Carl-Richard

Just being in higher education doesn't exactly mean you'll soak up all the intricacies of unrelated faculties by osmosis Great. Bring your buddies, create some policy suggestions, run for office, or get a research grant, establish an NGO and work directly with marginalized communities or change public opinion. The world is your oyster ...oh wait, these are systemic interventions (Doh!)

The youth exposing the flaws of the older generation. Dawkins essentially argues that reading about the subject you're criticizing is not worth your time. Classic.

It doesn't matter how much you hyperbolize and handwave it. The left, as in academia and public policy, is very interested in these concerns. Take up a book on community psychology or watch a lecture. It's not just happening within the framing of "we need a conversation about bootstrapping" and the insistance of downplaying the primacy of systemic issues. That is what is not happening the left. If you want to shift the conversation to "but the online left doesn't care", tell me, what has online political discourse ever achieved? It's a cesspool of contrarianism. Of course nuance is lost.

That is a perfect re-telling of the "pre-trans fallacy" coined by Ken Wilber (idk if you already knew about it). Rational people (Orange) can't differentiate between pre-rational statements (Purple, Red, Blue) and trans-rational statements (Green, Yellow, Turquoise). Pre-rational beliefs (abstract statements and below; ≤9) don't reach the level of a logically coherent formal system (10-11), and trans-rational beliefs (metasystematic statements and above; ≥12) go beyond the level of logical formal systems. This is also why rationalists get hung up on things like performative contradictions of postmodernism, because 1. they believe formal logic is absolute truth, and 2. they don't make the distinction between formal statements and metasystematic statements. A rationalist, who only works with formal statements, will take a statement like "there are no absolute true statements" and say it cannot be true because there is a self-contradiction. The solution is to say "there are no absolute true formal statements", which itself is a metasystematic statement, so there is no self-contradiction. Contradictions only arise out of a failure to make adequate distinctions.

How much knowledge do you need to have about the different products?

@Danioover9000 Man you could've just said thread hygiene.

This is just some late night speculation so don't expect high quality. Stage regression seems to break with the linear developmental aspect of SD and seems to be a puzzling phenomena that is not easily explained. How does one systematize/describe the mechanics of regression? One solution could be to view past stages as integrated resources that may be emphasized or de-emphasized depending on the environment. There are two useful models here: 1. the diathesis-stress model and 2. the model of state-dependent functioning: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diathesis–stress_model 2. Notice the obvious correlations to the developmental levels of SD: Let's treat your personal predispositions (including your SD stage) as "diathesis" and the survival-threatening environmental factors as "stress". Under times of stress, the values expressed within an individual (or groups/societies) shift to become state-dependent rather than stage-dependent. For example, a Stage Green person who experiences a significant life change that threatens their survival may start utilizing resources from lower stages (beige, purple, red). I started thinking about this while re-watching Breaking Bad. How can a "good man" break bad? Well, there is a diathesis, which can be anything that predisposes you towards a certain behavior (genes, past experiences), and then there is stress. For Walter, the diathesis is arguably some resentment, unfulfilled desires and some dark personality traits, and the stress is his cancer diagnosis and his choice to become a career criminal. So my explanation here would be that you start out with a Stage Orange Walter White (along with other underlying predispositions) as diathesis, and then you get the stress from cancer and criminal life that turns on state-dependent functioning, pulling him down to lower aspects like Red. But because this is state-dependent functioning, it doesn't mean he has lost Orange forever. He can easily regain that level of functioning again when he shifts back into stage-dependent functioning. You could also apply the state-dependent x diathesis-stress model to the microcosm of your daily life. Let's say you're thirsty (stress) and want a drink: activate beige state-dependent functioning. Let's say you get cut off in traffic (stress) and feel anger and the desire to dominate: red state-dependent functioning. You have to check your schedule or re-asses your work ethic: blue. You have to close a business deal: orange etc. You could say that this stuff has already been understood and known intuitively before, but I think it's fun to use other well-established frameworks to test out these assumptions and formalize some of the relationships. Any insights are appreciated.

18 year old me interpreted it that way. I call it the "pseudo-Green vortex": it draws in all kinds of immaturity.

