Is yellow intellectualism transcended at Turquoise?

[Nilsi]

36 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Generally that is neither here nor there, but some subsets of it don't, like Neo Advaita or contemporary non-duality in general (as regularly seen on YouTube): Eckhart Tolle, Mooji, Ram Dass, Rupert Spira, Adyashanti, are a few examples.

I’m curious, would you describe yourself as religious or spiritual (what you call „new-age“)? 

[El Zapato]

On 9/10/2024 at 7:59 PM, Fountainbleu said:

It seems years ago I was intellectually Yellow—constantly reading books, watching podcasts, and seeing infinite possibilities in every scenario. But after reading Osho’s *Book of Secrets*, I took to heart the idea that everything is inside of you. Since then, until recently, I hadn’t picked up a full book. I just didn’t resonate with intellectual material anymore. It felt unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Lately, I’ve been reading and watching podcasts again, though.

 

Instead of intellectualizing, I started going inward for answers. This led to experiences of oneness and non-duality— aspects of Turquoise? It’s been quite a journey.

 

Look at Wim Hof. He seems like someone who’s not bothered with intellectualizing much.

 

I’m seeking some clarity on this shift. Thanks!

 

@Fountainbleu All you need are triggers (just an opinion based on what you posted)  If you can find them internally, then so be it, I believe you but I love to read and have since early childhood, it isn't for everyone though.  There are many other ways to learn,..Many. (e.g. the school of hard knocks, Alien downloads, dreaming, meditation) I'm sure you get the idea.

[El Zapato]

15 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I’m curious, would you describe yourself as religious or spiritual (what you call „new-age“)? 

On 9/10/2024 at 7:59 PM, Fountainbleu said:

 

 

I'm new age by definition...but not by implication.  I tend to believe anything is possible. I have had more than my share of 'out of the ordinary experiences'.  They have been characterized in a number of ways by science, mysticism, philosophy, psychology, spirituality, et al.  The trend to look down on 'new-age' is because once again the right views love and light as by default fake.  They be a very strange bunch...  

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I’m curious, would you describe yourself as religious or spiritual (what you call „new-age“)? 

A reformed New Ager 😄 I want tradition, community and wisdom back.

[zurew]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

A reformed New Ager 😄 I want tradition, community and wisdom back.

Look at the sheep - just wants to uncritically accept all dogmas and not question and contemplate everything , and solve all his psychological and spiritual and meaning and intellectual questions and problems on his own  - like how the non-suicidal, non-schizophrenic, non-dogmatic, highly skilled thinkers (actualized.org users/ actualizers) do 

[Nivsch]

@zurew Can you explain what you meant in other words?

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

A reformed New Ager 😄 I want tradition, community and wisdom back.

And how does that look like in practice?

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

@zurew Can you explain what you meant in other words?

Very shortly - I don't think this community appreciates deeply enough the things Carl listed there and the pitfalls entailed by the "I will do everything on my own" approach.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

And how does that look like in practice?

We'll see.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

What does it even mean for someone to do "everything on their own?"

it means building a worldview from scratch where you collect pieces of knowledge and practices and epistemic and moral norms from everyone and then usually not being able to integrate them together to create a whole system where each part fits together in a comprehensive way.

You have pieces of knowledge and practices floating around , but you are completely cluless by what metric or norm you should judge them by and then under what norm you should integrate them together.

Because of the experimental nature - you don't know what your mixed bag of things will produce and because of your unique problems and lack of belonging to a community and to a wisdom tradition  - you don't know where to find answers to those problems and how to deal with those problems .

 

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

No thoughtful person would seriously claim that all their conclusions about themselves and life arise in a vacuum. It should be obvious that there’s no such thing as an unconditioned thought. This doesn’t imply there’s no room for original insight - there certainly is - but any insight will inevitably be shaped by the individual’s cultural and historical context.

Thats not the claim.

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The core disagreement here is whether there are universal ideas or ideals that are inherently good and beyond questioning - what we might call the "sacred." This is precisely what religion has to fanatically defend, and from which it extrapolates an entire substructure to reality that is somehow presented as inescapably true. The fact that someone involved in a community like this still clings to such a passé notion is laughable. 

I don't think the disagreement is about "you shouldn't question this set of things", because both approach involve some that (even though actualizers don't like to admit it).

