Forestluv

That is not abortion, that is infanticide. Abortion is the termination of life during embryonic and fetal stages, not infant stages.

That is how it is perceived from a self-centered individualistic perspective. In SD theory of consciousness, this would be stage Orange. As I stated, you are not aware of your privilege. From a self-centered perspective, one will not want to introspect their privilege. It's a very challenging thing to do because it is threatening to self preservation. I have been through this developmental stage and understand it. The next stage of psychological development and consciousness expansion involves understanding other perspectives - not just in intellectual theory - but also in direct experience and embodiment. If you spent 10 years in inner city Chicago living in a poverty-stricken community, your mind would expand. You would broaden your understanding beyond your current contracted theory. I'm a white male that currently lives in a predominantly black poverty-stricken community. As well, I have lived in a poverty community in Honduras. I am telling you that there are things you are unaware of. Yet, you aren't open or willing to expand your understanding and consciousness. This development is essential for forming holistic and systemic understanding. I'm not here to argue within a highly contracted self-centered Orange narrative. That would only reinforce your contracted mindset. The deeper value of this thread is to reveal what a highly contracted stage Orange mindset looks like and what is needed to evolve upward. You are unaware of your potential for growth - growth that would be more fulfilling than you can imagine. If that does not interest you, fine. Yet I have a hunch there are others on the forum that are interested.

You are seeing this from a privileged perspective. You have the privilege of not seeing it through another's perspective that has to carry the burden. You have the privilege of sitting at your computer and pontificating about how others should just take responsibility and pick themselves up by their bootstraps. If that is how you want to express your privilege, that is your right. Yet I think it's a self-centered low conscious expression of privilege. Yet you cannot help it, since your perspective is contracted into your own experience and beliefs - which have been conditioned into you. And you are not aware of this. It is subconscious.

I understand your perspective. As you said, it is very simple. I am not disagreeing with you and I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is something you are not seeing. This would not invalidate your perspective. It's not an "either / or" scenario.

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.