Scholar

I have just had a really obvious realization that nonetheless kind of blew my mind for a reason. I watched one of Leo's videos and noticed that my consciousness was increasing while I was watching it. In fact, I realized that this is the case whenever I would watch one of his videos. It had a natural tendency to put me into a meditative state. And then I realized that this not accidental and I don't even think it is by design. I have a sense that this is the case with any creation of higher consciousness. Any product created from a place of higher consciousness will actually increase consciousness, no matter what it is! It is like in the essence of the product the consciousness is present and it cannot help but afflict the mind which is consuming it. Whether it would be a painting, a story or even an equation. It will necessarily increase consciousness. This is why an increase of consciousness is unstoppable. It cannot be stopped because all of nature is created from the highest place of consciousness. Infact this is why nature herself is so good at increasing our consciousness. To see creation itself will infuse us with higher consciousness. This is incredible because it means no matter what we produce, if we are high consciousness and our products come from our creativity, they will necessarily contribute to the increase of consciousness in everyone who consumes them. Even what I am writing right now will contribute to it. It is literally a force of nature. This is not merely happenstance. It is not merely an accident. Being will increase being, it cannot be otherwise. We don't have to worry about unconsciousness, reality itself makes it impossible for consciousness not to increase. How insane is that... You can corrupt the teachings however much you want, it is impossible for Truth not to persist, because it is embued in literally everything. All art, all technology, all philosophy cannot help but contribute to this cause. All we have to do is create from a place of higher consciousness. It does not matter what we create. The universe is the ultimate high consciousness creation.

You got it all reverse. Leo is not fitting his arguments into his beliefs. He is fitting the arguments to the Truth he has experienced.

You are relativizing everything to a point that you could justify any position. Don't use relativity as a tool to win arguments.

And don't forget that charities are if anything a sign of green, not yellow or even turquoise. Hippies talk about love and consciousness all the time, doesn't mean they are at the level of Sadhguru.

I wouldn't say this person is yellow at all, they went into this business because they wanted to become a billionaire. This is pure stage Orange.

To this day, watching street activism of vegans and vegan debates is the best study of spiral dynamics I have found. You can just see the limitations of blue and orange so clearly, and how they will weazel and squirm to uphold their own value structure over that of compassion and reason.

You can tell it was written by a human because not once are other life-forms mentioned in the story.

Read "Flow" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

You have a duality between hardware and software which does not actually exist in reality. The software and the hardware are one thing. The same is true for sentience/brain. We have to seperate sentience from consciousness. Consciousness is existence, all there is is consciousness, as consciousness is being itself. How sentience arises however, which is a specific aspect of consciousness, might very well be determined by the way consciousness structures itself (in this case we mean specifically by the way wavefunctions express themselves). Nothing arises from anything, the feelings you feel are equivalent to the atoms of your brain. Atomic structures are simply a way of viewing an aspect of consciousness, which in this case is motion. Notice that the material is entirely reduced to motion. Notice that all physical description can only describe motion. Notice that all equations, all physics, can only describe motion. All of these dualities, these seperations between matter and mind, happen in consciousness. They are not there, they just exist as themselves.

I didn't say JP couldn't be improved, I said that the primary question is whether the world would be better off with or without Peterson, whether he improved or not. That is an interesting question to me. The question of "If Peterson would be better, would he be better?" is kind of a non-question. If Peterson would be better of course he would be better.

I agree. But the question here I don't think is how Peterson could be improved, but whether the world would be better off without him. I intuit that it would be worse off without him, that people would be even more stuck in blue in orange while being more dysfunctional than they are with Petersons teachings. Of course it would be more ideal if everyone listened to Leo. But that is without question. It's easy to point to things reality should be doing. It's harder to judge what consequences the lack of a certain thing would ensue for reality. Sure, replace Hitler with Jesus 2.0 and we would probably have a better world. But just remove Hitler without replacement, and I am not so sure anymore. Would germany have developed the atomic bomb and then gone full on Third Reich with noone able to stop them? Would there still be life on this planet? Who knows.

Technically, that is what sane men do, too.

