Isn't green political agenda the best possible?

[Nickyy]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm not referring to "advantages" and "disadvantages". That is an intellectual framework. Such frameworks have value, yet it's easy to become contracted within them. 

Living in a multicultural city is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a much deeper level of immersion. More like living in an impoverished village in Honduras for a year. You would likely get direct experience and deeper understanding.

As well, some people have predispositions. For example, some people have predispositions to intellectualizing and analyzing. It's just there predispositions and personality. Yet they will have a much harder time understanding that which is nonverbal and post-logical.

Consider the quote "Most people considering integral ideas have also had enough of it". This is a highly contracted statement - with resistance, attachment and identification. Yet it is very difficult to see when a person is immersed within that contraction. This is part of having a human brain and mind - I've experienced it as well.

There are aspects of Green you are not seeing, have not realized, have not integrated and have not embodied. You can stay within your realm or expand. It's up to you. I'm not saying one is better than the other. It's like being in room 227 in a Grand Hotel. If you want to stay within room 227 and explore that room - great. Go for it. Yet there are many other rooms you are not aware of. There is value in exploring room 227 and there is value in leaving 227 and exploring other rooms. 

There is a distinction between "considering" integral ideas through logical thought stories and actually experiencing, being and embodying. The map is not the territory. 

@Leo GuraLeo, have you done any of this "green" embodiment work that this fella is talking about? 

Seems like yours and his ideas are incompatible

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, Nickyy said:

So are you suggesting that I no longer discuss this until I've done something that allows me direct access to some of the terrible conditions that green is trying to fix?

I think I've had my fair share of knowing what it's like to be marginalized. You know nothing about me or my personal history, and if I want to intellectualize then it's what I need to do for myself. I know me, you don't know me. 

Personalization is part of the contraction. There is a trans-personal realm. If we were having a discussion about a bizarre insect only found in the Amazon forest, it would be impersonal. We would both be curious and desire to explore and learn. Neither of us is attached/identified to being the Amazonian insect. This would be a Tier2 trans-personal exploration. . . . Adding in personal attachment/identification alters the energetics. . . Perhaps one person says "I've actually been to the Amazon and saw this bizarre insect". An impersonal response might be "Oh my gosh! I've only seen it on YT videos. What was it like in person?"". Notice how this open-ness allows for exploration and learning. . . What happens when it gets personalized?. . . "This guy think he knows more than me. He thinks he is special because he has been in an Amazon forest. He thinks he is better than me. Well, I've also been in forests. He has no idea who I am and he is judging me. I'm going to show him I know more than him". Adding in these personality dynamics alters the energetics. It is no longer a free exploration of an amazing insect in the Amazon. It is now a personal debate, rather than an exploration.In terms of evolving/expanding/learning, it can be a block. For example, I am at an intermediate level of Spanish. If I have an attachment/identity of being fluent in Spanish, it is a block. For example, if another person who speaks Spanish tells me "I noticed you haven't been using the subjunctive tense very much, it might be something to look at". I could reply "I know the subjunctive tense. I've actually lived in central and south America. You don't even know me.". . This creates conflict. . . Without the personal dynamic, I may respond "I hadn't noticed that. Maybe I am missing something. Could you give an example how I might expand my use of the subjunctive? I studied Spanish in Peru, perhaps the use the subjunctive differently. . . Oh, you studied Spanish in Spain. Super coool! What was it like living there? I've also wanted to visit. Exploring different dialects of Spanish is so fascinating to me". . . Notice how this orientation is very different and allows space for growth and expansion. 

[Nickyy]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Personalization is part of the contraction. There is a trans-personal realm. If we were having a discussion about a bizarre insect only found in the Amazon forest, it would be impersonal. We would both be curious and desire to explore and learn. Neither of us is attached/identified to being the Amazonian insect. This would be a Tier2 trans-personal exploration. . . . Adding in personal attachment/identification alters the energetics. . . Perhaps one person says "I've actually been to the Amazon and saw this bizarre insect". An impersonal response might be "Oh my gosh! I've only seen it on YT videos. What was it like in person?"". Notice how this open-ness allows for exploration and learning. . . What happens when it gets personalized?. . . "This guy think he knows more than me. He thinks he is special because he has been in an Amazon forest. He thinks he is better than me. Well, I've also been in forests. He has no idea who I am and he is judging me. I'm going to show him I know more than him". Adding in these personality dynamics alters the energetics. It is no longer a free exploration of an amazing insect in the Amazon. It is now a personal debate, rather than an exploration.

