I Asked Peat About His Legacy

[Ableton]

Interesting that he mentions those things and not a word about hormones or metabolism...

maybe he sees the decline in metabolisms as a result of our culture and adressing it through diets doesn't fix the cause

i see it like this:

at the moment, mankind is opposing (human) nature: pollution, estrogens etc.

Why? Profit (peat agrees: "capital")

and nature seems to be opposing us because of it (diseases)

How do we deal with it? By hacking nature (through digital culture --> science --> modern medicine)
This has worked pretty well up to a certain point. Not only do we live longer, but quality of life also increased in comparison to medieval ages at least lol.

But it certainly seems that maybe for a few decades now our hacks aren't powerful enough anymore to reverse the negative effects of our opposition to nature. Investments in science (not only medicine) do not yield the same results as they did 100 years before. Paradigmatic changes are harder to come by, and even if something is found, it often remains unclear if it even makes our lives better at the end of the day. More complicated solutions come with more complicated complications.

Would we not be better of using all the money we put into science to understand and hack nature with diminishing returns to actually get our lives closer to nature instead? This could mean higher quality foods, less polution, greener cities, nature bound education, less emf, whatever you can think of. Instead of adressing the roots of problems (say cancer), we put billions into trying to hack them, so that we do not have to change our capitalistic system. This clearly does not work anymore. We have reached modernities endgame. If some guy cures cancer a couple hundreds of years from now, it won't matter anymore because we will be so far from what makes us human in the first place, and our planet will probably be ****88 as well. it's a big ******* joke what we have become. humans are weak as ****

 

[TheSir]

Me: What would you like your legacy to be?


Peat: Ending oligarchy and ending the digital culture are important goals.

Damn, that's way more radical than what I could foresee.

 

[Mauritio]

maybe he sees the decline in metabolisms as a result of our culture and adressing it through diets doesn't fix the cause

i see it like this:

at the moment, mankind is opposing (human) nature: pollution, estrogens etc.

Why? Profit (peat agrees: "capital")

and nature seems to be opposing us because of it (diseases)

How do we deal with it? By hacking nature (through digital culture --> science --> modern medicine)
This has worked pretty well up to a certain point. Not only do we live longer, but quality of life also increased in comparison to medieval ages at least lol.

But it certainly seems that maybe for a few decades now our hacks aren't powerful enough anymore to reverse the negative effects of our opposition to nature. Investments in science (not only medicine) do not yield the same results as they did 100 years before. Paradigmatic changes are harder to come by, and even if something is found, it often remains unclear if it even makes our lives better at the end of the day. More complicated solutions come with more complicated complications.

Would we not be better of using all the money we put into science to understand and hack nature with diminishing returns to actually get our lives closer to nature instead? This could mean higher quality foods, less polution, greener cities, nature bound education, less emf, whatever you can think of. Instead of adressing the roots of problems (say cancer), we put billions into trying to hack them, so that we do not have to change our capitalistic system. This clearly does not work anymore. We have reached modernities endgame. If some guy cures cancer a couple hundreds of years from now, it won't matter anymore because we will be so far from what makes us human in the first place, and our planet will probably be ****88 as well. it's a big ******* joke what we have become. humans are weak as ****

100 percent agreed .

The more I understand life the more I see that there WAS a symbiotic relationship between humans and nature , we were part of a functioning ecosystem. And of course that was beneficial to us.
We removed ourselves from this very ecosystem and are now wondering why imbalances /diseases are showing up .

Like georgi said in a recent podcast ,there is something inherently healing about nature, that isn't just negative ions or lowering cortisol . I completely agree .

I think often it nowadays it should be more about removing stuff like emf , fluoride, bromide , microplastics ,etc... then adding more stuff to our daily regimen,to make our mistakes less disastrous.


Taking progesterone, thyroid ,etc probably wouldnt be necessary to that extend that we take it . Because we partly take it for decreasing the damage caused by our current environment/ society . So it all starts with the environment.

 

[Rafe]

Great thread. TY @Peatful
I think if you asked him again he’d have a somewhat different answer because. . .he’d be a somewhat different person then.

 

[Doc Sandoz]

Might I sugggest The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilcrest. Although Iain and Pete speak in different metaphoric registers vis-a-vis the idea of digital vs analogue living, the conclusions are the same. Both heavily document their findings with legitimate scientific research.

 

[managing]

I take his reference to digital to be, as with most things he gets at, fundamental and underlying. It isn't about media, the internet, etc, per se.

