise gang
JrEg I have loved your content specifically for this underlying sense that you're saying something deeper than the politics, like a philosophical undertone to it all. Please more like this.
7:58 I hope this poor emo fellow's dad let's him know its Plato who had the 'world of forms'. Aristotle rejected the idea, and believed form to be an intrinsic part of objects.
Whoops
Thank you.
@@JREG wait I was pretty sure that was intentional as a joke...
watching your stuff has always been comforting to me, but this video and your description of "noise" really hit me hard. in my life ive called frameworks lenses, and always fixated on trying to expose myself to as many as possible. i have begun to settle onto some actual structure for myself, and on the one hand it feels good to know i can draw from so many experiences, but sometimes i do wonder if the damage it did was worth it ahaha.
for me, one main axiom in life revolves around understanding that people arent inherently good or bad, but adaptive to their enviornments. when dealing w a huge range of people (esp in irl gatherings) it can be really helpful for me to relate in a way that doesnt cause me to spiral in a weird existential way.
anyway thanks for talkin abt this stuff ksjdnjff
ooo me too on that rail of thought about people
No shit I was about to leave a comment about having a similar idea and using the term "lenses" haha. Whenever I deal with the "noise" I usually have an existential crisis for a while before I go on a walk and relax back down into my chosen frameworks. Fun to hear that others have had these thoughts floating about!
Good one Jreg, you really showed those frameworks who’s boss!
yea!
Genuinely shut up
@@thetbhresistance7042 Good One @The TBH Resistance, you really showed those Jreg fans who’s boss!
@@maxwell7942 Good one, @Maxwell, you really showed those critics of Jreg fans who's boss!
@@billbadson7598 Good one @Bill Badson, you really showed the bosses of those Jreg critics who's boss!
I've been thinking a lot recently about how what really makes political/religious/societal system "tick" is mostly down to buy-in from the people participating in it. If everyone under a communist/capitalist system wants it to work, it most likely will, if everyone in a democratic/autocratic system wants it to work, it most likely will. Even to the point that I think a "bad system" with total buy in from its populace will succeed more than a "good system" that's unpopular. Glad you made this video Jreg, plenty to expand on.
There weren’t many revolts in feudalism, because even though lower classes had horrible rights compared to aristocracy, they had accepted that this was the way it was, and they couldn’t do much to change it
(disclaimer I am not a historian and this is just my opinion)
It's not necessarily buying into the system as "the best" as much as it is doing the best you can within the existing system. As you said, if people want it to work, and are willing to put forth their own efforts in order to make it work, it will usually work. The problem is that humans are, on average, very bad people. The question then becomes "which of these systems is best able to compensate for human moral failings?"
@fredreich groypson At what point was this ever implied?
@fredreich groypson All he did was state what he had been thinking about and the conclusions he reached. If that's evidence of a dismissive attitude, you may want to check your own.
@fredreich groypson I'm trying to figure out exactly where you get off adding nothing to the conversation other than basically saying "your close minded" then refusing to elaborate further. Me commenting how a RUclips video correlates with a concept I've been working with doesn't make me "dismissive" of other frameworks. If you think it does, how about you share a framework that rivals this one. Even doing that you still won't be showing how I'm being dismissive of it by simply not mentioning something I haven't spent time thinking about. Unless your point is that you're entitled to everyone you ever interact with echoing your own thoughts. So how about you add something of value to this thread or quit typing.
Holy shit, Jreg giving good, constructive advice about mental health rather than projecting his noise into everybody else? Never would’ve thought
No theres still satire and irony.
Translating Jreg to lacanian terms:
Noise = Trauma
Frameworks = Reality
Meta-Framework = The Real (well, partially... in a lacanian sense the real could not be fully grasped by human beings, while Jreg's understanding of a meta-framework can still be grasped by a framework. But, I'm saying that lacanian's real is equivalent to Jreg's notion about meta-frameworks in the sense that meta-frameworks transcend pre-established axioms, pre-established ways of dealing with the real, and can easily lead you to noise, which is equivalent to the notion of trauma for Lacan. Trauma being when someone loses its sense of reality and are only left with the real, but since they cannot fully grasp the real, they just get in a stage where they're confused about everything)
You know you're in for a wild ride whenever Jreg makes an "unironic" video.
