Parththakkar12

@blankisomeone You understand that rationality has its limits once you've gone through the whole rationality process which is to learn logical thinking, conceptual thinking, critical thinking, analysis, mental modelling, etc. and then you see the limits of all of this. JP hasn't quite gone through this, i.e. he is still propagating what he's been indoctrinated with. His critique of rationality is from below, not from above! He is a nuanced thinker, but that doesn't mean he's at Yellow at all. You can be a technically nuanced religious scholar at Stage Blue! Everything he does is informed by some book or another. His thinking is second-hand as opposed to having an independent understanding of concepts. That is logical/conceptual/mental autonomy which doesn't come from reading tons of books, it comes when you realize that your indoctrination may not be 100% right and you have a genuine interest in understanding the truth. All of his talks about 'the nature of reality' are armchair philosophy and he's just out there proudly showing how well-read he is.

A lot of times conspiracy theorists have gotten their hands on some big shadow of mainstream society/mainstream leadership. Even if the content is debatable, generally the structure makes sense. The problem here is that they create an 'us vs them' and get hyper-identified with one side of the coin. This skews their view and doesn't let them really see the solutions to these systemic issues. For example blaming Bill Gates - It really could've been some other billionaire doing it instead of him. The problem isn't Bill Gates, the problem is that we live in an unconscious society which isn't conscious enough to intuitively sense the effects of vaccines. Now I'm not taking an anti-vax position, hell you may find that vaccines are good when you intuitively sense into them! The thing here is that people rely on mainstream science as opposed to their intuition, which doesn't really allow people to deeply consider the anti-vax position.

The way egos work is they have existential suffering, so they conceptualize of the opposite experience of that suffering. That becomes your desire. You pursue it, get it, then realize that it didn't fulfill you 100%, i.e. it didn't end your suffering. You now feel existential suffering and you are unable to escape it. You previously equated forward movement to life and surrendering to the suffering to death. The suffering is because of your resistance to death, because what the ego fears the most is death. A spiritual teacher would tell you to surrender to your suffering and just be unconditionally present with it, i.e. face death head on. Maybe practice self-enquiry too along with it. Just so you know, this is the difficulty level for an individual when it comes to facing your death. Now lets say an individual has a survival strategy they want to change, because their current one is causing them suffering, or is outdated and is creating problems. Say you have survival strategy A, and you want to switch to survival strategy B. If you let go of survival strategy A, and try survival strategy B and it doesn't work, you die! So, the way this typically works is that the suffering caused to you by survival strategy A keeps increasing up until a point where you have to choose between survival strategy A and death. The only reason you will wilfully risk your life in trying a new survival strategy is if your ego would prefer to surrender to death than live with that suffering. This would require you to really face your death and go through the process mentioned in the previous point. This is also why it can be difficult for an individual to leave their comfort zone and try something new for the first time. Staying in your comfort zone is a survival strategy and leaving it could be equivalent to risking your life, and a typical Stage Blue person wouldn't want to do that because their survival strategy is to cling to the status quo. You can see the aforementioned dynamic on a collective level in multiple situations. When we're talking about creating social change, what we're really talking about is changing survival strategies of collective egos. One of the features of Stage Blue Collective egos are that they tend to cling very hard to the status quo. They see the status-quo as survival and letting go of the status-quo as risking death. If you are a Stage Green person who is asking for social change, understand what you're really asking for and what you're expecting from your society.

That too! The Einstellung thing looks like a subset of what I was talking about. I was talking about the tendency to strawman complex concepts. That is why rules are very simplistic and straightforward, so that there is very little arguability on their meaning. People who want to argue on even the simplest rules can argue their asses off! For example courts, where clever interpretations of rules are formally debated.

Another important dynamic: Say you have a collective ego, and say you have a dissident faction inside the collective ego (For example you have a group of employees in a company that don't like their jobs) What the collective ego will do is it will see the dissident faction as a threat and it will immediately stamp it out. This will be done in fear that the dissidence will grow like a cancer and take over the parent ego, thereby killing it. This is one of the big reasons it is very very difficult to create change on an organizational/social level. A lot of times this involves calling out shadows of the whole organization, which can make you seem like a dissident. Collective egos can be very simple-minded, i.e. it is very difficult for collective egos to think in a nuanced manner, so there is a very very high chance that they will misunderstand/strawman what you're saying. It is very possible that you will come across as a dissident, or someone who is deluded/doesn't know what you're talking about. This will result in you getting burned at the steak/nailed at the cross if you're not careful. It takes a great deal of intuitive awareness and patience to implement incremental changes in complex collective systems.

