A Question About The Morality Rant Video

[abrakamowse]

@ChimpBrain  I also would like to clarify that I don't grasp the concept completely. I just understand it through a new logic I developed, but is still my ego trying to understand lol... It's good to talk about this topics that is so hard sometimes to talk to people who are not seekers.

[Mal]

@ChimpBrain

I'm not sure how to answer your question except by saying that you are right, but at the same time you are also wrong. You are right because your version of morality is right for your stage.  "Should's" are an important part of orange/green - we can't really have a turquoise stage without "shoulds".  But at Integral there are no shoulds - there is only what is and a self that is able shift perspective and play all the 1st tier paradigms.  

You already know that development is a process of transcend and include - you said it yourself in your own terminology that there are phases.  

Would an integral stage watch a random murder?  In my opinion it wouldn't.  I wouldn't!  What I mean is that green/orange is rigid in its policy toward violence - no violence whatsoever.  Integral stages are a little more laid back because it's not so sure about itself these days.  Orange and green tend to project and assume because these are both ego deficiency stages that have no interest in integrating the shadow.  These stages are more interested in making life work for all, both stages think their worldview is the only worldview worth having.  Green's shadow is that it is not aware that it is green - green thinks it is integrated - but actually it's very rigid in it's worldview.

If green can accept these facts, then it can transcend itself in time.  

The odd thing about the transpersonal is that there is no society.  There are no enemies.  There is just "suchness", the divine.  For 1st tier there is no divine, there is only fragmentation and therefore a long to-do list of should's to try to fix the situation.  The reality "now" is nothing need to be fixed - the world is a playground, but when dealing with people still stuck in the dream, skills are needed - this is what 2nd tier's life purpose is - growth needs rather than deficiency needs.

How does this sit with you?

-Mal

 

   

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mal

[Mal]

@Ajax

Spot on!

As another metaphor let us consider the discipline of our young children at different stages of morality:

A smack at pre-conventional stage is abuse because of the state of the caregiver.

There are very little smacks at post-conventional progressive stages, however, there is understanding and conversation.

A smack is an act of love at the transpersonal stages.

 

 

[Dustin Dustbin]

3 hours ago, Mal said:

@Dustin Dustbin

Dustin,

I'm in transcendent experience right at this moment.  I am also in a public place.  I know without a doubt that if anything kicked off here I would probably step in.  

Depending on the logistics of the situation. I know that I would be able to scan my environment and make an accurate assessment of the dangers involved. 

This is not blind bravery.  Nor is it my conditioned moralistic programming leading me to act. 

It's much more subtle, much more detailed in terms of data.  

 

So I think this means that if I either walk away or stay and help either is just the choice I make and that's that.... reality.  If I don't apply any morality to the situation I basically just become an observer of what happens, what I choose to do or not do and the reality of the moment.

Perhaps at this stage if your entire family gets murdered it does make sense that it's just a thing that happened. 

 

I also get the difference between being motivated by blind rules vs. choices made by more "pure" motives but the problem of up without down makes this part incredibly treacherous. I can't on one hand tell somebody their construct of a rules/morality based is wrong then offer to explain why my construct is right. Everything has to be in the reality not just the murder and pedophiles but the robotic moralists are also real. 

 

Unfortunately I think I'm more confused now than when I started.

[Mal]

28 minutes ago, Dustin Dustbin said:

 Unfortunately I think I'm more confused now than when I started.

It's OK 

We need to have the experience of the transcendent to talk about it in any meaningful way.  The ego cannot understand it.  All the ego has is philosophical thinking and will never be able to grasp the nature of reality - until the person has an experience.  

Hang out on the forum, there are a few people here who can give you pointers on how to swiftly have an experience without doing much work.

[Mal]

1 hour ago, Dustin Dustbin said:

So I think this means that if I either walk away or stay and help either is just the choice I make and that's that.... reality.  If I don't apply any morality to the situation I basically just become an observer of what happens, what I choose to do or not do and the reality of the moment.

Perhaps at this stage if your entire family gets murdered it does make sense that it's just a thing that happened. 

Let's have another crack at this.

You don't need morality to pick up a gun and finish a person who is threatening to murder your family.  You don't need morality to stop yourself either.

