Andrea Marchetti

Can someone explain me why reported data on vaccines seems to say there's not even a correlation between the number of new cases, and therefore death cases, and the number of administered vaccines? Please take a look at this page, especially at the section "Country-level Covid-19 vaccination", and explore the various countries. It seems there's no correlation going on when you consider many different countries, so that the progression of the number of cases could probably be due to the various political decisions on how to restrict movement, etc... At the world level the advancement of the infection seems to be unaffected by the appliance of vaccines on the popolation. I've tried to ask WHO about it but it seems to be a one-way only communication with it. So, since I'm not part of any kind of specialised forum and here there's quite a variety of people, I ask to you. Here's a screenshot of it.

@Shawn Philips I'm asking. Where have you seen a conspiracy theory here? Let me use my mind as I prefer, thanks.

@TheSomeBody but if the vaccination line doesn't affect a thing in the green line

I'm not talking philosophically, I'm talking to you about You.

I agree. Cult thinking is not something that can happen to a group every ten or so. It's a natural tendency of human minds when they group together. We're all minded here. Maybe just a few transcended their own mind. So yes, cult thinking is something that we should constantly pay attention to.

@johnlocke18 who is this other youtuber who can perform miracles on a camera?

@Blackhawk Trust me. You like suffering and you don't want the truth. The truth looks boring to you and suffering makes you feel like a hero on his journey. It's a huge joke once you realise it, and you'll realise it when you'll get too tired to keep going. You only played with yourself: by forgetting you're on stage the story feels much more real. All of what you're experiencing is what you want to experience. Just keep this in the back of your mind while you keep playing, you don't have to stop playing the games you like to play. I mean, if you pretend you don't know it then it's much more dramatic, more juicy.

@Blackhawk It's all a funny thing. Your question, my effort to answer you, other people answering you. You say you want something that you don't want and we all try to give you something you don't want but you keep saying you want. Our answers are worst than your question. The most sensical answer would be "f*ck off!" (please don't take it as an offence, I don't mean it)

And there was any problem about it back in those periods? Or maybe the problem still was that you didn't get to it. If so then you were expecting it: you were trying to not try, in order to get it. You can't trick your mind with your mind so to transcend your mind. You see, if you really stopped trying you wouldn't care at all if you got enlightened or not. What is all this glamor about enlightenment? Why do you even want it? Who would you be without wanting it?

It's not hard to achieve, it's impossible! The very act of trying to achieve it is indeed a running away from it. "Getting rid of the ego is the biggest ego trip", Alan Watts once said. Stop trying then. That is a very fucked up mind, let me tell you from my own experience I'm not judging you. It's quite twisted. Maybe it's a good thing, who knows, maybe you'll reach the extreme before leaving it completely, many did it that way. It's all a matter of what you want ultimately. But don't fuck up with psychedelics too much anyways, preferably. Why are you looking for it anyway? I'm speaking from my own experience, trying to achieve enlightenment is a purely material thing. It's just a political game. Try to be honest with yourself instead and ask yourself why you want it, would that make you a better person? Would you tell the whole world you got enlightened? Yes? No? Honesty pays here. The truth is, behind the veil, you're looking for something else. Maybe recognition from others? Identify that something else and find the most sane way to achieve it. You're not done with this life yet.

Not really. It's true you're probably not going to find any truth, nor a great amount of open-minded and wise people. However it teaches you to think critically and to doubt your own ideas, especially if you consider them to be the Truth, the one that others don't have. You might say they don't teach to think critically. This is true to a certain degree, and mostly true in all of the other fields, but it's really the case with philosophy, since you have to review and understand the whole of thought systems that we went through in millennia. This forces you to compare the different perspectives and escape for a moment the one in which you grew up with. There's not a best perspective on things, all of perspectives throughout history were just a succession of different trends, just like fashions. So it allows you (by actually forcing you, since you have to get the grades) to challenge your own perspective and detach yourself from the ones that you're identifying with.

Relationships are the perfect example for applying spiral dynamics. Two different stages can't go together. There must be a large part of the two personalities that is shared on the same stage. No way a Blue can fit with an Orange or a Red or whatever. Even Blue and Green can't fit together, the Green one will look at the Blue and see how limited it is. Even Yellow, who can understand the previous stages, would get bored with them. There might be sexual/physical attraction but it's not going to work as a proper relationship.