Interestingly I was just starting to find parallels between JP and Fox News! My image of JP previously, according to what people say about him, was this 'learned college professor who is very hard-nosed and does research in sociology'. It was very jarring to me when I watched his videos and it was a big 'expectation vs reality moment'.

Blue doesn't admit that! Blue doesn't account for that, Orange does. It is absolute from Blue's perspective, not Orange/Green. Blue doesn't care about forming a consensus, cuz it believes it already has the absolute truth! Now the quest is to integrate all perspectives, but the way to do it is to preach its own perspective, not understand other perspectives and integrate them. To be fully clear, I'm not demonizing JP here. Just separating the wheat from the chaff.

I like to listen to people who have clear points to make with clear reasons. When that is the case, you can argue with them, debate with them, question them and understand their position well enough from a logical perspective. When someone is just preaching what they believe without any logical context though, you cannot come up against that. That's a very scary and threatening situation for an independent thinker to be in. Preaching as in 'Clean up your room. Take responsibility for your life. Be someone everyone can count on.' There is a difference between having logical context/backing for what you're saying, and having logical-sounding rationalizations/justifications once you've proclaimed the absolute truth. It is important to get behind this and expose the reality that the backing isn't logic or reason, it's indoctrination. It is not an accident that Stage Blue sees questioning as an 'insult to authority'. I can feel that JP fans will get very defensive the moment I question what he says for this reason. You may ask me 'Why are you bothering yourself with JP? You don't have to listen to him.' I like exploring collective ego behavior and why they do what they do, and this case was very weird to me at first. Everything I'm doing is a part of my study on collective ego.

I mean general problems in society, like failing relationships, high divorce rates, etc. They are very statistics-oriented and their solutions always pertain to stuff like 'Based on these statistics, we should make these changes in the education system' or 'We should change our attitudes towards this specific thing'. It's using logic and rationality to have more of a social consciousness.

I think this happens when Orange isn't well-integrated. Green people can be very logical and hard-nosed. Watch TED talk speakers cite study after study to support their claims of social injustice and propose systemic solutions.

Yes, there is this sense of us vs them, that 'We should eliminate the 'Dragon of Chaos'! We should struggle for good to keep out evil.' He's all for good, against bad, whatever that means. Tons of 'should' statements sprinkled in. SJW rhetoric coming across as moral insults. It is unbelievable to me that this serves as motivation to people. More power to them, I guess...! I have been traumatized by feminist SJWs. Women do use feminism as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their relationship life. The thing is, MRAs do the same, even more so. It's not a gender thing, it's an individual thing. I choose not to do that.

If we look at it from this recontextualized perspective, now we see that he can serve as a role model for men. One big problem in Western society especially, is that men have no role in society (or so they feel) because it's so independent and individualistic. What he says could serve as a guiding light for men to feel more useful, to create for themselves a role in society (aka life purpose). I haven't worked out the nuances of how would this work, but it is a possibility.

Something that's typical of Stage Blue is - Word-salads without any logical/conceptual context. You can indoctrinate people with rich and complex language and then use it as a ground to relate on. You can see this with religion, superstitions, etc. Listen, I have no problem with JP if this is the case. I was confused because that's not what people say about him, they see him as this 'great intellectual influencer'. If he will use a word-salad as faulty reasoning for upholding Stage Blue values he's indoctrinated with (12 rules for life and so on), that's completely fine! Lets be clear that this is what's happening though.

I'm not criticizing him. I'm trying to make sense of what he's saying and I'm reporting the findings. If it comes across as criticism, well, it is what it is.

I'm starting to get it now. Maybe at Stage Blue you don't need logic to excite and motivate people. You sprinkle in a few key-words and key sentences in your otherwise diverse word-salad and Bam! You've gotten yourself into their minds and now you're a big motivational speaker. Key words like 'Responsibility, Horrible/terrible, suffering, hope, optimism'

Exactly!! If his logic serves his ego, I have no problem with that. My question is, how is the ego of so many people getting served by his logic?! I don't need it to serve my ego, I'm trying to understand the appeal. Do people get starry-eyed by the word-salad and look up to him as a 'learned scholar' cuz he knows so many big words? What is it?!

