Cultural Appropriation is a Non-Issue

[Matt8800]

24 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

No, Green understands cultural appropriation and the harm it causes to marginalized groups. This isn't just an intellectual thing. You will need to evolve beyond an Orange level intellectual analysis. 

You are giving an Orange-level argument. It is essentially the "color blind" argument. That is: we should be color-blind and just see everyone as individuals. At an Orange level, that is resistance to Green - resistance to understanding/embodying the relative experience of others - in particular marginalized/ostracized groups. . . At stage yellow, there can be a return of the "color blind" perspective, yet it is integrated with understanding/emodiment of Green - which your argument lacks.

That is Orange looking up and Green. It is a major misunderstanding of cultural appropriation. 

This is a major block that filters out A LOT. . . It filters out a lot of overt prejudice and filters out implicit biases. 

Imo, this is one of the major Orange lenses that creates distortion and resistance to Green. 

This is one dynamic that can be included in an integrated Yellow-level view. The problem is that you haven't emodied/integrated Green, so it becomes a contracted Orange-level view. You are hyper-focused on Orange-level individual consciousness and are not seeing the integration of individual and collective consciousness. 

As a more extreme example to make the point: it would be like saying being a black slave is just the personification of being part of a slave group - it's an idea that you can attribute the attributes of a slavery group to every individual slave. This fails to consider both individual and group dynamics. . . It is an Orange view that is resistance to evolution up to Green. 

Orange logical arguments can be very intellectually sophisticated. Orange can go into genius zones. Yet it isn't Yellow, in part because it doesn't have understanding/embodiment of Green and doesn't integrate Green. Reading about Green and intellectually analyzing Green is not Green and will not lead to embodiment. 

@Serotoninluv Green would believe that yellow is orange. Green would believe that yellow is small minded and short-sighted.

[Scholar]

45 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv Green would believe that yellow is orange. Green would believe that yellow is small minded and short-sighted.

More importantly, however, is that orange would believe itself to be yellow.

[Zizzero]

@Serotoninluv I wont respond to your two posts. The reason is that I don't believe that you are interested i hearing what I have to say.

In the several arguments that you and I have had on this forum, you have repeatedly:

• Made assumptions about me which presented me in a bad light - ad hominem
• Attributed me with bad motives - ad hominem as well
• Ignored questions I asked
• Falsely characterized my position - Strawman

A thread in which you did all three - in case you want to check whether I'm saying the truth - is the Greta Thunberg thread

All you really do everytime you quote on of my posts is to ignore the arguments I made and put the label "stage orange" onto me which conveniently reliefs you from the duty to engage with what I say to prove how the claims you disagree with are wrong. So, instead of arguing the point, you put me into a spot where I have to argue why I'm not stage orange (btw a claim you have no basis to make since - and that I told you several times as well - you don't know anything about me) because once you carry the label "orange" on here, you are not taken seriously. This is especially damaging since many people value what you write as plenty of people will therefore believe your word over mine and take my "unconsciousness" as a fact. Just through this name-calling have you put my entire point in an offside position where I now fight an uphill battle. Every strong argument I make loses it's worth as "arguments are stage orange". And if I attempt to roll the ball back to you, then you always justify your inability to phrase a coherent argument by saying that you cannot convey your superior perspective to me because of how stuck I am within my own paradigm. Basically, every argument I make from that point on further proves your point and your inability to show that I'm wrong and you're right just needs to be accepted.
I mean this very thread is an example of that. You now threw the label "orange" onto me and whether the things I say are true or not doesn't matter because my reputation is now the one of the orange guy who clings to his ideology. And of course, you are just offering a new perspective and of course I am just clinging to my own perspective...sure

I know you like to see yourself as a teacher. But I don't see you that way. I don't see you as an expert on spiral dynamics either. I'm not looking up to you. I actually perceive you as someone wo has too high of an opinion of and overestimates himself (seen by your ridiculous claims of being yellow or turquoise). I believe that I have repeatedly shown a willingness towards you to engage with you on an equal level; two open minds exchanging ideas. But instead you always avoid this dynamic by implying that my perspective is inferior instead of actually engaging with the arguments I make. 

The most disrespectful example was probably in the Greta-thread where you once again responded to my first post and literally said nothing other than "your perspective is orange", and instead of at least partly engaging with any claim I made, you used me as some sort of case study of what orange looks like. 

You once made the comparison that my posts are like someone setting off firecrackers during a piano lesson. I believe you have a too preconceived notion of me to treat me fairly and to treat my views with the intellectual open-mindedness that I expect on an Internet forum.

Basically, I'd ask you to not respond to my posts on this forum from now on. History has shown that nothing of value comes from it. 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Zizzero said:

@Serotoninluv I wont respond to your two posts. The reason is that I don't believe that you are interested i hearing what I have to say.

