Sockrattes

@St Clair Do you had synchronicities and stuff?

@MrDmitriiV You shouldn't get Kant nor any mathematician wrong: Everyone of them is well aware, that math is just a map. That is what everything in Kants epistemology is about. We can't say anything about the territory or to stay in his terminology -> the "things-in-itself" . You are right, of course, if you want to exhort the scientists to be humble. But keep in mind: Most of them are. That's why they are always trying to find out more about the nature of reality.

@MrDmitriiV Objectively speaking enlightenment could be some kind of misinterpretation of some insight as well. I think it is necessary to stay in "not-knowing" as long as you don't have those insights as well. It is easy to look down on people, just because someone else said, what those people saying is somehow false. You can't be sure about that nor can't you prove that those enlightened masters are right. Proving to someone what you think is right on the other hand is the exact opposite of religion. So in essence what you are doing is, lifting those statements from enlightened people on a pedestal and believing it, like it is a religion. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying, that what they are saying is wrong. All i'm saying is, that enlightened people tend to argue in circular reasoning, which is very suspicious.

Well, can't argue with that, since this is your opinion, which is your reality. Of course not. That's not what science is about. Science isn't trying to proof a materialist paradigm at all cost. That is just your assumption und prejudice toward science. This might be true for some scientist, but certainly not for all of science.

I don't get what this thread is aiming for. Science is not a beliefsystem but a method to research reality. There is not a single evidence that the string theory might be true. It isn't falsified yet. According to Immanuel Kants Critique of Pure Reason, math is basically the only thing we can be certain of. Do you have any reason to doubt that?

@Dogsbestfriend Why do you need someone else to prove it to you? Try it out for yourself. Even if it's not real, it should still be fun, no?!

Are mental issues like schizophrenia and psychosis spiritually meaningful or are they just some kind of error in ones mind?

@Leo Gura So apart from the present moment, everything must be a concept. What are the implications? Reality is subject to rules of radical subjectivity and i can be everything, just when i learn to control the present moment, or is reality more like what we all agree on, in a intersubjectivemanner?

@Leo Gura Interesting. And on a broader sense this is comprehensible. My question here is, does this apply only for conceptual schemes or is this the reality for everything? I mean for example: Were dinosaurs 'invented' when we found the first skeletons? In the end, apart from a few fossils, everything we know about those animals are conceptual schemes too, right? EDIT: Typo

@Leo Gura I'm wondering at which point in human development Spiral Dynamics as a model started to make sense. At 1950s when stage yellow emerged?

The whole difference between tier 1 and tier 2 reminds me of Platos Allegory of the Cave.

@Viking Hopefully i'm something greater than this. I'm still about to find that out.

I'm not sure if it was like that, but on a few occasions, while being on psychedelics or on a meditative state or both, i could literally feel, how "the other one" took over. On time when i was hanging out with a few friends, and one friend asked me a question, "the other one" answered for me. And that answer was on point. Amazing experience.

@Leo Gura My mind was on the edge of getting bricked.

I've come across this video a few weeks ago and it was the first time, i've recognised, that Sadhguru could talk bullshit as well. While he is absolutely right on everything he is saying, it must be stated, that he isn't remotely close to the truth, because he isn't integrating everything that could be possible. In this video he is stating, that basically every elected government is legitimate, because it was the peoples will. Well, the nazis in Germany were elected as well, and that doesn't work out well, as we all know. Sadhguru is not aware that democratic nations could have a broken system. And he does not recognize that this broken system can never express the will of the people. So i was thinking about, how is it possible, that someone like Sadhguru could talk so much nonsense: While watching him, i have noticed, that he completely convinced from what he is saying. It seems like, what he is saying must make a lot of sense in his head. Therefore i have to ask if it's possible, that stage turquoise has an holism-trap? Is it likely that turquoise people tend to have strong opinions on topics, they don't know anything about, because it sounds so convincing in their head?

I'm watching this Video right now, and i was wondering how this applies to Spiral Dynamics. I know, SD is more about Values, but it is possible to say, that women tends to be more on the "we" side, while man are considered more "i" centred? I'm noch trying to generalise here, but i think we can all agree, that there is some kind of gender difference, so there might be a difference in SD for both genders as well. What is your opinion on that?

Well... The misconception here is that every democracy is the same. Which is ignorant, to put it nicely. Every democratic system has it's flaws. There is no doubt about it. But the American one is kinda exceptional, which could be rooted in the fact, that the nation is so old. Basically on every list, which compares democratic systems, the USA ranked bad or at best mediocre. This means: The US democracy can be better. It is quite easy to get that. All the US-Government has to do, is changing the voting system to proportional representation for the house of representatives, instant-runoff-system for the presidency and the senators and getting rid of gerrymandering. Can you tell me, if Sadhguru has anticipated that? EDIT: I'm not judging Sadhguru. I think he's awesome and i like his videos a lot. What i want to talk about is, the weaknesses of stage turquoise. To me it seems like Holism can be used to make a certain worldview permanent, if you are not cautious.

That's a well made informative video. Thank you.

I'm relatively new her, but i have to say, the whole discussion about SD is getting out of hand, isn't it? Everyone seems to think, they are on Tier 2 and are trying to convince everyone else that they are. But in fact, this kind of thinking is quite blue and orange. The model is interesting, sure. But stop thinking about it so much. You are doing harm to yourself by becoming slaves to it. Humans are more nuanced than SD is telling you. In my experience, someone can be on 4 stages simultaneously without even realising it. And cognitive dissonances are a thing as well. And of course everyone seems to think, they themselves must be higher than most of the other people. This is quite frustrating, and it seems like, the model is doing more harm than good, right now.

@RichardY Yes. Thank you. In fact SD is a orange model, pretending to be yellow or turquoise, liked by green people who are forcing their model on others like a blue one would. It is strange to witness something like this. Humans are way more complex and i would assume sacred than that.

@Paulus Amadeus It is useful for a certain kind of people and in retrospective. At least it seems to me like that. I'm not judging SD in general. It is the best model for consciousness i know of. (But it is worth mentioning, that the model itself is orange in nature.) What really confuses me, is that there are many people looking down on others, pointing fingers at them and telling them, they are on lesser stages or do any other kind of labeling. Isn't this the kind of judgemental attitude, that prevents one from developing further? This is what i'm talking about. I think i could have elaborate it further to prevent my post from being misunderstood, but i forgive myself.^^ @RichardY To be honest, i don't get your comment. English isn't my first language, so...

@Joseph Maynor What @Outer said. And: Personal Development is a mindset. 'I want to develop further on this topic'. But it is not possible or even useful to 'develop in developing', because then you won't learn anything. That being said, of course models are useful. But you have to keep in mind, that models are just that. Reality is always more nuanced and complex, than those models. And when it comes to topics like your mental state, you can't be to cautious about models. There is no topic out there, that is more important than you. So be as careful as you can with SD. Read about it, as much as you want. There is no problem with that and i will do it too. But always keep in mind, that it is just a model and not a authentic and definite ruler for consciousness.

This right here. When you want to win a marathon, then you have to train everyday, to get the body and the motoric skillset you need, to be faster and better than everyone else. Personal development is a statement of intent, not content by itself.

Actually it isn't. It is a okay model to check 'where you are' right now. But the model itself won't take you further, because it binds you in its own dogmatism.

That's what i thought as well. But i would like to hear your opinion on this sentence from Leo: "What would really solve this problem is if schools did a better job of teaching boys and girls how to interact with each other." Would that be a solution? I mean... when everyone has game, then everyone would go for the good looking ones and the whole problem remains the same, no?!