Carl-Richard

WHAT ? By eating primary consumers (herbivores; cows, chicken), you're actually using 10x more food (in calories) than if you were to eat the same amount of calories in primary producers (autotrophs; plants, algae). Even worse, by eating secondary consumers (carnivores; salmon, sardines), you're using 100x more food. Tertiary consumers (for example tuna) is 1000x more food. People who are unusually annoyed by vegans are usually unaware of their own biases. You didn't actually use your rational mind to arrive at your current diet if you're eating what you're parents are eating. When vegans point this out, people tend to freak out. Yes, veganism has its flaws, the followers are often dogmatic, but if you take time to understand their arguments and if you're able to practice self-honesty regarding your own dietary habits, then maybe vegans will become a little less annoying.

Accepting death in the moment is both the ultimate short-term and long-term solution for your life. You remove all fear both from the present moment and the last moment of your life

You're denying the power of Shakti ?

But you will die so that will happen anyway

It's not that simple though. The culture and the individuals inside it live in a transactional relationship: they're constantly impacting eachother while it inches its way up the developmental ladder. It's not merely a question about cognitive development. If you can't express your Orangeness in the culture you're living, it's not a mature or grounded expression of that stage. Culture wasn't anywhere near Orange 2500 years ago. The reason why so many people are Orange today is exactly because the culture is centered around Orange. Green is also getting well-established for that same reason. It's not like you had mature Orange or Green people 2500 years ago, even the 0,1% most advanced people were at most only expressing bits and pieces of the cognitive aspects of those stages. The cognitive aspect is just one of many.

On the topic of genius, Socrates was supposedly at the same level of non-dual awareness as Buddha and Jesus according to Ramaji's LOC 1-1000 system. It's maybe not surprising considering the impact he had on Greek society and the level of charisma and fanbase he built up during his life. Personally, I think it makes sense when you look at his teachings: "I know that I know nothing", his concern with truth and its relationship to the divine, the fact that he didn't actually bother to create a metaphysical model (unlike Plato) and instead just prefered asking people questions and exposing their ignorance . The way he accepted his death by drinking the poison chalice also seemed rather selfless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Socrates If you look at Jesus and the way people interpreted his teachings through a Blue lens, the same could've happened for Socrates but through an Orange lens. In that sense, it looks like behind every large cultural shift in history, there is a mystic trying to spread the word of God

They laid the ground work for Orange in many ways by exploring the cognitive aspects (and some political aspects) of the stage, but there are so many different aspects of Orange that couldn't arise in that climate due to the surrounding underdeveloped culture. "Rationality" as a way of life is of course Orange, and the Greek philosophers started that, but realize that they were extremely cutting edge for their time. They didn't have a lot to go on but their own speculative theories. Orange didn't truly start to seep into the public arena before the Enlightenment period (which is what I'm interpreting as "coming online" regarding the OP's question). The groundwork had then been laid and society was evolving on multiple fronts to embrace this new level of development. The question about how rational the Greek philosophers really were is also not so straightforward. Realize how privileged we are to grow up in a culture where so called formal operational cognition (Piaget) is a main course in our childhood diet. It's so easy to underestimate the power of this dynamic unless you've actually travelled back in time or travelled to some very underdeveloped country. Today's children in modern society will for this reason start to unlock the cognitive capacities of Orange at around 11 on average. The Greek philosophers were essentially just at the cusp of that level (although comparing the minds of a child and an adult is rather frisky). They were pushing the edge of the culture step by step, all on their own. Imagine the absolute genius it takes to be stuck with no previously laid down groundwork, no theoretical frameworks, nothing but your own imagination, and then trying to understand the world with essentially the level of nuanced thinking of a modern day 11 year old. Mindblowing stuff.

Depends how you intepret "coming online". In my uninformed opinion, the needle you have to thread here isn't about whether or not rationality existed 2500 years ago, but whether or not Stage Orange as a whole existed back then (and to which degree; how popular it was). You have to not single out one thing (like rational thought) but instead look at the phenomena of Orange. What distinguishes a stereotypical modern Orange person from people like Pythagoras and Plato? And just as important, how is the Orange world different from ancient Greece?

Again, if you want to use it effectively, do it at the peak of a LSD trip or something. Using nitrous oxide in large amounts in a short time period or frequently over prolonged periods might be unhealthy for your brain. You should in that case take precautions around getting enough oxygen between attempts and also supplement with vitamin B12 if you want to preserve your myelinated neurons (nitrous depletes your B12 which interferes with myelin synthesis). B12 deficiency is really not something you'd ever want to experience.

LOL if nitrous oxide gave you enlightenment experiences, then surely Steve-O would've achieved sainthood by now On a more serious note, I haven't tried it post-awakening, so I can't say much. It doesn't do much on its own, but when taken with other psychedelics, I've heard it can produce interesting synergistic effects. That would be your best shot. Here is a hilarious video of Hamilton Morris trying xenon (same mechanism of action as nitrous): He describes it as a primarily hedonic drug rather than a psychedelic drug (when it's taken on its own without any other substances).

Well duh - it's not a part of their values/principles. That's Orange's principles (that being rational is something of value)

Rationality IS a value system. Yes, Blue is "more" concerned about values and principles, but Orange is still heavily within that realm - that's all

Of course, I wasn't disputing that ("different ends"). I only wanted to highlight the tendency for Orange to want to base everything in something objective, rational, tangible.

Orange is a very principle-oriented stage, but it's used for a different end. You could say Blue is principled almost for principles' sake

Red isn't averse to wealth either. Blue is also concerned with wealth in its own ways. Be careful trying to view SD through a monofactorial lens.

That would just be more doing. Being is cultivated, like a flower.

Stoners who say "it's not a drug, it's a plant" or "it's not physically addictive" or "it's medicine" or "it cures cancer" or "it's not as bad as tobacco smoke". All of them are shallow and virtually always fallacious arguments that serve to protect the stoner identity.

Go into the thing you dislike and see it for what it is. That is love. Bad taste, jarring sounds, confused people, pain in its rawest form: all of it is lovely in its own way. Don't feel bad for having preferences. That is still love.

I can play the chorus riff but that's it

Back at ya Any concrete points you have on that? (btw I fixed some clumsy formulation in my previous comment).

Social construction is essentially about what society tells you. There are different levels of social construction. For example, all words and symbols, all concepts, are socially constructed. That includes words like biology, genes, genitalia, chromosomes etc.. You got all of those from society. Another form of social construction is more about how you relate to a certain concept. For example, society tells you that a person of a certain gender expresses themselves a certain way (looks, expressions, dress etc.). This causes confusion because society also tells you that gender is based on sex. But notice how that is also something that society tells you, hence it's a social construct. Gender expression can sometimes be in conflict with society's perceived relationship between gender and sex (after all, sex does not actually equal gender).

What happens when you stop thinking?

I had a thought today: "How confused was Plato?", then I read the comments here and realized that we haven't gotten very far afterall