In the several arguments that you and I have had on this forum, you have repeatedly:

• Made assumptions about me which presented me in a bad light - ad hominem
• Attributed me with bad motives - ad hominem as well
• Ignored questions I asked
• Falsely characterized my position - Strawman

A thread in which you did all three - in case you want to check whether I'm saying the truth - is the Greta Thunberg thread

All you really do everytime you quote on of my posts is to ignore the arguments I made and put the label "stage orange" onto me which conveniently reliefs you from the duty to engage with what I say to prove how the claims you disagree with are wrong. So, instead of arguing the point, you put me into a spot where I have to argue why I'm not stage orange (btw a claim you have no basis to make since - and that I told you several times as well - you don't know anything about me) because once you carry the label "orange" on here, you are not taken seriously. This is especially damaging since many people value what you write as plenty of people will therefore believe your word over mine and take my "unconsciousness" as a fact. Just through this name-calling have you put my entire point in an offside position where I now fight an uphill battle. Every strong argument I make loses it's worth as "arguments are stage orange". And if I attempt to roll the ball back to you, then you always justify your inability to phrase a coherent argument by saying that you cannot convey your superior perspective to me because of how stuck I am within my own paradigm. Basically, every argument I make from that point on further proves your point and your inability to show that I'm wrong and you're right just needs to be accepted.
I mean this very thread is an example of that. You now threw the label "orange" onto me and whether the things I say are true or not doesn't matter because my reputation is now the one of the orange guy who clings to his ideology. And of course, you are just offering a new perspective and of course I am just clinging to my own perspective...sure

I know you like to see yourself as a teacher. But I don't see you that way. I don't see you as an expert on spiral dynamics either. I'm not looking up to you. I actually perceive you as someone wo has too high of an opinion of and overestimates himself (seen by your ridiculous claims of being yellow or turquoise). I believe that I have repeatedly shown a willingness towards you to engage with you on an equal level; two open minds exchanging ideas. But instead you always avoid this dynamic by implying that my perspective is inferior instead of actually engaging with the arguments I make. 

The most disrespectful example was probably in the Greta-thread where you once again responded to my first post and literally said nothing other than "your perspective is orange", and instead of at least partly engaging with any claim I made, you used me as some sort of case study of what orange looks like. 

You once made the comparison that my posts are like someone setting off firecrackers during a piano lesson. I believe you have a too preconceived notion of me to treat me fairly and to treat my views with the intellectual open-mindedness that I expect on an Internet forum.

Basically, I'd ask you to not respond to my posts on this forum from now on. History has shown that nothing of value comes from it. 

The problem is that the arguments we are making are going completely over your head. It's like talking to a religious fundamentalist. Imagine you were sitting here talking to one, very quickly you would find yourself at loss as to how to convince that person. Every argument you will make will be ignored, misconstrued or in some shape or form perceived as something different than it was intended by you.

For us to see your value system we do not truly need to analyze your arguments, but we merely have to analyze the way you argue, the way you respond to certain arguments. It's the way you approach these problems that gives us insight into where you are at.

Knowing your approach, we will immediately know that arguing with you will be most likely futile. Every attempt I did for example you missed my points by a long shot. The effort I would have to put into this to first deconstructing your own ideology and then guide you into a new one would be insane. You are unwilling to even listen to the other side, if you were you would have found the answers we are trying to communicate by yourself.

 

Imagine you were talking to a religious fanatic, and you would pose the question "Do you have any evidence for the Christian God?" and they respond by quoting the bible and saying the bible is the best evidence, how would you continue approaching that person?

The difference between blue and orange is as radical as between orange and green. For example veganism, for someone in orange you would have to somehow convince them that slaughtering animals for meat if it is unnecessary is wrong. You would have to argue what it is no necessary, then why it is wrong and still that person might just say "Ah but I guess I don't care that much, I just like my meat even if it is wrong".

Green is fundamentally different in that it will not need any convincing whatsoever. As soon as it sees the exploitation, it will use rationality to justify why it is wrong to kill animals. The orange person will use rationality to justify why it is fine to kill animals.

This is a shift that is outside of reason, outside of mere argumentation. It is a value shift. That value shift is going to determine what kind of arguments you find appealling and what kind of arguments you will be rejecting. You are not a rational machine, you are driven by emotions. Everything you do, every argument you make, is fundamentally a way to actualize how you feel about something.

 

Unless there is a shift in value, there is no point in arguing. The rationalist fails to recognize this mechanic, the rationalist mistake is that he believes he is purely rational. That is why he is most susceptible to emotional bias, like you so clearly are. You mind literally refuses to accept nuance so that it can uphold it's position. You cannot see it because your perspective is fundamentally a product of what you value.

 

If I love apples more than anything, I will structure everything in my life around apples. I will use rationality to increase appleness. Infact, I will be blind to anything that does not incease appleness. Everything that threatens appleness will be a threat to me. The apple will ground how I perceive reality, how my mind thinks, how my mind feels about all sorts of things, it is literally changing the lense through which you view and perceive reality.

RIght now the values you hold limit you to a very specific lense, that lense will distort any argument we are going to make. It's obvious to us, you have no ability to grasps the meaning of our arguments. And we know so well because we have been at that place ourselves. This might seem arrogant to you the same as the atheist will seem arrogant to the religious. The religious cannot even begin to perceive what the actual argument of the rationalist is, and so the rationalist cannot perceive what the argument of the post-rationalist is.

[Matt8800]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

More importantly, however, is that orange would believe itself to be yellow.

@Scholar Is that really more important? Or is that belief that green just holds to be important?

I suppose it would be pointless to ask green because they wouldnt know the difference anyway.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

54 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv Green would believe that yellow is orange. Green would believe that yellow is small minded and short-sighted.