In terms of evolving/expanding/learning, it can be a block. For example, I am at an intermediate level of Spanish. If I have an attachment/identity of being fluent in Spanish, it is a block. For example, if another person who speaks Spanish tells me "I noticed you haven't been using the subjunctive tense very much, it might be something to look at". I could reply "I know the subjunctive tense. I've actually lived in central and south America. You don't even know me.". . This creates conflict. . . Without the personal dynamic, I may respond "I hadn't noticed that. Maybe I am missing something. Could you give an example how I might expand my use of the subjunctive? I studied Spanish in Peru, perhaps the use the subjunctive differently. . . Oh, you studied Spanish in Spain. Super coool! What was it like living there? I've also wanted to visit. Exploring different dialects of Spanish is so fascinating to me". . . Notice how this orientation is very different and allows space for growth and expansion. 

Its ok. I've emailed leo to ask him directly what activism work he himself has done to assimilate "green" to see if this is an actual thing or just you trying to impose your ideology onto the forum.

Will report back when I get more clarity from him.

At this point you're welcome you think whatever you like. 

[Nickyy]

@Serotoninluv Second teir isn't transpersonal. Where do you cook that idea up?

2nd tier is personal . It's just the integration of the human being without identification at any 1st tier structure.

Remember I've spent years on forums. My first forum was at integral life 10 years ago 

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, Nickyy said:

Leo, have you done any of this "green" embodiment work that this fella is talking about? 

Seems like yours and his ideas are incompatible

Also be mindful of appeals to authority. In the context of open-ness, it can have value. In the context of personalized righteousness, it can reinforce contraction.

In the Spanish example. . . two people might have differences in their understanding of the subjunctive tense. One person may go to a native Spanish speaker and ask "Is this correct"?

Be mindful of underlying desire and orientation. For example, are we restricting ourself to a binary model of right vs. wrong? Perhaps it is not about theory vs embodiment. Perhaps it is about theory and embodiment. As well, is our motivation to learn and grow or is it. . . "I think I am right and he is wrong. I am going to ask a native speaker and prove him wrong". . . That is a very different orientation than "Perhaps I have a blind spot, yet I'm not sure if this person is correct. Perhaps I should ask a Spanish teacher to see if I have a blind spot."

These are very different orientations and energetics which will affect one's capacity to deepen and expand their knowledge. 

12 minutes ago, Nickyy said:

Its ok. I've emailed leo to ask him directly what activism work he himself has done to assimilate "green" to see if this is an actual thing or just you trying to impose your ideology onto the forum.

Will report back when I get more clarity from him.

At this point you're welcome you think whatever you like. 

You are missing the point. There is now a "me" vs "you" dynamic as well as "right" vs. "wrong". At this point an exploration is not possible. We are not on the same frequency and there is no point continuing the dialog, it would be counter-productive at this point. 

7 minutes ago, Nickyy said:

@Serotoninluv Second teir isn't transpersonal. Where do you cook that idea up?

2nd tier is personal . It's just the integration of the human being without identification at any 1st tier structure.

Remember I've spent years on forums. My first forum was at integral life 10 years ago 

I am not saying you are wrong. I actually think you have some good ideas. Yet I don't want to debate and argue "your ideas" vs. "my ideas" and who is "more evolved". I prefer explorations, which you are not interested in - which is fine. We just aren't on the same frequency and orientation. . . .Happy trails to you. 

[Nickyy]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Also be mindful of appeals to authority. In the context of open-ness, it can have value. In the context of personalized righteousness, it can reinforce contraction.

In the Spanish example. . . two people might have differences in their understanding of the subjunctive tense. One person may go to a native Spanish speaker and ask "Is this correct"?

Be mindful of underlying desire and orientation. For example, are we restricting ourself to a binary model of right vs. wrong. Perhaps it is not about theory vs embodiment. Perhaps it is about theory and embodiment. As well, is our motivation to learn and grow or is it. . . "I think I am right and he is wrong. I am going to ask a native speaker and prove him wrong". . . That is a very different orientation than "Perhaps I have a blind spot, yet I'm not sure if this person is correct. Perhaps I should ask a Spanish teacher to see if I have a bright spot."

These are very different orientations and energetics which will affect one's capacity to deepen and expand their knowledge. 

