aurum

The models are fine, you just have to synthesize the disparate pieces. Individualism and collectivism feedback on each other in complex and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. If you read and understand her work, you will see Susanne Cook-Greuter is not enforcing a rudimentary hyper-individualistic / deconstructive frame on Green. Her framing is nuanced and understands Green's increasing interconnection with all of life. There's no contradiction here.

This is one of the best steelman cases I've come across for conservatism. Lots of crossover with Leo's work: If you're a liberal / leftist, these are the kind of people you need to be sharpening your intellectual sword against. You get a false sense of confidence debating with MAGA fools, like a boxer who has only ever fought children. Your political growth will be severely handicapped by this. Liberalism / leftism cannot possibly contain reality. And you're already a conservative / MAGA, you should watch this as well. Many of you cannot properly articulate the value of your own philosophy. This does a great disservice to conservatism and accelerates the spread of unhinged liberalism / leftism. You can also combine this with other thinkers like Leo Strauss to further sharpening your sword. I myself have made a list of such people for future reference.

To quote from Susan Cook-Geuter on the Individualist stage (4/5), which approximates to the transition to SD Green: This all correlates with the SD Green value system. So no, Green really is the first post-conventional, deconstructive stage in these models. All stages below that, including Orange, are conventional or pre-conventional. You can also look at Ken Wilber's Integral map and see this for yourself. Re-coalescing of community does not mean you have integrated conservatism. In practice, all these SD Green communities are full of hippy fantasies, leftist politics and delusional anti-mainstream thinking. That's what actually happens when you actually gather a bunch of SD Green people together. This is the opposite of conservatism. And it's not just because they're not "truly Green". They ARE Green. That's the problem. I'm sorry if I'm being blunt, but this is an absurd position you are taking. You seem to truly value community, but don't let that bias blind you on this. If you want to integrate conservatism, you must go beyond Green.

That could be a way to bridge things. I’d definitely be thinking about ways to make it sustainable for your body. If this is going to be your career, it has to financially provide for you for a long time. Also, don’t try to predict things too far in advance and map everything out perfectly either. Life purpose evolves and often in unexpected ways. It could radically change over the years.

@ExploringReality I think it can be a mistake to sometimes try and align your deepest spiritual work with survival and life purpose. Sometimes it's better to keep things compartamenalized. If skateboarding is really your zone of genius, do that for your life purpose and survival. Pursue spirituality outside of that on your own. It's possible they may end up coming together in an unexpected way too.

It's a reasonable question.

Whether it's deep holistic intuitions or some rational, empirical inquiry, it's all understanding. And it's all happening with your mind and your intelligence, just to different degrees. There is no escaping mind, intellect or understanding. There is no other process. Mind is using mind to understand mind. On this we are in strong disagreement. Stage Green cannot possibly offer healthy conservatism. The whole purpose of Stage Green is to begin the deconstructive process of societal norms and all your conditioning.

There have been strong protests for most modern wars. Look at how much backlash Vietnam and Iraq got. Whether or not it would be enough for the public to completely lose faith in Trump is questionable. It depends on how much pain they are experiencing and how much they attribute it to Trump. Most conservatives do not actually believe war or violence is wrong. They see that as a weak position for soft liberals.

At this rate, we may end up in an actual physical war with Europe and Canada.

That's the whole reason for doing an inquiry like this. If healthy conservatism is difficult to find, we must seek it out. It's like mining for gold. Their sense-making is often still shallow, yes. Those are definitely some errors leftists make. I doubt almost anyone understands Goodness or comprehends the depth of our collective problems.

A good discussion on the importance of press freedom:

Levitation or it doesn't count

Good find.

You bring more Tier 2 thinking, but I suspect there's still quite a bit of overlap. I actually have this debate with one of my close leftist friends. His viewpoint is incredibly similar to yours. "Evil" for most lefties is anything outside or against their SD Green value system. But their Green value system still tends to include seeing people as inherently good. Even the lefties calling for the guillotines are often doing so while believing in the inherent goodness of people. Here's a quick convo I had with GPT on this, which I think mostly nailed it: https://chatgpt.com/share/67c660ff-be24-800c-a9a7-5d78ae66ca3d My perspective would be that limitation is in service of preservation. Preservation is the goal, limitation is the tool. As long as we wish to preserve, conservatism will be relevant.

Re: wokeness is "dead" Is DEI just a moral fad, or is it deeper than that?

@Mu_ your questions are not unreasonable at all. Helping to bring the entire world up to the standard of living of the most undeveloped nations could cause more resource strain. But also, I would consider what the benefits of that would be. What would we gain in terms of technology, scientific-advancements, coordination, resource-use etc? If we consider the ecological crisis to be a function of Stage Orange and lower stages of development, then the reality is we need to more development, not less. You have to punch through the wall.

Vibes can be misleading.

Great. Keep us updated.

Vice News is exactly what popped into my head as well. This kind of thing seems up their alley.

I am going to encourage him because it’s a good idea. But it’s also risky, so he will of course have to make his own choice. What I am really asking him for is to do a sober, truthful assessment of the situation. He could get sued. He could do serious damage to his reputation. He could even unknowing implicate himself if there was anything illegal going on. All that needs to be considered and prepared for *if* he decides to go through with something like this. I bring up Leo because you both are unsure if sharing his story could actually help change someone’s mind. Leo’s video is a good example of that fact that reaching these guys is not impossible. They mostly just have to be ready for it.

Very true. But also consider where you might be if Leo had taken that same attitude with his video. Is it actually the case that all press is good press?

It absolutely can and might seriously backfire, depending on the attention it receives. You have to weigh the risks of that for yourself. You could potentially ask for anonymity from the interviewer. Don't be naive and assume everything will be fine if you speak out.

If it's done well, it could be a net positive. How many guys did Leo talk off the edge with his Andrew Tate video? Read the comments.

To stop young naive guys from falling into the same traps. He has a unique story. How many people have both had success with Andrew Tate and also left it behind?

@Unlimited Glad to hear you got out. If you're willing to deal with the consequences, you may want to consider sharing your story more publicly. I bet people would be willing to interview you.