If a lion walks into your living room, you will do what you need to do to survive.  In the transcendent, you know everything is as it should be, but if somebody points a gun at your head you are still going to stop them, your morality isn't going to get in the way of you acting.  The very act of you acting to stop them is also what should be.  Everything is as it is.  

Murderers murder people.  We punish them.  That is what is despite what our minds want.

Forget about level one crimes for a moment and think about the effects of what your mind is doing.  You can be functional without moralizing. Moralizing is for people who think they will cease to be without some kind of opinion.  They ARE their opinion.  Their opinion gives them a sense of self, because they do not know their true self.  

We are taught to "carve out this hole in the ocean" from day one of our lives.  Language is innate, it is cultivated by learning from others in our environment.  If all we know is what we have been taught, we don't think about evolving any further than the concept of our separate self.  If all we think we are is an individual then we need morals to negotiate the politics of the individual selves.  Individual selves are a story, and each time something happens to the individual, the individual updates their story.  For example, imagine you were bullied at school.  It caused you so much pain that you decided that you were never going to be a bully yourself.  Notice you created a moral from that experience Igine how many morals and rules you create as the story of the individual you progresses through life.   This is how the ego is made.   

Now, imagine that you wake up one morning and find yourself in the transcendent.  You immediately understand that this individual self concept was an illusion all along.  You're not going to hold onto morals anymore because you see that they were stories that gave you a sense of identity.

One of the reasons it's so hard to become enlightened is because of this story.  The more rigid it is, the more it's going to pull us back into it's shape after a transcendent experience.  Like a memory foam mattress, we slide back into our original shape automatically because the morals are so strong.

This is why I advocate cognitive development into 2nd tier cognition.  At turquoise all these morals are dissolved and it becomes much easier to have transcendent experiences and stay there because the self is so expanded rather than contracted.  It doesn't care about morals, morals are nothing to do with life or reality.  Turquoise self is actually tiring of abstract conceptualizing and judging, and leans more toward simple direct witnessing of experience in the present moment.

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by Mal

[Mal]

1 hour ago, Dustin Dustbin said:

I also get the difference between being motivated by blind rules vs. choices made by more "pure" motives but the problem of up without down makes this part incredibly treacherous. I can't on one hand tell somebody their construct of a rules/morality based is wrong then offer to explain why my construct is right. Everything has to be in the reality not just the murder and pedophiles but the robotic moralists are also real. 

There are a ton of approaches to the path of enlightenment and self development.  I happen to like the approach that includes "tiers".

1st tier is normal everyday existence.  2nd tier is a different ballpark.  2nd tier is what Maslow calls being cognition stage.  There is more room in the self concept for transcendental experiences.  This is not full enlightenment, but post-awakening.  It is the first developmental stage in history that understands that ALL of the stages of 1st tier hold a crucial piece of the truth of human development and the awakening of consciousness.  

2nd tier does not make any of the people who reside at normal everyday consciousness "wrong", it just knows that normal everyday consciousness and morality is not an accurate representation of the whole picture.  The reason Maslow called 1st tier deficiency based is because 1st tier worldviews compete with each other.  Each stage or culture thinks it's worldview is the only worldview worth having.  It's highly moralistic and creates divisions and dichotomies in reality where none actually exist.  So the general feeling is one of incompleteness and certain egoic needs are created and must be catered for.

In the transcendent nothing is "wrong".  There are no dichotomies.  1st tier views are illusions, but paradoxically are much needed because the morality set by the highly developed social stages (orange and green - what our wester model is based on) protects all of us from the lower moral stages - the pre-conventional stages.  Morals are needed in reality, but they are not what reality is made of.  Morals are man made in order to keep social homeostasis.  Reality is made of "suchness" - "One Taste", one reality.  

So hierarchy is real on the relative side of the street (human perspectives) while Oneness is also reality (Absolute truth).  But absolute truth and relative truth are not two, they are one - IF one is enlightened. 

So all perspectives are true, but partially true.  Even absolute truth is partially true, because not everybody lives there.  So this is why Integral is the first stage that recognizes the need for a perspective of the absolute that must include other 1st tier perspectives their reality.  

You are correct, everything is one, but everybody is allowed to have their perspective.

 

[charlie2dogs]

9 hours ago, Dustin Dustbin said:

Fantastic video!

I've been working on some of these concepts for over a year so it was great to take in this larger scope view of things. 

