Boethius

I am doubtful about the effectiveness of this (even as an individual action). After all, if I stop eating fish then sure the demand goes down, but so does the price of fish overall. And with a lower price other people might be more likely to buy fish than they were before. So are a fewer # of fish harvested overall? As long as the government says it's safe I'm not that worried about it. If you think governmental regulations are somehow inadequate or have been subject to industrial corruption, that's another conversation altogether. You assume it's self-evident that consuming fish is a moral/spiritual evil. Not all religious traditions agree with that. Refer to Romans 14:2 for example.

Meh, I remain hopeful that our governments are still capable of figuring something out. One thing I saw after researching some of Seaspiracy's claims is that government subsidies of the fishing industries leads to overfishing. (maybe that was in the movie? I didn't hear it.) So something we can do, as informed citizens, is to petition the government to not subsidize the fishing industry and to support environmental groups in such petitions. In fact, one of the organizations that Seaspiracy "called out" was the NRDC (an organization I myself have been faithfully supporting for a few years now), and the NRDC takes action on these exact concerns: https://www.nrdc.org/issues/stop-overfishing-and-restore-fisheries I feel like Seaspiracy could have been a much more useful movie had it not set a goal of proselytizing on behalf of veganism and instead just provided the viewer with tools for taking action.

Like I said, I'm not greatly interested in the film's "moral" message about honoring the sacredness of ocean life. My interest is in how we could manage fish harvesting to be sustainable. The film does not make a systematic argument for the impossibility of doing as much. As for the Amazon rain forest, I'm sure some people do have a sentimental attachment to it, but again my concern would be more about the sustainable harvesting of resources. Because overfishing is a concern for me only insofar as it threatens the sustainability of harvesting fish populations to feed the human race. Again, I'm not thinking about these problems in moral, spiritual, or sentimental terms but instead in terms of the sustainable harvesting of resources.

I think part of supporting a person who thinks they're not human is to help bring them back to a sense of themselves as a human. My guess is that they believes themselves to be non-human in the first place because there is something about themselves that they believe cannot be expressed as a human. For example, maybe they want other people to relate to them with a greater level of compassion than is conventionally extended to people. I would be comfortable in holding space for another person to explore those parts of themselves that they feel to be cut off from the "normal" human experience, but I'm not going to play along in pretending that they are somehow categorically different from me.

I feel that these people should be supported. That's not to say that we all should be feeding into their delusions of themselves as being something other than human (and yes, I do regard their claims as fundamentally delusional). But kindness, concern, and treating them as fellow human beings goes a long way.

It prevents people from seeing the world in more holistic ways. I'm thinking about seeing the world organized at various different levels of complexity or being able to see various systems at operation in the world. People who are hardcore materialists tend to simply experience the world as consisting of a series of different physical objects (smartphones, toothbrushes, trees, pets, humans) without there being any deeper order to the objects. For instance, could such a person think of Friendship as a special type of relationship that comes with its own joys and responsibilities? This would be a more Platonic way of understanding friendship. Or imagine trying to talk with a rationalist about something like systems of oppression. Such a person would likely refuse to believe that such a thing exists absent a bunch of evidence (even though, philosophically speaking, no amount of evidence would likely suffice to convince the most committed rationalist that systems of oppression exist). So what I'm really talking about here is ontology. This is what is meant when we speak of rationalists as being committed to an unexamined and unconscious set of metaphysics. That is, a rationalist only recognizes a restricted categories of "things" as having existence, as being real. And when someone (from a spiritual background, for instance) starts talking about things that go beyond the rationalist's ontological committments, the very predictable response from the rationalist is that the "thing" in question is not "real" and hence is of no interest to anything (and it is here that the rationalist's ego comes into clear view). Anyways, I hope that helps.

There seems to be a basic "leap" in logic that is present in both this thread and in the movie (I'm speaking from having watched the entire thing and not just the trailer). On the one hand, the movie begins by exploring the notion of sustainability, in terms of the over-fishing of the oceans that might lead to the collapse of fishing markets in 2048. After going through a series of atrocities (murder of dolphins and whales, slavery in the fishing industry, disingenous NGO's, the filthiness of fish farming, etc) the narrator shifts focus from sustainable fishing practices to the sacredness of our oceans and the animal life contained therein. He concludes the movie by proclaiming that the best way to "protect" our oceans and its life is by not eating seafood. At the end of the day, what starts as a pragmatic concern about fishing systems morphs into a moralistic impulse to honor the sacredness of our oceans. Putting the moral argument aside, are there ways an informed person can consume seafood so as to protect the health and integrity of our remaining fish populations? This seems to be a more holistic problem, and one whose solution cannot be to go vegan. After all, assuming our goal is for the entire human population to be able to consume seafood in ways that are sustainable, then by definition the solution is not for every human being to go vegan (and in these terms, for an individual person to go vegan is effectively saying that they are willing to eat less fish so that others can eat more!)