Yellow is tier2 and has made significant progress in dissolving personal identity and attachment/identification to perspectives. As well, an integrated yellow understands green, since they have embodied green. So generally there isn't the same type of inter-personal dynamic as in tier1. Integrated Yellow is able to communicate well with green (if they have embodied green). 

If it was a yellow that was strong intellect with weak green embodiment, Green would definitely pick up on the Green deficiency. I would consider Ken Wilber to be an intellectually heavy Yellow, with Green deficiencies. Green would be able to pick up on this, yet there isn't a much inter-personal conflict if the Green-deficient Yellow person has partial transcendence of the personality construct (they would not have strong attachment/identification to a particular perspective). So if a Green was picking up on Wilber's green deficiency, they could still explore together. It wouldn't be a debate like with a Green and Orange.

Beings centered below Yellow will have a difficult time recognizing Yellow. However this is the first stage of transitioning into Tier2. The person will start to recognize aspects of Yellow, yet they will not be able to naturally operate as Yellow on their own. At this stage it's really important to have as many conversations with a Yellow-centered person as possible. These are open-minded explorations. Yet this requires a partial dissolution of attachment/identification to a particular perceptive. Yellow is addicted to new perspectives and integrating perspectives. Yellow wants to discover new perspectives. Yellow is an integrative machine and has orgasms creating integrative holistic constructs. Yet only someone at Green will be open to this. Someone centered at Orange will still be too attached/identified to their contracted view.

For someone transitioning into Yellow trying to observe Yellow here are a few cues:

A Yellow-centered person will see value in the other person's perspective and be able to see that view in the larger context. They will say things like "Yes, that is a piece of the puzzle from one perspective. There is more going on that has value in creating an integrated holistic view.". A yellow person may point at why another view is contracted. Yellow also understands the relativity of perspectives and is not attached to a particular perspective. Yet not just intellectually - Yellow doesn't just integrate intellectual concepts - Yellow also integrates modes of being. For example, intellect, empathy, intuition etc. In a conversation about racism, Yellow will understand multiple perspectives on racism and want to integrate them. Yellow will also know from direct experience to be racist and be subjected to racism. This is a very high level of development and would require one to realize their own subconscious racism as well as put themselves in situations in which they are subjected to racism. . . This is a very different orientation than Orange. Orange will be pre-dominantly intellectual and will not see the relativity of their argument. Orange has attachment/identification to a perspective that they are unaware of. Orange will be defensive regarding their perspective and interpret things personally (since they have not transcended their personality construct). Orange will want to debate and defend their view and will personalize things. Orange will say things like "You think you are so evolved", "You are criticizing me and don't even know me". 

[Matt8800]

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

If it was a yellow that was strong intellect with weak green embodiment, Green would definitely pick up on the Green deficiency. I would consider Ken Wilber to be an intellectually heavy Yellow, with Green deficiencies. Green would be able to pick up on this, yet there isn't a much inter-personal conflict if the Green-deficient Yellow person has partial transcendence of the personality construct (they would not have strong attachment/identification to a particular perspective). So if a Green was picking up on Wilber's green deficiency, they could still explore together. It wouldn't be a debate like with a Green and Orange.

@Serotoninluv This is EXACTLY what a green person would say. Of course a green would say a yellow is deficient.....because they dont share green's ideology

I understand the green ideology more than might be obvious because I had green ideology about two years ago.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv This is EXACTLY what a green person would say. Of course a green would say a yellow is deficient.....because they dont share green's ideology

No. . . Imagine you are fluent in Spanish and English. You are talking with someone in English and switch to Spanish. The other person is unable to speak Spanish. It is completely obvious to you that the other person has a deficiency in Spanish. . . 

Secondly, important aspects of Green lie outside of the ideology. An essence of Green is emotion, love, creativity, empathy, equality, inclusion and intuition. These are not ideologies. These are modes of being. A very important part of green in non-intellectual. This is why actual direct experience is so important. Things like volunteering for marginalized victims of abuse, volunteering with people with psychiatric disorders or living in a marginalized poor community. This is not found in textbooks or debated on internet forums. It is learned and embodied through actual direct experience. . 

As well, it is not adherence to a single perspective/ideology. Yellow is a dance of ideologies with no owner. 

[Key Elements]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

No. . . Imagine you are fluent in Spanish and English. You are talking with someone in English and switch to Spanish. The other person is unable to speak Spanish. It is completely obvious to you that the other person has a deficiency in Spanish. . . 

Secondly, important aspects of Green lie outside of the ideology. An essence of Green is emotion, love, creativity, empathy, equality, inclusion and intuition. These are not ideologies. These are modes of being. A very important part of green in non-intellectual. This is why actual direct experience is so important. Things like volunteering for marginalized victims of abuse, volunteering with people with psychiatric disorders or living in a marginalized poor community. This is not found in textbooks or debated on internet forums. It is learned and embodied through actual direct experience. . 

As well, it is not adherence to a single perspective/ideology. Yellow is a dance of ideologies with no owner. 

