Scholar

What does it mean for us to ask questions about Love when we have not yet recognized it ourselves?

It doesn't really matter though because the meat demand is going to be there, and therefore a forest will need to be cut down somewhere. The meat demand is going up not down, by a substantial amount. By the time China and India will have the same demand per capita as we have, we will use every inch of the planets viable surface for the soy that we feed the cows with. And even that would not satisfy the demand. If everyone went vegan this instant, we could regrow the forests we have burned down and could use a fraction of the land that we currently use to feed cows to feed us directly instead. The problem would be solved. But that will not happen, so creating a true meat substitude is paramount. Read this article: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

No government regulation in the world can do something about the billions of people who demand meat. Where will we put all the cows and farmland to feed the cows when the number of people who want to eat cows and milk are increasing globally? Most cattle Brazil produces is for China. Good luck telling the chinese to eat less meat, when they are not even eating a fraction of what we eat per capita. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed-amazon-deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil The only viable solution I see is greater investment into the research and production of lab-grown meat. It needs to become cheaper than regular beef as soon as possible. Meanwhile we have people advocating people to buy pasture raised products instead of factory farmed ones, which require far greater land use and therefore in most cases far greater amounts of deforestation. The solution cannot be "better and more sustainable farming", the solution is a complete replacement of cattle farming. This cannot be achieved through cultural advancement because the greatest markets have not even yet developed, which will be China and India.

Is it self-biased to save a human being over an ant? Is it self-bias to argue that a human being is more worth to save because it has a richer experience of life and has a greater contribution to higher consciousness? How do we justify sacrificing the ant for the human? Can we do that by adopting the position of the ant and the human and deciding which one would prefer to continue to exist? But wouldn't that be self-bias because we are humans and will therefore choose the human? Would a high consciousness being without self-bias choose the human over the ant?

Positive impact for who though? This particular ecosystem, this particular way the earth currently is? Why is an earth with life more important than an earth without it? Is Mars less important that the Earth, and if so isn't is kind of self-bias to say that? What you present is basically utilitarianism in a context of contributing to the current eco system. But the current eco system only exists because the dinosaurs were wiped out. By upholding this current regime of ecology you will surpress any potential different regime that would spawn as a result of absolute catastrophy and death. This is infact true for every decision you make. Any decision you make will create one way reality unfolds over another. Why do you think one way is "better" than the other, without self-bias?

I think I know what the difference in approach is here. I am viewing Pakman from a different reference point than you guys do. If we view Pakman from an orange weighted reference point he will appear quite greenish and even yellowish. It's like if we were to view all people we currently identify to be at Stage Blue from an actual stage Blue culture, they would all seem to be actually stage orange. If we view all current stage green people from a hypothetical stage green culture, they will all seem to be stage orange. Infact, if we imagine a stage turquoise culture, even people like Sadhguru will seem very stage orangey. A stage turquoise individual from a stage turquoise society will be radically different from anyone who has achieved even the highest level of human developement today. Kind of like how we look back at Buddha and see very clear stage blue aspects in him that he was not able to escape. Our current bias is to look at everything from a stage orange reference point. We do not recognize the enormous cultural bias within us, as we all exist in a stage orange environment. Look at the entire world, literally our way of living, our institutions, our entire world is structured around stage orange values. Maybe this is the "You can't escape culture" problem.

