Scholar

Relative is an idea, nothing more. Meaning, relativity does not actually exist as part of any aspect of consciousness, it is it's own aspect. Confusing something to be relative would be like confusing red to be blue.

What I talk about is not theory though, it's just being. The theory is just language I put on top to play the game. However, what I am pointing to isn't non-duality or enlightenment either. It just just Nessness. How else will I communicate this to you but through words? All I essentially can say is Nessness. Good and Bad is Nessness. Now you just have to find out what Nessness is. And I think your believe in relativism is actually the mental construction which I am trying to deconstruct. I don't see anything relative in my experience, I never infact met Relativism. How does he look? How could Being be relative when Relativity is an aspect of Being? The only thing that is relative is Relativity. That' the entire point here. The only thing that is relative is Relativity. All other claims are delusion, including this very claim. That is the essence of delusion. But only delusion is delusion.

Sero... I feel like I am not the one who is struggling here It's like you are in teaching mode, you don't even try to truly reflect upon what I am trying to say you just go immediately into "How can I teach him?"-Mode. Every conversation we have mutates into a meta-conversation about the conversation. It's like it always becomes a lecture on Spiral Dynamics. I want us to communicate, I don't know why you are giving up so quickly. Either way, I think it would help if you tried to write down what you think it is that I am communicating. How else will be resolve misunderstandings? I think this is kind of hilarious

Sero, one can use binary modes of thinking without being trapped to binary thinking. For example, what I was pointing out is that you guys are very binary about things being relativistic and subjective vs. quintessential (which is what I am pointing to!). I feel like what you do is like talking about what kind of pen I am using to write, instead of actually trying to read what I am writing. Whether I use blue, orange or green language doesn't matter! It goes beyond all of it anyways. Again, can you try to articulate to me what you think I am pointing to?

I know what you are pointing to Sero. But I still feel like you are not seeing what I am trying to point to. I don't attempt to put my language into this framework you are using where you want everything to sound Non-dualish. I don't care about that, I don't care if it comes of as absolutist. I just want you to see.

But what about true Hell, as in collective Hell, where souls scream in unimaginable horror and agony? I heard that once in sleep paralysis, and I am not at all religious. It was the scariest and loudest thing I ever heard in my life. It was unnaturally loud, like loud beyond anything that could actually come through my ear. And it was so weird, it was like I could sense each scream individually. It wasn't listening to a mass of people screaming, it was like each individual scream was heard identifiably. It wasn't a mixture. Why would my brain just generate that? It was a sound more real than anything I ever heard in real life. I also heard giggling sometimes in sleep paralysis, I remember when I was a child I heard giggling under my bad, like some evil kobolds, and I got up and ran screaming into my parents bedroom. The last apartment I lived I had an experience where I was paralyzed and could sense two people in my room, they were looking at me and talking about how I was sleeping. These things I just dismiss as hallucinations but the screaming hell thing was just disturbing, however I do also dismiss that as some sort of hallucination. What do you think about sleep paralysis in general, are the entites encountered just imagination?

I was referring to you though. I will learn everything you told me, it is the inevitable path I am on. However, what I am pointing to is so subtle you might not ever see it. You could stumble your way into non-duality and enlightenment without ever having a keen sense of what I am trying to communicate to you. Is that not interested? I think it is. See, morality is neither relative, nor subjective, nor objective, not existential. It is all of that (and more), and the traversal through these realizations is the exploration of that fascet of realness. Transcend and include, remember. Ask yourself, could you give me a summary of the position or realization that I am trying to communicate with you? Could you explain to me what I am explaining to you? If not, how could you know what I speak of? How could you know I am wrong? Is it maybe the case that you have interpreted everything I said in a way which would allow you to dismiss it, which would allow you to point to what I am wrong about? Did you even attempt to find truth in what I am saying? I don't know, dismissing someones perspective because it is not non-dual enough seems to me like a bad move. The relative world has it's own things to explore, non-duality will not give you insight into all of existence.

Do you think there is Hell, in the literal sense? I had some strange experiences related to that.

There will come a day when those who seek Truth will not judge the words of others by it's content, but by the Truth hidden between the lines. Also: Those who know are those who have failed to recognize what there is to seek.

lol, this conversation escalated beyond chicken and subjectivity. In the realm I am speaking of, both subjectivity and chicken are not there anymore.

Can't teach a cup that is already full.

