Scholar

Positive impact for who though? This particular ecosystem, this particular way the earth currently is? Why is an earth with life more important than an earth without it? Is Mars less important that the Earth, and if so isn't is kind of self-bias to say that? What you present is basically utilitarianism in a context of contributing to the current eco system. But the current eco system only exists because the dinosaurs were wiped out. By upholding this current regime of ecology you will surpress any potential different regime that would spawn as a result of absolute catastrophy and death. This is infact true for every decision you make. Any decision you make will create one way reality unfolds over another. Why do you think one way is "better" than the other, without self-bias?

I think I know what the difference in approach is here. I am viewing Pakman from a different reference point than you guys do. If we view Pakman from an orange weighted reference point he will appear quite greenish and even yellowish. It's like if we were to view all people we currently identify to be at Stage Blue from an actual stage Blue culture, they would all seem to be actually stage orange. If we view all current stage green people from a hypothetical stage green culture, they will all seem to be stage orange. Infact, if we imagine a stage turquoise culture, even people like Sadhguru will seem very stage orangey. A stage turquoise individual from a stage turquoise society will be radically different from anyone who has achieved even the highest level of human developement today. Kind of like how we look back at Buddha and see very clear stage blue aspects in him that he was not able to escape. Our current bias is to look at everything from a stage orange reference point. We do not recognize the enormous cultural bias within us, as we all exist in a stage orange environment. Look at the entire world, literally our way of living, our institutions, our entire world is structured around stage orange values. Maybe this is the "You can't escape culture" problem.

It's not about whether they eat meat or not, it's about how the confront the problem. Plenty of "green" people are not even green at all in the moral line, even the entire LGBTQ community is not. Notice that LGBTQ activism is a movement that was spawned from people who themselves indentify as LGBTQ, making it an individualistic movement rather than one created by compassion towards out.groups. Most people think LGBTQ people deserve rights because it makes sense that they would deserve right, they have no rational reasons for taking their rights away. But most peolpe also don't care that much about LGBTQ outside of their political identity. They don't actually feel true compassion for them if they are not their friends or somehow are integrated in their own personal identity. You know this is the case because if it was true compassion these people would probably primarily care about homeless people. This is how stage orange operates, just because they usestage green memes does not mean that the value structure of these people is on all lines stage green. https://consciousevolutionmemoir.com/2013/03/12/the-integral-map-lines-of-development/ I would say that the vast majority of people, including what we might identify as stage green people, are underdeveloped in emotional intelligence, morals and self-identity. They are stage orange, maybe even stage blue on many of these developmental lines. The problem is not what one's current position on animals right is, the problem is how one interacts when faced with these problems. Again we must look at the internal value system rather than ideological positions. If I show you slaughterhouse footage and the first thing that comes to your mind is "That's terrible, but..." you are in my opinion on some of these three lines underdeveloped. A human being who is fully integrated at stage green will see slaughterhouse footage and think "Holy fucking shit this needs to stop at all costs", because they have the capacity to put themselves into the shoes of the beings who they are observing. Most people are not, most people get uncomfortable and immediately react by coming up with some justifications for the state of affairs. This is a wonderful example: Look at how archaic the justifictions are some of these people use when confronted. Even though they might be confused as stage green, they are fundamentally not. They only use stage green memes as long as it serves their individualistic agenda, they go so far that they become completely irrational, use justifications that slavers used to devalue black people. There is no true moral evolution here, there is simply an adoption of higher memes to serve ones own agenda. I would say that our estimates of how far people are evolved is very oversimplified and because of how easily high level memes get distributed in the age of the internet, we might get results that we previously would not have, judging people to be far higher than they actually are. I think in a culture that is so predominantly orange it is not really possible for green to exist in it's fully integration, because it would be so radical that it would not get along with it's culture. Once we will have a dominating green culture we will have fully integrated green people. A fully integrated stage green culture to me would behave kind of like a mass of Jesuses who help everyone they can, and everything being structured around that goal. They would create small robots that go around to pick insects from the sidewalk so noone would step on them. They would create huge fences and bridges for animals to cross highways. They would make sure that noone is depressive, poor or unhappy in general. They would take care of everyone, in a kind of utopian idealistic scenario. Like a stage orange culture makes sure everyone is free and has rights, a stage green culture would make sure everyone feels well and is happy.

I would not say he is even fully green yet. He has a very reasonable and calm appearance, though the values from which his mind operates internally seems to me very orange. This is a very telling sign. He comes off reasonable just in terms of the way he structures his speech, but the actual logic and justifications he uses are pretty basic stage orange dismissals. He is using higher level memes to justify his lower level values. Notice his system of values that determine the way he justifies his response. He has no concern for the well-being of other beings, rather he already has a firm position on the topic which he disguises by appealing to ignorance and some lofty principles that in this context don't even make sense to use. It is crucial that we understand that most reasoning is done post-hoc, meaning they justify values one already holds, which in this case are clearly individualistic "freedom" values. He assumes the position of killing animals for food unnecessarily is acceptable, from there he comes up with a rationel to justify that value system. A person who has evolved morally to stage green will argue the other way around. They will come from a position of already being certain that killing other beings for unnecessary reasons is wrong, and they will structure their arguments that way. You don't need to convince someone who inherently values other beings that they are valuable, they will require no justification, no reason to do so. A stage orange person you have to convince with logical consistency, because they do not actually value animals whatsoever, they are dismissable as long as they do not affect them directly. Don't look at how Pakman appears, look at the value system his appearence represents. He clearly does have some stage green positions, and even stage yellow positions, but they are integrated in a stage orange value framework. It's like a stage blue person can use stage turquoise memes but yet it would not mean he is stage turquoise at all. You cannot fake being another stage, and Pakman is a clear example of that. No person who has evolved to stage green on the moral line will ever answer the question of whether animals deserve rights by saying: "I don't know, I never thought about it."

I think you are making jumps between prescriptive and descriptive morality. You go from stating how things should be to how things are. This is a justification of a prescription, saying that "We do not need to care about this problem because the world is too complex for us to take into consideration what will eventually cause harm and what will not". I criticized this justification as it would also apply to someone who rapes and tortures you for pleasure. You would not accept that kind of justification at all. What people will or will not do due to the nature of their psychology is fundamentally different from what you seek people to act like, what you prescribe yourself to do. So the question is not "What do people act like" but "What, as a high conscious beings, would we want people to act like?". Saving the ant or saving the human? Can we answer that question without self-bias?

Yes but with that logic you could go on and rape and kill people and just say "Well you gonna kill stuff anyway". In the thought experiment we can also remove the chaos. It's just the ant vs the human, leaving out all of the complexities. Who do we save without self-bias?

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?

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)