It's not about whether they eat meat or not, it's about how the confront the problem. Plenty of "green" people are not even green at all in the moral line, even the entire LGBTQ community is not. Notice that LGBTQ activism is a movement that was spawned from people who themselves indentify as LGBTQ, making it an individualistic movement rather than one created by compassion towards out.groups. Most people think LGBTQ people deserve rights because it makes sense that they would deserve right, they have no rational reasons for taking their rights away. But most peolpe also don't care that much about LGBTQ outside of their political identity. They don't actually feel true compassion for them if they are not their friends or somehow are integrated in their own personal identity. You know this is the case because if it was true compassion these people would probably primarily care about homeless people. This is how stage orange operates, just because they usestage green memes does not mean that the value structure of these people is on all lines stage green. https://consciousevolutionmemoir.com/2013/03/12/the-integral-map-lines-of-development/ I would say that the vast majority of people, including what we might identify as stage green people, are underdeveloped in emotional intelligence, morals and self-identity. They are stage orange, maybe even stage blue on many of these developmental lines. The problem is not what one's current position on animals right is, the problem is how one interacts when faced with these problems. Again we must look at the internal value system rather than ideological positions. If I show you slaughterhouse footage and the first thing that comes to your mind is "That's terrible, but..." you are in my opinion on some of these three lines underdeveloped. A human being who is fully integrated at stage green will see slaughterhouse footage and think "Holy fucking shit this needs to stop at all costs", because they have the capacity to put themselves into the shoes of the beings who they are observing. Most people are not, most people get uncomfortable and immediately react by coming up with some justifications for the state of affairs. This is a wonderful example: Look at how archaic the justifictions are some of these people use when confronted. Even though they might be confused as stage green, they are fundamentally not. They only use stage green memes as long as it serves their individualistic agenda, they go so far that they become completely irrational, use justifications that slavers used to devalue black people. There is no true moral evolution here, there is simply an adoption of higher memes to serve ones own agenda. I would say that our estimates of how far people are evolved is very oversimplified and because of how easily high level memes get distributed in the age of the internet, we might get results that we previously would not have, judging people to be far higher than they actually are. I think in a culture that is so predominantly orange it is not really possible for green to exist in it's fully integration, because it would be so radical that it would not get along with it's culture. Once we will have a dominating green culture we will have fully integrated green people. A fully integrated stage green culture to me would behave kind of like a mass of Jesuses who help everyone they can, and everything being structured around that goal. They would create small robots that go around to pick insects from the sidewalk so noone would step on them. They would create huge fences and bridges for animals to cross highways. They would make sure that noone is depressive, poor or unhappy in general. They would take care of everyone, in a kind of utopian idealistic scenario. Like a stage orange culture makes sure everyone is free and has rights, a stage green culture would make sure everyone feels well and is happy.

I would not say he is even fully green yet. He has a very reasonable and calm appearance, though the values from which his mind operates internally seems to me very orange. This is a very telling sign. He comes off reasonable just in terms of the way he structures his speech, but the actual logic and justifications he uses are pretty basic stage orange dismissals. He is using higher level memes to justify his lower level values. Notice his system of values that determine the way he justifies his response. He has no concern for the well-being of other beings, rather he already has a firm position on the topic which he disguises by appealing to ignorance and some lofty principles that in this context don't even make sense to use. It is crucial that we understand that most reasoning is done post-hoc, meaning they justify values one already holds, which in this case are clearly individualistic "freedom" values. He assumes the position of killing animals for food unnecessarily is acceptable, from there he comes up with a rationel to justify that value system. A person who has evolved morally to stage green will argue the other way around. They will come from a position of already being certain that killing other beings for unnecessary reasons is wrong, and they will structure their arguments that way. You don't need to convince someone who inherently values other beings that they are valuable, they will require no justification, no reason to do so. A stage orange person you have to convince with logical consistency, because they do not actually value animals whatsoever, they are dismissable as long as they do not affect them directly. Don't look at how Pakman appears, look at the value system his appearence represents. He clearly does have some stage green positions, and even stage yellow positions, but they are integrated in a stage orange value framework. It's like a stage blue person can use stage turquoise memes but yet it would not mean he is stage turquoise at all. You cannot fake being another stage, and Pakman is a clear example of that. No person who has evolved to stage green on the moral line will ever answer the question of whether animals deserve rights by saying: "I don't know, I never thought about it."

I think you are making jumps between prescriptive and descriptive morality. You go from stating how things should be to how things are. This is a justification of a prescription, saying that "We do not need to care about this problem because the world is too complex for us to take into consideration what will eventually cause harm and what will not". I criticized this justification as it would also apply to someone who rapes and tortures you for pleasure. You would not accept that kind of justification at all. What people will or will not do due to the nature of their psychology is fundamentally different from what you seek people to act like, what you prescribe yourself to do. So the question is not "What do people act like" but "What, as a high conscious beings, would we want people to act like?". Saving the ant or saving the human? Can we answer that question without self-bias?

Yes but with that logic you could go on and rape and kill people and just say "Well you gonna kill stuff anyway". In the thought experiment we can also remove the chaos. It's just the ant vs the human, leaving out all of the complexities. Who do we save without self-bias?

Yes but isn't it self-bias to structure what is worthy of consideration after what kind of impact they have on our environment? And why is mental distress relevant if we were to be unbiased? So a fully conscious enlightened being should kill the human and save the ant? But what does that have to do with the question I asked?

Yes the same question would apply, but the ant vs human example is more obvious, because human beings also sustain bacteria by being alive.

