Scholar

I wouldn't mind it if he didn't disguise himself as a leftist, like he was the only voice of reason among complete insanity.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts/videos Just reading the thumbnails of the videos will probably tell you enough.

What do you think of Tim Pool and his opinion about this? Do you think opportunistic journalists like him are doing real harm to public opinion?

You are still not viewing this from the perspective of the animals, which is the entire point of veganism. I would frame the question in the following way: Do you believe it is justified to farm, exploit and kill animals to create food that is nutritionally more adequate? Do you believe it is justified to farm, exploit and kill animals to contribute to a solution to climate change? I don't think it is, especially not in the real world, where ruminant animal agriculture is most likely not a key solution to climate change and where veganism is not a diet but an ethical stance. Again, the key here is to create a change in consciousness so as to value the existence and consciousness of animals in a way that is removed from human bias. The insect/shellfish angle is only a temporary approach until we find solutions like synthetic meat and only if it is truly the case that we cannot thrive on a plant exclusive diet. Obviously the transition between our current exploitative culture and a future culture which does value all life will be full of moral grey areas and dilemmas. That is insignificant to you. What you have to ask yourself is why you think the cow is so much less worth of a free life than you are? Why does your consciousness devalue the existence of these beings? Would you want to be the countless of cows that are put into a slaughterhouse so that some humans could feel a little bit more energetic and healthy? You need to start looking at this from the perspective of those you are exploiting, instead of finding justifications to continue this exploitation. Only that will increase your consciousness and thus your "love". Once your consciousness will increase, the solutions you will seek will be very different from the solutions you are currently seeking. You will be far less comfortable making the statements you are making right now. You might start looking at it this way: "We as human beings have destroyed nature, we as human beings have enslaved other groups of people. We are contributing to climate change. Why in the world would we think that we can now use cows, who have absolutely nothing to do with this at all, to exploit and kill so that we can solve the problems that we have caused? Why would we think it is justified to use a species that is completely innocent in this so as to solve a problem that we have created? That is completely insane, if anyone should suffer for what we did, it should be us, not random cows who don't even realize what climate change is. What would be just is to have the cows roam our farmlands and restore it without exploiting and killing them. To have them restore the farmlands completely naturally, without killing or controlling them. By instead taking care of them, by rewarding them for their restorative work instead of taking their lifes. And we, the humans, should carry the costs of that. Tax the shit out of animal agriculture, put a tax on all products which exploit animals. Use said taxes to fund restoration of farmland." You would go from "How can I justify killing cows for food?" to "How can I possibly come up with ways so that cows don't need to be killed, but I still fight climate change and thrive nutritionally?". You can put effort into each of these inquiries and you will find answers. Your level of consciousness determines which question you will ask.

I can only recommend to stop viewing Good and Bad as attributes of other things, and instead view them as their own dimensions of consciousness. In my view ethics is greatly delusional in that it simply deludes reality into something it is not. The ego deliberately confused different states of being so as to create it's own narrative. Goodness and Badness must be viewed for what they are, not be confused to be part of something that they are not. Again, I can only repeat. The only thing that is Good is Goodness itself. There can be no other thing that is Good. Now you must only closely observe Goodness. Once you see it for what it is, you will not be able to call anything good or bad. It will be absurd, it will be clearly delusional to you. It will be as delusional as saying 1=2. Notice that when you die, there will be neither Good nor Bad. Both of them will cease to exist. They are both impermanent. One day all life in this universe will cease, the structure that holds together time and space will fade away. All of it will fade into nothingness, including Good and Evil. Even if there was Good and Evil, it would be completely irrevelant, as the end state is always the same, a dissolving into Nothingness. When there will be noone left to judge what was Good and Bad, what will it have mattered how much Good or Bad have happened before they ceased to exist? Again, Death is the great equalizer. In the eyes of Nothingness, all is the same, all is equally fragile.

Veganism is not a diet, it is an ethical stance. It states that it is immoral to exploit animals if it is not necessary. A vegan for example would, if it was required to eat meat to survive, do his utmost best to choose to consume products which cause the least amount of damage and harm, namely things like mussels and various insects. He would also view it as an imperative to create a substitude for meat like lab grown meat. He would not make excuses to favor his current consumption habits. Also, ancestral diets would be replacing animal meat with insects, as that is what the human species has evolved to consume, like any other primate that exist in nature. We have evolved specific enzymes to digest insect exoskeletons, which are still present in the modern human. There is absolutely no need for gene therapy, all there is a need for is a change in consciousness and a resulting effort to create products which suit our needs without harming other beings in the process. That is entirely doable, but not in a culture which views animals as products. We have gone from house-sized computers to computers which fit into your pocket in a matter of a few decades. With the same kind of investment into innovation we would solve all of these ethical and environmental problems in maybe even a shorter amount of time. But there is no grand investment, because most people would rather spend their time justifying why it's fine to holocaust the animals instead of finding solutions to counteract it. The fatalist is born from comfort and an inability to change his character.

