Scholar

I think you are mixing a few things up. The objectivism of orange will not manifest as moral objectivism, it will manifest as moral relativism. Just go on the street and ask around, you will not find a single non-religious person who says morality is objective. They will all give you answers that imply morality is subjective and that everyone has their own morality. That is the objective view, ironally. The objective view, to the rationalist, is the observation that morality is not consistent, that it is not objective, that all cultures view morality differently. That is the scientific view. Sure there are some attempt to ground morality in reason, but that is different from absolutistic frameworks of morality. I know you fail to recognize what I am trying to communicate because you view what I am describing as if it was an objective system. What I am describing is not "What objectively is", sure I might use language in a way to imply it is Truth, but it's not an objective framework. To believe in the Objective you have to believe in Subjectivity. You have to believe in a relationship between Subject and Experience, you have to believe in the dualism of matter and mind. The deep confusion here is again that you have a completely delusional view of morality, you have not adopted one which goes beyond Objectivity and Subjectivity, and of course also Relativity. You operate within that framework because you have not yet inspected that framework. Subjects do not exist, This has nothing to do with universality, which is again why I know you have not yet recognized what I am talking about. It's completely beyond that, it is so ironic. because you are stuck in this framework and call me out for using your framework. You cannot even see that there could possibly be another framework, you are so stuck in it. You still view morality as statements, you also view truth as statements (which is by the way why you get so hung up on the statements I make, because I don't bother to make them sound transcendental). This is the entire problem. There is no moral truth or objectivity, because Goodness had nothing to do with truth. Goodness is Truth (Truth not truth!). There is no objectivity here, there is no unversality here. There is no statement which is "true" here. There is only Goodness and Badness, as the substance of being itself. They are not connected to any cognitive statement whatsoever, doing so is the entire delusion I am trying to point out here. You are stuck there, you are stuck conflating one aspect of reality with another. You are stuck saying 1=2, 1=2, 1=2! No, 1 is exactly what it is. There is nothing else that is 1. Oneness is Oneness, not Twoness. This has nothing to do with belief. To say morality is relative, objective or subjective to me is as delusional as saying Redness is relative, objective or subjective. Redness just IS. There is nothing Redness is other than itself. This is where my framework is grounded, it completely let's go of these mind-games.

Absolutism/objectivism is stage blue, stage orange morality is multiplistic. Stage green is relativism, an excessive relativism as we can observe in this thread is exactly what yellow will criticize. Blue: Morality are cognitive statements which exist in the objective world. Orange: Every culture has it's own morality, moral statements are cultural. Green: Moral statements are entirely constructed, they are grounded in nothing at all and completely arbitrary. Moral validity does not exist. Yellow: Inspection of the workings of morality itself, how is morality constructed. Morality being bound to logical statements, without morality there could be no action, there could be no consciousness. Logic itself would fall apart. We realize how exactly it is that we construct morality. Morality being bound to suffering and well-being. (Moral Realism) Turquoise: A recognition that morality is not cognition, but it's own aspect of consciousness. Goodness and Badness are like Redness and Blueness. The subject does not exist, all there is is raw Isness. However, Badness is always Badness, Goodness is always Goodness. Morality is a dimension of consciousness instead of an accumilation of statements based on the reality of the mind-structure. It is a recognition of then substance of suffering. Dissolving of the substance of realness into Non-duality. Reintegration of Non-duality with duality, going full circle. Embracing of the rawness of realness. (God reimmersing into the substance of Creation, Consciousness and Unconsciousness are the same, the Full embracing of the Ego. Ego = No-Self.) And then we are basically back at zero and the whole dance starts anew. Where people are stuck at in this dimension is at Green, despite non-dual and spiritual experiences. Morality is still viewed as cognitive statements, which is fundamentally delusional. It is not turquoise, it is not even Yellow. It is green confusing itself to be two stages further than it is. Objectivism Multiplism Relativism <- Stuck here! Realism Existentialism (not to be confused with the common usages of the word, here meaning existentialism in terms of referring to Existence itself)

Yes but what does that have to do with morality? At the Absolute level all notions of morality and relativism falls apart anyways, what we are discussing here are the absolute (not Absolute) nature of the relative world, namely the Laws of Maya. Moral and anti-moral arguments can only be done in the realm of Maya. The notion of subjectivity and relativity within Maya is delusional, that is what I am referring to. It builds on lack of observation. Abandoning the notion of relativity and subjectivity must come before the complete cessation of illusion. Delusion is not the same as illusion.