Especially in a neon wind tunnel.
@@E4439Qv5 but, he has always bee trapped in that. Usually its just slightly below your screen - the zeroth frame
your take on "noise" sounds like what Sartre meant by "nausea" in his book nausea - a dangerous state indeed
I am sad that he described what I have been going through for years now. It is excruciating state of being.
Funny how some funny political prankster can give one a diagnosis :D
why is it dangerous?
Living in noise is just intellectual laziness.
Write down all your ideas and frameworks, in other words: Write down the noise.
You sure that all the noise sounds exactly the same? Then keep the noise you have preference for and stop the noise that you dislike. Now you have created your own ideologie.
@@GrandpaRanOverRudolf why is it dangerous to feel unsatisfied by every thought you can conceive of, to relentlessly feel like something substantive is missing in your life?
@@GrandpaRanOverRudolf You lose all believes.
You’re ridiculously creative.. your work has grown so much
Hey man. I've really appreciated your expressions of frames on here. Very intuitively rich, it makes me smile. Thank you! Also- you remind me of pre algorithm internet craft.... like unperturbed 2004 clips that are unperturbed by a certain algorithmic possession. Basically I just think you bring a lot of humanity to my internet addiction- and I feel compelled to thank you.
"The world ends with you. If you want to expand your world, expand your horizons."
-solipsism, everybody's favorite framework
Nice picrew pfp lol :^)
@@DraconicMordred thank you :^)
@@RandomAmbles A good way to fight the Noises for sure
If it’s solipsism then that version is the most prosocial of solipsisms: it might be your point of view only but your point of view is limited, so let others change your point of view for the better even if they may not exist.
7:58
“Aristotle’s world of forms”
Finally, the time I spent reading every Aristotle writing for what was supposed to be a single page paper has proven to not have been wasted after all.
*ahem*
nO
Plato's had the world of forms, not Aristotle, GAWD!
True
A perfect framework isn't going to fall into your lap Jreg, you have to build your own, continuously and consciously over the course of your life.
If you get old enough you'll have a thoroughly worked out framework (not perfect, but by process of evolution pretty solid) and people will call that wisdom.
Cool metaframework
In my mind, I always interpreted your art as a struggle with identity structures (so the right word was the frameworks), whether they were the political identities or the ones that you've been talking about recently.
Tho here is the claim is that "I have a meta-framework which says you to have a framework beacuse you're disconnected without them.", it always came to me as the opposite: "This framework that you supposedly have is a rotten rope that you hold on to to not fell into the darkness of your baseless personality. The framework is stupid and you are lying to yourself."
Idk that was just how I feel when I watch your videos and wanted to share:^)
This is actually a pretty fawkin good summery of the entirety of human political theory, science and philosophy: it’s all just frameworks
A modern day Žižek
@@MrFuzziiWuzzii *ssneezes
Jreg is more articulate here than most of my professors in philosophy, literature, economics, and psychology.
My libertarian framework tells me that the market has succeeded in naturally promoting him to a status where his information reaches thousands more people than my professors ever will.
@Sungindra Setiawan what's outside of all the frameworks
@Sungindra Setiawan but it is a framework, nonetheless. Implying that there is *a thing that is being framed*. I mean, is there?
I kinda fell in noise but I used the thing that caused it (humanity being irrelevant to the universe in space and time) as a framework to build from physics up to humanity.
What a gamer moment.
loved the incomprehensible rambling jreg!!
I really like how you described Anti-Centrism so now when people ask me what my political views are I can say more than just “the Overton window must die”
But also tho, the overton window must die
I expected to see a big-ass drop in quality once the post meta sudden death Jenga irony stopped, but I'm impressed. I really like this side of you, man.
There was still irony in this video
”An open mind is like a fortress with it’s gates unbarred and unguarded.”
