Forestluv

To me, it seems like a change from an individual perspective to a collective perspective. I can totally see a farmer who has invested into reducing emissions and taking a loss thinking "Is this climate change stuff even real? I'm losing money on this". What do you think is the resistance to Greta? That she is overly emotional and dramatic? That she is demanding people make big sacrifices?

I think you open up a good point about openmindedness, skepticism and authority. It can be hard to balance. For example, how do I know if I have healthy skepticism or if I am being closed-minded? Scientific theories evolve over time. Scientists have a limited amount of information at any given time and do their best with the current state of knowledge. There are cases in which scientific models are incorrect, cases in which they are partially correct and many cases in which it gets updated. Yet over time, a stronger and stronger case is built due to validation through reproducible experiments and more sophisticated techniques. You say that you learned a certain set of science and now it is different than what you were taught. I'm curious about what these differences are. I teach biology and I can think of only a few examples that have been overturned over the last 30 years - the vast majority of the progress has been digging deeper and adding details to existing models. This may appear as "different", yet it is more detailed. For example, 30 years ago scientists thought genes code for proteins. This was accepted by all scientists. We now know that genes code for proteins, yet also for various forms of RNA. This doesn't mean the original model was wrong. It means we have added more nuances and details. Foundational scientific models like climate change, gravity and the genetic basis of inheritance are very unlikely to be overturned as bogus. Yet, the models will become more sophisticated over time. Do you really think this is a bogus conspiracy? Scientific models have been accurately predicting this.

The democratic nominee will be Biden, Warren or Sanders. Which of those do you see as a greater evil than Trump?

@Zizzero I'm trying to convey a different perspective. It's not simply intellectual, so it can be difficult to describe. It can be difficult to show a person their position when they are immersed within that position. It would involve stepping out of that position to view it. In terms of SD, it would be like Orange asking to be shown their position from a Green/Yellow perspective using Orange logic. It's hard to do and I'm still learning how to do it - and at times I am unable to (such as in this case). The most effective way would be for the person to let go of attachment/identification and view the dynamics from an unattached/unidentified lens. Regarding the term "intellectual honesty": in hindsight my usage of that term was counter-productive. From one's own relative perspective, they are intellectually honest. It wasn't the best way to phrase it.

This is blue/orange undercutting green: issues such as inclusion, equality, environment and on and on. A lot of us are working hard to evolve and help each other evolve. It’s like a group learning to play the piano and someone coming in and setting off firecrackers. Resistance expressed as distraction and obstruction is part of the evolution process, yet it gets tiresome. . . Blue/Orange criticizes Green from a very different orientation than Yellow criticizes Green. Blue/orange has resistance to green and is oriented to pull green down. Integrated Yellow has embodied green and is oriented to pull green up. Your perspective is looking up at green from blue/orange, this lacks awareness of the dynamic from a yellow perspective with green embodiment.

@Zizzero Those are nuanced questions you offer that do not seem aligned to your original statements. Be intellectually honest. There is no serious debate about the premise of climate change, no more than there is about whether the earth is round. As well, there is a general consensus on degree. The questions you raise are nuances that stand upon grounded premises. There will always be more nuances. For example, it is accepted that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Yet, I could create dozens of nuanced questions about the mechanistic details of how smoking causes cancer, which specific chemicals in cigarettes have what specific effects, the differences between filtered and non-filtered cigarettes, how genetics relate to tobacco-induced lung cancer, secondary risks factors etc. All of these questions stand upon a grounded foundation that smoking tobacco causes cancer. These questions do not put doubt into the premise. Your original questions seemed to undercut the premise of climate change and the general consensus of degree. That is a very different context. Orange looking up at Green and pulling down. . .

Good point! @Bodigger!! When you say "the warmest August on record" - do you mean in your hometown, in Wisconsin, in the U.S. or world-wide. This is really important context. If by "warmest August" refers to U.S. or world-wide - that would totally recontextualize your ideas.