You are using Spiral Dynamics in the exact way Leo has warned you not to use it. You don't use it to gain a deeper understanding of Putin's mind, you use it to put Putin below you. "Putin is orange, that filthy bastard could not possibly be as good and moral as I am! I am surely more advanced than Putin, putting him above orange would be offensive to everyone who is truly green! What a disgrace!" Abandon your moralistic views from how your look at Putin's mind and you might actually learn a thing or two from him. Noone here said he is "above orange". In my view not even Leo is above orange. Even a truly green person would look like someone from a different planet to us. Yellow and Turquoise? That's probably not even going to be a thing because we will have transcended the human form at that point. However I do believe his mind shows to be more evolved than orange on some lines.

I think you are mixing a few things up. The objectivism of orange will not manifest as moral objectivism, it will manifest as moral relativism. Just go on the street and ask around, you will not find a single non-religious person who says morality is objective. They will all give you answers that imply morality is subjective and that everyone has their own morality. That is the objective view, ironally. The objective view, to the rationalist, is the observation that morality is not consistent, that it is not objective, that all cultures view morality differently. That is the scientific view. Sure there are some attempt to ground morality in reason, but that is different from absolutistic frameworks of morality. I know you fail to recognize what I am trying to communicate because you view what I am describing as if it was an objective system. What I am describing is not "What objectively is", sure I might use language in a way to imply it is Truth, but it's not an objective framework. To believe in the Objective you have to believe in Subjectivity. You have to believe in a relationship between Subject and Experience, you have to believe in the dualism of matter and mind. The deep confusion here is again that you have a completely delusional view of morality, you have not adopted one which goes beyond Objectivity and Subjectivity, and of course also Relativity. You operate within that framework because you have not yet inspected that framework. Subjects do not exist, This has nothing to do with universality, which is again why I know you have not yet recognized what I am talking about. It's completely beyond that, it is so ironic. because you are stuck in this framework and call me out for using your framework. You cannot even see that there could possibly be another framework, you are so stuck in it. You still view morality as statements, you also view truth as statements (which is by the way why you get so hung up on the statements I make, because I don't bother to make them sound transcendental). This is the entire problem. There is no moral truth or objectivity, because Goodness had nothing to do with truth. Goodness is Truth (Truth not truth!). There is no objectivity here, there is no unversality here. There is no statement which is "true" here. There is only Goodness and Badness, as the substance of being itself. They are not connected to any cognitive statement whatsoever, doing so is the entire delusion I am trying to point out here. You are stuck there, you are stuck conflating one aspect of reality with another. You are stuck saying 1=2, 1=2, 1=2! No, 1 is exactly what it is. There is nothing else that is 1. Oneness is Oneness, not Twoness. This has nothing to do with belief. To say morality is relative, objective or subjective to me is as delusional as saying Redness is relative, objective or subjective. Redness just IS. There is nothing Redness is other than itself. This is where my framework is grounded, it completely let's go of these mind-games.

Absolutism/objectivism is stage blue, stage orange morality is multiplistic. Stage green is relativism, an excessive relativism as we can observe in this thread is exactly what yellow will criticize. Blue: Morality are cognitive statements which exist in the objective world. Orange: Every culture has it's own morality, moral statements are cultural. Green: Moral statements are entirely constructed, they are grounded in nothing at all and completely arbitrary. Moral validity does not exist. Yellow: Inspection of the workings of morality itself, how is morality constructed. Morality being bound to logical statements, without morality there could be no action, there could be no consciousness. Logic itself would fall apart. We realize how exactly it is that we construct morality. Morality being bound to suffering and well-being. (Moral Realism) Turquoise: A recognition that morality is not cognition, but it's own aspect of consciousness. Goodness and Badness are like Redness and Blueness. The subject does not exist, all there is is raw Isness. However, Badness is always Badness, Goodness is always Goodness. Morality is a dimension of consciousness instead of an accumilation of statements based on the reality of the mind-structure. It is a recognition of then substance of suffering. Dissolving of the substance of realness into Non-duality. Reintegration of Non-duality with duality, going full circle. Embracing of the rawness of realness. (God reimmersing into the substance of Creation, Consciousness and Unconsciousness are the same, the Full embracing of the Ego. Ego = No-Self.) And then we are basically back at zero and the whole dance starts anew. Where people are stuck at in this dimension is at Green, despite non-dual and spiritual experiences. Morality is still viewed as cognitive statements, which is fundamentally delusional. It is not turquoise, it is not even Yellow. It is green confusing itself to be two stages further than it is. Objectivism Multiplism Relativism <- Stuck here! Realism Existentialism (not to be confused with the common usages of the word, here meaning existentialism in terms of referring to Existence itself)

Yes but what does that have to do with morality? At the Absolute level all notions of morality and relativism falls apart anyways, what we are discussing here are the absolute (not Absolute) nature of the relative world, namely the Laws of Maya. Moral and anti-moral arguments can only be done in the realm of Maya. The notion of subjectivity and relativity within Maya is delusional, that is what I am referring to. It builds on lack of observation. Abandoning the notion of relativity and subjectivity must come before the complete cessation of illusion. Delusion is not the same as illusion.