As a collector, what you end up doing is essentially rebulding an unintegrated and fractured religion from scratch. You will have certain set of beliefs and methods that you will start with out of  necessity (essentially dogmas) and you will have certain (often unjustified and unreflected) moral and epistemic norms that you will judge things by (your progress, the world, yourself etc).

Its just that you won't have some of the good things that you would otherwise have from other religions. 1) Sense of belonging and connectedness to a community where they can answer your questions and help you psychologically when you go through tough phases during your journey. 2) The community giving you the necessary context and norms to judge and interpret the teachings and your progress by (because yes, this is new to most actualizers , but you cant just always use your own epistemic and moral norms to judge things by, because sometimes  you end up completely misunderstanding things).

Also sometimes understanding involves using a non propositional approach as well, where you don't just read stuff, but you actually participate in the tradition.

Edited September 15 by zurew

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Very shortly - I don't think this community appreciates deeply enough the things Carl listed there and the pitfalls entailed by the "I will do everything on my own" approach.

That’s a lazy argument. What does it even mean for someone to do "everything on their own"?

No thoughtful person would seriously claim that their conclusions about life or themselves arise in a vacuum or that these insights are entirely their own. It should be obvious that no thought is completely unconditioned. This doesn’t imply there’s no room for original insight - there certainly is - but every insight is inevitably shaped by an individual’s cultural and historical context, along with deeper structures like language.

The real issue isn’t whether we can think independently, but whether the structures that shape our thoughts can be formalized into some universal truth or ethical imperative about reality. The hubris lies in assuming that the Real exists in a pre-determined, structured way and that we can somehow grasp this structure through a transcendental subjectivity that is not itself conditioned by the reality it claims to observe.

However, this isn’t an argument for detached, ironic subjectivity. The point of contention isn’t whether there’s a drive to interpret the world through a "grand narrative." There obviously is, for anyone who isn’t pretending to be too cool for such notions, like Kim Gordon or Jean-François Lyotard. That might pass as a cute posture in one's early twenties, but becomes increasingly cringe when held seriously, much like a 40-year-old guy still showing up at frat parties thinking he's cool. These things should be self-evident.

Ultimately, my claim is that an authentic existentialism cannot simply be dismissed as immature "New-Age-ism" or whatever. If we’re going to make progress, that’s where we’ll have to take the argument.

I stand with Heidegger in accepting, as a final conclusion, a meditation and regression into a pre-Socratic immersion in life, which could be likened to the tenth Ox-Herding Picture in Zen:

Quote

Bare-chested and barefooted, he comes out into the market-place;
Daubed with mud and ashes, how broadly he smiles!
There is no need for the miraculous power of the gods,
For he touches, and lo! the dead trees are in full bloom.

This immersion naturally brings with it a desire for belonging, stability, and similar concerns. Yet, as a subject, I am still faced with the responsibility of making choices and value judgments within a uniquely subjective context. As Sartre put it: “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”

To conclude with Nietzsche: "I know of no better life purpose than to perish in attempting the great and the impossible" - to justify and affirm my existence on my own terms, fully aware that such a task is utterly impossible.

Edited September 15 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

31 minutes ago, zurew said:

it means building a worldview from scratch where you collect pieces of knowledge and practices and epistemic and moral norms from everyone and then usually not being able to integrate them together to create a whole system where each part fits together in a comprehensive way.

You have pieces of knowledge and practices floating around , but you are completely cluless by what metric or norm you should judge them by and then under what norm you should integrate them together.

Because of the experimental nature - you don't know what your mixed bag of things will produce and because of your unique problems and lack of belonging to a community and to a wisdom tradition  - you don't know where to find answers to those problems and how to deal with those problems .

 

Thats not the claim.

I don't think the disagreement is about "you shouldn't question this set of things", because both approach involve some that (even though actualizers don't like to admit it).

As a collector, what you end up doing is essentially rebulding an unintegrated and fractured religion from scratch. You will have certain set of beliefs and methods that you will start with out of  necessity (essentially dogmas) and you will have certain (often unjustified and unreflected) moral and epistemic norms that you will judge things by (your progress, the world, yourself etc).

Its just that you won't have some of the good things that you would otherwise have from other religions. 1) Sense of belonging and connectedness to a community where they can answer your questions and help you psychologically when you go through tough phases during your journey. 2) The community giving you the necessary context and norms to judge and interpret the teachings and your progress by (because yes, this is new to most actualizers , but you cant just always use your own epistemic and moral norms to judge things by, because sometimes  you end up completely misunderstanding things).