Well, I wouldn't use two different languages as an example--too simple. I would use a good friend as an example. Suppose, I haven't seen my friend in 5-10 years. All of a sudden, we decided to see each other. So, he flies over to see me. We had to catch up because we only chatted on Facebook from time to time. I noticed that I don't talk on the phone with good friends. Life is too short to take it slow. (That's why I love this song!) So, he flies over to see me. I ask him, "what's new?" And, when he replies, I have to listen to him as objectively and carefully as possible. Once, he got into a relationship that I knew would not work out, but I can't tell him this. It's not my business. I can't go and write his story for him. He was so "in love" (infatuated) with him. I knew it wouldn't work because my friend is the one with broader, grounded perspectives. His bf only wants things done in certain ways and don't understand that there are other ways--different love languages that he has not transended. So, this is a complicated and nuanced type of situation. Anyway, I applaud my friend for trying his best to work out this relationship. He didn't call it quits, unlike his bf. He should've picked someone who immigrated and lived in two very different countries (at least) for years, like himself. This to me is a different ballgame than picking someone local who hangs onto only a handful of perspectives from his own backyard and comfort zone, and not being aware of it.

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

I ask him, "what's new?" And, when he replies, I have to listen to him as objectively and carefully as possible. Once, he got into a relationship that I knew would not work out, but I can't tell him this. It's not my business. I can't go and write his story for him. He was so "in love" (infatuated) with him. I knew it wouldn't work because my friend is the one with broader, grounded perspectives. His bf only wants things done in certain ways and don't understand that there are other ways--different love languages that he has not transended. So, this is complicated and nuanced type of situation. Anyway, I applaud my friend for trying his best to work out this relationship. 

I like this example of an inter-personal dynamic. It's a bit different than the dynamic I was pointing to. To me, the situation you describe is one in which someone made a personal life decision that you can see, in hindsight, was not the best decision for his personality. In this context, I would take the same approach. I would not bring attention to previous decisions that led to personal hardship. It just wouldn't be right.

The context I'm referring to is a bit different. . . Imagine a couple is having some marital challenges and the woman becomes so distraught she approaches her husband and says "We really need to have a heart-to-heart talk". The husband replies "Well, the heart is an organ in the body. Two hearts would have difficulty talking with each other". She sighs and says "We've been having marital problems and we never share our feeling with each other. We need to open up and share our feelings with each other". The husband replies "Oh. I feel that communicating about feelings can have a positive impact in a relationship. I read a study that showed couples that are open with their feelings have a 35% less chance of divorce. I read another study that showed expressing feelings through crying can increase oxytocin levels by 22%, which makes sense because oxytocin has been shown to promote human bonding". She responds "No, this isn't an intellectual analysis I'm pointing to. I'm feeling powerless in our relationship and I want for us to share our feelings with each other. How have you been feeling?". The husband replies "Well, I've been feeling tired from working overtime this week. Yet my knee has been feeling better. I think the physical therapy is helping. Thanks for asking".

For anyone that has a basic level of emotional intelligence, it would be totally obvious that the husband is incapable of having a heart-to-heart discussion. The husband is unaware of this. Yet it is obvious to others that husband is incapable of an emotional mode of communication and forming inter-personal bonding. One doesn't need to know anything about the life history of the husband. One doesn't need to be a marriage counselor. It is obvious. . . To me, it would not be helpful to argue with the husband about the study with oxytocin. This is a distraction and will just further contract him. I think it would be much more beneficial to help him become aware of his emotions and help him communicate those emotions. It would be beneficial to releasing personal turmoil as well as developing a healthier relationship with his wife. If he insists on arguing about the oxytocin study, there just isn't much we can do. . . Yet there is another dynamic. The husband goes to work and starts telling his friends that women are stupid emotional dingbats that can't think rationally and they cause all the problems in relationships. His buddies say "Yea, they've got nothing to bitch about. They are just making it all up. Dumb broads". This is now spreading from the level of an individual consciousness to the level of a social consciousness. Now, it isn't just about the individual. There is a social component. It's not just about the husband anymore. Even if the husband is closed down, we can shed light so there isn't contraction within the social consciousness. We may say something like "Hey Harry, I sometimes opening up about feelings can help a relationship. I went through a workshop on emotional mastery and it really helped me communicate on an emotional level with my wife. Our relationship has improved". . . Even if Harry is closed down and wants to argue about the oxytocin study, this intervention can help transform the dynamic such that Harry's co-workers will not become hyper-contracted and may even get curious about emotional mastery and how that might help them. 

[Key Elements]

41 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I like this example of an inter-personal dynamic. It's a bit different than the dynamic I was pointing to. To me, the situation you describe is one in which someone made a personal life decision that you can see, in hindsight, was not the best decision for his personality. In this context, I would take the same approach. I would not bring attention to previous decisions that led to personal hardship. It just wouldn't be right.

The context I'm referring to is a bit different. . . Imagine a couple is having some marital challenges and the woman becomes so distraught she approaches her husband and says "We really need to have a heart-to-heart talk". The husband replies "Well, the heart is an organ in the body. Two hearts would have difficulty talking with each other". She sighs and says "We've been having marital problems and we never share our feeling with each other. We need to open up and share our feelings with each other". The husband replies "Oh. I feel that communicating about feelings can have a positive impact in a relationship. I read a study that showed couples that are open with their feelings have a 35% less chance of divorce. I read another study that showed expressing feelings through crying can increase oxytocin levels by 22%, which makes sense because oxytocin has been shown to promote human bonding". She responds "No, this isn't an intellectual analysis I'm pointing to. I'm feeling powerless in our relationship and I want for us to share our feelings with each other. How have you been feeling?". The husband replies "Well, I've been feeling tired from working overtime this week. Yet my knee has been feeling better. I think the physical therapy is helping. Thanks for asking".