Saying 'UBI is bad' because 'Post-modern maximists don't understand the way foxes hunt for water' doesn't count as logic.

I'm not saying I don't like his logic. I'm unable to find the logic in what he says! Where is it? Let me find it first, then I'll decide whether I like it or not. The fact that everyone seems to be understanding the words of what he says makes me feel insane tbh.

A few points I observed: He comes across as confident. This makes it hard for people to call out his bluff. He comes across as authentic, even though he has no ability to critically think and reason, which is typical of Stage Blue. This is why people who don't really listen to what he's saying can get carried away. It can come across as motivational and 'backed by facts', if you have no ability to think critically, logically or conceptually. Someone who listens to the logic will pick it apart in minutes. Essentially, it's like a cult-following. I don't want to judge, but I haven't found clear reasonable explanations about what the appeal really is about! It's an honest question. My mind is fishing for reasons right now if you catch my drift.

What different spiral stages value understanding about: Blue: Does not value understanding anything. Thinks that it has it all figured out, their ancestors/religious prophets/leaders figured it all out and there is nothing for me to figure out. We have no reason to reinvent the wheel when they have created it for us. Orange: Values understanding only about its own personal goals and how to achieve them. They will value learning useful skills, logical thinking, rational thinking, conceptualization, valuable information, goal-oriented thinking/self-help as long as it is pragmatic and helps them achieve their goals. Green: Values understanding about the wider world in general. Values understanding other people and their struggles. Yellow: Values understanding anything and everything. Yellow people are the ones who will want to grind down the details of everything and really question stuff for the sake of it. They will have completely self-constructed revamped mental models/worldviews based on their own best research. They will value having a map that resembles the territory as much as possible. This is very important to understand when communicating with different stages. For example, sometimes I make the mistake of telling Stage Blue people something that's nuanced and detailed. What happens is that their mind cherry-picks the details that fit their worldview, and leave out the rest of the message! They are picking out what they value out of it, and the way they do it suggests that they value keeping their mind closed. How much they value clear communication, whether or not they will make an effort to close the semantic gaps in communication entirely depends on their spiral stage. The higher up on the spiral the individual is, the more they will value clarity in communication. Tier 1 generally only understands stuff that go through their filters and nothing more. Their mind will literally ignore stuff that isn't a part of their worldview. This is often why you see them hanging out with their set ideological tribe. It is only at Tier 2 do we really get people seeking out different perspectives and really communicating properly!

