Scholar

Yes but isn't it self-bias to structure what is worthy of consideration after what kind of impact they have on our environment? And why is mental distress relevant if we were to be unbiased? So a fully conscious enlightened being should kill the human and save the ant? But what does that have to do with the question I asked?

Yes the same question would apply, but the ant vs human example is more obvious, because human beings also sustain bacteria by being alive.

I think what you are arguing is seperate from the issue of high quality business managers that can manage a billion dollar company. I don't think we have systems in place that teach you how to do that effectively, and noone is going to take the risk to hire a newbie CEO to manage his company. The question was not about creating new businesses but about how to lower the value of high end corporate managers, and that I think you can only do by supplying the market with more high end corporate managers. You can replace business managers with military generals and the same would apply. Military generals are so valuable because it takes such a huge amount of experience to get that proficient at the job. The experience you can only get by already being in positions of power, which is why only so few people ever get the chance to develope themselves to become military generals. The advantage we have today is that we can simulate experiences via simulations, and I think we should use that as an educational tool so as to supply the market with high-end competence from the get go.

The question is, why are big corporation managers so valuable? There are few of them, because only few people get the opportunity to manage a big corporations and thus learn how to manage a big corporation. Maybe a better solution is to focus on producing more high quality corporate manages, via an educational pipeline. That way the value of these managers will go down and they will not be able to demand as much money for what they do. How do we produce high quality corporate managers without having them be in control of big corporations? I would suggest simulations that are based in real world data, have them compete in a artificial environment and that way educate them on how to be effective managers. More quality managers will lead to less demand, less demand will lead to lower prices. If the worry is that competent people will leave our environment, produce more competent people. The trick of course is that other countries will steal our competent people if we produce them. But oh well, that is what the US has been doing to developing countries for years. Let other countries produce high quality doctors and then offer these doctors a better salary than they would get in some third world country in africa or india. The beauty of globalism.

I think the problem is that it simply does not work that way. Give a CEO less money he will work for someone else. There is a reason why CEOs get paid so much.

Leo what do you recommend to get a good basic understanding of business in general?

It seems to me like there is a lack of healthy blue due to the radical cultural changes that took place in the last few decades. A lot of people who listen to Jordan Peterson do not have their life sorted out at all, they do not have discipline, they do not take responsibility, they do not have purpose, they do not have meaning, which are all aspects which should be be communicated by stage blue institutions. If you don't give people what they need, they will seek it elsewhere. You force them to go up the Spiral without learning these things first and you get dysfunctional people. I don't think we can elevate stage blue people into higher stages if we have not even establish a healthy stage blue grounding. Tell me some really high quality, amazing stage blue examples that teach this stuff on a wider cultural level. Whether you like the church or not, it definitely contributed to taking people through stage blue. In fact, I often observe people who never were religious to be quite dysfunctional, hedonistic, miserable stage orange people. To me it is likely that it is due to a lack of a strong and good stage blue foundation. I still think the Internet had a huge influence on the way Spiral Dynamics is playing out, because it heaves people into stages faster than they would have naturally transitioned to, leaving dysfunctions as a result of not having learned important aspects of the lower stages.

When I read the title of this topic I thought it would be about how many people Leo banned the last few weeks I don't usually tell people about Leo, I keep the non-dual stuff to myself most of the time because people around me would think I'm crazy if I told them. Most often I pretend to be a open minded but skeptical rationalist.

What a preposterous question, of course it's Leo.

The true question is not whether there is choice, the true question is what choice is. Choice must be causeless and thus choice must originate from a causeless cause. The causeless cause is god, the nothingness, or infinite potential, which manifests potentiality/nothigness into actuality/limitation. The ego is a cause, caused by the causeless cause. There is no control in choice, there can be no control in choice, because to control would be to limit, and to limit would be to not be a choice. Choice is free will, and free will is not controlled by anyone, certainly not what you call the structure of identification operating in mind. Free will is defined by it's freedom, it is defined by the causeless cause. So the answer is no. You do not make choices, because the making of choice would mean the causing of a cause. Choice is causeless, it directly connected to Nothingness. Therefore, choices are not made, choices are the nature of the way actuality manifests itself into limited being. A choice is the opposite of control, the opposite of ego, the opposite of limitation. A choice is love. All of manifestation has it's root in choice, and thus a root in love. All this non-sense of making choices are egos claiming to be the cause of existence itself. The cause of existence is pure love, not ego. If you make a choice, you are the cause of the choice. The reality is that it is the other way around. You are caused by the choice! The choice has no cause. Don't believe me, just look at it. It's utterly obvious.

