Lews Therin

Hi, i am currently in a dilemma i imagine people here have dealt with wanted to share my thoughts on the matter I have three goals in my live. Attaining Enlightenment, developing my mind to be able to understand the problems of our world, and being capable of causing a positive impact on the world. The problem to me now seems to be a certain clash of goals, as i feel both my desire to understand the world better (which involves constantly making notes of ideas and thoughts), and my desire to achieve the means to influence it (which currently rely on making videos about those ideas) make it so that i am always grasping at any interesting thought that may arise in my mind, as it could either offer new insights, or be content for a video by itself. Now, i imagine lots of you already see how that is counterproductive in regards to the goal of being liberated. Today i had to stop during my meditation session because i had a few thoughts that i wanted to register. Now, this instantly felt bad, as when i went back to meditating 10 seconds later i could feel the grasp of the ego was stronger. But even in observing this we have but a manifestation of the problem, a part of me thinks it was useful to have stopped just to be able to observe how the ego got stronger, which is an insight i am now attached to. Is this greed? It seems to be the case, and i have my mind set on maintaining the sanctity of my meditation sessions. But **how should i know something to be greed when it is so well aligned with what i believe to be my life purpose**? Sure, we could rationalize most things to have alignments, like earning money that could be useful in a project or finding a woman that could be helpful and provide emotional support, but some things, like thinking about the our collective problems, are tied to the core of what i want to pursue, not as a support for it. I feel like it goes to the realm of greed when it threatens other goals and principles you might have? like when it interferes with my meditation? So **greed will push a goal that you already have into sacrificing other things that are important** in the name of that original thing, but **when that sacrifice is done, greed will get stronger**.

Do dead people count? My top 3 are Alan Watts, Leo and Daniel Schmacktenberger

that seemed wholesome. Maybe it's my biases, but i am wondering now how much being glazed like he was by that reporter can make the best side of someone show up. When you just got validated, it is one of the brief moments in which the common person will not be seekiing validation of their ego, and thus feel comfortable expressing love for others that would normally be blocked by self preservation

Hey, just wondering, how does pSpiral Dynamics explain tribes that extend far beyond the Dunbar Number? It is my understanding that purple share an identity with those whom they share a personal connection with, and blue extends that to include cultural connections. But how does that explain tribes that occupy many villages through a large area, like we have some today in the America's and Africa, but also like the Gauls, Goths and Iberians in ancient times?

"beyond the green idea that any mention of eugenics is immoral" When green is the stage of moral relativism? You are essentially looking at one aspect of the system, "inteligence" and trying to optimize it for that, that is the the Orange way of life. I would say this idea of your is in between Blue and Orange, with shades of red, since the idea of taking what you want to optimize and enforcing on others is a low Blue, Blue/Red way of dealing with stuff. Yellow would recognize that there are too many unknown factor for this to work. Once there was this guy who raised foxes for their pelts, he tried to breed only the most docile foxes to make his work easier. In the end, the pelt of the foxes ended up changing as well, so that it was no longer the product he wanted. Same thing would probably happen with your breeding programs, not to mention other forms of backlash from the people who are being coerced. This is literally everything Yellos know NOT to do. If a yellow person wanted to prevent IQs from dropping they would first try to conduct vast researches into the cause of the problem, it might be that high IQ people are having less babies, it might have to do with pollution, it may be both. If it is true that high IQ people are having less babies, try and find out why, then make policies that fix those problems so you can align your interest of having more high IQ people to their interests, whatever those are.

Why would this be yellow?

i was waiting for him to adress the question that it seems logical that if we can't perceive nor eat it, it can't perceive nor it us, the video didn't talk about this. I went to the comments and somebody pointed it out. Not to say there are no risks, but apparently that isn't nearly as dangerous as the guy makes it seem, it won't be capable of devouring us from the inside or anything like that, it will have to find a way to build it's nutrients from inorganic matter, which is more complicated than what most simple bacteria do. We will probably still find means of having a single person be able to wipe out all life, but apparently not so fast.

Each type of measure is useful in a certain context to help with a certain issue. The problem is when people turn said measure into an ideology and try to apply it to everything else. Argentina’s problem was public debt and lack of trust in the currency. he is cutting expenses, less expenses mean more money to pay the debt, less debt makes the currency more trustworthy. There is a cost of course, less money is flowing from the government and so the economy is cooling. That doesn’t affect their capacity to make money as much because they are an exporter of food and other basic products. But it does affect the population, as agrobusiness’s money usually doesn’t circle around a lot. So he is fixing the problem, the question is if his political capital will last long enough for the debt to be paid, since an increase in poverty can make the people angry.