~Dawn of war II
I live in the noise and occasionally wear a framework like an outer shell to keep functioning but then I switch it after contradicting myself too many times and getting bored.
That's a meta-framework bro.
@@MrMrprofessor12345 yeah, I call it Meta Nihilism
Occasionally gaslighting myself into finding god
Jreg's framework, I am paraphrasing here, is something like: People make up stories to make sense of their experiences and decide what is true or false and how things should make them feel. These stories are called frameworks. To understand a framework, you need to believe it, and live within it. Only then, can you iron out the contradictions. Like how St. Augustine said that to understand you must first believe. Without a framework, you end up with noise. You are still absorbing all the information that you are getting, but you don't know how it makes you feel or if any of it is true or not. So, you can't make decisions. So, you have to pick a framework. But, Jreg also believes that even if you think that you don't have a framework, you really do still have a framework, even if its only implicitly, which prevents you from actually reaching the noise state. So, there is a contradiction in this framework. Of course, that is coming from someone who has not bothered to live within this framework and iron out the contradictions. I am just looking at this from the zoomed out perspective. Maybe it makes total sense if you live within Jreg's framework. Maybe that framework has some value that I am not seeing. But, that is irrelevant to me. I have my own framework that I need to work through the implications of. My framework is more like: Through our unique genetics and life experiences, we all acquire a framework. But any attempt to defend that framework will at bottom be a circular argument, because we can only argue from the premises of our own framework. Perhaps we can find a new framework due to our own efforts or someone else's efforts, or due to the impersonal forces of nature. But, even if we do, any attempt to defend that new framework will at bottom be circular, same as the old one. Not having a framework isn't an option, as any attempt to defend not having a framework would be self-refuting. So, we are all the prisoners of our frameworks forged by our unique circumstances.
The “noise” you speak of is when your mind starts interpreting everything “literally,” and you loose a lot of preconceived concepts. Your bedroom is no longer “my bedroom” it becomes “that bed and pillow” or not “Grandma” it becomes “that person of degenerated physical health” even “health” “pillow” or “bed” is broken down into its componentes because they are just frameworks for understanding larger concepts themselves.
This is what happens when the brain's default mode network collapses.
Usually on psychedelics.
Fuck that's how I live...NOBODY HELP! DISASSOCIATION IS THE CURE!
@@lilsniper117 It’s just too much effort and you can’t function effectively. You will slip back into a non dissociative state eventually whether you consciously want to or not.
@@billbadson7598 Wait really? Do you have more info on this?
@@PointThree Not OP, but that's what I thought of too. Consider this: as a baby, you had to learn how to see. That's not metaphorical, babies can literally only see like 18 inches away from them and the rest, you guessed it, is noise, or blurriness. To become cognitively functional, the brain must make the noise coherent, e.g. whenever light hits my eyes this way, red thing there. The better you get at making these posits, the more structured the noise becomes. Eventually, you've smoothed out much of the information coming your way, even the abstract stuff like politics. All of this filtering and processing is your Default Mode Network. Psychedelics interfere with your ability to filter things like that, making you more open to the world and thus more noisy. This is good, in that it can open up new avenues you were suppressing due to trauma and dogma, and bad because you can find it difficult to choose just one state, leading to persistent dissatisfaction at the current state of affairs when carried over to every day life. Most people, after taking psyches, actually feel life is more valuable, and this is because of the constraining nature of modern day frameworks. But that's a topic for another time.
loving this very avant-garde take on the dual shirt framework
Jreg just gave me permission to be an Accelerationist, nothing can go wrong except everything
every framework is an infinitely regressive meta-framework. every axiom is a bundle of other axioms. the world we exist in is a framework and isn't the actual world, our representation of the world is the only thing we have direct access to
I refuse your framework and substitute my own. One can only abstract or granulate so much before you hit an eventual ceiling or floor.
(On a less jokey note. how do you view the *entire* world as a framework? It’s in the name; *frame*work. it isn’t a building block. you can’t build a house out of them.)
