Geromekevin

Leo is Wrong About Trump - Accountability Predictions

287 posts in this topic

14 minutes ago, Apparation of Jack said:

@Aeris The biggest danger to your own peace and liberty is your own ego. Be mindful of that. All the dangers of the world cannot touch you if you've broken down the illusions the devil has created to keep you trapped (and yes, I mean that literally, even falling bombs and insane murderers are no threat to you if your consciousness is high enough.)

@Angelo John Gage I'm done with this conversation. This is not a cop-out, it's just a recognition that there's no point in continuing a discussion with someone so blind to their own biases. Please don't think I'm trying to be rude to you, as another conscious human being I care about you and wish to see you grow and be well. But this is the truth of the matter and I have to say it.

 

ok my turn I totaly think this statement is true :

" Hitler was an angel of love who left too soon :'( " 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPEvvW3XUAAlfpv.jpg

do you agree ? @Apparation of Jack


NoBrainStorming x:/x: limit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Apparation of Jack @Apparation of Jack and literally all of that is false. 

I did learn white nationalist views and even was convinced at one point but left that behind, extracting only that which is true. Like i said, I went from left to ultra right now i am nothing.

Anti supremacist means that I do not dictate what others should live like, whether i agree with their ideas or not. If any person disagrees ans believes that their groups way should be spread by force agaonst the will of others, then they are by definition, supremacists.

Ive pissed off every side of the political spectrum including white nationalists lol. I'd say the same shit now if i were black or asian. The reason why all of you are assuming my position is becuae i am a white dude saying this and that's literally unacceptable. But if a person of color said it, its cool.

Talk about racism.

 

 

@GenuinePerspectiveXC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Aeris That depends on what my ego wants and what will help it survive. If I had a Nazi ego that wanted a white ethnostate in order for it to survive, it would agree with that statement. If I had a refugee ego that wanted a place to stay after fleeing war in order for it to survive, it would disagree with that statement.

The key thing I would try to keep in mind though is that in both cases, it would just be my ego trying to survive, rather than me actually experiencing Being without fear of survival. And I would try to choose the path that would make it easier for my ego to let go of that fear of survival (one based on love for all, self-care and courage), rather than a path that would make it harder to let go (one based on division, self-hate and fear.)

Edited by Apparation of Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ero @Apparation of Jack@GenuinePerspectiveXC like i said I'm all ears. Thst last statement was in direct response to previous ones because had i said the same things as a black man you wouldn't call me a white nationalist, hut a self hating black person or something. Again I'm also assuming why people are reacting this way too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Ero @Apparation of Jack@GenuinePerspectiveXC like i said I'm all ears. Thst last statement was in direct response to previous ones because had i said the same things as a black man you wouldn't call me a white nationalist, hut a self hating black person or something. Again I'm also assuming why people are reacting this way too. 

though you assume people judge your judgement because you are white. I think this is untrue, that is sort of the new white paranoia in usa. And there is truth to it, I've seen some debate talking about that and "white" defending themself with this now. But that become itself a falacious self defensive arguments.

maybe on a day to day with "average people", but surely not that much on this forum, this is one of the main thing here, we are so open minded it put in PTSD whatever begginer read us too much hahaha

 

you can only battle with ideas and arguments, put your little ego aside ( I m talking in the sky here, not to someone specific )

Edited by Aeris

NoBrainStorming x:/x: limit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aeris yes i should have no assumed that from people in this forum but i get that response constantly on Twitter lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are making assumptions and are unaware of it. If you studied this area extensively with an open mind, you would become aware of your assumptions , could learn and gain a clearer and deeper understanding.

From a genetics perspective, the statement “race does not exist” has as much partial truth as the statements you are making. Yet you cannot see this due to assumptions of what race is and the relationship between genetics and race. 

You are seeing this as a binary issue. In that you are right or wrong and what you say must be true or false. Searching for information online to support your view will only re-enforce a mindset of opposition. Thus will prevent a mind from seeing nuances and developing a deeper understanding. 

I am not saying what you write is 100% false or the articles you are posting are 100% false. This would be a blue/orange mindset. I am saying that there is a narrow interpretation causing a distorted view. 

In terms of SD, I am trying to communicate to you at a Yellow level that includes binary thinking as well as various levels of observations (e.g. molecular, organismal and social) and partial truths of perspectives dependent on contextualuzation. A contracted mind will not be open or able to see nuances or integration between various modes of analysis m. 

Sero, do you remember the conversation we had about the whole Jordan Peterson, Ken Wilber vs Leo discussion? I feel like you are still doing what I told you back then, but I think I can put it into more precise language now because I have observed myself doing it aswell.