I have just had a really obvious realization that nonetheless kind of blew my mind for a reason. I watched one of Leo's videos and noticed that my consciousness was increasing while I was watching it. In fact, I realized that this is the case whenever I would watch one of his videos. It had a natural tendency to put me into a meditative state. And then I realized that this not accidental and I don't even think it is by design. I have a sense that this is the case with any creation of higher consciousness. Any product created from a place of higher consciousness will actually increase consciousness, no matter what it is! It is like in the essence of the product the consciousness is present and it cannot help but afflict the mind which is consuming it. Whether it would be a painting, a story or even an equation. It will necessarily increase consciousness. This is why an increase of consciousness is unstoppable. It cannot be stopped because all of nature is created from the highest place of consciousness. Infact this is why nature herself is so good at increasing our consciousness. To see creation itself will infuse us with higher consciousness. This is incredible because it means no matter what we produce, if we are high consciousness and our products come from our creativity, they will necessarily contribute to the increase of consciousness in everyone who consumes them. Even what I am writing right now will contribute to it. It is literally a force of nature. This is not merely happenstance. It is not merely an accident. Being will increase being, it cannot be otherwise. We don't have to worry about unconsciousness, reality itself makes it impossible for consciousness not to increase. How insane is that... You can corrupt the teachings however much you want, it is impossible for Truth not to persist, because it is embued in literally everything. All art, all technology, all philosophy cannot help but contribute to this cause. All we have to do is create from a place of higher consciousness. It does not matter what we create. The universe is the ultimate high consciousness creation.

You got it all reverse. Leo is not fitting his arguments into his beliefs. He is fitting the arguments to the Truth he has experienced.

You are relativizing everything to a point that you could justify any position. Don't use relativity as a tool to win arguments.

And don't forget that charities are if anything a sign of green, not yellow or even turquoise. Hippies talk about love and consciousness all the time, doesn't mean they are at the level of Sadhguru.

I wouldn't say this person is yellow at all, they went into this business because they wanted to become a billionaire. This is pure stage Orange.

To this day, watching street activism of vegans and vegan debates is the best study of spiral dynamics I have found. You can just see the limitations of blue and orange so clearly, and how they will weazel and squirm to uphold their own value structure over that of compassion and reason.

You can tell it was written by a human because not once are other life-forms mentioned in the story.

Read "Flow" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

You have a duality between hardware and software which does not actually exist in reality. The software and the hardware are one thing. The same is true for sentience/brain. We have to seperate sentience from consciousness. Consciousness is existence, all there is is consciousness, as consciousness is being itself. How sentience arises however, which is a specific aspect of consciousness, might very well be determined by the way consciousness structures itself (in this case we mean specifically by the way wavefunctions express themselves). Nothing arises from anything, the feelings you feel are equivalent to the atoms of your brain. Atomic structures are simply a way of viewing an aspect of consciousness, which in this case is motion. Notice that the material is entirely reduced to motion. Notice that all physical description can only describe motion. Notice that all equations, all physics, can only describe motion. All of these dualities, these seperations between matter and mind, happen in consciousness. They are not there, they just exist as themselves.

I didn't say JP couldn't be improved, I said that the primary question is whether the world would be better off with or without Peterson, whether he improved or not. That is an interesting question to me. The question of "If Peterson would be better, would he be better?" is kind of a non-question. If Peterson would be better of course he would be better.

I agree. But the question here I don't think is how Peterson could be improved, but whether the world would be better off without him. I intuit that it would be worse off without him, that people would be even more stuck in blue in orange while being more dysfunctional than they are with Petersons teachings. Of course it would be more ideal if everyone listened to Leo. But that is without question. It's easy to point to things reality should be doing. It's harder to judge what consequences the lack of a certain thing would ensue for reality. Sure, replace Hitler with Jesus 2.0 and we would probably have a better world. But just remove Hitler without replacement, and I am not so sure anymore. Would germany have developed the atomic bomb and then gone full on Third Reich with noone able to stop them? Would there still be life on this planet? Who knows.

Technically, that is what sane men do, too.

