Leo is Wrong About Trump - Accountability Predictions

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

@Scholar I would be happy to teach fundamentals of genetics to open minds (it’s my job after all). Yet rather than an openness to learn, what I sense here is people with incomplete and poor understandings of genetics attached to their own views that want to debate and defend their views unaware of underlying assumptions. What you wrote on relativism touches upon this, yet it goes levels deeper.

If you would like to engage in a substantive intermediate to advanced level genetics debate, we would first need to establish some grounding. It is apparent to me that that there is a lack of fundamental fundamental understanding to even base such a debate upon. So I first ask that you define the criteria you would like to use to define an allele. This is a nuanced term and definitions from wiki won’t go nearly deep enough. I am open to several ways we could define how we will use the term. I prefer a more expansive usage that includes all potential sequence variations, yet I’m open to more restrictive parameters to constrain the discussion within manageable limits. In this case, please include a description of how you will narrows down the nearly infinite number of potential alleles in non-coding and intronic regions and how this is relevant to race. As well, tell me your criteria for which alleles and what allelic frequencies at the population level you will be using as thresholds to determine race and your rationale for doing so. 

Without doing the above, one is making assumptions about what an allele is and that there is an objective set of allelic sequences and frequency distributions we can use for a debate on race. In my view, this is where the debate begins. If we cannot agree on how we will define relevant allelic sequences and combinations of allelic frequencies, we will not be on the same page and all sorts of misunderstandings will arise.

Nothing I said represents my positions, my previous two posts were templates for you as to how you might want to approach this conversation differently. I am using Angelo as a guinea pig, since I have revealed to you my position in the post that was addressing your way of communicating with him, I don't think it's likely that my manipulations with him will take fruit, though they can reveal something to you that might be lacking in your approach.

Notice that I said "We" in the post where I was telling Angelo about the wikipedia articles, it was secretly a communication to you so that you could see how he views your attempt to help him. The wikipedia articles were a way so as to make Angelo aware of his own position and that it had a name "Race realism" and the following posts were subtle manipulations into the direction I want Angelo to take. I am intentionally not revealing the full truth of deconstructionism to him because I know he first needs to learn the most basic objections, and I am attempting to make him question it himself, not fully successfully, but the major point was to make you see that different approaches might be more appropriate than just tell him what you have arrived at from your level of consciousness and education.

 

I don't know a lot about genetics and I am not that interested in it, I am sure you know far more about it than me. My message to you is about learning how to effectively manipulate a student into questioning his own perspective, from his own intiative, from a spark of consciousness that came as a result of an action that his ego found appropriate. Did you read the post that was addressing your teaching methodes?

[Angelo John Gage]

The reality is, certain groups do not possess the same genes as others; thus, like I gave examples of, we will never see two Asians produce a black baby. It is literally impossible. If races did not exist, then any two human beings could produce all of the various diversities that we see among different populations. If race didn't exist, two Asians could produce a black baby. Two blacks could produce a white baby. In other words, two german shepards would be able to produce poodles at random, but never happens.

As I explained above, german shepherds come in all shapes and sizes; with different noses, fur color, fur patterns, thickness etc. The genetic variaence within a race does not automatically mean that everything outside is of that group doesn't exist.

How do you tell a white person from an Asian or black person? Asians have epicanthic folds, which are not found in whites. Whites also don't' have black skin or course hair. Those are just two of the many ways you can distinguish ones race; aside from saliva, DNA, bone, skulls and more. The denial of race leads to morons claiming to be trans-racial and use that to push their little agenda. Shawn King is an example. Racheal Dolezal, pretending she was a black woman. Elizabeth Warren, claiming she was native American lol. If there is no biological base to race, then anyone can claim anything.   

[Aeris]

15 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

@Scholar I would be happy to teach fundamentals of genetics to open minds (it’s my job after all). Yet rather than an openness to learn, what I sense here is people with incomplete and poor understandings of genetics attached to their own views that want to debate and defend their views unaware of underlying assumptions.

If a beginning student of English came to me to help, I would be happy to help. Yet if a beginning student came to me with an assumption that they speak English fluently, want me to prove I’m fluent in English and want to debate in English when they don’t speak the language.

In my experience, openness is critical for learning. For a mind that as lots of blocks, I’ve found it more important to release those blocks. 

 

Please I m all for it' I enjoyed a lot Robert Sapolsky introduction on YouTube if you know about

why not create a free Channel on YouTube with donation ?

