tsuki

It is not that you do not care about your job. From what you've described it seems like you care too much. As disturbing as it may sound: it is really easy to confuse the two in the midst of things. The institution you're working in is not going to get any better any time soon, but it definitely is: the best thing that we have right now better off with workers that actually understand the problems it is facing. However, the point of view of the institution is only half of the problem. The other half is your suffering related to your inability help people to the extent you want. Again: as disturbing as it may sound - the solution to your problem may lay in your attitude towards your work. You cannot help more than you can. Unless, of course, there is more you can do, but for some reason you don't do. Do not blame yourself for the extent of your influence, because you are working with finite resources. If your suffering is related to the observation of how much money is 'wasted' on middle-man people like yourself, then stop blaming yourself for trying to live a decent life. Everybody working in welfare deserve to live a reasonably comfort life. Even more than people from other fields. Caring too much can prompt you to do all kinds of things. Don't be too harsh on yourself.

I really resonate the definition by @Etagnwo, but disagree with his reasoning towards the end. For me, there is a very important aspect of maturity: without the part about the conscious usage of the mechanisms of the psyche. The point I am at clearly suggests that whatever may I discover within myself, another unconscious part pops up to steer me. The discovery of mechanisms is simply a re-formulation of whatever is already present. Re-formulation that hides half of existence from my conscious attention. So, maturity to me is the acceptance of the equivalence between using and being used. It is the acceptance of ever-present duality in which parts imply each other, forming the inexpressible singularity of existence.

@Hotaka Be careful with your exploration, friend. Going too far off to the Unknown will yield experiences untranslatable to us, mere mortals. Without grabbing the essence of what you're experiencing, you will drift away, losing touch with others. At this point, others may not interest you, but you will interest them. Inability to express your experience will take you to some unpleasant places. Your wisdom will be barren unless you plant it.

This interpretation smells of solipsism. Think of yourself as a neuron within the infinite mind. It is like saying that this neuron will be able to become the whole mind. All a neuron can do is to dissolve its own identity and become united through its indistinguishability. The mere act of dissolving identity makes the neuron become a superconductor. It feels like a superpower, but is totally mundane.

@lmfao Parenting is tough. Not simply because of the need to support yourself and your child. It is, because the parent's personal worldview is being treated by the child as absolute truth simply because there is no other point of reference. As you grow up, you learn various other perspectives about things that happen, and it may seem like your parent is being stuck. Your mother probably went through the same thing as she grew up and now, having lived all these years and transcending all of these worldviews, she is probably convinced that she is a reasonable human being. It is not your, nor anybody else's fault, that you mistook her worldview as the world when you were a child. This is simply you growing up. I'm not saying this to somehow deny your pain which you went through, but to point you to the fact that what you see now is still, a relative worldview. The story about your mother and about you is not just a story, but it is something that lets you cope with your suffering. It lets you see your suffering as something meaningful, which is a valid approach. The frame of reference you've chosen however, is not constructed to explain human interactions. Science will diagnose your mother's autism, but will not let you relate to her. Relating to other people is not done solely through but via mental capability to produce stories that do not place burden of responsibility on anybody. This mode of being in which there are aggressors and victims is a rationalist's way to enforce causality in human interactions so that laws of science apply to other domains. Human interactions are non-causal. The way in which you perceive your mother determines the way in which you treat her. The way in which your mother treats you determines the way in which you perceive her. This is why compassion is important in these relationships. Compassion is a mode of being in which you endure perceived mistreatment to protect your perceptions of others. Because you never know whether you are being reasonable or not by being hurt. After all, all perspectives are relative. It is a mistake however to ignore your own suffering in order to protect others. Everybody is equal, including you. Your suffering is not less important than other people's suffering. Listen to it, but be compassionate. Towards everybody.

