Scholar

I would very much like to know, other than Survival Benefits, what is the difference?

Holy shit, it just hit me. I can see it clearly, I will now attempt to put what I see into language, which is actually quite an interesting secondary insight. What I see in is not linguistic, it is not an idea, it is a clear sense of what Is rather than a thought that came to my mind. It is more fundamental than thought. Back to topic. Why can the Mind understand the World? Why can math describe and predict "outside" reality? It sounds so simple, but it is because of the nature of Duality. It's so unbelievably difficult to put this into words, but it's so simple. Imagine there to be 4 coins. What is it that the mind does? It can create from the 4 coins, 2 and 2 coins. It can say 2+2=4. But notice that there is no such thing as "+" or "2", or even 4 for that manner. This is how the Mind has divided the Ultimate Presence. This is what Mind is, this is what Reality is, this is what "World" is. The universe does not express itself in Numbers, Equations and Math. But because the Universe expresses itself in Duality, that same expression can be transmitted into a different kind of Duality. We are using the Duality of Math to describe the Duality of Physicality. We can predict the future because it is the HUMAN MIND that has divided the ETERNITY into DUALITY. It divided INFINITY and made of it FINITE things. There is no World. There is only the Mind. The mind is Reality. The mind is the Act of travelling, The Act of Duality. It is literally Manifestation itself. There is no seperation, Division and Duality is not Seperation. Seperation is Illusion. This is scrambling my brain, I just can't put it into words. I could create metaphors. Imagine a sphere that is a perfect mirror. It travels through Void, yet it reflects a world. The World Reflects the Void, yet the Void itself looks like nothing, not even like blackness. It takes the sphere to create a Reflection of the Void, a colorful play of that which is within the Void. Now imagine your Consciousness is that Sphere. The mindblowing thing about Reality is that the Sphere contains Nothing at all. It is not filled with Empty Space, and it is not Surrounded by Empty Space. It is not Travelleng through Empty Space, it is travelling through ETERNAL VOID. And now the second mind blowing thing. There is no difference between looking at the Inside of the Sphere and at the Outside of the Sphere. The Reflection within the Mirror of the Sphere will determine whether the Sphere is an All Surrounding 360° View of the World, or the Perspective from outside of the Sphere, looking at the Sphere as a Sphere. And without the Sphere, there would only be Void. Not Emptiness, but Void. Now get this: When you look at the Sphere from the Outside, you call it "Understanding", when you look a the Sphere from the Inside, you call it "World". The Sphere itself is Understanding and World at the same time. But I can already see, me trying to come up with metaphors and explanations is removing me from the clear sense I have of it. The images and thoughts in my mind are a distraction. So how could it possibly help anyone else to see it? In this work the only use of language is to ask the right question. Everything else is mental masturbation, delusion, distraction. Forget what I wrote. Mu. And also, Math can predict the World because it takes the World, divides it up, and in the process of adding things up again it can see what it had been dividing in the first place. It's like it divided it too much and had to add it up again so then when it attempts to add it up it could get closer and closer to where it wanted to Divide in the first place. So Math is basically the discipline of Inaccurate Divisions and then the adding up of the divisions until the point of finding the point of division that was sought after. It's strangely elaborate, but I guess it works for us.

Is this not all Survival?

What do we need to be careful about?

This is why I like the Zen approach. Don't talk about realizations, instead point to them. Also: A few hundred years ago Leo and many of us would have been burned at the stake, now we get this. We can be very grateful.

Time-stamped. About the efficacy of the confrontational approach.

When you see the Love in Suffering, Suffering will not cease to be Suffering. Only the cessation of Suffering will lead to the cessation of Suffering.