The question we must ask though is, would the world be better off without Jordan Peterson or not? Furthermore, do you have anyone who can, in practice, replace the blue teachings that Jordan Peterson is giving? Here we have to keep in mind that higher teaching will not always be more effective, because they might simply not resonate with lower consciousness people. And I disagree about Tony Robbinson. He doesn't teach any blue values at all. People who listen to him stay at their stage, with increased islamophobia. People who listen to Jordan Peterson might atleast integrate some blue and orange, which allows them to eventually go beyond that. (I confused Tony Robbins with that guy in the UK who is against Islam, lol) I don't know much about Tony Robbins, but does he have the same resonance as Peterson does? Our disagreement here is that I believe people are already so dysfunctional that they are better off listening to both the good and bad of Peterson than to not listen to him at all. In this case the harm baggage does not overweigh the postives, because the lack of the positives are more catastrophic than the harm baggage. I am solely interested in getting people up to green asap, and I think Peterson was a net-positive, even if it seems like he is making people stuck in blue/orange. The problem here is that there is no alternative to Peterson. If there was, Peterson would be a net negative. Just think of all the individuals who have benefitted greatly from Peterson's psychological teachings. Where would they be today without Peterson? And then compare that to the alt-right people, who if Peterson would be lacking, would simply listen to another Alt-Righter. Not much would have changed, in fact I would posit that they would be more dysfunctional as they would lack the few teachings that Peterson is communicating.

Yes but is Peterson not doing precisely what you are suggesting he does, just in a, from your higher point of view, dysfunctional way? I mean look at why he is so popular, as far as his psychological stuff goes it is on point stage blue stuff. People seem to lack that. People lack so pathetically in stage blue memes that you tell them to clean their rooms and their entire lifes turn around. I don't think community is enough to fix this, many people completely lack purpose, they have not learned to take responsibility. They have not learned the stage blue values so that they can one day transition to orange. Sure he has his devilry, but do you really think he is fake crying? Do you really think all the people who are so grateful for his advice are just dismissable as stage blue biggots who react against progressive values? The question here is, who else is doing what Peterson is doing on that large of a scale? This is the problem when you have a stage green person teaching stage blue values. A stage green person will not resonate to stage blue/red people. It will simply not happen on the large scale. That stuff happens at Tier 2, that stuff is Spiral Wizardry stuff. So of course people will listen to someone who reflects their stage, which Jordan Peterson does. Sure Peterson is a devil, sure he is flawed. Sure his followers are devils too. But are you sure that they would be better of without Peterson? Who do you think would they listen to, who do you think they would seek out if Peterson was not part of this? I take Peterson over Alex Jones every day of the week, because Alex Jones is a threat to the fundamental fabric of society. Peterson is kind of regressive, but at least he teaches people blue in a more or less helpful way for the people at that stage. I know a lot of people personally who have been kind of depressed, nihilistic hedonists who have listened to Peterson far before he became political. And I can see the effect he had on them, they started their own life purpose, they expanded their responsibility. I honestly don't know if that would have happened without him. There is no way in hell these people would have listened to Leo. And what is the alternative to Peterson for these people, that can actually resonate with them? I feel like often we can fall into the trap of elitist spiral dynamics thinking, where we do not recognize the perspective of these people. They are not as conscious as we are, and we can't just spoon feed them green level stuff. It just doesn't resonate with these people, if it did, clearly Peterson wouldn't be necessary. But this way, I can't say whether the world wouldn't be worse off without him. It could be far, far worse.

Again, you are not trying to understand what I am trying to communicate to you. Nothing I said is in disagreement with what you said here.

I don't understand. What is your prescription for solving this problem, outside of the theoretical?

I think you need to read more carefully what I wrote. You seem to have already constructed a very elaborate system of ideas and assumptions, I don't know if you will learn anything if you do not put them aside and try to learn something fundamentally unfamiliar. What you did was interpret my words by virtue of your own ideological system. Existence is not illusion, only illusion is illusion. Existence is another word for consciousness or being.

Can you explain how specifically that article is biased? Just claiming it's funded by Kellogs and they are biased is not an argument. That just allows you to be biased, you can dismiss any evidence by virtue of it being funded by a company who possibly could be interested in certain results. Who else would fund these studies? Allan Savory has no self interest and is not biased at all as a researcher whose livelihood depends on his pet theories? What was the case before the U.S basically destroyed the entire ecosystem for animal agriculture does not tell us about whether grazing cows can save the environment, whether there are no better solutions or whether it would be even worth it considering the moral implications of slaughtering billions of cows "to save the planet". You made claims here that you think the vegan diet is probably not healthy for you, by that virtue alone it is likely you have a bias towards justifying animal agriculture so that you can sustain your own health to the detriment of the cows who will be slaughtered for you.

But the problem is that blue pretty much lacks entirely in our current western world. It is being completely deconstructed. We are not seeing what you are describing, where green takes the healthy things of blue and integrates them in some sort of spiral wizardry. We see the opposite. Because many of the green people you talk about themselves have never gone through and learned the healthy aspects of blue. This is a catch 22. How can you have healthy green people teaching blue values when we disintegrated blue and basically have this weird mutant green that will get worse and worse the more people are going be educated without any blue values at all. Again, why do you think we have these systemic issues. Why do you think we have Jordan Petersons, Dave Rubins and Alex Jones? What if you are wrong that it is purely a reaction towards green? What if there is actually a lack of healthy blue teachings in western societies? How do we determine who of us is right here? By intuition?