@Freakrik A pointer to construct your own green PUA:

I'm bringing the Cartesianism at this point to contrast it with the idea of the mindworld. Cartesianism is characterized by differentiating two disjoint dimensions of reality: the mind and the world. These two dimensions have troubling property of identifying the self in the dimension of the mind and questioning its relationship with the world. The trouble comes from Descartes' method, which involves introduction of an imaginary demon that creates illusion within the senses. In order to find reliable basis for identity, Descartes arrives at cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). The uninspected assumptions of Cartesianism are: there needs to be a reliable basis for identity the demon may create illusions within the senses, and not within thoughts themselves The mindworld perspective is different in that it assumes that the the two dimensions of reality (the mind and the world) are: Disjoint, but sharing an empty boundary (obviousness) The substance of reality is common to the world and to the mind. It does not identify as either of the dimensions. In this perspective, the world and the mind are interconnected perspectives within the mindworld. The following category illustrates its structure:

The idea that all perspectives are a fragment of a larger perspective is a stepping stone to realizing that there are perspectives that are completely disjoint. When you exhaust your top-level perspective, you will be able to make those discontinuous jumps. It will get a lot more confusing up until then, but you will settle in neutrality eventually. Neutrality in the sense of divine indifference. Of an objective, impersonal, perspective of equivalence of all perspectives. Lots of weird things start to happen here, but it is the most wonderful place of all (counter-intuitively). You are becoming more conscious, don't worry. Try to get comfortable in the Unknown, but without rejecting the Known. The Known needs to be exhausted, not rejected. It needs to naturally become uninteresting to you.

TL;DR at the bottom of the post. Even though Leo points it out on many different occasions, I would like to address one thing about the model that seems tricky to notice. When we learn about various stages of the spiral dynamics model, we know that we are somewhere in the spiral. One result of it is that it will influence our perception of other people in relation to us. What is counter-intuitive to me (and I became aware of it only recently) is the fact that our color will influence our understanding of the model as we learn it. Spiral dynamics is a different tool for a person in Red, Blue, Orange, Green, and so on. So please be mindful of what you are trying to do with it and try to see whether it matches up to the color of your choice. The other thing I noticed is that it is, in my opinion, impossible to reliably judge other people's color. From my observation so far, it seems that each stage is in reaction to the excesses of the previous stage through (relatively) deep understanding of the assumptions they make about reality. To illustrate the problem, let's say that I'm Orange: As Orange, I can see that Blue uses religion as the source for making its choices through literal interpretation of a holy book (be it the Bible, Quran, or the law). As Orange, I can understand that it is only a book and my worldview is constructed in reaction to absolute laws of Blue. In my world, everything goes as long as it serves my personal values. It is not immediately apparent though, whether a person that I try to judge is Blue or Green, because both of them use religion/spirituality for different reasons. The reasons of said person however may never become a subject of exploration, because as Orange, I'm not compelled to ask questions about religion that I just rejected. From the point of view of Orange - every reason that does not serve my agenda may very well be absolutist, so every other stage gets lumped together as something that is below me. That argument may be generalized regardless of the color I'm currently at. Rejection of something that comes before our stage blocks us from appreciating things from later stages, so they become lumped together. The other half of the same argument is that we cannot reliably tell which stage we're at, again because of the reactional nature of growth. Things that are rejected at one stage come back later on as valuable in conjunction with the previous stage. Red is compelled to think about itself as Orange. Orange is very compelled to think of itself as Yellow. Again, if we're not rejecting aspects of the model, but exhausting them, then it becomes increasingly difficult to type yourself if you're a high stage. By exhaustion I mean saying as Green: Capitalism is meh, instead of saying Capitalism is bad. Wouldn't a disinterested Blue or Turquoise say the same thing? TL;DR: Spiral Dynamics is a great model with a lot of nuance to it. Judging others with it says more about you than about them.

