aurum

Consider that part of the reason it's challenging to name left-leaning policies on the books is precisely because they are so unworkable they never get on the books. This doesn't mean that many leftists don't hold these positions. They do. They just aren't able to successfully pass them.

We need to add to this list various schools of thought surrounding Leftist Anarchism, of which exist many. Communism is just one. We also have (just to name a few): Anarcho-syndicalism Green Anarchism Mutualism Anarcho-Pacifism Anarcho-Transhumanism If you aren't seriously considering how your anarchist philosophy might backfire and fail, you've lost the plot. Unfortunately many leftists over-index so much on anti-authoritarianism / populism . It is hard for me to take anyone's political positions who is an anarchist seriously.

Mass appeal is a very different criteria for success. I do not claim what I am saying has mass appeal.

For sure. It's a tricky thing to criticize post-conventional stages right now. On the one hand, I do see people who could greatly benefit from questioning even some of their Pluralist stage beliefs. These are people who have been there for a while. But if we assume the numbers from the Susanne Cook Greuter paper are correct, then the vast majority of people still have a lot of Pluralism to embody.

I am also a licensed health practitioner, and we certainly have our own set of ethics. I can remember in school they would quiz us on various ethical dilemmas, and we had to show how we would handle it. Was it useful? Sure, it was useful. I’m not saying there’s something wrong with contemplating ethics or constructing some sort of ethical framework to guide your decisions. But the question is, what is the highest level of morality and where does it come from? My argument is that any theoretical framework around ethics is going to be inherently very limited, both in its scope (what it covers) and in its practical ability to shape one’s decisions. So if we are interested in the highest morality, we have to dig a bit deeper. You can criticize the Goodness video for being too metaphysical / detached, but that’s really how the highest morality needs to be taught. If it wasn’t, it would again turn into a more limited ethical framework of do’s and don’ts. It’s precisely because it’s not specific that it is powerful.

You don't need all that. It's fine to explore but these ethical theories are not where morality comes from. Literally this:

Leo has tons of content on morality. It just doesn't look like what you want. You essentially want Leo to create a moral code that will tell you how to behave. But this would actually be a lesser form of morality than what Leo teaches, because true morality cannot be codified or made into some sort of algorithm. If you want lesser morality, join a religion. They have plenty of that already.

@Emerald This was essentially the premise of Andrew Yang's 2020 presidential campaign, and why he wanted to enact UBI. I think the most ideal outcome is what you're describing: AI comes in, automates a bunch of jobs that humans quite frankly shouldn't be doing anyway, and frees humanity up to care about higher developmental values. The question is whether or not we can actually pull that off. Or does it descend into degenerate corporatism, exploitation, loss of meaning and chaos for society? Perhaps some of both? How ready are the people of society to truly evolve? Honestly I don't really know. Jon Stewart did a piece of AI not that long ago: I think he somewhat missed the mark on this one. His priority here is that the working-class doesn't get exploited and lose their jobs / meaning, which is reasonable. People will suffer if that happens. But how do you get to a society based on higher developmental values? People cannot just continue to toil in wage-slavery forever, even if it gets them the paycheck they need to survive. At some point we need to move past that. Reasonable thinking would suggest there are going to be pros and cons. Some of it will be ugly, some of it will be beneficial. Long-term I'm optimistic we are heading for a society based on higher development, but the short-term is always unpredictable.

@DocWatts Another excellent post. Very timely for me, as I was just discussing the importance of ideological cohesion with other members of a group project I am working on. I feel this is an especially important piece for those who have been at the Pluralist / Post-conventional/ SD Green stage of development for a while. There is such an emphasis at that stage on questioning existing social narratives that typically the downsides of Construct Collapse are not acknowledged. This is necessary for someone to break free from the Conformist / Conventional / SD Blue + Orange stage of development, but at some point its limitations need to be recognized. Essentially, there is a deep reason why group-think and conformity exists. And it's precisely because groups of people can't function without some degree of it. So while "critical-thinking" and autonomous meaning making are important in their own way, too much done too soon can actually lead to chaos. Imagine if everyone in a democracy had their own totally unique vision for the country. Nothing could get done, including defending itself from another nation that was able to generate social cohesion through authoritarianism. In fact, that's precisely the positive function of authoritarianism: get everyone on the same page.

