Forestluv

Or perhaps not. The deepest I’ve dug is groundless. I doubt there is any grounding deeper down.

Yep. I believe he is genuine when he says he doesn't understand why this is such a big deal. He doesn’t fully understand Orange-level capitalists. Similarly, Orange-level capitalists were “shocked” by his behavior. They don’t understand red-blue mentality. Khabib returned to his small hometown in Russia. Tens of thousands of adoring fans filled a local stadium to welcome home their hero. Crowds surrounded him hoping for the chance to touch him. He is larger than life. Why might he be worshipped in this red-blue area? Because of his success and wealth? I doubt it. Nevada is withholding hus 2 million dollar payout and hus hometown diesn’t seem bothered by that. Do they worship his fame? Perhaps somewhat. Yet based on the SD model of red-blue values, Kgabib is a hero because he beat the shit out of the bastard that dishonored their families, religion and nation. Then Khabib blew past security to kick the ass of the bastard’s manager who also dishonored their families, religion and nation. That doubled their admiration. Khabib is a hero for restoring honor to them. Khabib’s father said he was really upset that his son wasn’t respectful. Yet deep down, I bet he is also prideful that his son didn’t hold back in restoring honor to their tribe.

I know. I was just saying to be careful with the relativism tool. The below statements could be used to neutralize someone else's views about morality and harm. In this case about pedophilia. Person A believes children are too young to make their own sexual decisions and that it is harmful for an adult to have sex with the child. Person B believes children can be mature enough to make their own sexual decisions and it is not harmful for an adult to have sex with them. Person B can use moral relativism to neutralize Person A's claim by saying "People interpret children's naivety in one way or another. There are an infinite number of ways to interpret data and none of them is true". I'm not saying this is your intention - yet in a discussion, that statement could be seen as discrediting someone's view. What if the data showed that 99% of children that have sex with an adult commit suicide and the other 1% suffer depression the rest of their lives? A person interprets that data to mean that pedophilia harms children. Would you still stand by your statement that the data can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and none of them is true? I don't intend to mean that what you wrote is wrong. I'm just saying be aware of a slippery slope with relativism. It can shut down discussion and digging to deeper levels. Consider another viewpoint that combines relativism and reason: "There are many ways to interpret the same set of data. Perhaps several interpretations hold some value. How can we connect the dots from various perspectives to create a more holistic view?". This acknowledges that their are relative views, that various views may have value and that it is possible to develop an integrated holistic view with even higher value. This isn't easy to do because one must be open to considering other views that make them uncomfortable. It is something I am working to get better at.

I hear you. Moral relativism is a great tool, yet it can be overused. Each SD stage provides a valuable tool: Blue provides rules and laws, Orange provides rational thought to guide the formation of rules and laws, Green provides relative thought to give insight into various perspectives and is a check against dogmatic views. All three tools are valuable - at least during this point in human history. Even your statements above are subject to relativism. You say "the father "believes" he is a good father which is yet another delusion.". Yet one could say "that is an interpretation relative to you. I believe the father is not delusional. There are an infinite number of interpretations for the alcoholic father. None of them is true." You say "The family directly experienced physical damages.". Again, this is a relative interpretation. Who gets to decide what "damage" is? What you consider to be "damage", the father considers to be "a good thing". For example "I beat my child to teach him to have respect for his father. That is not damage. It is a good thing". We could go on and on down this rabbit hole. Relativism can be great. As you said, it is a great tool so we are not too sure or dogmatic about certain beliefs. Yet, one can take relativism to unhealthy extremes. A society based on unhealthy relativism would be anarchy. Lots of people would use it too justify unhealthy Orange or Red behaviors.

To me, this is a broad form of moral relativism - not nonduality. You are saying that how people interpret data is relative to them and there are an infinite number of interpretations of pedophilia and none of them is truth. That is moral relativism. One can take it one level higher and claim that there are an infinite number of interpretations of moral relativism and each of those is relative to the person and none of them is truth. That would be relativism. I think relativism is at a higher level than rationalism - not due to complexity. Rather, because relativism is so much more unpalatable than rationalism (for most people). Orange stage rational thinkers hate relativism. I have found that relativism can be a huge trigger for Orange and relativists can be incredibly annoying to have discussions with. All they need to do is keep saying "Well, that view is just relative to you - it's not true". It's green/yellow level thinking that can get unhealthy. A person can go around causing harm and keep saying "Your interpretation is just relative to you. That is just one interpretation of an infinite number of interpretations". For example: An alcoholic loses his job and beats his children - she confronts him saying "Your drinking is harming the family, you need to get help". He responds "Your interpretation is relative to you. My interpretation is that I am a wonderful father. There are an infinite number of interpretations - none are true". Relativism is a powerful tool of thinking - but it can be used in unhealthy ways. That's why objectivists hate it so much.

