Forestluv

There are many distinctions on the left - it is not a monolithic group. Those that support Biden are centrist conservatives, like the Lincoln Project and neoliberal, corporate Dems. The mainstream left progressives do not like Biden. They supported Bernie or Warren. They grudgingly *settled* for Biden since they saw Trump as worse. And to the left off progressives, socialists, there is intense antagonism to Biden. They see him as being as bad as Trump. Most that are politically left don’t want a call for unity. They don’t think it’s possible to work with Republicans, especially after Obama.

There does seem to be parallels. Rather than racism, it’s humanism. Just as humans downgrade the existence of other races, they downgrade the existence of other animals. Yet the mind has an amazing capacity of rationalizing. My understanding is that factory farms and slaughterhouses strictly forbid video footage from being recorded and released publicly as this would increase awareness of the violence. I’ve seen some outside images and they look like prison complexes. Yet rather than to keep inmates in, they are trying to keep people out. The animals cannot escape. I agree that if everyone spent a month living in those conditions, their feelings and views would change. And the working conditions inside slaughterhouses are awful. The workers have all sorts of psychological and physical problems that go untreated. And those that run the slaughterhouses often side-step government standards and inspections.

One of the key dynamics in addressing inequality.

Within the context you are creating, that is true. Yet it is also a contraction within that context and a deterrent to expanding. If one lives within a map of Paris, they will not see maps other than Paris nor will they see Paris from outside countries. Tier 2 minds have a different orientation. In a way, Tier 2 minds are like thieves. Such minds are so into multi-perspectives to create systemic / holistic views that they can recognize when others have a piece to a larger puzzle. Rather than protect a contracted view, they “steal” the piece from the larger collective mind to create a more integrative, systemic view. It’s not about “your” views vs “my” views. We are both within a larger collective mind.

Dang, nice want list! ? ?

“I was just joking” can also be used as a diversion from accountability and introspection . I’m not saying everything you write is 100% wrong. I think it has some truth in some contexts. Yet wearing one lens is very limiting and can lead to distorted views. Part of consciousness expansion is increasing multi-perspectival awareness and understanding.

I don’t consider contextualizations to be “nuances”. I would consider nuances to be different angles that give a more complete view of a bigger picture. Everyone here already knows there is looting, vandalism and violence within any massive movement of injustice. I’m completely comfortable in looking at that within the larger context. Yet it is a distortion to focus on certain points and extrapolate into the bigger picture. Integrating points into a bigger picture is very different than extrapolating single points as a bigger picture. You’ve posted several memes of white people protesting against black police officers. It seems to me like the intention is to portray blm as hypocritical and implicitly dismisses systemic racism. If we want to address systemic racism in the bigger picture, we may look at the effectiveness of hiring minority police officers. Is it effective? If not, why? Perhaps placing a few minority people into a realm of systemic racism will not help much. Perhaps we need to look at deeper systemic issues. For example, what percentage of the police force live within the community they serve? Are minority officers and administrators empowered to express their views and life experience? Or are they pressured to conform into a status quo culture. Are they being tokenized? I would consider these to be nuances. Be mindful of the mind’s orientation. The mind loves to think “I’m unbiased and open-minded. I’m just sharing unpopular nuances, yet I don’t know anything”. If that was true, the mind wouldn’t be hold onto the views and promoting those views. If the mind truly was oriented that it didn’t know anything, then it would be much more curious and open-minded. A great example of this mindset is Richard Feynman. He is a clear example of stage yellow thinking and he was a master at zooming in and out. One exercise he would do is imagine that he was an alien visiting earth and seeing a situation with a mindset of not-knowing. For example, what is sleep? Aliens that don’t sleep would be not know what sleep was. They would get very curious and ask “How and why do humans go into a coma for 8 hours a day?”. They would want to know experientially what that is like. Similarly, a lens without racial injustice wouldn’t know what that is. They would have a very open and curious mindset as they ask “why do humans treat each other as they do? What are these things called ‘race and racism? Why are people so upset about it?” To be able to wear different lenses, the mind first needs to become aware it is wearing a lens and then be willing to take it out and wear other lenses.