You are missing the point. There is now a "me" vs "you" dynamic as well as "right" vs. "wrong". At this point an exploration is not possible. We are not on the same frequency and there is no point to continuing the dialog, it would be counter-productive at this point. 

I am not saying you are wrong. I think you have some good ideas. Yet I don't want to debate "your ideas" vs. "my ideas". I prefer explorations, which you are not interested in - which is fine. We just aren't on the same frequency and orientation. 

I think ill stick with what I've researched so far.

Your ideas are, let's say, unique to say the least.

That's the beauty of having different teachers. We can cross reference ideas and spot charlatans if we feel were being manipulated

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Nickyy said:

I think ill stick with what I've researched so far.

Your ideas are, let's say, unique to say the least.

That's the beauty of having different teachers. We can cross reference ideas and spot charlatans if we feel were being manipulated

If it's working for you, then I am happy for you. 

Hopefully what I wrote is helpful for someone else reading the thread. 

[Nickyy]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Also be mindful of appeals to authority. In the context of open-ness, it can have value. In the context of personalized righteousness, it can reinforce contraction.

 

So I should appeal to your authority instead?

 

[Nickyy]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

I am not saying you are wrong. I actually think you have some good ideas. Yet I don't want to debate and argue "your ideas" vs. "my ideas" and who is "more evolved". I prefer explorations, which you are not interested in - which is fine. We just aren't on the same frequency and orientation. . . .Happy trails to you. 

Actually, if you're up for it I'd love to debate you on this subject.

For a start, I'm not defending my ideas. I'm talking about directly accurately conveying what itngeral theory is, and what spiral dynamics research actually tells us.

Nobody I've ever seen in this 2nd tier structure has said that 2nd tier is transpersonal. 

Where did you get this idea from? 

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Nickyy said:

So I should appeal to your authority instead?

You keep creating "me vs you" and "right vs wrong" dualisms. We can't explore together with that dualism. It's too bad. I thought you offered some good ideas. But oh well, it happens sometimes. Have fun. 

[Nickyy]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

You keep creating "me vs you" and "right vs wrong" dualisms. We can't explore together with that dualism. It's too bad. I thought you offered some good ideas. But oh well, it happens sometimes. Have fun. 

I asked you if I should appeal to your authority because It's clear that you want to tell me that your ideas about my experience of life and my own integration of those experiences are more valid than my own. 

So should I accept your ideas about my private life and experience or should I ask Leo for a second opinion?

Simple question

 

 

 

 

[Nickyy]

12 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You keep creating "me vs you" and "right vs wrong" dualisms. We can't explore together with that dualism. It's too bad. I thought you offered some good ideas. But oh well, it happens sometimes. Have fun. 

Yep, some ideas are more right than wrong.

2nd tier isn't about non duality. That much should be obvious to someone who is truly at yellow or at least aware of the content of spiral dynamics. 

The very notion of right Vs wrong is re-established at 2nd tier as a reaction to greens core ideology that all perspectives are neither right or wrong.

What you're trying to do is superimpose your own "non dual ideas" into the yellow structure. Which is absurd, because yellow by its nature is about describing what is wrong about 1st tier structures and what is right about them. 

You can check spiral dynamics and any of Ken's books yourself to verify this.

[Nickyy]

53 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Personalization is part of the contraction. There is a trans-personal realm.

Oh, ok. So what you're suggesting is that there is absolutely no contraction at 2nd tier?

So this is another idea that flies in the face of what all of the research tells us about 2nd tier congnition.

If there is a shadow at 2nd tier, there must be a contraction. How can shadow material from 2nd tier get repressed and projected without a contraction? 

Can you explain in detailed terms how ken and most of the other researchers on 2nd tier lines of development are wrong?

[Nickyy]

45 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Be mindful of underlying desire and orientation. For example, are we restricting ourself to a binary model of right vs. wrong? Perhaps it is not about theory vs embodiment. Perhaps it is about theory and embodiment. 

No, 2nd tier right Vs wrong isn't "binary". It's a meta view of what's right and wrong in the first tier and the solution to dealing with the problems created by first tier.

Just a simple once over of SD will reveal this to you.

 

[Forestluv]

@Nickyy

Sometimes these types of side-tracks can be helpful in threads - and I'd like to add one more point before I leave - especially since Leo recently made a video on this and it is super cool when we can apply new learning. 