@@lava2istrue I'm referring to the idea that we don't actually interact with the world, but the model of the world that our brain synthesizes from the sensory information we receive from the world. The real world is out there but we're experiencing it via sensors like our eyes and ears and skin.
A good way to think about it is that it's like Iron Man's suit. But instead of a metal suit its a meat suit
Sounds Kantian.
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking for the past year and this is the closest I’ve seen someone else to articulating it
@@erikthegodeatingpenguin2335 thanks! I only started thinking in this way over the past year as well. I wonder if it's because I've been interfacing with the world so much more via the internet because of the pandemic. The weed is probably a factor as well
you're a brilliant guy and I can't wait to see where this channel goes next
For the sincerity approach, watch the videos in a reverse chronological order. Love your videos JrEg, applying metacognition to life’s varied categories
Closed people aren't immune to the contradictions in their framework, they just ignore or are completely unaware of them.
One of things I hated about myself is how critical of other's frameworks I was. It made me feel like I was the worst person, because it was all blind hate: I didn't even get to know them, just heard of them. And this unwarranted hate kept on going and going and so did my hate towards myself.
Watching this made me feel less bad about this situation. Of course, I still want to get to know those frameworks I blindly hate and judge then accordingly, but I'm glad someone told it's natural.
The 15 seconds of dark screen in the end really frames the work in a different light
Operating in an “open-closed-open-closed” rhythm accounts for the oddity of framework maturation/development. “The older I get the more I align/malign this-that-the-other framework” is a common sentiment, and the shifting or “blinking” open-closed “rhythm” beats us toward that and away from what you refer to as “noise”. We operate within a meta-framework of collective expression(s), this influence divides sentiment and guides us to our contextual “openness” or “closed-ness”, and within the micro-frameworks that emerge therein, we become newer minds and selves until the next state-change. The more time we spend enmeshed in our framework(s), the more those rhythms work all states closer to that most compelling and comfortable one.
I had a point but lost it along the way. I’ll continue on another video, another time. Much love.
So, with regards to having a framework to avoid noise, maybe it's best to have a framework that'll keep breaking down in little ways, so you get used to rebuilding and stay adaptable.
God didn't create us to factually know as much as we can, he can already do that on his own.
Be created us to experience everything first hand. That's something an unlimited being can't do without creating limited versions of himself.
Interesting new direction to the channel and explanation of the anti-centrist era. It seems like you’re turning quite philosophical so you might be interested in checking out Kant’s critique of pure reason (the mind comes pre-loaded with certain concepts, i.e. a framework, without which we cannot perceive/understand the world) and also Montesquieies (wrong spelling lol) dogmatic universalism which basically says we have to be open to everything except the idea of not being open to things and also maybe Hegels dialectics which is a good example of a meta-framework
Based
I’d say he’s always been quite philosophical, his satire was always heavily laden with philosophical points and themes. Probably slim chances he’s never read Kants work (iirc he’s referenced him before) or Hegel but that montesquieu is French so therefore he’s wrong and not worth reading.
@@MrFuzziiWuzzii Based
Jreg getting a sponsor? I can barely recall the last time that happened.
It's even more insane, a sponsor that actually fits with his channel.
We saw his previous rumbl ads and knew that we needed to send him a check
@@ground_news RUMBLERS!!!
@@ground_news I really like the concept (especially the Blindspot section) and hope it grows. Left vs right is very basic though, any chance you guys will add other axis like Authoritarian vs Anarchist? Not sure if there's a third party you could get that bias rating from, without it having it's own bias though.
@@covereye5731We are definitely open to it! We do understand that the binary left vs right isn't robust enough in some scenarios. However, as you mentioned, there aren't any reliable ratings of outlets that exist with that level of analysis as of yet. We can't rate them ourselves because keeping our team's personal biases out of the app is very important to us - it's one of our guiding principles. We hope that a reliable source makes these ratings soon, but for now, our seven-tier political spectrum chart is relevant in nearly all situations :)
Jreg: Starts streaming
Me: FUCK, now I can't consume all of his content!