I know it's a bit of work but it could still financial help.

you have I believe a really good teaching when you write. You enjoy teaching and I m sure you would convey your experience to share on your own unique view on those subjects.

Lots of your powerful posts are losts in chunked data of this forum.

Spiritual biology 3.0

[Angelo John Gage]

@Scholar  right you assume I need help, but I don't. So far, no one has debunked anything I posted. All I got was "but you don't get it" and "you have to transcend true vs falsehood lol. If that is the case, that everything here is meaningless and no one has the right to debate at any position or use any science or any experience or anything whatsoever to make any point because its both true and false simultaneously. Reality doesn't work like that. Its nonsense to be frank. And when you await for someone to even address a single point made ,"you don't get it bro, you're stage blue/orange. Well, here I just made up stage Gray. Stage Gray is super beyond Turquoise and green and no one even knows what it is, thus everything you say is false, but its not false because stage Gray includes fallacies and treats them as truths because that's what I observed. You cannot stage Gray doesn't because who are you to deny it? Have you experienced it? No? You don't get stage Gray or where I am coming from, thus it is a waste of time to speak to you AND I do not need to debunk your phony nonsense. This is the equivalent as a Christian apologist saying " well god works in mysterious ways" when they cannot produce a SHRED of proof for ANY of their beliefs in anyway.  Telling someone because they are in some stage which some guys made up is the reason you cannot address ANYTHING they said with any facts, its  cop out of the highest order.

That's what I'm getting here so far and its quite silly if you ask me. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Angelo John Gage

[Scholar]

Just now, Angelo John Gage said:

@Scholar  right you assume I need help, but I don't. So far, no one has debunked anything I posted. All I got was "but you don't get it" and "you have to transcend true vs falsehood lol. If that is the case, that everything here is meaningless and no one has the right to debate at any position or use any science or any experience or anything whatsoever to make any point because its both true and false simultaneously. Reality doesn't work like that. Its nonsense to be frank. And when you await for someone to even address a single point made ,"you don't get it bro, you're stage blue/orange. Well, here I just made up stage Gray. Stage Gray is super beyond Turquoise and green and no one even knows what it is, thus everything you say is false, but its not false because stage Gray includes fallacies and treats them as truths because DMT. This is the equivalent as a Christian apologist saying " well god works in mysterious ways" when they cannot produce a SHRED of proof for ANY of their beliefs in anyway. 

I think Serotonin needs help, not you. Your position about race is not that relevant to me. You might as well be wrong about what the names of saturn's moons are.

[Angelo John Gage]

@Scholar  Its not my position lol. I didn't make human beings. 

[Aeris]

14 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

The reality is, certain groups do not possess the same genes as others; thus, like I gave examples of, we will never see two Asians produce a black baby. It is literally impossible. If races did not exist, then any two human beings could produce all of the various diversities that we see among different populations. If race didn't exist, two Asians could produce a black baby. Two blacks could produce a white baby. In other words, two german shepards would be able to produce poodles at random, but never happens.

As I explained above, german shepherds come in all shapes and sizes; with different noses, fur color, fur patterns, thickness etc. The genetic variaence within a race does not automatically mean that everything outside is of that group doesn't exist.

How do you tell a white person from an Asian or black person? Asians have epicanthic folds, which are not found in whites. Whites also don't' have black skin or course hair. Those are just two of the many ways you can distinguish ones race; aside from saliva, DNA, bone, skulls and more. The denial of race leads to morons claiming to be trans-racial and use that to push their little agenda. Shawn King is an example. Racheal Dolezal, pretending she was a black woman. Elizabeth Warren, claiming she was native American lol. If there is no biological base to race, then anyone can claim anything.   

I don't deny race but what's the point of knowing this for you ? What does it change ? If there is a point to make that's probably cultural values. Genetic play more a role of passive.

For me there is race and if they are one thing about them

they all succeed equally in stupidity 

Does that makes everyone stupid ?

Edited July 22, 2019 by Aeris

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Scholar  Its not my position lol. I didn't make human beings. 

Yes you did.

[Forestluv]

@Scholar

I just realized your templates were not your true positions. I’m also interested in pedagogy and I’m aware I have room for growth. Personally, I don’t have much patience for those with attachments to contracted, incomplete views in certain areas. In particular, people using science in distorted ways to support and promote a view that is unhealthy at a population level.