Personal responsibility is the soup, and structural violence is a leaky spoon.

@Adamq8 Yup. I've been outside La Sagrada Familla. It's huge. I've also taken a tour through the St. Peter's Basilica, the Vatican museums and the Sistine Chapel. It's all psychedelic.

The part where it starts to get creepy is when you try to understand basic things, but you literally can't. The only thing you "understand" is how insufficient "understanding" is. What you usually referred to as understanding is just simply a puny thought, coming out one at a time. It's so insignificant compared to "this."

I deliberately put "development" in italics, because development is not progress. Progress is a more loaded term. Development simply means a trajectory of "coming to being" (ontogenesis). The development of reality as a whole is the trajectory from simple to complex, and humanity follows the same pattern. What can be defined as a local regression is always a part of a larger scale of development. The death of one cell is a part of the larger evolution of an organism or a species. While one organism dies, and a new one is born. This is the cyclical nature of development. The fall of the Roman empire was important for the development of humanity and provided important lessons for future generations.

@ZenSwift Cool! My paternal grandmother used to make textile art. This is from an art exhibit in the local town hall: https://www.ralingen.kommune.no/raadhuskunst.464118.no.html It looks kind of basic, but when you remember that it's all woven fabric, it's impressive.

Openmindedness means you're open to new things. It does not mean you stop making distinctions. There are different interpretations of Islam, and some of them are less conducive to self-actualization and spiritual work than others, and some are also less openminded. Are you open to a pluralist, non-literalist interpretation of Islam? Pluralist and non-literalist religiosity appreciates many different religions and many different interpretations. It's more openminded than absolutist and literalist religiosity. Although the former is more inclusive than the latter, it doesn't exactly include the latter. Therefore, if you present a closeminded view to an openminded space, you shouldn't expect to be included.

@Raptorsin7 This is the crux of the issue: the environment is the bedrock of the individual. The environment is not equivalent to personal responsibility – it is what makes personal responsibility possible. This is basic ecology, sociology, psychology. It does not suffice to hand-wave it away by saying "oh yes, that's one part of the equation too." When you're pointing to the real-life examples of the successes of personal responsibility, you're pointing to places of structural privilege. It's not a coincidence. If that is the case, what is it that the left doesn't understand about personal responsibility? People who condone looting are fringe radicals high on schadenfreude.

"700 years setback" is an unclear statement. If you mean that society lost 700 years of development, that would mean you would have to literally turn the clock back 700 years. That is obviously not the case, because not everything from the Roman Empire was lost. Technological innovation did not stop, and neither did philosophical thought. Single examples do not give a comprehensive picture, because reality is a complex system. That is also why development is non-linear, because apparent setbacks are only partial, never total.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/medieval-history-why-are-the-middle-ages-often-characterized-as-dark-or-less-civilized.html One paragraph later:

This is true. People have different ideas about how dangerous the virus is and how safe the vaccines are, and some of these ideas are more paranoid and less well-informed, and some are not. It's still the case that the individualistic meme that is circulating in the West at the moment has a strong absolutist, ideological bent. It's more or less equal to "my right as an individual is to act like an isolated unit separate from the larger society". To then perpetuate this belief and call it collective responsibility, from a system aware view, is quite ridiculous. But it's true that the individual and the collective is always weighed up against each other. However, it's nevertheless the case that system awareness is lacking in society, and it's impacting the perception of the problem. Society as a collective is a huge system of complex relationships that stretches out horizontally, and this is what the virus is working on. In response to such a problem, an absolutist version of the individualist meme, that has a strong vertical>horizontal bent, quickly becomes problematic.

Yes. I didn't participate

It's semantics, I know, but you said it's a murder case. Murder is a legal term, and murder cases are about establishing the extent of liability and punishment. I guess retroactive responsibility isn't necessarily a legal issue. Ok let's say I give a low score. What's your point?

Systems thinking (the cream of leftism) and mysticism are related, yes.

It's a constant derived from another equation .

You're talking about a structure aware practice of law, which essentially doesn't exist . I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to let structures affect liability. Just fix the structures.

Alden's number is the constant you need to calculate the ratio of island-bound socioeconomic privilege and the weight of deez nuts.