@Galyna The issue CreamCat raised for me is: what is the healthiest way to view/treat adults that have unwanted sexual desires for children? There is a huge stigma against this. Many of these adults were abused as children and many do not want to experience these impulses. I imagine most repress their urges and fear being judged or ostracized. The movie "Little Children" dug deep into the suffering of a pedophile that didn't want to feel the urges he was. It was heart-breaking. . . Here, I'm just considering adults that have unwelcomed sexual desires for children. Those that don't want to feel that way, but cannot change it. I bet it's more common than most think. They repress it and fear others finding out. I suppose they could go to a psychologist, yet there would be fear that the psychologist would report them as an imminent threat. Aren't these cases within the broader "harm impulse" disorders? This would include postpartum depression. I've known mothers with strong harm desires to kill their own children. They didn't want to feel this way and couldn't change it. They thought they were a monster and terrified that someone would find out - so they repressed it. I have a friend who had it so bad she thought she would be overcome by the urge and actually kill her child - she almost killed herself so she wouldn't kill her child. There has been a lot of awareness of postpartum depression and less stigma. I'm wondering if many pedophiles experience a similar form of suffering. I haven't had postpartum or pedophile urges - but I have had a harm impulse episode and it was absolutely awful. There was an impulse to harm someone I loved and I could not turn it off. I couldn't share the experience with anyone or ask for help. I believed there was an evil monster within me. I questioned my sanity and it was perhaps the worst suffering I have endured in my life. I think about this experience regarding people that have unwanted harm impulses they can't stop. I've seen it brought up several times on the forum. In the cases of unwanted impulses, I think there should be less stigma and more help available for them. I don't know what that help would be. Would 2D child porn help alleviate the symptoms or intensify the symptoms? I don't know.

I still have some Tier 1 issues to work through. I can get into the frame of mind that if more people would just evolve up to Green and see things "our" way - we would have more peace, love and harmony in the world. I like how you shifted the focus inward and work through deeper inquiries. I know Leo did a video on Yellow stage, I'll re-watch it. I think it would be cool to workbook for high Green transitioning to Yellow. There aren't that many Yellow-level teachers out there. The Turquoise-level teachers teach to a Green audience. Yet, no one seems to be teaching Green to Yellow.

A woman coming to a man, crying on his shoulder and sinking in to him is MUCH different than simply generic crying. The level of intimacy is much higher and I can see how that can transcend into sexuality and turn a guy on. In general, I imagine that there are multiple dynamics going on leading to the erection - it's not just the crying. If a woman was crying at a funeral, I doubt many men there would get an erection. It depends on context. Crying itself is insufficient for most men.

That's a good point. I'd say I'm still Green-centered and working on transitioning to Yellow. It's much harder for me to see suffering within the majority group with power. In Blue and Orange stages a sense of isolation can lead to suffering. In Blue, there is an "Us vs Them" mentality. For my parents, Us = white Christians and Them = everyone else. Their world keeps getting smaller and smaller. It's caused strain with their friendships and connection with family members. In Orange, there can be an over-emphasis on personal freedom, personal desires and achievements. Overly focused on the self a desire to complete oneself from external gains (money, women, power, knowledge etc). This can lead to a lack of human connection and isolation. The SD model states that these are the type of crises that motivate people to evolve higher.

@TomDashingPornstar @Emerald I'm a guy in my 40s and this is the first time I've ever heard of a correlation between male erections and women crying. I'm sure it happens, yet this sounds like a niche fetish to me. In contrast, I've heard a lot of people talk about getting turned on after arguing and how awesome "make-up" sex is. For both men and women. I'd say this is more common.

@Emerald I appreciate your views on gender, roles and power. One of the problems I see with inequality issues, in general, is that the majority with power get so upset that "reverse-inequality" is not acknowledged. They get so contracted into this they can't see the bigger picture that inequality is disproportionate. For example, my mother is obsessed with the idea of "reverse-racism". She gets so upset that reverse-racism is not acknowledged and talked about. Whenever the racism topic comes up, she always goes back to a minority woman she hired 25 years ago. The woman was a bad worker and my parents claim they had difficulty firing her because she was a minority. I acknowledge to my mother that reverse-racism exists and racism is wrong whether it happens to a minority person or white person. *However*, racism is disproportionately directly toward minorities. It's such a simple concept, yet my mother's white privilege is so strong that she can't see it. And she gets the luxury of not having to see it or deal with it on a daily basis because she is white. So, when she sees "Black Lives Matter" she gets upset and says "All Lives Matter". She just can't see the disparity. I think the same dynamic is going on with how most men view gender inequality. They are obsessed with "reverse gender inequality" toward men and are unable to see that gender inequality is dis-proportionately against women. And since men have the majority of power, they get the luxury of not having to see it. So when this man sees "Women Gender Equality Matters" they get upset and say "All Gender Equality Matters". They just can't see the disparity. I'm at a loss how to reveal social inequalities to help people advance upward on the scale. Sometimes it seems my efforts are counter-productive. It can be really discouraging at times. I appreciate your efforts - it gives me hope and motivates me to get better at this.

