remember

as you already say in the question: big companies - big companies don’t just have a monopoly on markets they also control to a point what is fashion (or at least they try to) and they control the direction of technical development. then you also have the striving for supremacy in the us, in a sense a challenge between big world economies, and clearly a paradigm towards development in the digital sector in the last 40 years. so the focus was somewhere else. you could say though that the development there has reached a certain saturation. big companies and trusts are phlegmatic, if they run nicely they don’t want to change especially if they would loose profit, that’s why they often don’t hear the starting shot when paradigms shift. a problem with a lot of orange/red companies. also ofc an oil company has difficulties changing the kernel of their business to a green one, weapon industry would probably not think about sustainability, like cradle to cradle - maybe they could recycle old munition... a lot of reasons probably, big country, big companies, big lobyism. green is a slower development than orange, orange sources red energy from destruction, through breaking down of blue, breaking down even the green structures within blue, growth takes longer than breaking down. in some consequences blue also has/had some sustainability structure at least in europe, maybe made it easier for europeans. also striving for better lifestyle through cultural comparison within europe in my oppinion is a huge factor, small countries gain more influence through the unity factor for example - so in a sense it’s because the trendsetter in this case is not the usa even if some influencers in the us are trendsetters in green thinking, street fashion is not always economic fashion.

you are joking to say he founded that ??????????????? he‘s probably one nice example of design going meta as designtheory, but no practice without theory, if practice came first, theory was not invented by a designtheoretic. i‘m actually often not noticing anymore how nice a graphic is organized. the theory here is one origin - which is maybe sexy in sense of simplicity but not in sense of understanding interconnectedness - it’s basically red transforming to orange information to show interconnectedness of a bunch of languages while leaving out some others. and in the beginning was the word structure fits content.

@Soulbass world you mind doing that for african languages? there are so many dialects and languages... its also very interesting how asian languages developed, people like ancestry maps - it can give you a sense of identity in by nature chaotic world - but returning to the very source all houses are leading to one and the same ancestor, and following one line of descendant makes us forget how patterns are maintained in a structure.

technically there are different kinds of killing someone, like killing a fly, technically you can slay it or shoot it or maybe if you are very skilled lynch it - technically there are many different ways to justify how the fly was misbehaving and being a problem fly and so on - but you can’t exactly say it died a natural death if it died by your hand. technically speaking as that would mean your hand would be the measurement for nature. which by definition can’t be, as that would mean probably if your finger leangth is a size over average people would trust in what you say even though your finger leangth is bullshitting people about the size of your ego, which is probably not relevant in the discussion about technical legality and non technical legality - if lynching is legal, technically there is probably nothing to say against it. precision is not accurately measurable just by the weapon you use, per definition it’s also measurable by what measurement stick someone uses - ofc if the accountable law is in question you can’t use the law to measure itself, you can only measure the law by the accountability of a person.

@Serotoninluv yes, and by definition what actually is a male? (1-0 is not exactly binary anyways)

it’s about your attention span and theory building, optimism will make you inattentive to change. pessimists usually are better prepared. and what is pessimism anyways - if optimism is: everything will stay as it is? society is not only optimizing itself - that’s a false assumption and one directional thinking.

well... you think you are does not mean you are what you think you are - you see spiral dynamics is kind of twisted. its already hidden in the word „spiral“. the relativity of the spiral shows where you are at, which means it’s not like you could say: „i‘ve reached this or that colour“ and when you look into the mirror you are yellow or turquoise, while in the end you still are stuck in orange or blue, but your ego (mind in that case) thinks it already is at turquoise because it thinks it already grasped what turquoise is all about. no, no, no! you got that wrong. relativity is sth you must grasp to even reach second tier, what you obviously did not.

no, once you awaken you just realize, there is suffering and there is idiocy – suffering and idiocy are not the same even though they are fundamentally intertwined. idiocy is the most problematic karmic source for recreation of suffering there is, idiocy tends to value neither anything nor nothing. idiocy just is – and you cannot do anything about it, either you are it or you try to be on consciousness side. even though idiocy is a part of consciousness you can’t exactly say it is it.