Lol, I was wondering the same thing. I don't know if porn is able to be integrated with turquoise, it probably is but it would be very aritifcial, like trying to create a stage orange religion. It just doesn't make sense because there are completely new things to be discovered at new stages that can replace pornography. For example a very interesting phenomena that appeared from stage green culture is ASMR. It is basically the porn of stage green, instead of satisfying the needs for carnal pleasure, it satisfies emotional needs. You can tell it is a green invention just by listened to some of the ASMRists out there, I would say most of them are spiritual in some shape or form.

How can you say that enlightenment is not an experience? If it is not experienced, how would you possibly know about it, talk about it and describe it? Why does it seem, from an outsiders perspective, like enlightenment is very easily explained by understanding it as different mind-systems being altered and thus creating the perceptions like Godhood? How do we know Naive Realism is not true to some relevant extend? Why has it not been proven that an enlightened person can access information outside of it's own limited consciousness, like understanding the nature of reality in verifiable ways? How can we differentiate between what is Absolute Truth and what is simply a perception like any other? How can we know which aspects are aspects of the limited consciousness mind, and the All-Mind? For example, how do we know that the perception of a plant being conscious, like some report, is not a psychological phenomena rather than a non-dual phenomenon? How do we know it is not simply the perception of personhood, which we perceive when our mind believes to experience a living person, is not simply manipulated into perceiving the plant as person, and thus give it the perception of being conscious? The same question can be asked for the perception of self-idenity being altered to encompass other objects within ones own consciousness, for example other people or animals. How do we know that the sense that one is all of them is not simply limited to the mind-construct, rather than an inaccessable outside world? How can we know there is no outside world if it would, if it did exist, be inherently inaccessible? Why is it that all the aspects all teachers of spirituality talk about could have been predicted by having enough knowledge of the mind-structure in general and how the perception fo reality is structured in the human mind? For example, with the knowledge that the mind requires to generated a self-idenity so that it can effectively navigate reality and survive, is it quite obvious that dissolving that self-idenity will lead to feelings of meaning, joy and love because the Survival Idenity which was previously in charge of idenitifying when it was appropriate to experience love, joy and meaning would suddenly let the feelings freely arise as there would be no limiting factor that would keep it from happening? And again, how can we then know that these particular aspects, that many talk about, like God being All Loving, etc, are not merely confusions arising due to perceptions having changed rather than any truth having been revealed? What would you say if someone who experienced all you have, would claim he had deeper understanding than you and tell you that you were fundamentally wrong about God, and that it was a complete delusion? Is it no likely that once the survival self idenity is dissolved, that seeking the factual truth might not be desired anymore and thus lead one to be more gullible due to open-mindedness, or simply not caring whether one is wrong or not because one believes to be eternal?

Unlike in the Peterson/Wilber thread I feel like this time we understood each other better. I think part of the trickiness is just the sort of empathy or understanding that is required to navigate someone elses ego in a way that it will actually benefit them, especially in a forum where much of the information needed to get more accurate reads are lacking. For example, you might notice someone not reacting well to what you say immediately in a conversation whereas in a forum people can talk past each other entirely without really noticing. In the end I think it's best to look at this as it's own area of mastery. It takes deliberate practice, which involves much failure and mistake, so as to get better at it. And maybe Forum Spiral Wizardry is in itself a different kind of skill from in person Wizardry, as many things are just different in these kinds of interaction. I myself used to think that at some point one would be infallible and just be able to manipulate everyone into a higher stage with just enough skill in Spiral Wizardry, but it does definitely seem like it is limited in many ways. It's not always possible to change someone at all, or it might require a lot of effort. For me the lesson of the day is to recognize that communication is limited and that often the truth must be conceiled in the favor of... well the truth. It's quite interesting how saying the truth can sometimes lead to more delusion, whereas delusion might lead to the discovery of truth. It's not really a lie because when the truth cannot be received by the recipient, it is not really the truth. The truth must always be in direct awareness, and only one's own consciouscness can truly create that awareness. All the others can do is hint at it.

