JohnnyRocket

Jordan Peterson

238 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

All of the world's problems come from the lack of recognition of what any problem ultimately is. A choice.
It is a decision whether you want to change the circumstances (being ass-to-bellybutton with trying to control experience), or whether you want to adapt to them. God awareness has no problems. It is not a dichotomy of being vs doing.

Sure, there is a subjective experience of choosing. Yet, you seem to be assuming there is a chooser. Who is making the choice? Who is the chooser?

Another perspective is that the world's problems come from the delusion that they are choosing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

If AI is self-aware now, how can one determine if they are an AI or not?

We tend to define everything that has DNA as 'natural'.

If you have a self-aware AI that is not programmed by DNA, but programmed by computer code, that would qualify as 'artificial' I guess.

The distinction is arbitrary. I might as well say that you and I are AI. And I'm just as wrong/right as if someone are saying I'm a "NI". (Natural Intelligence). 


Can you bite your own teeth?  --  “What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Sure, there is a subjective experience of choosing. Yet, you seem to be assuming there is a chooser. Who is making the choice? Who is the chooser?

Another perspective is that the world's problems come from the delusion that they are choosing

That's surprisingly insightful.

What I meant is that once we recognize that changing ourselves in response to a situation is the same as changing the situation (solving the problem), then there is no 'me' that can benefit from anything. There is choice, but there is no chooser. All options are equivalent once we recognize the possibility of changing identity.

Also: the fact that there are problems is not a problem in itself. 


The true heresy is hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What I meant is that once we recognize that changing ourselves in response to a situation is the same as changing the situation (solving the problem), then there is no 'me' that can benefit from anything. There is choice, but there is no chooser. 

Would it not be better to say a change in perspective of a situation is the same as a change in the situation? That way, there is no “ourselves” that is changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CreamCat said:

What do you mean by two experiments? What are horizontal polarizations in tier 1 stages of Spiral Dynamics?

I suggest reading the eBook I referenced, "Trump and a post truth world".

By "horizontal polarizations" I was just playing with concepts. I meant something like "red bloods VS crips", "blue Christian vs Muslim", "orange Shell vs Exxon", "green vegan vs trans activist", "yellow meta conceptualization A vs meta conceptualization B".

Maybe call them "intra level polarization".

As you go up the spiral, the intra level polarization get's less harsh, but still exists, it only gets resolved when you move up a level and then the entire previous level is seen as an object.

I think the intra level polarization exists most strongly when different forms of a level exist and the people at that level have not yet integrated the other form.

For example, say there are two orange people, who are just starting to step into green. One becomes a vegan, the other a trans activist. At the beginning, both will be convinced they have The Answer to the Orange Problem, and that answer is either veganism, or trans activism. They might be quite militant about it, and dismiss the other cause as a competitor to their own cause. In a way it is, veganism and trans activism are conflicting for resources and change, but they are also cooperating in terms of restructuring a part of society towards compassion and love.

Heck, even within feminism there is a whole polarization around trans inclusive vs trans exclusive.

So I bet there are a bunch of green vegans were who initially appalled at the media attention and recent rise in consciousness about trans peoples experiences. As they became more familiar with the topic, and integrated it into their overall green identity, that horizontal intralevel polarization goes down.

I think this intralevel polarization won't completely disappear until people's identities are the same trans personal identity of pure consciousness.

I can't see yellow from beyond yellow, so I can't really say how intra level polarization between different forms of yellow look from a point of view where they have been transcended. But I suspect those conflicts and their illusionary nature become clear from turquoise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tsuki said:

Wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong.

Progress is not an imperative. It is a choice.
It is a choice in the sense of selecting a reference point and believing that it is constant.
It is a choice in the sense of selecting a method of measuring properties that describe it.
It is a choice in the sense of selecting the objective towards which we want to progress.
You cannot get rid of suffering through progress. If you lower suffering, a new baseline emerges and instead of suffering because of hunger, you suffer because of tinder.

All of the world's problems come from the lack of recognition of what any problem ultimately is. A choice.
It is a decision whether you want to change the circumstances (being ass-to-bellybutton with trying to control experience), or whether you want to adapt to them. God awareness has no problems. It is not a dichotomy of being vs doing.

@Joseph Maynor seems to be struggling because he is under the impression that you can acquire. or lose it.
Being a monk, or being the CEO of Apple makes no difference from this perspective.