You are conflating a personal subjective experience with scientific evidence. There is value in personal subjective experience, yet here you are conflating it to a larger objective context. This would be like saying "I am 6'0' tall and most of the men in my town are over 6'0' tall. I read a scientific study that the average height of men in the U.S. is 5'9'. This doesn't seem right to me. I think the scientists are skewing data and manipulating us to make profits". This is dismissing a wide range scientific study of empirical data due to personal anectodal evidence. In this context, "thinking for myself" is a personal subjective experience that is a contracted view. The more expanded view is to look at larger studies. Here, "thinking for myself" would be to read and critically evaluate the scientific studies and determine if the scientists' conclusions are supported by the data. Does science have 100% integrity? Of course not. There are pockets of corruption in science. Yet your frame is binary in that one must either accept all the science or none of the science. If we analyzed thousands of climate studies with a fine tooth comb, could we find data that was misrepresented? Of course. Yet as a large body of peer-reviewed data, the science is very solid. In terms of SD, this would be a Blue perspective dismissing Orange science, data, evidence. Science can be transcended, yet the perspective you give is looking at Orange from below, not above.

I don't think this is the best way to frame it. This frame starts off with a personal anectdote "In my home state, it felt relatively cool to me - yet it was reported as the second hottest August on record. Maybe the science is skewed. Science is often skewed". This uses a personal anecdotal experience (August felt warm to me) to plant a seed of doubt in a news report. This is then extrapolated to plant a seed of doubt in the integrity of overall climate science. This is then extrapolated to include intention - the climate science data is fraudulent in an effort to make money. So we go from "August in my hometown felt cool to me" to climate science is skewed and used manipulatively to make money. It's a weak argument. A stronger argument would to read and critique the actual science and to show that the data does not support the conclusions. Then, to show that the data was manipulated for nefarious purposes. This is a much much higher bar than "August felt cool to me". . . Many people have spent a lot of time critiquing the climate science data - even organizations trying to prove it wrong. Nobody has. It's solid. . . Your argument is a mild form of a conspiracy theory. From here, a poorly grounded assumption is used partially to undercut efforts of climate advocates. (If the science is skewed and used manipulatively, this would diminish the significance of climate advocates). A further frame is added: "I don't think it is good that we use children in such ways and let them out of school in protest. . . This assumes that children are being used immorally to promote a bullshit cause perpetrated by crooked scientists and people looking to profit off of others through their lies. If the underlying assumptions are true - then of course this would be wrong. It would be wrong to make up a bullshit story, manipulate people, and put children through trauma as we use them as pawns to make money. . . The problem with the frame is that it has very little grounding and is easily deconstructed with some critical thinking.

@7thLetter From the perspective of a human subjective experience of consciousness - sure. Personal consciousness and cognitive ability decline. Yet deep insights that stick can stick for a really long time. Imagine living in a cave your whole life and finding an exit hole. You exit the cave and explore the forest for two days. Then you get scared and return to the cave. . . You can't unsee that type of thing. It would take a long time to fade away. From an absolute perspective of Consciousness, no.

Notice how you just made that up. All of your questions are based on that assumption. Without that assumption, all of your following questions collapse. . .

I would consider this a very low level of cognitive processing - like you say, some people do not have this basic cognitive ability. Yet, I think most people do. I think most people are denying it, either consciously or subconsciously. And some people, like those in the fossil fuel industry, will try to mislead low conscious people through various strategies - just like the tobacco industry did. And more recently, just like the pharmaceutical industry during the opiod crisis. One thing I like about Greta is how she speaks truth to power and says "You know the harm you are doing and you continue to do so for power and profit at the expense of my generation. My generation will never forget or forgive you". I hope some day, gen z will hold egregious climate change offenders accountable for their actions. Similar to how the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries were held accountable.