Have you studied MLK’s views regarding overcoming racism, looting and vandalism? His views are different than yours. He did not frame the movement as you are trying to do. Saying that anti-racism protestors should be 100% peaceful and act like “good boys and girls” can be used to maintain the status quo of injustice. It can maintain asymmetric power dynamics. Look at the decades of purely peaceful efforts of the suffragists. They got nowhere. And look at the impact the suffragettes had. Similarly, there have been decades of peaceful efforts to overcome systemic racism with little progress. Quite often, making those in power uncomfortable is an impetus to progress. And how can we make progress toward greater equality by focusing on untasteful incidents within groups that are subjected to injustice? If we wanted to help a Native American group being abused by a larger, more powerful group - how would it help to focus on the fact that seven people within the Native American group is alcoholic and abuse their wives? Cherry picking and portraying the group as a bunch of violent alcoholics is a distortion and a distraction to the larger goal of trying to correct abuse injustices being committed to a marginalized group. If our main goal is to correct systemic racism and move to greater equality, the focus should not be to portray blm as hypocritical, looters and vandals. That may be an issue to address, yet the deeper issue is correcting systemic racism. A common way to undercut movements by cherry picking and distracting from the underlying motivation of a movement. And it’s much easier to be “tone police” when one does not have the life experience of those protesting. If you were a young black male living in an inner city, subjected to racial profiling, got unfairly treated in a judicial system and watched this happen to your friends and family - you would have a very different view than you do now. Yet you are unable to see and understand that perspective. You are wearing a particular lens are normalizing through that lens. That lens has partial truth and some value, yet it is a partial view of the whole. If you try to extrapolate with that one lens, the bigger picture will be distorted. To see and understand more points within a bigger picture, one must take out their lens and wear another lens. Yet this can be extremely hard to do since most minds are attached and identified to one lens. For example, in an effort to see through another lens, I lived in poor areas of Honduras and Colombia for months. This gave me a glimpse into very different experiences and expanded my mind. There were times in which I could not fully trust police or the justice system. There were a few times in which evading a police officer or resisting arrest was on the table - even though I didn’t do anything wrong. I never experienced anything like that in my life and it expanded my mind and allowed for multi-perspectival understanding.

Yet the bigger picture includes multiple points with proportionality. From a big picture view, zooming-in should not exclude key components of the larger context. That creates distortion. I don’t know anyone that thinks those protesting against systemic racism are 100% saints. From my perspective, people get angry when the movement is portrayed as looting, vandalism and violence. This framing dismisses the underlying systemic racism they are protesting against. It would be like dismissing the movement to protect the environment from destruction by framing the movement as a bunch of “environmentalists” that drive gas-powered cars. Yes that happens, yet it is a distraction to the underlying cause. Bringing it up can have value, yet in the larger context. It is not the bigger picture to focus in on one point and extrapolate that point as the bigger picture. It would be a distortion to focus in on environmentalists that drive gas-powered cars and blow up SUVs and portray that as the bigger context. That implicitly dismisses the underlying issue of how society is destroying the earth, causing harmful climate changes and how toxic capitalism is profiting off of it. Similarly, portraying blm as a bunch of looters and vandals is a gross distortion and dismisses the underlying injustices the movement is trying to overcome.

That is a core component of SD - that each stage has value relative to the environment. For example, in parts of the middle-east, stage red and blue has more practical value than stage green. Yet this doesn’t mean it’s more advanced. Sometimes algebra is more useful to use than calculus, yet that doesn’t make it more advanced. Calculus includes algebra and goes beyond algebra.

A handful of looting incidents does not define or nullify a movement against decades of systemic racism. Throughout history, every massive peaceful movement against systemic injustice has had elements of violence. Look at the suffragettes in the movement that fought against injustices against women. Any framing that doesn’t include underlying motivation to correct systemic racism is incomplete, disingenuous and distorted. “What-aboutism” is a distraction from addressing that issue.

That’s low resolution which leads to false equivalency conclusions. Part of deepening understanding is becoming able to recognize more distinctions. Imagine someone saying “I don’t see much differene in wood”. To a novice all woods are pretty much the same. Yet someone with deeper understanding, such as a botanist or carpenter, would be able to make many distinctions between different types of wood.

Some cringe in the thread.

@Nyseto It doesn’t seem like Anand worked for you. Perhaps Vaush might work. No one else comes to mind.

@Nyseto You seem to be in a whirlpool that I’m not interested in engaging with. You are allowed to write about right wing ideology on the forum as long as you aren’t closed-minded and pushing an agenda.

You are using right-wing talking points. The reason I engaged with you was because I thought you were genuine and open-minded in expanding. In my view you want to argue and defend right wing views you are attached to. That’s not something I find inspiring in promoting growth.

You seem immersed in right wing talking points to me. If you’re serious in learning about the left, I’d recommend Vaush and Anand Giridharardas. I don’t have the patience for it.

Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson are nowhere near Yellow. They are feeding you distorted images of green and the left. If you want to truly understand the left, start watching serious people on the left. Now I’m not sure if you are serious or trolling. A Poe’s Law challenge

In a single payer system, your out of pocket expenses will decrease. Even though taxes go up, there will be no copays or deductibles so you will be saving money. Why would you want to pay extra money to billionaire health insurance CEOs for substandard health care and to corrupt pharmaceuticals that put profits over people. The pharmaceutical-engineered opioid crises was a massive violence that caused immense suffering to millions of people. And pharmaceutical companies got away with it. There is massive waste in health care right now. The U.S. has one of the most wasteful health care systems in the world. Well, actually that “waste” is our money getting funneled to corrupt health insurance / pharmaceutical CEOs and lobbyists. And who are these “lazy” people you are referring to? Poor people that are unemployed? Even if we provide the poor with healthcare and they don’t pay into it, everyone’s cost goes down. What you are saying is that you would rather pay MORE money to corrupt billionaires for an inefficient shitty healthcare system, than pay LESS money for a superior health care system if that means “lazy” people get it for free. . . This is the classic culture war that republicans and corporate democrats use to distract us from seeing corrupt plutocrats are screwing us over. And Universal Healthcare will increase the health of the entire society. It is a far superior system, you will save money, your health care will not be owned by your employer and the health of society will increase. No developed country in the world would trade their M4A system for the U.S. system. The most conservative politicians in Canada would never run against M4A, it would be political suicide. I agree that some on the left can be dogmatic have have little tolerance for dissenting views. Yet I also think what the views are is important. If I disagree with someone on the left about the best strategy on how to get M4A. For example, some on the left have been annoyingly dogmatic about forcing an M4A vote. I would probably favor this strategy, yet their are also other strategies to consider and some on the left can get locked into one strategy and get so annoying. Yet this is very different than someone trying to undercut progress toward M4A.The U.S. is decades behind other countries on health care. There are a lot of people suffering and a lot of people on the left are fed up with factually incorrect arguments from the Republicans and corporate Dems like “M4A will cost us trillions more and we can’t afford it”. I would say educating people to overcome right wing and neoliberal propaganda is important, yet sometimes it gets frustrating for the left and they get tired of the bullshit and lose their patience. A good example would be Vaush. Imo, he is doing a good job overall educating the public and persuading people, yet sometimes he gets so frustrated he has emotional tantrums and unloads on people. Yet I would agree that there are some on the left that have a lot of energy. This energy is important for progress, yet it can also lead to confrontations.

Yet developing past both includes aspects of the left. One needs to learn algebra before learning calculus. Just because some algebra teachers are rude and condescending, doesn’t mean we can skip algebra and go straight to calculus. So far on policy, you’ve said you don’t like the left because they are for Universal Healthcare and public education - and that they are against the police and businesses. Yet these are hyper simplistic right-wing frames. Serious people on the left go much deeper into nuances and complexities.

Even when there are two candidates, people will vote for the candidate closer to their conscious level. Trump at red-blue or Biden at Orange. Yet I could see reasonable people at blue-orange supporting Trump if they had blue anchors and a green shadow. They would prefer to have red-blue authoritarianism to ward off green shadows. This is part of the culture war strategy. I’m having a hard time imagining what a Tier 2 Trump supporter would look like. Could you give an example?

As far as consciousness goes, I’d say Trump revealed to a lot of people how low conscious red-blue is and has triggered a lot of people at green. Yet unfortunately, the public is largely blind to toxic aspects of Orange - in particular the negative impacts of hyper capitalism. I also think there are annoying aspects to progressives and they can be naive, yet I would not equate them to red-blue fascism / nationalism or Orange hyper capitalism. For example, I would put progressives at a higher conscious level regarding climate issues, even though they may be annoying about it at times. I’d like to see more empowerment to progressives that want to create sustainable energy systems than capitalists that want to destroy the earth for profit. I’d say people support who is closest to their own conscious level. I would consider a conscious Trump supporter to be someone like Don Beck, who is reasonable - yet unable to purify / transcend his blue conditioning and green shadow. It sounds like you are developing your own belief structures of political / social consciousness, which you are free to do. You create your reality.