I know you have good intentions but I feel like many of your posts come off not the way you want them to. You are not wrong, the problem is that you tell the truth in the way that it comes to you, rather unfiltered and without considering the state of the person you are communicating with. It's not a problem if the person you talk to is evolved enough to be detached from what you say, but that is rarely the case.

You for example told Angelo about his flaws and the limitations of his perspective. However, I know your goal is not to just state your opinion, I know your goal is to help Angelo evolve. I think a more effective methode is to kind of manipulate your student into seeing his limitations by himself. Instead of telling them directly where they are limited, make their mind wander into a direction so that they discover the limitation on their own. This is not necessary when talking to people who have integrated stage yellow well, because it's part of how the perceive the world, but anyone who has not will be likely to have their ego react against the truth if it is told to them directly.

Look at all of these statements:

"You are making assumptions and are unaware of it. "

"If you studied this area extensively with an open mind, you would become aware of your assumptions."

"Yet you cannot see this due to assumptions of what race is and the relationship between genetics and race. "

"You are seeing this as a binary issue. In that you are right or wrong and what you say must be true or false."

"A contracted mind will not be open or able to see nuances or integration between various modes of analysis m. "

You tell him what he sees, what he does, what his limitations are. You basically just state your observations to him. I think it would be more helpful to take a second and reflect upon how you can communicate this information in a way that will be helpful for Angelo, instead of just causing his ego to react to it. What kind of questions can you ask, what kind of statements can you make, so that he himself will attain this information by himself? This is in my opinon the challenge of becoming a Spiral Wizard. The Spiral Wizard must understand his student. I think you certainly have the capacity for that Sero, but I think you do not do it because you might have forgotten what it is to be more egoic and attached to your idenity. From your perspective, from your stage, what you say is helpful advice. From Angelos perspective it might be an attack, even if Angelo will not state it that way. Angelo wants to look as evolved as possible, so he will naturally not show want to show your his egoic reaction even if it is present. We cannot have an unfiltured, honest conversation with a being whose perspective is inherently distorted. We cannot just point to their distortion and expect them to find use in that.

We must guide, with the aid of their own perception of reality, to have them reflect in a way that will increase their consciousness, by virtue of their own awareness.

We are so to speak using their own faculties so that they create greater awareness and perspective, that way their ego will accept that perspective, because it was it's own creation. Currently you are giving him your own perspective, and lesser ego will have a tendency to repell that perspective if it undermines it's own perspective. An active ego must be manipulated into undermining it's own limited perspective to adopt a greater perspective.

 

A great teacher will teach in a way so that the student does not even know he is his teacher.

Edited by Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Serotoninluv I am open to any FACTS that would "update" my ignorance, yet I am provided nothing but vague statements like " you're blind to your biases" or " you don't get it." It seems to me both of you assuming who I am based on what I said, even when I said that what I'm saying doesn't represent ME, but I am stating facts. If I am INCORRECT about something, and it is demonstrably false, then you should be able to demonstrate how false it is.

So far I have yet to see this to be the case after years of having these debates with people. All I get is the same appeals to emotion or "you're ignorant."

I occasionally get requests to describe yellow level thinking. I haven’t engaged in this realm much the last couple months, since I have time off from academics. Yet thus situation is an excellent example for those wanting to transition from tier1 to tier2 yellow and are curious what yellow is like.

Before I post more thoughts, I want to stress that this is not personal. A core component of tier2 is impersonal dialog of ideas in which there is no “owner” of the ideas. This allows for a beautiful fluidity, merging and evolution as well as curiosity, awe and excitement. Yellow level explorations are much more enjoyable, rewarding and enriching than blue/orange level debates. 

As a teacher and researcher in genetics, I can say with certainty that you have gaps in your understanding of genetics. 

I have tried to reach out from a yellow level. It is clear there is disinterest, unwillingness and inability to recognize and utilize yellow level modes. As well, there are attachments to preconceived ideas and personal identification to such ideas. Being confined to blue/orange modes significantly restricts what I can convey to you. 

For example, I have said over and over that I am not saying what you write is 100% false. Rather, there are partial truths relative to context in what you write, yet due to extrapolation and your contextualization have become distorted. A yellow level thinker does not have personal attachments and is not defensive of an idea that is “mine”. As well, yellow understands “partial truths” and can see how statements can be relatively true or false depending on context. Also, yellow has an unattached openness and curiosity to view things from multiple levels and form integrated holistic views.  