There is a ton of tangible evidence that people can observe. Point to and touch. Melted glaciers and ice sheets. Rising temperatures. Warmer waters. Death of coral reefs - on and on and on. The predictions from years past are all coming true. Some people don't want to accepts these tangible things for various reasons. Some don't want to put in the effort, some don't trust science, some don't want to change, some want to consume the planet for personal power and profit, some want to "own the libs". I was traveling through Alaska a couple years ago and noticed a lot of observatory stations for tourists were shut down and decaying. Why? Well, these were observatory stations for glaciers and ice sheets. After they melted away, the tourists stopped coming. . . Twenty years ago, scientists predicted they will melt away within twenty years. . . How is this not tangible? . . . To me, it's more about denial. I met other tourists in Alaska that said "Oh no, that's not global warming. That's just how weather is - sometimes there are a few hot years. . . " As well, worldwide average temperatures keep hitting record highs (consistent with scientific models). This is tangible. Everyone understands what temperature is. Yet in my home state, there is an occasional cold snap. Some people in my town will say "It's snowing in October!! Global warming is a hoax!!!". When I tell them that average wordwide temperature keeps hitting new record highs year after year, they scoff at me. To me, this isn't a lack of tangible things, it is a denial of those tangible things.

Some thoughts that come to mind and my personal experience: Everyone has subconscious biases and prejudices. Yet we are not aware of them at a conscious level. I've done a lot of introspection and have gone through training to reveal subconscious biases. I've lived in foreign villages to immerse myself in culture to reveal my subconscious biases. I've dated outside my race and immersed myself in very different communities to reveal my subconscious biases. Part of what was revealed to me was conditioned subconscious biases from my upbringing. For example, my parents often mocked the speaking patterns of inner city black people. They were very particular about speaking properly - proper annunciation and grammar - because we don't want to sound like "those people". Now my parents never overtly said "Those inner city black people are stupid and not as good as us - you don't want to be like them". However, the was the subconscious conditioning I received. . . Through my adult life, I have never consciously judged a person speaking "improper" English as being stupid or lesser than me. In fact, it was the opposite. Consciously, I thought that everyone is equal and there is no "proper" way to speak English. Yet after a lot of consciousness work, I became conscious of this subconscious bias. I was now able to observe my subconscious perception/interpretation when I heard people from certain groups speaking "improper" English. There was subconscious judgement I was now aware of. It was a form of racism. I then saw how this subconscious bias led me to treat some of my black and brown students with subtle biases. This was extremely uncomfortable for me to look at. I went through a period of denial, then hyper-self criticism. And I couldn't stop this subconscious judgement. It kept appearing. . . So, should I be shamed for this? Should a mob have come after me and shamed me "You are a racist!!! How can you call yourself a teacher, you racist!!! You should lose your job!! I'm going to post your racism on social media". I can tell you that if I was shamed, it would not have helped. I don't know for sure what would have happened, yet it wouldn't have been pretty. . . Thank goodness, there were people that didn't shame me. I was able to talk about this with a few of my colleagues. And they were like "Oh yea, that's subconscious racism - we all have it. We can help you work through it. After you work through it, perhaps you can help others work through it". And I worked through it. I've now studied the neuroscience of subconscious racism and teach it in my neuroscience course. I help students to become aware of their subconscious racism and I will absolutely NOT shame them. Shaming them would be the absolute worst environment. We need to have a safe environment for people to discover their subconscious racism and to evolve through it. There is already intense resistance against people looking at their own subconscious racism. In this context, shaming is highly counter-productive. . . However shaming has it's place in another context. If I realized my subconscious bias and didn't do anything about it and continued to be racially insensitive - shaming can be productive.