Here, it's not the content I don't want to engage in, it's the structure of the dialog I don't want to engage in. I am super interested in the content of Spiral Dynamics - I created a University course on it. I love hearing about different perspectives on Spiral Dynamics. It helps me identify my own blind spots and to deepen and expand my understanding. So it's not the SD content. It is the structure of this dialog that doesn't resonate with me. The structure of the dialog is that there are two personalities - each with their own perspective - and each personality tries to defend their position through arguing. To me, this structure is like chewing on tinfoil. It's like you are asking me to discuss SD while chewing on tin foil. No thanks, I'll pass.

Another example to highlight this without all the personality dynamics. Imagine two people are about to converse about the coral reef in Australia. They are both super interested in it. There is so much juicy content!! All the amazing creatures, scuba diving - so much to explore. So the content is amazing. However. . . the structure of the conversation is that we cannot use any words that start with the letters "p" or "r". Each sentence must have the word "shark" in it, no words can have more than three syllables and every 7th word must rhyme with "salt". . . As much as I love the content of the Australian coral reef, the structure is awful to me. The structure of the conversation takes all the fun out of the discussion. No thanks, I'll pass.

In my view, you are so immersed in content that you can't see structure. Some people may love this structure, I do not. To each their own. I'll move on now and let the thread go back to the original topic. 

[Nickyy]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Also be mindful of appeals to authority. In the context of open-ness, it can have value. In the context of personalized righteousness, it can reinforce contraction.

You're mistaking a motivation to understand the right ideas of 2nd tier with a personal identification to them which you call *righteousness*

Youre not actually seeing what my motivations are on this forum. If you think I'm here to be right that's upto you, but I'm actually more interested in using this model to grow. You're welcome to cook up any old shit you like, but trying to gaslight me by questioning my motives and understanding is a low move. 

 

[Nickyy]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Nickyy

Sometimes these types of side-tracks can be helpful in threads - and I'd like to add one more point before I leave - especially since Leo recently made a video on this and it is super cool when we can apply new learning. 

Here, it's not the content I don't want to engage in, it's the structure of the dialog I don't want to engage in. I am super interested in the content of Spiral Dynamics - I created a University course on it. I love hearing about different perspectives on Spiral Dynamics. It helps me identify my own blind spots and to deepen and expand my understanding. So it's not the SD content. It is the structure of this dialog that doesn't resonate with me. The structure of the dialog is that there are two personalities - each with their own perspective - and each personality tries to defend their position through arguing. To me, this structure is like chewing on tinfoil. It's like you are asking me to discuss SD while chewing on tin foil. No thanks, I'll pass.

Another example to highlight this without all the personality dynamics. Imagine two people are about to converse about the coral reef in Australia. They are both super interested in it. There is so much juicy content!! All the amazing creatures, scuba diving - so much to explore. So the content is amazing. However. . . the structure of the conversation is that we cannot use any words that start with the letters "p" or "r". Each sentence must have the word "shark" in it, no words can have more than three syllables and every 7th word must rhyme with "salt". . . As much as I love the content of the Australian coral reef, the structure is awful to me. The structure of the conversation takes all the fun out of the discussion. No thanks, I'll pass.

In my view, you are so immersed in content that you can't see structure. Some people may love this structure, I do not. To each their own. I'll move on now and let the thread go back to the original topic. 

I would love for you to back your ideas up. Using fancy terms isn't enough to convince me that you know anything about the models were all trying to work out.

You obviously have your own spin off that is unique to you. But if you observe closely even Leo doesnt accept extreme deviation from these models. He even bans people from the forum who don't agree with these models for growth.

You came into this discussion with an off topic personal idea about green integration in an attempt to discredit what I know about integral theory and the limitations of green.

Personal embodiment is nothing to do with a discussion on political ideology. I can see what you're trying to do, it's clearly personal,  but you seem to hide disingenuously behind idiosyncratic ideas about non attachment and non duality that have 0 to do with integral or second tier as a way to hide that you are personally involved in trying to impose your own ideology into the forum. 

[Forestluv]

@Nickyy I appreciate your feedback. Neither of us is wrong. . . We are just not on the same frequency. That is ok. It happens sometimes. Let's end our discussion here. Do not try to engage with me on this matter anymore in this thread. Let's allow the thread to return to the original topic. If you would like to continue the discussion with me, feel free to PM me. Yet don't do it here or a warning may be issued.  Thank you.