Carl-Richard

Idk my dude

I'm of the belief that all forms of art are turquoise as they invoke the experience of the wonder of God. The conceptual content or the message behind the art is merely peripheral to the experience of art.

I remember watching this debate many years ago when I was an edgy teenage atheist, and of course Sam Harris was my idol, and I thought he absolutely destroyed William Lane Craig in the debate. Looking back at it now, it's actually hilarious how wrong I was. Firstly, during the second round, Harris completely abandoned the debate topic and went full activist mode: just bringing up the most edgy points to put religion in a bad light. Secondly, he used his philosophy of well-being to present many of his points in the first round, and Craig actually gave very strong points against it, but of course Harris never addressed those points. This should be a collective embarrasment for atheists: the fact that Craig actually wanted to engage Harris' points in a formal debate format, but Harris just totally derailed it into an activist shouting match. I just felt like sharing this here, because I find it quite interesting how blindly I was following the atheistic doctrine. Maybe some people in here have the same experience.

If you were to ask one question in order to clarify if a person is in stage yellow or not, what question would you ask them?

Well, after a while you kinda get familiar with the model, and also back then I didn't have spiritual experiences left and right. I still want to learn more, which is why I made this topic

You could probably place them in yellow based on their definition of what a model is, but to remove any doubts about orange, you could also check if they have an absolutistic relationship to scientific truth claims: "what is the purpose of scientific models?"

That was always a "fear" that I had about myself when I first came across the model: that I'm tricking myself, thinking I'm better than what I really am. It's really funny actually.

@Eren Eeager I had kinda a similar thing for about a year after discovering mindfulness. I was basically trying my very best to "stay in the present moment" and shut out any thoughts every moment of the day, and it wasn't healthy at all. There must be a periods of rest between periods of practice. The fruits of the practice will naturally manifest themselves in a state of rest.

I might be totally wrong, but it seems to me that the fear that you're thinking in a dysfunctional manner is the real problem. When you have no fear, thinking subsides. If you fear that you're thinking bad thoughts, it creates an evil circle.

I'm pretty sure everybody does this intuitively haha

The bible analogy was a bit edgy I do admit, but I just typed it out anyway to hammer the point home.

Why are you judging us?

That may be true, but that doesn't mean that it's healthy. Health is a combination of fitness and longevity. You can eat something that increases your biological fitness (ability to pass on your genes to the next generation) that is also detrimental for longevity, and evolution wouldn't care one bit about that. Evolution only cares about survival and reproduction, not longevity. Traits that are beneficial early in life and detrimental later in life are therefore a common occurence, and the consumption of meat seems to be a likely candidate for this. To look to evolution for dietary advice is like looking to the bible for scientific advice.

This was my initial suspicion back when he started his last shift in content, but like Leo said, I believe he didn't spend enough time in green. It was more like a psychedelic vacation more than an actual integration (it seems like). I remember from one of these later videos that he commented on how he earlier came across the concept of "integrating your feminine side", and he made it pretty clear in that video that he is now full stop against that philosophy. The way he presents it doesn't seem to have that yellow "third-person perspectiveness": it seem very absolutistic, but then again, that may just be due to his way of speaking. I do agree that he has some of that yellow spice in him at times, but lately that seems to be mostly drowned out by tier 1 stages.

@emind There is something very intriguing about the way he uses language: very abstract at times, but still rich and grounded. It captures you in kinda the same way like that of Terrence McKenna, but less flowy, more concise.

I'm sorry, but this caught me way off guard. Tell me what you think. Also, does anybody understand anything of the explanation of his theory? It's brain-meltingly hard to follow. 31:47 Goes on about the coronavirus, distrust in government -> 34:25 calls for civil disobedience. 2:16:00 He says we have to leave the planet -> requires faster-than-light travel -> "here's my theory that challenges Einstein"

@Heyyyyyy To be fair, he does have a certain type of charisma that is attractive to a certain audience regardless of the size of his muscles.

I think I just saw a great example of green relativism in a debate (on Twitch I'm very sorry), which seems to be very much in line with what most of you have said on here. The argument is about whether you should be able to use ableist slurs or not, and the guy in the bottom left says this: "But having cancer is actually a bad thing. Being disabled is not a bad thing necessarily, being of a different race is not a bad thing, being homosexual is not a bad thing. That's why it's not the same" (1:02:59-1:03:23). I strongly suggest to only watch those 20 seconds if unless you actually want cancer lol The green relativism comes mostly from the part "being disabled is not a bad thing necessarily". If they were yellow or above, they would realize that whether cancer is good or bad is also relative. Maybe he will make a concession on that point if he was pushed on it, but the statement alone seems to capture green relativism pretty well.

That was my belief going into this, but I wanted to see if I could be proven wrong somehow

Pre-grammatical stage? Lol

@fridjonk Would it be more accurate to say that green is the introduction to relativism, and yellow is the capitulation to relativism?

It's good to strive for independent thinking, but let's be real here: who actually has an original position about anything? The big trend with conspiracies is "oh I don't trust these people", but then you just end up putting your trust in the opposite side. It's not like like you actually took a deep dive down and discovered something new. You either trust that authority over there or you trust that one over there, and when it comes to conspiracies, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter which authority you choose to trust, because 99% of the time it doesn't change anything in your life. Does that mean you shouldn't strive for truth? No, but just get your priorities straight.

@Raphael Would you say that anthropological relativism is the main factor that distinguishes a stage yellow answer from a stage green answer, or is the difference between yellow and green simply the depth of which relativism is understood in general? Are there any other factors that distinguishes yellow from green that you could phrase in a question?

@Moreira IS there a general world wide vitamin D deficiency? Considering the seriousness of this, why hasn't there been declared a global emergency? Lemme guess: it's tied to big pharma?