I think what you are arguing is seperate from the issue of high quality business managers that can manage a billion dollar company. I don't think we have systems in place that teach you how to do that effectively, and noone is going to take the risk to hire a newbie CEO to manage his company. The question was not about creating new businesses but about how to lower the value of high end corporate managers, and that I think you can only do by supplying the market with more high end corporate managers. You can replace business managers with military generals and the same would apply. Military generals are so valuable because it takes such a huge amount of experience to get that proficient at the job. The experience you can only get by already being in positions of power, which is why only so few people ever get the chance to develope themselves to become military generals. The advantage we have today is that we can simulate experiences via simulations, and I think we should use that as an educational tool so as to supply the market with high-end competence from the get go.

The question is, why are big corporation managers so valuable? There are few of them, because only few people get the opportunity to manage a big corporations and thus learn how to manage a big corporation. Maybe a better solution is to focus on producing more high quality corporate manages, via an educational pipeline. That way the value of these managers will go down and they will not be able to demand as much money for what they do. How do we produce high quality corporate managers without having them be in control of big corporations? I would suggest simulations that are based in real world data, have them compete in a artificial environment and that way educate them on how to be effective managers. More quality managers will lead to less demand, less demand will lead to lower prices. If the worry is that competent people will leave our environment, produce more competent people. The trick of course is that other countries will steal our competent people if we produce them. But oh well, that is what the US has been doing to developing countries for years. Let other countries produce high quality doctors and then offer these doctors a better salary than they would get in some third world country in africa or india. The beauty of globalism.

I think the problem is that it simply does not work that way. Give a CEO less money he will work for someone else. There is a reason why CEOs get paid so much.

Leo what do you recommend to get a good basic understanding of business in general?

It seems to me like there is a lack of healthy blue due to the radical cultural changes that took place in the last few decades. A lot of people who listen to Jordan Peterson do not have their life sorted out at all, they do not have discipline, they do not take responsibility, they do not have purpose, they do not have meaning, which are all aspects which should be be communicated by stage blue institutions. If you don't give people what they need, they will seek it elsewhere. You force them to go up the Spiral without learning these things first and you get dysfunctional people. I don't think we can elevate stage blue people into higher stages if we have not even establish a healthy stage blue grounding. Tell me some really high quality, amazing stage blue examples that teach this stuff on a wider cultural level. Whether you like the church or not, it definitely contributed to taking people through stage blue. In fact, I often observe people who never were religious to be quite dysfunctional, hedonistic, miserable stage orange people. To me it is likely that it is due to a lack of a strong and good stage blue foundation. I still think the Internet had a huge influence on the way Spiral Dynamics is playing out, because it heaves people into stages faster than they would have naturally transitioned to, leaving dysfunctions as a result of not having learned important aspects of the lower stages.

When I read the title of this topic I thought it would be about how many people Leo banned the last few weeks I don't usually tell people about Leo, I keep the non-dual stuff to myself most of the time because people around me would think I'm crazy if I told them. Most often I pretend to be a open minded but skeptical rationalist.

What a preposterous question, of course it's Leo.

The true question is not whether there is choice, the true question is what choice is. Choice must be causeless and thus choice must originate from a causeless cause. The causeless cause is god, the nothingness, or infinite potential, which manifests potentiality/nothigness into actuality/limitation. The ego is a cause, caused by the causeless cause. There is no control in choice, there can be no control in choice, because to control would be to limit, and to limit would be to not be a choice. Choice is free will, and free will is not controlled by anyone, certainly not what you call the structure of identification operating in mind. Free will is defined by it's freedom, it is defined by the causeless cause. So the answer is no. You do not make choices, because the making of choice would mean the causing of a cause. Choice is causeless, it directly connected to Nothingness. Therefore, choices are not made, choices are the nature of the way actuality manifests itself into limited being. A choice is the opposite of control, the opposite of ego, the opposite of limitation. A choice is love. All of manifestation has it's root in choice, and thus a root in love. All this non-sense of making choices are egos claiming to be the cause of existence itself. The cause of existence is pure love, not ego. If you make a choice, you are the cause of the choice. The reality is that it is the other way around. You are caused by the choice! The choice has no cause. Don't believe me, just look at it. It's utterly obvious.

Lol, I was wondering the same thing. I don't know if porn is able to be integrated with turquoise, it probably is but it would be very aritifcial, like trying to create a stage orange religion. It just doesn't make sense because there are completely new things to be discovered at new stages that can replace pornography. For example a very interesting phenomena that appeared from stage green culture is ASMR. It is basically the porn of stage green, instead of satisfying the needs for carnal pleasure, it satisfies emotional needs. You can tell it is a green invention just by listened to some of the ASMRists out there, I would say most of them are spiritual in some shape or form.

