Sockrattes

@RichardY @Emerald I honestly don't think moral is inherently relativistic. That's what Kant is denying. According to him all morals and ethics can be summed up as a way to answer this question: "What should i do?" This question can be answered in many ways: Teleological philosophers like utilitarians are trying to answer this question by saying "i should do what is good", and then they go on and try to find out what "good" actually means. This is absolutely relativistic and therefore debatable. But Kant or deontological philosophers in general have a totally different approach. He says "i should do what is RIGHT!" and then he establishes his categorical imperative. In this context it doesn't matter wether something is good or bad. Both can be right.

Historically it was protestantism It was the first time, that ordinary people started to read for themselves, what was written in the bible.

@RichardY I'm not entirely sure, but it sounds like, you are looking for a teleological explanation in a deontological concept. You are looking for a product which you can label as good or bad, rather than a process, which leads to a result which is morally right. Kant doesn't say you should do this or that, but he says, how your thoughtprocess must be structured to get the result you are looking for without contradicting yourself. The question wether something can be good, he did in fact answer. It took me a while, i've found a english version: "There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will" That's actually the first sentence, and then he goes on and explains why.^^ http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant - groundwork for the metaphysics of morals with essays.pdf

I get where you are coming from, but is that even true though? I think his categorical imperative is not bound to circular reasoning. At least i can't see how.

"A good will is good not because of what it effects, or accomplishes, not because of its fitness to attain some intended end, but good just by its willing, i.e. in itself; and, considered by itself, it is to be esteemed beyond compare much higher than anything that could ever be brought about by it in favor of some inclinations, and indeed, if you will, the sum of all inclinations. Even if by some particular disfavor of fate, or by the scanty endowment of a stepmotherly nature, this will should entirely lack the capacity to carry through its purpose; if despite its greatest striving it should still accomplish nothing, and only the good will were to remain (not of course, as a mere wish, but as the summoning of all means that are within our control); then, like a jewel, it would still shine by itself, as something that has full worth in itself." Immanuel Kant This guy knows who to write sentences.^^

No i don't think so. Evolutionarywise there is little to no difference between humans from 10.000 BC to humans today. They had the same capabilities. The only difference are values and ideas. Spiral Dynamics is an evolution of ideas if you will. Humans back then noticed physical differences. But those differences didn't matter, because there was no social value or any other inherent benefit in being a "racist". You could point finger at someone and say "damn this mongols are damn lazy", but there was no parliament to impose cuts in social security, or something.

Yeah that's hard to grasp, i get that, but you should check out the wikipediapage for example. There is not a single date mentioned older than 15th century. There is a lot of research about "racism" in the past and most of the key aspects, which defines modern racism are not meet back then. That's mind blowing. For me, it was just logical, that there must be some kind of racism throughout human history. But in fact, those varieties can't hardly be called racism. That's why i'm full of hope, that racism will die one day once and for all.^^

Colonialism and imperialism are both clearly orange for me, because both are effects of consumerism if you will. Colonialism is due to the privatization of sovereign rights. Namely the chartered companies. Formely blue aristocratic and monarchic nations granted privileges to citizens and gave birth to the first "capitalistic"-corporations. So for me it makes sense, that the term racism is fully orange, because only in a scientific-capitalistic society categorising humans is justified. Racism is not about violence. I think the distinction must be made here. It is about grouping humans into "races" and then proclaiming superiority.

@Serotoninluv It is. But it was not an issue before the scientific revolution. (or better say stage orange)^^ Before modern racism, there were no explicitly racist societies, nor a finished mindset to judge and categorise people. @Emerald I know your channel. That's really an awesome name for a Youtubechannel. Congrats on that. Indras Net is buddhist, yes? Would like to share this comment, which is somehow relevant, i guess. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/27088-is-enlightenment-the-permanent-way-out-of-the-loop-new-video/?do=findComment&comment=307791

@Emerald Reality is a 4 dimensional fractal.

@Serotoninluv Yes. But US wasn't defined along physical features. That's the main difference. And this is what racism defines. In the Roman Empire for example, you could be a slave wether you are white or black. You could be a Centurio also. Your features simply didn't matter.

Yes. But that's not what i meant.^^ I'm speaking about the scientific revolution, which could be stated as one of the starting points of stage orange. Historically speaking. In the end that's what Spiral Dynamics is all about. Different ideas and values emerged together in a specific timeframe, under specific conditions. One could say, racism is a consequence of the scientific reductionism. That doesn't make it scientific valuable or anything. But it is a logical consequence. When people start to count, divide and group things, it doesn't take long for them to do the same with other humans.

