Forestluv

The key term here is "harm". You seem to assume that there is an objective, universal thing called "harm". Harm is a relative term. What you consider to be harmful, another person may consider to be beneficial. Yet if one assumes their idea of harm is objective and universal, they will not be able to understand another perspective. This creates a limited, contracted state of mind that is present in the universal objectivism of Ayn Rand and libertarian philosophy. . . A major part of self actualization is to expand one's consciousness out of such contracted states. It is unwise to concede this point to a libertarian unless they offer an objective, universal construct of "harm". Conceding this point allows a libertarian to frame the narrative in such a way that they gain grounding within groundless assumptions. As well, this framework allows a dominant group with majority power to maintain that power - by defining what counts as "harm". The group with power will often define "harm" from their perspective, not from the perspective of the minority group with less power.

There is something intuitive to me about the dissolution of space and time into Here and Now. Yet gravity isn’t as intuitive. I don’t know why. Perhaps it hasn’t been at the forefront of consciousness. I’ve had many nondual experiences with space and time. Yet only a few in which gravity was the theme.

I ask to be shown gravity without the construct of time. Can gravity be revealed Now? I don’t know. It seems easier to transcend space and time than it is gravity. Lol

Yet Oliver is an imagination in your mind while you are sleeping. Is Oliver's sadness real or an illusion?

The statement "It's ironic that you react the same way the people who you call devils do." is highly nuanced. The key term that orients the view is "same". Assumptions about "same" and "different" can blind a person to seeing false equivalencies. A false equivalency manifests when a person creates an equivalency and believes it to be objectively and universally true. They are unaware of another perspective, or realm, in which that equivalency is false. You perceive that Leo is reacting the same way the people who Leo calls devils do. You see that sameness as an equivalency that is objective and universally true. I am not saying that perspective is wrong. What i am saying is that by assuming sameness, one contracts themself into that sameness. If all one can see is Sameness, they will not be able to see Difference. In other words, if all one can see is an equivalency, they will not be able to see the false equivalency. Attachment/Identification to an equivalency will make it much harder to transcend and expand beyond it. Your statement is both right and wrong, yet you seem to be attached/identified to the rightness and cannot see the wrongness. . . Judging the sameness carries more relevance than the difference is also relative, yet one must be able to see both the sameness and difference to make this judgement. For example, if you saw two antique cups as being the same you would not be able to assign relative value to one tea cup over the other, because you don't see any differences between the tea cups. If you said "the two tea cups are the same" and I told you "that is a false equivalency", you wold disagree because all you can see is sameness and are unaware of difference. . . Leo did a good job explaining this in his "Sameness and Difference" video.

There has never been "Green socialism" before. It is evolving for the first time in human history. No country in the world is Green-centered. It will be more advanced than previous Blue socialism and Orange capitalism. This is a short-sighted view. That is like someone in the 15th century saying the emerging Renaissance would be a terminal stage. Not even close. Green is just scratching the surface. And Yellow is where things start to get real interesting. Orange sees Green as undesirable, yet when one embodies Green it is no longer undesirable. One "gets it". What you are not taking into consideration is that Green is more developed than Red and Blue. Orange does not understand higher stages of development. It often misunderstands Green as being Blue. Green socialism is hard to imagine through an Orange lens. Yet the key is, the people are different. They have an expanded consciousness. Green will be more advanced and healthier, because they have a higher understanding and embodiment of community. They can better see how they are not only an individual, yet a component of a larger community. This will include corporations. Eventually corporations will be Green. Green-level CEOs will not be screwing people over because they will place community higher than personal profit. Not because of regulations or because they are forced to. Because that is their beingness. They are genuinely kind to themself and others because they are starting to see/emody the inter-connectedness between self and other. In 100 years or so, the consciousness will be Green-centered and they will look back at self-centered toxic capitalism as barbaric. Just like we view tribal human sacrifices as barbaric. . . The illusion of a separate self will begin to dissolve at a population level. All this "me, me, me" and "us vs. them" will dissolve as people wake up to our true nature. Collective is more than a theory. It is a consciousness and beingness. Milton Friedman had good intentions for capitalism and collective welfare, yet he didn't fully consider the toxicity of excessive capitalism. These excesses didn't exist during his lifetime. Eventually, free capitalism would implode on itself. As a simple exercise: imagine each cell in your body was self-centered. Each cell was motivated for it's own survival and personal gain. That would be very unhealthy to the organism. It is cancer. . . Now imagine cells cooperating together for the functioning of a human body. This is a major transformational and energetic shift which is much healthier for both individual cells and the collective human body. Currently, most people see themselves as separate "cells" motivated for their own survival and personal gain. The next level of consciousness, people will become aware of themself within the higher collective consciousness of society. This is a transformational awakening and will lead to a major energetic shift, which is much healthier for the individual person and the collective community.

That's some neon Orange. Evolution of consciousness is a major component of SD. Evolution over the history of time as well as an individual's lifetime. In this context, of course there are no Green-centered nations. We haven't evolved there yet! That is like asking if there has ever been android communities. . .