Your responses to me indicate a strong contraction within blue/orange modes of thinking. This could be a great opportunity to evolve consciousness, yet there is strong resistance. For example, you believe that your ideas are “true or false” and insist that I show you how your ideas are false. I’ve said several times that the main block to learning here is a binary true vs false mentality. A deeper level of understanding would involve nuances and an ability to see relative contexts. When I stated that from a genetics perspective, the statement “race doesn’t exist” is partially true depending on context, you responded in a strongly defensive posture in which you posted articles to support a personal contextualization that you are unconsciously attached to as being universally true based on objective facts  (hallmarks of blue/orange thinking). 

If there one thing I would encourage to open, is the true vs false mentality. This is a blue level mode of thinking which I think is a primary chain restricting expansion in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scholar  I don't feel attacked by anyone nor do I have any egotistic mask to protect. That is not to say I have no ego, but it is to say that I'm not going to double down if I am incorrect. I am literally 100% open to new information to change what I understand to be true, if it is false. I take no offense at anyone here at all. The problem is, so far no one has shown me anything convincing me that anything I said was false. If I am wrong, great, that means I learn more. But if I am right, then it should be that people here learn more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv  I understand what you're saying now. It is like if you are 4 dimensional being, and I am a 3 dimensional being, you could see me but I cannot see you.

Well, to be honest, I haven't watched Leos entire series on spiral dyanmics but I did a brief research on it. What I mean to say is what I posted, such as you can tell someone's race by saliva is not false, nor is the idea that races have different hair types. Sure I'm no expert in genetics, nor claim to be, but I am simply debunking the idea some people promote that everything I said is false, that's all. But now I understand what you mean.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Scholar  I don't feel attacked by anyone nor do I have any egotistic mask to protect. That is not to say I have no ego, but it is to say that I'm not going to double down if I am incorrect. I am literally 100% open to new information to change what I understand to be true, if it is false. I take no offense at anyone here at all. The problem is, so far no one has shown me anything convincing me that anything I said was false. If I am wrong, great, that means I learn more. But if I am right, then it should be that people here learn more.

Do you feel like Sero's posts are helping you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I'm not trying to turn this thread into a conversation about me or what I am perceived to be or even the things I posted. If anyone wants to take this into private messages feel free. Not trying to further digress from the original topic. My only point was to make sure we address all angles of human nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scholar  yes I would subscribe to some parts of race-realism; especially the idea that there are races, but I know that is only has some predicting power. It is really only useful tool to use in medicine and statistics gathering. I reject the idea of making race-based policies as I am a person who promotes meritocracy. however, should a sovereign group choose to be super racists and mind their own business somewhere, that is none of my concern, nor is the opposite, if a group wanted to be super mixed everything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Serotoninluv  It is like if you are 4 dimensional being, and I am a 3 dimensional being, you could see me but I cannot see you. 

That is a great imagine that I love 🙏 

A few thoughts this imagery brings up for me:

I’ve been learning Spanish and at times it has been challenging and humbling for me. There have been times I’m with a native spanish speaker and I can sense they are at a fluent 4D position and can see things I cannot in my 3D position. Stuff I don’t even know exists. Yet that doesn’t mean I can’t help other students with their Spanish. I just have a more limited range than a Spanish teacher. 

Another example: humans have thee types of photo-receptor cones to create colors. The mantis shrimp has 12 types of cones.  That means the mantis shrimp can create hundreds of colors we humans don’t know exist. Not new combinations of our colors: entirely new colors humans can’t even imagine. In this case, the mantis shrimp is in the 4D position and humans are in the 3D position!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Scholar  yes I would subscribe to some parts of race-realism; especially the idea that there are races, but I know that is only has some predicting power. It is really only useful tool to use in medicine and statistics gathering. I reject the idea of making race-based policies as I am a person who promotes meritocracy. however, should a sovereign group choose to be super racists and mind their own business somewhere, that is none of my concern, nor is the opposite, if a group wanted to be super mixed everything.  

Exactly, so what exactly do people want from us? Is Sero just misinterpreting what we are saying? Did he and the others assume our positions are nationalistic because they are over oversensitive and are themselves deluded, thinking races are not real because they dont want them to be real?

But races being real would not mean that we would have to be racist, it's just a matter of fact, how the world is. We just want to be truthful even if that truth offends us, right? So what is all the fuss about?

Sero seems to have studied genetics himself, so he is an authority on the matter. But we know that scientists can be biased, they can be wrong, they can be deluded. How can we trust Sero, it seems like he didn't actually give us any arguments. Well, Sero is part a moderator on this forum so we will give him the benefit of the doubt. He can't be too deluded if he listens to Leo...

But does it seem like he is actually saying anything to us? What kind of arguments did he make to convince us? It seems like he doesn't even understand our position, so how what exactly is he talking about? Maybe it's just a misunderstanding and we just have to clarify our position more. Our opinion is not at all radical, I mean we basically state that black people are black people, and that genetics exist. How could that be wrong?