One question I have is about relating to situations without moralizing them, or labeling them good/bad yet still declare them "not cool".  Take the examples of heads being chopped off or your family getting killed..  I understand that reality is just doing reality  (everything) but I prefer to take action should someone try to kill my family and I sense the entire episode as negative. I don't like it it all in a strong way. How do I interpret this strong negative feeling that I want to fight against and simultaneously hold it as neutral?

I totally get ranting against morality and that good/bad are fairly silly notions. I also get that rape exist in reality and fragmenting reality is risky BUT.. if I walk around a corner and witness a rape I'm hard pressed not to immediately judge that as wrong/bad and take action to stop it vs. accept it as a part of the whole of reality, sip my coffee, and walk away.

So I'm confused on this aspect, any thoughts on how to reconcile the above?

there is nothing to reconcile, if you encounter someone being raped, stop it if you can, you know its the right thing to do.   Getting caught up in a lot of nonsense isnt going to help you in real life or help you do the right thing for yourself and others, and if you arent going to do the right thing for yourself and others then what are you going to do.

[Dustin Dustbin]

1 hour ago, charlie2dogs said:

there is nothing to reconcile, if you encounter someone being raped, stop it if you can, you know its the right thing to do.   Getting caught up in a lot of nonsense isnt going to help you in real life or help you do the right thing for yourself and others, and if you arent going to do the right thing for yourself and others then what are you going to do.

I hear ya...

One of the main points of the video is that there is no right thing. You just said right thing 3 times there.

And this is my confusion.

I'm not sure if I can see everything as blank reality even if I agree that I don't want to moralize it.  I understand the concept but there is a problem with it...

For me to sign up for this forum there was a long list of rules.... I had to agree to those rules in order to discuss the idea of the problem of rules.

Anyhow, I hope it gets across that I'm trying to understand not disagree. 

[charlie2dogs]

7 minutes ago, Dustin Dustbin said:

I hear ya...

One of the main points of the video is that there is no right thing. You just said right thing 3 times there.

And this is my confusion.

I'm not sure if I can see everything as blank reality even if I agree that I don't want to moralize it.  I understand the concept but there is a problem with it...

For me to sign up for this forum there was a long list of rules.... I had to agree to those rules in order to discuss the idea of the problem of rules.

Anyhow, I hope it gets across that I'm trying to understand not disagree. 

i understand,  whether you function as a human identity or a self realized being you will find that there is a right thing to do, versus doing nothing or doing something that would create a consequence for you and others.  When you do the right thing you will stay on the path to liberation, and you will know it.   When you become self realized you will want to remain in a state of liberation, so in your actions that you do, you will do them in a way that keeps you in liberation, that is doing the right thing and it wont bring consequences to you or others, I know of no enlightened being that doesnt have principles that they live by, those principles are what is right for that being and those principles govern what that being does in life and with other humans. 

[Dustin Dustbin]

10 minutes ago, charlie2dogs said:

i understand,  whether you function as a human identity or a self realized being you will find that there is a right thing to do, versus doing nothing or doing something that would create a consequence for you and others.  When you do the right thing you will stay on the path to liberation, and you will know it.   When you become self realized you will want to remain in a state of liberation, so in your actions that you do, you will do them in a way that keeps you in liberation, that is doing the right thing and it wont bring consequences to you or others, I know of no enlightened being that doesnt have principles that they live by, those principles are what is right for that being and those principles govern what that being does in life and with other humans. 

I dig it.

[ChimpBrain]

5 hours ago, Mal said:

@ChimpBrain 

How does this sit with you?

-Mal

 

   

It was extremely helpful actually, along with several of your other posts in here. Thank you for taking the time to write so much on it. 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, ChimpBrain said:

If yellow /turquoise sees a man being murdered do they just assume he was likely to be the next Hitler

Hehehe...

No...

Notice how the very way you frame the question already assumes that Hitler was somehow wrong/evil.

Notice how you're trying to make murder okay ONLY if it somehow leads to having the world come out YOUR way. That is, a world without Hitler. So really you're rejecting the reality of Hitler, and using that twisted logic to then justify murder.

What Yellow and Turquoise say will be far more radical to you. They say, Hitler was as he should have been. We may not like it, but hey... why should what we like matter?

Turquoise goes even further! Turquoise says: I LOVE Hitler!

And he means it too! He ACTUALLY loves Hitler!