For anyone that has a basic level of emotional intelligence, it would be totally obvious that the husband is incapable of having a heart-to-heart discussion. The husband is unaware of this. Yet it is obvious to others that husband is incapable of an emotional mode of communication and forming inter-personal bonding. One doesn't need to know anything about the life history of the husband. One doesn't need to be a marriage counselor. It is obvious. . . To me, it would not be helpful to argue with the husband about the study with oxytocin. This is a distraction and will just further contract him. I think it would be much more beneficial to help him become aware of his emotions and help him communicate those emotions. It would be beneficial to releasing personal turmoil as well as developing a healthier relationship with his wife. If he insists on arguing about the oxytocin study, there just isn't much we can do. . . Yet there is another dynamic. The husband goes to work and starts telling his friends that women are stupid emotional dingbats that can't think rationally and they cause all the problems in relationships. His buddies say "Yea, they've got nothing to bitch about. They are just making it all up. Dumb broads". This is now spreading from the level of an individual consciousness to the level of a social consciousness. Now, it isn't just about the individual. There is a social component. It's not just about the husband anymore. Even if the husband is closed down, we can shed light so there isn't contraction within the social consciousness. We may say something like "Hey Harry, I sometimes opening up about feelings can help a relationship. I went through a workshop on emotional mastery and it really helped me communicate on an emotional level with my wife. Our relationship has improved". . . Even if Harry is closed down and wants to argue about the oxytocin study, this intervention can help transform the dynamic such that Harry's co-workers will not become hyper-contracted and may even get curious about emotional mastery and how that might help them. 

It looks to me that in this case, the wife is in green, and the husband is in orange. Imo, they both have to leave each other alone and transcend in healthy ways. Yes, both, not just the wife. Why? Because the wife is too needy for her husband's "affection," and the husband is too into himself. He gets annoyed just because his wife wants affection from him, and he goes out and tells his "orange" co-workers about it in an unconscious way. And, all of them start to gossip and joke about women to stroke their egos for entertainment to feel better. It's not really anyone's business to talk about someone's relationship in that manner. It's just wasting time.

Deep down, the couple is very much unaware that they want to look like this:

Lots of couples end in breakup/divorce because they're stuck. They are unaware that they have to transcend a relationship all in all. In turquoise/coral, there is only you and no such thing as a relationship. You are always single no matter how you cut the cake. What do you do to transcend relationship? Find a life purpose and commit yourself to that. Use it as a vehicle to transcend many things. To transcend a relationship, you'll have to know how to detach from it. No, you don't have to breakup or divorce. It's like this song. (I was going to put it in the turquoise thread, but it's too emotional. So, I put it in green.) Lyrics: ??Close to me you're like my father. Close to me you're like my mother. Close to me you're like my sister. Close to me you're like my brother. ?? No, I'm not talking about incest, like Leo joked at me in another thread. I'm talking about, eventually, the couple will live like monks one day. Monks are detached from each other. You are also detached from your family, eventually. It's also in a Kensho awakening too. You are completely detached from yourself when you become God and go back to your ego. Except now, you have to apply the absolute truth to the relative truth. Everything in the absolute applies in the relative, esp detachment. This is a big part of the absolute.

[Forestluv]

@Key ElementsYou make good points, yet we are in different realms. ? 

[Zizzero]

11 hours ago, Scholar said:

The problem is that the arguments we are making are going completely over your head.

Again: How about you phrase your arguments more precisely then? If you are unable to characterize your position in a convincing fashion, then it's very arrogant of you to say that this is my fault

Do you notice how utterly arrogant and egotistical the things you utter are?
Imagine thinking that my inability to convince someone has nothing to don with how convincing my arguments are, but it's just that the people who disagree with me are ideological.
Everything you say boils down to "I am conscious and right and therefore every disagreeing viewpoint must be wrong and fueled by ego." Now, tell me how I'm wrong about this assessment.

11 hours ago, Scholar said:

For us to see your value system we do not truly need to analyze your arguments, but we merely have to analyze the way you argue, the way you respond to certain arguments. It's the way you approach these problems that gives us insight into where you are at.

Alright, then showcase this! Don't hide in some meta-perspective. Show me specifically how the way I argue conveys who I am. Show that what you're saying here is true and not just another ad hominem argument which you deducted out of thin air.

11 hours ago, Scholar said:

You are unwilling to even listen to the other side, if you were you would have found the answers we are trying to communicate by yourself.

The level of ego, man ^^ "If you had an open mind, you would see that I am right" I hate to use that word, as it's used inflationary, but "projection"

11 hours ago, Scholar said:

Imagine you were talking to a religious fanatic, and you would pose the question "Do you have any evidence for the Christian God?" and they respond by quoting the bible and saying the bible is the best evidence, how would you continue approaching that person?

I would tell them that this is circular reasoning. The exact logical fallacy you are guilty of; presupposing the conclusion as a premise. In this case; presupposing that you're side is right and I'm ideological. If you accept this premise - which your side does - then any conclusion other than you being right isn't valid.