Sero talks so much about us, but he does not actually make us understand what we are saying that is wrong, right? What does this talk about Spiral Dynamics even have to do anything with this, we just said that races exist, nothing else!

 

 

Maybe Sero cannot help us? Maybe we need to help ourselves. Maybe we need to ask ourselves what races even are? What is the definition of a race?

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/race

Quote

A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.

What do they mean by more genetic variation within groups than between them? Well, there certainly have to be genetic differences between groups because there are clearly people with white skin and people with black skin. But wait a second, there are also people with big noses and small noses? Could we actually create a race out of big noses people and small nosed people? Why wouldn't we? Well, clearly some groups have more consistent genetic differences between them than others, so we just have to find these differences!

Maybe we just have to read the wikipedia article on race...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Scholar  "A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them. "

Their argument is silly. Its basically saying because the people within a race have a lot of variance among themselves, people of clearly different genotypical expressions and traits do not merit a race. This is like saying, because German shepherds come in all different shapes and sizes, that means all dogs are the same lol. Its laughable and stupid.

This is Lewontin's fallacy which is explained here. https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/lewontins-argument/

the site here is what I got if from and is a gold mine to debunk all anti-race denying nonsense. http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

My argument to these so-called experts is this: if race doesn't exist, why haven't we ever in history, seen two white people give birth to a black child, or two Asians give birth to a white child. Why do all Asians have black hair and light skin, why do all black people have brown eyes and coarse hair? Where are the green-eyed Japanese or Blonde haired Eskimos? NO where. The only time you will ever find a person that has traits not found in their core group is when they are mixed race, thus further proving race exists because they would not have had those trait shad they not mixed with a DIFFERENT racial partner whose group has those traits. There of course are outliers which people claim prove otherwise, such as African children with blue eyes, but turns out that mutation is actually a disease for them, just like albinism. None of what I am saying is hateful, nor pushing any specific political agenda. 

The reality is, we don't need help. We are not the ones denying what nature has clearly shown us with our own eyes. In order for anyone to debunk this position they have to literally say reality doesn't exist and what we see is an illusion, or some other nonsense. And they would have to disprove every post I made above showing genetic data.  

Edited by Angelo John Gage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Scholar  "A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them. "

Their argument is silly. Its basically saying because the people within a race have a lot of variance among themselves, people of clearly different genotypical expressions and traits do not merit a race. This is like saying, because German shepherds come in all different shapes and sizes, that means all dogs are the same lol. Its laughable and stupid.

This is Lewontin's fallacy which is explained here. https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/lewontins-argument/

the site here is what I got if from and is a gold mine to debunk all anti-race denying nonsense. http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

My argument to these so-called experts is this: if race doesn't exist, why haven't we ever in history, seen two white people give birth to a black child, or two Asians give birth to a white child. Why do all Asians have black hair and light skin, why do all black people have brown eyes and coarse hair? Where are the green-eyed Japanese or Blonde haired Eskimos? NO where. The only time you will ever find a person that has traits not found in their core group is when they are mixed race, thus further proving race exists because they would not have had those trait shad they not mixed with a DIFFERENT racial partner whose group has those traits. There of course are outliers which people claim prove otherwise, such as African children with blue eyes, but turns out that mutation is actually a disease for them, just like albinism. None of what I am saying is hateful, nor pushing any specific political agenda. 

The reality is, we don't need help. We are not the ones denying what nature has clearly shown us with our own eyes. In order for anyone to debunk this position they have to literally say reality doesn't exist and what we see is an illusion, or some other nonsense. And they would have to disprove every post I made above showing genetic data.  

The question is, how do we determine which traits or genes are defining a race? For example, why is skin or any other trait more relevant than the size of the nose?

If we put all big nosed people into one area and let them breed, wouldn't there be only big nosed people there, similar to how if we put black skinned people into one area and let them breed, there will be only black people as a result?

Is race tied to geographical location? If a white person and a black person have a child, it might come out as a mixed skinned child, like if a big nosed person had a baby with a small nosed people their nose would be mixed or either.

If we were to say we do not view big nosed people as their own race, what is the justification for that? Is it because they are intermingled with small nosed people and thus will have children with either small or big noses? And if that is true, if we just marry every black person to a white person would that race suddenly disappear because their children would be mixed?

We clearly need a group of genes or traits, but who decides how many traits is required for a race? Who decides what genes are relevant? And what does that mean for us, if we have to decide on it? And on what genes have we actually decided on? Why on these particular genes and not others?

 

Could we theoretically define race in a way that would allow us to have big nosed people and small nosed people as two distinct races?

 

Edited by Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.