Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[Inliytened1]

34 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@aurum

   Not only is it meaningless it's useless within argumentation as that's a generalization and semantics fallacy, 

That's no different than the so called quantifications you provided.   In your own video it clearly stated that it was percentage based.  So nothing is Absolute here- that's the take away .  So if you want to say that it's meaningless apply that same logic to your own stance. 

Edited March 28 by Inliytened1

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Likely outcomes are fantasy as well.  Just be aware of that. 

That sounds like a spiritual technicality to me. And also not relevant to our discussion. 

[Danioover9000]

@Inliytened1

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's no different than the so called quantifications you provided.   In your own video it clearly stayed that it was percentage based.  So nothing is Absolute here- that's the take away .  So if you want to say that it's meaningless apply that same logic to your own stance. 

   Within argumentation, and BTW you asked for a quantity science based answer, and I gave you one, then you jumped ship to introduce bigotry and racism which my other answer didn't cover, AKA whataboutism and red herring. You're the one with the performative contradiction here when arguing. Also I didn't commit the false dilemma fallacy here by claiming the sources are absolute and that you are either conservative brain or liberal brain, I have listed other political ideologies in a spectrum haven't I? So it's a bit of bad faith to imply I'm making a false dichotomy here when you're the one making the red herring and slippery slope fallacy.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

That sounds like a spiritual technicality to me. And also not relevant to our discussion. 

Well that's the problem.  Spirituality isn't a technicality- it's deeply entangled with reality.   You just want to refer to logic but you exclude mysticism.    It's not a technicality it is reality.  So you cannot forsake spirituality or you are missing a deep aspect of reality and your view will always be skewed by the lack of it.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Inliytened1

   Within argumentation, and BTW you asked for a quantity science based answer, and I gave you one, then you jumped ship to introduce bigotry and racism which my other answer didn't cover, AKA whataboutism and red herring. You're the one with the performative contradiction here when arguing. Also I didn't commit the false dilemma fallacy here by claiming the sources are absolute and that you are either conservative brain or liberal brain, I have listed other political ideologies in a spectrum haven't I? So it's a bit of bad faith to imply I'm making a false dichotomy here when you're the one making the red herring and slippery slope fallacy.

Lol.  I didnt jump ship at all.  That wasn't quanitifcation because to quantify this is impossible. I didnt go to bigotry I stated that you can't know what's in the minds of any individual - be they liberal or conservative.   It goes way deeper than a label. 

[Nilsi]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

   Spiral Dynamics stage green: Hippies, new agers, SJWs, political activists, socialists, progressives, liberals, animal welfare, PETA, environmental activists, love, compassion, kindness, empathy, empaths...hot witch girlfriends.

   More examples:

 

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

Not Nazi propaganda.

I was asking for structure, not for content. Is it really that hard?

This ubiquitous superficial reading of Spiral Dynamics is precisely why virtually no serious intellectual takes that model seriously. It's a shame, because there aren't many convincing arguments for a post-postmodern sensibility, but Spiral Dynamics at its best certainly is one

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I was asking for structure, not for content. Is it really that hard?

The structure of SD Green is Relativism. That is the core feature that defines it at the highest level. All the content can be derived from that. 

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well that's the problem.  Spirituality isn't a technicality- it's deeply entangled with reality.   You just want to refer to logic but you exclude mysticism.    It's not a technicality it is reality.  So you cannot forsake spirituality or you are missing a deep aspect of reality and your view will always be skewed by the lack of it.

You don't need to include mysticism in every conversation. Doing so in this context adds nothing.

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, aurum said:

You don't need to include mysticism in every conversation. Doing so in this context adds nothing.

I get that.  But the point is you can't concretely say Hitler was a conservative - because of relativity.   So...but then again by the same token I can't say he was Absolutely evil or insane.  He did what he did for the benefit of himself and his people- but mostly himself.  

[Danioover9000]

   This is a nice example of a person who's far right yet is reasonable, and different from MAGA alt right or even Nazis in Nazi Germany:

   Also the same guy who did the video that GB was anti slavery actually.

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

38 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I was asking for structure, not for content. Is it really that hard?

This ubiquitous superficial reading of Spiral Dynamics is precisely why virtually no serious intellectual takes that model seriously. It's a shame, because there aren't many convincing arguments for a post-postmodern sensibility, but Spiral Dynamics at its best certainly is one

   No, you were asking @aurum to give you characteristics of stage green, which I did and provided, also a mega thread of people who exhibit stage green values and their characteristics. So if you wanted structure and not content, why is it really hard for you to not ask that instead of 'characteristics' then? Unless you can define to us what 'characteristic' means and how characteristics is the same as 'structure'?

