aurum

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,670

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aurum

  2. Posted · Edited by aurum

    @Buba I wouldn't go searching for a mystic/guru. These people more than likely cannot help you.

    If I was in your shoes, I'd look into Fascial Counterstrain (https://counterstrain.com). It's a cutting edge manual therapy modality that seems to have some success when conventional medicine fails. See if a practitioner is in your area.

    Obviously results are never guaranteed, but given your situation, it may be worth a shot. It may at least be able to help with managing your symptoms. 

  3. Posted

    @Davino I'm mostly staying away from attempting too much at cogniziing what it might be like. Seems like one of those you probably just need to experience.

    That said, I've had some thoughts. If we can say that hyper-mind is to the human-mind what the human-mind is to an ant-mind, then shouldn't there be a hyper-hyper-mind compared to hyper-mind? And shouldn't there also be a hyper-hyper-hyper mind? How far does it go? Does it even make sense to think about an end point, or is it just an infinite fractal pattern?

    It's definitely interesting to contemplate.

  4. Posted

    23 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

    whole, unbroken, complete, integral. A vase is either whole or it has a crack, at which point it is no longer complete. Its function is already diminished or broken.

    A perspective is partial. How do you define whole?

    We could choose to define "whole" in many different ways.

    For the purposes of this discussion, we can think of "whole" in terms of holons.

    A human cell is whole, which makes up a whole set of tissues, which makes up a whole organ, which makes up a whole human, which makes up a whole population, which makes up a whole society ->>> to infinity.

    So we have lesser wholeness within higher wholeness.

    But it's not just physical stuff that are holons. The psyche also functions as a holon, as seen with the Tier 2 integration of all Tier 1 stages.

    This holonic thinking is fundamental to Wilber's work. 

  5. Posted

    11 hours ago, zurew said:

    I think thats irresponsible on his part. Making strong empirical claims without actually establishing with studies how effective those prescriptions are.

    The level of confidence in claims should be aligned with the level of evidence you have for it.

    Just because some of these studies would be really hard to conduct that doesn't give anyone a free ticket to just freely make claims without needing to provide tangible evidence for those claims.

    I would like to see studies as well. I'm pro-empirical data.

    The problem is that Wilber's work is inherently not academic-friendly. Saying doing studies would be "really hard" is an understatement.

    To really do a convincing study, you need a narrowly defined quantifiable question and an ability to eliminate as many variables as possible. Wilber's work is broad, subjective and arguably trans-rational. It's the opposite of academically rigorous, which is why it's not taken seriously in academia.

    In addition, studies cost millions of dollars that need to be funded and published by someone. And usually you need a whole bunch of them to really convince the scientific community. 

     

  6. Posted

    Wild that some people seem to think that Trump's chances of winning the presidency are actually higher now than in 2020.

    Biden has spent four years doing a decent enough job as president. Meanwhile, Trump has spent four years mostly getting indicted and crying on social media. And this is already after Trump lost as an incumbent.

    Even if he wins this trial and it galvanizes his base, I still think he is in a losing position.

  7. Posted

    2 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

    As I suggested above, there's an ulterior motive to conscious development, and due to that it's rife with self-deception.

    However much self-deception exists in conscious development, it is less than the self-deception of unconscious development. Those are your only two choices.

    Conscious development also includes working through self-deception.

    Also, the entire function of this forum is for people interested in conscious development. So I’m not sure why else you would be here.

    2 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

    Let me explain something about Wilber -- his fatal flaw is that he takes something that is arguably observable (different people are at different stages of development) and turns it into a kind of ethics (this is the hierarchy you should climb.)

    He takes an IS and turns it into an OUGHT.

    Yes, he encourages people to development themselves. This is what most people need. If it becomes neurotic at times then that is admittedly a problem. 

    You cannot escape making prescriptions in life. You are making prescriptions right now, in this conversation. Stop telling Wilber that he ought not take an is and turn it into an ought.

