aurum

To a degree. 3rd world exploitation is unlikely to go away entirely at this point because the development of society as a whole is still far too low. Not enough of the world has gotten to Green, yet alone Tier 2 on the spiral. 3rd world exploitation is a complex systemic problem mostly of toxic late state capitalism. You could have capitalism that is far less toxic if people were more developed. Actually, a gay CEO of one of the biggest tech companies in the world is a huge deal. See any gay CEOs in Saudi Arabia? No, because they are not anywhere near Green yet. The fact that you don't see this as a huge deal is a testament to the progress we've made as a society for LGBT people. Not long ago people would have lost their minds if Tim Cook came out. The fundamental problem here is that you've already decided that all Green must be virtue signaling. You can go to Apple's website and see their values. They have a whole section on Diversity, Environmental Concerns, Supplier Responsibility, etc. These are Green memes. But are you likely to accept any of that? No, because you are overly cynical about Green. You think none of this can be genuine. Drop your cynicism about Green and everything will make sense. Of course there is. Just like Orange was the solution to the problems of Blue, Blue was the solution to the problems of Red, and Red was the solution to the problems of Purple, Green will be the solution to the problems of Orange. Society is progressing very nicely. Just give it time. Green and capitalism are not exclusive. Many Greens still believe in capitalism. I personally don't see capitalism going anywhere any time soon. But it will change. It will become more Green-like. Again, you over-index on the worst aspects of liberalism. Many liberals have reasonable policy positions which do not call for massive change. Intelligent progressive thinking exists. In fact, Green is closest to the Tier 2, systems thinking you are describing. You will see lots of systems thinking coming online in Green circles. And that's because Green comes right before Yellow on the Spiral. Your perspective is not balanced. That's your entire error.

Absolutely not. Perniciousness as a function is inversely related with spiral development. Especially the unhealthier versions of each spiral stage. Most of the things you were talking about in your previous post are great examples of toxic late-stage Orange capitalism. Green liberalism IS the solution to those problems. That's exactly why it's being selected for. Not because it's more "pernicious", but because it's less pernicious. The capitalism we will have in the future will look like rainbows and butterflies compared to today's capitalism. Pedantic side point: I would not refer to anything system prior to the Renaissance as "capitalism". Capitalism is really its own thing, as defined by modern inventions such as private property, property rights, markets, wages, etc. You could say there existed primitive forms of exchange in the form of gift economies, barter, feudalism etc but I would not say "capitalism". I think that just unnecessarily confuses the conversation.

I’m not entirely sure if I’m understanding the point you are making here. You are arguing that post-modernism capitalism, i.e Green capitalism, is to blame for all those things you listed?

As I said before, it’s a mixed bag. Many of the people there are genuinely very liberal. And on the whole, the company has many Green liberal values and operates as such. Of course there are also some more conservative elements. This is true of all organizations and all people. Apple is a large corporation deeply entangled with the larger system of our society. So it will be in alignment with the general development of that society. From a Spiral POV, we could consider them Orange / Green. They may not always be able to fulfill all of their liberal ideals, depending on how utopic your particular brand of leftism is. I’d say they do a reasonable job of be being progressive for a major corporation.

This is a gross oversimplification the situation. All those examples you listed use plenty of right wing language. Precisely because they are right wing. Sometimes words align, and sometimes they don’t. Generally leftists will use leftist language and right wingers will use language that appeals to the right. Again, this greatly oversimplifies the situation. Some of it is liberal greenwashing, and some of it is genuine. Nuance is needed. It’s precisely because liberal ideals are harder to live up to that they are more developed. If they were easier to live up to, then they would indicate they were a match to your level of development. Utopia is utopia because it represents a society based on more developed values. My argument is not that we should go ahead and implement every liberal hippie fantasy from a policy perspective. And yes, Orange capitalism will be phased out. And it will be replaced by Green, liberal capitalism. This will of course take a very long time, especially for countries that are more underdeveloped. But it’s already happening.