Firstly I love how many wrong's I got!

6 x wrong. Come on, that's awesome!

I really love your enthusiasm. Honestly. I've got such hesitation in saying someone is flat out wrong, so it's really refreshing, and kinda freeing.

 

Yeah a new baseline emerges, and I would suggest that there is a correlation between the baseline, and the chances of passing through the gateless gate.

I don't have statistics on this, but I suspect the rates of realization of enlightenment are not uniform across cultures and time periods. Which would suggest these rates can be altered by things external to any individual human.

 

If Yellowstone super volcano erupts and civilization collapses for 200 years, what happens to the rates of people realizing enlightenment?
If the rates would change, then there is more going on then "choosing", or "individually being choiced", or however you frame it.

Which would then mean, right now, we could affect the rates of enlightenment realization in a positive way.

Right now as society, we could say "Here are 100 babies born in 2017 in Syria, lets now in 2018 decide to throw global support and $100 billion of resources towards the sole goal of getting these 100 babies enlightened." At a very minimum that would mean every single baby would have a dozen zen masters absolutely devoted to their growth and training for their entire life, from the age of 2 to 82. I bet the rates of enlightenment among those 100 babies would be higher than 100 other random babies born in Syria in 2017.

But we don't do that, because collectively, we decide that it isn't worth the trade off for what that global support and $500 billion of resources could do elsewhere. So that means fewer of those 100 Syrian babies realize enlightenment in their lifetime.

I think AI can change this, along with the incremental choices of billions of people and their bodyminds, along with shifts in culture, along with the sun pumping pure love into the earth in the form of photons which constantly power the whole circus parade into celebrations that are louder and louder.

Edited by Kosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would it not be better to say a change in perspective of a situation is the same as a change in the situation? That way, there is no “ourselves” that is changing.

Semantically, yes.
It feels like we're mismatched on what we mean by 'situation'. A highbrow discussion on the situation in the middle East may better correspond to 'perspective', but I was referring to more practical situations.

If the situation is the possibility of losing a job we care for, we have to be willing to become content with being unemployed, or even homeless.
If the situation is such that our child is being held for ransom, then... calling it just a change in perspective seems a little underwhelming.
This is why I was talking about changing identity. When identity and circumstances are equivalent, there is choice but there is no chooser.


The true heresy is hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kosmos said:

Firstly I love how many wrong's I got!

6 x wrong. Come on, that's awesome!

I really love your enthusiasm. Honestly. I've got such hesitation in saying someone is flat out wrong, so it's really refreshing, and kinda freeing.

Thank you :). I will take this at the face value.

22 minutes ago, Kosmos said:

If Yellowstone super volcano erupts and civilization collapses for 200 years, what happens to the rates of people realizing enlightenment?

Hm, and why is realizing enlightenment the ultimate purpose? Aren't you imposing things on other people this way?
Wouldn't it be okay if people did whatever they wanted, like they always did and always will?
Some of them would become interested in spirituality and perhaps it would be easier to become enlightened because of fewer technology?


The true heresy is hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Thank you :). I will take this at the face value.

Hm, and why is realizing enlightenment the ultimate purpose? Aren't you imposing things on other people this way?
Wouldn't it be okay if people did whatever they wanted, like they always did and always will?
Some of them would become interested in spirituality and perhaps it would be easier to become enlightened because of fewer technology?

You are welcome :)

I don't think "I" am imposing things on other people, because "I" don't really exist as a separate entity. I think (hehe, there I am!)... I think the universe is imposing things on the earth, which is imposing things on biology, which is imposing things on culture, which is imposing things on an individual's identity, which is imposing things on thought. There is constant imposition at all levels of causality. The universe is a giant impositioning, impositioninging itself. You take consciousness and matter, shake it up, throw in billions of years of love and you get actualized.org. That's billions of years of imposition, or love, or ever expanding consciousness, or God awareness trying to realize itself, or a self organizing structure to an emergent universe, or however you'd like to fragment reality into yummy little conceptualizations. When you said "Wrong", were you not trying to impose something "Right" on me?

When you just said "Aren't you imposing things on others in this way?" Was that not also a subtle imposition? The attempt to influence my thought process and impose your view in service of some outcome? "Be careful about imposing on others"? Why imply that? Why is it better to be careful about imposing than to be reckless about imposing?

