Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

So if you wanted structure and not content, why is it really hard for you to not ask that instead of 'characteristics' then? Unless you can define to us what 'characteristic' means and how characteristics is the same as 'structure'?

To be fair to him, I understood he was asking for structure and not content. I explained it in my follow up post. The structure of Green is Relativism, since all Green content can be derived from that.

 

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I get that.  But the point is you can't concretely say Hitler was a conservative - because of relativity.

It's true that even Hitler's conservatism is relative. At the same time, we are attempting to make distinctions here for practical purposes. We will have to be satisfied with some degree of relative truth or say nothing at all. 

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

To be fair to him, I understood he was asking for structure and not content. I explained it in my follow up post. The structure of Green is Relativism, since all Green content can be derived from that.

 

   Since he's dodging my question, you might have a go at that question too: Is characteristics more structure or content? IMO examples or instances are much closer to 'characteristics' and to content than to structure itself. For example if someone asked me to list them the characteristics of water, I list some physical traits and forms of water and other forms of water it can take, it's causes and effects. Similarly if asked to list 'characteristics' of an ideology which itself is far more softer and subjective in qualia than a quantity or material thing, I list the followers of that ideology, sometimes their appearances, how they speak and their behaviors, characteristics one can point to in real life or in images.

[Adrian colby]

Would it not be the case that despite the labels and the fact that two sides of a coin face away from each other, they essentially behave the same way( are both the coin). If you remove the context, the behavior is the same regardless of left/right, conservative, liberal. Some argue totalitarianism comes from extreme liberalism and fascism comes from extreme conservatism but totalitarian and fascism are names describing the same behavior? Is this not just more concept reification justifying why to or not to identify with a side?

[aurum]

10 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Is characteristics more structure or content? IMO examples or instances are much closer to 'characteristics' and to content than to structure itself.

I would agree, which is why I did not list examples or instances. I think the best way to "go meta" and describe the structure of Green would be to look at what it all has in common. What is the origin of all those Green examples and content?

To that, I would say it's because the structure of the stage Green psyche has become more Relativistic. From Relativism, we can derive egalitarianism, the desire for consensus, SJWs, empathy, acceptance, pluralism, kindness, anti-authoritarianism, etc. But you can't really do the derivation the other way around. That's why I consider it "higher" than the other features. 

Edited March 29 by aurum

[Danioover9000]

@Adrian colby

2 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

Would it not be the case that despite the labels and the fact that two sides of a coin face away from each other, they essentially behave the same way( are both the coin). If you remove the context, the behavior is the same regardless of left/right, conservative, liberal. Some argue totalitarianism comes from extreme liberalism and fascism comes from extreme conservatism but totalitarian and fascism are names describing the same behavior? Is this not just more concept reification justifying why to or not to identify with a side?

   Now you're introducing metaphysics, philosophy and epistemology of language. Also a fallacy of the false dilemma and whataboutisms, but an assumption that changing the context does not change the fact or behavior within that context.

   Language creates your reality, and language also creates orders and distances of realities. For example, would you rather have erotica, pictures of porn scenes, be in the porn film filming, or be the porn actor/actress experiencing it directly? Therefore in some case language is mostly useful to describe some experiences that some would rather not have, such as language describing Nazi Germany and Nazism versus actually experiencing Nazi Germany or dealing with Nazis yourself, see?

   Oh, and also here's a great re-contextualization right now: You are hallucinating images and experiences as you're reading these words. Does that not contradict your point then?

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a great point.

Thank you!

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Mormegil said:

This is a really good insight, thank you for sharing.

Thank you!

[Jodistrict]

Hitler was not a conservative.  He was a radical way outside the system.  At the time he lived in Germany, the aristocracy were the conservatives.   Hindenburg was personally opposed to Hitler.   The aristocracy only submitted after Hitler took over Germany. 

[Bobby_2021]

This conversation is heavily skewed into favouring left wing as if everything lower down the spiral is inherently right wing.

You cannot create wealth and freedom with Egalitarianism.

You cannot create a left wing utopia and still have egalitarianism and equality. Utopias are created by capitalism. Slavery was required to build walls which created a small utopia at the time. 

You cannot have freedom(liberalism), equality(Egalitarianism) and wealth(Capitalism). You can pick 2 at best, if that's even possible at all.

You cannot create AI without massive exploitation and crony capitalism. 

If you want massive wealth, you need hierarchies & crony capitalism. We do not have enough Capitalism in the world today. Capitalism and hierarchies has contributed more to the "utopian" vision than egalitarianism ever did and will ever do. Yes, they want to accumulate massive wealth for themselves, but they are also bringing massive wealth into the economy. 