On nights when I can't sleep because I have too much energy coursing through my body, I like to stand barefoot in my concrete basement for a good 10 -- 20 minutes. That usually helps bring me back into my body well enough to be able to at least kind of sleep.

To become a beautiful human being. To become a beautiful soul that is "worth" being saved from the grip of death.

I understand and am sympathetic (at least partly). I think it was pretty shameful a couple years ago when a young white woman was shamed for wearing a kimono dress to prom (on charges of cultural appropriation). But on the other hand, I don't see that there is any reasonable defense for a white person who gets recorded on video hurling ethnic slurs at people of color. So my assumption is that social media shaming will be the standard way for our society to "adjudicate" public instances of racism (if only because it's easy) and I hope that we can develop some sense of good judgment and maybe even the possibility of forgiveness.

I agree with that. In fact, it's what we've been doing the past few years already with recording people's bad behavior, uploading it to social media, and getting people doxxed/fired.

The "funny" thing is that most of us struggle with these sorts of thoughts from time to time. I find that if I can generate awareness that my own insecurities are the insecurities that other people face as well, then I feel less lonely and can extend more compassion to myself (and to others).

I figure that our children's books and movies have a lot of warnings about the dangers of magic for a reason. The Mirror of Erised from Harry Potter is a case in point. So even though there may well be some level of "reality" to the magical and the miraculous, it's probably best to heed the warnings in not being too curious about it all.

I agree! The average Christian hasn't felt a great need to engage in an academic, forensic analysis of the historical record while agnostically suspending final judgment on Christianity's truth claims. Most people would tell you that they have better shit to do with their time. And yet 1/3 of the world's population is Christian. Perhaps the truthfulness of religious "myths" (whether you're using that word in its negative sense or its neutral sense) is determined by other means -- which again, seems to be what your response implies.

Where are the "previous" traditions today?

I think the desire to single-handedly "save" the world (or to think such a thing is even possible) is more indicative of stage Green ego than of stage Yellow functioning. I mean, it's a cliche that people who take up Social Justice activism with reckless abandon end up burning out -- their stage Green idealism lacks the tempering force of stage Blue discipline, which people tend to recover as they move into the more holistic functioning of stage Yellow.

This is what I would pay attention to, if I were in your shoes. Maybe they are smarter than you, maybe you are smarter than them, maybe you and them just have different views... in any case, it seems worth investigating from a place of non-judgmental detachment as it could produce quite a few insights for yourself!

This feels like a contemporary version of the millennia old question about whether or not God knows what we are going to do before we do it (I'm thinking here, in particular, of his reference to "some guy, some evil genius, in another room typing in my instructions to my completely determined and coerced brain").

What is up with the Boomer generation? I don't ask this as a way of "dumping" on the Boomers. More I have in mind some of the difficulties I feel in relating to Boomers in conversation. I often feel like they talk "over" me and make all sorts of assumptions about me or about where I'm coming from, and that trying to "correct" them on these assumptions generally feels like such a waste of time that I just don't bother. I don't sense this sort of interpersonal dynamic at play when speaking with younger people (especially when speaking with those 25 and under) since it seems like they have a better sense that what is true for them may well not be true for others. Can this sort of thing be explained by Spiral dynamics -- perhaps many Boomers are still centered at Orange whereas a lot of young people have already been forced into the more multicultural Green stage of development? Or maybe this is all just in my head and I'm projecting too many things onto the Boomer generation. If it helps I am a 36 year old Millennial. Thoughts?

A good introductory video for Christian mysticism:

I figured this would be a good thread since we have had recent threads on journeying from Green to Yellow and from Orange to Green. So how was your journey from Blue to Orange, around what age did it occur, and what do you miss from when you were centered at Blue (if anything)? I would say I was centered at Blue up until I was 15 or so, and then by the time I was 18 I was solidly centered in Orange, though this was a super difficult transition for me. I came from a dysfunctional family that has a lot of problems with substance abuse, untreated mental health issues, domestic violence, poverty, etc. So for me really embodying the values of Blue (hardwork, discipline, delaying gratification) was essential for avoiding what felt like the trap that had been set for me from the day I was born. The transition away from Blue was necessary, however, since I knew myself to be gay in the 90's when (most) Christianity was saying that it was a sin. So wanting to be a *good person* while knowing that the larger society would never consider me as such -- on the basis of something that I intuited was basically morally neutral -- required that I delve very deeply into my belief system. And as an INTP that of course meant thinking very critically about religious epistemology. But it was really uncomfortable stepping so far away from mainstream society, though it did help being able to adopt the "counter culture" label that had been floating around the US for some number of decades. In college I ended up adopting a libertarian political belief system, in large part because it enabled me to feel justified in not feeling responsible for helping my parents (who continue to make terrible life decisions even to this day). I do miss the clarity around what it means to be an adult that I felt like I was receiving during my Blue stage, but that clarity certainly came at the expense of individual freedom, and so I'm glad I took the chance in becoming my own person.

