Scholar

@Serotoninluv I struggle arguing with people who find this kind of thinking very appealing. I don't know how to explain to them why this is a limited way of approaching knowledge. What do you tell someone who does not understand the value of scientific consensus, and is very skeptical of mainstream views? I usually find myself at a position where I tell someone that I simply do not agree with their epistemological standards. When I ask them to justify their positions, usually people get frustrated. When I explain that I do not have the time to understand these topics indepth and therefore rely on scientific consensus or some sort of intuition, I don't really feel like that is very appealing to them From their perspective I look like someone who is simply believing the "elites" and playing into what the deep-state wants them to think. Especially because often I can tell very quickly whether someone is a higher quality source rather than a low quality source, yet I could not exactly articulate why that is. I am not sure if my intuition is simply trained to be more accurate, or whether I use a different kind of intuition, or both? Because from their perspective it looks like they are doing the same I am.

The guy is denying that HIV causes AIDS.

But is there not infinite depth of Awakening? Is this not the whole nature of Consciousness? Totality is Infinite Expansion. This is the paradox, is it not? So a metaphor could be between a river and an ocean. The fish is swimming through an ever expanding river, until the river becomes an ocean. But really, the ocean is the river, and the river is the ocean. And as the fish swims through, it will ever keep expanding. So the expansion of Awakening will never end, because the Awakening is itself what expands that which it is Awakening to. The Act of Swimming and the expansion of the Ocean/River are one and the same. As long as you Swim, the Ocean will expand.

This virus could open our eyes. The entire world is being put on hold, giving us an opportunity to self-reflect. Furthermore the entire world has now one common enemy, an enemy that is not as abstract as Global Warming. An enemy which effects us in the here and now. This might teach us the lessons necessary for tackling environmental destruction and climate change, because this virus will be nothing compared to what we will face if we do not get our act together very soon.

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.