When I talk about morality here, I'm primarily talking about the 'should' beliefs. Attitudes of the different Spiral Stages towards morality: Blue: Morality is absolute, i.e. there are absolute rules that you should follow. My parents/religion/civilization say that you should/shouldn't do certain things and it is my duty as a good kid/person/citizen to follow these rules. There are systems of collective survival in place in my family/country/religion/civilization. They work only if everyone follows the one right morality. If someone breaks the moral rules, they should be punished by the authority governing the collective accordingly. Orange: Morality is an idea that society constructed to limit me from achieving my personal goals. It is for people who don't want to take responsibility for their lives and instead want to be coddled by their religion/guru/priest/civilization/family. Morality works only because it is conditioned into people. There are no absolute 'shoulds' and the more people realize this, the more economic development we'll see. Morality is not needed at all. Nature works according to the Darwinian principle of 'survival of the fittest' and this will be the case whether you follow a morality or not! It is a waste of time/energy/resources to follow morality and it can cut down on my efficiency/productivity. The people who conditioned us to follow their morality did so for their materialistic interests. Religion is hyper-materialistic and the religious sheeple don't get this. They're kept busy following their morality and 'have-to' beliefs so that the authority above can suck them dry of their resources. Good for me, cuz that means less competition for me! The morality of my society is like a giant web of beliefs that set the rules of my playing field when I chase success. I will play by these social rules to win, but I will break them if I can get away with it. Morality is for people who can't let loose and enjoy life. Now that I've broken free of my morality, I can go out, drink, smoke, do drugs, sleep around, eat junk food, entertain myself and have a swell time! Green: Morality is relative and chosen. I have a different definition of morality than the next person. My rules of what you should do can differ from the next person and I have no problems with that. However, for me to trust you, we must have a certain common moral ground. Religion/family/other Blue institutions indoctrinated us with their absolute morality cuz they wanted to oppress us/control us to be good people in an absolute sense. They did this for their selfish interests and we need to educate more people about this. At best, it was a failed attempt at creating as good a morality as they could. Morality is important for collective survival, i.e. it is important for collectives to have a moral compass guiding their relationships and attitudes towards the world. If we don't have a moral compass, we end up being narcissistic, ego-driven and end up hurting each other. Having a morality must necessarily mean I demonize a certain group of people and call them evil. These people are the ones opposing my dreams for a oneness-based conscious utopia where humans live in communion with nature. They are unconscious of their impact on the wider world and they will end up destroying the planet if we don't stop them and demonize them! Points about this: At Green, you care about being a socially responsible citizen. But, because you're unconscious, you feel like you need a moral compass based on which you define 'socially responsible'. When you reach Turquoise though, you realize that everyone around you is a part of you. Now, you don't need a moral compass to help you be socially responsible, you will individually be completely free of morality! Morality, by definition, involves commitments to not hurt the people you're with in a certain way. When people agree on moral rules, it's generally considered a 'fair morality'. For example, it's considered a 'fair deal' to say : I commit to not hitting you, you commit to not hitting me. Different stages disagree on what's fair vs unfair. For example, what's fair for Blue is unfair for Green in a lot of cases. I think collective egos need to have a common definition of morality in order to co-exist in an orderly (not necessarily peaceful) way. It is important for us to feel that the other person is being fair with us in order to trust them, and we're able to agree on fairness when we follow the same rules. Now whether the rules are indoctrinated into you, or you came together because you agreed on your self-created moralities is a separate conversation. My proposal for a more conscious way of looking at morality: A deal is an agreement/arrangement in which all parties make certain commitments to the collective. Deals happen according to systems of collective survival. Morality is a deal that a collective agrees to in order to peacefully co-exist in an orderly manner. If you individually don't honor your moral commitment to the collective, you will be liable to action that the collective takes against you. A problem with morality today is that we're indoctrinated into it, i.e. we don't consciously commit to it. Very few people develop to Green and actually choose their morality. The more we develop to Green, the more we choose our morality, the more willing we will be to honor our conscious moral commitments to our communities. This is a wild level of democracy that we can only imagine at the moment!

Doing consciousness work itself is it's own research work. You will get insights relative to whatever you want to learn about! All you need is open-mindedness. The more conscious you are, the more important/useful your opinion/perspective becomes to the world, the higher the likelihood you'll be recognized as an expert and make money that way.

Looks like Stage Orange to me! I've been there and I know what it's like. Some of the most productive years of my life. Learned lots of new skills till I was full of knowledge to the gills. It's all about growth for growth's sake. There can be a lot of mental creativity too, where you're coming up with lots of brilliant new ideas to solve technical problems that have never been solved before! Pushing your comfort zone, being adventurous and aiming high is all very healthy Stage Orange. We tend to make the mistake of thinking that Life Purpose happens at Green or above, but really it can happen at Blue and above. The concept of life purpose, i.e. contributing something to the community is first conceptualized of at Blue. Stage Orange life purpose would look like starting a big tech company, being a cutting edge scientist, being innovative in science/technology fields, creating infrastructure that solves material problems of under-developed parts of the world, etc.

This right here is a bit of a red flag. You will not feel 100% fulfilled with this job. You are absolutely right to desire something better! The question is though : What do you want to offer the world? If I were in your place, I'd do some soul-searching into: which industry do I care about how can I create something that is really of value to them what change I'd like to see in the world, what would I want to contribute to the world what kind of social power do I want, where do I want to take the lead. This I'd do according to my strengths. taking ownership of professional relationships and stepping into my power in the professional context. You get wage-slavery when you have a boss telling you what to do, and you blindly follow their orders, i.e. the kind of relationship is a slave-master relationship. I'd really work on shifting that, stepping into professional autonomy and being the one who takes the lead. Taking the lead means striking up the deal yourself, i.e. saying : 'Hi! This is what I'm offering. If you want it, sign on the cross here.' For this, you will have to get into their shoes and understand what they need from you. If you're willing to meet their need out of your own volition, then you're not in wage-slavery and you're in the right job! If you're not, then it's an incompatible relationship and you may need to find yourself in the context of professional relationships. This is what searching for a life purpose actually means.