Dude, you are talking like a propagandist of some sort. The media? It isn't the media who is telling us this, it is the rebel leader himself, all you have to do is look at the speach he gave, that was not a secularist speach, i could easily see the ayatolah saying those exact same words when he came to power in Iran. That it is not to say it will allign with Iran, stage blue can hate stage blue just as well as any other stage, but that guy is pushing for orange values. Also, saying that a country is unique is meaningless. Afghanistan was unique, so was Iraq, so was Brazil in 1964 and germany in the 1930s. Uniqueness doesn't mean much, every person is unique, and yet the illness one can suffer, so can the rest of them.

Just to register my view, i also, as everyone else here, hope the best for the Syrian population, but i find it very hard to believe there will be any sort of democratic government there in the near future. This is not a stage orange world, it is a blue world with a few orange great powers in it, and even they aren't free of blue. Brazil had a coup attempt not even 2 years ago. Trump tried that in the US and may try again soon. Democratic institution are very hard to build and maintain, and syria would have to build them from the ground up. We saw movements that carried the banner of democracy fail time and time again to build those, so i see no reason to be very hopefull the a self-proclaimed islamist leader, who did his first official speech in a mosque filled with took great care to shove as many blue memes he could within said speech will be very devoted or even capable of building those orange, democratic institutions. But i disagree that the west wants a "weak syria", as a weak blue syriamay go back to being friends with stage blue iran. I think Israel and the US are much more worried about making sure the new rulers are west-aligned than that they get cheap oil. The iraq war happened in an era were lots of people thought "history had ended" and stage orange had won, so it was all about cheap prices. Now people are aware that stage blue is far from trancended, and so, to the measure it doesn't hinder the west's capacity to function economically, i believe most would choose to pay a price a little bit higher in order to secure allies against iran, russia and china.

@Vercingetorix What skin in the game? what did these people feel? What did they experience that would suggest trump is a better choice? Policy wise trump makes no sense, he claims he will simulataneously end inflation and create tariffs which are inflationary as well as deport immigrants, which is also inflationary. He claims he wants to stop immigrants from taking people's jobs, but he convinced republicans to vote gainst a bill that created restrictions on asylum seeking. He claim he will bring about peace, but his proposal for ukraine involves having them ceed land to an aggressive invader, what will send a message to the world that invading to take land is back on the menu. He has no cohesion of thought or strategy, when asked about his plans for healthcare, all he could say was that he had the "concepts of a plan", but said nothing more on it. ANd how the fuck can you say others don't have skin in the game? are you claiming we live in another world? that we are aliens that can't comprehend life on earth? It is the billionaire who inherited his wealth who has "experienced first hand what is going on"?? give me a break

Man, i was about to right a post just like this one, but of a person a personally admired a lot, Liv Boeree. She wrote this on her Substack: https://livboeree.substack.com/p/reflections-on-the-election This tilted me so much when i read it, she was one of the people that got me interested in systems thinking, she has a whole damn podcast about it where she has interviewed Schmacktenberger and other great thinkers. I almost lost my apetite, and it is seriously making me rethink lots of what i believe. She based her arguments on the idea that the Dems wanted the country to be humble, whereas Trump represented pride and boldness. She further elaborates that she considers humbleness to be associated with shame, which is supposedly one of the lowest emotions and can lead to envy and attempts to bash on those who actually try to improve the world. (i don't particularly disagree with shame being a horrible thing to feel, though i think that the model she presented is BS, as it places anger way above shame, and anger can very well just be a cover up, and therefore can be "lesser" than shame) How could someone who clearly has a lot of tier 2 in her claim that being narcisistically pridefull is better than being humble? It almost smells like accelerationism to me This made me question if i am just morally lucky? The Dems clearly have a clearer big picture view, but how can someone who knows so much about "big pictures" like Liv fall for it? Shouldn't i have also fallen then? Did i resist just because my mind was already colonized by the other side?

is this a movie or do you have any credible sources for that?

having an impulse isn't enough to classify a religion A religion is a a survival oriented ideology that claims to base it's premises of of spiritual truth. So if God is a word you use to describe the fundamental nature of reality, and you use "God's will" to say that you can't eat pork, drink alcohol, have abortions, be gay or whatever else, that's religion. You are trying to ascribe you personal values to reality itself. Leo says that if you do this or that you may end up unhappy, and those are based on his personal view, but i haven't seen him those values he has to be based on the will of something higher. So not a religion.

What did you do as a volunteer? can you go more in depth about how was the experience and what insights you got from it?