The question we must ask though is, would the world be better off without Jordan Peterson or not? Furthermore, do you have anyone who can, in practice, replace the blue teachings that Jordan Peterson is giving? Here we have to keep in mind that higher teaching will not always be more effective, because they might simply not resonate with lower consciousness people. And I disagree about Tony Robbinson. He doesn't teach any blue values at all. People who listen to him stay at their stage, with increased islamophobia. People who listen to Jordan Peterson might atleast integrate some blue and orange, which allows them to eventually go beyond that. (I confused Tony Robbins with that guy in the UK who is against Islam, lol) I don't know much about Tony Robbins, but does he have the same resonance as Peterson does? Our disagreement here is that I believe people are already so dysfunctional that they are better off listening to both the good and bad of Peterson than to not listen to him at all. In this case the harm baggage does not overweigh the postives, because the lack of the positives are more catastrophic than the harm baggage. I am solely interested in getting people up to green asap, and I think Peterson was a net-positive, even if it seems like he is making people stuck in blue/orange. The problem here is that there is no alternative to Peterson. If there was, Peterson would be a net negative. Just think of all the individuals who have benefitted greatly from Peterson's psychological teachings. Where would they be today without Peterson? And then compare that to the alt-right people, who if Peterson would be lacking, would simply listen to another Alt-Righter. Not much would have changed, in fact I would posit that they would be more dysfunctional as they would lack the few teachings that Peterson is communicating.

Yes but is Peterson not doing precisely what you are suggesting he does, just in a, from your higher point of view, dysfunctional way? I mean look at why he is so popular, as far as his psychological stuff goes it is on point stage blue stuff. People seem to lack that. People lack so pathetically in stage blue memes that you tell them to clean their rooms and their entire lifes turn around. I don't think community is enough to fix this, many people completely lack purpose, they have not learned to take responsibility. They have not learned the stage blue values so that they can one day transition to orange. Sure he has his devilry, but do you really think he is fake crying? Do you really think all the people who are so grateful for his advice are just dismissable as stage blue biggots who react against progressive values? The question here is, who else is doing what Peterson is doing on that large of a scale? This is the problem when you have a stage green person teaching stage blue values. A stage green person will not resonate to stage blue/red people. It will simply not happen on the large scale. That stuff happens at Tier 2, that stuff is Spiral Wizardry stuff. So of course people will listen to someone who reflects their stage, which Jordan Peterson does. Sure Peterson is a devil, sure he is flawed. Sure his followers are devils too. But are you sure that they would be better of without Peterson? Who do you think would they listen to, who do you think they would seek out if Peterson was not part of this? I take Peterson over Alex Jones every day of the week, because Alex Jones is a threat to the fundamental fabric of society. Peterson is kind of regressive, but at least he teaches people blue in a more or less helpful way for the people at that stage. I know a lot of people personally who have been kind of depressed, nihilistic hedonists who have listened to Peterson far before he became political. And I can see the effect he had on them, they started their own life purpose, they expanded their responsibility. I honestly don't know if that would have happened without him. There is no way in hell these people would have listened to Leo. And what is the alternative to Peterson for these people, that can actually resonate with them? I feel like often we can fall into the trap of elitist spiral dynamics thinking, where we do not recognize the perspective of these people. They are not as conscious as we are, and we can't just spoon feed them green level stuff. It just doesn't resonate with these people, if it did, clearly Peterson wouldn't be necessary. But this way, I can't say whether the world wouldn't be worse off without him. It could be far, far worse.

Again, you are not trying to understand what I am trying to communicate to you. Nothing I said is in disagreement with what you said here.

I don't understand. What is your prescription for solving this problem, outside of the theoretical?

I think you need to read more carefully what I wrote. You seem to have already constructed a very elaborate system of ideas and assumptions, I don't know if you will learn anything if you do not put them aside and try to learn something fundamentally unfamiliar. What you did was interpret my words by virtue of your own ideological system. Existence is not illusion, only illusion is illusion. Existence is another word for consciousness or being.

Can you explain how specifically that article is biased? Just claiming it's funded by Kellogs and they are biased is not an argument. That just allows you to be biased, you can dismiss any evidence by virtue of it being funded by a company who possibly could be interested in certain results. Who else would fund these studies? Allan Savory has no self interest and is not biased at all as a researcher whose livelihood depends on his pet theories? What was the case before the U.S basically destroyed the entire ecosystem for animal agriculture does not tell us about whether grazing cows can save the environment, whether there are no better solutions or whether it would be even worth it considering the moral implications of slaughtering billions of cows "to save the planet". You made claims here that you think the vegan diet is probably not healthy for you, by that virtue alone it is likely you have a bias towards justifying animal agriculture so that you can sustain your own health to the detriment of the cows who will be slaughtered for you.