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Characterize the structure of SD Green for me then, if you don't mind.

 

[Danioover9000]

@aurum @Inliytened1

26 minutes ago, aurum said:

You don't need to include mysticism in every conversation. Doing so in this context adds nothing.

   Actually he can, let him as it also weakens his arguments and makes possible another argument point of attack: How Nazis bastardized the kabbalah and qlippoth, and use non-duality and spiritualty to justify atrocities. In fact one SS soldier described and absolved himself of murdering a Jew as not 'him' killing the Jew, but his 'knife' moving through space doing the killing. How depraved can you get with twisting the semantics and obfuscating moral and immorality via non-duality and spiritual language? Even as far back as the Aztec empire doing their seasonal human sacrifice rituals, ripping their hearts out while they're still alive! Apparently a stage purple/red value empire but also with non-duality teachings! How is that not a great example of devilry corrupting spirituality?

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I get that.  But the point is you can't concretely say Hitler was a conservative - because of relativity.   So...but then again by the same token I can't say he was Absolutely evil or insane.  He did what he did for the benefit of himself and his people- but mostly himself.  

 

Edited March 28 by Danioover9000

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

So if you wanted structure and not content, why is it really hard for you to not ask that instead of 'characteristics' then? Unless you can define to us what 'characteristic' means and how characteristics is the same as 'structure'?

To be fair to him, I understood he was asking for structure and not content. I explained it in my follow up post. The structure of Green is Relativism, since all Green content can be derived from that.

 

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I get that.  But the point is you can't concretely say Hitler was a conservative - because of relativity.

It's true that even Hitler's conservatism is relative. At the same time, we are attempting to make distinctions here for practical purposes. We will have to be satisfied with some degree of relative truth or say nothing at all. 

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

To be fair to him, I understood he was asking for structure and not content. I explained it in my follow up post. The structure of Green is Relativism, since all Green content can be derived from that.

 

   Since he's dodging my question, you might have a go at that question too: Is characteristics more structure or content? IMO examples or instances are much closer to 'characteristics' and to content than to structure itself. For example if someone asked me to list them the characteristics of water, I list some physical traits and forms of water and other forms of water it can take, it's causes and effects. Similarly if asked to list 'characteristics' of an ideology which itself is far more softer and subjective in qualia than a quantity or material thing, I list the followers of that ideology, sometimes their appearances, how they speak and their behaviors, characteristics one can point to in real life or in images.

[Adrian colby]

Would it not be the case that despite the labels and the fact that two sides of a coin face away from each other, they essentially behave the same way( are both the coin). If you remove the context, the behavior is the same regardless of left/right, conservative, liberal. Some argue totalitarianism comes from extreme liberalism and fascism comes from extreme conservatism but totalitarian and fascism are names describing the same behavior? Is this not just more concept reification justifying why to or not to identify with a side?

[aurum]

10 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Is characteristics more structure or content? IMO examples or instances are much closer to 'characteristics' and to content than to structure itself.

I would agree, which is why I did not list examples or instances. I think the best way to "go meta" and describe the structure of Green would be to look at what it all has in common. What is the origin of all those Green examples and content?

To that, I would say it's because the structure of the stage Green psyche has become more Relativistic. From Relativism, we can derive egalitarianism, the desire for consensus, SJWs, empathy, acceptance, pluralism, kindness, anti-authoritarianism, etc. But you can't really do the derivation the other way around. That's why I consider it "higher" than the other features. 

Edited March 29 by aurum

[Danioover9000]

@Adrian colby

2 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

Would it not be the case that despite the labels and the fact that two sides of a coin face away from each other, they essentially behave the same way( are both the coin). If you remove the context, the behavior is the same regardless of left/right, conservative, liberal. Some argue totalitarianism comes from extreme liberalism and fascism comes from extreme conservatism but totalitarian and fascism are names describing the same behavior? Is this not just more concept reification justifying why to or not to identify with a side?

   Now you're introducing metaphysics, philosophy and epistemology of language. Also a fallacy of the false dilemma and whataboutisms, but an assumption that changing the context does not change the fact or behavior within that context.

   Language creates your reality, and language also creates orders and distances of realities. For example, would you rather have erotica, pictures of porn scenes, be in the porn film filming, or be the porn actor/actress experiencing it directly? Therefore in some case language is mostly useful to describe some experiences that some would rather not have, such as language describing Nazi Germany and Nazism versus actually experiencing Nazi Germany or dealing with Nazis yourself, see?

   Oh, and also here's a great re-contextualization right now: You are hallucinating images and experiences as you're reading these words. Does that not contradict your point then?

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a great point.

Thank you!

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Mormegil said:

This is a really good insight, thank you for sharing.

Thank you!