A deeper level to what? What do you think I see?

Exactly! The limitation of language, which is why moral relativism can even exist. It is founded upon a delusional notion of morality which fails to observe realness for what it is.

But as far as I know you view the post-rational as emotional/intuitive, that's not how I view the cognitive line. Post formal operational does not equal post rational, as it still is bound to logical operators. Rather it is multiplistic and relativistic. The truly post-rational stuff happens at turquoise imo. Though I would not say with certainty that Putin is at yellow cognitively.

Sure, but I don't see how my personal development is related to this topic of morality. Again, you are trapped in moral relativism. Morality is not truly relative, atleast not in the relative world. Morality is bound the the rules of the relative world just like math and logic is, and they are aspects of consciousness which cannot be denied. Suffering is suffering. There is no subjectivity, there is only what is. And the isness of suffering in you and in others is equivalent, it is not relative. The same is true for value. There is an absolute thing that is value, atleast from within the relativistic world. This is why certain moral positions lead to positions which will contradict themselves, leading to the collapse of the moral framework itself. Your reasoning is bound by the laws of nature, and revealing the full extend of your reasoning, or in other words becoming conscious of the consquences of your reasoning, will reveal that it collapses under it's own weight. I urge you to truly inspect value, goodness and badness, and suffering. You will be surprised how little relativity and subjectivity you will find. Complete non-attachment will mean that I will embrace and fully accept my moral struggles. I will accept my desire to change your mind, and follow that desire to the fullest. Full detachment means being detached from non-attachment.

I am attached to the beings who suffer and die because of your actions. I view it as a moral imperative to attempt to convince you of an action which will reduce that suffering. I know the limitations of moral relativism, and this kind of excess moral relativism is in my opinion a big problem in a lot of the spiritual community. It leads to lazy justifications for acts which will cause horrendous suffering.

All I can urge you is to read some books on this topic, in my opinion there is a huge lack of understanding of spiral dynamics and integral theory in this forum. It's like people only watched Leo's videos on the topic and didn't bother to read a single book. There is no such thing as a "green" mind, that is a huge oversimplification. Doing so leads to losing all nuance, and that makes the entire model kind of useless. All it becomes is a categorization game instead of understanding the dynamics at play between groups and within the individual mind. Post-orange cognition existed far before LGBTQ and Post-modernism were a thing, and these minds used that kind of cognition for completely different things. Why would there be developmental lines in the first place if they would all jump from one stage to the next synchronously? Just look at how it's depicted, they are line tentacles reaching into different stages. This can look highly variable, especially with extraordinary people like Putin who might not perfectly fit the model in the first place.

Why do you think so?

And if your spirits told you it was fine to enslave black people, you would listen to them? If you were enslaving black people and your spirits did not tell you it was wrong or that you should stop, it would be fine to continue doing so?

Why do you think it is fine to kill chicken and fish when we can eat things like mussels if we truly did need that kind of nourishment? The oceans are radically overfished, so much so that entire eco-systems are already in the process of collapsing. How can you continue doing that when you have an alternative which is less sentient? Whether you believe in animism or not does not really change the difference is sentience. When you are in deep sleep, you are still consciousness, yet you are not sentient. Only in sentience there can exist things like value and suffering, so I do not see why animism would change anything about the moral consideration of creatures which are not merely consciousness, but also contain sentience. Again, to call everything sentience would not make any sense as even in deep sleep, a human being with a fully active brain, will lose sentience. Mussels as far as we know are not sentient, and if they are, they are far less so than a chicken or a fish. More importantly, I do not think there is and can be a large scale chicken industry which will not necessarily contain a horrendous amount of suffering, which you would have to justify. The same is true for fishing in the oceans. How can you justify that when you have options that will not cause suffering, and far less environmental destruction, like mussels? More importantly, aside from justifications, why would you not choose to do the more compassionate thing, if your goal is to be compassionate? Let's say veganism was a little less healthy, how would that justify killing hundreds and hundreds of animals? How much suffering and death is the minor improvement of your life really worth? And if it is worth it, then are we not required to take those lifes which have the least capacity for suffering and sentience, namely mussels and similar beings? To me I only see appeals to futility and spiritualism, it is very easy to relativise morality when it is not you who is being killed or treated like property. People did the same with slaves of different races. The excuses you can come up with are infinite when you are protecting your own way of life.