But the problem is that blue pretty much lacks entirely in our current western world. It is being completely deconstructed. We are not seeing what you are describing, where green takes the healthy things of blue and integrates them in some sort of spiral wizardry. We see the opposite. Because many of the green people you talk about themselves have never gone through and learned the healthy aspects of blue. This is a catch 22. How can you have healthy green people teaching blue values when we disintegrated blue and basically have this weird mutant green that will get worse and worse the more people are going be educated without any blue values at all. Again, why do you think we have these systemic issues. Why do you think we have Jordan Petersons, Dave Rubins and Alex Jones? What if you are wrong that it is purely a reaction towards green? What if there is actually a lack of healthy blue teachings in western societies? How do we determine who of us is right here? By intuition?

But it's not Green who has primarily been demonizing blue for the past 6 decades, it has been orange. Orange has been deconstructing Christianity. I still don't understand how any of what you say is possible if we have no blue teachings at all. Again, if you have a child born today, how will they possibly transition through blue? Where will they possibly find blue values? A foundation is not optional, it is necessary. We know that Blue is required for Orange, and yet, where are people going to be taught blue in our society? Why do people seek out Jordan Peterson and Alex Jones? How can we just ignore this and pretend it's not happening? How is any of this systemic thinking? For me this is not about blue vs green. Green has nothing to do with this. This is a consequence of blue having been deconstructed by orange. I don't think blue will evolve away and everyone lives happy ever after. I think the deconstructiong of blue by orange might be a civilization breaking limitation that will be survived by civilizations which integrate blue instead of destroying it, which is why I was pointing to China. I don't know, I might be wrong, but I don't think the arguments that green will replace blue and make it unnecessary are very compelling. Especially when we have real life data to indicate the opposite. Atleast in our current cultural environment, people will seek out blue if no institution will help them transition through it. Red never evolved away. Red is an integral part of how children function, every child goes through stage red, if it does not it will develope a shadow. Blue on the other hand is a very artificial stage, it is the stage civilization is founded upon. It is not part of a natural psychological evolution, it is one of the first stages which is culturally constructed by a means of memelogical evolution. Cut that away and you cut everything away, unless you have some magical stage yellow solution for it which we are far away from. Absolutistic notions of truth are especially important in an environment in which there are foreign entities which seek to destabilize other societies. If you have no absolute truth, any foreign entity can feed notions of truths into your society to create deliberate destabilization and conflict. You can do this in the US, but it will be far more difficult to do that in China. And that might be the next evolutionary trait which civilizations develope, a sort of immune system against disinformation campaigns targeted so as to destabilize that civilization. In my opinion we have to recognize that the availibity of information by means of the internet has changed everything we know about Spiral Dynamics.

1. It requires healthy structures at all stages for individuals to transition through these stages without dysfunction. 2. Religious systems and institutions which were responsible for teaching people blue are being disintegrated and not replaced by functional blue replacements. 3. A lack of healthy blue institutions, which teach important transitional tools like absolutistic truth and morals, will lead to people seeking absolutistic truth elsewhere. -> Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson, Flat Earth, Anti-Fascism, Right-wing extremism, general skepticism of institutions all rising in popularity -> Higher stage memes, due the the current cultural environment, are adopted as absolutistic truths. Stage red and blue people adopting Green Memes (especially evident in Anti-Fascistic movements) -> Destabilization of the cultural environment due to conflicting world views and inability to communicate and harmonize with different cultural viewpoints (something that requires a healthy integration of stage orange and green) The very important question I think we need to ask ourselves is, with our knowledge of Spiral Dynamics, specifically knowing that it requires a transition through all stages to create a healthy individual, how can that possibly be the case if there is no strong stage Blue insitution which transitions people through stage blue? How are people in the 21st century going to transition through stage blue? Where are they going to learn everything that was previously done by religious systems? I think the problem is not green inherently, the problem is that there is no stage blue, which people need. We all know that. We know there can be no healthy orange, nor green, without a healthy stage blue. So why in the world are we ignoring that people are starting to listening to someone like JP or Alex Jones, or starting to believe in Flat Earth? How can we expect people to transition into green and orange when they are not even getting their blue foundations? Religion basically taught everyone. Millions upon millions of people. And we didn't replace it with anything at all. We just demonized it, and now we are getting the backlash for it. Evolution is supposed to happen by building ontop of what previously came, not by destroying it and just moving on. And this is what we have done, and maybe it is irreversable, atleast in the west. China is going all out on protecting their culture. They have a huge rise in Christianity. I am really curious where they will be in 50 years compared to the US.