I’m more concerned of impact at the collective consciousness level than at the individual conscious level. For example, the statement that “drinking wine prevents cancer” is partial and highly misleading. If someone is attached to this view and unwilling to learn about the nuances of this from an actual cancer researcher, that’s one thing. Yet such statements can have unhealthy impact at the collective level, it can perpetuate misunderstandings. Especially if the person seems to have some knowledge and is pasting science articles.

Science is often used in partially inaccurate and misleading ways to further an agenda. This can have toxic effects effects at the population level. For example, using partially inaccurate and misleading statements to advance misconceptions about genetics, race and intelligence. This has real world effects. I teach plenty of students that have been conditioned with such misconceptions. I spend a lot of time deconditioning it.Time that could have spent with actual learning and skill building. As well, it is used as rational to perpetuate misconceptions at the population level - driving racial divisions. I think it’s important for scientists to step in and say “wait a minute, that’s not quite the science of it”. I’m much more interested in the collective impact than individual impact. I am aware Angelo is not receptive, yet there are people reading this thread that are receptive and transitioning to a higher conscious level. Everytime I write one of these types of threads, I get PMs from users asking about genetics as well as transiting into yellow. 

[Dragallur]

@Angelo John Gage Perhaps when you talk about IQ and such you are underestimating how much effect their background has. Not just who their parents are but if they grew in rich country and so on. Actually people who come from 3rd world countries to 1st world and get properly integrated into the society do get similar to the locals, they also have less children and so on.. I think green perspective is to call for open borders while yellow perspective is to help those people in complex way, integrate them, teach them your language and show them what it is like to live in a 1st world country. You can not do this with so many people at once of course but if you help them you will benefit too.

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar

I just realized your templates were not your true positions. I’m also interested in pedagogy and I’m aware I have room for growth. Personally, I don’t have much patience for those with attachments to contracted, incomplete views in certain areas. In particular, people using science in distorted ways to support and promote a view that is unhealthy at a population level.

I’m more concerned of impact at the collective consciousness level than at the individual conscious level. For example, the statement that “drinking wine prevents cancer” is partial and highly misleading. If someone is attached to this view and unwilling to learn about the nuances of this from an actual cancer researcher, that’s one thing. Yet such statements can have unhealthy impact at the collective level, it can perpetuate misunderstandings. Especially if the person seems to have some knowledge and is pasting science articles.

Science is often used in partially inaccurate and misleading ways to further an agenda. This can have toxic effects effects at the population level. For example, using partially inaccurate and misleading statements to advance misconceptions about genetics, race and intelligence. This has real world effects. I teach plenty of students that have been conditioned with such misconceptions. I spend a lot of time deconditioning it.Time that could have spent with actual learning and skill building. As well, it is used as rational to perpetuate misconceptions at the population level - driving racial divisions. I think it’s important for scientists to step in and say “wait a minute, that’s not quite the science of it”. I’m much more interested in the collective impact than individual impact. I might not resonate with Angelo, yet may resonate with 10 people that are transitioning to a higher conscious level.

Then my assumptions were wrong, I assumed you were attempting to aid Angelo in some way. I guess I can't really blame you, I did the same to Angelo you did, the poor guy, abused for the greater good.

[Joseph Maynor]

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I guess I can't really blame you, I did the same to Angelo you did, the poor guy, abused for the greater good.

Examine your own energy.  God is wholesome and tolerant of other people's limitations.  I'm not saying Angelo is limited either.  

Edited July 22, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Then my assumptions were wrong, I assumed you were attempting to aid Angelo in some way. I guess I can't really blame you, I did the same to Angelo you did, the poor guy, abused for the greater good.

It was both. Yet if this was a one-on-one conversation, I would not have invested time into it.

The risk I take doing this within a thread is coming across as condescending and arrogant. That is one of the hardest parts of being a so-called “spiral wizard”. At the human level, one of “my” weaknesses is engaging at blue/orange levels with people that want to debate. There is an inherent dynamic at these levels that there is an “I” that is right and a “you” that is wrong. I rarely engage like this these days, yet genetics is kinda my baby and I get triggered when I see people throwing it around like a rag doll. 

[Dragallur]

@Serotoninluv How would you say one discerns between somebody starting debate/conversation on orange or yellow level? What would be the immediate difference that you would spot?

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It was both. Yet if this was a one-on-one conversation, I would not have invested time into it.