What would a "solution" even look like to you? With any type of crime there are guilty people who go free and a (probably a much smaller) number of innocent people who are convicted. It seems to me that the key movement towards reform in today's society concerns the fact that so many men who are in fact guilty of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual coercion never face any consequences for their actions. In fact, the entire MeToo movement, for example, provided a plethora of examples of men acting badly. Is it the case that taking a "tougher" prosecutorial stance on these issues is likely to lead to an at least marginally greater likelihood that innocent men are acquitted, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion? Yes, of course. The same would be true of an effort to be tougher on drug use, on property crime, on white collar crime, etc. But again the issue is of the tradeoffs involved. The calculation society is making, which I personally agree with by the way, is that sexual crimes against women have been so grossly under-reported and under-prosecuted that it is worth the risk that some (again, probably small) number of men are deemed to be guilty when they either aren't as guilty as they have been deemed or are possibly even innocent. Lastly, one huge intention of all of these movements is to shift our cultural understanding of consent. The idea is that many of these sexual violations of women occurred because our pre-existing ideas around consent are toxic, unfair, put the onus on woman, or are simply murky. By raising the standards around consent we can expect fewer violations by men, a greater sense of empowerment among women, and more prosecution of sexual violations.

I had been highly competitive in high school (valedictorian) and undergraduate (3.9 GPA), which helped me get into a good grad school (UChicago). After a couple years there I still felt pretty competitive, even with my friends. But it was silly too since I knew I wasn't the most brilliant grad student or anything (I had experienced the classic journey of being big fish in a small pond to being a small fish in a big pond). And I started to feel like I was being a bit of a dick in how I related to the people I called my friends. So I decided to just ease up on "proving" myself. It helped that there were a lot of grad parties where I could go and get drunk on some wine and shoot the shit about things that were not related to my thesis research. So alcohol really helped pave the way for my transition into Green (even if it ended up causing problems later in my life). This paralleled my movement away from libertarianism (I hated how people like Ron Paul wanted to see the '60s civil rights actions repealed) toward more moderate liberalism, an increased interest in social justice and issues of privilege, a desire for the US to be more of a "community" than merely an arena for competitive capitalism, an exploration of the gay male community where I finally felt free to be my whole self, and a tentative openness toward spirituality (the sort of spirituality found in movies like The Tree of Life & The Fountain). It's strange to me to think that a great many people never make the transition from Orange to Green, though I do expect that a significant portion of us from the Millennial/Zoomer generations do in fact make that transition. What I've described is what it looked like for me about 13 years ago when I was in my earlylish 20's.

It wasn't until I was 32 that I started to give a shit about socializing skillfully with other people. Until then I thought socializing (what I referred to as "schmoozing") was mainly about either subtly manipulating people or trying to win any number of different social games. With my exploration of spirituality, however, and the idea of everyone on this planet as a brother or sister, I started to think that I should probably start to learn how to be less awkward around people and more skillful at things like small talk, empathetic listening, sharing emotions, etc. In that time I've done A LOT of work on myself, in reading books about exploring emotions, developing interpersonal relationships, handling conflict productively, practicing mindfulness, being at ease in the present moment, etc. And then in addition to reading/studying these issues I've also just put myself out there in interacting with people from all sorts of different walks of life and in all different sorts of social contexts. I would say that I've made interacting with other people skillfully into a large part of my daily "practice". Thankfully, I'm getting to a point where I feel like I can start easing up on the "seriousness" of this practice and start being a bit more playful and care-free. Which isn't half bad for an INTP math guy! By the way, if anyone wanted a book recommendation on some of the things I've been looking into, I'll include the link below: https://www.amazon.com/Relational-Mindfulness-Deepening-Connections-Ourselves/dp/1614294135/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=relational+mindfulness&qid=1617469994&sr=8-2

I've been slowly reading through this book https://www.amazon.com/Where-Buddhism-Meets-Neuroscience-Conversations/dp/1559394781/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=neuroscience+of+buddhism&qid=1617307505&sr=8-5 that explores these questions among neuroscientific researches and Buddhist leaders (including the Dalai Lama). Suffice it to say that these conversations are very complicated and subtle and that there's probably no final "resolution" in understanding the issues involved.