Lews Therin

@How to be wise True, but you said he critiqued Orange from above, which would imply he is at green, which is just a no no. Also, i didn't say he was Bue, i said he was Blue/orange. The whole debatelord personna that made him famous is a orange trait, but he uses it to defend tradition and his InGroup, which are both Blue values. He has lots of orange in him, but his main drive is the defence of conservative values and conservative groups/institutions. He has also many times said we should "just kill" Fidel Castro, Nicolas Maduro and others. This people weren't judge or condemned, and Orange values a lot the adequate procedures. He wants them killed because they are "enemy group". SO even though he has many low Orange traits, he is far away from peak Orange.

@How to be wise Of course he talks about it. His whole persona revolves around resisting green, and so does that of his whole audience. But he definetely doesn't do it from above, as much as you would like to think that. The whole culture wars is essentially a Blue values vs Green values thing, with Orange siding sometimes with one, sometimes with the other, but in most cases siding with Blue since they also are resisting Green. Ben is on the Blue side.

@How to be wise Ben doesn't understand Green at all, really. And Orange also doesn't understand Green, just like Red doesn't understand Blue. But Shapiro is not Orange, he is literally the poster child of Blue/orange. You know why he was talking about Muslim uyghurs? It's simple actually. He use Blue's dichotomic model of reality. My ingroup = America. Therefore the Outgroup (enemies) are the enemies of America. China is the main enemy of America right now. therefore China = Bad. And also, Everything China does = Bad Therefore, Uyghur Genocide = Bad

I will begin this saying i am not talking about fringe cases. Different sorts os traumas can make people have any sort of crazy conviction that we couldn't even imagine. I'm talking about consistently having yellow thinkers defending capitalism as the best way forward. I had this thought after watching the first half of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKvVdGNzCQk&t=3309s Capitalism is a system that inherently creates too many negative feedback loops and has some fucked up incentives for people to be willing to do anything to have the "upper hand". It is the famous Game A vs Game B. For example, if i cut all the trees in my countrie i will be able to outcompete my neighbour, and if he cuts all the trees in his he will be able to outcompete me. Even though if we both cut all our trees it will stop raining and we both gonna get fucked up. One of the things that stuck with me from Leo's Yellow video was when he said yellow was about win-win-win. Well, capitalism is about win-win. If there is less fish in the sea, the price will go up and so more people will start fishing. The person who eats the fish will feel very special while the one who sold the fish will get rich. The rest of the world will pay the price as that species might go extinct, and possibly even cause an environmental collapse. We are having literally dozens of species going extinct every single day. Environmental destruction and social inequality don't seem to be bugs of capitalism, they are the results of hte capitalist system working normally. So i generally feel like you couldn't possibly be a at yellow, maybe not even a solid green, and still support this system. That said, i know i have my own biasses, and would love to hear other people's opinion on this.

@Ulax He does give very inspiring talks for those who want success in relationships. And that inspiration does fade away after sometime, specially if you don't go out in the field get positive feedback yourself. But i did learn a lot from him about innergame and specially on how to hold a conversation. I used to be the guy who could barely talk to my own friends, after studying, mainly through his free videos, i am probably on the top half now, being able to keep most people i talk to entertained without much effort.

"What the hell is this deep jealously and whingeing of Elon Musk coming from?" "Again guys, focus on improving your life first, and stop envying the rich" You are literally just spewing toxicity here. Nobody needs to be "succesfull" to point out that Elon literally defends the maintenance of the systems that are destroying the planet and opressing a fuckload of people. It is not jealoussy. Musk deserves the criticism.

I used to watch him back in the day, when he was into pick up. I think i could say he was my guru during my Orange phase. My first guru. I will always have a deep respect for him for all that he helped me go through. That said, no way i'm watching 3 hours of him talking about some random thing. What is he on about in this vids?

Two things i would like to say. Your description is way closer to a socialist democracy than a communist one. The other is to inquire, these "companies" that you mentioned, how do they work? Who chooses what to do with the money? Who owns the company? Who decides when someone is in or out of the company?

@Hardkill No, they are Stage Orange. They have a good dialogue with stage blue because stage blue has already surendered power to orange in the US and most liberal democracies around the world. Almost all what you call "center-left" is in a solid form of orange, sometimes blue-orange, with some very, very, very small tints of green in some cases. But they are very far from getting to a solid green, much less solid yellow. The most advanced ideas that have relevance in the public debate are the green ideas represented by progressives.

@Raptorsin7 Has he contributed that much? As far as i know he is just very wealthy playboy who knows how to market himself. Also, he preaches against taxing the really wealthy and against the government aiding those in need. So he probably has a negative net value added to society. Which meas essentialy anyone in this forum has contributed more than him by just not advocating for the things he advocates for.

eager to read your thoughts on that.

I'm thinking of downloading the last version of one note, as opposed to searching for a specific old one Leo suggested. Has anyone tried the newer ones? I would love to have an opinion on this.

My answer is no as well. One theory i have is that we perceive thoughts as coming from the head not because we were taught that way, but because it where most of our senses como from. Our most used sense is probably sight, followed by hearing. Most of our thoughts are therefore connected to what we are seeing and hearing, so it makes sense to have the abstract thought "forming" close to the eyes and ears. I don't know if thats the case though. If it is, possibly a kid born without being able to see or hear would perceive the thoughts closer to the feet that walks or the hand that touches things to know what they are. I can't tell. When i close my eyes i still perceive myself as being centered in the head, but i don't know if thats because either: 1. i'm still seeing, only it's dark. 2. I'm still hearing stuff. 3. literally just conditioning. 4. We as humans inherently feel the thoughts as being in the head for some other reason (probably because it is where the brain actually is).

