DocWatts

So while I may have some quibbles with some of the specifics, as far Leo's primary point about the developmental blindness (and judgemental attitudes that arise from such) on the Left, he hit the nail on the head. I would really encourage people who consider themselves Leftists (as I do) to contemplate the points he's making in a serious way. And to pay particular attention to the points where you find yourself getting triggered. Note that doesn't mean that you have to agree with every point he's making, but there may be far more substance here than you're willing to admit.

Hell, the entire cyberpunk genre is actually a really good satirical and cautionary portrayal of a completely unshackled Orange meme not buttressed by Blue (or Green) collectivism. Of course the irony of folks appropriating something that's a critique of thier values (because cool aesthetics) is hardly unique to Orange

Also, there seems to be some confusion on this point: Germany, Norway, and the other progressive Western Europe counties are Social Democracies, rather than Socialist countries. At the end of the day Norway and Finland are still capitalist countries, they just use a far more humane form (for thier own citizens at least) of capitalism than what exists in a place like the United States. Leo's point (and one that I agree with) was that the Spiral center of gravity for the entire culture would have to be much higher than it's current Blue/Orange leanings in order to sustain the kind of socialism that SD-Green advocates for. Social democracy, rather than Socialism, is the next developmental stage for the United States, and there's a far more realistic chance of seeing the Overton window shift in this direction in our lifetimes.

From my own perspective, the overall blind spot of the Left can be summed up as a lack of self-awareness around thier developmental privileges (which in all fairness Leo does a good job of expounding upon in the vid). In that they have been privileged enough to be socialized into a more ethically and epistemically sophisticated worldview (at least in comparison to right-wing worldviews). Being unaware or unmindful that one is privileged in this way can make it difficult to be compassionate towards other people who haven't had access to the same opportunities. Ironically, this is a more subtle version of the mistake that conversative and libertarians make in thier victim blaming of people whom our socio-economic system has failed.

Honestly it's probably not a bad thing that Leo will have bad takes from time to time, as it's a good reminder that everyone has blindspots, and that one shouldn't simp for teachers and gurus. Hell, even the OG Ken Wilber has shadow aspects that he hasn't integrated, which make their way into his work from time to time... Anyone who's spent a significant amount of time here is likely already aware of the limitations of the Green-meme. Reasonable people who have integrated aspects of Yellow can of course disagree on where and to what degree Green is being unreasonable (and that goes for the other Spiral stages as well). Not like people who embody Tier2 values are a monolithic block that are in agreement about everything, after all

In my mind one way of discovering the essence of philosophy is by differentiating it from its 'cousins'; that of science and spirituality. Science is a systematic methodology for understanding how Reality behaves, through the use of observation and measurement. Spirituality is an exploration of the being mode, and cultivating one's connection to the sacred. Philosophy in contrast can be thought of as a way to make explicit the maps of meaning that human beings implicitly use to navigate all aspects of Reality. It's precisely because this aspirations is so broad that philosophy can be relevant to virtually every aspect of human life and society; politics, science, sexuality, religion, etc. By this understanding, a philosopher is simply someone who practices philosophy.

He has a video series deconstructing scientism, which is a metaphysical belief that science can explain everything there is to be known about Reality. He puts emphasis on verifying things in one's own direct experience. Note that this isn't a rejection of objectivity, just assigning it its proper place as secondary and derived from our direct experience. On a personal note, I wouldn't recommend consuming hundreds of hours worth of content from actualized.org without also putting effort in to explore other viewpoints as well. Using Leo's videos in such a tunnel visioned way will almost certainly lead to epistemic and spiritual bypassing, from not having the requisite foundation to critically engage with the ideas that are being presented.

While this quote won't come as a surprise to most of the people who've been part of this community for a long time, I really appreciate how succinctly Ken Wilber is able to state an important Truth about Reality in such a straitforward way: "THE ULTIMATE METAPHYSICAL SECRET, if we dare state it so simply, is that there are no boundaries in the universe. Boundaries are illusions, products not of reality but of the way we map and edit reality. And while it is fine to map out the territory, it is fatal to confuse the two." While it's true that not every Truth can be communicated simply, it is absolutely worth the effort to make epistemological wisdom more accessible to non-specialists (and yes, if you're Construct aware and have seriously deconstructed subject-object dualism that means you're a specialist). Which from a practical standpoint begins with helping people better contextualize thier existing maps of meaning (which is why I prefer to use the term 'abstractions' over 'illusions', since it is less likely to come across as a pejorative devaluing of what may be deeply meaningful to another person). In my experience, part of making these insights more accessible includes the vitally important emphasis that transcending the exclusivity of a particular paradigm doesn't necessitate having to give up things that are important to that individual (be that Christianity, scientific empiricism, or postmodernism, just to name a few); rather it can be a way of appreciating something they already find valuable from a broader, more encompassing perspective.