We imposed an end to physical slavery, and financial slavery (no one starves in the West), we are working on imposing an end to emotional slavery (the whole green project), I don't see why an end to mental or conceptualization slavery wouldn't be on the cards at some point. The reason being, it is just a better and deeper and more beautiful way for existence to be and celebrate itself.

Had you or I been born to a wealthy family in the Roman empire, we might have "chosen" to support slavery.
What exactly is it that is underneath everything that has caused us to now "choose" not to support it?

To at least attempt to relate it back to Jordan Peterson... I think his conceptualization of 'heaven and hell', is an attempt to map these things. It is clearly an attempt to influence things, but also an attempt to describe the entire process of what "influence" means, what direction it points in and why.

Edited by Kosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kosmos Yes, I've seen JP's mystical experience video.

So what of it? He got a tiny glimpse but not deep enough to understand what it really was.

Stage Blue people commonly have mystical experiences which they misinterpret in a dualistic, ethnocentric manner. Plenty of Evangelicals see Jesus.

The fact that it takes JP 20 minutes to mumble his way through a conversation about God clears shows he does not know what God is.

JP's intuition is right: God is real. But God is not anything JP thinks it is. God is total nihilism. Zero.

The tragedy of JP's situation is that his entire philosophy is denying him access to God.

If you follow JP, you will almost certainly never find God.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Kosmos Yes, I've seen JP's mystical experience video.

So what of it? He got a tiny glimpse but not deep enough to understand what it really was.

Stage Blue people commonly have mystical experiences which they misinterpret in a dualistic, ethnocentric manner. Plenty of Evangelicals see Jesus.

The fact that it takes JP 20 minutes to mumble his way through a conversation about God clears shows he does not know what God is.

In the same interview he referenced the mystical experiences the Bhgavad Gita is based on, and also him having experience with LSD, so I doubt he interpreted that experience as Jesus. He described it by calling his description a metaphor. Evangelicals don't see metaphors.

He glimpsed a few hairs on the ox's tail perhaps? ;) I wonder how deep one has to see to understand what it really is.

Also, are your average videos on God shorter or longer than 20 minutes....? Does a long explanation necessarily mean lack of understanding? or can it also demonstrate complexity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tsuki said:

This is why I was talking about changing identity. When identity and circumstances are equivalent, there is choice but there is no chooser.

Identity is part of the personality structure. I suppose it can be helpful at times to placate the personality to relax the mind-body. Yet it’s easy to fall into a trap of believing it’s actually true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kosmos said:

I suggest reading the eBook I referenced, "Trump and a post truth world".

By two experiments, did you mean Trump's Orange and PC's Green?

3 hours ago, Kosmos said:

For example, say there are two orange people, who are just starting to step into green. One becomes a vegan, the other a trans activist. At the beginning, both will be convinced they have The Answer to the Orange Problem, and that answer is either veganism, or trans activism. They might be quite militant about it, and dismiss the other cause as a competitor to their own cause. In a way it is, veganism and trans activism are conflicting for resources and change, but they are also cooperating in terms of restructuring a part of society towards compassion and love.

Green-Yellow is not neurotic about taking attention away from other kinds of Green activists.

Universal Basic Income(UBI) is a good example of Green-Yellow. It has a Green cause but is not nearly as neurotic about pushing its agendas as other Green activisms. Green without Yellow is quite neurotic about pushing its version of Green. It tells other versions of Green to adopt its world view because if the other Greens are not thinking about its version of Green, then those Greens are egoic and selfish.

Blue and Green are quite pushy and annoying to those who don't subscribe to specific world views. Different versions of Blue and Green push and annoy each other. They also do this to other stages of Spiral Dynamics. Blue and Green are good at making people believe their issues are far more important than curing excesses of Red and Orange. I was once fooled for a while, too.

Red is still a problem to Blue and Green. Psychopathy(Red) infects various organizations and groups. Orange has excesses, but Red is more destructive. Red is deception and manipulation. Red often turns Green into its fools, but Green is often not aware of this. When this happens, Red makes Green make bids on behalf of Red.

Edited by CreamCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kosmos I watched a 2 hr debate on God by JP and Matt Dillahunty.

In those 2 hours he never once said what God is. Because he does not know.