@GrandeOrso Oh man, it seems like I've written that. My suggestion to you is to do something. Whatever. If you don't know what to do yet do something, if you have no idea of what to do at all, start working anywhere, in a McDonald for example, and save some money for you future trips (in both senses ). Don't spend your time merely thinking about what you have to do in your life, I've done that for years and it's wasted time. Experience something, you'll feel what you like and you'll plan better next time. Do an Erasmus working project (probably you can't in Switzerland) or something similar, for a year or so. I started studying philosophy as well, when I was your age. Then left and came back again, now I'm finishing it. It's okay, but I doubt you're going to find your life purpose there, as you said it's "still academia". But who knows...

Hi @Valach ! I feel you. I'd like to share a bit of my life with you, since I wished someone could have told me something about this kind of problems when I was younger and in your same situation, and I hope to not go off topic. I don't have a career in web development. I've an high school specialised degree in computer science and it just gave me the basics. I was the best in my class, even teachers came to me to ask advices. Some of my peers continued to university, studying computer science, I've instead learned on my own object-oriented programming and built a few apps for smartphones. Of course the university provides a much deeper understanding about computers and programming than high school, but there's nothing like having fun in what you do when it comes to learn something new. This is particularly true in the field of computer science, where you can practice directly wherever you are, you just need a computer; most successful IT experts don't have a degree in IT but have thousands of hours of experience and a great curiosity for it. Usually people with an high degree in this field end up working for those who were just doing it for fun. And people hiring will look at your work, which you can easily show on computer, and not at your degrees. So don't be bothered by not studying officially in an university, if this is what you enjoy doing then just do it. But, it seems you don't really know what you want to do. So, as a 28 years old who is still into the same problem and wasted much of his younger years doing completely nothing on a material level, I vividly suggest you to do something, whatever, doesn't matter what. Something is better than nothing: I myself was stuck into thinking that the time to act was when I knew, for certain, what to do in my life, with no doubt; but this is most probably not going to happen. After a few years spent web-developing and developing apps (basically just for fun, never made a living out of it) I left the IT field and traveled the world, totally absorbed in my newly discovered world of psychedelia, before coming back and do nothing but surviving on the shoulders of my parents and experimenting with drugs. I've been alone for years, only meeting my ex-girlfriend every now and then, since she was studying abroad. Only in last 3 years I've started to do something: I couldn't stand to be lacking a clear target anymore, but at the same time I didn't know what to do and scared to try something new and to fail. I was getting delusional and had issues in socialising after years of isolation. So, first thing I did - and I suggest you to do it if you can - was to experience something new, to travel and explore new ways of living and meet new people, you can come to meet something you never even thought about (for example, if you're in Europe, do an Erasmus volunteering project). From there on, I came back to Italy and started studying philosophy away from home, in a big city; not very easy and natural for me as it was with programming. Anyway, there I met my actual girlfriend and discovered a deeper way to love, before dropping out from university. Came back to my hometown, since I felt I was loosing my time studying philosophy, and started a farming business with the help of my family, which still allows me to earn some money. Then resumed my studies in philosophy and I'm now quite determined to finish them. Now I guess I'm going to leave the farm (though growing vegetables is a wonderful thing to do) because it's hard work, working with my family is limiting me and I feel dissatisfied anyways. This winter I'll try to make a living from programming and creating media contents, etc... and at the same time I'll be traveling. I miss the contact with the new. As Leo said in one of his latest videos, be an opportunist. To conclude, any individual is different, so the ways in which life unfolds are unpredictable. But as far as I can see, there's an hidden and very powerful life force trying to express itself into the world, from within to without, in each of us. It just needs the right point of contact, the compromise between the inside and the outside. The mind cannot know it, especially when it has no experience about it: it can only realise a few thing as one gets older and see retrospectively; so just live it, don't think about it too much, ultimately there's no wrong choice you can take anyway. There's no warranty you'll ever come to express yourself in your lifetime, but at least try continuously. The life force already knows where you have to go, your job is to follow it. You might have a feeling of what this life force is trying to take you, let yourself feel it and maybe try to conceptualised it (conceptualisation is a double-edge sword though). Don't get stuck and afraid of changing something if you don't feel it true. Life, generally speaking, is a continuous trial and error and you're one of these trials. You're soon dead, really. I'll leave you with a quote from Steve Jobs.

The universe is electric, and electricity is fluid.

Wow. Thanks for sharing! Here's a similar great video.