Any way that we map Reality is going to have to have an endpoint. That's not because Reality itself contains any endpoints as such, but because all models will reach a point of diminishing returns where trying to break things down even further serves no useful purpose. Also some phenomenological knowledge can be helpful here. Reality itself may lack boundaries, but for human beings Reality is disclosed to us as consisting of discreet objects with fixed boundaries. And the reason this is so is that we need to be able to navigate and manipulate Reality in order to survive, and this pre-reflective 'carving up of Reality' accomplishes that remarkably well. Rather than being dismissive towards our normal way of being-in-the-world, we ought to be seeking to understand it from a Construct aware perspective. And part of cultivating Construct awareness involves appreciating the useful role that constructs play, along with understanding thier limitations.

Hello, and welcome. I would recommend starting off by focusing on epistemology, as this will give you a solid foundation for discerning Truth on your own (and not just having to take Leo's or anyone else's word for it). 'How Paradigms Work', 'Structure vs Content', 'Systems Thinking', and 'How Ideology Works' are great videos for learning some of the basics of epistemological concepts, but I would also encourage you to read and look into epistemology outside of actualized.org as well. Speaking from direct experience, I started getting more value out of Leo's videos the more I read and studied on my own (and there's plenty of areas of healthy disagreement as well, which is to be encouraged). I've found that Ken Wilber is a great resource for leaning epistemology, as his work will teach you valuable tools such as 'the pre-trans fallacy', 'the map is not the territory', and so on. Which may not be very meaningful to you now, but will be proven invaluable for cultivating construct awareness later on. Picking up an introductory book to phenomonology (the branch of philosophy that deals with direct experience) is a good way to learn epistemology, as is Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' for an intro to the epistomology of science. Learning systems theory and dialectical forms of thinking are both highly encouraged as well, as they tie in to epistomology. Plenty of places on YouTube that can go over the basics of both.

That's going to be entirely dependent on how functional our democratic institutions are by that point. Popular pressure only works to the extent that institutions are able to be held accountable, and people feel like they have an actual chance at changing things by partipating in politics.

Sadly I don't think we'll be making a ton of forward progress on long term social problems until the Boomers politely die off, and people with a vested interest in making our systems sustainable are given room to move into positions of power. The generational divide is a huge (though far from the only) obstacle to solving long term problems like making social security solvent.

Is any multi-faceted phenomena purely good or bad for society? SD-Green and female friendly pornography does exist, offering a more ethical and potentially healthier way to explore sexuality than porn that's made at SD-Orange.

Thanks! Also, to add a bit more context as to Putin himself; I'll preface this by saying that I'm in no way justifying the Ukraine war or the numerous human rights violations of Putin's regime. But it's helpful to understand that from the chaotic state that the country was left in during the economic freefall of the 90s, it was basically inevitable that a strong man would end up in control in that sort of survival situation. The reason that Putin's regime was able to stay in power is that he was the first post-Soviet leader to impose some actual limitations on the blatant looting of the State by Russian oligarchs and cartels, which did eventually help to stabilize the Russian economy and improve quality of life.for ordinary Russians. While Russia of course still problems with corruption of course, the days of oligarchs using the State as thier personal piggy bank were put an end to. Tldr; Putin was a direct result of the botched way that capitalism was implemented in Russia, and the rise and survival of his regime hinged using strongman tactics to stabilize a desperate economic situation.

I was initially drawn here by Leo's videos on epistemology and sociology, so I'm aware of that. My point was more that Carl-Richard's breakdown between psychonautics and spirituality is a useful and clarifying distinction. Simplifications for the purposes of clarification are perfectly fine, so long as it's clear that it's a simplification in context.

I'd highly recommend a book by Hubert Dreyfus called 'What Computers (Still) Can't Do', as it takes a penetrating look into the epistemic foundations of AI. He uses philosophical critique from phenomenology (a field of philosophy which analizes our direct experience) to explain why past attempts to develop a general problem solver AI were doomed to failure. And what modern attempts at AI can learn from these failures. This book won't help you learn how to code or develop algorithms, but I could see it being useful for thinking more deeply about one's overall approach to AI in a broad sense.