It’s not complicated at all. Of course liberal hippies stuck in utopian fantasies are mostly more developed than right wing, orange capitalists. You just need to change your criteria for development. The second major error you are making is equivocating liberals with out of touch hippies. This is a smear job of liberals. If you want to take the worst examples of liberals and use them as a point of comparison, then I get to take the worst examples of the right wing. Fair? Being superior at driving slave labor does not make you more developed. It makes you less. Also, consider that many top executives are actually liberals. Look at silicon valley CEOs. Tons of liberals. Society is evolving and Green / liberal style of leadership is being selected for. Because that is what is required as our development rises. Orange will be phased out, the Overton window will continue shifting and we will all become more like the liberals of today. Liberals of today = right wing normies of tomorrow. Underdeveloped on the whole, relative to stage Green liberals. This is, of course, a generalization and will not apply to all people along all lines of development. Development can be messy and non-linear in some respects, this you are correct about. I’d somewhat agree with this. Looking at what people say is still a good idea, since what you *say* is also something you are *doing* and can reveal aspects of your development. It’s not totally disconnected. Words matter.

@r0ckyreed Yes, this is the meta-lesson of actualized.org. Getting the right relationship to learning from others is a perpetual challenge. When are you just being a sheep and when are you being arrogant / ignorant and not listening to someone who understands more to you? This is always the question.

Consider an alternative perspective: the reason most people interpret it that way is because that's the correct interpretation. The point is that there is an asymmetry between those attracted to the right and left. And the asymmetry is spiral development. My claim is not that the left is "better" than the right in some vague absolute sense. I am saying that people who are attracted to the left tend to be higher up the spiral. Whether or not someone is truly interested in going beyond the status quo actually says a lot about their development. I never said otherwise. There is such a thing as healthy conservatism, The part of problem right now is we don't have much of that.

That's exactly right. The right wing IS lower down the spiral. Until a person gets that, they will not understand politics.

Consider thinking about my previous points. I’m just a random stranger giving advice on internet, but I highly suspect that your perspective on the current legal situation will shift if you work on your fears. And your relationships will also be in a much better place.

You are making conclusions by unconsciously selecting facts to support your emotional agenda. Otherwise known as making excuses. You really think your interpretation of the law is objective?

Skewed as in strongly biased, which of course is directly related to your fear. Fear and bias go hand and hand. Your mind is distorting your perspective on the law to protect yourself. Notice that this whole story about how the legal system is rigged against men keeps you paralyzed and avoiding relationships. Isn't that highly convenient for you? Wthout that story, you might have to actually get into a relationship.

+ Your trust issues are also badly skewing the way that you view the law in this situation. Consider spending some time introspecting on these fears. You can't do much in life without a basic level of trust. And you are always trusting something, even it it's sabotage. You trust that sabotage will get you what you want. What makes you so confident sabotage is a winning strategy? And what do you get out of it?

@actuallyenlightened There is no magic solution here. You need to sleep with women that you can trust. Being discerning, do not sleep with low integrity people. From there, you need to take precautions as far as birth control. This will require maturity on your end because she may not ask for it. I find condoms generally work best. I have concerns about the negative health effects of going on the pill for women. Lopsided how?

Looking forward to it.

What a mess. This whole conflict has been a perfect example of lose-lose dynamics unfolding.

I would agree, which is why I did not list examples or instances. I think the best way to "go meta" and describe the structure of Green would be to look at what it all has in common. What is the origin of all those Green examples and content? To that, I would say it's because the structure of the stage Green psyche has become more Relativistic. From Relativism, we can derive egalitarianism, the desire for consensus, SJWs, empathy, acceptance, pluralism, kindness, anti-authoritarianism, etc. But you can't really do the derivation the other way around. That's why I consider it "higher" than the other features.

It's true that even Hitler's conservatism is relative. At the same time, we are attempting to make distinctions here for practical purposes. We will have to be satisfied with some degree of relative truth or say nothing at all.

To be fair to him, I understood he was asking for structure and not content. I explained it in my follow up post. The structure of Green is Relativism, since all Green content can be derived from that.

You don't need to include mysticism in every conversation. Doing so in this context adds nothing.

The structure of SD Green is Relativism. That is the core feature that defines it at the highest level. All the content can be derived from that.

That sounds like a spiritual technicality to me. And also not relevant to our discussion.

Not Nazi propaganda. Do not confuse SD Green post-modernism / deconstruction. If Hitler was truly post-modern in his approach, he would have had to deconstruct and relativize his entire Nazi ideology, which of course is the exact opposite of what he did. His ideological structure was Absolutist / Blue, mixed with devilry.

Hitler was neither SD Green in content OR structure. Just because you can deconstruct narratives and blur lines does not make you Green. This is an absurd distortion of the model.

No. Deception only gets you so far. If you want to go with a "anything is possible" technicality, fine. But it's rather meaningless then. It should be obvious we are talking about likely outcomes, not what fantasy might be theoretically possible.