I feel like I've been watching a tv show and I just found out there's episodes later on which may or may not be plot relevant that are just wiped from history that I'll never be able to watch
Seeing as you’re currently interested in psychology and “frameworks”, you might be interested to know some of the history of the myers briggs things compared to the Big Five, the latter of which is based more on regression analysis let loose upon people’s answers on questionnaires (and as such, more empirical and “scientific”, however lacking an underlying theory) while the MBTI is based upon Carl Jung’s ideas about psychology, who did attempt to build up a theory using what you could say are first principles, but cannot be scientifically proven seeing as, of course, the mind is ultimately a black box
From my perspective as a physicist, a framework, or model of understanding, doesn't have to be perfect or not have contradictions to still have use. It can be useful for certain applications, for certain times when it helps your thinking, and useless in other different situations. Imo, it's healthy to be open to multiple different frameworks but also be aware of their limitations.
But of course, that's just a metaframework I believe.
Wanna become an AnarchoPhysicist? Bonus points if we solve the hierarchy problem lol
@@pacotaco1246 why solve the Heirarchy problem when we, as anarcho-physicists, could just destroy the Heirarchy problem?
Just reject use of any physical units (because units are a social construct) and then there's no way to know if two fundamental values are the same or different!
9:34 that "yea" caught me off guard for some reason and made me laugh XD
I agree that people should pick a framework and not live in "noise", but that doesn't mean that they should stop critiquing the framework that they choose to believe in. I understand that there may be certain risks involved in deconstructing ones worldview, but in my opinion there is an inherent difference between knowing the weaknesses of ones framework and trying to improve the framework or even just acknowledging them and completely destroying the framework because it doesn't work in certain scenario's. The general impression I get from this video is that you should pick a framework and not critique it or at least be hesitant in critiquing it, and while I share the concern that someone trying to critique their framework might accidentally destroy it I still believe that critiquing your framework should be encouraged. I have met far more people that critique their framework too little than people that critique it too much.
This both sounds like and does not sound like a metaframework to me, and I feel very strongly about being unsure about it due to my anti-framework framework which I am against.
It's good to step outside your worldview on occasion. You'll stagnate if you never question your fundamental beliefs.
It really is a recurring thing in the history of philosophy.
Plato questioned the framework of the Sophist's relativism.
Aristotle questioned the framework of everyone before him.
Descartes and Kant, Neitzche and Sartre did the same thing.
And of course, you can always go back around to adopting Plato and Aristotle, while still *critically* accepting some of the meta-framework views of a Descartes, Kant or Sartre, seeing their "skepticism" as a tool for refining that framework without destroying it completely.
I personally prefer that last option. =D
lib
Good one, [Good one Jreg commenters], you really showed originality who's boss.
Wait fuck.
Good one camelOnTheCase, you really showed those Jreg fans who’s boss!
Good one, meta-commenter! You show those correctly worded memes who's boss!
@@maxwell7942 Haha, I know right!? Haven't they heard that liking things is cringe!?
Ha! Good one, camelOnTheCase. You sure showed those people who employ self-referential humor who's boss!
Yeah, he really showed the up coming civil war who to aim for.
...you people should hide
As above, so below The anafabula rips from the prima to the meta to the supermeta to the pata, rendering them al back down to the prima and then down to nothing You think you’re moving upwards in a line, they say you’re just going in circles over and over, but the train of Framework just spirals deeper into a dark dark center, and you’re nowhere closer to the stars than when you began
Beautiful,
also:
wut?
Thats like a spiral. Also known as a framework that involves confirmation bias. It has limited scope because its too busy reinserting itself to gain any distance. Like a fractal. You can get lost in x dimension and see all kinds of a b c etc dimensions within x dimension, but at the end of the day its still x dimension, you are just dissociating with into a framework, so you can be closed minded *and still* dissociate. Kinda like Jordan Peterson.
@@mimszanadunstedt441
Incisive.
But, uh,
Huh?
@@RandomAmbles Basically, a belief system that constantly revalidates itself instead of relying on reality to prove or disprove itself.