But why does complexity matter to you? Why does that mean that the pleasure you get from consuming meat is more important than the life of a less complex being, espeically when it is not that much less complex?

What does that have to do with cognition? Philosophy is not connected to cognition. Cognition is how you perceive and understand reality. It is about how the mind operates, not what kind of position it holds. A post formal operational mind is able to hold different lines of cognition, comparing them and switching between them. What kind of philosophy they will find attractive is dependent on the state of other developmental lines. For example, Putin's morality might be between absolutistic and individualistic, yet he can use relativistic cognition to achieve the goals which will be a consequence of his moral imperatives. Besides that, Putin might not be at all against gay people, but might be using these kinds of laws to gain popularity and approval from russians. Again, you can't just throw all the lines of development together, see that one is not evolved and then claim that all of them are not evolved. Green cognition and contemplation don't have anything to do with values and philosophy, they are how a mind operates, how it tends to process data. What the data processing in the end will result it is of course dependent on the development of other lines. Putin's mind is way to flexible to not show any signs of post-formal.

Yes, cognition and contemplation seem to be somewhere up there, otherwise I do not think he would be able to navigate the conversations like he does. He was KGB, he was able to pocket russia and create a vertical power structure which almost depends on him, which is not easy to do in a competitive environment like that. I haven't studied Putin a lot but these two lines would be my guesses. Orange is too limited to allow for this kind of sophistication, imo.

I feel like more people in this forum should listen to Wilber to get a better grasp of Spiral Dynamics and Integral theory. A lot of people in here have such a simplistic view of it that it basically removes all nuance and the entire functionality of these models, which is to understand the dynamics at play here. I don't know how it happened, but people here basically do exactly what we are not supposed to do with spiral dynamics, namely just categorizing everyone into stages. That completely misses the point of it in my opinion, especially when people don't even have basic understanding of the model and it's limitations.

Guys there are developmental streams in spiral dynamics. Being highly developed on one does not mean one went through a hippie phase and became more emotional. For example, being cognitively on green is very different from being emotionally on green. You can't just simplify this away. Putin could easily be green and yellow on some of these streams: But blue, red and orange on others. It doesn't mean he skipped green, it just means that your understanding of what green is on all of these developmental lines is lacking. Green cognition does not equal green emotion.

If you have dialed into Ethan's mind, do you know every future experience he will have? If so, that would be an easy way of providing proof. You could predict something that Ethan will see that has not yet happened. Something like predicting who will become president, or a specific lottery number, etc. We know you are the Ethan who has dialed into himself because we are hearing you talk about it. Another way to find proof is to simply give us an equation of physics that does not yet exist. Any slight change to the physical laws of this universe would end in a radically different universe in which life as we know it would not be possible at all. So what you can do is simply give us some general breakthroughs in physics that have not yet been discovered. I don't see a reason why you could not do that. You could also attempt to manifest something in all of the infinite instances, so that the proof exists in all of them.