that’s just because you finally arrived in orange. you got blind to red it’s not that you haven‘t been all along. its totally normal that you get disgusted by green if you get attracted by red.

lol - i don’t know if i would rather trust a human pilot or a computer, that’s probably the reason why in a human plane a human is the person who flies not the airplane. if flying was not as safe as it is today and pilots would crash into mountains like what happened with that i think remembering it was germanwings plane/pilot whole crew +passengers, people would probably not fly much anymore. whereas people would probably not stop getting involved in difficult situations anymore or stopp committing minor crimes because the cops are not doing self reflective self assessing work, or being tested on their psychological capacity, it’s definitely not because their weapons are constructed faulty so you couldn’t say it’s exactly a technical issue as well, maybe you could give them automated weapons.

i doubt you understand that.

if you try to make a dollar note responsible for inequality - you have really understood not any thing nor have you understood nothing nor do you really understand yourself. it is sad to point at that, but actually try to see what’s going on, if you do it’s not that easy anymore. having money usually makes people biased, having none, too. be careful with the traps you build and stumble in yourself, the relationship to money can tell a lot about a person. all i did was reading your cards. you were the one starting to compare yourself to a bank account.

@Someone here you sound disillusioned and sad. maybe you are not. sarcasm usually points towards huge shadow aspects - bitterness is a taste which is def one of the more difficult tastes even in the heart range!

if that’s like that for you, then its a really sad meaning because as you already say the meaninglessness finding meaning in this or that is indeed either meaningless or meaningful. if you want to inherently define yourself as the money or non money on your bank account it’s even sadder than to define yourself as a brain. which does not mean that money can’t have meaning. and maybe even if you cannot find meaning anymore it does not mean it does not still exist in a language beyond words.

meaning? nothing has meaning! has it? why do things have meaning? do you think a chair has meaning or a hairdryer, what is the meaning of a plastic bag? if things have meaning, why can’t nothings not have meaning? does the space between your toes have form? what is it between your toes if you wiggle them? where does the wiggling even happen? what would you call that? maybe is it water? and wat is that anyways i mean really did you ever meet that in complete awareness, how do you know it’s not alive? how do you know if you are maybe not the water running through you? i mean how do you know you are not the water running through that what you mistake as form?

neologisms are just one possible outcome. don’t be so stiff.

if quick pluralis majectic or majestatis pluralis quick who cares - all the same thing.

yes we are all majectic, especially in pluralistic societies. ?

its not about a good or bad narrative and you know that! its also not about helping people where they are at, its about where to. that’s a tiny tiny tiny tiny difference in size of chicken brain versus the whole thing. if you still think a labyrinth is like a dot with a ray of arrows and every arrow leads you to a preferable exit, we can have a talk about chaos magic again.

but never at the same time - the dirty is probably more for mud holes, never heard that as a saying. a little lie goes a long way. even through muddy waters huh? gotcha

don’t want to get too pedantic about that but it’s probably more beige/brown with gray bluish intersection. it looks a little like chicken, maybe has the same size approximately - think of it if you eat chicken next time! i don’t think if you eat it it grants immortality.

yes. hardwired, softwired, wireless, lified... you can see it glow when you discover where its all connected.

how is the nerve in your foot your brain? how is cutting of the nerves from your body from the brain not your brain? how is cutting off the body from your nerves not your nervous system?

@Winny you see, this is a problem of the ego, ego wants to have power and self awareness gives some kind of executional power over that which is not ego. ego wants to be brain because brain gives it executional power. ego also likes to be special so ego starts to separate from everything else around it. brain gives the ego safety so ego becomes brain. „somewhere in there i must be found“ , so body is not brain is only attached to the brain as if it was nothing, which it actually is, body is nothing and brain is also nothing. there is actually not anything it’s all pure nothing. ego thinking to know where it is to be found is a self identification trap. maybe you could have your brain scanned and then hang the pictures of it at your wall and show it to all your friends and family. or you have an afternoon of picture presentation about how your different parts look in different segments, could be fun.