Scholar

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?

What does that have to do with cognition? Philosophy is not connected to cognition. Cognition is how you perceive and understand reality. It is about how the mind operates, not what kind of position it holds. A post formal operational mind is able to hold different lines of cognition, comparing them and switching between them. What kind of philosophy they will find attractive is dependent on the state of other developmental lines. For example, Putin's morality might be between absolutistic and individualistic, yet he can use relativistic cognition to achieve the goals which will be a consequence of his moral imperatives. Besides that, Putin might not be at all against gay people, but might be using these kinds of laws to gain popularity and approval from russians. Again, you can't just throw all the lines of development together, see that one is not evolved and then claim that all of them are not evolved. Green cognition and contemplation don't have anything to do with values and philosophy, they are how a mind operates, how it tends to process data. What the data processing in the end will result it is of course dependent on the development of other lines. Putin's mind is way to flexible to not show any signs of post-formal.

Yes, cognition and contemplation seem to be somewhere up there, otherwise I do not think he would be able to navigate the conversations like he does. He was KGB, he was able to pocket russia and create a vertical power structure which almost depends on him, which is not easy to do in a competitive environment like that. I haven't studied Putin a lot but these two lines would be my guesses. Orange is too limited to allow for this kind of sophistication, imo.

I feel like more people in this forum should listen to Wilber to get a better grasp of Spiral Dynamics and Integral theory. A lot of people in here have such a simplistic view of it that it basically removes all nuance and the entire functionality of these models, which is to understand the dynamics at play here. I don't know how it happened, but people here basically do exactly what we are not supposed to do with spiral dynamics, namely just categorizing everyone into stages. That completely misses the point of it in my opinion, especially when people don't even have basic understanding of the model and it's limitations.

Guys there are developmental streams in spiral dynamics. Being highly developed on one does not mean one went through a hippie phase and became more emotional. For example, being cognitively on green is very different from being emotionally on green. You can't just simplify this away. Putin could easily be green and yellow on some of these streams: But blue, red and orange on others. It doesn't mean he skipped green, it just means that your understanding of what green is on all of these developmental lines is lacking. Green cognition does not equal green emotion.

If you have dialed into Ethan's mind, do you know every future experience he will have? If so, that would be an easy way of providing proof. You could predict something that Ethan will see that has not yet happened. Something like predicting who will become president, or a specific lottery number, etc. We know you are the Ethan who has dialed into himself because we are hearing you talk about it. Another way to find proof is to simply give us an equation of physics that does not yet exist. Any slight change to the physical laws of this universe would end in a radically different universe in which life as we know it would not be possible at all. So what you can do is simply give us some general breakthroughs in physics that have not yet been discovered. I don't see a reason why you could not do that. You could also attempt to manifest something in all of the infinite instances, so that the proof exists in all of them.

moved to other thread

The problem with this is that it justifies creating a human being that cannot suffer but is your slave. One day that will be possible, just change some genes, design the brain to follow your orders but not be able to suffer, and have your own slave robot. Why would it be bad if it doesn't suffer? I could kill the human-slave whenever I want, after all they cannot suffer and they enjoy being my slaves, because that is how I made them. Not valuing the experience of life, especially in the degree of cows and mammals, more than temporary sensory pleasure you get from consuming the meat will lead you down some really bad paths as far as ethics go if you want to remain consistent and be without biases. The thing is that you are not really killing the animal for food, because you have food options which do not take the experience of another being away from them, atleast to a far lesser degree. The reason you kill the animal is because you either like the taste or the convinience of it. If you however do not think death is bad whatsoever, and you do believe suffering is bad, I think you will struggle finding arguments against the anti-natalist. For example, if we wipe out all life on earth, there will be no more suffering. If life itself has no value to you, how is it not a moral imperative to kill all beings to reduce suffering? There are many other problems with the "Death is completely fine" position. Contemplate it, stop using it as an excuse in the animal context and use it universally, see where this position will get you. See if you like where that position gets you. You could view the act of killing someone as taking away their bodily autonomy against their will, and against their best interest. If you do not view death as inherently bad, what about taking someones freedom away from them by depriving them of their existence on this plane? Sure someone can choose to do so to themselves, but how do you justify doing it to someone else when it is not necessary for your survival, and not even for your pleasure. You don't need to eat meat to feel good, you can easily do other things which will not take that liberty away from these beings.

It's so interesting, you can really sense the tension, everyone knowing they are interviewing the most powerful man in the world. And Putin knows, too.

It's from Nature's Trove. I might try another one but I am not sure if it's worth the money. I take Lions Mane too and it does increase productivity somewhat but I wouldn't say it's significant. I might give Huperzine A a go, never heard of it before.

https://www.facebook.com/ChallengeTwentyTwo/ Seems like they offer advice over there from professional dietitians. You could also join the discord of Ask Yourself, there are a lot of doctors and the sort in there. https://discordservers.com/server/363108109797031936 @Dwarniel Why is soy specifically bad for the rain forests? As far as I know soy is pretty land/protein efficient. Just because we grow a lot of it for animals does not mean that growing something else will be better for the rainforest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land Soy is at the top of the list as far as usable protein per acre goes, that's why we feed it to the cows, because it's so effective. If you would eat something else it would take even more land for the same amount of protein.

