Forestluv

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.

I agree. This thread is evolving toward more nuance and depth. CreamCat raised a couple ideas that originally made me uncomfortable - yet I want to contemplate some more. I have to get to work now, but I will revisit this thread later.

@CreamCat Your views are more nuanced and complex than I originally thought. I see so many surface-level Orange vs Green positions that it's easy to peg someone as Orange too quickly. As well, I'm still centered in Green and working on my transition to Yellow - my Green can still get triggered when it appears that a group is being oppressed or marginalized. I don't think your views are straight-up Orange, Green, Yellow etc. I think you've got an interesting mixture going. Some people, like Sam Harris, have interesting mixtures and integrations. I have to get to work now and I'd like some time to contemplate a couple ideas that you raised. I'd like to revisit this discussion later.

@CreamCat Again, I think you are minimizing the extent of harm caused when adults have sex with children. I think you are exaggerating rare cases. As well, I think you are placing too much emphasis on personal freedom over social welfare. Regarding porn. If 2D child porn was shown to alleviate the suffering of pedophiles AND reduce the amount of sexual child abuse - a healthy green would support it because it would increase overall social wellness.

I think you are minimizing the harm of sexual abuse to children. If you want to elevate from Orange-level personal freedom up to Green level empathy and compassion, I would recommend volunteering in a facility that helps abused children and women. IMO, I don’t think reading and debating would be sufficient for you. You seem to have some major Orange level blocks and would need to immerse yourself with direct experience to break through.

@CreamCat You are introducing the issue of age of consent. A main reason that age of consent is established is because the vast majority of cases it’s abusive. Sure, you can cherry pick a case. Yet, the vast majority of cases that involve sex with an 11 year old are abusive.

This would be a Red position. An adult having sex with a child is one of the worst traumas a child can experience. It is extremely harmful and can damage the individual for life. What you are saying is akin to: “I think adults should have the freedom to torture children, as long as they don’t abuse them. For these adults, torturing children is their natural orientation and they should be free to do so” A green recognizes there should be limits to personal freedom - when it harms other individuals and society

You are conflating two different issues. In this case it can cause harm to an oppressed group. This technique has been used to oppress members of the LGBT groups for decades. Your question is equivalent to asking: If we allow you to have sex with women, shouldn’t we allow pedofiles to have sex with children? This question is absurd to you because you see heterosexual behavior as normal/natural and pedophilia as deviant. Linking pedophilia to LGBT is no different than linking pedophilia to your heterosexualty. The first step to advancing upward into green is to acknowledge that LGBT is a sexual / gender orientation that is as normal /natural as your male heterosexual orientation. It’s diffucult to do for stage Orange because it involves empathy and cultural relativism. If you seriously want to elevate your consciousness, get involved with the LGBT community and make human connections. Regarding your second point: don’t conflate harmful criminal unethical behavior (pedophilia) with consensual ethical behavior. To advance to green, you will need to distinguish between the two. Green is not advocating for the inclusion of pedophilia into LGBT. This belief is locking you in Orange. Rather, it’s a different issue. Step outside LGBT and clear your mind. . . With pedophilia, a Green would have compassion for both the child victim and the pedophile. It’s easy for Orange to understand compassion for the child victim. So, let’s consider the pedophile. The vast majority of pedophiles were themselves abused as children. So we have compassion for them at this point. Abused children, especially sexually abused, often suffer into adulthood. They can be so damaged that hurt other people. A Green acknowledges the pain and suffering of both the child and adult. A question for Orange would be: at what point does your compassion for a sexually abused child end? On their 18th birthday? Yet their pain and suffering continues into adulthood. As well, neuroscience is revealing that the methylation patterns that regulate gene expression in the brain is altered after children are sexually abused. These abnormal gene expression patterns continue into adulthood. If you want to get a better understanding of the cycle of abuse, pain and suffering of everyone involved - watch the mivie Little Children” Next, compassion for those that are suffering does not mean supporting abusive behavior. A Green dies not advocate for child abuse. A Green would support removing a pedophile from society because there is a high risk the person may abuse children again. A Green would want a pedophile to be put in a facilty to receive treatment. This person should be treated until it is determined their risk factor is no higher than the general population. Unfortunately, a pedophilia mindset is extremely hard to treat.

That’s a nice mix. I love it when my easy-going green side chills out my serious analytic Orange side.

I love it when @Emerald busts out her meta Yellow pen. So awesome ?? You are helping me progress through green into yellow ?

@bejapuskas Consider two Orange-centered individuals. They each value personal achievement, autonomy, ambition. They are both very rational and think about the most efficient ways to reach their personal goals. What may happen over time? Well, there isn't much human connection between them for starters. Also, they are not working as a team. There is no "we". It is "my needs and goals" and "your needs and goals". There may be arguments over whose personal goals get preference. When I entered Green and dated Orange women, there was a very different dynamic. When tension arose, my I valued harmony and talking things out. I wanted us to talk things out and decide together what was best for "us" for our relationship. I valued expressing feelings. I believed that expressing vulnerability coupled with mutual support would lead to deeper connection and love. Well, that didn't go over too well with my Orange-centered girlfriend. She was so focused on our independent needs and desires. She saw things in terms of competition. She wanted to debate and win. If she got *her* way, that meant she won. Over time, she apparently got bored of "winning" and started asking why I wouldn't rise up and take control "like a man". She started mentioning that she might be better off with an alpha male. Tears to her where a sign of weakness. One time in a restaurant, I got sentimental and a bit teary-eyed (not bawling or crying - just sentimental with a teary eye). She picked up on it and almost panicked - she looked around the restaurant and pleaded to me not to cry in public. Moral of the story: I won't date another Orange-centered person again. As well, Green with Green hasn't been a cup of tea either. I dated a Green woman with Green values, yet she was still stuck in Orange regarding male mates. It was an odd thing. She felt so strongly about social equality. She did a lot of social work for the poor, minorities and the homeless. She was a big proponent of gender equality in the workforce and equal pay. She was a community activist and gave talks to promote equality. Well equality for everyone except us apparently. When it came to us, she had a traditional gender role mindset that she had been conditioned with. She wanted me to be the authoritarian in the relationship. She wanted me to set the rules for the relationship. She was really uncomfortable when I expressed any emotion - except anger. I got angry a couple times and she was totally comfortable with that. Moral of the story: I won't date another person that values Blue/Orange gender roles within relationships.

I was just wondering what an Orange to Green revolution would look like. Would the Greens fight with hugs and soy lattes?

And 20 years of meditation. . . Sigh

Any definition I could come up with is *within* reality and would be very limited. The closest I've come . . . "IS"

They are potent sedatives. For people prone to anxiety - the sub ego death zone can be high anxiety even panic. I've had some major issues in this zone. A benzo or etizolam can sedate the trip. For me, just knowing I can sedate a trip gives me comfort. I've had a couple trips where I was in a really really uncomfortable situation and wish I had some etizolam. Yet, it's not a guarantee. During my second Ayahuasca ceremony I went into a terror zone and I was about to take an etizolam - then Mother Aya rose up and said "Don't even think about it. You think this is bad? If you try to subdue me you will unleash hell and suffering beyond your worst nightmare". I quickly backed down. I actually felt a bit better, terror didn't seem so awful at that point. I guess it's all relative.

Super. So in the example above, would you consider the apple to be red? The concept of "objective" gets quite thorny. . .