Yes, there are nuances as to what qualifies as a "injustice" and who gets to decide. Putting that aside, I think their are two levels of perspective. On a case-by-case basis, an injustice is an injustice regardless if it is directed toward a male or female. One could say an injustice to a female is equivalent to the same injustice to a male. Yet at a population level, there are a disproportionate amount of injustices toward women. I see two hurdles to get past to reach gender equality. 1. A consensus that gender inequality exists for males and at the individual level should be taken as seriously as gender inequality for females. 2. A consensus that gender inequality dis-proportionally affects women (most gender inequality issues disfavor females). And at the population level the majority of emphasis should be directly at gender equality for females.

That sounds awesome. I've been told so many times I should be a Montesorri teacher - yet I'm just not skilled at teaching kids. I'm so impressed by teachers that can effectively teach kids.

It just appears. I don't know from where.

I'm referring to conducting science, not the scientific method. They are related, but not the same thing. Removing empathy and intuition from conducting science limits the potential of a scientist. Of course, intellect is very important as well. IMO, there is an overemphasis on intellect (Perhaps 99% emphasis). If we shifted the balance to 90% intellect and 10% empathy/intuition - we would be much more efficient and productive. Better yet, let's integrate the two

Because there are limited resources (time, energy, money). Using the example that 80% of inequality disfavors females and 20% of inequality disfavors males: Suppose we had a 1 million dollar budget to raise awareness about gender inequality and to promote gender equality. Would you devote $500,000 to inequality issues that disfavor females and $500,000 to inequality issues that disfavor males? Or would you devote $800,000 to inequality issues that disfavor females and $200,000 to inequality issues that disfavor males?

@Zweistein In general, I think the U.S. places too much emphasis on rational/logical thinking and not enough emphasis on direct experience. I think they are BOTH important. Yet, I would estimate 80%+ of emphasis is given to intellect. It's unbalanced. Especially in the sciences. I'd say 95% plus emphasis is given to rational/logical thought. And not just course material. There is a mentality that a person needs to "be tough" to excel in the sciences or one needs "thick skin". There is a mentality that science is highly competitive and it's a "dog eat dog world". Any type of emotion is frowned upon. Students that express emotion in their applications to grad school or med school are often advised to take out the "squeezy stuff". Students that say things like "I feel like the data suggest a new mechanism of protein activity" are often told to say "I think that the data suggest. . . ". Even though the underlying intuition is closer to feeling than thinking. I think we would be much better scientists if we acknowledge the value of empathy and intuition in conducting science. I've found the best way to deepen one's direct experience understanding is to directly experience it. A great way is to immerse oneself into the experience. The video you posted seemed to exaggerate and mock this concept (yet I don't assume that was your intention). Exaggerating and mocking ones direct experience is a barrier toward direct experience. A less hot-button example would be: If you want to understand the life of natives within a Peruvian tribe - one could read and study a lot of theory. This would give one type of understanding. Yet it is limited. Actually traveling to Peru and living with a tribe for a year would give direct experience understanding. IMO, both forms of understanding have value - yet our society tends to prioritize intellectual knowledge over direct experience. A real life example would be Jane Goodall. She has an immense amount of direct experience immersing herself in chimpanzee culture. I would put her high level direct experience understanding on par with high level intellectual theory understanding. When combined together, there is emergence of a new ultra-high level of understanding. That is what we should be aiming for IMO.

I'm curious about views on this from @TomDashingPornstar and other men: On a case-by-case basis, gender inequality itself is unjust (regardless of whether the bias is toward the male or the female). Yet, at a *population* level, what if most of the inequalities disfavor females? Let's say 80% of the gender inequalities disfavor females and only 20% of the gender inequalities disfavor males. How should we distribute limited resources? Would it be fair to give 50% of the resources to address female inequality issues and 50% of the resources to male inequality issues? Or is it more fair to give 80% of the resources to female inequality issues and 20% of the resources to male inequality issues? I'm also curious about the sources of male frustration on gender equality. Using the hypothetical 80:20 example above. . . In your opinion is there more male frustration that the country is not acknowledging the existence of 20% male gender issues? Or is there more male frustration that the resources are not evenly split 50:50 to address female and male inequality issues?