The risk I take doing this within a thread is coming across as condescending and arrogant. That is one of the hardest parts of being a so-called “spiral wizard”. At the human level, one of “my” weaknesses is engaging at blue/orange levels with people that want to debate. There is an inherent dynamic at these levels that there is an “I” that is right and a “you” that is wrong. I rarely engage like this these days, yet genetics is kinda my baby and I get triggered when I see people throwing it around like a rag doll. 

But you don't need to engage from their system of operation. You don't need to be orangey so that they listen to you, often we need to realize that they will not be able to change their opinion about the topic of contention. For example, you can't convince a fundamentalist Muslim that all is God, and it's futile to even talk about it, or to argue it. What helpful however is to bring him a step closer to that truth, and maybe that step is to somehow get him to question some of the muslim principles, and not even directly, maybe just plant a seed that some day might come to fruition.

It might not at all come to fruition, but sometimes the planting of the smallest, weakest seed might be the best we can do, even if it is very unlikely that it will take root. Sometimes there is no other potential, and the smallest potential must be sought.

With the ego we need to be careful so that it never suspects it is taught when it is not really willing to be taught. When teaching things that go contrary to the identity, it is imporant for the ego to be manipulated into changing itself, as outside influence is being defended against.

 

Holy shit I just realized it is basically Inception... like the movie Inception. That is exactly what a Spiral Wizard must do!

[Forestluv]

36 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But you don't need to engage from their system of operation. You don't need to be orangey so that they listen to you, often we need to realize that they will not be able to change their opinion about the topic of contention.

Holy shit I just realized it is basically Inception... like the movie Inception. That is exactly what a Spiral Wizard must do!

Thanks for your impressions. I can now see the dynamics with better clarity. In particular, I used way too much personification. Statements like “your statement of ‘abc’ shows you have a deficiency in ’xyz’” creates personality dynamics. Impersonal statements such as “the statement ‘abc’ does not include the relative nature of ’xyz’” are much better. Not only does it reduce personifying the other person, it reduces the personification of a “me”. As soon as someone says “you”, that immediately creates a “me” (since there is no “you” without a “me” relative to “you”). Stating “you have a deficiency” is inherently also saying “I don’t have this deficiency and I am able to judge that you have the deficiency”. This adds in all sorts of underlying personality dynamics that alter the energetics and are a distraction. A core component of yellow is that these types of personality dynamics are transcended and ideas are appearing without personal ownership and identification. . . One of the most challenging aspects is not drifting into a “I am right, you are wrong dynamic” or that in someway I am better/more developed than you. 

I also like your point about self reflection - it’s much better than self defense posture.

Also, I went into a weird orange/yellow hybrid state in which I tried to establish orange level credibility and grounding, yet used yellow level abstraction that would appear highly ambiguous, irrational and irrelevant from an orange perspective. . . I like your comment that the specific topic of race was as relevant as saturns moons. . . 

[Angelo John Gage]

@Serotoninluv  

 

Quote

Science is often used in partially inaccurate and misleading ways to further an agenda. This can have toxic effects effects at the population level. For example, using partially inaccurate and misleading statements to advance misconceptions about genetics, race and intelligence. This has real world effects. I teach plenty of students that have been conditioned with such misconceptions. I spend a lot of time deconditioning it.

Again, this is an appeal to consequent fallacy. You assume people who promote race realism and back it with facts, such as the Barny-style examples I gave that two black people will never make an Asian baby, have an agenda to do what exactly? Tell the truth? The reality is, the opposite is the case; those who deny race and are pushing globalism with massive migration have a literal plan, you can look up the Kalergi Plan. Furthermore, George Soros, a student of Karl Popper, pushes for open societies. None of this can be sold to anyone if they believe race-realism is true, thus they must push nonsense that it is not true in order to convince the population that people from Sub Sahara Africa are going to blend right in perfectly with Swedes with zero repercussions whatsoever lol. We can see, across the entire planet, these open-society policies failing miserably; leading to riots and all the sorts of disorder and chaos. We see even native population being demonized in their own countries; politicians celebrating the mass immigration and displacement of their own. Celebrating that "Europeans will become a minority in Europe." Even the Dali Lama noticed this insanity. 