But you don't need to engage from their system of operation. You don't need to be orangey so that they listen to you, often we need to realize that they will not be able to change their opinion about the topic of contention. For example, you can't convince a fundamentalist Muslim that all is God, and it's futile to even talk about it, or to argue it. What helpful however is to bring him a step closer to that truth, and maybe that step is to somehow get him to question some of the muslim principles, and not even directly, maybe just plant a seed that some day might come to fruition. It might not at all come to fruition, but sometimes the planting of the smallest, weakest seed might be the best we can do, even if it is very unlikely that it will take root. Sometimes there is no other potential, and the smallest potential must be sought. With the ego we need to be careful so that it never suspects it is taught when it is not really willing to be taught. When teaching things that go contrary to the identity, it is imporant for the ego to be manipulated into changing itself, as outside influence is being defended against. Holy shit I just realized it is basically Inception... like the movie Inception. That is exactly what a Spiral Wizard must do!

Then my assumptions were wrong, I assumed you were attempting to aid Angelo in some way. I guess I can't really blame you, I did the same to Angelo you did, the poor guy, abused for the greater good.

Yes you did.

I think Serotonin needs help, not you. Your position about race is not that relevant to me. You might as well be wrong about what the names of saturn's moons are.

Nothing I said represents my positions, my previous two posts were templates for you as to how you might want to approach this conversation differently. I am using Angelo as a guinea pig, since I have revealed to you my position in the post that was addressing your way of communicating with him, I don't think it's likely that my manipulations with him will take fruit, though they can reveal something to you that might be lacking in your approach. Notice that I said "We" in the post where I was telling Angelo about the wikipedia articles, it was secretly a communication to you so that you could see how he views your attempt to help him. The wikipedia articles were a way so as to make Angelo aware of his own position and that it had a name "Race realism" and the following posts were subtle manipulations into the direction I want Angelo to take. I am intentionally not revealing the full truth of deconstructionism to him because I know he first needs to learn the most basic objections, and I am attempting to make him question it himself, not fully successfully, but the major point was to make you see that different approaches might be more appropriate than just tell him what you have arrived at from your level of consciousness and education. I don't know a lot about genetics and I am not that interested in it, I am sure you know far more about it than me. My message to you is about learning how to effectively manipulate a student into questioning his own perspective, from his own intiative, from a spark of consciousness that came as a result of an action that his ego found appropriate. Did you read the post that was addressing your teaching methodes?

The question is, how do we determine which traits or genes are defining a race? For example, why is skin or any other trait more relevant than the size of the nose? If we put all big nosed people into one area and let them breed, wouldn't there be only big nosed people there, similar to how if we put black skinned people into one area and let them breed, there will be only black people as a result? Is race tied to geographical location? If a white person and a black person have a child, it might come out as a mixed skinned child, like if a big nosed person had a baby with a small nosed people their nose would be mixed or either. If we were to say we do not view big nosed people as their own race, what is the justification for that? Is it because they are intermingled with small nosed people and thus will have children with either small or big noses? And if that is true, if we just marry every black person to a white person would that race suddenly disappear because their children would be mixed? We clearly need a group of genes or traits, but who decides how many traits is required for a race? Who decides what genes are relevant? And what does that mean for us, if we have to decide on it? And on what genes have we actually decided on? Why on these particular genes and not others? Could we theoretically define race in a way that would allow us to have big nosed people and small nosed people as two distinct races?

Exactly, so what exactly do people want from us? Is Sero just misinterpreting what we are saying? Did he and the others assume our positions are nationalistic because they are over oversensitive and are themselves deluded, thinking races are not real because they dont want them to be real? But races being real would not mean that we would have to be racist, it's just a matter of fact, how the world is. We just want to be truthful even if that truth offends us, right? So what is all the fuss about? Sero seems to have studied genetics himself, so he is an authority on the matter. But we know that scientists can be biased, they can be wrong, they can be deluded. How can we trust Sero, it seems like he didn't actually give us any arguments. Well, Sero is part a moderator on this forum so we will give him the benefit of the doubt. He can't be too deluded if he listens to Leo... But does it seem like he is actually saying anything to us? What kind of arguments did he make to convince us? It seems like he doesn't even understand our position, so how what exactly is he talking about? Maybe it's just a misunderstanding and we just have to clarify our position more. Our opinion is not at all radical, I mean we basically state that black people are black people, and that genetics exist. How could that be wrong? Sero talks so much about us, but he does not actually make us understand what we are saying that is wrong, right? What does this talk about Spiral Dynamics even have to do anything with this, we just said that races exist, nothing else! Maybe Sero cannot help us? Maybe we need to help ourselves. Maybe we need to ask ourselves what races even are? What is the definition of a race? https://www.thefreedictionary.com/race What do they mean by more genetic variation within groups than between them? Well, there certainly have to be genetic differences between groups because there are clearly people with white skin and people with black skin. But wait a second, there are also people with big noses and small noses? Could we actually create a race out of big noses people and small nosed people? Why wouldn't we? Well, clearly some groups have more consistent genetic differences between them than others, so we just have to find these differences! Maybe we just have to read the wikipedia article on race... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_realism

Do you feel like Sero's posts are helping you?