It depends on how you define “conscious” and what the threshold is. Tier2 is an enormous jump in consciousness, yet there are still conscious levels within Tier1. Yellow has a good understanding of relativism, yet doesn’t necessarily consider all positions to be equal. Yet universal healthcare IS a form of socialism and I think a strong argument can be made that it is superior than capitalist health care systems. Some areas of life don’t fit capitalism very well. You seem to be creating distinct categories like “socialism”, “capitalism” and “fascism”. Right now, the U.S. has many aspects of socialism such as social security, police, fire departments, road maintenance, libraries etc. Socialism is a spectrum and the question is how far along the spectrum is optimal. Right now, the U.S may be 20% socialism and there are toxic components within that 80% of capitalism. Things like the opioid crisis and for-profit prison systems are clear example of hyper capitalism that harms society. So perhaps it’s a good idea to move from 20% socialism to 40% socialism. Going to 100% socialism or communism will not happen in the U.S. That framing is used by the right-wing and corporate centrists to distract the public and promote fear that they can profit off of. To me, the concept of equality is idealistic and naive. Saying “let’s just treat everyone equally based on merit” has some value. It encourages personal responsibility and can motivate people toward reaching their higher potential. Yet it also maintains status-quo asymmetric power dynamics. It dismisses the effects of things like wealth inequality, systemic racism and devolves into bootstrap theory. Imo, those that truly want equality can see that a combination of equity and equality is needed. Rather than a debate between two opposites, a dialectic synthesis is a superior view , imo.

Universal Healtcare isn’t free. It is paid for through public taxes. Universal Healthcare is more efficient and cheaper than the current U.S. system due to a single payer, removing middle men health insurance and their obscene profit taking. Look at M4A systems in countries like Canada, Germany, Denmark etc. All developed countries have forms of Universal Healthcare, except the U.S.. The U.S. is lagging far behind. Universal Healthcare is a “problem” to billionaires, corporate health insurance and pharmaceuticals since their profits would decrease. Yet it would be an asset to public health and quality of life for the vast majority of Americans. For example, medical expenses would decrease, employers would not control people’s health care and people would not go bankrupt over an illness. Politically, universal healthcare is a left issue, yet on a public perception basis Universal Healthcare isn’t a left issue since the majority of Americans favor it. It has mainstream support. Regarding consciousness you seem to be equating problems on the right and left. For example, you list facism and nationalism as a problem on the right and Universal Healthcare as a problem on the left. Those two don’t seem fair to compare since fascism is harmful to society and Universal Healthcare is healthy for society. It would be like saying Nazism and advanced healtcare in Canada are equal problems of concern. And pure socialism / capitalism is far left. The U.S. currently has a mix of socialism and capitalism, The mainstream left are democratic socialists that recognize toxic capitalism and want to disempower the harmful aspects of capitalism and shift toward more social empowerment. Yet unfortunately, people get distracted into culture wars. In terms of models of consciousness like SD, right-wing would be considered stage Blue and left-wing would be considered stage Green. Each stage has their problems, yet Green would be at a higher conscious level than Blue. To objectively criticize both stages from a meta view, one would need to be at a higher conscious level than both, stage Yellow. Here, a hybrid system like Nordic systems with regulated capitalism and a strong social welfare net would be considered superior to the current U.S. system. More advanced systems like Resource-Based-Economies seem too far advanced for the current level of human consciousness. Yet the current pandemic may push younger generations to take a hard look at how our current hyper capitalist based economies are unsustaiiinable and leading to severe consequences, such as destruction of the Earth, climate crises, pandemics etc.

In some ways, I can't put them into two different categories. I think my psychedelic experiences have influence my breathwork sessions. Last week after my second session, the facilitator said I was going places and asking questioning as if I had been doing breathwork for years. Most likely due to my psychedelic experience. Ime, I would say that psychedelics are more mind expanding and zoom out. I've gotten a lot of personal insights from psychedelics. And they can go into transpersonal / transhuman realms. Here, anything I write is a contextualization at a human level. Psychedelics are more expansive than anything I can write here. Psychedelics have led to an understanding of nonduality, infinity, god-consciousness, love, systemic thinking, holism, and empathic abilities. Yet at a human level, I return to a mind and body with clogged pipes. Psychedelics aren't the best personal plumber imo. Breathwork seems much more down to earth. It feels like "I" am present. Yet not the thinking-dominant me. The feeling, experience-of-now me. Breathwork is also far less intense. There is no body load and there are no anxiety issues. And it can be done every day for continuous healing, insights and restructuring of the mind. It can also be a great release of repressed emotions. During one session last week, I started screaming as loud as a possibly could. The body with rhymically breathing on it's own and I was taking in huge deep breaths so to scream louder on the out breath. My hands were tightly clenched and arms pumping with each breath. During the comedown, there was a wave of tears and relief. It felt like so much had been released. If this happened on psychedelics, it probably would have been a traumatic experience that kept me up all night. Yet with breathwork, it was an enormous release and relief. I had a peaceful night of sleep that night.