    2 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

    You can be a philosopher-ethicist or you can be a developmental psychologist.  When you try to mix the two you get dogshit.  Developmental psychology is about what actually works for people, not what we would like.  If my perspective is limited, can you provide any evidence that Wilber's prescriptions actually work in the real world?


    You can mix the two just fine. Ethics, philosophy and development all interconnect.

    As far as evidence for Wilber’s prescriptions, I can see them work in my own life. Test them out for yourself. You’re not going to get a scientific study proving his work.

  8. Posted

    11 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

    I think the kinds of models he hawks for personal development just get people more into their ego (in insidious ways) as opposed to towards "wholeness."  So he's leading a lot of people astray.  Also, there's a cult-like element to the community and teachings.

    Sure there is definitely some of that. Although at the same time, I’d also argue you are not going to find a teacher / community who doesn’t suffer from the same fate.

    The question is to what degree and how toxic it is.

    11 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

    I fundamentally disagree with the premise that one should consciously develop along the dimension of structures of consciousness (in other words, Orange -> Green -> Yellow, etc.)  Anyone who suggests such a thing is either a cult leader or simply doesn't understand psychology.

    Development is happening either consciously or unconsciously. Why would unconscious development be superior to conscious development?

    11 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

    "Wholeness" is about accepting that you aren't morally perfect -- it's about finding a balance of the psyche.  All attempts at moral perfection are doomed to failure.  If naturally being at some stage isn't good enough for you, you're trying to compensate for a lack of this balance.

    That’s your particular, limited perspective on wholeness. How do you know there aren’t other more inclusive perspectives? 

  10. Posted · Edited by aurum

    1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

    If he'd titled the book, "Finding Wholeness," how would it have made the meaning any different?

    He probably could have. But most likely he is setting up a comparison between lower degrees and higher degrees of wholeness. This is in alignment with his holonic philosophy of integration. Thus, “radical” wholeness.

    In addition, it could also be a reference to integration along multiple lines, i.e his ideas around Growing Up, Showing Up, Waking Up, etc.

    1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

    A guarantee he's full of shit, in other words.

    That’s a pretty big assumption based on just a simple book title.

    What is your beef with Wilber? Not saying the guy is right about everything, but it seems like you really don’t like him.

  11. Posted

    1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

    Probably nothing.

    The title itself is stupid. "Radical wholeness"? You're either whole or you aren't, no need for adjectival modifiers.  Only a complete asshole would title a book that. :P

    This is actually incorrect. There are degrees of wholeness. So the title is likely appropriate.

    That said, I don't suspect there will be much new ground covered in this book. 

  12. Posted

    12 hours ago, ryoko said:

    Don't confuse the vision for the process, the vision is strictly a world where people "have" evolved, by whatever means necessary, it's more like the end result.

    The process is what I implied when I said, people are free to live on their level of development, for as long as necessary.

     

    Fair enough, perhaps I jumped the gun and assumed too much.

    My only real critique of your vision was timeline and expectations. If those things are in check, then I have no issues.

     

  13. Posted · Edited by aurum

    5 hours ago, BlueOak said:

    We have one more chance not to go further. The next few days is going to decide what happens. If it's a regional war, it'll be no surprise that China moves against Taiwan. I'd be surprised if that didn't happen in the next couple of months.

    For America, this all makes a Trump presidency very likely, and for the rest of the world, making it three ongoing regional wars, which is close enough to call it WW3.

    We don't know any of those things are likely. Wait for more information to come out and avoid catastrophizing. 

  14. Posted

    1 hour ago, jimwell said:

    Fresco was not a failure, and his work is NOT useless. His vision and work provide the north star for humans.  

    I wouldn't say it's useless. I think his best contributions were actually his engineering projects.

    He might have been better off sticking to engineering and staying away from economics / government. He was a good engineer, that was his strength.

    As far as his work providing the North Star for humans, I'd say that's debatable. Very few people actually even know who he is or anything about his work. It's way too fringe because it's totally impractical from a policy perspective.