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Angelo John Gage

[Scholar]

32 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Thanks for your impressions. I can now see the dynamics with better clarity. In particular, I used way too much personification. Statements like “your statement of ‘abc’ shows you have a deficiency in ’xyz’” creates personality dynamics. Impersonal statements such as “the statement ‘abc’ does not include the relative nature of ’xyz’” are much better. Not only does it reduce personifying the other person, it reduces the personification of a “me”. As soon as someone says “you”, that immediately creates a “me” (since there is no “you” without a “me” relative to “you”). Stating “you have a deficiency” is inherently also saying “I don’t have this deficiency and I am able to judge that you have the deficiency”. This adds in all sorts of underlying personality dynamics that alter the energetics and are a distraction. A core component of yellow is that these types of personality dynamics are transcended and ideas are appearing without personal ownership and identification. . . One of the most challenging aspects is not drifting into a “I am right, you are wrong dynamic” or that in someway I am better/more developed than you. 

Also, I went into a weird orange/yellow hybrid state in which I tried to establish orange level credibility and grounding, yet used yellow level abstraction that would appear highly ambiguous, irrational and irrelevant from an orange perspective. . . I like your comment that the specific topic of race was as relevant as saturns moons. . . 

Unlike in the Peterson/Wilber thread I feel like this time we understood each other better. I think part of the trickiness is just the sort of empathy or understanding that is required to navigate someone elses ego in a way that it will actually benefit them, especially in a forum where much of the information needed to get more accurate reads are lacking. For example, you might notice someone not reacting well to what you say immediately in a conversation whereas in a forum people can talk past each other entirely without really noticing.

In the end I think it's best to look at this as it's own area of mastery. It takes deliberate practice, which involves much failure and mistake, so as to get better at it. And maybe Forum Spiral Wizardry is in itself a different kind of skill from in person Wizardry, as many things are just different in these kinds of interaction. I myself used to think that at some point one would be infallible and just be able to manipulate everyone into a higher stage with just enough skill in Spiral Wizardry, but it does definitely seem like it is limited in many ways. It's not always possible to change someone at all, or it might require a lot of effort.

 

For me the lesson of the day is to recognize that communication is limited and that often the truth must be conceiled in the favor of... well the truth. It's quite interesting how saying the truth can sometimes lead to more delusion, whereas delusion might lead to the discovery of truth. It's not really a lie because when the truth cannot be received by the recipient, it is not really the truth. The truth must always be in direct awareness, and only one's own consciouscness can truly create that awareness. All the others can do is hint at it.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Scholar

[Emeline]

@Leo Gura @Angelo John GageSorry but if you are looking for a libertarian who has a keen sense of political history and know how government works, then you have found me. I am not an orange young American libertarian though, and I understand why you do not support them . Because that is true, most of them are deeply ignorant, deluded, naive and selfishly orange ... But Leo please you have no right to say that libertarianism is ahistorical... It is ahistorical in U.S for sure ( sort of) but for a good reason and because of that, now you mostly have that kind of deluded young ignorant orange males as « libertarians » ... They know nothing about libertarianism history they know nothing about European anarchist movements and the different anarchist school of thoughts ...And Leo do you really think you know European history especially political European history, better than I do ? Anarchists are a big part of European history trust me ... Have you ever heard about Socrate the Stoicists and the Cynics, ever heard about Rabelais, Rousseau, the French Revolution, ever heard about La Commune in Paris, ever read Les Misérables written by Victor Hugo, ever heard about Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotknin, Emma Goldberg, Makhno, Malatesta, the Spanish revolution, even May 68 ? Have you ever heard about Sacco and Vanzetti ?  they told you they were crazy violent anarchist murderers and that is why you now think anarchy has no history, but don’t you count European history as history as well? Anarchy is one of the most powerful critique  of the pseudo libertarianism of contemporary neoliberalism, and so very workable to whatever we, citizens, want it to be ... I have to admit that if most of the citizens of the world are blue and orange it is going to be kind of complicated, some may argue it is too soon and that people are not ready yet ...But then, you still can think of transitional stages and kind of « governments » ...

[Angelo John Gage]

@Emeline  The only problem is there never was an example of true anarchy in history. If a group of people want try to form an anarchy society somewhere, good luck to them. And yes, I understand that the Antifa thugs do not represent true anarchy. I am more of a statist myself, since I believe that is the only way to have a civilization with high living standards. I don't see how a truly anarchy society would even function and if the standard of living would be high. But again, I'm not here to judge nor do I care what people believe is the best govt for them. My position as an anti-supremacist is that all human beings should be able to form whatever govts they want and live in peace, without need to justify why the prefer that way of life to anyone.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Angelo John Gage