Carl-Richard

@Gregory1 @Yali @Raptorsin7 Let's not.

The way I see it is that the pathway to being is through meaning, but it requires a leap of faith, which can only come from a deep intuition or feeling, namely a certain sensitivity to or sophistication of meaning. Meaning is a hybrid or an intermediary step between disembodied mind (pure rationality) and embodied being (trans-rationality). JP mentions listening to your conscience as a guide for meaning, and if you think about it, the process of parsing out your conscience from mental noise requires a certain level of embodiment or refinement of awareness and feeling. Your conscience is being reeling you in from the sea of mind.

"It's not me stabbing you – it's all just appearances" is firstly a thought, and "thus I'll stab you" is a justification. The corruption is taking a description (not it) and making a normative claim (not it). It's actually antithetical to non-duality, which is why it's a corruption, but the mind is very sneaky, so it will easily overlook those two steps, either out of ignorance or competing survival drives (both are really the same thing). We often underestimate the power of culture on behavior, especially when it comes to enlightenment (call it mystical determinism or waking up > growing up bias). Enlightened people (with a body) still have to make survival decisions, and such decisions are culturally informed. It's therefore not impossible that a monk in a nationalistic environment would make such a suggestion (which is indeed what happened historically).

"... because it's the culture, and the beautiful things that a society produces, those are the things that should survive for thousands of years, not the designer jeans." I think he isn't just making a statement about aesthetics, but also sensitivity. When your main contributions are heavy hitters like imperialism, capitalism and world domination (and "terrorists"), it's not exactly a mystery why the world hates you. The post-9/11 world was the nail in the coffin for that discussion. It's a shame Zappa didn't live long enough to experience even that.

@Danioover9000 I feel like I'm reading Kant or something. Can you give me a tl;dr?

Joel is saying the system reflects the will of the people, while Doc is pointing out the disproportional influence of rural states. How are those two points in agreement?

That answers that one.

You need simple laws for simpleminded people.

Completely pointless. If you want a Destiny discussion that is actually worth watching: At one point they touched on QM and deconstructing causality, but they unfortunately steered away from that.

Looking up to the stars for patterns has been going on since the dawn of humanity and became a central part of Purple culture, so yes. However, astrology in today's is society not necessarily confined to Purple. It may appear at pre-rational, disappear at rational, and reappear at trans-rational again.

Just being in higher education doesn't exactly mean you'll soak up all the intricacies of unrelated faculties by osmosis Great. Bring your buddies, create some policy suggestions, run for office, or get a research grant, establish an NGO and work directly with marginalized communities or change public opinion. The world is your oyster ...oh wait, these are systemic interventions (Doh!)

The youth exposing the flaws of the older generation. Dawkins essentially argues that reading about the subject you're criticizing is not worth your time. Classic.

It doesn't matter how much you hyperbolize and handwave it. The left, as in academia and public policy, is very interested in these concerns. Take up a book on community psychology or watch a lecture. It's not just happening within the framing of "we need a conversation about bootstrapping" and the insistance of downplaying the primacy of systemic issues. That is what is not happening the left. If you want to shift the conversation to "but the online left doesn't care", tell me, what has online political discourse ever achieved? It's a cesspool of contrarianism. Of course nuance is lost.

That is a perfect re-telling of the "pre-trans fallacy" coined by Ken Wilber (idk if you already knew about it). Rational people (Orange) can't differentiate between pre-rational statements (Purple, Red, Blue) and trans-rational statements (Green, Yellow, Turquoise). Pre-rational beliefs (abstract statements and below; ≤9) don't reach the level of a logically coherent formal system (10-11), and trans-rational beliefs (metasystematic statements and above; ≥12) go beyond the level of logical formal systems. This is also why rationalists get hung up on things like performative contradictions of postmodernism, because 1. they believe formal logic is absolute truth, and 2. they don't make the distinction between formal statements and metasystematic statements. A rationalist, who only works with formal statements, will take a statement like "there are no absolute true statements" and say it cannot be true because there is a self-contradiction. The solution is to say "there are no absolute true formal statements", which itself is a metasystematic statement, so there is no self-contradiction. Contradictions only arise out of a failure to make adequate distinctions.

