RendHeaven

@LaucherJunge You vaguely managed to point to "the CIA" and "Hollywood," (whatever that means) as the oppressive, shadowy "they" - "they" do this to us, "they" do that to us. You used the word "they" a total of 12 times in that post, all with negative connotations. Yet, it's evident that you have no idea what this "they" even is. Buzzwords like "the CIA" and "Hollywood" are empty words. Have you been to Hollywood? Do you personally know any CIA agents? How many? Consider the possibility that you are punching at phantoms. It seems to me that even IF by some miracle, everything you've said happened to be "factually accurate," you are nonetheless trapped in the imaginations of your own mind (as we all are, but to a greater degree). @Ferdi Le Brilliant...

*on average, assuming "men" and "women" to be categorically distinct groupings.

Awesome! Out of curiosity, what do you do?

You don't actually know this.

@Bjorgan I think you're beautiful

@DivineSoda Epic response

The ancient Greeks called these kinds of people "sophists." Masters of rhetoric - yet fundamentally self-deceived. A pretty tongue does not equate to intellectual mastery.

lol the arrogant critiques from below are always a pleasure

None of this should be taken seriously as THE existential Truth. If you for some reason happen to see triangles making up reality, that is only true insofar as you have imagined the triangles to be there. Be careful in thinking that "Plato believed..." As I've already mentioned, Plato is not wedded to anything that he has his characters say. Be open to the possibility that Plato has (convincingly) written in deliberate falsehoods for the purpose of dramatization. This is all a "likely story" according to the character "Timaeus" as represented by the storyteller Plato. It is just as likely as a modern scientific model: that is, it has elements of Truth, and yet it is not the Whole Truth. As for the question of "accuracy" and determining which story is more likely - that endeavor is utterly relative and has no definitive answer.

Plato's "theory of forms" (as scholars know today) is delusion, but that doesn't mean that his works are useless. Plato is a really odd philosopher. He never announces his ideas. Instead, he has a portrayal of his mentor, Socrates, as a mouthpiece. So already there are layers of representation: Socrates the character relays certain ideas, but Plato the storyteller relays the character "Socrates." Furthermore, we don't know if this is Plato's twisted conception of Socrates, or if it is "Socrates as Socrates truly was." Lastly, Socrates the character seems to espouse the "theory of forms" rather often, but Plato the storyteller actually includes moments in which Socrates is shown his own limitations (for example in the Parmenides, where Socrates has his own beliefs challenged and humbled). In some ways I believe this shows that Plato cares more about the intellectual process than the intellectual result. Plato never gives answers, he asks questions and plays around with them, inviting us to do the same. Plato's Timaeus is actually my favorite dialogue, simply for the "likely story" (or plausible account) alone. If you read between the lines, it is evidently describing nonduality. I don't recall that in the reading. Where did you get this idea?

There was nothing defensive or judgemental about what Leo said. He simply came from a higher paradigm than many of you here, and you are mistaking it as lower.

Lol the delusion in this thread is hilarious. Why must people assume sinister intentions when you honestly don't really know if there is any? How foolish you must feel if it turns out that it was all in your head. And, on the slight off-chance that you were "right," how self-righteous you would be! A crusader of Truth. In my eyes, you lose either way by engaging in this finger-pointing. It's actually wiser to keep an open heart and mind. Notice, I'm not saying Bill Gates is necessarily good. I'm merely encouraging humility.

Wow you are so arrogant, and yet you are aggressively ignorant of it! Really consider the following before you get defensive. You said, "Just because your mind says so doesn't make it true." Fantastic insight! But why don't you apply your own advice to yourself? YOUR mind is the one that says "humans are fundamentally more important." As you said, don't blindly think of that as the truth. Where is @Leo Gura's self bias in saying that humans and viruses are equal? There is no bias there whatsoever lol. That's just raw, neutral, impartial observation. Bias only occurs once you start "tilting" the playing field in favor of one thing or another. The very act of designating importance IS bias. To rid yourself of bias, drop importance.

You are correct, but the mother is very likely to fight the truth with everything she's got. If you told her upfront "hard work alone did not get you to where you are... you are taking your privileges for granted" I don't imagine that going so well. Is there a way to coax her to that realization, perhaps with indirect words? Or is a harsh confrontation necessary? It's tough to tell.

To preface this, I've gotta say that I'm well aware of the validity and strength of hypnotherapy. It is done in isolation in a comforting atmosphere, with the singular goal of healing. Sessions are spread out over many months (and possibly years) so the effects are believably gradual and transformative. However, I've seen some viral street hypnosis videos circulating around YouTube recently, and I have trouble believing that what I'm seeing is not fake somehow. Typically this involves a guy telling a subject in public that they are now "in a deep state of relaxation," where they are "highly suggestible." Then, still in public, the hypnotist supposedly has the subject lose motor control, forget their first name, hallucinate, etc. There's just something fishy about this, even though thousands of people purport that "hypnosis is real, you just gotta believe in it cuz your mind is powerful." Trust me, I keep learning not to underestimate the mind. And if psychedelics tell us anything, it certainly shows us the malleability (and ultimate groundlessness) of control, memory, and physicality. However, to take a random dude off the street, (in front of other people, where there is massive social pressure to not look bad), and to honestly snap his name out of existence (which he has been conditioned to parrot for decades) seems otherworldly. It's possible, but it requires enormous awareness, and as far as I know that is not something that can be merely "suggested." Here is just one example of what I'm talking about. Watch and you will see the "forgetting of the first name" happening too smoothly and perfectly. Not to mention the "seeing dinosaurs" lol. So am I really just ignorant about this whole field and judging prematurely? Or are these performances a deliberate facade? Keep in mind I am making a distinction here between hypnotherapy and stage/street hypnosis. One is private and long term (which seems genuinely transformative), the other is public and short-term (which seems too good to be true).

Many oranges that first hear about spiral dynamics trick themselves into thinking that they are yellow. Conversely, some true yellows have never heard of spiral dynamics.

Expecting what answer?

Bump

1) You ARE machine elves lmao. 2) Watch your arrogance.

HAHA!! Yes, of course, it is I that is ignorant. But you, the paragon of epistemic purity? Clearly infallible.

That's the trick to tier 2, you don't "ask one question to clarify their yellow-ness." It's very easy to spot blue, orange, and green because of their (general) lack of nuance. The moment they open their mouth they are screaming their stage. The problem with Yellow and above is that they either appear to be many of the "lower" stages at once, or they might appear to not be a stage at all. To really pin them down as Yellow, you need to have a decent back and forth with them where authenticity is allowed to flourish (and this is important because a lot of stage yellows will hide their yellowness for survival reasons). These one-off "trap" questions are such a shallow way to scope out yellow. Implicit is a sort of scanning for any trace of morality, such that if the person in question believes in morality, they are automatically sub-yellow whereas if they don't believe in morals they are then elevated to yellow. A stage red psycho can say "no" (or be indifferent) to the above questions, and pass as yellow by these criteria. I personally think that the opening question is misguided in the innocent assumption that one question or one behavior can encapsulate stage yellow. And I can already hear, "I didn't really mean that, I was just suggesting a what if" In that case, my answer would be that I would just keep my mouth shut and listen. At length. And ask the appropriate follow up questions when they arise, without having any "prodding" or "digging" agenda. In my experience, that is really the only way to "scope out" consciously evolved people, there is no need to find a shortcut.

LOL

@Prevailer Really dude you're still doing this computer thing?

Read Confessions by Saint Augustine with her.

Wow! Why do I feel threatened by that? Weird...