Capitalism will always favor the cheaper option, even when we already produce enough riches as a society to build something beautyfull for everyone. That won't happen under capitalism though, we nees some sort of socialist revival to move us from game a to game b.

@WaveInTheOcean Of course definitions matter. The way i see things is: The mind is the radar that is needed to keep the body alive in the world The Ego what happens when the mind tries to lock on itself with the goal of surviving better. But when it does that, it glitches, a generates a identification. That identification doesn't help the mind in any way, only hinders it by spending its energy. "Well, I still feel genuinely that I was at a point" Who's that I, i ask you??? Of course when the Ego is about to truly die, anything that identifies with it will trully believe it is about to die. Becuase the thing to wich you are identified is actually going to "trully die".

You are wrong about one thing, that your ego is in anyway responsible for your breathing, it isn't. It isn't responsible for anything. And it is the ego that will die if you let go, that's why it is claiming you will "phisically die". Because it does not want to let go! I'm sure there will be no mahasammadhi if you do. That said, keep in mind when i get to this point i always back down as well, letting go is pretty damn hard. "Wauw, dude, you think you are really good at letting go huh? You are pretty good obviously" talk about ego talk, hahahaha

Hello my dear self-development colleagues, I opened this topic to see if any of you might have suggestions of topics to explore in my term paper. I study Law, and am thinking about talking about two things in it. The first is the idea that in most western countries every law must be interpreted in the sense of protecting human life. For example, if there is a rule that you can't step on the grass of a public university, but on the other side of the grass there is a person having a heart attack who needs help, the rule must be interpreted in as saying that you HAVE to step on the grass. You shouldn't ignore the rule or anything, you have to understand that in this case the rule actually commands you to step on the grass. And that is true for almost every rule and law, in every western country, from Germany, to Brazil to the USA. The protection of human life is the basis of everything and is to be considered implicit on very law. (Even though in practice that may not be the case) The second thing i want to talk about is that there are actually to western countries who are exceptions to this rule. Those are Bolivia and Equator. In this two countries, nature has right in and of itself, and must be protected not because it is necessary to human survival, but because it has the right to exist and so must be protected. (Here is a link about this laws on Equator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rights_of_Nature_in_Ecuador_-_Sumak_Kawsay#Legal_effects). A professor casually mentioned this in class and it blew my mind, to the point my term papper is going to be about it. I already want to explore the fact that nature is essential to human survival and that therefore in every country we tend to have laws about it. And how even though we have those in many cases nature ends up getting screwd as it can be argued for example, that since poverty is a risk to human life, deflorestation and extractivism as ways of getting money can sometimes be given priority over the protection of ecosystems. Another case where we find problems of this sort in most countries is when, for example, river pollution is damaging the quality of life of the people around it, but not much ends up being done as sometimes it is hard to prove the link between the pollution and the illnesses affecting these people (specially when who is causing the pollution can pay doctors to say otherwise). A different consideration i wanted to adress is the problem of considering human beings as external to nature, and not a part of it (what Wilber calls the descended grid) and how this perception of human reason as something that exists independent of the biosphere causes a shift in priority keeps us from adressing our problems. (if we are above and beyond nature, we just have to develop as fast as we can so that one day reason and logic will be advanced enough to fix the environmental problems. Not considering that resource depletion and the subsequent fight for what is left may cause certain systemic collapses and spiral regressions that could very well make us less prone to reason and logic.) I know we have some pretty smart people in here, so let your imaginations go wild, i will latter see what can and can't be used in the scope of the project. When i finnish it, i will make sure to post it here for those interested, but it will probably that a few months yet.

If anyone think they would have done anything different in Hitler's shoes... Well, sorry to break it to you... But when you were on his shoes you did those exact thing you are condemning right now... You evil bastard. hahahah

My european french teacher sent me this after i asked if he knew volt. https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/volt-technocratic-populists I didn't get enough from that two minute video to know how the party arrives at conclusions and policies, so it seems a valid critique.

Take a green person and throw them in prison and their red memes will take over. Take a green society and throw them into a war, and their red and orange memes will take over.

Great news in the sense that Lula is someone with decent chances of beating Bolsonaro, but he is far from a good choice for Brazil. And Lula's presence means other candidates have no chance of going to the second round of the elections. Basically, polarization wins. Lula is as much stage Blue as anyone can be. He cares about one thing, his worker's party, and nothing else. With Lula at the helm, PT's hold on power is priority 1, 2 and 3. Brazil's interests can, at best, be priority number 4. That is my take. My girlfriend is a criminal lawyer who has many of the worker's party's politicians as clients. She isn't as optimistic as me. Even though she is also happy Lula can beat bolsonaro, she thinks he is much closer to a stage red eager to have his honor and prestige back. Second. Lula has no understanding of economy whatsoever, and no long-term planing. His goal will be (as it was the last two times he was elected) improving the people's short term capacity to consume and enriching his banker friends. Our country needs industry, and Lula has proved again and again that he has no interest in making decisions that could make people like him less in the short term.

@commie what they could do is hand up contracts asking the people if they really needed to use it. if they didn't use it on something important it's a contract breach. That way no one is forced to anything they don't agree to.

And with regards to the time we have. most countries promisse to get rid of carbon emission by 2050. If with Nuclear energy that can be achieved sooner, then we should go for it.

since you posted this one, it's fair to hear the counterguments from the same guys.

Has anyone read this two books by Ken Wilber? (A Brief History of everything and A Theory of Everything) I would like to know wich one do you reccomend reading first. And also, if you think the order matters in this case.