Scholar

Having a conversation is not equal to arguing, he is an integral thinker so he might be receptive to new ideas. Other than that you can educate other integral thinkers who would listen to that conversation. The purpose might not even become clear, or unfold, until the conversation has happened, so to ask why might not be the right question to ask.

@Leo Gura Can you not set up a conversation with WIlber, or maybe get in contact with the Integral Life people. How will we expand the thinking if we just keep it to ourselves? https://www.youtube.com/user/IntegralNaked

I don't remember what the name was, but there was this guy who claimed he came from the future and said that basically nations don't exist anymore and that there are these cities of a certain size where socialism was able to function. He claimed that they learned that if the population was too high, socialism wasn't able to function properly because societal cohesion would basically fall away, there had to be a restriction because too many people would lead to people being unable to form a strong community, which socialism is necessary for as it requires a connection to community, a desire to do something for the community out of your own free will. He also said that each city had basically an AI that would govern that city. There were more details but I forgot. It was a long time ago that I heard that and when I did I obviously thought that guy was crazy. I still think he was, but the scenario or vision of the future is something that doesn't seem that unrealistic to me anymore.

I don't know, seeing animal cruelty would definitely be more traumatic for me than being put into a simulated situation myself.

Next step: Put every child into a cage in which they can only kneel in and not even turn around, leave them in there for a few hours in the dark. Maybe even pretend like they are being slaughtered and eaten, showing some obese person eating and enjoying a hamburger made of their classmates flesh. That would make people more empathic real quick. Sadly most people never experience terror and subjugation, which is why we live in a society in which it is viewed as almost completely non-problematic. So much so that people are willing to do this to their brothers and sisters for something like trivial health benefits or energy levels.

What we need is a round table talk of all the enlightened people. It has to happen.

This is what happens when there are no consequences. The american citizens fail to face their own responsibility and you will have to suffer the consequences. When you let the wolves rule you don't be surprised when they turn their teeth on you some day. We are at a stage in human evolution in which any selfishness will only be addressed if the self faces consequences. People will not stop exploiting others until they get heart disease, until the oceans start to rise, until their children are killed in school shootings. Their lack of empathy will be punished in the only way they have yet come to understand. Humanity without empathy can only change through suffering, and thankfully nature is very good at making us suffer for our ignorance and apathy. To understand suffering means to understand your place in this world, your contribution towards the evolution of this world. God makes you suffer precisely because he loves you so much.

I wonder how much Leo has investigated this, because a lot of what he describes sounds like he has some gut issue. Maybe not his only issue, but it would certainly explain why it gets worse over time. He seems to have difficulty breaking down oxalates or something. I am struggling with similar issues and they seem to be getting worse aswell as time passes. Thyroid and gut health also seem to be linked: https://thefatigueclinic.com/2019/10/thyroid-and-the-gut/ https://www.wellandgood.com/thyroid-gut-health/

Isn't it interesting that Italy and Italians seem to be so good at establishing and thriving in Stage Blue institutions and structures? The roman empire and the vatican are the best examples for that. But even italians isolated from that, in terms of the classical Mafia, seem to just thrive in that kind of mindset and environment. It's like they have just this hidden talent in building these structures. Could this be cultural? I wonder if there are other cultures and peoples that tend to be good at thriving and establishing certain levels of existence. Has anyone here given this some thought? What is it that makes Italy so different to others that they are just so good at this? It seems like it must root back all the way to the beginnings of rome.

It is not about whether they create Stage blue institutions, obviously every country has to as it once transitioned through blue, or is currently doing so. I think you misunderstand the inquiry of my question.

RIP Remember guys not to be sedentary for too long and get your regular exercise in. If you sit a lot do some exercises every hour or so, it will increase your productivity anyways. Also keep yourself hydrated!

How do we verify whether Spiral Dynamics is an accurate model? Did anyone here look at the actual research done by don beck and clare graves? It seems to me that it is hard to make the case that SD is a scientific model.

Funny how that last one is called "Authoritarian" with him saying that subjectivity and intuition seems to play a much bigger role, and that in a way they become more tribalistic. To me it looks like it is describing what Leo has been transitioning to the past few years. Leo has in essence abandoned ideas of outside authority and is now embracing his own, with help of his subjective experience and intution. He is also much more harsh with people who are creating an environment which he doesn't like. He is actively excluding certain people from his group, which in a sense could be said to be tribalistic behaviour.

Even if they thought people followed an evolution akin to spiral dynamics, they could still deny that being further up the spiral is actually more healthy and desirable. That would be much harder to prove in terms of scientific means. This would mean we could call it science, but not established scientific fact. It seems like embracing the model like we do before it has actually been tested enough to be established to be accurate seems to be unjustifiable from the perspective of scientific reasoning. We can call it scientific data, but we cannot call it scientific fact. It seems like it is more than a scientific hypothesis, but it is not yet a firm and robust scientific theory. But for even this to be established we would need the actual research. Is this available somewhere online, because I couldn't find it when I was looking.