Fundamentally, it is magical. It is impossible. If you look carefully, you will realize that consciousness/reality is utterly mysterious. This is what reality is doing: Reality never saw an apple, reality never experienced an apple, there has never been anything like an apple before in all of existence. There is nothing to be even imagined to be an apple. Yet, reality can grab into the air and manifest, consciously, an apple, without knowing what an apple is. It can manifest the knowledge of the apple, the essence of the apple, out of thin air, from absolutely no reference point. It can do that with everything. It can manifest everything from nothing. It can manifest all possible dualities. Intelligence and understanding is not merely discovering an already present reality. Intelligence and evolution is manifesting the undiscovered, the unmanifested, from complete non-existence into existence. If you have the potentiality of nothingness, what reality is doing is grabbing into that nothingness and pulling it apart. By that method it can manifest anything, it can manifest infinite things that are unimaginble, like colors and smells. Imagine there was no such thing as colors, imagine you have never seen a color in your life. Imagine that you could not even possibly imagine color. Yet, what reality can do is just pull into nothingness, and consciously manifest color without knowing what it is, because knowing what it is would mean that it would have already existed. This impossbility of reality, this magical property is the foundation of all intelligence and creation. This is what consciousness fundamentally is. When you see it, you will immediately recognize that reality is fucking insane. It is literally impossible. There is no causation to it, there is no explanation, there is no root. The manifestation of all that is real is done by the manifestation of it itself. Reality is basically like magic swimming through the sea of non-duality, and the swimming itself is the manifestation of duality. In Blackness there must exist Whiteness. Whiteness and Blackness equate to nothingness, which is what they truly are. Nothingness can produce literally everything, infinite sensation. How many senses do you have? You can see. You can smell. You can hear. You can feel. You can think. These are a few of the aspects of consciousness which are pulled from nothingness into existence. There are literally infinite. They are so unfamiliar to you that you could not possibly imagine them. They are so strange like to a blind man color is. And there are INFINITE of these aspects. They are all manifested by magic, by non-causality. The literally self-manifest. It is pure magic. And it happens at all times, with all aspects of realness. Language is one of these infinite aspects. Language is utterly mysterious and impossible in it's essence. This is what you have to recognize. Once you recognize this there will be no more words, because you will know that whatever it is is beyond all comprehension. It literally is impossible. It's not you who are feeling, it is the feeling that is feeling. Feeling is self-existing. It took as much effort to manifest feeling as it took to manifest the entire universe. Which is to say no effort at all. They are both just aspects of realness or consciousness. The answer to the question is found by observing how any aspect of realness is manifested. Once you see, you will know creation has no cause. It is magical.

But how can he see that if he is totally immersed in the content of the screen? I feel like by calling consciousness consciousness we almost feed into the delusion, because they look at consciousness as content. They don't see the being or existence. They only see that which exists, they do not recognize that existing is that which is the content. I would say that the content is the screen, there is no seperation. There is only existence. It's almost like he does not even recognize consciousness. For him consciousness is an idea. If he were to believe consciousness is fundamental, he would merely replace one idea with another, and not gain any insight into what is being said. How can we possibly solve this?

Also notice how it is not even attempted to find a "holistic" solution that does not involve animals. The is a very disingenious way of comparing the worst kind of plant agriculture with some sort of ideal utopian animal agriculture. If we were to be unbiased we would compare the worst plant agriculture to the worst animalagriculture. Without question we will find the worst animal agriculture to be by far worse. Then we can continue and compare the best possible plant agriculture to the best possible animal agriculture. Also, if anyone here is worried about lacking nutrients, just eat mussels. They are environmentally friendly (possibly even environmentally benefitial), most likely not sentient and probably even healthier than beef.

Before talking about adopting new paradigm's, make the exercise and try to debunk the "new paradigm" as well as you possibly can. You will not get a healthy perspective by just jumping around and trusting what people say. "Oh look, here someone is debunking veganism!" Well, have you checked whether someone has debunked the debunking of the "older paradigm"? https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-talk-is-wrong-and-the-benefits-of-holistic-grazing-have-been-debunked.html Ask yourself this, have you even attempted to do research into whether Allan Savory is full of shit or not? If not, why would you not have done that if you seek to be unbiased? Why did you accept his opinion as fact without truly checking whether it is the case? Apply your skepticism equally will be emotionally taxing. If it is not, you are doing it wrong.