There are some very important things to grasp here. Love is not something that is done. Love is not something that do you to something. You do not Love creation, you do not Love the pedophile, you do not Love suffering. Love is not done by the ego. Acceptance is the same. Transcendental acceptance is not done by ego. You do not accept things, you do not accept creation. There is a false understanding of Love or Acceptance being opposite to emotions, like anger or fear. "To be Accepting, I must feel Nothing but Love when I witness the suffering of another being! I must accept the suffering, which means I feel no emotion at all. Acceptance is detachment!" Love and Acceptance is Ultimate. There is no such thing as increasing your Love or Acceptance. Love and Acceptance is the fundamental nature of all that exists, this includes anger, this includes suffering, this includes judgement and ego. Love is not "to love something", but rather Love is the substance of all that Is. This is eternal, this is undeniable, this is always the case. Love and Acceptance is equivalent to Being. Our work is to see that this is the case or in other words, to bring the underlying Love and Acceptance present in all things forth into your Presence and Awareness. To be able to see it and focus on it. Love does not mean any particular thing, Love is all things that are. It's not a lofty feeling that sits opposite to the ego. It's not "Hatred vs Love". You are pure Love when you judge and exterminate the pedophiles in a grand pedophile holocaust. That would be pure Love. Make a distinction between Waking up and Growing up. To become more compassionate will mean to Grow up. But to Grow up means to be able to use your full spectrum of emotions and transmute them into a unified presence and consciousness. To be able to use your hatred and transform it instead of falling prey to it. It does not mean, and I cannot stress this enough, that you must be free of hatred, anger and fear. God is perfect Love. Look at it's presence. You are it, already. You are the perfect expression of Love. So is the pedophile and so is the person who in anger, judgement and hatred holocausts the pedophile. To see the Love in all things, including your judgement, will be what transmutes your life. The mind of the human reacts a very particular way to the recognition of Love in all things. Do not love the pedophile, because love is not something you do. Love is presence, you simply need to recognize what presence is. Once you do, everything will be love, and there will be no difference between you judging the pedophile or not. Your survival will be a perfect expression of Love, as it already is. Detachment is for rocks, not for humans. If your goal is detachment, there are much quicker ways to achieve that. Feeling nothing when you see another suffer will make you a sociopath, not enlightened or more loving.

Which governments? Governments react different ways. Although, I would not say there is a point when action is pointless. Even when windows of opportunity have been missed, governments can still do things to mitigate and delay the damage

Thank you, that was very helpful! I might have been overly excited with the cartoons, the not addressing users specifically and falling into ego as the argument ensues are also good insights. What I find most tricky is to show my opinion on Spiral Dynamics without getting personal or generalizing a group. I can be very upfront about how I talk to people even though I have no intention to provoke them, but it also seems like I do not care too much about whether or not I do create a negative reaction in them. In real life I would not do such a thing, the presence of a real person makes it much easier to feel empathy and be more thoughtful as to how one would explain something. In this environment I value authenticity more than effectivity, maybe because it is one of the rare instances where I can let my ego play out and observe it. This is in many ways selfish.

Would vegan cartoons that have content that might be seen as provocative constitute what we define as inflammatory? I am genuinely curious because I do feel like they are not quite appropriate for this forum but at the same time I feel like they are good tools.

I've gone through the thread again, and on further reflection I do not think I can criticize myself too much for how I was acting in here. I think it was mostly appropriate and I hope it achieved at providing value for Stage Green and beyond, although I do recognize that I was too confrontational for Orange and, as one User said, provoked them into wanting to "poke" me. I think the cartoons are fine to be honest, they are good at showcasing some of the obvious cognitive dissonance that is going on, although again, it is no surprising that they are provoking some people. I do not see however that I was particularly dogmatic, if I look back I tried to keep the discussion about ego development, spirituality and the topics that I found were important. However, the people who criticized me did not respond to any of the information I was trying to provide. On a more general note, it is interesting that whenever there is a vegan topic that it gets a lot of discussion and responses. To me it indicates that this indeed has to do with some of the identites people have attached around this controversial topic, of course for both sides of the argument. I would not say there is a lot of Second Tier thinking here, outside of the moderators. And yes I realized it looks like I am just trying to stroke my back, but I hope to get feedback from some people whose opinion I value, which did not yet happen.