But none of it seems to have been independently replicated, so how can we call it scientific? It seems to be even hard to prove that the research was done at all, and that it had true predictive power. From what I was told, as long as these criteria are not met, this cannot be considered positive science. It seems like these criteria are hard to meet for the field of psychology in general. It was argued that this kind of model wouldn't be consider science, but rather something more akin to the humanities, history and so forth because it cannot fullfill the requirements of science. Philosophers who love philosophy of science. The problem I have is that I basically cannot rationally justify using SD other than that it seems to work really well and that it matches my intuitions. It would be useful if I could justify it rationally because then I could convince people to adopt it. For that it doesn't have to be scientific, but atleast we have to provide evidence that it has indeed predictive power.

What do you mean my universal metamodel? What Wilber is referring to in his books?

Well when I try to make the case for SD to people who are scientifically literate, they seem to object to pretty much all of it. No peer reviews, Don Beck being a little bit dubious and the way some of the studies were designed were also not very robust. In the end I can only appeal to intuition and how in practice this model seems to match well what I see happening in the world. But this could just be bias, so it is very unconvincing. All of the spiritual concepts that have been attached to SD seem to also make it more difficult for people to embrace. SD is and the research of Clare Graves is not really accepted by academia, and saying that it is because Graves died before he could publish it doesn't make a good case for it either. If Graves research wasn't publish, how do we know it was valid? Was it peer reviewed? Were the results reproduced indepentendly? Etc. etc.

Do we have a source on this?

Whether or not there is, we must be careful as to how our communication is affecting the world. Because of how tricky and subtle this dynamic is it can very easily lead to unintentional consequences. This is similar to how people can contribute to racist stereotyping while being well intentioned without themselves being consciously racist. If you leave the context open for interpretation, this is what well intentioned rhetoric can lead to. Truth can be harmful precisely because the ego can interpret it however it wants. Sometimes we can do a lot of harm by presenting one side of the truth, but not the other. When we present one perspective in the absence of the other.

Yes, this is all relativism. They point is to establish when some of these perspectives are useful and valuable, and when they are not. I was trying to make a case specifically for why the concepts you were using here create disharmony and reductionism that actually leads to suffering rather than healing.

The issue I see here is that you seem to be confusing your generalization and abstractions for actual reality. There is no such thing as a man and woman. There is no such thing as an asymmetry between all men and all women, because to even begin to create such a devision and abstract it into a single entity it requires reductionism that will render all nuance void. These kinds of abstractions serve a very specific purpose and are useful in a very specific context. We get into big trouble when we use these abstractions of groups that do not truly exist and apply them to the undeniable reality of the individual. Your example seems to be a good indicator for this confusion. Because the relationship between men and women is not at all similar to the relationship between a rabbit and a fox. A fox is in it's biological reality superior to that of the rabbit. This implies a sort of underlying reality that cannot be broken. It admits to the confusion of the abstraction and an generalization upon all individuals. It says in quite a sneaky way: "Men on average are more dangerous, therefore all men are more dangerous." Yet there are men that are completely unimpressive and a threat to nobody. To include these people into the group of the men, which you have previously abstracted to be a group that is more dangerous on average, is in and of itself discriminatory. Can you see this dynamic happening? It is very subtle even for someone who is very conscious. This dynamic for an unconscious person however will inevitably lead to actionable discrimination. The problem you are facing here is basically the discriminiation of the minority or the discriminiation of those who fall outside the norm. Because those who fall outside of the norm of the group which you have arbitrarily established are excluded from the group that are opposite to them (male vs female), they will actually be bound to be victims of discrimination. They are not the physicially superior individuals of the Male group, yet despite being physically inferior they are excluded from the Female group. They are essentially excluded from being viewed as a group worthy of moral consideration. In practice this has severe consequences for those individuals, in abstraction anyone you will ask will claim that they actually do believe that this group is worthy of moral consideration. Yet because this group does not fit the conventional abstraction and division, it will in practice find little consideration. Trans people have faced a similar issue in the past. It is the silent minority that is outside of the spectrum of the contemporary norms that will always be subject discrimination. Their suffering is always dismissed in the name of the majority, the norm, the abstraction.

He has to learn to be mature enough to explain to someone his perspective without running away. Leo could be unconscious of some of the underlying dynamics here. It would have been more valuable if he had explained to Leo why he found such a comment insensitive.

Sure but you can make this point without undermining the suffering of the fox. This analogy also lacks an important aspect in human relationships that seems to be overlooked here. Relationships are not some pure physical power exchange. There are physically weaker women who abuse their physically stronger men both physically and emotionally. There are many aspects to relationships that go beyond just physical dominance. To say that this is as rare as a rabbit abusing a fox is just very uncharitable. Even wikipedia has a better take on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men Now of course rape is a specific thing that is not the same as domestic violence, but I fear that this kind of generalizing and dismissive attitude is quite unhealthy to the conversation as a whole. You can argue that many people use these arguments to delegitmize concerns about abuse towards women, which is obviously more common and intensive. But if we then create a position as a reaction to that, we are prey to the personal and egoic dynamics that are taking place here. You are creating an outgroup and positioning yourself against it, contributing to division amongst people. You lose objectivity due to being so heavily invested in the game.

For me it sometimes happens that when I have a hot cup of something and put it down when there is water under the cup, it will start moving. Seems like the water/air underneath is expanding and somehow creating movement.