Its about two fundamental ways of relating to things: digital and analog.

@Ableton for example some of the conversations you and (and @TheSir and @tankasnowgod and @R J ) have had here lately.

At their worst, they are digital. You either agree with me, or your wrong, stupid, ignorant, etc.

But, at times (this is why I singled you out first @Ableton ) they've been analogue. Analogue has depth and nuance. It requires listening and suspension of judgment and not rushing to conclusions.

You can see the digital in the medical industrial complex and the military industrial complex as well.

 

[managing]

Might I sugggest The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilcrest. Although Iain and Pete speak in different metaphoric registers vis-a-vis the idea of digital vs analogue living, the conclusions are the same. Both heavily document their findings with legitimate scientific research.

Haha, seem to be on the same wavelength.

 

[Ableton]

I take his reference to digital to be, as with most things he gets at, fundamental and underlying. It isn't about media, the internet, etc, per se.

Its about two fundamental ways of relating to things: digital and analog.

@Ableton for example some of the conversations you and (and @TheSir and @tankasnowgod and @R J ) have had here lately.

At their worst, they are digital. You either agree with me, or your wrong, stupid, ignorant, etc.

But, at times (this is why I singled you out first @Ableton ) they've been analogue. Analogue has depth and nuance. It requires listening and suspension of judgment and not rushing to conclusions.

You can see the digital in the medical industrial complex and the military industrial complex as well.

In the contexts we discussed depth and nuance is cope. You can cope all you want with putting conepts like love on feelings but at the end of the day if you are ugly you are ugly. You would have never gotten with your wife if you were 20cm shorter, had a more receded hairline, lower IQ, less money, a different brain chemistry etc.
Your kids would not be alive either.
The brutal digital truth is that our lives are completely shaped by things we have no control over, good and bad. You have to be esoteric to explain your biography in the realm of the analogue.

 

[Luann]

Whoaaa <3 <3

not the answer I was expecting! Especially the digital culture bit, who knew he was so opinionated about that?!

 

[tankasnowgod]

Doesnt he participate in the digital culture by giving interviews over the internet

He doesn't give interviews "over the internet." He uses the phone. This is why so many people complain about the sound quality. The interviews get posted to the internet later...... like clips from "Night Court."

 

[managing]

In the contexts we discussed depth and nuance is cope. You can cope all you want with putting conepts like love on feelings but at the end of the day if you are ugly you are ugly. You would have never gotten with your wife if you were 20cm shorter, had a more receded hairline, lower IQ, less money, a different brain chemistry etc.
Your kids would not be alive either.
The brutal digital truth is that our lives are completely shaped by things we have no control over, good and bad. You have to be esoteric to explain your biography in the realm of the analogue.

Ok, but so what? (I mean that in the philosopher's sense, not dismissively).

If we are to glean tools for living from RP, we would choose to be more analogue.

For example, reducing everything to "attractiveness" is very digital. Reducing me to "Boomer" (which you did) is very digital. Being vulnerable and asking me to make helpful instead of insulting comments (which you also did) was very analogue. This is why I singled you out. You've shown a basic desire and ability to be analogue. Hell, you get Heidegger, which puts you on the path. It put me on the (analogue) path when you were vulnerable and honest. I took that as an opening and was much more sincere, nuanced, and, yes, analogue. But you started it compadre. We can both learn from that.

How the other person responds is irrelevant. I'll take credit for responding positively to your opening (turning analogue). Some won't. Many won't. So what? (now I mean it dismissively).

FOOTNOTE: FWIW, I am tall, but my wife dated me despite that. She prefers and had always dated much shorter men. But I was dirt poor when she met me and I am NOT from a wealthy or affluent family at all. It's not all extrinsics. And if she had rushed to judgment about me based on extrinsics, she wouldn't be with me. It works both ways.

 

[TheSir]

I am tall, but my wife dated me despite that.

Hah, now you really opened a can of worms.

 

[managing]

Hah, now you really opened a can of worms.

I like worms .

 

[Ableton]

FOOTNOTE: FWIW, I am tall, but my wife dated me despite that. She prefers and had always dated much shorter men. But I was dirt poor when she met me and I am NOT from a wealthy or affluent family at all. It's not all extrinsics. And if she had rushed to judgment about me based on extrinsics, she wouldn't be with me. It works both ways.

sometimes I genuinely wonder if you are a meme account actually. your profile picture. this sentence. you cannot make this up.

you just recited one of the most popular heightpill memes in the incel community. woman: "I have always preferred smaller man. But my husband is 6'3, teeheee."