    Maybe in 100 years that will change.

  15. Posted

    1 hour ago, Ishanga said:

    I wouldn't say it is Utopian to want to have everyone supplied with their basic needs, plus compared to what we have today, we need grand ideas and ways of doing things that are very different from what is happening now, if things don't change soon this world will not be recognizable in 10=15yrs on so many levels...

    What's utopian is to not understand how far away we are from something like Jacque described. 

  16. Posted

    13 hours ago, ryoko said:

    By this I also implied, people are free to live with their current level of development.

    That is not at all what you implied with your original post.

    Your original post:

    "This world here isn't interested in hoarding anything, people are free to do anything, but alone. The goal is that one doesn't interfere or even passively impact the other. There is no need to earn money, or even contribute to the society, you can live a perfectly good life, doing nothing. Infact doing nothing is the norm, it is the best thing to do. Activity is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Flowering of an individual's true nature is celebrated."

    ^^^This is only possible at a high level of development.

    Otherwise if everyone is free to live at any level of development, then slavery needs to be allowed. Slavery not only exists at a certain level of development, it's assumed to be a good thing.

    Are you going to argue slavery is not a contradiction with your vision? Of course it's a contradiction. Because you are advocating for a society that can fundamentally only exist at a high level of development.

  18. Posted · Edited by aurum

    32 minutes ago, Raze said:

    Then why is RFK courting the right with his anti-Ukraine and Covid opinions, which he is most known for? At this point he takes more votes from trump than Biden.

    He is not courting the right per say. There are plenty of lefties who love his anti-vaxx takes. Charles Eisenstein and people like him are a perfect example.

    Mostly RFK is just anti-establishment, anti-corporatist. You can find people on the left and right who support such positions.

  19. Posted

    13 hours ago, thenondualtankie said:

    but also because she is actually facing justice as a billionaire.

    I looked up Vietnam on the CPI (https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023/index/vnm). They rank somewhere in the middle at #83, which also makes this significant.

    Seems their leadership is in the midst of attempting to crackdown on these kind of things. 

    My guess is that she could have continued to get away with what she was doing, if it weren't for the fact that she caused a bank run. A bank run is very bad for the government as a whole. They cannot allow such things.

  20. Posted

    13 hours ago, ryoko said:

    You're still approaching the solution from the same level of mind which created the problem.

    I am suggesting that many of our current paradigms, mindsets, institutions and otherwise ways of operating society are functional, precisely because they are congruent with our level development.

    There needs to be a balance of idealism and pragmatism.

    Fundamentally, the society you are describing will not exist in our lifetime.

    13 hours ago, ryoko said:

    I'm all for people doing whatever their heart desires at the moment.

    I understand that is what you are for. And that's a valid perspective.

    What I am asking you to consider here, is that we are not at a point where society is collectively ready to function like that. And if you attempt to structure society is such a way, it will badly backfire.

    13 hours ago, ryoko said:

    About this whole "bringing vision to reality" thing, it's absolutely boring.

    Yes, the mundane reality of accomplishing goals can be far less exciting than daydreaming. And I think there is something to be said for daydreaming and not immediately getting sucked into the "how's and what's".

    But wouldn't you also have to agree that if you find your vision exciting, it's exactly because you imagine it could happen in real life? You aren't just excited about it as a theoretically possibility, you imagine that society could actually function this way.

     

  21. Posted

    6 hours ago, Ishanga said:

    Jacques Fresco already invented this idea, a world without Money, a different sort of society where AI controls the resources so that all get what they need and there is no lack in the world, its basic idea but very cool imo... The main problem today is greed is everywhere, unconsciousness is everywhere, and ppl do not know what reality is, this sort of "Resource Based Economy" could help, and allow ppl to find out what they really are and what Life is for, rather than being a Slave to the Dollar and Time..