@Karmadhi The Israeli alliance is, and has been for a long time, of strategic importance for the US. The US does not want to jeopardize it. But they also do not want to look bad on the world stage or like they don't support Gaza civilians. So we get these strange situations where the US acts like it cares (air drops food / aid to Gaza) but fundamentally does little to stop Israel. They are trying to appease all sides.

Loved it! What most stuck out to me the most was how similar the AI sounds to Tier 2 thinking. It has an easy ability to balance polarities and various perspectives / models without getting stuck in excessive relativism or "both-sideism". It easily goes meta. And it isn't excessively forceful in its communication style, while still stating its opinion. When I think of the mind of someone at Tier 2, this is how I envision it structurally would behave.

People have always been vulgar and naked. The younger generations are just more open and less repressed about it compared to boomers. I consider it a necessary correction from a big picture POV. Pros: less repression, unconsciousness and shame around sexuality. A starting place for integrating a much more healthy, mature relationship to sexuality Cons: crudeness, promotion of meaningless hookup culture, loss of seeing sex as an intimate act to be taken seriously 1) They are universal and secular in the sense that no religion or ideology gets a monopoly on them. Certainly not Judeo-Christian. 2) I am acknowledging the origins of these laws. The true origins go beyond any particular religion. That's my point.

You would know why Green is the solution if you stopped denying it all as virtue signaling. I am not criticizing you for being against corrupt greenwashing. I am also against that. I am criticizing you for throwing the baby out with the bath water. Go to the Spiral Dynamics Green Mega Thread. Actually take the time to study and understand Green. Ask yourself: What is Green actually? Why does it exist? Why did it develop in the spiral? What is its function in the evolution of consciousness? What value does it bring? Contemplate. Take your time, do not rush this or jump to easy answers. Also, feel free to take it in as objectively as possible, the good and the bad. You will get to keep some of your critiques. But this will help balance your perspective if you actually do this.

Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently more immoral. They are just less uptight about certain things previous generations cared more about. This has pros and cons. Obviously many of them are still young and immature in a lot of ways. To me, Human Decency Laws look something like this: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights ^These values are secular and universal, not Judeo-Christian

Human decency laws are derived from what I just listed.

There's some truth to this. Certainly things have become more complex, which can make it harder for the average person to make sense of things. Also the scale of society and the technology we possess means there is the potential for more perniciousness. This does not mean though that we should go backwards and resimplify society though. This is instead a challenge to be addressed by becoming better as people. What is needed is more education, more personal development, more consciousness. Your mind has to evolve to keep pace with society's evolution. Lol. Keep dreaming. 1) It depends on your timeline. Non-linearity / collapse is certainly possible on a short-time line. I am using a longer one 2) Yes we need to take responsibility for the future, this is obvious and doesn't need saying 3) All of the people you named are materialists who don't understand the evolution and intelligence of consciousness The future is not just radically open. There is a clear line of evolution that is happening. And it's not towards more evil.

To a degree. 3rd world exploitation is unlikely to go away entirely at this point because the development of society as a whole is still far too low. Not enough of the world has gotten to Green, yet alone Tier 2 on the spiral. 3rd world exploitation is a complex systemic problem mostly of toxic late state capitalism. You could have capitalism that is far less toxic if people were more developed. Actually, a gay CEO of one of the biggest tech companies in the world is a huge deal. See any gay CEOs in Saudi Arabia? No, because they are not anywhere near Green yet. The fact that you don't see this as a huge deal is a testament to the progress we've made as a society for LGBT people. Not long ago people would have lost their minds if Tim Cook came out. The fundamental problem here is that you've already decided that all Green must be virtue signaling. You can go to Apple's website and see their values. They have a whole section on Diversity, Environmental Concerns, Supplier Responsibility, etc. These are Green memes. But are you likely to accept any of that? No, because you are overly cynical about Green. You think none of this can be genuine. Drop your cynicism about Green and everything will make sense. Of course there is. Just like Orange was the solution to the problems of Blue, Blue was the solution to the problems of Red, and Red was the solution to the problems of Purple, Green will be the solution to the problems of Orange. Society is progressing very nicely. Just give it time. Green and capitalism are not exclusive. Many Greens still believe in capitalism. I personally don't see capitalism going anywhere any time soon. But it will change. It will become more Green-like. Again, you over-index on the worst aspects of liberalism. Many liberals have reasonable policy positions which do not call for massive change. Intelligent progressive thinking exists. In fact, Green is closest to the Tier 2, systems thinking you are describing. You will see lots of systems thinking coming online in Green circles. And that's because Green comes right before Yellow on the Spiral. Your perspective is not balanced. That's your entire error.