12 hours ago, Scholar said:

Green is fundamentally different in that it will not need any convincing whatsoever.

Careful not to regress back to stage blue. Green people are perfectly capable of changing their minds, arguing and - most importantly - disagreeing with one another. Absolutism is a blue characteristic. Never make the mistake of being too sure.

12 hours ago, Scholar said:

The rationalist fails to recognize this mechanic, the rationalist mistake is that he believes he is purely rational. That is why he is most susceptible to emotional bias, like you so clearly are. You mind literally refuses to accept nuance so that it can uphold it's position. You cannot see it because your perspective is fundamentally a product of what you value.

Once again not arguing the point, but making assumptions about me. gj
I mean, why would you argue the point when you can just discredit him beforehand? Way simpler and way more effective 

12 hours ago, Scholar said:

And we know so well because we have been at that place ourselves.

you mean you've been in the box you try to fit me in?
Obviously, because you cannot even consider the possibility that I see something you have a blindspot to as, in that case, your entire argument would collapse as all you write is built around that premise. You don't know anything about me; cut that shit. You are being in fantasy land where you can stack the deck the way you'd like it to be
Also funny is that pseudo compassionate "we've been at that place ourselves". I legit lol'd when I read it. Like; is there anything more condescending than what you wrote there. "You know, I understand you. I know what it's like to be as undeveloped as you" Bro, you're just some guy on an Internet forum 

I don't know whether it's surprising or unsurprising that the people who work the hardest to be less egoic tend to be the ones with the most massive of egos.

[JustThinkingAloud]

Wow, I love to read different opinions on things but somehow I’m fully lost in all the noise of SD and personal judgements.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Zizzero said:

Again: How about you phrase your arguments more precisely then? If you are unable to characterize your position in a convincing fashion, then it's very arrogant of you to say that this is my fault

Do you notice how utterly arrogant and egotistical the things you utter are?
Imagine thinking that my inability to convince someone has nothing to don with how convincing my arguments are, but it's just that the people who disagree with me are ideological.
Everything you say boils down to "I am conscious and right and therefore every disagreeing viewpoint must be wrong and fueled by ego." Now, tell me how I'm wrong about this assessment.

Alright, then showcase this! Don't hide in some meta-perspective. Show me specifically how the way I argue conveys who I am. Show that what you're saying here is true and not just another ad hominem argument which you deducted out of thin air.

The level of ego, man ^^ "If you had an open mind, you would see that I am right" I hate to use that word, as it's used inflationary, but "projection"

I would tell them that this is circular reasoning. The exact logical fallacy you are guilty of; presupposing the conclusion as a premise. In this case; presupposing that you're side is right and I'm ideological. If you accept this premise - which your side does - then any conclusion other than you being right isn't valid.

Careful not to regress back to stage blue. Green people are perfectly capable of changing their minds, arguing and - most importantly - disagreeing with one another. Absolutism is a blue characteristic. Never make the mistake of being too sure.

Once again not arguing the point, but making assumptions about me. gj
I mean, why would you argue the point when you can just discredit him beforehand? Way simpler and way more effective 

you mean you've been in the box you try to fit me in?
Obviously, because you cannot even consider the possibility that I see something you have a blindspot to as, in that case, your entire argument would collapse as all you write is built around that premise. You don't know anything about me; cut that shit. You are being in fantasy land where you can stack the deck the way you'd like it to be
Also funny is that pseudo compassionate "we've been at that place ourselves". I legit lol'd when I read it. Like; is there anything more condescending than what you wrote there. "You know, I understand you. I know what it's like to be as undeveloped as you" Bro, you're just some guy on an Internet forum 

I don't know whether it's surprising or unsurprising that the people who work the hardest to be less egoic tend to be the ones with the most massive of egos.

Once more you have misinterpreted everything I said. I don't think you have read a single sentence I wrote with even the slightest bit of charity.

[Matt8800]

11 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I like this example of an inter-personal dynamic. It's a bit different than the dynamic I was pointing to. To me, the situation you describe is one in which someone made a personal life decision that you can see, in hindsight, was not the best decision for his personality. In this context, I would take the same approach. I would not bring attention to previous decisions that led to personal hardship. It just wouldn't be right.

The context I'm referring to is a bit different. . . Imagine a couple is having some marital challenges and the woman becomes so distraught she approaches her husband and says "We really need to have a heart-to-heart talk". The husband replies "Well, the heart is an organ in the body. Two hearts would have difficulty talking with each other". She sighs and says "We've been having marital problems and we never share our feeling with each other. We need to open up and share our feelings with each other". The husband replies "Oh. I feel that communicating about feelings can have a positive impact in a relationship. I read a study that showed couples that are open with their feelings have a 35% less chance of divorce. I read another study that showed expressing feelings through crying can increase oxytocin levels by 22%, which makes sense because oxytocin has been shown to promote human bonding". She responds "No, this isn't an intellectual analysis I'm pointing to. I'm feeling powerless in our relationship and I want for us to share our feelings with each other. How have you been feeling?". The husband replies "Well, I've been feeling tired from working overtime this week. Yet my knee has been feeling better. I think the physical therapy is helping. Thanks for asking".