Of course you do. That's how Orange looks at Green. You want to control the narrative. In other words, you would like to maintain your current level of consciousness, which is based and restricted on individual freedom, logic, rational thought, evidence, facts etc. Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand stuff. There are more expansive levels of consciousness.

This is Orange looking at red/blue and assumes a low level of consciousness. You haven't seen or embodied Green yet. It is a higher level of consciousness.

The problem with this is that power/wealth becomes hyper concentrated in corporations and becomes toxic. I am not advocating the opposite extreme. yet, I think your view is way off-balance and leads to extreme power/wealth inequality.

I think you are seeing this from an unbalanced corporate perspective, such that corporate profit becomes excessively valued. For example, pharmaceutical companies placed profits over people as the pushed opiods into the midwest. They misrepresented the harm and risks. They were aware of the damage they were causing and that addiction rates, suicides, homelessness was skyrocketing. Yet they didn't care because profits were also soaring and CEOs/shareholders were happy. This is an example of excessive emphasis on corporate profits.

Imagine there are 100 members on the board for Walmart. How many seats to you think should be from the employee side and how many seats should be from the CEO/stockholder side? That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to placing implementation over prioritization. Quite often, people will argue for the impracticality of implementation to obfuscate and derail prioritization.

This is a common tactic to obfuscate and dismiss. Priority is primary to implementation. We would first need to agree on priority. Imagine a current distribution is 5% social and 95% capital. Do you believe a better distribution would 40% social and 60% capital? What would be your ideal balance?

You seem to have a very narrow definition of "steal". For example, pharmaceutical companies base their drug manufacture on publically-funded academic drug research and design. The pharmaceutical companies then sell the drug back to the public at huge profit motives. The concentrated power in the pharmaceutical company allows them to *steal* public money and to sell the drug back to them at high prices - due to corporate influence in politics. That is a form of theft and an example of toxicity when power becomes to concentrated.

Warren: Boards would be composed of 40% social and 60% capital Bernie: Democracy dollars

There may be helpful and practical aspects to theories of Tier 3. Personally, I don't find it particularly useful, yet others may.

Yes, at the extreme end that becomes a concern. Yet we are super far away from that extreme. We are at the other extreme in which wealth/power is extremely concentrated toward corporations. It's like being in a room that is 120 degrees and people ask if we can turn down the heat and someone objects and says "if we turn down the heat, we will all freeze to death!!". Yes, that can be a concern - yet it is not the immediate concern at hand. . . . If we were currently shifted to the extreme of socialism, I would be arguing to shift more toward capitalism - yet that is not the current state of affairs. As well, capitalists want to frame the debate as binary: either capitalism or socialism. That framework will hinder progress and maintain the status quo. Nobody is arguing for 100% socialism. Progressives are arguing for a balance between democratic socialism and capitalism, yet believe that the balance is currently shifted too far to corporatism. Warren wants to balance this inequality, while Bernie wants to shift the balance toward the people.

I am not referring to socialist platforms. I am referring to democratic socialist platforms. It would be extremely challenging to implement due to the development of 100+ years of capitalist/corporatist infrastructure, conditioning and inequality. So, your question of "on a voluntary basis" is nuanced. To me, voluntary means well-informed. If elitist corporation-driven media convince the populace that democratic socialism is the same as stalinistic socialism - I would not consider that a voluntary basis. Similarly, misrepresenting tax bills so the populace believes that they will benefit and the uber wealthy will not is also not a voluntary decision. It is similar to giving consent. If you volunteered for a clinical study and were told it was a sedative already approved in the EU and consented, yet it was actually a new anti-psychotic drug that had never been tested in humans - that is not consent. You did not consent for the experiment - regardless of whether or not you were aware of the lie. Regarding "forcing" a population. The source of the force is very important. Are powerful corporations applying the force? Or are people applying the force? Top-down force is very different than bottom-up force. For example, "democracy dollars" gives more power to the people - this will lead toward bottom-up forces in which the people express themselves through the government. This would be a major structural change in the U.S. government and it is what Bernie Sanders advocates. This is the "democracy" component of democratic socialism and it is very important to distinguish it from old-school socialism.

Forum community: please stop creating new threads on this. Multiple threads on this have already been started. As well, rationalwiki is a hyper rational delusional religion. Leo has requested that it not be cited on the forum. Yet it is ok to post it in the Orange mega thread for people to laugh at.

Hmmm. . . the OP opened a new account, started a thread promoting sex dolls, left and hasn't returned in days. Perhaps he entered a sex doll nirvana. . .

That is an authoritarian/totalitarian government in which people lack power. Empowering government does not assume an authoritarian/totalitarian government. In democratic socialism, it is a democracy in which people have the majority of power and use government as a tool to express the public power.