moved to other thread

The problem with this is that it justifies creating a human being that cannot suffer but is your slave. One day that will be possible, just change some genes, design the brain to follow your orders but not be able to suffer, and have your own slave robot. Why would it be bad if it doesn't suffer? I could kill the human-slave whenever I want, after all they cannot suffer and they enjoy being my slaves, because that is how I made them. Not valuing the experience of life, especially in the degree of cows and mammals, more than temporary sensory pleasure you get from consuming the meat will lead you down some really bad paths as far as ethics go if you want to remain consistent and be without biases. The thing is that you are not really killing the animal for food, because you have food options which do not take the experience of another being away from them, atleast to a far lesser degree. The reason you kill the animal is because you either like the taste or the convinience of it. If you however do not think death is bad whatsoever, and you do believe suffering is bad, I think you will struggle finding arguments against the anti-natalist. For example, if we wipe out all life on earth, there will be no more suffering. If life itself has no value to you, how is it not a moral imperative to kill all beings to reduce suffering? There are many other problems with the "Death is completely fine" position. Contemplate it, stop using it as an excuse in the animal context and use it universally, see where this position will get you. See if you like where that position gets you. You could view the act of killing someone as taking away their bodily autonomy against their will, and against their best interest. If you do not view death as inherently bad, what about taking someones freedom away from them by depriving them of their existence on this plane? Sure someone can choose to do so to themselves, but how do you justify doing it to someone else when it is not necessary for your survival, and not even for your pleasure. You don't need to eat meat to feel good, you can easily do other things which will not take that liberty away from these beings.

It's so interesting, you can really sense the tension, everyone knowing they are interviewing the most powerful man in the world. And Putin knows, too.

It's from Nature's Trove. I might try another one but I am not sure if it's worth the money. I take Lions Mane too and it does increase productivity somewhat but I wouldn't say it's significant. I might give Huperzine A a go, never heard of it before.

https://www.facebook.com/ChallengeTwentyTwo/ Seems like they offer advice over there from professional dietitians. You could also join the discord of Ask Yourself, there are a lot of doctors and the sort in there. https://discordservers.com/server/363108109797031936 @Dwarniel Why is soy specifically bad for the rain forests? As far as I know soy is pretty land/protein efficient. Just because we grow a lot of it for animals does not mean that growing something else will be better for the rainforest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land Soy is at the top of the list as far as usable protein per acre goes, that's why we feed it to the cows, because it's so effective. If you would eat something else it would take even more land for the same amount of protein.

I would say view your inner child as an inner child, literally. The subconscious will communicate emotions with you, like a child, and you really just have to behave like it was actually a child communicating with you. Is the child sad about something, is it hurt, does it have self-esteem issues? Well, think about what would be perfect for that child, and become that. Does it need a strong mentor who listens to him, encourages him, maybe even challenges him from time to time to let him see that he can do more than he thinks? Well, then that is what it needs. Treat it like a relationship. Put yourself into the position of the child, read what it is communicating to you, and then imagine who it would need to solve that. And that is what you will need to become. See, when you let your mom abuse you, you also let her abuse the inner child. The inner child will feel helpless, it will even feel betrayed by you. You are it's guardian, what would you feel like if your guardian just let everyone abuse you? Your guardian should protect you, and that is what you need to do with the child. When the child is communicating feelings to you, you just have to listen to it. Don't judge it, meaning don't judge yourself for feeling a certain way. Imagine others judged you for how you feel, what would that make you feel like? Would it help you, or would it damage you? How you talk to yourself is how you talk to the inner child, and it is literally a child. You can't play tough parent when it has no self-esteem, you can't be harsh with it when it has not learned to be resiliant and strong. You have to build it's self-esteem. Every word you think it will hear, each time you judge yourself you are judging it. Each time your encourage yourself you are encouraging it. And don't forget, it knows you. It will know when you are lying to it, you have to genuinely start loving your inner child. Once you do, it will feel comfortable with you, it will share more feelings and you will be giving it the opportunity to heal. You have to build a relationship of trust, you have to step up for the child. Sometimes the child will behave childish, and just like with a real child, you might have to snap it out of it. But you always have to do that from a position of love and acceptance, even when it is something that will challenge it. The child might become arrogant one day, and then you will have to use different strategies. You will know what to do because you know what to do when it comes to other people. If not, just learn more about psychology.

What do you think about phenomena like thinking about a random person and then suddenly getting a message from them seconds later? I have that happen quite often.