Some imagery of climate change from a scientific perceptive. . . Imagine adding two types of chemicals together in a test tube. Chemists can build models of the chemical structures and how the chemicals interact with each other. They can predict the output of the chemical reactions. An accurate model will predict actual output. This is a contracted example. If we expand our consciousness, we can imagine a giant mass of chemicals interacting within a test tube we call earth. This is much more complex and requires higher level scientific models. Scientists began constructing scientific models in the late 70s, early 80s - yet didn't have enough data and algorithmic power to construct highly accurate models. By the late 1980s to early 1990s science was advanced enough to create accurate models. These models have been "tested" in real life over the last 30 years and have been quite accurate: the climate changes predicted have occurred. Now in 2019, the scientific models are even more accurate with higher predictive power. . . Denying climate change and these models is like someone in Florida saying "Yea, the scientists say a class five hurricane will hit the coast tomorrow, but I'm not a "doom and gloom" kinda guy. I don't think the storm will be as bad as predicted. I'm gonna hang out here on the coast. . . "

From some Orange perspectives, she doesn't add much to the debate. As well, to Climate Change deniers - she doesn't add much to the debate. I find the dynamic within Orange is super interesting to me. A portion of Orange leans toward hyper-individualism/libertarian and hyper-captialism. Yet another portion of Orange highly values science, evidence and rational thought. These two are at odds: one side of Orange is positioned to deny Climate Change evidence, while the other side of Orange is positioned to accept Climate Change evidence. I work in a science department and all of my Orange colleagues are on the science side accepting the scientific and material evidence. From a scientific perceptive, denying Climate Change is on par with denying that the earth is round. . . Then I get online and see tons of Orange on the libertarian/corporate side denying Climate Change. I don't think I've observed such a worldwide dichotomy within an SD stage. I'm surprised by how many climate change deniers are on the forum. I thought the average conscious level was higher. . . From Green/Yellow/Turquoise perspectives, she adds a lot to the debate. And it's about time. . .

You are creating two things: "I" and "God".

@Devi Shanti ? ?

Solipsism?. . . Full Stop. . .

Good points. As you suggest, if I understood someone else's perspective 100%, I would be that person. I can't reach 100%, yet I can get pretty close. It's possible for a personal filter to nearly fully dissolve and reach hyper-empathetic states in which one can get pretty close to understanding another person. Yet as long as one is in a personal construct, they can't reach 100%. The full monty is complete dissolution of person and becoming one. At this point, there is no difference between "me" and "you" because there is no longer a "me" and "you".

Thanks. I think I understand now. . . You give an example of a young child that is unaware of biological sex and does not accept being a boy and relates as a girl. The phrase "does not accept being a boy" assumes that the child is of male gender. I don't assume a child with a penis is male gender. To me, the child is expressing their natural gender preference. . . Yet, I'm not sure how fluid gender preference is at a young age. I don't know exactly when gender identity forms. Questioning sex to me would be totally different. For example, if a young child unaware of sex questioned whether or not he had a penis. That would be very odd to me. It would be like a child questioning whether or not they had a nose. . . . To draw a sharper distinction. . . Imagine a young child with brown eyes that denied their eye color and identified as a girl. This sounds odd, because there is an obvious distinction between eye color and gender. I would also draw a distinction between sex and gender. Currently in most societies, that distinction is murky - yet it is getting clearer as society evolves. Yet it is clear to transgender individuals - they understand this through direct experience.

@ShugendoRa There is also a relativity aspect. For me, 5-meo is much smoother and gentle than Ayahuasca.

I love how she is shaming climate change deniers. No one has been able to do it as effectively as Greta imo. It's interesting how they try to dismiss her as an irrational child. Orange can be so dastardly. . .

Lol. Einstein called it "Spooky action at a distance". And guess what?. . . Einstein was wrong. The science community now accepts QM. Superposition and entanglement is not some kooky pseudoscience. It is among the most rock-solid areas of science and it obliterates a only-physical paradigm. Denying QM is on par with denying gravity. No you don't. Just watch some videos on QM - it is rock sold "something". From a scientific perspective, belief in an only-physical reality is like believing the earth is flat. Even scientists are aware of this. And this is just the kiddie table. The entire scientific paradigm can be transcended.

Very few are aware of Truth Leo has been teaching. This is much more radical and deeper. Without this awareness, the deeper levels of helpfulness will not be apparent.