@Emerald I agree with your essay on male - female power dynamics and I'm trying to think of a case where men "don't have it better". The closest I can think of is child custody after divorce. Traditionally in the U.S., women were seen as the nurturing mother that provided child care while the men worked to provide financial support. So after divorce it seemed like women were given preference for custody share and men had to fight for equal custody rights (especially in the conservative south of the U.S.). I know we have progressed in this area over the last couple of decades, yet would you say that overall there is gender equality for child custody (assuming both parents are healthy)? This is anecdotal, but my brother, who lives in South Carolina, has had to go to ridiculous lengths in court trying to gain full custody from an unfit mother. During the process, the mother has broken custody laws, she has snapped into fits of rage and aggression - she has been caught threatening and verbally abusing the children. My brother has spent years working with lawyers, police officers and psychiatrists to gain majority custody and get the troubled daughters into therapy (one of the girls attempted suicide). The mother has worked to *prevent* the girls from receiving therapy. Yet, the court kept giving her equal custody. After years of this, he was recently given 75% custody. If the situation was reversed - I can't help but think he would be stripped of custody. I know this is anecdotal and I don't have statistics, yet do you think, overall, child custody is biased toward the mother?

IME, colleges/university "discussions" about controversial issues tend to be rational/logical debates in which both sides double-down on their belief and want to "win" the debate. This can strengthen someone's perspective and polarize groups further. I think we would make more progress if there were more post-rational discussions.

It sounds like you've gone deeper to a place where you are grounded ("reach the point where you understand it). I think if you dig deeper you will reach a place that is groundless. For me, that's when things get really interesting. Yet, then it gets really hard to communicate with others.

It depends on your definition of activism and ideological. Everyone has a motivation to act. Even an enlightened teacher has a motivation - to teach, to help awaken others, to promote love etc. There is a range of intensity of action and ideology. At one end of the spectrum, a vegan might plant a bomb in a McDonald's because they serve so much meat. On the other end of the spectrum, a vegan may spend all day cooking a delicious vegan meal for a community pot-luck in an effort to raise awareness of how delicious and healthy vegan meals can be. They both have ideologies and are taking action. Yet, the intensity of the ideology and action differ. In general, as one's conscious level increases they become less ideological and genuinely want to help other beings more.

This happened to me in a sensory deprivation tank. I was brought to a place before I was before. Everything I was exposed to and learned after birth was removed. It was a really powerful experience.

That's just my experience. 20 years ago Religion still dominated Spirituality. Now, spirituality is becoming dominant. We are all zero steps from enlightenment so it can happen in an instant. No meditation/spiritual anything. A person can awaken at any time. Yet, we still live in a society where people are highly conditioned with a sense of self. Plus, there has been millions of years of evolution toward a brain oriented toward a sense of self. For example, the perception of a timeline and the subjective experience of being a finite entity within that timeline. Humans could have evolved to have very different perceptions of time and self. A lot of it is social conditioning, yet we also have a brain capable of being conditioned. There were huge evolutionary advantages toward a brain capable of perceiving a self within a timeline. So yeah, a person theoretically can awaken at any time. It's super simple. You just wake up. Yet practically, there are still huge barriers and most people need to work through and deconstruct a lot of stuff before they can surrender to the truth. It's like an alcoholic can stop drinking at any time. It's super simple, you just stop drinking. They can stop drinking right now if they really wanted to. Yet practically, there are physical, mental and social barriers to an alcoholic lives through until they reach a bottom and are willing to surrender. IME, I look back at my awakenings and think - "Ahh, it's so simple and obvious" and I underestimate the hurdles I had to overcome. Then I try to teach it to someone else and they don't get it. It's so simple, yet someone most overcome a lifetime of conditioning to see it and be willing to die for it. That is a really hard sell to the vast majority of people in today's world. And it's why psychedelics are so powerful. They remove all the conditioning and force a person to surrender. Psychedelics take a person from a sober delusional state to a psychedelic delusional state. Yet, IMO being removed from the sober delusional state for the first time is so powerful. It's like waking up from a dream for the first time. It doesn't really matter where you wake up - it's the experience of waking up that is so profound. The conscious level of society is expanding faster. People no longer need to quit there job and move to a monastery in Japan or live in a cave for years. Yet, there are still really deep social and evolutionary inputs serving as barriers to waking up.

You're good. A couple of your ideas are pushing me into my "stretch zone" which is good. It's uncomfortable, yet it is where growth takes place. I originally assumed you had a generic Orange position, yet it is more sophisticated than that. I've gotta work and want to contemplate the ideas you raised a bit more. I think it's an opportunity for me to evolve. I'd actually rather continue this discussion now, than go to work. It's not a bother at all. This is part of what self-actualization is for me - to challenge my beliefs and be open-minded to other perspectives. I think the discussion regarding child abuse and social welfare is good, yet it is also hijacking the thread (which was on the French Revolution). If a robust discussion continues, we may need to take it to it's own thread.