Sockrattes

@Taylor04 I think you are right about most post here. Many of them are orange and green. Yes. But declaring Rothbard Yellow isn't justified at all. Just because it's some kind of extrem capitalism and "self centered", it isn't automatically transcended from orange. It can't be. It has the same values at core as orange does. Tier 2 thinking is something entirely different. It is first of all recognising and accepting all stages from Tier 1 and it is realising that all of these stages are valid. Rothbard and free market capitalism, or even voluntarism and so on are actually the exact opposite of that. This worldviews are forcing themselves upon others, which is typical for Tier 1.

From a spiritual standpoint, what does this sentence (titel) mean exactly? For over a year now i have visions, dreams, astralprojections, synchronicities and stuff like this, basically on a daily basis. And everything i'm experiencing, writes a pretty coherent story and i'm sure i'm on my path to enlightenment. Without telling the whole story, i will tell you the latest one: In one of my dreams a few days ago this sentence from the title occurred, somehow flying around in space(?) and i can't stop thinking about this. A few days later, when i was still thinking about this, i had synchronicities which led me to advaita vedanta and how it has a monistic worldview. Let me be honest here: I'm too lazy to dive deep in this topic. I will never read the Vedas or the Upanishads to learn the essence of this teachings. There is too much to read, and i'm easily bored by redundancy. So at the very night i had these synchronicities and my realisation that i'm too lazy to read about that, i had another dream in which a photo of an old indian looking man occurred. The whole picture had a brown tone and this man was sitting there and looking directly into the "camera". When i woke up, i started googling to find out who that was. After a while, i've found out, that this man was Ramana Maharshi. It was the same picture which you will see, when you google his name. Only in my dream it was a full body pic. So i've started to read a few things about him, but i can't fully grasp how i should take the sentence above now. This is quite urgent for me, because yesterday i had a deep trip on marihuana and i had the option to let loose and go into the void, i guess. But at that very moment synchronicities started again, and my whole environment tried to prevent me from going there. I was sitting on my carpet in the bedroom and meditating while being stoned, and everything was somehow trying to stop me from what i was about to do. People on the streets are speaking louder, my neighbour tuned up his music from his radio, in which the lyrics said things like "please don't do this", my doorbell was pressed instantly and so on. Very weird, but exciting too. So i said to myself in this fight of letting loose or "clinging to reality" was, "Wait guys. I'm trying to make sense of what is going on and then i will come back. No matter what." So what i'm trying to tell you is, for me at this point, it feels like there are 2 entirely different forces, and both of them wants two entirely different thing from me. One is trying to force me to let loose and the other one is trying to keep me here. I'm a bit overstrained by this, but i can't stop now. It is overwhelming, fun, scary and every emotion one can have, and i have to find out, what the heck is going on. I must find out who i am. So i would like to ask you guys, what you think about this. What does "To grow out of the conviction, that 1=2" mean? Are there 2 forces or are both aspects of the one? Is it possible for me to make the wrong decision? I have opened a thread a while back, in which i've asked, what Leo meant by "you have to die literally". And i can understand now. Last night i was on the verge of dying, without felling any pain or whatever. But i had reasons to stay here so i did. And now i'm here to ask you guys. Hope you can help. Thanks EDIT: Typos

I would like to know what that means from the standpoint of every spiritual teaching. Is there a difference in those teachings, or are they all basically telling the same stuff?

@archi "Yes and No but basically no. " Could you elaborate, please? I had an enlightenment experience last night. This is just crazy..^^ Never thought reality could be this way. I'm trying to integrate what i have seen, as long as the memory is still fresh. Thanks for replying

@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...