I have news for you: Your wife does not prefer small men. No woman does, except perhaps if they have some psychological trauma or something. Your wife likely dated shorter men because they could compensate for it with other things, and maybe does not value height as much as the average woman. She still values it. Because, guess what? Sexual attraction, especially female sexual attraction to men, is VERY digital. In 10.000 women you will find one who prefers 5'7 over 6'1, if she was HONEST about it. Seriously. It's men who still don't show much, but more variety in what attracts them. Basically no women will like you for the fact that you are short, or bald, or have a ***t frame, or a deformity in your face. This is just how it is. Its hollywood and our whole cultural apparatus trying to make us think it is not that way

About the boomer stuff. Dude, another reason I am beginning to think you are trolling. Look at your profile picture. It is literally a boomer meme. Are you aware of this and playing with that on some meta level? Just embrace it.

teehee meme anecdotally explained for you since you are a boomer and likely won't get it:
"it just so happens TeeHee" : IncelsWithoutHate

You are a textbook boomer. There is nothing wrong with it, I am serious. I am also not "reducing" you to it. As you can probably tell by now I enjoy discussing things with you. The fact that you are a boomer does not mean you have no valuable input or are unable to challenge my ideas.

So let's get back to it: You have made quite clear that I have shown signs of digital and to a lesser extent of analogue thinking. I agree with that.

I think I know why you are rejecting digital thinking almost altogether in some field of observation (starts with c and ends with ope), but HOW do you actually do it? Sure, its impossible to be entirely analagoue in your thinking, but you are SO FAR on that side when talking human interaction, I am not sure if I have ever seen that before in a man. Categorically rejecting the digital or analogue in any field of observation (from STEM to social stuff) is foolish.

You sound like the digital has no merits. You probably do not mean to come off this way, but you sound like it. This would basically be a rejection of modernity altogether, which is just bull****.

 

[Ableton]

Ok, but so what? (I mean that in the philosopher's sense, not dismissively).

nietzsche: fight despite it making no difference. you are doomed anyways (requires healthy metabolism and incredible willpower)

hedonism (you should meet physical and/or monetary criteria to do that)

stoicism (I am trying my best at this)

take the blue pill again (try to rewire you brain to more analogue thinking)

lay down and rot (incel mindset)

suicide (I am quite sure the rise in male suicides is related to this whole complex)

oh almost forgot: looksmax to become the actual object of desire (involving plastic surgery if necessary)

 

[managing]

sometimes I genuinely wonder if you are a meme account actually. your profile picture. this sentence. you cannot make this up.

you just recited one of the most popular heightpill memes in the incel community. woman: "I have always preferred smaller man. But my husband is 6'3, teeheee."

I have news for you: Your wife does not prefer small men. No woman does, except perhaps if they have some psychological trauma or something. Your wife likely dated shorter men because they could compensate for it with other things, and maybe does not value height as much as the average woman. She still values it. Because, guess what? Sexual attraction, especially female sexual attraction to men, is VERY digital. In 10.000 women you will find one who prefers 5'7 over 6'1, if she was HONEST about it. Seriously. It's men who still don't show much, but more variety in what attracts them. Basically no women will like you for the fact that you are short, or bald, or have a ***t frame, or a deformity in your face. This is just how it is. Its hollywood and our whole cultural apparatus trying to make us think it is not that way

About the boomer stuff. Dude, another reason I am beginning to think you are trolling. Look at your profile picture. It is literally a boomer meme. Are you aware of this and playing with that on some meta level? Just embrace it.

teehee meme anecdotally explained for you since you are a boomer and likely won't get it:
"it just so happens TeeHee" : IncelsWithoutHate

You are a textbook boomer. There is nothing wrong with it, I am serious. I am also not "reducing" you to it. As you can probably tell by now I enjoy discussing things with you. The fact that you are a boomer does not mean you have no valuable input or are unable to challenge my ideas.

So let's get back to it: You have made quite clear that I have shown signs of digital and to a lesser extent of analogue thinking. I agree with that.

I think I know why you are rejecting digital thinking almost altogether in some field of observation (starts with c and ends with ope), but HOW do you actually do it? Sure, its impossible to be entirely analagoue in your thinking, but you are SO FAR on that side when talking human interaction, I am not sure if I have ever seen that before in a man. Categorically rejecting the digital or analogue in any field of observation (from STEM to social stuff) is foolish.

