Carl-Richard

My sober awakenings were and still are deeper than my LSD experiences.

The problem with Green is that it doesn't truly consider the value of other stages, not because it's unwilling, but because it doesn't perceive that there is such a thing as other stages. They are still stuck in "my perspective is THE perspective" even though they're knocking at the door of relativism. This initially seems like a paradox, because how can your perspective be THE perspective when you also proport to believe that "all perspectives are relative"? Well, the missing piece here is that one is unable to play the role of someone who is not a relativist. There is still a level of exclusion which we can call the "exclusive-inclusivity paradox". This phenomena can be observed in certain sectors of social justice, for example: "we're for diversity and inclusivity, but if you don't agree with us, you can go fuck yourself!". This type of disconnect happens when you're blind to the full causal chain behind why someone is not on your side, and in a classic Yoda fashion, this lack of understanding leads to fear, hate and an inability to consider their perspective (where they're coming from, what causes their needs etc.). In Tier 2, you start viewing people more as rule-constrained systems rather than free agents. One also recognizes how these systems go through different developmental stages (hence SD) and that they need all the encouragement they can get. One extends actual care and consideration in a strategic way (as opposed to the softness and idealism of Green care), and one does this by "playing their game" so to speak ("Spiral Wizardry"): addressing the root of each problem and meeting them where they're at. "Consideration" can therefore be about everything from acknowledging the validity of someone's concerns, to seeing these concerns in yourself and society in general, and the need to carefully negotiate these different concerns towards a holistic solution. In contrast, Tier 1 would maybe think "what is the best way to address my concerns and how can I make people adopt my point of view?". See the lack of consideration there? This is an universal quality of consciousness expansion: when you see the mechanics behind a phenomena, it leads to understanding and inclusion instead of fear and exclusion. When a Green relativist starts identifying/empathizing with the non-relativist points of view, he'll break through that barrier of exclusion and fully manifest the fruits of relativism. Of course all stages are capable of general empathy to various degrees, but it rarely goes beyond what serves them in some way. For example, Blue might empathize with somebody who lost their life's work but not the thief who stole it in order to survive. Higher on the scale, Green might empathize with the thief but maybe not a serial killer. At some point, the survival program (exclusion) overrides the love program (inclusion). Tier 2 is a huge step in the direction of love. There is a common saying circulating on the internet that goes something like this: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." This captures what Stage Orange is striving for: objectivity, or specifically in this case an objective approach to understanding reality. However, when you're unaware of the systemic and developmental aspects of the human mind, this idea gets very easily overshadowed by a myriad of self-bias/self-deception mechanisms. To borrow one of Cook-Greuter's concepts, you need access to the "5th person perspective" to actually become aware of how these mechanisms operate (seeing yourself and the world from an elevated meta-perspective). Stage Orange is aware of the "possibility" of this level of self-awareness, but it doesn't realize the depth of the task ahead and the significance of theory vs. practice. Simply adopting the belief that you don't adopt beliefs just on a whim is of course not very insightful and also very ironic.

You really got a nerve bringing this guy to the forum. I'm being serious when I say he is everything that is wrong with diet youtubers.

Yes, in virtual reality.

Seems like you haven't watched any of them if you think God is a person

@YourConstruct Which video did you watch?

I want the full conversation.

Stephen Wolfram, founder of the journal Complex Systems (early involved with the Santa Fe institute), explains the limits of falsification (among other things) in a conversation with Eric Weinstein about their "Theories of Everything". 1:13:05 1:56:25 is also very interesting.

@Preety_India Stop I just ate ?

Apparently, the average age when philosophers create their most influential work is 44, and their breakthrough will in many cases be delayed even further. We still haven't seen the best yet. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2010/05/at-what-age-do-philosophers-do-their.html

35:38-37:05 It starts off as a funny rant but it ends pretty deep . He talks about why people love Pirates of the Caribbean and ends it with "Life is love".

Not really but damn close lol

This is just my guess: if the vegan diet had the worst effects on him, I think the fruitarian diet would be even worse.

I mean just think about it: if "the whole" as you call it consists of somebody performing an action (rape), then how does somebody else performing an action (you stopping rape) somehow contradict with the whole? Again, invoking "the whole" as a way to deal with moral questions ("a part") is not really useful. The whole is the whole regardless.

If that is true, then not stopping the rapist would also be a selfish act as you're rejecting a part of yourself and identifying with only a part of the whole rather than the whole of which you are. It's a mute point. Absolute selflessness/selfishness is not relevant to moral questions. All morality is anyway selfish.

No one is perfect ?

Just a reminder that if you use "the absolute" as an excuse to be an asshole, you fundamentally misunderstand what it is.

Neopositivism - the spectre of epistemic blindness that has plagued the sciences for nearly 100 years. The doctrine of "we ought to revere verificationism as THE scientific methodology" is self-defeating, because 1. you cannot use verificationism to verify whether we ought to adopt verificationism, and 2. most scientists don't even follow it either (which is actually a good thing). When "proven wrong", instead of throwing out their theory, they pull out from the public sphere, hold on to their theory and attempt to smooth out the flaws and refine it. That is how science progresses: not by mechanical elimination but creative innovation.

This is a classic case of conflating the relative with the absolute. You intervening is also "letting God's experience play out". Choosing either scenario is anyway the absolute. All moral questions are relative in the first place, so any answer to such a question would be a relative one. The absolute is just what is the case; invoking it makes no difference. If you use it as an excuse to be an asshole, you fundamentally misunderstand what it is.

Technically you would be eating something. Carbohydrates is food Any calories coming from the outside will mess with the process of going into ketosis and make it even more unbearable.

What — Actualized.org child safety filter?

and carbohydrates which would end the fast.

@lmfao Seems like I'm 5w4

Yes, they're very similar actually. Fi is just misunderstood. I test 60/40 INFP/INTP, but Fi just explains me too well. I haven't gotten into enneagram yet, but I've been wanting to for a while. Maybe I'll take the test for it soon