How much knowledge do you need to have about the different products?

@Danioover9000 Man you could've just said thread hygiene.

This is just some late night speculation so don't expect high quality. Stage regression seems to break with the linear developmental aspect of SD and seems to be a puzzling phenomena that is not easily explained. How does one systematize/describe the mechanics of regression? One solution could be to view past stages as integrated resources that may be emphasized or de-emphasized depending on the environment. There are two useful models here: 1. the diathesis-stress model and 2. the model of state-dependent functioning: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diathesis–stress_model 2. Notice the obvious correlations to the developmental levels of SD: Let's treat your personal predispositions (including your SD stage) as "diathesis" and the survival-threatening environmental factors as "stress". Under times of stress, the values expressed within an individual (or groups/societies) shift to become state-dependent rather than stage-dependent. For example, a Stage Green person who experiences a significant life change that threatens their survival may start utilizing resources from lower stages (beige, purple, red). I started thinking about this while re-watching Breaking Bad. How can a "good man" break bad? Well, there is a diathesis, which can be anything that predisposes you towards a certain behavior (genes, past experiences), and then there is stress. For Walter, the diathesis is arguably some resentment, unfulfilled desires and some dark personality traits, and the stress is his cancer diagnosis and his choice to become a career criminal. So my explanation here would be that you start out with a Stage Orange Walter White (along with other underlying predispositions) as diathesis, and then you get the stress from cancer and criminal life that turns on state-dependent functioning, pulling him down to lower aspects like Red. But because this is state-dependent functioning, it doesn't mean he has lost Orange forever. He can easily regain that level of functioning again when he shifts back into stage-dependent functioning. You could also apply the state-dependent x diathesis-stress model to the microcosm of your daily life. Let's say you're thirsty (stress) and want a drink: activate beige state-dependent functioning. Let's say you get cut off in traffic (stress) and feel anger and the desire to dominate: red state-dependent functioning. You have to check your schedule or re-asses your work ethic: blue. You have to close a business deal: orange etc. You could say that this stuff has already been understood and known intuitively before, but I think it's fun to use other well-established frameworks to test out these assumptions and formalize some of the relationships. Any insights are appreciated.

18 year old me interpreted it that way. I call it the "pseudo-Green vortex": it draws in all kinds of immaturity.

Personal responsibility is the soup, and structural violence is a leaky spoon.

@Adamq8 Yup. I've been outside La Sagrada Familla. It's huge. I've also taken a tour through the St. Peter's Basilica, the Vatican museums and the Sistine Chapel. It's all psychedelic.

The part where it starts to get creepy is when you try to understand basic things, but you literally can't. The only thing you "understand" is how insufficient "understanding" is. What you usually referred to as understanding is just simply a puny thought, coming out one at a time. It's so insignificant compared to "this."

I deliberately put "development" in italics, because development is not progress. Progress is a more loaded term. Development simply means a trajectory of "coming to being" (ontogenesis). The development of reality as a whole is the trajectory from simple to complex, and humanity follows the same pattern. What can be defined as a local regression is always a part of a larger scale of development. The death of one cell is a part of the larger evolution of an organism or a species. While one organism dies, and a new one is born. This is the cyclical nature of development. The fall of the Roman empire was important for the development of humanity and provided important lessons for future generations.

@ZenSwift Cool! My paternal grandmother used to make textile art. This is from an art exhibit in the local town hall: https://www.ralingen.kommune.no/raadhuskunst.464118.no.html It looks kind of basic, but when you remember that it's all woven fabric, it's impressive.

Openmindedness means you're open to new things. It does not mean you stop making distinctions. There are different interpretations of Islam, and some of them are less conducive to self-actualization and spiritual work than others, and some are also less openminded. Are you open to a pluralist, non-literalist interpretation of Islam? Pluralist and non-literalist religiosity appreciates many different religions and many different interpretations. It's more openminded than absolutist and literalist religiosity. Although the former is more inclusive than the latter, it doesn't exactly include the latter. Therefore, if you present a closeminded view to an openminded space, you shouldn't expect to be included.