I'm going further than that. What i mean is that in stage blue racism was not existent. Blue has group-thinking of course, but it was never about putting different groups into different levels of hierarchies. It's quite interesting actually. Racism emerged along with science, democracy, liberalism and capitalism.

@Etherial Cat Only a few people know, but racism is in fact a stage orange phenomena. Racists and many other people tend to claim, that there always was racist behaviour among men, but that's not true. So you are absolutely right. If you want to get rid of (latent) racism you have to evolve into stage green.

Jordan Petersons critique on progressivism and liberalism... and feminism and any other -ism is always explicit. And his solutions are always implicit. That's his strategy to stay inviolable. But you can clearly tell, that he is just an ordinary conservative, when you think through what he is saying. He is a Republican masked as an progressiv. Here is a good analysis:

So your fundamental approach to Samsara is Buddhist/no-self. But what if Advaita is right and there is a self (Atman or Jiva)? That's actually what i'm experiencing. The problem is what i'm going through and my interpretation of it is much more horrifying: My life hasn't started when i was born. In fact i became conscious of this body-experience, when i was 3. And it is a misconception that i will leave this body when i die. Samsara is much more complicated and disturbing than that. I'm jumping through "realities", coming into different bodys and then living in it for a while without even noticing that i made a transition. It always is like, i'm waking up from a dream. Over and over again. Only to notice, that i'm just in another dream. I don't know how, and i don't know why. But it is painful and annoying. It is literally hell. I'm not sure if there is a self or not. I don't know if the fundamental reality is consciousness or subatomic-particles. I have no fucking clue. But something here is extremely wrong, and i don't want to played with anymore.

None of it. As strange as it sounds i remember past lives. And i want to end this process. I remember how i meditated a lot in at least one of my past lives. Since i'm here asking this questions i can tell that i haven't succeeded to break out. My question is wether i'm doing the right thing to get rid of it or not.

@SOUL So ultimately there is no freedom?

@SOUL Is it the path to immortality as well?

Holy ****. I'm watching this video right now. I'm 12 minutes in and i can already say that this guy has no clue what he's talking about. He's opposing non-dualism just because it is religion and religion is bad by default?! Leo is right about him. He is a materialist. Just let me explain what i mean by that: In the west there is science, philosophy, religion and all the other disciplines and subjects and all of them have either continued development or dogmatism as a basis. Science and philosophy are progressing. Direct experience or logical deduction are the means here. Religion is dogmatic, because you have to belief in it and for the most part, you are not allowed to question it. This is the materialist-reductionist approach. In the east there is no such distinction: Philosophy and religion are one and the same. Religion is not something to be believed in, because there is simply nothing too believe. Everything in eastern religions/philosophy MUST be experienced, otherwise it makes no sense. This is a holistic approach. So he is using materialist-reductionist arguments, which would apply against "western religions", since they are dogmatic, as if they would apply to eastern religions as well. That's strange, since he have read so many books about spirituality, he still didn't get it.

@Emanyalpsid I do believe that Consciousness is the fundamental underlying truth to reality. That's actually my experience as well. But non-duality not necessarily. And that's where my critique is coming from. There are many concepts out there, and many of them are equally convincing as non-duality. But Leo is brushing them off, like everyone who's making different experiences is just hallucinating or something. And thats why i'm asking: Is he enlightened or is he just pretending or thinking he is? From my perspective i can't tell for sure.

What?

@Strikr So you are saying, that he didn't know what enlightenment is, while having that experience? My point is: He is brushing off experiences other people have and judging them, while stating he found all out what is real. He can do that. That's fine and i don't care as much as it seems. But the truth must be strong enough to be questioned, without falling apart.

Leo is running a business (Spiral Dynamics Stage Orange as the people here would say). That's actually all you need to know. There are many things you can criticise on actualized.org, and many of the critique is valid, while many of it is nonsense. But i can see that he is still human and this here is his living. So i have no ground to judge or call out most of what he's saying. But one thing needs to be said. I can't help myself: If anything about enlightenment, awakening or self-realisation is true, why do you feel the need to go online and "prove it to the world" while it is happening? I mean... this is the most profound and most important experience you can have in your life. First time of having sex or marriage or even the birth of your first child are intimate and deep touching and personal experiences. At least it should be like this, right? Why would someone having those experiences go out and stream videos of it while it is happening? Enlightenment is even a few step above this, so sorry but, it feels extremely fishy for me.

A few months ago i was tripping on 4-AcO-DMT. And as i was lying on the couch the entire reality started to flip in high-speed like a flip book right before my eyes, while the "used pages" disappeared into a vortex. I could literally see how every moment in spacetime was just a page in this book. That was simply awesome! Any similar experiences?