@Leo Gura Do you think that learning spiral dynamics is a prerequisite to becoming Yellow? Of course, if you don't know spiral dynamics, you are oblivious to colors, so it is a prerequisite for typing yourself as any stage. What I'm asking is whether other people's knowledge about SDi should be taken into consideration when typing them? Or more broadly: should knowledge, or any factual data (like events in life) about people be taken into consideration when typing them? This prerequisite about learning SDi can be seen as a self-perpetuating mechanism of this model. Locking a stage only to people that know the model. It's like a mechanism straight out of an MMORPG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesianism

When questioning of a perspective becomes relentless enough, one may see that perspectives are interconnected. What is the world other than our scientific understanding of it? From within the perspective of the mind, scientific theory is nothing else than a set of facts that predetermine our perception of the world. From within the perspective of the world however, the mind is subjected to experimental results that are being described. This is a seemingly unresolvable paradox when we think of it this way. These two statements exclude each other simply because we're trying to explain one in terms of the other from both directions simultaneously. What we need to do instead is to produce a third perspective, which is not [mind > world], or [mind < world], but a [mindworld]. From the perspective of the mindworld, the substance of the mind (facts) and the substance of the world (matter) are the same substance. The question is: what are the properties of the mindworld and which parts of it correspond to the perspective of the mind and perspective of the world?

You can't. They are an interconnected phenomenon that influence each other. Here's a link to my journal in which I explore this problem: You may find the first post useful if you like to go into such things by yourself.

@RendHeaven I will answer with a metaphor and hopefully, you will get a feeling about what an ego backlash is. Imagine that you want to learn to play chess, but you are not allowed to talk with your teacher. You sit next to a chessboard and try some moves, but the teacher starts to move your pieces back where they belong and show you where they fit. Now, over time you will explore enough moves with him so that you start to get the general feeling of the game and the rules govern it. Now, the teacher intervenes less and less and you actually stop getting this friction between the two of you and you enjoy the game. Now, imagine that during this orderly game between the two of you, you suddenly get an interesting idea so that you can perhaps establish a new rule by yourself and do something out of the ordinary. Would your teacher let you do that? No, he would put your pieces back where they belong and give you a disappointed look. In this situation you can get angry at your teacher for being dumb, but the fact is, that he simply keeps being a teacher because he thinks that it is his role. Depending on what you may do, your teacher may get very upset with you. Imagine, if instead of trying to put a piece in a invalid location, you threw it at him. Would he even comprehend that it is still a game you are playing, or would he think that you've lost your shit? It doesn't matter what is the rule you're trying to establish in this case. You're being too sudden. The change has to be gradual and only AFTER the teacher is open enough to see that you can swap the roles. This is the ego backlash. The Ego has been your teacher your whole life and you're now trying to take the steering wheel. Ego does not greedily cling to the steering wheel. It simply doesn't understand what is happening if the change is too sudden. It thinks that your life is going off the course and brings it back where it belongs. The real surprise here is the fact that you yourself are the teacher, but that will be apparent only when you become enlightened. Try being more gentle with yourself, so that Ego understands that you're trying to change the rules.

Today I found a wonderful video that is very much related to this journal. PERSPECTIVE WITHIN THE MIND = PARADIGM:

Not exactly. Thought has no agenda. Thought is not an actor that tries to do something against our will. There is also no conditioning involved in thought, as society that would condition the mind with various forms of interaction is a thought. There is no society or other people. Society is a thought about other people. Other people is a thought as well, so these are thoughts about thoughts. Even the notion that you have a mind that has thoughts is a thought. There are very powerful and subtle ways in which thoughts influence the world. So far in this journal I've been describing what happens when one has a single perspective. It gets deeper when a person is able to see two different perspectives at once and see the interaction between them. I will be finally getting to my current state in which I can see three perspectives at once and various interactions between them. As for identification itself: I can see now from my point of view that it has been extremely difficult to accept the notion that something happens within my cognition that I do not do. The idea that thought simply happens and that we lose track when it references itself is a very powerful and very scary one. Fear however is nothing else than thought and I will be exploring that as well. Until then, try to keep the discussion to a minimum please. If you would like, I can start a different thread with comments to avoid dilution of my reasoning. Thank you.

