Nilsi

That would be me. But besides that, good shit. That's the energy we need a lot more of here.

Just like evolution went from atoms to molecules to cells...; from fish to mammals to humanoids; - humans evolve as well. Spiral Dynamics tracks the evolution of humanity by way of their value systems - the stages are just different clusters of MEMEs (as opposed to genes, in biological evolution) that are distinct enough to be categorized as a "developmental stage." The stages Spiral Dynamics tracks are quite robust though, as demonstrated eloquently by Ken Wilber. The colors correlate with anthropological, sociological, technological etc. developmental breakthroughs - they are a fractal of all dimensions of humanities evolution.

Just compare the socio-philosophical traditions of France and Germany. France was always about social justice, revolution and civic engagement. Germany was always about metaphysics and historical progress. They play two entirely different games. That's still very much the case, although largely unconscious

Quit academia, that shit is rotting your mind.

Spirituality is first hand experience of the Divine; religion is second hand hearsay of the Divine - not that hard to settle.

I'm not lonely and neither do I have any affiliations with the New Age, yet I reject religion - shocking, I know.

You know what? Fuck this. You can not assert any kind of value or goal, without fucking shit up as a byproduct. That's why grand narratives will never work. I got lured in and tried to be constructive, but that was foolish. There is nothing to assert and everything to negate as far as grand narratives go.

The more I think about it, the more I can get behind the idea of simply orienting toward the "infinite game." We have a big other/common enemy in existential risk. That should be enough of a narrative to not have to go on anyone's nerves with more elaborate stories about good and evil and how to conduct oneself.

The point of a grand narrative is to structure society and orient people towards a common goal, no? So, there is no "right to do that," as far as deviating from the narrative goes - that would undermine the whole thing. Please tell me what you have in mind, but I can not stretch my imagination that far. I'd take Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition" over the Bible every day of the week, but because I'm an idiot and I want to be charitable, I actually started reading the damn tome. So, we'll see, if there is anything resembling an integral roadmap for 21st century humanity in the grand narrative.

Dreaming a thought that could dream about a thought That could think of the dreamer that thought That could think of dreaming and getting a glimmer of God

You're assuming that everyone has the same needs, to the same degree. I need constant competition and challenge; I need extreme levels of aesthetic stimulation; I need to be the authrotiy, wherever I am; and I need to feel my power increase consistently. Does your grand narrative call me evil, or will it deny the validity of my needs? In any case, I want nothing of it.

My God, do I really have to sit through half an hour of some indian nerd talking to a blue-haired gamer about grand narratives? What good could possibly come from this? I'm not critiquing some strawman version of a grand narrative. I mean what I say. No matter how many safety meassures your narrative has, it will always be partial - that shouldn't be so shocking. Especially in the age of exponential technology and thus ultra rapid sociocultural evolution, the idea of some grand narrative is absolutely silly. I say, lets figure out how not to blow ourselves up and then let people live and express themselves however they wish. All we need to get right is the not blowing ourselves up part.

Would you rather fight 1 horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses?

Apparently our incentives and goals are not alligned, so how do we allign them, if not through debate? We will never reach complete consensus, so the best we can do is rule by majority (i.e. what we're doing) - which creates a whole gamut of problems that have been nicely illuminated by postmodern thinkers (e.g. marginalisation, alienation, oppression etc.) We need villains, precisely to keep the status quo from becoming too decadent and complacent - so let's just fight it out, instead of trying to make peace.

I'm worried about the rivalrous games myself, I just don't think this problem is solved on the level of narrative. Narrative is way too relative and unstable. Just look at me. I used to be very marxist-egalitarian and was fully bought into the story and now I'm a ruthless sales guy working in advertising. What went wrong? Did I get corrupted by some evil postmodern ideology, or is it that things are too complex and dynamic to contain them in some linear narrative/ethical system?

What is this? Speak up or shut up - no one will listen to you, if you can't even be bothered to speak with the minimally required level of loudness and clarity, to still sound like a human.

Dont push it Well see how post-post anything you are...

My God, youre speaking some sense for once. Youre absolutely correct: antagonism is right at the core of reality - its what drives evolution and all narrative for that matter. The idea of one grand narrative at the end of history, or whatever, is the grandest of fantasies.

He wants to create/take some grand narrative and shove it down everyone's throats - in the name of the "Good." That's what European missionaries did, when they colonized the rest of the world and tried to convert all the "savages" to the "one true religion" of Christianity - of course, all in the name of the "Good."

In what world is dialectics a zero sum game? When I challenge your views and by extension subvert your grand narrative, we both grow - so what I'm talking about is already antirivalrous in nature. I'm not advocating kinetic warfare. I precisely want to battle this out in the realm of ideas, instead of the trenches. "Our ideas die, so we don't have to" - Alfred North Whitehead

I WISH I COULD SHOW YOU WHEN YOU ARE FOOLISH OR IN DENIAL THE ASTONISHING DEPTH OF YOUR OWN IGNORANCE

Conflict aka dialectic is right at the core of life and evolution - getting rid of conflict is literally death. "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony." - Heraclitus

I'm not saying all narratives are made equal and I'm also not saying that solving complex systemic issues, the way Schmachtenberger does, is necessarily a fruitful activity. I'm just trying to rid you of your neo-colonialist fantasies.

By accepting that different people have different narratives. What you call unity is uniformity. True unity is not contingent on whether I'm a fascist or a Christian.

Not sure at what point this communication failed, but we're definitely talking past each other lol.