There is a natural tendency for humans to think "yea, yea I've got this stage - I want something new". Part of the desire is to create new concepts - another desire is social hierarchies and a sense of going higher - it can give one's self image a boost. In terms of SD, the so-called "Tier 3" above Turquoise is poorly developed and mostly conjecture. It is dominated by cognition, symbols, concepts and intellect. I think most people speculating about stages like Coral and Teal are mostly Orange level theorists, with some yellow mixed in. Very very few people have transcended the personality construct and embodied Yellow and Turquoise. It is very rare. I've spent about 15 years working on Green/Yellow/Turquoise - and have barely scratched the surface. Very few people have embodied Green/Yellow/Turquoise. I've only met a few people in my life. If only a handful of people have embodied Green/Yellow/Turquoise - who is Coral and Teal being revealed to? Who is describing Coral and Teal? I'm not buying it. I don't think those describing "Tier 3" have embodied "Tier 2". Their descriptions are far too cognitive, intellectual, conceptual - indicators of lower stages. As well, when one goes deep into Yellow and Turquoise, they will realize there are distinctions and substages in Yellow and Turquoise. When people start seeing distinctions within Yellow and Turquoise and start creating sub-stages within Yellow and Turquiose, I will know that a critical mass of people have entered and are embodying Tier 2. Yet this hasn't happened yet, imo.

@ShugendoRa It seems like RSD is relatively healthy Orange, such a personal accountability, responsibility, personal development, personal goals etc. Yet Orange will be limited in the same that at it's core, it is two individuals in a transnational relationship. Aspects of Orange is great in a relationship, yet there is much more to be explored in Green. I think people/organizations that promote healthy Orange without demonizing Green is healthy. If a group encouraged men to be accountable, take personal responsibility, set personal goals etc. thats great. Yet if a group taught that men that expressed emotions were pussies and a real man is alpha and must set and enforce the rules within a relationship - that is going to cause problems when the listeners eventually want to evolve upward into Green.

Be aware of false equivalencies. From one perspective there can be equivalency, yet from another perspective it is a false equivalency. Conflating the two creates a mess. It is context-dependent. Leo addresses this in his videos "Sameness vs Difference" and "Recontextualization" As a simple example: a being pisses in the punch bowl at a wedding. Let's consider context: 1) A puppy pisses in the punchbowl 2) A two year old boy pisses in the punchbowl 3) Drunken Uncle Ted pisses in the punchbowl From one perspective, there is equivalency - yet it is context dependent. This equivalency will not necessarily translate to other contexts. We could say the three scenarios are equivalent in the sense that a being pissed in the punchbowl. Yet in another context, it is not equivalent. A puppy pissing in the punchbowl is not equivalent to drunken Uncle Ted pissing in the punchbowl and we would not react the same. For the puppy, we might laugh and put him on a leash. For drunken Uncle Ted we might reprimand him, kick him out of the wedding and send him to an AA meeting. To conflate the equivalency and non-equivalency perspectives would seem ludicrious. One might say "When the puppy did it, you laughed. Yet when Uncle Ted did it, you yelled at him and sent him to an AA meeting! You are a biased hypocrite!!". This is an exaggerated example to highlight the point, so it seems silly. Yet people do this all the time. They say things like "we should be open to all ideas". In one context, all ideas are equivalent - in another context all ideas are not equivalent. In the case of Alex Jones - in one context he is not mentally ill, because his reality is equivalent to any other reality. From another relative context, Alex Jones is mentally ill. He is way outside the collective consensus reality. Mixing up these two contexts creates false equivalencies and leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, miscommunication and turmoil. This is super common in society. Watch how often people recontextualize and create false equivalencies - it's all over the place. This is not to say that true equivalencies and hypocrites don't exist. If a politician speaks out that extra-marital affairs are immoral and is caught having an extra-marital affair, that is a direct equivalency and he would be considered a hypocrite. It's important to be aware of context, sameness and difference to make these distinctions.

Generally, humans desire to let go of unpleasant thoughts and feelings. We want to avoid pain and we like pleasure. I've never heard of someone trying to "let go" of bliss during amazing sex. Or someone trying to let go of their curiosity, fascination and joy. The desire is to let go of things we find unpleasant. Bad habits, OCD, resentments, bad memories, anger, insecurity, fear etc. It's easy to let go of someone sneezing because it is inconsequential. Yet if a stranger walked up to you on a bus and sneezed in your face, that would be a lot harder to let go of. I'd say the most relevant aspect of letting go for humans involves attachment and identification. If there is a thought or feeling without any attachment/identification, it's no big deal. There is no desire to let go of it. A thought might arise "I'm so annoyed she hasn't texted me back yet. After all I do for her, this is how she treats me. . .". There is a ton of attachment/identification there. It's not so much getting rid of the thought - it's getting rid of the attachment/identification. If the thought occurred without attachment/identification it's no problem. There is nothing to let go of, because there is nothing being held onto. The thoughts become like bird chirps. We don't wonder how to let go of bird chirps, because we are not attached/identified with bird chirps. Bird chirps can be happening and all is well, no need to let go of anything.