I'm wondering, how would I allocate the various political actions taken about the pandemic and the various degrees of acceptance by the public? I'm having troubles in identifying through the lents of spiral dynamics such a situation. It happens that many societies are getting polarised, you're either pro or con; but, on the contrary, there are many stages involved here and often - it seems to me - different stages find themselves in accord, for totally different reasons. And for the same reasons, a lot of misunderstanding and misrecognition happens between the parts So, to simplify the question, where would you put the following things on the spiral? lockdowns, anti-lockdown reaction, restrictions green passes, anti-green pass, novax and provax, etc... *feel free to add items to the list*

It depends on how it's used. Being hierarchical, in its own way, it can be misused to catalog people into better people and worst people.

There's a thought experiment in ethics that's keeping philosophers busy for a long time now. There's no definite solution to the dilemma it's presented. It's called Trolley dilemma and here's a picture of it, together with the Fat man. What amazes me is how fast decades of reflection on the topic just went away when such a dilemma presented in reality, as in the case we're discussing about. Action is faster than thought? Or it's a mindless action? In moral and political philosophy, John Rawls is probably the most important philosopher of the last times. What he's proposing it's a "veil of ignorance", from a position of ignorance about who you're going to be in a situation, what are you going to choose? You could say, from an utilitarian perspective which you seem to support, that activating the lever and killing a person instead of five is the right choice. But what if that one person happens to be you?

I don't get this analogy with Coca Cola. More conscious people do stop buying shit for themselves. If other people like Coca Cola it's their choice - and I'm sure they're informed enough, since health campaigns against sugared drinks are a long story by now, and even if they were not informed their bodies know what's good for them. Maybe they even really need to drink shit for their personal and spiritual growth. It's true though that this analogy works with the vaccine: it all reduces down to a personal choice, since there's no threat to others if one chooses to refuse the vaccine (it doesn't block the contagion). And Coca Cola is legit, so this analogy is in favour of free choice in regards to the vaccine. I'm for killing the 75% and probably be open about it. But I don't have the courage to do such a thing, if it was my choice. So I would probably let the decision to others and fight for my own life. Maybe, being in charge, I would say to people go on your own and survive as much as you can. The thought experiment doesn't work really well with overpopulation though, because the problem would disappear when the population decreases under a certain value.

I mostly agree with this man, Daniel. But. There's no such thing as a trans-perspective position from which you get the absolute nature of objects. What is called a trans-perspective, or meta-perspective, is but a temporal synthesis of two opposed concepts that now unites into a single concept. From now on, a unified concept will be the material for a future union. Any perspective, even the trans- or meta- ones, are relative. A perspective, by definition is relative. The absolute includes all objects and therefore can't have an object to examine: for examination, there must be an examiner and an examined; perception implies a perceiver and a perceived. Another thing is, left and right wings are continuously exchanging their place. Right and left wings are but political names for two modalities which are always present in nature: respectively, homeostasis and allostasis. The former tries to preserve its actual self to survive, and the latter tries to change it, so to survive. Now it happens that the left is ahead, dragging the right in evolution, however, this is not bound to be always the case, since there could be times when the right is what is needed. Since the dawn of republican governments, the left has always been the greater danger: great ideals becomes ideologies and, justified by them, humans committed the most evil things. Communism, nazism, fascism... They're all by products of the left, great rushes which got free from the weight of the right and ended up in destroying whole social systems. Because ideologies, no matter as good they are, are partial and not able to comprehend the totality of the dynamics in a society. Now, instead, the right has done its time and brought to many problems, like climate change, etc... So the left is justified to regain power and we should follow, temporarily. However, I see people turning it into an ideology and that's very dangerous. In short, it's good we're leaving the right, but let's be sure we take care of our own selves, instead of continuously pointing the finger to right winged people. The left of today will be the right of tomorrow.