I can tell you what God is in two words: Absolute Infinity


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found it very valuable to come across Leo's warnings about JP's teachings because I was following him for a while and he is very convincing and speaks intelligently. So the danger was accepting most of what he was saying, when he would be slipping in his political views and I was unknowingly absorbing them all (seeing Post-Modernism as a threat to western society, with nothing positive about it, threats about the far left, basically stage green going too far). However, not everything he says on these points are false, Bill C-16 was an over-stretch by the Canadian government and is antagonistic of free speech. Also his claims were easy to buy into with all the craze that was going on on college campuses against him, and the whole Lyndsey Shepard affair. 

Although I know that these excesses of Green have been pointed out already in Leo's videos, and clearly there's an over-demonisation by JP I can see that now, but he's not totally wrong in every case he makes on this in my view either. The greatest value I've gained from him has been on the topic of responsibility and getting your act together he's motivated me a lot in that area and many others like me.

With the necessary filters in place of what to listen to and what not to pay attention to with his videos, then there's real value still to be gained.

Edited by Letsimprove
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Letsimprove said:

Although I know that these excesses of Green have been pointed out already in Leo's videos, and clearly there's an over-demonisation by JP I can see that now, but he's not totally wrong in every case he makes on this in my view either.

According to https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Post-Truth-World-Ken-Wilber/dp/1611805619

Ken Wilber thinks there is a lot of dysfunctional elements in Green at this moment. He calls it mean-green-meme. He thinks red individuals infected green movements, and green individuals let Red run their psyche. The result is that Red speaks the language of Green. To me, it was very obvious even before reading excerpts from that book because I was interested in spotting psychopaths.

Once Green starts getting rid of its extremist elements, its own psychopaths, and its Red tendencies, it will become a lot better.

Here are exerpts from the book.

2018-09-08_Sat_01:12:57.png

2018-09-08_Sat_01:13:08.png

Edited by CreamCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Letsimprove said:

but he's not totally wrong in every case he makes

Nobody is totally wrong.

Hitler was not totally wrong.

Every perspective always has some grain of truth in it.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura haha spot on

On 8/14/2018 at 0:09 PM, Leo Gura said:

Tone is the least of JP problems.

The deep structural issue is that he is programming his fans with stage Blue mentality, against Green. It stifles movement up the Spiral, which is what's necessary for people to find God. So he's shooting his own fans in the foot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CreamCat Wilber criticizes Green from above. Peterson criticizes Green from below.

It's very important to distinguish where the criticism is coming from and what the proposed solutions are.

It's possible to criticize Trump, for example, for not being conservative enough -- the way a Nazi might criticize him. That does not make the Nazi a good guy to listen to.

P.S. I don't find Wilber an astute political analyst. At this point in time the moderate right wing is a far greater threat than any potential radical left. What goes on in universities should not be compared to what is going on at the national level. There are no serious radical leftist voices in mainstream politics at all. You do not see socialism being seriously discussed in mainstream American politics AT ALL. No one is talking about elimination of private property.

When you start seeing serious political pundits on CNN advocating for abolition of private property, THEN you might have a point to worry about some sort of radical leftism movement. Until then, it's a tempest in a teapot.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

At this point in time the moderate right wing is a far greater threat than any potential radical left. What goes on in universities should not be compared to what is going on at the national level. There are no serious radical leftist voices in mainstream politics at all.

In my country, radical feminism has been meddling with national politics. They have infiltrated mainstream politics. They have been demanding rights for women to sue men for sexual abuse without a shirt of evidence in the court of law. There have been attempts to pass laws that allow it. When the court of law considers a man as guilty of a crime without a shirt of evidence, con artists and psychopaths will flood the gate. It seems to me that radical feminists want to elevate certain classes of women to the nobility. Quite psychopathic. Whether or not those radical feminists are a real threat, they are deplorable in my view point. They are often seen fantasizing about killing men. It's pure psychopathy that doesn't even try to hide. However, some major newspapers sympathize with those radical feminists.

You said Feminism is Green. In my country, feminism is quite Red.

I have seen how Green assimilates Red as Ken Wilber described. It can happen in some sectors of the globe.

That said, right wing can be destructive in its own ways, but I don't find moderate right wing as deplorable to my taste. At least, it's not nearly as psychopathic. Right wing has been squeezing free labor out of men for decades, though. We are shaken from left and right. So, if I consider destructive effects on me, both left and right have been fairly effective.

My point is that right wing tends to keep low profile, but radical left likes to get attention through psychopathic antics.

Edited by CreamCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now