The most egalitarian societies are built under slavery, oppression and sterilization of minorities and weak people and they also managed to whitewash their history. 

[Bobby_2021]

11 hours ago, mmKay said:

@Nilsi

How Hitler's Volkswagen Became A Symbol Of Free Love

Never ask a German company what they did between 1925 and 1945.😅

[aurum]

16 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

This conversation is heavily skewed into favouring left wing as if everything lower down the spiral is inherently right wing.

That's exactly right. The right wing IS lower down the spiral.

Until a person gets that, they will not understand politics.

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

That's exactly right. The right wing IS lower down the spiral.

Until a person gets that, they will not understand politics.

This is precisely the grave mistake most people make when interpreting Spiral Dynamics.

There is a right-left polarity at every level of the spiral. You can be at the relativistic stage and be oriented towards traditionalism (e.g. Alexander Dugin, Jean Baudrillard), and you can be at the egocentric stage and be oriented towards socialism (e.g. parts of left-wing terrorist organizations like Antifa or RAF).

Ultimately, neither left nor right is "better"; more complex and inclusive worldviews are superior to less complex and inclusive ones. Whether you lean towards maintaining or subverting the status quo has no bearing on that whatsoever.

Also, the right is absolutely essential for a functioning society, for reasons that should be obvious to any mature person, so don’t be so flippant, for fuck‘s sake.

Edited March 29 by Nilsi

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

This is precisely the grave mistake most people make when interpreting Spiral Dynamics.

Consider an alternative perspective: the reason most people interpret it that way is because that's the correct interpretation.

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

There is a right-left polarity at every level of the spiral. You can be at the relativistic stage and be oriented towards traditionalism (e.g. Alexander Dugin, Jean Baudrillard), and you can be at the egocentric stage and be oriented towards socialism (e.g. parts of left-wing terrorist organizations like Antifa or RAF).

The point is that there is an asymmetry between those attracted to the right and left. And the asymmetry is spiral development.

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Ultimately, neither left nor right is "better"; more complex and inclusive worldviews are superior to less complex and inclusive ones. Whether you lean towards maintaining or subverting the status quo has no bearing on that whatsoever.

My claim is not that the left is "better" than the right in some vague absolute sense. I am saying that people who are attracted to the left tend to be higher up the spiral. 

Whether or not someone is truly interested in going beyond the status quo actually says a lot about their development.

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Also, the right is absolutely essential for a functioning society,

I never said otherwise. There is such a thing as healthy conservatism, The part of problem right now is we don't have much of that.

 

Edited March 30 by aurum

[Bobby_2021]

The collective development of a society depends upon the circumstances that the they found themselves in. Not necessarily because they were highly developed to begin with.

Likewise, Utopias you dream of, do not happen because of "higher development" of the people. These hippies do nothing to push society forward, and hence they are not really the bleeding edge liberals they think they are. 

Leftist hippies are quite underdeveloped compared to many orange capitalists. It's a complicated topic that needs some uncovering on the systemic skipped & stunted development of the hippies. 

Utopias happen due to the grinding work of the capitalists and the so called right wing conservatives and the slave labour they employ. But you think they are underdeveloped and that's blatantly wrong. 

-----------

Also the discussion is to find out who are the conservatives and who are the Liberals since people can speak of anything they want. That doesn't mean anything to their status of development. You should look at what they are *doing* to assess their development. This thread doesn't even touch that kind of depth of assessment. 

Edited March 30 by Bobby_2021

[aurum]

57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Likewise, Utopias you dream of, do not happen because of "higher development" of the people. These hippies do nothing to push society forward, and hence they are not really the bleeding edge liberals they think they are. 

Leftist hippies are quite underdeveloped compared to many orange capitalists. It's a complicated topic that needs some uncovering on the systemic skipped & stunted development of the hippies. 

It’s not complicated at all. Of course liberal hippies stuck in utopian fantasies are mostly more developed than right wing, orange capitalists.

You just need to change your criteria for development.

The second major error you are making is equivocating liberals with out of touch hippies. This is a smear job of liberals. If you want to take the worst examples of liberals and use them as a point of comparison, then I get to take the worst examples of the right wing. Fair?

57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Utopias happen due to the grinding work of the capitalists and the so called right wing conservatives and the slave labour they employ. 

Being superior at driving slave labor does not make you more developed. It makes you less.

Also, consider that many top executives  are actually liberals. Look at silicon valley CEOs. Tons of liberals.