I would say view your inner child as an inner child, literally. The subconscious will communicate emotions with you, like a child, and you really just have to behave like it was actually a child communicating with you. Is the child sad about something, is it hurt, does it have self-esteem issues? Well, think about what would be perfect for that child, and become that. Does it need a strong mentor who listens to him, encourages him, maybe even challenges him from time to time to let him see that he can do more than he thinks? Well, then that is what it needs. Treat it like a relationship. Put yourself into the position of the child, read what it is communicating to you, and then imagine who it would need to solve that. And that is what you will need to become. See, when you let your mom abuse you, you also let her abuse the inner child. The inner child will feel helpless, it will even feel betrayed by you. You are it's guardian, what would you feel like if your guardian just let everyone abuse you? Your guardian should protect you, and that is what you need to do with the child. When the child is communicating feelings to you, you just have to listen to it. Don't judge it, meaning don't judge yourself for feeling a certain way. Imagine others judged you for how you feel, what would that make you feel like? Would it help you, or would it damage you? How you talk to yourself is how you talk to the inner child, and it is literally a child. You can't play tough parent when it has no self-esteem, you can't be harsh with it when it has not learned to be resiliant and strong. You have to build it's self-esteem. Every word you think it will hear, each time you judge yourself you are judging it. Each time your encourage yourself you are encouraging it. And don't forget, it knows you. It will know when you are lying to it, you have to genuinely start loving your inner child. Once you do, it will feel comfortable with you, it will share more feelings and you will be giving it the opportunity to heal. You have to build a relationship of trust, you have to step up for the child. Sometimes the child will behave childish, and just like with a real child, you might have to snap it out of it. But you always have to do that from a position of love and acceptance, even when it is something that will challenge it. The child might become arrogant one day, and then you will have to use different strategies. You will know what to do because you know what to do when it comes to other people. If not, just learn more about psychology.

What do you think about phenomena like thinking about a random person and then suddenly getting a message from them seconds later? I have that happen quite often.

Some enlightened beings also rape little monk boys. In fact, the entire universe by nature could be viewed as ultimately enlightened, and it still embraces torture and suffering. Veganism is simply an extention of identification, inclusivity of other beings into the self. There were enlightened masters who had no problem keeping slaves, yet today no enlightened master would deem that appropriate. Spiritual enlightenment will not give one the ability to see the suffering of others as ones own, it only has a tendency to do so because this work inherently has to do with the workings of the ego.

Do you think there are animals who use psychic abilities? Do you think the root of creativity and intelligence itself is psychic/divine in nature and is kind of overlooked because it is so common? Is there really a difference between psychic abilities and any other ability that we view to be naturalistic?

Do you think there are genetic demons? Meaning that a certain energy can get trapped in the genes of a person and be transmitted to the next, propigating that energy? Something like a spirit that attaches itself onto a gene?

All you have to do is just look at it. Look at that which you are questioning. Don't argue, just look. The more you look the more you will see.

What God are you talking about, it's like he is a depressed Santa Clause to you

My observation indicate the opposite. People were so incredibly shallow in the past, they of course still are, but in my opinion it's getting better rather than worse, overall.

God is not bored, God is boredom, and all other dimensions of reality aswell. Subjects are illusiory, there is nothing happening to anyone. There are simply happenings. It wouldn't make sense to say God was bored as much as it wouldn't make sense that you can be bored. Boredom simply exist, it does not belong to anyone or anything. God is the boredom itself, and also the excitement. The Subject - Subjectivity duality doesn't work on humans and it surely doesn't work on Reality as a whole. God is not A, God is not B, God is not C. Rather A, B and C are God. Replace God with the word Reality and you will cease having these confusions. Reality cannot be bored, however reality can be boredom. The whole thing about reality is that it is everything, or rather that everything is it. And no, the reason of existence is pure Love. Why Isness? Love. What Isness? Infinity/Nothingness How Isness? Infinite Intelligence/Creativity, Magic That's how you could frame it. All of this exists from Love and as Love, not boredom. The "substance" of boredom is Love.

What do you think about conspiracies that claim that people in power positions use the occult for their own personal gain? Is that possible, and if so do you think it's likely? What would come to mind are things like Bohemian Grove.

I don't know why you bring your parents irresponsibility into this. What do the animals have to do with that when we all can eat mussels and be fine even if we require meat? China does not have double the meat consumption, but half the meat consumptiopn of the US. I don't know how to communicate with you, you skip most of what I am writing to you and don't respond to it. You also seem very biased in the way you ascertain your facts about any of this, maybe as an overreaction to what your parents did to you. Sure people are super unhealthy in London and Boston because they consume so much animal products, and not even good animal products but ones that come from factory farms. We also don't eat nearly as much vegetables as we require, especially in a time in which vegetables only have a fraction of the minerals and vitamins they used to have even 30 years ago. How can you live in China and not think that meat is a luxury there? Just look at how much more beef they eat now than 30 years ago. It's insane, but still not nearly the amount of the US. And all the "genetically full potential people" you talk about were born in a time in which they consumed almost no meat.