When two people quarrel, a third rejoices. I hear people criticizing Bernie for how he dealt with this, that he was not critical enough of his opponents, like Biden. And that he was too attached to his Socialist label which was not helpful in terms of optics. Do you agree with that? Could Bernie have won if he had better campaiging strategies or was it rather unlikely for him to win either way because of how much of the odds are stacked against him in terms of him being too progressive for many aspects of the establishment or even the population?

Interesting, didn't know about these dynamics. Yes, then it is probably better if Biden gets in office. But if I look at Biden's mental health, I feel like he will get demolished in any debate with Trump. I don't understand why Biden is the top running candidate. Everyone was better than him, Warren, Buttigieg, Bernie of course and even Yang.

It might even be better for Trump to win this over Biden. If Biden wins and things get worse instead of better, next time we might get another reaction towards the republicans. If Trump wins, and things continue getting worse, we might next time get enough momentum to get a progessive into office. However, it's hard to say what will actually happen and what kind of damage Trump can cause in another 4 years.

I am not interested in engaging with you about carnism, I have done so many times in a multitude of ways. Everything I wrote is geared towards people who are susceptible towards what I am writing. I would rather help some stage greens solidify their understanding of identity, three self's, values vs views etc. than attempt in futility to heave orange up to green. Even if I convinced you of a new View, it would change nothing about your Values. See my posts about Identity, Views vs Values etc. This contradicts the most basic understanding of supply and demand. Okay guys, I am calling it. At this point we are just poking each others identities and I don't see value in it anymore. I will only respond to moderators if they wish to add something to this.

And if he read any of my posts he would know that the Meme's purpose is not to persuade carnists or change their perspective. Ah, it's the vegans who are not looking at the other side's perspective... yes, it's not the carnists who are turning a blind eye towards the suffering of the animals they pay to be enslaved and slaughtered. The vegans are the ignorant ones, they need to understand the carnists! Of course, thank you for that valuable insights. I will now go and criticize the vegans who are so ignorant and dogmatic for trying to create a culture that is concerned with the suffering of sentient beings. Man, I wish I could travel back in time to tell all of the abolitionists that they should be more compassionate and understanding towards the slavors. That surely would have made all the difference.

Prefaced with this. This cognitive dissonance is beyond me.

I am not trying to force ideologies, I am pointing to systemic issues in how people in here understanding spiral dynamics and identity evolution. And I don't agree that the cartoons are silly, I think they are very good at what they are doing, I already tried to explain why I thought that was the case. You are telling me to really consider opposing viewpoints and try to understand them, but you do not apply this to me. What about my viewpoints about why I think these cartoons are effective? What about my viewpoints about Identity, Values vs Views and the three Self distinction? Why are you not open minded to that and trying to understand where I am coming from? You are just making assertions that you are correct. When I tried to explain and justify my position I gave all sorts of arguments for why it is the case (namely what I said about Identity, Values vs Views and the Three Selfs). Yet, you just ignore that and call me ignorant for having posted innocent cartoons. Is it my identity that makes me post cartoons, or is it your identity that feels threatened by these cartoons and lashes out by calling them ineffective advocacy? How do you know these cartoons are ineffective? I had great experiences convincing people like this. As I said repeatedly, my goal is not to change your values, I don't think that is possible. One goal was to clear up the misunderstanding of spirituality and identity evolution I see in this community, and another goal is to make people with green values realize the importance of a firm green viewpoint. I see a lot of toxic relativism and spiritual shaming in here that is used to justify lower value sets and identities. This is my view, and I have not seen any compelling arguments from you that challenge that view. I would like to have a moderator give their opinion on this.

