Forestluv

@mattstivender The moderate position on a horizontal axis can still be a low conscious position. The center point between a bag of poo and a bag of bagels stinks. ? ?

@mattstivender Be mindful of creating false equivalencies and providing cover while feigning an objective meta view. That won’t fly under the radar here.

My sense is that relatively high doses of shrooms may not be the best for Sam. They can be really twisted, insane spaces. This can create dynamics in the mind that make transcendence more complicated. For Sam, I think a 30 day 5-meo retreat would be better. Simple clarity.

Sam is SUPER sneaky with narrative control. He got away with a lot. Imo, he needs to do more psychedelics to transcend that. He is beyond human help, yet Sam would be no match for psychedelics. The problem is he re-grounds himself after the few trips he’s had.

Just one perspective on this: neuroscientists are getting to the point that they can determine someone's decision before the person thinks they are making the decision. If every decision you make was made seconds before you think you made the decision, do you have free will? If your subconscious brain activity is making decisions, is that free will? It would be the same as asking if you have free will over your dreams. Let's say you wake up and remember a dream. Did you have free will over that dream? For me, this stuff was freaky and uncomfortable to think about at first - yet now I kinda like it.

Speaking of cringe. . . A great Green video on various forms of cringe.

@DocWatts Yea, I'd like to see it reframed in a way the includes both responsibility of the person at the individual and social levels. I've had many conversations with conservatives in which I agreed with them that personal responsibility is an important factor. Someone sitting around all day smoking weed, playing video games, jerking off and blaming others has a personal responsibility problem. Yet there are also social and system factors that are barriers to poor people. We could say that a billionaire CEO creating toxic loans and trying to get people hooked on prescription drugs for profits is also being irresponsible. There are multiple factors at play. At my college, students from wealthier backgrounds are the ones that feel entitled and empowered. They are the ones that grub for points, whine for extra credit, ask for extensions and incompletes. The students from poor backgrounds don't want to be seen as asking for handouts or welfare. I've actually had to convince poor students in extreme situations to accept an extension or incomplete. My cynical side is questioning whether he threw in the Tim Pool stuff to get an algorithm boost.

I'd much rather someone be upfront, transparent and honest with their dirty work. Toxic corporate elites hide behind nice suits and do their dirty work in the shadows. I'd put that a lower level on the scumbag scale. @Opo I didn't notice the hands.

In addition to points made above, he is getting a ton of praise in conservative circles. He has about 500,000 views at 16k comments praising him. It looks like he is connecting with a lot of poor people working hard and taking personal responsibility. Those that have a strong aversion to anyone playing victim and elitists looking down on them. There is a lot of pride in being someone who got off drugs, took personal responsibility, turned their life around and is an independent hardworking man. As well, he is the posterboy example of bootstrap theory for conservatives. That poor black men in the hood just need to stop blaming others, stop dealing with drugs, get a job and work hard. Of course this has value, yet it is a myopic view that doesn't see the big picture of how wealth inequality, plutocracy and institutional racism are also factors. If I had to choose one key phrase that would resonate most strongly, it would be: taking personal responsibility.

I read a blog of someone who had some opposing views doing an interview on Sam's platform. It was like they were negotiating for a job. It seems Sam likes to have lots of control about rules and structure with guests he may disagree with. I imagine someone like Joe Rogan would be much more chill.

I would avoid a binary construct that there is either separate things or One. The biggest battle in a rationalist mindset is that if there is One, that means there is no separation and they have to reject separation. I think a better approach is saying “Yes, it’s true there is separation. You are correct. And there is ALSO oneness. It’s a similar dynamic of how rationalists struggle to understand immaterial. They think if there is immaterial, that means they must reject material. And they are also the same, yet that’s a further step down the line.

A paperclip can be extremely dangerous. Yet it can also be used to pick the lock that imprisons one’s self.

I consider him an odd mixture of Orange, Green and Yellow. One dead-giveaway that he isn’t Tier 2 is how he has contextualized his psychedelic experiences with ownership and logic.