Society is evolving and Green / liberal style of leadership is being selected for. Because that is what is required as our development rises. Orange will be phased out, the Overton window will continue shifting and we will all become more like the liberals of today.

Liberals of today = right wing normies of tomorrow. 

57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

But you think they are underdeveloped and that's blatantly wrong. 

Underdeveloped on the whole, relative to stage Green liberals. This is, of course, a generalization and will not apply to all people along all lines of development. Development can be messy and non-linear in some respects, this you are correct about. 
 

57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Also the discussion is to find out who are the conservatives and who are the Liberals since people can speak of anything they want. That doesn't mean anything to their status of development. You should look at what they are *doing* to assess their development.

I’d somewhat agree with this. Looking at what people say is still a good idea, since what you *say* is also something you are *doing* and can reveal aspects of your development. It’s not totally disconnected. Words matter.

[Leo Gura]

As we said before, left and right are defined relatively, so yes you can find versions of left and right all along the Spiral, in the same way that you could take any length of rope, cut it at any point, and you will always have a left and right end.

In the future cyborg humans will be fornicating with hot space aliens and all of us here will be regarded as conservative savages.

Edited March 30 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Looking at what people say is still a good idea, since what you *say* is also something you are *doing* and can reveal aspects of your development. It’s not totally disconnected. Words matter.

Words do not matter at all. If you can assert that CCP, Putin, Xi, Kim are all right wing fanatics even though they purport textbook left wing nonsense, words do not matter at all.

Was Soviet Russia left wing or right wing? 

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Also, consider that many top executives  are actually liberals. Look at silicon valley CEOs. Tons of liberals.

Nah bro they are orange capitalists using liberal brainwashing to maintain their green image. They don't believe in the things they say. 

Google is pretty much like Soviet Union. Speak progressive stuff, and then do monopolistic capitalist stuff when no one is watching. Same with Microsoft and Apple. You cannot deny this because thier hypocrisy so obvious. 

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Being superior at driving slave labor does not make you more developed. It makes you less.

Well, you can judge them whatever you want. But if you want to create utopia, then you need plenty of slave labour. 

Liberals want to create utopia, but they are opposed to slave labour. They even employe slave labour in secrecy. Which is why I day they are not the liberals they think they are.

Look at actions. Google exploits slave labour. All those hippie silicon valley startups will lose their hippie outlook once they run out of investors money.

Apple literally exploits the living fuck out of third world countries and their lose laws on human rights. But they have a gay ceo so all is fine.

You are beyond naive when you say that capitalism is being phase out lmao. We have more capitalism than ever. 

This is why I say liberalism is a facade that can be maintained only by brainwashing people into being in a bubble. Apple wouldn't exist without slavery. Get that first. 

Do I blame Apple? Not really. They have created a fantastic product on top of exploiting slave labour from China and Bangladesh. Props to them. Congratulations to you as well now you can purport more liberal brainwashing on using products built from slave labour. 

So my question is to you is, is Apple left wing liberal or right wing conservative? 

[Nilsi]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

It’s not complicated at all. Of course liberal hippies stuck in utopian fantasies are mostly more developed than right wing, orange capitalists.

Capitalism is totally foreign to Spiral Dynamics. The force of capital is present at every stage and only becomes more sinister the further up the spiral it moves.

3 hours ago, aurum said:

Also, consider that many top executives  are actually liberals. Look at silicon valley CEOs. Tons of liberals.

Society is evolving and Green / liberal style of leadership is being selected for. Because that is what is required as our development rises. Orange will be phased out, the Overton window will continue shifting and we will all become more like the liberals of today.

This is the perfect example. Postmodern capitalism is being select for, because it is even more effective. The emphasis on flexibility and adaptability is ruthlessly exploited by capital interests, leading to increased precarity for workers, less job security, fewer benefits without corresponding increases in wages of quality of life. All aspects of life are increasingly commodified and mediated. The economy becomes dominated by signs and symbols (e.g. brands, images) rather than material goods. Identity and self-worth become increasingly tied to consumer choices. Most importantly, the idea that there is no alternative to this capitalist realism becomes internalized and limits the ability to work toward different social or economic ends.

It’s not hard to see how this is a distinct break from the rational enlightenment ideal of free market economy and it's promise of universal affluence and happiness and how it precisely coincides with the emergence and rise of the relativistic mind in western society.

Attributing capitalism to low development is the gravest of mistakes, and trivializes the pervasive force of capitalism to a dangerous degree. 

[Leo Gura]

@Nilsi The issue isn't capitalism, but excessive mindless capitalism.

People get so stuck in capitalism they never discover the higher aspects of life.

Edited March 30 by Leo Gura