I have, I still do not agree with Keyhole's understanding. Can you help me and point out specifically what I need to look at?

I would like to hear a Moderator give their opinion on this, what is happening here between Keyhole and me and in this Thread in general. I don't feel like I am self-deluding myself in the way Keyhole is describing, to me it seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of what I am saying and what is actually going on. I felt at no point like he was attempting to understand or inquire into my position. And I also felt like he was not really contending with my points. But I am willing to listen to a third perspective.

@Keyhole Ask yourself this: I made multiple claims about spiral dynamics, about identity, about how society evolves and so forth and so forth. Why are you not challenging me on a single one of those claims? Why are you sifting through posts I made months ago to prove to me, or yourself, that I am being unconscious and dogmatic? Seriously, ask yourself why you are doing this. The only thing of substance you posted was about persuation tactics, which was a video that I feel like compeltely misses spiral dynamics and how persuation works differently in the context of actual Value evolution. We can gladly discuss that, even though the rest of the points I made about Identity, Values vs Views and Real Self-Authentic Self-False Self I think were far more important. That's where we can have a valuable discussion. Rather you have this weird obsession with whether or not I am conscious or developed or not and how I should focus on self-improvement and conduct. This is what I mean with the pseudo-spirituality. It is used as a defense. As soon as people here feel like they don't want to contend with something, they dismiss everything by calling the person delusional, underdeveloped or unconscious. I know why I am defending veganism here. I know I have identity attachments to other living creatures much like to my family. Now, ask yourself, why exactly are you here? Why exactly are you responding to me and attempting to show me my unconsciousness? Why are you posting videos that make fun of vegan bacon? That suddenly has nothing to do with egoic attachment, bad conduct or dogma? You honestly think you are free from that?

I understand. But this is a problem of identity, not a problem of action. You are viewing this far too superficially. The fact that you have issues adopting a diet that is plant based does mean you must remain in your limited identity. This is the fundamentaly problem of identity. You have a problem of survival, and that evidently limits your identity. This is how identity works, you must contract your Self-identity so that your survival is not compromised. You are not here saying veganism is good, but that you simply had difficult implementing a completely suffering free diet. You are not saying for example that it is wrong to holocaust animals, but that you must act this way for survival. Your survival problems limit your identity to orange, how do you think spiral dynamics works? This is precisely how any constriction of identity works. Our work it to expand our identity despite this. I struggle greatly on the vegan diet, yet because I view animals as an extention of myself, I can deal with the struggle, I am overcoming it. If I could not, I would still contribute to the extention of identity. I would still encourage people to be vegan, to extend their self-identity. Dietary needs have nothing to do with this identity issue. You should really look into what gaslighting is, because this is what you are doing right now. I do not agree that I am throwing my dogma around and I do not agree that my criticisms are ineffective. Just because they do not achieve what you view as important does not mean they do not achieve what I view as important. Notice how you are focusing on me here, when we are talking about the animal holocaust. Notice how you keep changing the topic from what is happening to who I am, to my faults, to my limitations. I never denied I have limitations, even if I had limitations that would change nothing about the substance of what I am arguing. You are literally trying to shame me into the same toxic ideology that I have told you that I have abandoned. It's like you haven't read anything I wrote and all that came to your mind is: "THIS GUY IS SO UNCONSCIOUS LUL LET ME TELL HIM HOW UNAWARE HE IS!" Where is your consciousness? Where is your effective way of helping me see my unconsciousness? Do you believe that calling me out like this is going to increase my consciousness? How can you not see that you have the very same limitations but are denying that you have them? Atleast I admit it, atleast I recognize that there is no way to avoid identity and that it is a process of learning. And a process of being open about it and being vulnerable about it. All you did so far is basically use my vulnerability against me without any hint of trying to actually help me. How can you not see this?