Yes. What I'm getting at is that there is no escape from identification. The only escape is to not know what you identify with. At this point I don't even know what identification is. It is not something that I do. I have nothing to explain identification with.

A moment that thought references another thought is the moment that we miss that a thought is being thought. We identify with that thought, until of course we notice that identification. Then, we say that we shouldn't have identified with it. Missing the fact that another thought is being thought.

When questions such as those are being posed, about the nature of substance in a given perspective, one becomes open to observing reality from different angles. One such idea is about listening carefully to one's thoughts, as in meditation. All the thinking about the world and about oneself is being thought by whom, exactly? In other words: what is the substance of the mind? There is no answer to such a question. Each thought is an expression of an inaccessible fact and becomes a fact the moment it is not being thought. It is being created from thin air and returns back into thin air. There is no pile of thoughts from which thoughts are being drawn. They arrive, one thought at a time, like this text - a word by word. There is no bird's eye view about thoughts from tomorrow. No - all thoughts are here now, even the thoughts about other thoughts. The stream goes like this: Man, I really shouldn't have snapped at that guy yesterday. I thought that he was being too cocky, but now I can see that he was simply scared of me. Is that really a memory of yesterday? Or is it a story that just came up about something that supposedly happened? What reference point do you have to be sure that it actually happened? But tsuki, I can ask other people what happened! Well, isn't that a proof that memory is an idea that only makes sense in relation to other people? That you cannot confirm by yourself whether your past is really true? What is the basis for constructing subjective reality then? What basis do you have to say that, lets say - you shouldn't have been angry yesterday? Is it really always possible to externally tell whether another person is angry or not? Maybe you weren't really angry, but scared? Have you never lied about what you feel so that you trust other people's judgement about what happened in the past? You are simply being bamboozled by your thoughts. They are like a beautiful woman that passes in front of you and you simply cannot look away. She becomes your world, until of course, you get to know her and she becomes ordinary. To be free of the mind is to make the thoughts ordinary enough so that you are actually allowed to look away. There is nobody there that thinks these thoughts. They simply arise, like clouds in the sky.

I read the version by Ursula Le Guinn. It is not a scientific translation, but a compilation of them with the intent of capturing the poetic beauty of the original. Ursula Le Guinn is a renown author of many bestsellers. You can find this version in PDF on the web.

@Freakrik You're curious of afterlife, but have you explored the beforelife? What was it like in the beforelife?

From the point of view of the mind, facts are singularity. What are facts made of? Facts are made of words and structure between them. What are words made of? Letters? No, words have meaning which is a relation to other words. A car is in a relation to a seat, and a driver, and a steering wheel. It has similarity to a road, traffic and global warming. But what is a relation and structure? Relation is a connection. Structure is a net of connections. What is a connection, hmm? In order to understand words, you need to understand words. Why a car brings us to global warming? What is the reason for that? Are thoughts waves within the invisible space of facts? What's that? Just more thoughts and more facts. Fragmentation that breeds fragmentation. Facts are being stirred, and the stirring is what is observed.

From the point of view of the world, matter is a singularity. Is reality composed of atoms? What are atoms composed of? Are atoms composed of hadrons? What are hadrons composed of? Are they composed of quarks? What are quarks made of? hmm? Is it that we don't know or we can't measure? At which point material substance cannot be subdivided? At the Planck's length? Now, now - Planck's length is derived from quantum mechanics that says that matter is a wave within an unobservable field. At which point a particle stops being a particle and starts being a wave? Always? Never? Is it both? This escape from the standard model into quantum mechanics is an invisible tunnel through singularity. From the point of view of the standard model, a quark is a singularity. From the point of view of quantum mechanics, a wave is a singularity. Singularity = Singularity.

Various perspectives have seemingly different singularities. Singularity has no properties and is indescribable, as it is an intrusion from outside of perspective. One can only describe singularity from within the inhabited perspective by changing it. Change never arrives at what is being changed.

@K VIL Me neither . It doesn't mean that I'm trolling you though.