Your ability to articulate things I have also experienced, but haven’t/ don’t want to dedicate the time to analyze is calming ngl (regardless of your sincerity). Your description of “noise” is perfect and it’s a relief to hear someone else put those kind of concepts into words
"Noise isn't good, noise isn't good at all"
Idk, sounds like not liking noise is the basis of a framework I can radically unsubscribe from with great passion and unwavering faith
Noise good. Stop recognising the patterns, succumb to the randomness.
he already talked about how not liking noise is a framework in the vid
I think being pro noise and anti noise arent that different you and I
@@pacotaco1246 definitely, because by not liking noise “at all”, you are succumbing and adding to noise
I really liked your background! It felt like the framework shifting through thr noise and protecting you. The dropping of the border when you started about meta-meta frameworks was also nice. I do feel like you could go on with adding meta- forever though.
This reminds me of that one time I adopted the metaframework of being some fictional performance art character and the meta-metaframework of being a regular person who happens to have a vested interest in having people believe that my genuine expressions online are fictional for various reasons. That brings me around to the meta-meta-metaframework of being a fictional performance art character who acts like a regular person that happens to have a vested interest in having people believe that their genuine expressions online are fictional for various reasons. Isn't being parasocial online just one big hoot and a holler?!
DMT user here.
Noise isn't so bad after you experience it a couple times.
Just stay humble, and be thankful you have a psychospiritual home to return to when it passes.
As someone who has never used any hallucinogen and who does not plan to do so in the future, I really appreciate you sharing your experiences! That sounds like an interesting one. Would you say that being able to be comfortable with the noise at times has changed your outlook on life?
@@agiar2000 It definitely impressed upon me the idea that, as a human animal, I will only ever be able to understand the universe through my own subjective framework (so long as I experience it through a human body anyway). It made me less emotionally desperate to hold onto that human framework, but much much more emotionally thankful to have that human experience.
@@billbadson7598 That seems like it was quite enlightening for you! 🙂
You talking about "noise" makes me think it's like in inception where they were lost in a dream they thought was reality or thought reality was just another dream.
These serious and informative videos are some of my favorites that you do. I know you're artistry wont let you do serious direct learning, but know they're appreciated.
Hey, Jreg, it's ya boy B here, author of Sentiment and Oblivion, and I just want to say that you are doing lord Brahman's work. Thanks for existing.
Olivian sound Greek cause yes an Jr s are’s the SC creators of olives which sounds liked what idvbsayiong even tough I know dat u dobtx meN day an u say something lilac that I just though it’s funny
Oblivion sounds Greek because they are the creators of olives which sounds like what you’re saying even though I know you didn’t mean that I just thought it was funny.
pog
Having the belief that people view the world through frameworks is a meta-framework in and of itself
Living in noise is fun as heck if you accept the mystery of life
you take such complex subjects and make them make sense in videos. You're a blessing
I like frameworks, they hold up my pictures good.
based and picturepilled
The ground news ad was genius
So, if I debate with someone in a way that makes them question their own framework I'm hurting the very core of their being? Nice!
Its why christians get mad when u tell them god isn't real. But its not really true, because coming out of that framework can be liberating, like allegory of the cave.
One of my favorite videos from you was "Frameworthless". I remember finding the idea of frameworks very interesting. I have since then started realizing that my current framework was very different from that of my parents. That dissonance was perturbing, and I think I started to doubt everything. If what my parents taught me was this flawed, is there anything that isn't flawed? I got very susceptible to noise. Very nice way to put it, "noise". The word is very evocative to what I was going through.
I really like this video.
The issue is that when you take some set of ideas like panpsychism or "capitalism good", it isnt simply that those ideas axioms are used to build a world; rather this "framework" is already created by a totally different framework. Psychoanalysis seeks this original framework, hence its use as a tool of the critique of ideology. Of course, that too is a framework
You speak to me from the soul! I've been dealing with this problem for a while now. Meta-Frameworks deconstruction has helped me a lot in healing my mental illness, but now I am losing control and it is doing me more harm. Thank you JrEg for creating a Meta-Frameworks that makes me happier :)!