Lol... Might take you a while to wrap your mind around that one! Hitler is you after all, so there's no use hating yourself.

Now that's some deep shit

[Mal]

@Leo Gura  Godwin's law strikes again...

[abrakamowse]

I read sometime ago a book, a political book from Saul Alinksy, "Rules for Radicals" and he says a lot of things that make sense to all this we are talking about.

And he talks about how when USA was needing allies the USSR was not viewed as a bad thing, then when the "enemy" (Hitler's Germany) was defeated, then the cold war began and the USSR again become a bad thing.

So, we change our "morality" (I am talking at a political/government level) depending on the situation.

 

And also studying myself I realized that sometimes I don't apply the same judgement on different situations and we are not even aware of it. Our way of making judgements also varies depending on the situations, if we know the person, we don't judge ourselves the way we judge others and we judge those that we feel more empathy differently than those others that we see them as different.

It's hard to be a judge, that's why I gave up judging.

Edited June 2, 2016 by abrakamowse

[Emerald]

On June 1, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Dustin Dustbin said:

Fantastic video!

I've been working on some of these concepts for over a year so it was great to take in this larger scope view of things. 

One question I have is about relating to situations without moralizing them, or labeling them good/bad yet still declare them "not cool".  Take the examples of heads being chopped off or your family getting killed..  I understand that reality is just doing reality  (everything) but I prefer to take action should someone try to kill my family and I sense the entire episode as negative. I don't like it it all in a strong way. How do I interpret this strong negative feeling that I want to fight against and simultaneously hold it as neutral?

I totally get ranting against morality and that good/bad are fairly silly notions. I also get that rape exist in reality and fragmenting reality is risky BUT.. if I walk around a corner and witness a rape I'm hard pressed not to immediately judge that as wrong/bad and take action to stop it vs. accept it as a part of the whole of reality, sip my coffee, and walk away.

So I'm confused on this aspect, any thoughts on how to reconcile the above?

Your averse reactions are also part of reality. To try to approve of something that you don't approve of is also a resistance to reality as it is. But you do have to realize that it is an expression of source and that your dislike of it doesn't invalidate its existence. It is an extension of yourself simply for the fact that it exists in your reality. 

[ChimpBrain]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hehehe...

No...

Notice how the very way you frame the question already assumes that Hitler was somehow wrong/evil.

Notice how you're trying to make murder okay ONLY if it somehow leads to having the world come out YOUR way. That is, a world without Hitler. So really you're rejecting the reality of Hitler, and using that twisted logic to then justify murder.

What Yellow and Turquoise say will be far more radical to you. They say, Hitler was as he should have been. We may not like it, but hey... why should what we like matter?

Turquoise goes even further! Turquoise says: I LOVE Hitler!

And he means it too! He ACTUALLY loves Hitler!

Lol... Might take you a while to wrap your mind around that one! Hitler is you after all, so there's no use hating yourself.

Now that's some deep shit

Thanks Leo, this was also very helpful. I can relate to the idea that "Hitler was as he should have been. We may not like it, but hey... why should what we like matter?". I don't think I'm ready to practice it yet without it being forced but I can understand it. Not to the idea of loving Hitler though. I'm on board with embracing your own "shadow" but I guess I can't admit that I have a little Hitler buried deep within me somewhere.

[Dustin Dustbin]

4 minutes ago, ChimpBrain said:

Not to the idea of loving Hitler though. I'm on board with embracing your own "shadow" but I guess I can't admit that I have a little Hitler buried deep within me somewhere.

Yeah, the idea of giving Hitler a high five and saying "love ya bro" is not easy to take.

It says that there is absolutely nothing wrong/right good/bad not only from a moralistic view but any view. Examples used here have been your entire family killed, pedophiles, terrorist, now Hitler. All totally cool and even lovable trippy.  

 

[Mal]

1 hour ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

Your averse reactions are also part of reality. To try to approve of something that you don't approve of is also a resistance to reality as it is. But you do have to realize that it is an expression of source and that your dislike of it doesn't invalidate its existence. It is an extension of yourself simply for the fact that it exists in your reality. 

Thanks again. Its all here your comment. Very elegantly put! 

[Mal]

Now that we understand the transcendental is in fact just the mundane: what is lacking in this moment?

We are already enlightened 

Edited June 2, 2016 by Mal