What Am I

It's funny how something can appear counterintuitive at first but then clarify with explanation. As I'm guessing you know, there are those on the political right in the US who live in rural areas and practice incest. Many are heavily mocked for it, even by the more educated left. I imagine this would also demonstrate the bias you're describing. It's interesting how being smarter doesn't automatically make one thoughtful, so to speak. Makes sense.

It takes a lot to share something like this, and I appreciate it. I wouldn't disagree with much of what you said, but I think I find spiritual awareness to be way more relevant and practical in everyday life. It's not merely about transcendent states of consciousness that reveal the inner workings behind the scenes of life, though that is a major part of it. As I'm guessing you already know, developing your strength of consciousness is an act that's right here and now. It's a heavy amplification of your awareness in the present moment and a profound decreasing of the illusory doer. In many ways, you're literally more alive the more you develop it. The fact that it's not taught in preschool is an absolute tragedy for humanity, considering the uphill battle caused by a lifetime of anti-awareness habits. I stand by my claim of shaken trust in scientific consensus that was born of knowing a major truth that it's currently lacking, because not doing so would be a lie on my part. But I'm not wholly insensitive to what you're saying. I understand the need for rigorous science. You and I may not see eye to eye on whether certain policies should be implemented, but I doubt we're as different as it seems on the surface. It may also be worth pointing out that I don't believe RFK is a lone theorizer who just made this stuff up. I view these more as alternative consensi, formed and held by many before RFK made his way to the scene. I suppose he's just an individual that gives voice to those who subscribe to them.

Yeah, I can't really argue against that. I've been careful in my other comments about this subject, because you're correct; Biden and his administration are still technically in charge. In theory, he could drop nukes on Russia, and it wouldn't be against the framework of our current system of democracy. But I do think that in the spirit of democracy, it'd be appropriate for an outgoing administration to voluntarily cease actions that are in heavy disalignment with the incoming one, even if it's not technically against the rules. I'm not a big fan of this paragraph. It's unfortunate it's come to this. While that's true, there has to be some kind of logical fallacy being represented here, which I can't precisely identify by name. I don't think it's fair to expect anyone to whip out a counterfactual with any degree of certainty. All I can do is look at what is happening.

This is my thoughts exactly. I was curious if you were going to throw out some intellectual judo that made me view things from a different angle, lol. You've been pretty good at that in other convos. But I guess there's some consensus here regarding sexual relations between children and adults. Yeah, I can empathize with pedophiles' plight. It's a crappy situation to feel such desires. It's unfortunate when people simply feel blind hate towards them, as is so common. Also interesting, I'll check it out. Thanks for being so candid in your response. I wasn't sure how you would take the question since it's so profoundly taboo.

Typically in proper negotiations, compromises are made on both sides, and nobody comes out of it with their ideal scenario. I'd imagine it would look something like that. Regardless, though, my point wasn't necessarily about how the negotiations should look. The citizens of the United States voted for a new leader knowing full well what his policy is regarding the US's involvement in the Ukraine war. If the current administration were to unilaterally defy that will, it would seem wrong to me.

Pretty good advice. Personally, I find it interesting and often accurate, but I'm very far from accepting it as an absolute. As I'm sure is probably also true for those highly knowledgeable in it, such as aurum. Very interesting if true. I'd have a tough time placing him at a high level, but I may be judging by the wrong criteria. I have no idea what stage of development I actually coincide with on the model, but after everything I've done in my life, I wouldn't consider myself a slouch. And I too land on the side of Trump, to the chagrin of many here, I'm sure.

That's a decent response and at least makes sense as to why Ukraine might want to risk it. Still though, it seems very inappropriate for an outgoing administration to make a decision like this, especially when the incoming administration has explicitly stated their intention to end the fighting and negotiate peace. If the upcoming democratically elected leaders weren't consulted first, that'd be a real shame in my opinion.

Ah, good point, I could see that being a factor causing atypical results.

Well, here's a question for those who better understand SD. Is it supposed to be theoretically impossible for those of higher development to support a leader from a relatively lower rung? Is it actually the case that Trump simply can't have Green/Yellow supporters? I'm just curious if the model has a rule about that.

Ah, Christian mystics who lean too hard on their Christianity are indeed weak sauce.

Here's a new Martin Ball podcast episode where they discuss subcutaneous injection of 5-MeO-DMT.

I haven't followed his stuff. Does he give any indications that he leans that way? It should be easy to tell, because if someone wasn't very explicitly for Harris, it's fair to assume they were for Trump. We've seen that same pattern play out a million times at this point.

Good point. I can't imagine how much suffering has likely occurred due to those who assumed they were capable of identifying the greater good.

I suppose that's a fair answer, but it's definitely not satisfying.

Looking at a graphic of the SD levels and applying it to myself, it may be the case that I fall under Orange as well. I feel like I encompass a bunch of these listed Green characteristics, but in many ways, I don't typically find myself in alignment with those who commonly receive the Green label. Perhaps I'm a sleeper Turquoise/Yellow. I'm sure everyone wishes for it, but it's probably rarely true.

Ah, makes sense. It does seem like Green gets picked on for its excesses for whatever reason. Perhaps because it's the one right before the Tier 2 upgrade, and more is expected of it.

Very interesting, thanks. Now that you mention it, I guess that really is a super prominent attitude for many of those who could be identified as Green.

I agree, I can see how the general mentality has the potential to go awry, as it has on multiple occasions in history.

In the SD model, is it also possible for progress to move too fast in the sense that it becomes distorted and not a proper representation of the particular level of development? If so, wouldn't taking a step back via regression provide the opportunity for new growth to occur in a more proper manner? I'm asking because I'm still mostly ignorant in the subtleties of SD, but the concept I laid out makes sense to me.

Sure, and just to expand on the potentials, it really depends on the conspiracy theorist who's making the claim. If it's an atheist or Christian right-winger, then you're correct that he probably is referring to Jewish people. If he's heavily into spirituality, he could be referring to an elite group of humans who hail from secret societies and possess mystical wisdom. If it's a believer in UFOs and everything associated with that, it could be a reference to non-human beings secretly running the planet. And if he's into both spirituality and the UFO topic, it could be non-human mystical beings. I'm guessing you're most familiar with the beliefs of the typical right-winger. I'm just pointing out that sometimes it takes on different forms. But I guess you're correct that the underlying psychology isn't so different.

Calling it Qanon is selling short just how old and complex some of these conspiracy theories are. I can't tell what the guy in the video is specifically talking about, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not about Jewish people.

That's how it appears to me, which is what prompted me to ask for the steelman argument. For someone just taking a glance at the situation, it seems like Biden (or whoever calls the shots) wants to escalate the conflict to the point where Trump has no choice but to continue the war.

I was just kidding. Removing fluoride from tap water is a no-brainer for me. I don't want my drinking water to be spiked with any substance, regardless of the beneficial effects it may have on tooth health. If fluoridated water turns out to be deleterious to health in other ways, that'd just further reinforce my opinion.

So on this one, I haven't heard a great justification for why Biden is providing new weapons with the go-ahead to strike Russian soil when he's currently on his way out the door. I imagine there is a good explanation for why it's reasonable, but I just haven't come across it yet. What would be your explanation?

But what if the greater nutrition from non-vegan-specific foods would help fuel our brains to eventually invent synthetic foods that are superior to animals? In an unintuitive way, wouldn't that actually end up being the more moral option? If heightened human development is to the benefit of all, wouldn't it make sense not to hobble ourselves? I'm just playing around with ideas. Since I was a vegetarian for so long, you can probably guess that I respect animals and their suffering as well.