Wow, I sure do hope that this politic show is JrEg's own idea, and not something he felt pressured to do by his fanbase!
Keep going, full throttle and full fun. Also do more collabs man, love to see you out there.
Good job jreg, you really showed me that I'm too dumb to understand your new videos
Honestly i think the part about noise was very accurate. While not using the exact same words i realized that as i learnt to appreciate other perspectives, or frameworks if we go by how you articulate, i also started questioning all those frameworks and even my own frameworks. I find myself not believing into any of those frameworks while also accepting them, which truly does feel like noise.
Dune has some cool meta frame work stuff and control of the mind ideas in it.
Plus there is a movie coming out soon, idk thought I should mention it, reading it currently.
Dune sucks and it always sucked. :)
@@Senumunu booooooooo
Various factions and figures in the Dune series manipulate the frameworks of others from a metaframework that sees faith as instrumental. It gets complicated quickly. Sometimes you have to start a religion to free people from a religion.
Also, the galaxy is changed in drastic ways with consequences that ripple out for thousands of years because of the different frameworks of a few powerful seers.
your hand gesture skills are on another level
isn't noise a framework itself? by rejecting every framework you're creating one yourself
Videos like this are always so good, also really loved your video on Post-Truth and Post Irony. Great stuff Greg!
Woah dude, everything is like everything else man
I thought about this a lot recently. You really make interesting videos
Jreg loves cars and I love trains. Now everything makes sense
Small Detail about frameworks I find interesting: something in your framework has to match with other peoples framework. For example, in our day and age, something in our framework has to let the idea of a brand exist. Around 500 years ago brands weren't something that existed in peoples framework. So with history you can analyse what in your framework is just in your framework because its in most peoples framework of our time. But that's just my framework.
Great Video JrEg
You cant trick me into your frame works J.R. Egg, I know this is just a scam to steal my noise machine.
Something important to remember about the big five model is that it's more a practical and over-arching model of someone's personality.
There are of course many nuances to someone's personality, particularly in interests, which are completely absent in the big five model.
However, where the model is useful is in science and statistics, and as a predictor of various decisions and outcomes throughout someone's life, because it turns out that these spectrums correlate reliably with how people's lives end up, in various ways.
It's not very nuanced, but you can use it to, say, explain things like how men and women are different on average. While there are important differences that aren't in the big five, like interests and proclivity towards risk-taking, you can use things like neuroticism and agreeableness, I think the most differing traits between men and women (on average), and it explains differences between men and women on a societal scale, like the greater rate of female depression, as well as the likelihood of men and women to try get raises in their jobs, which men tend to have an advantage in, fitting with their lower agreeableness on average.
I wish the Big Five was something like the Big Ten instead, including things like interest and risk-taking proclivity. Especially since Jordan Peterson talks so much about those along with the big five, lol.
Awesome video jrEg. Btw ever considered starting a cult? I've heard they're very profitable and I think you'd do a great job!
I’m down for a cult
Yeah, the choices are great too; you can either have more fun as a follower, or make more money as a leader!
You havent heard about the cult yet?
You predicted the future
I just like listening to you and the ideas you bring to the table, keep it up :^)
is he just reinventing Chaos Magick at this point?
Probably, his ideas feel similar to Rober Anton Wilson's quite often.
neither-neither.
No; integral theory. Ken Wilber et al, though Wilber hasn't had an original thought in 30 years and gets poststructuralism wrong. goggle Murray Bookchin! Tho AOS n Phil Hine &c are cool.
thank you so much for talking about noise
like a troublesome Australian painter used to say: WELTANSCHAUUNG
lol Australian?
I think you wanted to say Austrian. Weltanschauung is just worldview in German
This is an extremely informative and useful video to talk about many, many different topics. Very very good, man.
JrEg is the teacher that will be "cool" for the whole semester, telling you that the exam "doesn't matter it's all theory anyway", will joke with the class, show 2 or 3 movies instead of giving class, and in the end the exam is "easy" but is actually "open ended" as in only as open as the teacher allows and you end up with a barely passing grade, and will then give the class a speech about how he's so disappointed despite his subject being "easy" and not actually believing in scores.