I think I made a good case for why I do what I do. I don't try to come across as healthy, which is the reason why I allow myself to express myself authentically. For example, I do not care if you think I am at stage Yellow, because I myself am not concerned with at what stage I am. This is the fundamentaly difference. The post you quoted is actually when I was starting to realized the toxic and repressive nature of this whole pseudo-spiritualistic attitude many people in this community have. My view previous was: "Identity is bad! Avoid falling into identity, try to be the most open minded, integral person possible. Always come off as reasonable, calm and collected! Try to avoid ALL DOGMA!!!" My view now is: "Play with identity, fall into identity, observe your identity. Notice how it is playing out, notice your authentic expression and actualize your authentic expression. Look at your emotional attachments, feel them, let yourself go in them while you are conscious that they are happening!" This has helped me tremendously, it helped me resolve many dysfunction. In this thread for example I was always aware that I was falling into a green identity. I was enjoying it, I was playing with it. I saw my frustration, I lived my frustration, and I do not judge myself for it. Now I am calm, there is no feeling to protect myself, but rather I can explain to you my authentic expression and thoughts. I view this thread, how you react to it and what I learn from it as an exploration, not merely a utlity. I do indeed have concerns about this community in many ways. I do not view it as an inherent problem of Leo's work, but rather how some people tend to work with it. As I said, I do not agree with the persuation tactics, because I do not believe it is one dimensional. There are enough apologetic vegans around, in here and outside. If my family members got raped and someone was arguing for why it was okay for them being raped, I would not judge myself for being judgemental. And I would certainly not take someone serious who claims it is fine to rape my family member and tell me that I need to work on my persuation tactics, or that I make them want to poke me, or that I am comfortable with my shortcomings and pushing my ideology on them. So no, right now I do not feel like trying less criticism, much like you don't feel like giving up on your position that holocausting sentient beings is all fine and dandy.

One additional problem is that you can't really make an Orange Value person come to value animals like a Green Value person does. You could persuade the Orange Person of a Green View, but it would most likely do nothing to change his core value. He would still look at humans as superior in worth, even if he might not agree with that intellectually. There are however quite a few Green Value people around who have not yet the Vegan View. By showing them how absurd the carnists arguments are, these people can be compelled to adopt the Vegan View, as they already include animals into their self-identity. This dynamic is key. This is why you have so many people who do veganism for health for example, and then sliding back to carnism. It is because they remained at orange and adopted a Green Ideology or View. Their identity as far as the inclusion of animals goes never truly changed. This is not what I seek to change, as I would not even know how to begin grappling with this issue. Vegetable Police is an excellent example of this. His values were always grounded in orange, and even his view of animals is grounded in an orange identity. Sure, he finds animals cute and doesn't like hurting them, but this is not the same as green. Even blue can have compassion for animals. Orange will of course have more compassion and than blue had, yet green has a fundamentally different type of identity. Compare it to for example Blue people having compassion for their black slaves, and then compare it to a orange person viewing it as unthinkable and disgusting to enslave any other race in the first place. This is the "animal welfare" vs "holocaust abolitionist" viewpoint. Yellow is not about "sustainable, ethical animal holocaust", that is part of orange. The argument you think that come from yellow are like as if you would think a yellow person would argue for "Ethical enslavement" and be super concerned about the dogma of people who are fighting slavery. This is so obviously backwards, but because many of you have either not transitioned or integrated green in a healthy and complete manner, you overlook this completely. The problem with yellow is that a lot of their viewpoint and focus is determined by how they have integrated the lower stages. This is essential to understand, this is why any person who has emergent yellow will seek to reintegrated lower stages and work on their shadow. Yellow could for example have a huge lack in green, as most yellow people infact do have, and be arguing in a dysfunctionally systemic way. Because they do not have a complete picture, their view of the system and their concerned for everything to work together in union will be hindered. There could be a "yellow person" (if we forgo the nuance of developmental lines and so forth) for example protecting their incomplete identity that is weighted at orange, or even blue!