I’m not saying it is good, bad or better. I am just drawing distinctions for clarity. Libertarianism is very self-centered. For example, they are very into personal property and possessions. An anarchist commune is similar in that they don’t like a higher authority telling them what to do. Each person should be free to express their true nature. Yet an AC is much more community centered. I lived in one briefly and it was very different. I couldn’t tell whose kids were whose because parenting responsibilities were so shared. People left their homes open and you could walk in and use each other’s stuff. One time, I tried to be respectful and asked a guy if I could use his coffee press and some of his coffee. It took him a couple seconds to understand what I was asking. He responded as if I asked “Is it ok if I breathe some air while in your home?”. They don’t have a strong sense of personal possessions.

It is promoting personal rights and freedoms - not at the human level. At the human level, an anti-government position would be more like an anarchist commune in which there is no governmental authority, yet there is shared responsibilities and processions. Libertarians don’t like that stuff.

Wow!! A2 is right down the road from me!

Catnip for Libertarians

Green will be more tolerant of corruption if there is social progress happening. If there isn't much social progress occurring in Argentina now, Green will be far less tolerant of corruption. The contrast between social suffering and monetary corruption would be much stronger. A corrupt Orange-centered politician may throw Green some bones to get elected and mask their corruption.

If billions are being stolen by corrupt politicians, I don't think it's fair to say there isn't enough money for social services and that Green is being excessive demanding funding for social reasons. It would be like a father wasting money on a gambling addiction and then telling the family "Sorry, we don't have any money for food". It's not just the lack of money, it's how the money is being stolen by corrupt politicians when there is social suffering. Green communes can be very poor and lack resources, yet nobody is profiting, stealing and exploiting others for their own selfish interest. Green gets super upset when greedy people exploit others.

Are you saying there is no monetary corruption in Argentinian politics? Perhaps some of this 1.2 billion could have gone to nursing ppe. Money is about priorities. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/argentina-s-new-leadership-carries-old-baggage-corruption-conspiracy-allegations-ncna1103556 That's the type of toxic capitalism and corruption that pisses of Green.

In terms of SD theory, Green doesn't work so well in a society centered at red or blue. For example, Green wouldn't be very effective in Syria at this time. I'd say it's relative. In SD theory, Yellow wants to pull the average consciousness up the spiral - that is progressive. Conservatives want to halt consciousness progress or regress down the spiral. Yet what is progressive is relative to the time era and the country. What is progressive in the Netherlands is very different than what is progressive in Saudi Arabia. As well, what is progressive in America in 2020 is different than what was progressive in America in 1920.

I'd consider it relevant. We are not talking about random people wanting to destroy a building for fun. It seems like we are talking about people protesting what they see as maltreatment and government corruption. They want nurses in their community to have proper equipment, better working conditions and health care system. I did a quick online search and it looks like there have been many similar protests. If the government doesn't respond to the community they serve, people will get upset. It's not like this group went to a random building like a video game store. They went to a government legislative building. What better place to put pressure on the government to act differently than the place those decisions are made? This is putting pressure on legislature. They are saying, "you better make some changes soon or else!!". We could discuss whether this is the best strategy toward reforming the health care system. There is debate whether these types of protests help induce change. During the suffrage movement, peaceful protests were insufficient to induce reforms and violence emerged. Some historians say that the violence accelerated suffrage for women. I would place this at being motivated by green values for social welfare, mixed with some red level impulsiveness and aggression. People are a mix of stages, and each stage has value. And I can see how green level observers would have sympathy for the angry protesters. If I was in their situation, I would likely be angry as well. Stage blue would consider the protesters red-level law breakers, stage orange would analyze the protesters from above and see them as red, stage green would empathize with the protesters and sympathize with them. Stage yellow would have a meta view and integrate various factors.

This isn’t true. Green would support the use of force to protect the Amazon rainforest from being destructed. Green is the most peaceful stage in Tier1, yet they will use selective force to some degree to protect their values. And Green would sympathize with the use of force for a justified cause. If force was used to rescue immigrants being tortured, Green would sympathize with the use of that force since it is trying to stop human rights violations.

Protesting for better work conditions for nurses would be considered Green. What was the building the little group was trying to break into? I don’t consider a random group of people trying to break into a random building to be green. And were they trying to break into the building to get something? Or were they trying to destroy the building? You give different descriptions. . . The underlying motivation and value is important for determine SD stage.