Sero, do you remember the conversation we had about the whole Jordan Peterson, Ken Wilber vs Leo discussion? I feel like you are still doing what I told you back then, but I think I can put it into more precise language now because I have observed myself doing it aswell. I know you have good intentions but I feel like many of your posts come off not the way you want them to. You are not wrong, the problem is that you tell the truth in the way that it comes to you, rather unfiltered and without considering the state of the person you are communicating with. It's not a problem if the person you talk to is evolved enough to be detached from what you say, but that is rarely the case. You for example told Angelo about his flaws and the limitations of his perspective. However, I know your goal is not to just state your opinion, I know your goal is to help Angelo evolve. I think a more effective methode is to kind of manipulate your student into seeing his limitations by himself. Instead of telling them directly where they are limited, make their mind wander into a direction so that they discover the limitation on their own. This is not necessary when talking to people who have integrated stage yellow well, because it's part of how the perceive the world, but anyone who has not will be likely to have their ego react against the truth if it is told to them directly. Look at all of these statements: "You are making assumptions and are unaware of it. " "If you studied this area extensively with an open mind, you would become aware of your assumptions." "Yet you cannot see this due to assumptions of what race is and the relationship between genetics and race. " "You are seeing this as a binary issue. In that you are right or wrong and what you say must be true or false." "A contracted mind will not be open or able to see nuances or integration between various modes of analysis m. " You tell him what he sees, what he does, what his limitations are. You basically just state your observations to him. I think it would be more helpful to take a second and reflect upon how you can communicate this information in a way that will be helpful for Angelo, instead of just causing his ego to react to it. What kind of questions can you ask, what kind of statements can you make, so that he himself will attain this information by himself? This is in my opinon the challenge of becoming a Spiral Wizard. The Spiral Wizard must understand his student. I think you certainly have the capacity for that Sero, but I think you do not do it because you might have forgotten what it is to be more egoic and attached to your idenity. From your perspective, from your stage, what you say is helpful advice. From Angelos perspective it might be an attack, even if Angelo will not state it that way. Angelo wants to look as evolved as possible, so he will naturally not show want to show your his egoic reaction even if it is present. We cannot have an unfiltured, honest conversation with a being whose perspective is inherently distorted. We cannot just point to their distortion and expect them to find use in that. We must guide, with the aid of their own perception of reality, to have them reflect in a way that will increase their consciousness, by virtue of their own awareness. We are so to speak using their own faculties so that they create greater awareness and perspective, that way their ego will accept that perspective, because it was it's own creation. Currently you are giving him your own perspective, and lesser ego will have a tendency to repell that perspective if it undermines it's own perspective. An active ego must be manipulated into undermining it's own limited perspective to adopt a greater perspective. A great teacher will teach in a way so that the student does not even know he is his teacher.

Ever wondered why, when looking at the night's sky full of stars and contemplating your own insignificance, the feelings accompaning these thought are not negative but in the contrary very positive and meaningful? I think one very underlooked reason why society is more disconnected from spirituality than ever before is that we do not experience the vast emptiness and grandeur of the nights sky. Confined in a box, the ego will have a tendency to contract itself. Outside in the emptiness of space, the ego is given chance to naturally expand on it's own. When looking at the night's sky, something deep in our human consciousness is aware that what it is seeing is it's very own being. The study of the stars is the study of the Self. A true sense of vastness is invaluable for the unconscious mind to realize it's potential. Put the ego in a box, it will become a box. Put the ego into emptiness, it will become emptiness. Becoming directly aware of the whole is a great way to instantly increase consciouscness. It is not an accident that astronauts who see the earth from orbit experience a complete change in their perspective. Empathy is not merely feeling for others, it is the recognition of the other as the self. This is why more consciouscness leads to more empathy, one is equal to the other. Now, all you have to do is have empathy for the stars, and empathy for the space they reside in. True empathy.

The destruction, the killing, is part of creation. You cannot act against the work of God, as all acts are the work of God. Is it not interesting how you created suicide so that you could then go and complain about suicide being against your own Will? You are playing with yourself.