Gesundheit

From the spiral dynamics site https://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/orange/: "What is the origin of the Orange Value system? Period: 2500 years ago Geographical location: Greece Founders: Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Ptolemy In reaction to: In the stable and save Blue world, there’s now room for the individual to expand and develop his or her talents. The lack of freedom in the Blue value system causes bitterness at an individual level, which awakens the need for self-determination. The individual wants to feel free to determine his or hers own life, form his or hers own opinion, and to search for his or hers own truth. The individual shakes of the wait-and-see attitude of Blue and has the drive (and is confident about his or hers own mental capacities) to now reap the fruits of material abundance life is offering. Success in Blue has increased abundance and the start of urbanization. The importance of trade, competition and money as a means of exchange is increasing. Life conditions are more and more experienced in terms of chances and opportunities. Earthly life and a worldly way of thinking becomes more valuable than religious spheres, and cognition, ratio and scientific thinking are emerging as the most dominant paradigms. Joy of living, and celebrating your successes are increasingly more important than living for the afterlife."

Wow! Awesome! I have tried stealing before and it felt amazing tbh (not encouraging anyone to do it though). I would like to join your Mafia whenever it's established. I have a feeling that this is the only way to balance out the devilry of capitalism.

I don't know about your questions, but awesome diagrams, man! How did you make them?

@datamonster Ha! But I wasn't suggesting socialism, either. The problem goes deeper than which economic system to adopt or what percentage of each, for human beings are not robots, but rather highly selfish beings. Whatever system we create, it will be exploited, because humans are corrupt & unaware. I don't know, tbh, maybe all of these discussions are pointless because no society can be eternal. But it was nice exchanging ideas with you. Have a great day, and turn your savings into gold. Take this advice from someone who has seen the economy of his country collapsing. At least with gold, you know you're not losing your money.

Sorry but I had to post this atheist meme:

This is a problem that every society has faced throughout history. It's the problem of how to best distribute resources over the population. With capitalism, however, it's worsening for the majority of people. What you're saying here doesn't make sense, because the problem is real for 90% of people and requires a solution that capitalism does not only lack, but also works against finding one and for making it worse. Most of us are forced to face this reality and deal with it, while the remaining 10% of people have already bought their tickets out of it, by standing upon our shoulders. This bourgeoisie attitude that you're suggesting only further adds to the problem. Us working hard only strengthens the people with the most money and leaves us weaker and poorer. It's ultimately unsustainable, and it will definitely collapse.

Actually, no. It is simply capitalism. Regardless of where you live. It is capitalism. Of course, the term is an umbrella for a cluster of complicated issues and reasons, but essentially it's the capitalist paradigm limitations on a global scale. This can be easily observed in your life. Compare your income 10-20 years ago with your income today. It has definitely increased. However, the things that you can buy with the same amount of money is now less. Everything now has changed and become more expensive, but your income has not been able to keep up with that change. This mismatch will differ depending on your location, i.e. The GDP of your country (Mine has severely declined over the past decade due to a cluster of reasons, so I can see the future of other countries). In most first world countries, the GDP is increasing, but the rate of increase is very low that it doesn't match the growth in population. Which means that unless you're a capitalist, your money will keep decreasing, inevitably. Even if it appears to be increasing in number, it is actually decreasing in value when gauged against gold. How much gold your monthly salary can buy today vs. How much it was able to buy 10-20 years ago. And this is the case even in the USA, today's strongest economy. It's a lot less apparent than in other countries, but nevertheless is the case.