Also sometimes understanding involves using a non propositional approach as well, where you don't just read stuff, but you actually participate in the tradition.

Sorry, but this is such a load of nonsense and intellectual posturing that it's not even worth going into in detail.

[Nilsi]

@Carl-Richard

The irony of this discussion is that you talk about belonging, yet you refuse to give up your transcendental perspective on reality.

How can you truly belong if you don’t even accept being human?

That’s my ultimate question to you.

[LoseYourvelf]

On 11/09/2024 at 1:47 PM, Lila9 said:

I think that yellow has genuine intellectual open-mindedness, it wants to know without being committed to any idea and without any agenda. It seeks truth and true knowledge and is courageous enough to face it. It seeks the truth beyond all the smoke screens of culture and socialization. Yellow is the foundation for turquoise.
At some point, after the deconstruction of the components of reality, and perhaps also the self and the ego, yellow reaches a point where things can no longer be understood intellectually, and it realizes the downside of relying heavily on intellectuality alone.
After all this long path, there are still many things that remain uncovered, and the amount of mystery is infinite.
So they surrender to the not knowing and start to value childlike innocence, playfulness, joy, the present moment itself, the beauty, and the interconnectedness of this world on the energetic level, which they feel a part of rather than observing and judging reality from the outside, as yellow does. Everything is backed by a good amount of wisdom.
They are reality they play with it, live it, and feel it. They are existence itself, not as knowledge or an idea in their mind they have discovered but as a feeling in their body and their being.

I think the transition from yellow to turquoise is not immediate but gradual, as with any stage.
So if you are not 100% sure where you are, maybe you are somewhere in between.

There is a cartoon character who gives me turquoise vibes, and that is Zeno, "The King of Everything," from Dragon Ball Super.

And Osho, in my view is a very good example of turquoise. In this video he demonstrates in a humorous way the value of jokes and not taking ourselves seriously.

 

king of everything FTW

[LoseYourvelf]

My god that clip is absolutely awesome. The DBZ one. He just truly doesnt give a fuck about their comeuppances. Almost like the psychs or w/e

Edited September 15 by LoseYourvelf

[Nivsch]

OK, stage Turquoise has some decent overlap with Purple.

Edited September 15 by Nivsch

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

@Carl-Richard

The irony of this discussion is that you talk about belonging, yet you refuse to give up your transcendental perspective on reality.

How can you truly belong if you don’t even accept being human?

That’s my ultimate question to you.

You accept that you are both.

[zurew]

10 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The real issue isn’t whether we can think independently, but whether the structures that shape our thoughts can be formalized into some universal truth or ethical imperative about reality.

I don't find stance independently true morals intelligible or to make sense in any way (the truth value of the moral propositions isn't dependent on or indexed to any subject or collection of subjects opinion, preference or moral intuition).

Even if someone would be able to lay down some master argument to establish that objective morals (in the sense I desribed) do exist and we objectively ought to follow and live by some set of moral propositions -  I don't think most people would be persuaded by it (me neither) unless it would be in my best interest to do so.

Regarding the "structures that shape our thoughts" - I think a lot of interesting work won't be done in philosophy but will be done in cogsci . Some of the core disagreements seem to involve stuff that philosophy generally don't touch and maybe beyond the limits of self reflection and contemplation  -  but it seems to be about  sub-semantic , sub-syntactic and maybe even sub-categorical layers of our psyche and how our brain make sense of things and create meaning.

Maybe focusing on empirical work in cogsci is the most fruitful way to progress on this issue, but maybe not.

[UnbornTao]

If we don't directly experience the true nature of anything, then what does it take to become conscious of it?

It just so happens that you have to create insight in your own experience and there's no way around that —that's the spirit of consciousness work.

If you don't experience it, it doesn't exist for you, except perhaps as a concept.

Anything other than a direct personal encounter won't change our condition of ignorance in these matters, regardless of belief conviction, and even knowledge.

This is the principle of genuine (and in this case, direct) experience. 

Edited September 16 by UnbornTao

[Fountainbleu]

On 9/15/2024 at 7:36 AM, El Zapato said:

@Fountainbleu All you need are triggers (just an opinion based on what you posted)  If you can find them internally, then so be it, I believe you but I love to read and have since early childhood, it isn't for everyone though.  There are many other ways to learn,..Many. (e.g. the school of hard knocks, Alien downloads, dreaming, meditation) I'm sure you get the idea.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Your post is a bit confusing.