Nilsi

Journaling.

I would delete myself from the governments database and leave everything else the same. Escaping the Kafkaesque nightmare that is German bureaucracy: The definition of FREEDOM.

If I had to pick one, it would be this.

Jungs "model" of Individuation and Nietzsche's idea of the Overman are viable alternatives to Spiral Dynamics. Maybe we should start color coding their ideas, so it's not too hard on the brain.

How is it not relevant? I brought it up as an alternative to basing your worldview on some teleological stage theory.

The problem is that Nietzsche and Jung are incredibly nuanced thinkers and presuppose massive understanding. Which is why sources like Wikipedia and silly YouTubers like "Eternalised" and "Academy of Ideas" butcher their ideas and miss the point entirely. It would be impossible to condense their work into something as elegant and easily digestible as Spiral Dynamics. If you were to engage with their work deeply, you would begin to see the wisdom in it.

I propose Friedrich Nietzsche and Carl Jung. Wouldn't it be silly, if there was only one viable way to interpret the world? Both Hegel/Wilber and Nietzsche/Jung offer a comprehensive explanation of the world. For the former God is the unattainable goal of life and for the latter God is a turning point in life, after which you are finally free to create your own meaning in life. This is more of an aesthetic choice than a matter of one person being right and the other being wrong.

I agree. That doesn't mean there aren't other philosophers who understand reality as deeply, but come to different conclusions on what to do about it.

Seems like a classic post-structuralist critique: "White men forcing their values on the rest of the world." Kind of a strawman argument though. The point of developmental psychology is to reveal the principles and "stages" of development that are common to all human beings. Piaget's developmental theory has been validated cross culturally (and I'm sure many more models have). To me the problem starts at the "higher stages" like "Turquoise," "Tier 3" or some other bogus. This is the biggest group think imaginable - especially with people like Ken Wilber explicitly labeling his followers and telling them how to become more "Turquoise" aka. "read more books, meditate more, give up your individality and become just like me (although you will never become as great as me)." Nora Bateson is very involved with Integral and adjacent communities and I can only imagine the circle jerk going on there... Nietzsche already identified this problem in Hegel. Hegel talked about phylogenetic and ontogenetic development as Spirit coming to self-knowledge, by developing through a series of developmental challenges (contradictions) to higher order resolutions. While these challenges were/are/will be acted out on the stage of world history, in personal development they are purely conceptual and so all development/spirituality was confined to sitting in a library all day. Nietzsche didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and came up with his own developmental model, the "Metamorphoses of the Spirit." For Nietzsche, development was all about becoming more of an individual (an overman), not some teleological equalizer.

Incredibly profound presentation of Nietzsche's seminal work "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" - by someone who ACTUALLY understands Nietzsche. All important concepts are broken down on an extremely high level. This is basically the metaphysics of Nietzsche. THIS IS A MUST WATCH FOR EVERYONE INTERESTED IN TRUTH/METAPHYSICS/EPISTEMOLOGY.

If you behave like a king you'll be treated like one. Only in a cursed world would that be any different.

None of all of this is more obvious than in Wilber's "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," when he concludes his tour de force with "Plato was right all along, but hey, good thing we talked about it - now we really know." Yes, you can do that, or you can actually do something creative and novel.

Fair.

I guarantee you, that Hegel, Nietzsche, Jung all have an insanely profound understanding of reality - at least as impressive and comprehensive as Ken Wilber does. Western philosophy build's on top of itself and takes prior realizations and insights as given (which A. is why it is so productive and amongst other great feats, landed us on the moon; and B. is why it is so confusing, if you're not very fluent in the entire corpus). Read the pre-Socratics (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, etc.). All the fundamental metaphysics has been done thousands of years ago, while all the Easterners start their works from scratch (which A. is genuinely very admirable and shoes intellectually honesty and humility; and B. is why they haven't come up with ANYTHING original for millenia). Of course most academics and many canonical philosophers are clueless and lost in abstraction, but also consider, that some may just choose not to concern themselves with questions, that they themselves and our culture as a whole, have long ago answered conclusively.

That's kinda silly, considering you are probably mindful about what foods you consume (which, of course, are biochemicals) - but you do you.

Their work is not confusing, it's just very elitist and has a huge barrier of entry. Before I got into western philosophy, I studied virtually ALL the great Eastern thinkers (including you, Wilber, Schmachtenberger, etc.). Again, Western philosophy, ever since Plato, is not trying to unravel reality. It takes this realization as the ground and starting point of all further inquiry and questioning (at least those philosophers worth their salt do). Can you really not grant, that someone could understand reality perfectly well, yet still have other profound questions they would rather spend their time with, instead of being the n-th guy to ramble on about metaphysics and Truth for eternity?

No Western philosopher would ever express themselves so crudely. The whole point of doing philosophy as rigorously as the Western mind has been doing it for the past 2000 years is to avoid such ambiguous language and communicate precisely what they mean. Meanwhile every Eastern philosopher means something different by "Awakening." All you need to do is get a basic understanding of Schopenhauer (who is really saying much of the same things you are saying) and why/how Nietzsche went beyond him.

Is it not? To Nietzsche life = growth, becoming, striving -- which Buddhist's simply brush off as Samsara. Instead, Buddhism (if strictly adhered to) will turn you into a monk, meditating on the void - all day, all night. Nothing novel and grand can ever grow out of this sterility, which is what Nietzsche means with "life denying."

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but knowing you, I would assume you would call someone like Ken Wilber or Sri Aurobindo (or yourself) closer to "Awake" than Nietzsche - and I genuinely wonder what makes you think that?

Been using OneNote since forever - still love the simplicity and intuitiveness of it. If you want to get a bit more fancy, Obsidian is pretty neat as well.

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, but it's mostly a cliché. Ever since Romanticism and German Idealism, emotions and subjectivity are front and center in all Western philosophical discourse. Nietzsche would of course go on to emphasize the importance of the instincts; Bergson's whole project was making intuition en vogue, etc. People still stereotype the Western philosopher as being some autistic left brained geek like Aristotle, Descartes or Kant - which, of course, hasn't been true for over 200 years now.

German Hip-Hop ususally sucks balls, but this is FIRE. "Make money young."