Carl-Richard

My dad is green as a bean. My mom is much more orange. They're divorced

Not necessarily. Many people simply wake up accidentally or through divine grace. One example is devotional bhaktis in India. They could be a cultural wreck for all you know. Even then, their progress in cultural awareness is of course relative to their culture. Cultural values don't simply come out of nowhere. They're passed down through social interactions (social constructs). Modern cultural values are a result of trillions of these interactions throughout history. "Human" is a social construct that could mean a plethora of different things depending on the culture. Likewise, the impact of the insight "I'm not human" could have just as many different outcomes. This is nevertheless peripheral to enlightenment, because it's beyond concepts. It could provide a meta-perceptual frame to an existing cultural perspective, but it cannot suddenly manifest a completely new and complex cultural structure out of thin air.

The illusion is endless.

That movement would only be possible if those worldcentric values are already accessible in the cultural environment, and even then, there are additional factors that could prevent those values from being adopted. Seeing through mind doesn't remove you from the laws of nature. You could argue that there is, but only within a very strict framework compared to the naive perspective of "enlightenment cures everything". The journey from ethnocentric to worldcentric required thousands of years of sociocultural evolution. Unless you're willing to argue that enlightenment comes with some kind of cultural download package from the spiritual ether, you shouldn't expect those values to just suddenly manifest within the mind of a person.

Yep

One way to look at it is that enlightenment doesn't wipe your hard drive. It just runs a defragmentation on it.

So you're just not thinking about politics, psychology, and culture anymore?

JP: Beyond order... there is MORE ORDER! *tyrannical-hierarchical lobstering intensifies*

I would again point to the advice of not blindly comparing one point in history with another. 13th century philosophers don't have the same historical context as the 21th century ones. This idea that societies (or empires) follow this circular trend could certainly apply to the ancient/medieval world, but not necessarily as much to the modern world. For example, I don't see how this last stage of "luxury" is supposed to refer to Green in any way (I think it's again a conflation of Green with Red). I think you're trying too much to correlate each SD stage with the stages in this different model (doing that is hardly ever warranted). If this model takes a historical perspective, and if we take into account that Red was still a dominant force in these societies (they were recently invaded by Red nomads), then the last phase is not really inconsistent with a description of an overly satiated Red society. Afterall, monarchy and feudalism is primarily a Red system. Red is not exactly too concerned with work ethic and discipline; instead, dominance and loyalty is the primary order-keeping structure. To me, if I were to use SD to describe it, the circular model describes nothing more than the tug-of-war between Red nomad values and Blue civilizational values. Remember that Red and Blue will exist together in various degrees as a society is trying to transition from one to the next, and therefore this jo-jo-ing back and forth should be expected. It's therefore the combination of excess luxury and the lack of structure (Red) that made the societies fall. Blue would dampen the impulsive overindulgence in luxury, and sharpen people's work ethic by introducing restrictions based on transcendent principles. It was the lack of proper Blue infrastructure and ideology that kept them from progressing further. Green was never in the picture.

What terms do you think in?

Notice how you chose to say "partially". Teenagers can easily adopt (or co-opt) many Green sentiments because they echo Red, anti-Blue, anti-structure, anti-hierarchy sentiments (teenagers have a lot of Red). They therefore evolved from Red to Blue, not Green to Blue. You have to be able to parse out what constitutes a mature embodiment of a stage and what constitutes a mere similarity of values across different stages. There are countless examples of where different stages can be in agreement.

I can't decode this level of linguistic brilliance Well, tell me, exactly what method did Clare Graves use to construct the different SD stages? He made individual college students write essays about what they consider to be a mature individual. Where did you get this idea from? First off, The Soviet Union wasn't Green; it was Blue (you're obviously pointing to that). Secondly, you should be careful with equating one moment in history with another. The idea that history merely repeats itself is a naive notion. It ignores the self-evident fact that society evolves. Even if we were to assume that Green was tried and deemed unsuccessful in one country at one time in history, that doesn't mean it will be unsuccessful in a later time in a different country. You have to take into account the state of the entire world and the country's relationship to that ever-changing environment. I mean, Orange wasn't sustainable back when everybody lived in pre-agricultural tribes, but look at today. This is a weakness of the historic model

Well heyo if that's not some postmodern neo-marxist level relativism then kiss my steak and call me Jordan Peterson . Do you think Elliot has any post-Kuhnian epistemological knowledge? He has shown zero signs of that in the views he is choosing to share with people. There is an obvious difference between the standards he is setting vs. this forum.

This is to take an utopian perspective on models. Yes, when models get more complex, they don't follow simple linear relationships. That is to be expected. With that in mind, there is a strong argument to be made that he never actually settled in Green. He stuck his head in, took a look around, and backed out. If you wanted to make a strong case against SD, show me a person who has been firmly planted at one stage for say 20 years and suddenly regressed down (not as a result of something like a cognitive impairment or an apocalyptic societal change). Even if you find some anomalies, that doesn't necessarily have to impact the overall utility. Paul Feyerabend realized this.

By saying that though, you're actually asserting that Elliot has an epistemologically informed perspective on what his models can and cannot say about reality. I don't know which model you're using to get to that conclusion, but I don't vibe with that.

Explain.

What the hell are you on about man?

Try explaining anything without using a model.

If you're not trolling, show me a model that gives an aesthetically perfect description of all of reality.

I mentioned a bucketload of reasons.

Stop thinking you're an introvert.

I see two opposing perspectives here: 1. there are apparently examples of enlightened mystics with backwards beliefs all thoughout history, and 2. the non-dual realization does obviously lead to a change in a person's overall values (I heard of one guy who turned from republican to democrat basically overnight). I would say that both of these observations can be reconciled by recognizing the relativity in each case. "Backwards beliefs" is of course more prevalent in an ancient cultural backdrop, so you should expect the change of values in one time in history to be comparatively less "progressive" than a later time in history. The change is finite and gradual: you don't become a complete saint, atleast not overnight. So if we were to take a completely theoretical perspective, then there is no problem with an "enlightened nazi". However, the odds of that in today's world are obviously very slim. Nevertheless, I don't see how Wilber is really falling short here. Did Wilber ever claim there are actual enlightened nazis? A "theoretical possibility" is exactly that because there doesn't have to be any real-life examples.

Imagine if he had continued from where he left off a couple of years ago when he dabbled in psychedelics, openness, feminity etc.. It's that strong masculine underbelly of his past that has kept him from going all the way into green. Everything: his former career as a strongman, the impact from his upbringing (the admiration for his dad), and obviously the youtube persona that was a result of all that, and the subsequent backlash from his fanbase (and probably his dad aswell). Hulse is a study in ego-backlash, and the power of survival and ideology.

1:10-3:46 "I wanted truth". "The world is relative".