How can you say that enlightenment is not an experience? If it is not experienced, how would you possibly know about it, talk about it and describe it? Why does it seem, from an outsiders perspective, like enlightenment is very easily explained by understanding it as different mind-systems being altered and thus creating the perceptions like Godhood? How do we know Naive Realism is not true to some relevant extend? Why has it not been proven that an enlightened person can access information outside of it's own limited consciousness, like understanding the nature of reality in verifiable ways? How can we differentiate between what is Absolute Truth and what is simply a perception like any other? How can we know which aspects are aspects of the limited consciousness mind, and the All-Mind? For example, how do we know that the perception of a plant being conscious, like some report, is not a psychological phenomena rather than a non-dual phenomenon? How do we know it is not simply the perception of personhood, which we perceive when our mind believes to experience a living person, is not simply manipulated into perceiving the plant as person, and thus give it the perception of being conscious? The same question can be asked for the perception of self-idenity being altered to encompass other objects within ones own consciousness, for example other people or animals. How do we know that the sense that one is all of them is not simply limited to the mind-construct, rather than an inaccessable outside world? How can we know there is no outside world if it would, if it did exist, be inherently inaccessible? Why is it that all the aspects all teachers of spirituality talk about could have been predicted by having enough knowledge of the mind-structure in general and how the perception fo reality is structured in the human mind? For example, with the knowledge that the mind requires to generated a self-idenity so that it can effectively navigate reality and survive, is it quite obvious that dissolving that self-idenity will lead to feelings of meaning, joy and love because the Survival Idenity which was previously in charge of idenitifying when it was appropriate to experience love, joy and meaning would suddenly let the feelings freely arise as there would be no limiting factor that would keep it from happening? And again, how can we then know that these particular aspects, that many talk about, like God being All Loving, etc, are not merely confusions arising due to perceptions having changed rather than any truth having been revealed? What would you say if someone who experienced all you have, would claim he had deeper understanding than you and tell you that you were fundamentally wrong about God, and that it was a complete delusion? Is it no likely that once the survival self idenity is dissolved, that seeking the factual truth might not be desired anymore and thus lead one to be more gullible due to open-mindedness, or simply not caring whether one is wrong or not because one believes to be eternal?

Unlike in the Peterson/Wilber thread I feel like this time we understood each other better. I think part of the trickiness is just the sort of empathy or understanding that is required to navigate someone elses ego in a way that it will actually benefit them, especially in a forum where much of the information needed to get more accurate reads are lacking. For example, you might notice someone not reacting well to what you say immediately in a conversation whereas in a forum people can talk past each other entirely without really noticing. In the end I think it's best to look at this as it's own area of mastery. It takes deliberate practice, which involves much failure and mistake, so as to get better at it. And maybe Forum Spiral Wizardry is in itself a different kind of skill from in person Wizardry, as many things are just different in these kinds of interaction. I myself used to think that at some point one would be infallible and just be able to manipulate everyone into a higher stage with just enough skill in Spiral Wizardry, but it does definitely seem like it is limited in many ways. It's not always possible to change someone at all, or it might require a lot of effort. For me the lesson of the day is to recognize that communication is limited and that often the truth must be conceiled in the favor of... well the truth. It's quite interesting how saying the truth can sometimes lead to more delusion, whereas delusion might lead to the discovery of truth. It's not really a lie because when the truth cannot be received by the recipient, it is not really the truth. The truth must always be in direct awareness, and only one's own consciouscness can truly create that awareness. All the others can do is hint at it.

But you don't need to engage from their system of operation. You don't need to be orangey so that they listen to you, often we need to realize that they will not be able to change their opinion about the topic of contention. For example, you can't convince a fundamentalist Muslim that all is God, and it's futile to even talk about it, or to argue it. What helpful however is to bring him a step closer to that truth, and maybe that step is to somehow get him to question some of the muslim principles, and not even directly, maybe just plant a seed that some day might come to fruition. It might not at all come to fruition, but sometimes the planting of the smallest, weakest seed might be the best we can do, even if it is very unlikely that it will take root. Sometimes there is no other potential, and the smallest potential must be sought. With the ego we need to be careful so that it never suspects it is taught when it is not really willing to be taught. When teaching things that go contrary to the identity, it is imporant for the ego to be manipulated into changing itself, as outside influence is being defended against. Holy shit I just realized it is basically Inception... like the movie Inception. That is exactly what a Spiral Wizard must do!

Then my assumptions were wrong, I assumed you were attempting to aid Angelo in some way. I guess I can't really blame you, I did the same to Angelo you did, the poor guy, abused for the greater good.