aurum

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,704

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aurum

  1. Posted · Edited by aurum

    1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

    This is precisely the grave mistake most people make when interpreting Spiral Dynamics.

    Consider an alternative perspective: the reason most people interpret it that way is because that's the correct interpretation.

    1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

    There is a right-left polarity at every level of the spiral. You can be at the relativistic stage and be oriented towards traditionalism (e.g. Alexander Dugin, Jean Baudrillard), and you can be at the egocentric stage and be oriented towards socialism (e.g. parts of left-wing terrorist organizations like Antifa or RAF).

    The point is that there is an asymmetry between those attracted to the right and left. And the asymmetry is spiral development.

    1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

    Ultimately, neither left nor right is "better"; more complex and inclusive worldviews are superior to less complex and inclusive ones. Whether you lean towards maintaining or subverting the status quo has no bearing on that whatsoever.

    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.

    1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

    Also, the right is absolutely essential for a functioning society,

    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.

     

  3. Posted

    32 minutes ago, actuallyenlightened said:

    Uh well yes, at least in Canada or the US. Tell me a time when this wasn't the case? Like when a court ruled in favor of a man in these types of circumstances

    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.

  5. Posted

    2 minutes ago, actuallyenlightened said:

    Skewed in what way?

    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.

  6. Posted

    11 minutes ago, actuallyenlightened said:

    Well yeah that's why I sabotage relationships because most people have yellow flags.

    +

    10 minutes ago, actuallyenlightened said:

    If a woman gets pregnant she holds all the cards. There's absolutely nothing a man can do. If a woman doesn't think she can support a child then she gets an abortion. Too bad if you're a man you pay for 18 years of child support. If a man wants to be a dad but the woman wants the pill then he doesn't get to be one. As far as fairness goes, the man and woman should have 50% of the say on how the pregnancy goes; and body autonomy is simply a justification used to give women complete power. I'm fine with women maintaining body autonomy as long as men have a way to opt out within a few weeks into pregnancy (less than the time limit for abortions).

    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? 

  7. Posted · Edited by aurum

    @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.

    1 hour ago, actuallyenlightened said:

    I just want to be able to enjoy having sex without the risk of huge repercussions and that seems impossible given how lopsided the law is in favor of women.

    Lopsided how?

  10. Posted · Edited by aurum

    10 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

    Is characteristics more structure or content? IMO examples or instances are much closer to 'characteristics' and to content than to structure itself.

    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. 

  12. Posted

    1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

    So if you wanted structure and not content, why is it really hard for you to not ask that instead of 'characteristics' then? Unless you can define to us what 'characteristic' means and how characteristics is the same as 'structure'?

    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.

     

  13. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

    Well that's the problem.  Spirituality isn't a technicality- it's deeply entangled with reality.   You just want to refer to logic but you exclude mysticism.    It's not a technicality it is reality.  So you cannot forsake spirituality or you are missing a deep aspect of reality and your view will always be skewed by the lack of it.

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

  16. Posted · Edited by aurum

    2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

    Characterize the structure of SD Green for me then, if you don't mind.

    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.

  17. Posted

    3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

    To add some spice to the discussion: I would place Hitler within the SD Green stage.

    The way he deconstructs all the prevalent grand narratives of his time and blurs the lines between description and normativity in the aforementioned speech is classic postmodernist rhetoric and foreshadows the more rigorous academic formulations of this intellectual sensibility.

    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.

  18. Posted

    1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

    They can rise to power through deception.  It's possible.   If their social skills are good enough they can.

    No. Deception only gets you so far. 

    1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

    The spiral is just a model.  There is such a thing as chaos and that is what you point out here  I didn't say it was likely I said it was possible.  It's also possible that liberals can be bigots.  Anything is possible.   If there is anything one should glean from these videos it should be that.

    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.

  19. Posted

    27 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

    Leo said another Hitler couldn't be created but he's assuming Hitler was a product of his culture.  Culture plays a role but dude was insane.

    Actual insane people do not have that much power. Hitler tapped into deep resentment and bitterness that already existed among the German people, which is partially why he was able to do what he did. This is because the leader and the people being led are ONE SYSTEM, where their existence depends on each other.

    Development cuts BOTH ways. A stage Red / Blue society cannot behave like a Orange / Green society because it is not developed enough. But also, an Orange / Green society cannot behave like a Red / Blue one. At a certain point the behavior simply becomes untenable from BOTH directions. 

    That being said, of course it is theoretically possible for a disaster to strike and for a regression in the Spiral. But it is unlikely. There are systemic forces that keep these things in check going both ways.

  22. Posted

    @DocWatts You are writing some high quality content.

    36 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

    Precisely because any attempt to assess the comparative value of different societal and cultural viewpoints is anathema to Relativism, this severely limits its usefulness for guiding our decisions in the real world. An important aspect of living in the real world means being confronted by decisions that are informed by incommensurable viewpoints. As such, we can’t always reach a compromise that ‘splits the difference’, nor should we work from the assumption that every perspective has something useful to contribute (as anyone who’s dealt with online trolls can likely attest to).

    I'll add that the egoic mind will weaponize relativism for its own agenda. They can exploit your open-mindedness of different perspectives to get away with their anti-social or otherwise damaging behavior. Who is to say if I really cheated on my girlfriend? That's just like, your opinion, man.

    So it isn't just that relativism makes it hard for us to decide what is true or not. It's that self-bias will actively corrupt it.

    Of course the egoic mind can weaponize any epistemology, so this is not an inherent flaw to relativism per say. 

  23. Posted

    12 minutes ago, Vajra said:

    a) How do you know that? Maybe you simply didn't find a way yet. Maybe there is one.

    You are more than welcome to try. 

    12 minutes ago, Vajra said:

    b) Why not care? When you know, you can relate to these people more accurately. It's good to know whether a person is a man or a woman. It's important. Just in the same way, It might be relevant to know whether someone is actually God-Realized, or is only saying that.

    I agree that it's relevant for practical purposes. But the thing about God-Realization is that it transcends many of these practical concerns.

  24. Posted · Edited by aurum

    22 minutes ago, Vajra said:

    I didn't even say that I am not Realizing God.

    I said that I don't know if you or Leo or someone else is too.

    That's what I am asking about.

    I see. So you want to know if other people are God-Realized and how you can verify that they've achieved certain realizations. 

    In that case, the answer is that you mostly can't verify anyone's claims of God-Realization. But what you can do is to become God-Realized yourself so that it becomes more obvious when people don't know what they're talking about. You can also develop keener discernment around self-deception in general, so that you can better spot fraudsters. 

    Also, I've found that deeper God-Realization leads to you caring much less about feeling the need to verify other people's awakenings in general. It's useful for practical purposes so you don't get duped by false teachers, but otherwise it doesn't really matter.

  25. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Vajra said:

    I meant if you are saying that you know God, or know the truth, how can I believe you? How can I know YOU are not bullshiting? How?

    You aren't suppose to believe Leo or anyone else here. That's the whole point.

    Discover God for yourself. 

    Practically speaking, there are many tools and practices that have been discussed at length for you to accomplish this. You will either do them and figure it out or not. Either way, your belief about it does not really matter as long as you are suffuciently open-minded to make a genuine effort.