Fran11

Sounds like he has only a conceptual and distorded understanding of "no mind", like many people do. "No mind" is not literally never thinking. It's merging your mind in the present moment. That means that instead of thinking random crap all the time, the thoughts that you actually need according to the moment will come up, without the sense of a "thinker". This doesn't mean that if you want to think about something that's not in your direct experience (like politics for example) you can't do it. You can, but it will feel more like a concious process instead of being unconciously pulled by random thoughts. Thinking actually gets much more effective and refined as conciousness rises. Imagination also gets amazingly boosted. I've been practicing mindfulness troughout the day as much as possible for years and found no downsides whatsover. Been able to study medicine career, reason properly, do artistic practices like painting and singing, etc. Don't worry about this.

"You haven't seen porn... until you've seen it on 5Meo-DMT"

Some concepts point to Absolute Truth better than others.

This is it. Just talk about conciousness and qualia and have fun watching them do mental gymnastics in order to reduce the color red to neurons/wave-lenghts/whatever.

Thinking patterns affect your brain chemistry in the long term. Most people develop anxiety and depression not in childhood but later in life, and that's in many cases because a long history of bad thinking habits (not judging, these habits may well be because of trauma). The opposite is also possible but it's hard. Google how meditation and yoga shrink you amygdala, which is a brain nucleus that's very important in anxiety pathways.

Why in a dream you feel you can only control one character and not every character if they are all you? Does this mean they have an independant will of their own?

This happened in my country (Argentina). I want to get opinions from people who are not from here because they'll be less biased. And to make a meta point about Green excesses. According to S. Green folks this is police brutality and repression. Looking at the video all I see is people insulting police and trying to break a police cord that was just standing with shields protecting the legislative building. What should the police have done? Let them break in? What do you guys think? Do Green people tend to have these unrealistic and childish interpretations about the use of force all over the world? They are always naively against the use of police force in order to prevent Red barbarism. Sometimes it seems they don't even understand that goverment is not possible without the monopoly of force. I think many seemingly Green people are really at the Comformist Stage, although superficially they may seem more advanced. Because they just absorbe some advanced ideas from culture but their understanding is very simplistic and they get dogmatic.

- Not only the concept of "society" can be deconstructed, but also the concept of "individual". To deny this is ignorance and libertarian bias. - The "sacrificial lamb" characterization is an overly exaggerated one to appy to modern developed societies. - The "live and let live" philosophy is very simplistic. Our individual actions always affect others at least indirectly. It's all interconnected. Individualism is important of course, but to glorify individualism as the ultimate goal becomes as toxic as glorifying colectivism.

Yup, that's starting to happen with the new Kirchnerist goverment (Cristina is our vicepresident now). But not to a great degree yet, you know how stubborn we humans can be when it comes to addmiting our mistakes. Good to talk to you, many great points!

Well, Cristina Kirchner's goverment was the most corrupt in our whole history (reaserch about it), and generally Green still sympathizes because she put on a Green facade by promoting some good social advancements like gay marrige. Believe it or not, Green doesnt care much about corruption in here, its in denial about it. Anti-corruption protests actually are put forth by people who are against Kirchnerism (who happen to be Blue and Orange).

Theres a lot of corruption. And I mean A LOT. That is one big problem. Another problem is how do you adjudicate money when there are lots of important priorities. Like you said, there have been many protests like this one from different social groups, equally valid. So how does one arbitrate? And again, sometimes Green insists on putting money in less urgent things, which would be great in a first world country, but unfortunately we are not at that point here. Some good ideas get imported fast because of globalization, but it doesnt mean the whole world is ready for them.

Thats right, that's why in a highly Red society, Yellow would not only promote Green and Yellow values, but also healthy Blue and Orange, as they are still an elevation from Red.

Yes. My claim is that in this case violence is useless. Because its not just about goverment's denial of social problems, there's just no money to please everyone, no matter how many buildings they break.

Strongly agree. It's easy to see Green as rainbows and butterflyes from a 1st world country perspective. But when a 30% of population is Red, Green dogma (demonization of Blue and Organe and denial of their healthy asspects) can't deal with social problems and becomes counterproducent. Yellow in such a situation would highlight the healthy asspects of lower stages and be considered as a conservative. I am very pro Green values, in my post about gender deconstruction they took me as a crazy progressive liberal. Now it seems I'm coming out as a conservative.

Not so in my country at least. Green excesses are more noticeable and problematic in underdeveloped contries, where there's more Red. A good example is public over-expenditure. In a first world country maybe its not that a big problem and only conservatives complain because of dogma. But here is very damaging for the economy, they don't undersatand that a poor country cant sustain a state thats as big as in developed regions. We are always taking debt or printing money, which worsens poverty in the long run.

@Forestluv I found out the building in question is the legislative building. Kinda irrelevant because trying to break in and destroy any public building generally seems like Red barbarism to me. But you had asked so I reply. About their motivations, maybe they werent going to destroy it... maybe they just wanted to clean it, or to take pictures... but it doesn't seem so Would not taking the chance be right wing repression?

You wanted to make it seem like I was against a fair protest when I had clarified it in bold that I was not. That seems like intentional misinterpretation and making a straw-man.

Thats like saying: "Be thankful for Blue, because if it wasn't for Blue, Red would rape and kill you." Does this mean that Blue doesnt have unhealthy asspects? Extrapolate to Green and realise it's not pure good and love.

Great points! Yes, I exaggerated a little. What they are almost always against is the use of force in order to avoid Red excesses. I'm not saying Red sholud be always repressed, but it's a balance and at least in my country they take it overboard and rather allow unnecesary destruction.

I'm not saying that group is Green, like I said above its probably Red. But Green is always against the use of force used in order to avoid unnecesary destruction.

Okay you just wanna attack me, I clearly said the protest was justyfied. The breaking in into public buildings is not.

The use of force can be excessive. This is why I say I'm talking about this particular case and not saying it never happens. But to Green it always is. So in that sense yes, I was making a general point about this Green excesses.

The protests itself was about asking for better conditions for nurses. We're im COVID19 peak in here. Totally justifyed of course. This was a little group trying to break in into a public building nearby. Which like I said it's not uncommon here. I don't know which exactly, many look similar. Should this be allowed?

I do, you are drawing that conclussion from one single post I'm making about their excesses. I said above I agree with Green values in genral. I'm even trying to become a vegan believe it or not. But specifically their denial about the proper use of force and the need for taking care of public expenditure (take into account its a poor country and we are always in debt or printing money, causes more poverty in long run) are damaging.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Like I said above, protests are mostly peaceful and justified. But there are little groups who go overboard and cause destruction. Should this be allowed? Is it right wing to stop it?