Yes. But effective here means effective against the virus. And effective in keeping you apparently quite safe at the same time. There's still room for doubt for safety on the long term, or side effects nobody is expecting nor looking for, or maybe consequences which are not even noticeable. Let me frame it this way. As I see it, we're deeply entangled with the whole of nature. We are just the self-conscious top of a huge unconscious activity which is by definition everything other than what is conscious (I'm conscious of my body but I'm not conscious of the internal activity of the plant I have in front of me, ergo, the plant is part of my unconscious and can turn into a self-conscious activity). This is to say we're not psychologically separated from nature. This bind we have is much stronger and powerful than any conscious activity like science or any kind of thinking, since this bind is the totality of life itself. Now, on one hand we have science which suggest us to take some actions. It's rigorous and tries to be coherent in itself, not just like most of opinions, but it's only a small fraction, very partial and humanly finite. On the other hand we have this huge order of life, which express itself in a potentially infinite number of ways, one of these happens to be the human form. In this sense, any kind of human, any kind of value system a human or a society has, any kind of choice a human is taking, is an expression of nature, and this expression must have some truth in it, partial but necessarily true. It might be covered by falsehood, but there must a core of truth, since it's an expression of it. In conclusion, if current science excludes other points of view, then current science excludes parts of the truth, an unconscious, powerful and living truth. If a government, under suggestion of the scientific community, is applying obligations and limitations to any truth different from the one offered by the current scientific paradigma, then it's suppressing living truths, in the form of people and their choices. To me a Yellow person should see this, and even though he might approve vaccines as the best option available (I'm probably for it as well, but with some doubt about it) he recognise that he's partial, that science is partial, and that the opinions of others are part of a raw, intellectually unelaborated truth, and that judging their opinion by the degree of intellectual elaboration is a bias and it's excluding part of nature, or truth (intuition, instead, plays a big role here). Therefore, no Yellow person, to me, would accept to impose a decision that only a part of a society, even if it's the majority or the most correct, sustains. Simply because Yellow knows he doesn't know how life is going to unfold: what is good today might be terrible tomorrow, and viceversa; and Yellow knows he doesn't comprehend the totality of nature, but remains partial. Nature's intelligence, instead, comprehend it all, because it is it. In society, it express itself as the totality of humans: if there are stupid antivaxxers (or provaxxers) there must a reasons for it, like an ugly piece of puzzle that can't be thrown away, otherwise there would remain a hole. It can't be thrown away anyway, but it can be denied it's there and misrecognised as useless or unimportant.

It's definitely not finished. We change, we're growing bones on the back of our heads because we use extensively our phones. We're getting more and more hairless, as our testosterones levels drops, less strong physically. The size of our heads are expanding, our fingers and arms are getting longer, as our butts are getting lower. We're going to look the typical grey alien figure we're all used to see. And then, is there really a line between biological evolution and the technological one? Not really. Implants, transplants, genetics... It's all moving, much faster than ever, as our environment is getting more complex. Even psychology is part of the process, thoughts are written in DNA, we're literally forming people with higher education, biologically more fit to study and elaborate information. And ultimately, spiritual evolution as well is not separated from biological evolution. Sadhguru might have intended that we're materially fit, powerful enough to thrive, but spiritually, metaphysically, unfit and undeveloped. so that's where we should be heading now. But it's indeed one single big process: once lower needs are satisfied new possibilities emerge.

So, what would distinguish here a orange POV from a yellow POV? What an Orange would accept and do in society in regards to the pandemic that a Yellow would not do? Yellow just happens to be in accord with Orange here? On the whole thing? Because it seems to me that a Yellow POV would understand both sides, accept the limits of science and see how we don't really know what's going to be good for us. So it would accept the vaccination campaign, as our most developed understanding available on the matter is suggesting to do. But it wouldn't accept it as the only solution, the absolute truth to take as granted and to force, somehow, on anyone else; so it would allow freedom of choice. It would also recognise the value of intuition, an intuition that is spreading across a large part of society, even if it's not elaborated enough, to not rely on vaccines, on technology in general, as our way out. I mean, the Greens seem to have a valid point when they say that our bodies needs support and not rescue or palliatives (generally speaking) in its fight against the virus and that our body is way smarter than our technology, because it is. The technology is an external resource, how long should we keep getting the vaccines? Forever? The body instead learns and memorise on its own: people dying is just another way to adjust to the presence of the virus and ultimately survive. A cold was once killing thousands of people, before some humans started to run their noses. Now we don't die anymore for a cold. Imagine the amount of vaccines we would all take in a thousands years if vaccines are our only response to infections. This is an exaggeration I don't believe in, I mean, technology is great and should be used. But it's a valid point anyway and people should take a minute or two to think about it.

@Superfluo I agree with you, that's one half of the coin, and that's indeed what I'm also asking for. Ultimately is the same thing. But these concepts and methods comes out of a certain perception and understanding of the world, which is therefore identifiable by a spiral dynamics analysis. They're not already present, objective and independent from humans. They're very human products.