For anyone that has a basic level of emotional intelligence, it would be totally obvious that the husband is incapable of having a heart-to-heart discussion. The husband is unaware of this. Yet it is obvious to others that husband is incapable of an emotional mode of communication and forming inter-personal bonding. One doesn't need to know anything about the life history of the husband. One doesn't need to be a marriage counselor. It is obvious. . . To me, it would not be helpful to argue with the husband about the study with oxytocin. This is a distraction and will just further contract him. I think it would be much more beneficial to help him become aware of his emotions and help him communicate those emotions. It would be beneficial to releasing personal turmoil as well as developing a healthier relationship with his wife. If he insists on arguing about the oxytocin study, there just isn't much we can do. . . Yet there is another dynamic. The husband goes to work and starts telling his friends that women are stupid emotional dingbats that can't think rationally and they cause all the problems in relationships. His buddies say "Yea, they've got nothing to bitch about. They are just making it all up. Dumb broads". This is now spreading from the level of an individual consciousness to the level of a social consciousness. Now, it isn't just about the individual. There is a social component. It's not just about the husband anymore. Even if the husband is closed down, we can shed light so there isn't contraction within the social consciousness. We may say something like "Hey Harry, I sometimes opening up about feelings can help a relationship. I went through a workshop on emotional mastery and it really helped me communicate on an emotional level with my wife. Our relationship has improved". . . Even if Harry is closed down and wants to argue about the oxytocin study, this intervention can help transform the dynamic such that Harry's co-workers will not become hyper-contracted and may even get curious about emotional mastery and how that might help them. 

@Serotoninluv This is a lot of unnecessary mental masturbation to try to transform your subjective ideology into objective should and shouldnts. Spewing more words doesnt make it more true or valid.

If I want a taco on Cinco De Mayo, Im going to get one.

If I want to incorporate Buddhism and Yoga into my spiritual practice, Im going to.

If I feel like practicing Chinese Medicine, Im going to.

If I want Tibetan prayer beads, Im going to get some.

If I feel like experimenting with Haitian voodoo, Im going to.

Anyone's finger pointing at the "terrible oppression" I am inflicting because of my "horrific" actions above is silly nonsense. I feel absolutely no guilt and dont consider this Green non-issue issue when making my decisions in the least.

The irony is that many people that would express outrage over this nonsense have things like Buddha statues at home. Looks a lot like selective hypocrisy to sooth their white guilt to me. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Matt8800

[Scholar]

40 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv This is a lot of unnecessary mental masturbation to try to transform your subjective ideology into objective should and shouldnts. Spewing more words doesnt make it more true or valid.

If I want a taco on Cinco De Mayo, Im going to get one.

If I want to incorporate Buddhism and Yoga into my spiritual practice, Im going to.

If I feel like practicing Chinese Medicine, Im going to.

If I want Tibetan prayer beads, Im going to get some.

If I feel like experimenting with Haitian voodoo, Im going to.

Anyone's finger pointing at the "terrible oppression" I am inflicting because of my "horrific" actions above is silly nonsense. I feel absolutely no guilt and dont consider this Green non-issue issue when making my decisions in the least.

The irony is that many people that would express outrage over this nonsense have things like Buddha statues at home. Looks a lot like selective hypocrisy to sooth their white guilt to me. 

There are two people, who is more "evolved"?

Person A:

Person A decided to stop wearing fur clothing because they saw how terrible animals are treated in the fur industry. Person A is talking about on facebook and shaming others for doing so, because of how much empathy Person A is feeling towards the animals that are abused in fur factories.

Person B:

Person B does not care about animals at all, yet Person B points out Person As hypocrisy. How can Person A stop wearing fur if they are the same time are eating meat? It's hypocrisy! And not wearing fur won't change anything.

Perso B continues to wear fur and eat meat, and uses the hypocrisy of Person A to justify that.

 

 

Notice that Person B is right that Person A is a hypocrate, yet Person A cares more about animals than Person B. Person A is in that sense a "better" person, they have taken a step towards less cruelty, even if they are currently remaining in an inconsistent position which actually doesn't change anything about the situation.

Eventually Person A might stop even to eat meat, because they take one step further to reduce the impact they have on others. In the meantime, Person B has remained at their position, both wearing fur and eating animals.

 

In a similar vein, people who are very much concerned about things like cultural appropriation and the like, even if it is neither the most effective way to reduce suffering and maybe means they become hypocrites, they are still more evolved than people who do not care about it at all, who use that hypocrisy as an excuse not to bother to think about the impact they have on others.

Sure, sometimes the more evolved person might be overconcerned, but that is part of their evolution, of their increase compassion. You frame it as if these people were less evolved "hiding their white guilt", so you can comfortably remain where you are and dismiss any of these concerns as non-issues.

 

It is fundamentally your frame of mind that is "less" evolved, even if this particular issue was a non-issue, the fact that you so easily dismiss it and show no concern and interest in it's possible validity is essentially what is "less" evolved about you. You concern is primarily individualistic, you have a priority about what you as a individual can and cannot do over what will have a better impact on others. You do not see it, but you are arguing from that desire and it determines how you speak, what arguments you provide, what things you view as non-issues and which you view as issues.

 

It's not merely in this particular situation in which you show these individualistic, freedom, stage orange value tendencies. You have brought them up in our conversation about animal rights too. You put your individualistic needs infront of the life and suffering of others. We of course do that too, but to a lesser degree. We are concerned about these issues, we try to find validity in them, while you are biased towards rejecting them because they limit your freedom.

