aurum

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aurum

  1. Posted

    @DocWatts Another excellent post. Very timely for me, as I was just discussing the importance of ideological cohesion with other members of a group project I am working on.

    I feel this is an especially important piece for those who have been at the Pluralist / Post-conventional/ SD Green stage of development for a while. There is such an emphasis at that stage on questioning existing social narratives that typically the downsides of Construct Collapse are not acknowledged. This is necessary for someone to break free from the Conformist / Conventional / SD Blue + Orange stage of development, but at some point its limitations need to be recognized.

    Essentially, there is a deep reason why group-think and conformity exists. And it's precisely because groups of people can't function without some degree of it.

    So while "critical-thinking" and autonomous meaning making are important in their own way, too much done too soon can actually lead to chaos. Imagine if everyone in a democracy had their own totally unique vision for the country. Nothing could get done, including defending itself from another nation that was able to generate social cohesion through authoritarianism. In fact, that's precisely the positive function of authoritarianism: get everyone on the same page.

  2. Posted · Edited by aurum

    @Karmadhi

    The Israeli alliance is, and has been for a long time, of strategic importance for the US.

    The US does not want to jeopardize it. But they also do not want to look bad on the world stage or like they don't support Gaza civilians.

    So we get these strange situations where the US acts like it cares (air drops food / aid to Gaza) but fundamentally does little to stop Israel.

    They are trying to appease all sides. 

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Let me know what you think:

    https://www.actualized.org/insights/leo-does-political-philosophy-with-ai

    Loved it!

    What most stuck out to me the most was how similar the AI sounds to Tier 2 thinking. It has an easy ability to balance polarities and various perspectives / models without getting stuck in excessive relativism or "both-sideism". It easily goes meta. And it isn't excessively forceful in its communication style, while still stating its opinion.

    When I think of the mind of someone at Tier 2, this is how I envision it structurally would behave. 

  4. Posted

    46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

    Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently more immoral.

    Most Gen Z and some Millennials behave in vulgar ways and are more naked online.

    Therefore Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently immoral? What if it becomes more indecent?

    People have always been vulgar and naked. The younger generations are just more open and less repressed about it compared to boomers.

    I consider it a necessary correction from a big picture POV.

    46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

    What are some of the pros and cons of most Gen Z and Millennials being more or less human decency?

    Pros: less repression, unconsciousness and shame around sexuality. A starting place for integrating a much more healthy, mature relationship to sexuality

    Cons: crudeness, promotion of meaningless hookup culture, loss of seeing sex as an intimate act to be taken seriously

    46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

    So according to that org and you, human decency laws are secular and universal? Are you not acknowledging the historical origins of human decency laws? 

    1) They are universal and secular in the sense that no religion or ideology gets a monopoly on them. Certainly not Judeo-Christian.

    2) I am acknowledging the origins of these laws. The true origins go beyond any particular religion. That's my point. 

  5. Posted

    15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Just give the solution already.

    What is the green solution? Green is not the solution to the problems of the last stage.

    Rather, the last stage runs to completion and as a consequence, you move to the next stage. You cannot solve orange problem by pushing for green. 

    That's not how that works. 

    You would know why Green is the solution if you stopped denying it all as virtue signaling.

    15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    I am not being cynical of green. I am against exploiting people and whitewashing it all as progressive green stuff. 

    I am not criticizing you for being against corrupt greenwashing. I am also against that.

    I am criticizing you for throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Go to the Spiral Dynamics Green Mega Thread. Actually take the time to study and understand Green. Ask yourself: What is Green actually? Why does it exist? Why did it develop in the spiral? What is its function in the evolution of consciousness? What value does it bring? 

    Contemplate. Take your time, do not rush this or jump to easy answers.

    Also, feel free to take it in as objectively as possible, the good and the bad. You will get to keep some of your critiques. But this will help balance your perspective if you actually do this.

  6. Posted · Edited by aurum

    13 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

     If true that human decency laws are derived from what you just listed, then why are we seeing more nakedness and vulgarity in Gen Z and Millennials using social media sites, and behaving in more immoral ways in reality? Also aren't human decency laws more derived from Judeo-Christian values?

    Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently more immoral. They are just less uptight about certain things previous generations cared more about. This has pros and cons.

    Obviously many of them are still young and immature in a lot of ways. 

    To me, Human Decency Laws look something like this:

    https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

    ^These values are secular and universal, not Judeo-Christian

  8. Posted

    6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

    You would agree that a very intelligent psychopath can cause more havoc than a very unintelligent one, wouldn't you? In the same sense, capitalism, operating through relativism, pluralism, etc., is much more insidious than the plain old industrial-era capitalism, where the factory worker has a clear image of this capitalism (e.g. factories, bourgeois capitalists).

    Today's capitalism is so decentralized and nebulous that most people don't even realize they are enslaved by it and, at best, can concoct some conspiracy theories to imagine where the center of oppression lies (e.g. deep state/elites, silicon valley, etc.), which is nothing but a coping strategy for the radically fluid and faceless reality of capitalism and the market forces that dominate their lives today.

    There's some truth to this. Certainly things have become more complex, which can make it harder for the average person to make sense of things. Also the scale of society and the technology we possess means there is the potential for more perniciousness.

    This does not mean though that we should go backwards and resimplify society though. This is instead a challenge to be addressed by becoming better as people. What is needed is more education, more personal development, more consciousness. Your mind has to evolve to keep pace with society's evolution.

    6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

    Quite the ironic, but predictable twist. Libertarianism, in many ways, is the ultimate conclusion of green liberalism in a world that still hasn't addressed the underlying economic and psychological realities of capitalism.