I really like this explanation. Breaking it down to different areas of emphasis is actually quite helpful.

Of course Putin is the proximate cause of the Ukraine war. But the US and Western Europe share much of the blame for the geopolitical situation that gave rise to Putin's regime, and more broadly for much of the antagonism between Russia and the West. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Western Europe had an opportunity to integrate Russia into Europe and make that country into a long term ally. Had they extended the equivalent of a new Marshal Plan to help Russia ease the transition away from communism and into a market economy, Russia could have avoided the economic collapse of the 90s that led to so much suffering for ordinary Russians and resulted in that country becoming a mafia state due to the way that capitalism was implemented in Russia. To put this in context, you need to understand that the deprivation in Russia was on par with the Great Depression. And sadly the newly emerging Russian democracy that Mikhail Gorbachov fought so hard for was smothered in the cradle. Instead of a helping hand, Russia was subjected to a brutal application of economic Shock Doctrine, in which privitizarion was carried out for the benefit of multinational corporations and millionaires, with close to zero consideration given to the effects that this would have on ordinary people who suddenly found themselves without support structures.

All good points. Definitely don't try to read Kant, Hegel, or Heidegger directly since they require specialized knowledge to get value out of. You'd be better off seeking out contemporary sources that can put their ideas into context. Plenty of YouTube channels and philosophy books specifically made to make these ideas accessible to non-specialists that exist.

Because a large part of being conscientious and mindful person involves caring about the well being of other people, which can't be disentangled from wider societal issues, which necessitates engaging with politics. The world needs conscientious people to be politically engaged. By intentionally staying disengaged, all you're really doing is ceding power to make collective decisions to people who are going to use that power in an unmindful way.

Since you mentioned that you already have some basic familiarity with philosophy, here are some of the more important Western philosphers that are worth getting at least a basic and passing familiarity with. This has less to do with them being 'right', and more to do with the fact that their ideas have been highly influential. Any history of Western philosophy will have a section on each: Plato (early idealism) Aristotle (early empiricism) Rene Descartes (rationalism and skepticism) Immanuel Kant (integration of rationalism and empiricism) Hegel (idealism and dialectics) Nietzsche (early postmodernism) Heidegger (phenomenology)

I agree, and that's why we need to work towards building a society where everyone has opportunities to self actualize, live authentically, and heal from their trauma. But I also think that third wave feminism has positive aspects you're not seeing. Not forcing everyone in society (including trans and non-binary folks) to confirm to gender roles that they're not comfortable with helps those individuals live a life of dignity and authenticity. Those people are also part of the few whose experiences count.

First off thanks for sharing that; it's understandable why a reasonable person would develop a shadow around aspects of SD-Green under those circumstances. But I would also suggest that our life experience, while invaluable, also bias the hell out of us, and cause us to overgeneralize. Especially if those life experiences were negative and happened at a formative time in our lives. Similiar to how a person who grew up and spent a lot of time around around highly misogynistic men might come to an untrue generalization that all men are pigs. Or that a person who grew up in an inner city ghetto with a high crime rate might develop racist attitudes and beliefs as a result of their negative experiences. From an epistemic perspective, something can be confirmation of our direct experience and still be wrong or highly partial because of our biases and limited sample size. A person who claims that most men are misogynistic assholes may be accurate to a person's limited life experience, but not generalizable to society at large. Prejudices are formed for reasons that make sense, at least from a highly limited and partial point of view, after all.

@Tyler Robinson Perhaps you didn't intend it this way, but this sounds to me like a demonization of people exploring gender roles that they weren't assigned at birth. Why are you uncomfortable with some women moving into traditionally masculine roles, and more men exploring femininity? Is moving beyond gender essentialism a problem if doing so helps a person live more authentically?

I'd second starting with epistemology, then branching out to whatever aspects of philosophy seem interesting to you. Ken Wilber might be a good place to start, especially if you're interested in both Western and Eastern philosophy, since he explains his epistemology in a pretty apptoachable way. George Lakoff wrote a book called 'Metaphors We Live By' that's also a good example of practical applications for epistemology. Picking up an introduction to phenomenology is also a good way to get a solid epistemic foundation. There's also a series of short books titled 'A Very Short Introduction to:' which are a good entry point to a bunch of different philosophers and concepts.