This mechanism is what eventually leads, on a larger scale, to for example complacency towards the treatment of billions of individuals, like the animals we are putting in factories. For you that is pretty much a non-issue, as long as you don't contribute to it, you can do whatever you want in your life. However, if you truly were concerned without bias, you would see it as a problem, you would feel (!) it to be a problem. A huge problem, that does not just require an absence of action on your part, but an actual proactive approach so as to mitigate that kind of discrimination of suffering. It is not enough to simply not eat factory farmed meat, it is paramount to actually make others not eat factory farmed meat and to generally make efforts to reduce that kind of suffering.

 

This is stage green, it is not about "live and let live", it is about "Help those who need the help most". It is a deep desire to involve yourself in the increasing of well-being of those who suffering the most. Orange is only interested in not being "hypocritical", in not being immoral, in not being "bad". See how self-centered that is?

For green it is about actively identifying the issues, of actively going against discrimination, of actively participating in these movements which solve social issues. You show only very minor interest in that, which allows you to dismiss issues like cultural appropriation as non-issues. While I agree that there are far bigger problems that need to be solved, I cannot simply dismiss it like you anymore. I could have probably even a year ago, but now I feel like I need to take these issues seriously. It is an emotional transformation, which again will determine what kind of arguments you will find appealing in what you will view and dismiss as non-issues.

 

 

I have noticed this shift in myself very radically the past few months. While previously I would have seen a insect and might not have bothered to help it because "I would be kind of a hypocrate if I helped this insect while eating products that kill insects", that kind of mentality just became obsolete. I helped the insect, even a tiny fruit fly, out of an innate desire to help that insect. I required no justification, there was a motivation that was just present. I did, at that moment, not care about what kind of person that action would make me, I just did what I felt was best.

The carnist will focus on the hypocrisy of the vegan to justify his habits. This is hugely important. The carnist will be most concerned about "what kind of person" he will be in his own and other eyes. The vegan does not care that much, one that is truly concerned about animals. They will backwards rationalized to help the animals at any means possible.

A very interesting shift, because many vegans start being vegan because of their own identity attachment, because "they dont want to be animal abuses". A more fully green person will be detached from that, they will help because of a desire to help, because of true empathy towards these beings, whether they viewed as "hypocrates" or the like is secondary and only relevant to the point it will be a detriment to the animals.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Scholar

[Matt8800]

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

There are two people, who is more "evolved"?

Person A:

Person A decided to stop wearing fur clothing because they saw how terrible animals are treated in the fur industry. Person A is talking about on facebook and shaming others for doing so, because of how much empathy Person A is feeling towards the animals that are abused in fur factories.

Person B:

Person B does not care about animals at all, yet Person B points out Person As hypocrisy. How can Person A stop wearing fur if they are the same time are eating meat? It's hypocrisy! And not wearing fur won't change anything.

Perso B continues to wear fur and eat meat, and uses the hypocrisy of Person A to justify that.

@Scholar This is a strawman. You are giving examples of one person that cares about animals and one person that does not.

Never have I said anything that would indicate that I dont care about others. Eating a sushi doesnt mean, in any way whatsoever, that I dont care about Japanese people. What I am saying is that white people expressing their white people outrage because Im eating ethnic food or appropriating another culture's spirituality is nonsense. I dont need to justify anything just like you dont feel an obligation to justify yourself munching on some lemon grass - If I feel like eating sushi, Im going to eat it. Simple as that. No justification or validation required.

Furthermore, you have lost your right to judge others and express outrage if you have incorporated other cultures' spiritual practices and symbolism into your spirituality. Im not concerned with your hypocrisy, because it doesnt effect me, but maybe you should look into it further.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Matt8800

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Scholar This is a strawman. You are giving examples of one person that cares about animals and one person that does not.

Never have I said anything that would indicate that I dont care about others. Eating a sushi doesnt mean, in any way whatsoever, that I dont care about Japanese people. What I am saying is that white people expressing their white people outrage because Im eating ethnic food or appropriating another culture's spirituality is nonsense. I dont need to justify anything just like you dont feel an obligation to justify yourself munching on some lemon grass - If I feel like eating sushi, Im going to eat it. Simple as that.

Furthermore, you have lost your right to judge others and express outrage if you have incorporated other cultures' spiritual practices and symbolism into your spirituality. Im not concerned with your hypocrisy, because it doesnt effect me, but maybe you should look into it further.

I wasn't using that example as a comparison, I was using it to illustrate a underlying mechanism which you are unaware of. It is ingenius how you throw "strawman" at others while this entire thread and basically all of your objectivion have been an addressing an array of strawmans of what the position "Cultural Appropriation" is supposed to communicate.

The last post I wrote was insanely valuable if you were to even attempt to get something out of it. But of course you were going to dismiss it because "I have lost all my right to judge others".

 

I have not judged anyone, nor am I outraged. Better ignore my post though because it would reveal some uncomfortable truths about you.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Scholar

[Matt8800]

21 minutes ago, Scholar said:

 

I have not judged anyone, nor am I outraged. Better ignore my post though because it would reveal some uncomfortable truths about you.

@Scholar OK, Ill keep that in mind