    Lol. Keep dreaming.

    6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

    This is textbook stage orange hubris. First of all, let's not confuse capitalism with the economy (more on that later). Secondly, and most importantly, there is no guarantee of some utopian future; the future is radically open, and unless humanity takes full responsibility for it, I can guarantee you that the future we will create (or rather, let happen) will be dystopic, and much worse than what we have now.

    (See Joseph Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies," Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West," or Manuel De Landa's "A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History" to dispel yourself of any such naive readings of historical progress.)

    1) It depends on your timeline. Non-linearity / collapse is certainly possible on a short-time line. I am using a longer one

    2) Yes we need to take responsibility for the future, this is obvious and doesn't need saying

    3) All of the people you named are materialists who don't understand the evolution and intelligence of consciousness

     

    The future is not just radically open. There is a clear line of evolution that is happening. And it's not towards more evil. 

  9. Posted · Edited by aurum

    2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    The question is if they can sustain their liberalist world view without third world exploitation? 

    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.

    2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    And also can you mention the green aspects that apple has outside of their technical innovation, which is essentially the work of an orange cold capitalist.

    Their green outlook is all talk and virtue signalling. Even in the US they are playing crony capitalist style monopolistic games. Just because they have a gay ceo is enough for them to become progressive? 

    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.

    2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Except that there is no solution.

    Definitely not a solution that Green liberals can bring.

    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.

    2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    If there is any solution at all, that is coming from capitalists who make capital to do the work. The only solution to stop modern day slavery is more capitalism. It is to build capital that does the slave labour for you so that people will not be exploited.

    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.

    2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Liberalism is a constant failure when it comes to policy decisions for a reason. You simply cannot orchestrate massive changes to any large and complex system.

    You have to be conservative and gentle or else the backlash from the system will be too harsh and the price will be too large. Liberalism almost never works in big systems. At the individual level, it is somewhat okay, given that you are a direct beneficiary of exploitation, or even the individual itself becomes a complex system too sensitive to changes, rendering liberalism a waste. 

    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.

     

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

    Yes, my point is that capitalism can take over any spiral stage and becomes even more pernicious the higher up the spiral it moves.

    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.

     

  11. Posted

    10 hours ago, Nilsi said:

    This is the perfect example. Postmodern capitalism is being select for, because it is even more effective. The emphasis on flexibility and adaptability is ruthlessly exploited by capital interests, leading to increased precarity for workers, less job security, fewer benefits without corresponding increases in wages of quality of life. All aspects of life are increasingly commodified and mediated. The economy becomes dominated by signs and symbols (e.g. brands, images) rather than material goods. Identity and self-worth become increasingly tied to consumer choices. Most importantly, the idea that there is no alternative to this capitalist realism becomes internalized and limits the ability to work toward different social or economic ends.


    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?

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    @aurum Do you think Apple Corporation is conservative or liberal?

    All relevant info was included in my post you quoted. 

    I chose the Apple case since this is a practical situation that we both are familiar with and you can engage in as much nuance as necessary. 


    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.

  13. Posted

    10 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Words do not matter at all. If you can assert that CCP, Putin, Xi, Kim are all right wing fanatics even though they purport textbook left wing nonsense, words do not matter at all.

    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. 

    10 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Nah bro they are orange capitalists using liberal brainwashing to maintain their green image. They don't believe in the things they say. 

    Google is pretty much like Soviet Union. Speak progressive stuff, and then do monopolistic capitalist stuff when no one is watching. Same with Microsoft and Apple. You cannot deny this because thier hypocrisy so obvious. 


    Again, this greatly oversimplifies the situation.

    Some of it is liberal greenwashing, and some of it is genuine. Nuance is needed.

     

    10 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Well, you can judge them whatever you want. But if you want to create utopia, then you need plenty of slave labour. 

    Liberals want to create utopia, but they are opposed to slave labour. They even employe slave labour in secrecy. Which is why I day they are not the liberals they think they are.

    Look at actions. Google exploits slave labour. All those hippie silicon valley startups will lose their hippie outlook once they run out of investors money.

    Apple literally exploits the living fuck out of third world countries and their lose laws on human rights. But they have a gay ceo so all is fine.

    You are beyond naive when you say that capitalism is being phase out lmao. We have more capitalism than ever. 

    This is why I say liberalism is a facade that can be maintained only by brainwashing people into being in a bubble. Apple wouldn't exist without slavery. Get that first. 

    Do I blame Apple? Not really. They have created a fantastic product on top of exploiting slave labour from China and Bangladesh. Props to them. Congratulations to you as well now you can purport more liberal brainwashing on using products built from slave labour. 

    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.

  14. Posted

    57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Likewise, Utopias you dream of, do not happen because of "higher development" of the people. These hippies do nothing to push society forward, and hence they are not really the bleeding edge liberals they think they are. 

    Leftist hippies are quite underdeveloped compared to many orange capitalists. It's a complicated topic that needs some uncovering on the systemic skipped & stunted development of the hippies. 

    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?

    57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Utopias happen due to the grinding work of the capitalists and the so called right wing conservatives and the slave labour they employ. 

    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. 

    57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    But you think they are underdeveloped and that's blatantly wrong. 

    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. 
     

    57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Also the discussion is to find out who are the conservatives and who are the Liberals since people can speak of anything they want. That doesn't mean anything to their status of development. You should look at what they are *doing* to assess their development.

    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.

  16. 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.

     

  18. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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? 

  22. 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?

  25. 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.