A deeper level to what? What do you think I see?

Exactly! The limitation of language, which is why moral relativism can even exist. It is founded upon a delusional notion of morality which fails to observe realness for what it is.

But as far as I know you view the post-rational as emotional/intuitive, that's not how I view the cognitive line. Post formal operational does not equal post rational, as it still is bound to logical operators. Rather it is multiplistic and relativistic. The truly post-rational stuff happens at turquoise imo. Though I would not say with certainty that Putin is at yellow cognitively.

Sure, but I don't see how my personal development is related to this topic of morality. Again, you are trapped in moral relativism. Morality is not truly relative, atleast not in the relative world. Morality is bound the the rules of the relative world just like math and logic is, and they are aspects of consciousness which cannot be denied. Suffering is suffering. There is no subjectivity, there is only what is. And the isness of suffering in you and in others is equivalent, it is not relative. The same is true for value. There is an absolute thing that is value, atleast from within the relativistic world. This is why certain moral positions lead to positions which will contradict themselves, leading to the collapse of the moral framework itself. Your reasoning is bound by the laws of nature, and revealing the full extend of your reasoning, or in other words becoming conscious of the consquences of your reasoning, will reveal that it collapses under it's own weight. I urge you to truly inspect value, goodness and badness, and suffering. You will be surprised how little relativity and subjectivity you will find. Complete non-attachment will mean that I will embrace and fully accept my moral struggles. I will accept my desire to change your mind, and follow that desire to the fullest. Full detachment means being detached from non-attachment.

I am attached to the beings who suffer and die because of your actions. I view it as a moral imperative to attempt to convince you of an action which will reduce that suffering. I know the limitations of moral relativism, and this kind of excess moral relativism is in my opinion a big problem in a lot of the spiritual community. It leads to lazy justifications for acts which will cause horrendous suffering.

All I can urge you is to read some books on this topic, in my opinion there is a huge lack of understanding of spiral dynamics and integral theory in this forum. It's like people only watched Leo's videos on the topic and didn't bother to read a single book. There is no such thing as a "green" mind, that is a huge oversimplification. Doing so leads to losing all nuance, and that makes the entire model kind of useless. All it becomes is a categorization game instead of understanding the dynamics at play between groups and within the individual mind. Post-orange cognition existed far before LGBTQ and Post-modernism were a thing, and these minds used that kind of cognition for completely different things. Why would there be developmental lines in the first place if they would all jump from one stage to the next synchronously? Just look at how it's depicted, they are line tentacles reaching into different stages. This can look highly variable, especially with extraordinary people like Putin who might not perfectly fit the model in the first place.

Why do you think so?

And if your spirits told you it was fine to enslave black people, you would listen to them? If you were enslaving black people and your spirits did not tell you it was wrong or that you should stop, it would be fine to continue doing so?

Why do you think it is fine to kill chicken and fish when we can eat things like mussels if we truly did need that kind of nourishment? The oceans are radically overfished, so much so that entire eco-systems are already in the process of collapsing. How can you continue doing that when you have an alternative which is less sentient? Whether you believe in animism or not does not really change the difference is sentience. When you are in deep sleep, you are still consciousness, yet you are not sentient. Only in sentience there can exist things like value and suffering, so I do not see why animism would change anything about the moral consideration of creatures which are not merely consciousness, but also contain sentience. Again, to call everything sentience would not make any sense as even in deep sleep, a human being with a fully active brain, will lose sentience. Mussels as far as we know are not sentient, and if they are, they are far less so than a chicken or a fish. More importantly, I do not think there is and can be a large scale chicken industry which will not necessarily contain a horrendous amount of suffering, which you would have to justify. The same is true for fishing in the oceans. How can you justify that when you have options that will not cause suffering, and far less environmental destruction, like mussels? More importantly, aside from justifications, why would you not choose to do the more compassionate thing, if your goal is to be compassionate? Let's say veganism was a little less healthy, how would that justify killing hundreds and hundreds of animals? How much suffering and death is the minor improvement of your life really worth? And if it is worth it, then are we not required to take those lifes which have the least capacity for suffering and sentience, namely mussels and similar beings? To me I only see appeals to futility and spiritualism, it is very easy to relativise morality when it is not you who is being killed or treated like property. People did the same with slaves of different races. The excuses you can come up with are infinite when you are protecting your own way of life.

But why does complexity matter to you? Why does that mean that the pleasure you get from consuming meat is more important than the life of a less complex being, espeically when it is not that much less complex?