     

    I actually went to visit the Venus Project and got a tour. As far as I can tell, it has been a complete failure.

    It broke my heart really. Jacque and his partner essentially devoted their entire adult lives to making that project a reality, and they have almost nothing to show for it. And they seemed like genuine people who wanted to do good.

    Of course, it's possible that Jacque's work will be rediscovered. Or perhaps his ideas will inspire someone else in the future. But I would be wary of chasing these utopian dreams. You might just end up spending your whole life on a dead end.

  22. Posted

    13 minutes ago, ryoko said:

    As long as you're not cool with the idea of everyone doing nothing, this world have no chance of materializing.

    It's got nothing to do with how I personally feel about doing nothing.

    Don't get me wrong, you have a beautiful vision in many ways and I want to acknowledge you for that. There are some impulses here that are deeply correct.

    But society at large is nowhere near stage Turquoise. We barely even know what Turquoise is and what it looks like, because so few people have gotten there.

    So now here's a test: if you truly care about actualizing this beautiful vision, you need to accept that much of society is going to be a brutual game of survival for still many years to come.

    Until you accept that, you will just be stuck in utopianism. And you will actually be less successful at helping to bring your vision into reality, not more.

  23. Posted

    10 hours ago, Heaven said:

    Ironically, the source for 30,000 deaths since the beginning of the war among the Palestinians side is also the same source who built its terrorist infrastructure inside hospitals, schools and civilian areas.

    These are facts and I suggest you check them rather than feeding your brain with propaganda.

    If we can't agree on ~33,000 deaths, which is the estimate I've seen from every reputable source, then this discussion will not go very far. We are not even relying on the same basic information.

  24. Posted

    14 hours ago, undeather said:

     

    This podcast provides a profound exploration of the dichotomy between Eastern and Western medical paradigms, offering a nuanced examination of their respective merits. It skillfully navigates the intricate nuances of each approach, illuminating their strengths while remaining open to critique and discourse.

    It stands as a testament to the richness of the dialogue surrounding healthcare practices, inviting listeners to delve deeper into the complexities of medical philosophy and practice.

     

    That was excellent. They both argued their points quite effectively while keeping the conversation civil.

    I think what is missing from this dialogue, especially for Dr. Mike, is a few solid transpersonal experiences. Dr. K has had some so he understands the bigger picture better, while Dr. Mike seems more stuck in rational / materialism. And this makes him very skeptical of anything spiritual like Aryuveda, since for him spirituality fundamentally doesn't mean much.

    This is of course not to say that all of Aryuveda is correct. But when someone understands that the ancients were not just superstitious primitives, and that in some ways their knowledge exceeded that of modern scientists, then you are much more likely to have to seriously consider Eastern practices. 

    Personally I am interested in integrating Eastern ideas into my practice, although I've not yet figured out how exactly that will look. The challenge is sorting out what is actually true and what actually works for patients / clients. 

  25. Posted · Edited by aurum

    @Michael569 great list. I especially like the part about description, not persuasion (which is mostly just manipulation in this context). That really seems to be the only way high consciousness sales can exist.

    Here's my piece of wisdom:

    Drop this idea that simply because a customer is wiling to pay for something, that you are offering them value. This is an incredibly toxic belief that is widespread in the internet marketing community. Rationalization on top of rationalization about why you should just figure out what the market wants and give it to them. Doesn't matter what it is as long as there is demand.

    In reality, demand =! true value. There might be demand for cigarettes and drugs, can you honestly say selling those things is a high consciousness business that brings value to people? Perhaps in a twisted sort of way you could rationalize it. But it's obvious to me that people can demand all sorts of things that are not higher consciousness and may even hurt them.

    If you actually loved your customers, you would care about what is best for them. End of story. 

    Of course it practically may be more of a challenge to sell higher consciousness products. You might be get all excited about how your product is going to change the world, only to discover that people just want low consciousness garbage and get outcompeted. So get too idealistic either. You have to find a balance of demand and value.