Ahhhhh! See! This is what I'm talking about. You still have an agenda at core that you are stuck in. Your agenda is pragmatic or whatever you want to call it. Agenda = ideology It doesn't help to ascribe ideologies and judge them from a motivation standpoint, because essentially, any ideology has certain motivations behind it. The trees analogy is not on point, because it is comparing two different variables. If you want to make it a correct analogy, you can say that one side is cutting trees in order to make tables, another side is cutting them to make papers, another is cutting them to make furniture, and another just for fun. This is an analogy demonstrating a motivations-based comparison. And now you can go meta and discuss the usefulness of each motivation, which btw in and of itself is cutting trees in order to understand the usefulness of cutting trees, i.e. pragmatic understanding. See, in any case, ideology is inevitable. It just shifts forms. We can go meta once again and observe the usefulness of pragmatic understanding and contrast it to some other modes of being. Meta observing, which is the thing you're saying is the point of being non-ideological, is itself a mode of being nonetheless, and you're unwillingly are attached to it, which is preventing you from going higher on the meta level and understand the limitations of this particular mode of being. You actually probably think that it's the best mode of being and that it's stupid not to adopt it. Well, what I'm saying here is that it's not the best mode, it's just a mode. And stupid here would simply be a biased judgement.

I don't know. But I know that Martin Ball believes in an objective world out there independent of our individual consciousness. Does this count as enlightenment?

Peter Ralston and Jed Mckenna have tried psychedelics and say that they're useless. ... Anyway, to OP... We've had this discussion infinite times on the forum... Look: I think we should take a step back first and define enlightenment before continuing with pointless discussions.

If there's one thing that drugs can do, it is to create a Samadhi experience. That's like the most basic understanding of psychedelics. How you maintain that state is a different matter, and drugs can't do that, obviously. So, they're ultimately useless.

I don't want to repeat myself here, but you're doing the same mistake. If you don't like the word ideological, that's fine, but the behavior is essentially ideological, regardless of the label. Personally, I feel that many of you have certain shadows around open-mindedness. And in order to avoid facing those shadows, you just don't accept the obvious fact that open-mindedness is also an ideological & epistemological position that you have chosen over another position. It doesn't hurt to recognize that and move on, but apparently some people don't like to admit certain truths. When you say try not to overthink it, you're actually just making it more ideological than it is. That your position should not be questioned? WTF?! And you're still talking about open-mindedness? The same thing when Leo says that the question was answered. It's tragic that Leo wants us to question everything, and then puts an end to our questions & explorations when he likes. I mean, if you're not gonna question your position that's fine, but at least stick to it and let others practice being position-less/non-ideological.

It's a ratio, not black or white. You want to be 90% detached and 10% invested in order to make successful approaches.

Confusing pick up with pick up artists is like confusing women rights with radical feminism.

@Jaka Pirs Hanzic Lol. Language is a poor medium for transferring truth, and it is ultimately paradoxical. Use words as pointers and look at what they're pointing to. Don't take language too literally or seriously.

Why should there be imagination first? Where in the universe is that written?

You should have a similar vision for your future together. If not, then chances are you won't last for long. Because sooner or later, you will find yourself living in a different reality, and you won't be able to connect to him, and you probably won't be able to take it anymore (he probably won't find it as problematic, though).

Reality is hierarchical. Physical reality is prior to imagination, but nevertheless, imagination still affects physical reality.

Insight: A "point" is a stage Orange concept of pragmatism.

You're being vague here about the emotional problem you're dealing with. This could be a victim mindset hiding itself from yourself and others. I think you should further elaborate on what that problem is so that we can have a more comprehensive view of the matter. Maybe you're actually just being lazy, maybe not. But we won't probably be able to know unless you are more transparent. Or do you mean that you're feeling bad because you're gf is making more money than you? If this is the case, then you should feel bad because you're probably being lazy. I mean, given that you both have the same job, why wouldn't you make similar money? A little bit less is fine and understandable, but you're saying she's making most of your income. To me, this is a red flag on your side.

Capitalism is designed to further enrich the rich, and further impoverish the poor. It keeps expanding the gaps between the three major classes, until society becomes feudal, which is the next stage. And that is guaranteed regardless of the circumstances.

Evanesco!

I don't see why that thread should be locked. At least there needs to be an explanation.