Absolutely not. Perniciousness as a function is inversely related with spiral development. Especially the unhealthier versions of each spiral stage. Most of the things you were talking about in your previous post are great examples of toxic late-stage Orange capitalism. Green liberalism IS the solution to those problems. That's exactly why it's being selected for. Not because it's more "pernicious", but because it's less pernicious. The capitalism we will have in the future will look like rainbows and butterflies compared to today's capitalism. Pedantic side point: I would not refer to anything system prior to the Renaissance as "capitalism". Capitalism is really its own thing, as defined by modern inventions such as private property, property rights, markets, wages, etc. You could say there existed primitive forms of exchange in the form of gift economies, barter, feudalism etc but I would not say "capitalism". I think that just unnecessarily confuses the conversation.

I’m not entirely sure if I’m understanding the point you are making here. You are arguing that post-modernism capitalism, i.e Green capitalism, is to blame for all those things you listed?

As I said before, it’s a mixed bag. Many of the people there are genuinely very liberal. And on the whole, the company has many Green liberal values and operates as such. Of course there are also some more conservative elements. This is true of all organizations and all people. Apple is a large corporation deeply entangled with the larger system of our society. So it will be in alignment with the general development of that society. From a Spiral POV, we could consider them Orange / Green. They may not always be able to fulfill all of their liberal ideals, depending on how utopic your particular brand of leftism is. I’d say they do a reasonable job of be being progressive for a major corporation.

This is a gross oversimplification the situation. All those examples you listed use plenty of right wing language. Precisely because they are right wing. Sometimes words align, and sometimes they don’t. Generally leftists will use leftist language and right wingers will use language that appeals to the right. Again, this greatly oversimplifies the situation. Some of it is liberal greenwashing, and some of it is genuine. Nuance is needed. It’s precisely because liberal ideals are harder to live up to that they are more developed. If they were easier to live up to, then they would indicate they were a match to your level of development. Utopia is utopia because it represents a society based on more developed values. My argument is not that we should go ahead and implement every liberal hippie fantasy from a policy perspective. And yes, Orange capitalism will be phased out. And it will be replaced by Green, liberal capitalism. This will of course take a very long time, especially for countries that are more underdeveloped. But it’s already happening.

It’s not complicated at all. Of course liberal hippies stuck in utopian fantasies are mostly more developed than right wing, orange capitalists. You just need to change your criteria for development. The second major error you are making is equivocating liberals with out of touch hippies. This is a smear job of liberals. If you want to take the worst examples of liberals and use them as a point of comparison, then I get to take the worst examples of the right wing. Fair? Being superior at driving slave labor does not make you more developed. It makes you less. Also, consider that many top executives are actually liberals. Look at silicon valley CEOs. Tons of liberals. Society is evolving and Green / liberal style of leadership is being selected for. Because that is what is required as our development rises. Orange will be phased out, the Overton window will continue shifting and we will all become more like the liberals of today. Liberals of today = right wing normies of tomorrow. Underdeveloped on the whole, relative to stage Green liberals. This is, of course, a generalization and will not apply to all people along all lines of development. Development can be messy and non-linear in some respects, this you are correct about. I’d somewhat agree with this. Looking at what people say is still a good idea, since what you *say* is also something you are *doing* and can reveal aspects of your development. It’s not totally disconnected. Words matter.

@r0ckyreed Yes, this is the meta-lesson of actualized.org. Getting the right relationship to learning from others is a perpetual challenge. When are you just being a sheep and when are you being arrogant / ignorant and not listening to someone who understands more to you? This is always the question.

Consider an alternative perspective: the reason most people interpret it that way is because that's the correct interpretation. The point is that there is an asymmetry between those attracted to the right and left. And the asymmetry is spiral development. My claim is not that the left is "better" than the right in some vague absolute sense. I am saying that people who are attracted to the left tend to be higher up the spiral. Whether or not someone is truly interested in going beyond the status quo actually says a lot about their development. I never said otherwise. There is such a thing as healthy conservatism, The part of problem right now is we don't have much of that.

That's exactly right. The right wing IS lower down the spiral. Until a person gets that, they will not understand politics.