Tbh i dont understood this comparison at all
wow greg you actually really understand my mind. thank you so much bc i was feeling very confused and i know that i'm not alone in my experiences but god it really felt like it and it just sucks in general sometimes(a lot). always looking forward to new videos and music from you 💗💗💗
Straight up this is a step up on the ladder from Peterson who can't even see outside his own framework.
yuppppp maybe a couple steps up the ladder from Peterson.... idk how, but I feel like maybe a couple steps.
What about Peterson? He talks about a lot of different things, which would involve many frameworks. Talking about frameworks themselves isn't a major topic of his though from what I remember.
@@warb_of_fire But he doesn't actually seem to realize that the perspective that he preaches from is in fact another framework; he can't seem to accurately explore the framework of The Left™ because he can only see the broad Left™ as "post-modern Neo-Marxists" and makes sure to reference "Cultural Marxism" which is just the newfangled term for "Cultural Bolshevism" which funnily enough, is literally what Nazi propaganda would use.
[Not to say Peterson is a neo-Nazi himself or anything, just pointing out the curious parallels that he doesn't seem interested in noting; hilarious, given his lectures that go in depth into how fascism rose to such prominence in Europe in the 20th century, yet he's so blind to see that his stance seems to be aiding and abetting modern fascists to gain prominence in the 21st century]
The longer he's stayed in the public eye, the worse he got about being able to see different frameworks. idk if he's just being paid phat stacks or something, and thus is compromising his values for dat monay, but he has walled himself off from being able to objectively observe or understand any framework other than his own.
@@TheKarret Of course he has trouble understanding leftists; everyone has trouble understanding opposing frameworks. It's not like he doesn't know this; he keeps mentioning in his political interviews that he's looking for Democrat politicians to interview. He was also a socialist and worked for Canada's far left party as a teenager...
As for aiding fascists, I doubt they'd hate him so much if that was the case... He's pretty centrist on most topics, he probably pulls in people from both further left and further right.
@@warb_of_fire From what I've seen, people on the left more easily understand the right than the right understands the left. Also, Democrat politicians aren't leftists, generally. Bernie's probably the closest to that. He should talk to leftists who comment on shit - the same level as him, like Hasan, Vaush, ContraPoints or maybe even Khadija Mbowe. Vaush and Contra would probably be the best to talk to. But how much you wanna bet Peterson would never ACTUALLY agree to talk to them? Same way Ben Shapiro won't, or Steven Crowder or Dave Rubin or Joe Rogan... They only want the over emotional dumbfucks who aren't the best at articulating their points because it makes The Left™ look dumb, which helps the far right and fascists.
Also, one's views and stances and what one supports can change as they age - doesn't matter what he once was... Hunter Avallone used to be a right winger, but he's grown and changed since then, it wouldn't make sense for him to try to still claim being a right winger just because he was as a teen... Peterson can't do that, either.
I don't think fascists are so unwilling to work with him and he with them, though, if they see him as a useful idiot, which, best case scenario, is their opinion. And it's easy for him to be a conduit for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people to fall further right towards fascism than any would be pulled further left, then thanks to his lack of considering the effect of his words, then he's got a fundamental failing of understanding the framework that he's unwittingly supporting.
i like that youve applied squash and stretch to the anti centrist ball
Haha good one Jreg, you really showed those people who like *Noise* who's boss
Thanks for making all of this up
I think the sigma male grindset memes and memes saying ‘EMBRACE ZYYZZ’ are basically parodying frameworks.
Now that you pointed it out for me, the internet really is good at tearing apart frameworks, isn't it?
Maybe the greatest web of human knowledge, without context and sincerity, is just an ocean of noise.
@@balwinder345 its also a reaction to structure. But idk if jreg is there yet.
11:12 - 11:17 *"noise is some kind of psychosis"* indeed. Being a sufferer of schizoaffective disorder I can vouch for that.
Once you see patterns in what other people think is merely noise, you're probably already psychotic.
Should I see a therapist if I watch Jreg and understand noise