You sound like the digital has no merits. You probably do not mean to come off this way, but you sound like it. This would basically be a rejection of modernity altogether, which is just bull****.

Lol. So much for trying to engage you analogically. Carry on digital man.

 

[Ableton]

Lol. So much for trying to engage you analogically. Carry on digital man.

you engaged me with a meme without knowing about it.

you know that a meme is not a meaningless digital gen y/z phenomenon?

here the first wiki sentences for you, have fun applying them to your worldview and our conversation:

A meme (/miːm/ MEEM)[1][2][3] is an idea, behavior, or style that becomes a fad and spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.[4] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[5]

 

[managing]

sometimes I genuinely wonder if you are a meme account actually. your profile picture. this sentence. you cannot make this up.

you just recited one of the most popular heightpill memes in the incel community. woman: "I have always preferred smaller man. But my husband is 6'3, teeheee."

I have news for you: Your wife does not prefer small men. No woman does, except perhaps if they have some psychological trauma or something. Your wife likely dated shorter men because they could compensate for it with other things, and maybe does not value height as much as the average woman. She still values it. Because, guess what? Sexual attraction, especially female sexual attraction to men, is VERY digital. In 10.000 women you will find one who prefers 5'7 over 6'1, if she was HONEST about it. Seriously. It's men who still don't show much, but more variety in what attracts them. Basically no women will like you for the fact that you are short, or bald, or have a ***t frame, or a deformity in your face. This is just how it is. Its hollywood and our whole cultural apparatus trying to make us think it is not that way

About the boomer stuff. Dude, another reason I am beginning to think you are trolling. Look at your profile picture. It is literally a boomer meme. Are you aware of this and playing with that on some meta level? Just embrace it.

teehee meme anecdotally explained for you since you are a boomer and likely won't get it:
"it just so happens TeeHee" : IncelsWithoutHate

You are a textbook boomer. There is nothing wrong with it, I am serious. I am also not "reducing" you to it. As you can probably tell by now I enjoy discussing things with you. The fact that you are a boomer does not mean you have no valuable input or are unable to challenge my ideas.

So let's get back to it: You have made quite clear that I have shown signs of digital and to a lesser extent of analogue thinking. I agree with that.

I think I know why you are rejecting digital thinking almost altogether in some field of observation (starts with c and ends with ope), but HOW do you actually do it? Sure, its impossible to be entirely analagoue in your thinking, but you are SO FAR on that side when talking human interaction, I am not sure if I have ever seen that before in a man. Categorically rejecting the digital or analogue in any field of observation (from STEM to social stuff) is foolish.

You sound like the digital has no merits. You probably do not mean to come off this way, but you sound like it. This would basically be a rejection of modernity altogether, which is just bull****.

For fun, let's say I'm a boomer. Why does that piss you off so much?

 

[Ableton]

For fun, let's say I'm a boomer. Why does that piss you off so much?

you do not piss me of man. it's just difficult to engage with ideas differing from your owns when the character they are coming from seems to be the ultimate proof that your own worldview is not only justified, but closer to the truth.
I had a couple epiphanies talking to you, but most of them were either things concerning your personal life or the way you were engaging in conversation (the "conspiracy" moment in the other thread) and less the ideas you were bringing to the table to be honest. you are probably much more well read than I am, better educated as well and obviously you have more life experience. But I do not feel I have anything to learn from what you are trying to tell me.
But I guess that is bound to happen if you are confident in (not happy about) your worldview, so there is no reason you should let it get to you, which I know you won't anyways.
We will just continue our paths and that's it.

 

[managing]

you do not piss me of man. it's just difficult to engage with ideas differing from your owns when the character they are coming from seems to be the ultimate proof that your own worldview is not only justified, but closer to the truth.
I had a couple epiphanies talking to you, but most of them were either things concerning your personal life or the way you were engaging in conversation (the "conspiracy" moment in the other thread) and less the ideas you were bringing to the table to be honest. you are probably much more well read than I am, better educated as well and obviously you have more life experience. But I do not feel I have anything to learn from what you are trying to tell me.
But I guess that is bound to happen if you are confident in (not happy about) your worldview, so there is no reason you should let it get to you, which I know you won't anyways.
We will just continue our paths and that's it.

Sad.

Peat actually is a boomer, so you are right to reject his concerns. Nobody else can be right when you are.