It seems like our collective lack of development has a genetic component, but why?

[Cireeric]

I like to believe what Daniel Schmachtenberger once said:

"There is a good bit of evidence that the people that many of us find to be some of the greatest exemplars of human potential were the result of developmental-paths that are more accessible to everyone than lots of people think." 

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Cireeric said:

I like to believe what Daniel Schmachtenberger once said:

"There is a good bit of evidence that the people that many of us find to be some of the greatest exemplars of human potential were the result of developmental-paths that are more accessible to everyone than lots of people think." 

It's exactly the opposite.

These paths are accessible to almost nobody. A gold-plated Rolls Royce is more accessible to people than higher stages of development.

Edited Friday at 11:06 PM by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

On 10/28/2024 at 1:44 PM, Onecirrus said:

But my question is why does nature seemingly limit our spiritual and psychological capacities? Why is Ralston and this teenager the exception and not the rule? And why doesn’t society acknowledge this as even being a problem? America spends more money on alcohol than genetic research every year, this alone highlights our idiocy.

That's because higher spiritual and psychological capacity isn't what nature is attempting to develop.

Like, if fur evolves into feathers over time... it isn't because feathers are better than fur in the eyes of nature. It is just an adaptation.

The same is true with higher vs lower spiritual and psychological capacity. Evolution doesn't inherently mean becoming better at those things... as spiritual and psychological capacity is values-neutral in the eyes of nature.

It is just a neutral adaptation like any other adaptation.

So, asking this question is a bit like asking why humans haven't evolved echolocation. Well, we haven't needed echolocation to survive and reproduce.

The same is true of humanity thus far.

We haven't needed the populace to have a higher spiritual and psychological capacity to survive. In fact, at earlier phases in human development, these qualities might be a hinderance to our survival if most average people possessed them.

Instead, there have always been 1 out of every 100 people to act as medicine people, priests, priestesses, etc. that have bore the brunt of that job for their entire group.

That way, the average person isn't burdened by such things... and they can focus on hunting or baking bread.

So, we have evolved for the purpose of specialization because that benefits our survival and reproduction.... and higher spiritual and psychological capacity is one of many ways people are build towards specialization. 

But there is no need for the general populace to possess higher spiritual capacities... in the same way that not everyone in the populace needs to have stellar athletic ability. 

[AerisVahnEphelia]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

That's because higher spiritual and psychological capacity isn't what nature is attempting to develop.

Like, if fur evolves into feathers over time... it isn't because feathers are better than fur in the eyes of nature. It is just an adaptation.

The same is true with higher vs lower spiritual and psychological capacity. Evolution doesn't inherently mean becoming better at those things... as spiritual and psychological capacity is values-neutral in the eyes of nature.

It is just a neutral adaptation like any other adaptation.

So, asking this question is a bit like asking why humans haven't evolved echolocation. Well, we haven't needed echolocation to survive and reproduce.

The same is true of humanity thus far.

We haven't needed the populace to have a higher spiritual and psychological capacity to survive. In fact, at earlier phases in human development, these qualities might be a hinderance to our survival if most average people possessed them.

Instead, there have always been 1 out of every 100 people to act as medicine people, priests, priestesses, etc. that have bore the brunt of that job for their entire group.

That way, the average person isn't burdened by such things... and they can focus on hunting or baking bread.

So, we have evolved for the purpose of specialization because that benefits our survival and reproduction.... and higher spiritual and psychological capacity is one of many ways people are build towards specialization. 

But there is no need for the general populace to possess higher spiritual capacities... in the same way that not everyone in the populace needs to have stellar athletic ability. 

Very Good take on this.

[Juns]

To play devil's advocate, could this just be a way of trying to make yourself feel special by ascribing vaguely defined, superior levels of development to yourself?

[Oeaohoo]

Modern mass society is extremely dysgenic. Add that to the fact that the two World Wars had already wiped out most of the European aristocracy and you have our situation… “The blood of Numenor is spent”!

[Basman]

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

That's because higher spiritual and psychological capacity isn't what nature is attempting to develop.

Like, if fur evolves into feathers over time... it isn't because feathers are better than fur in the eyes of nature. It is just an adaptation.

The same is true with higher vs lower spiritual and psychological capacity. Evolution doesn't inherently mean becoming better at those things... as spiritual and psychological capacity is values-neutral in the eyes of nature.

It is just a neutral adaptation like any other adaptation.

So, asking this question is a bit like asking why humans haven't evolved echolocation. Well, we haven't needed echolocation to survive and reproduce.

The same is true of humanity thus far.

We haven't needed the populace to have a higher spiritual and psychological capacity to survive. In fact, at earlier phases in human development, these qualities might be a hinderance to our survival if most average people possessed them.

Instead, there have always been 1 out of every 100 people to act as medicine people, priests, priestesses, etc. that have bore the brunt of that job for their entire group.

That way, the average person isn't burdened by such things... and they can focus on hunting or baking bread.

So, we have evolved for the purpose of specialization because that benefits our survival and reproduction.... and higher spiritual and psychological capacity is one of many ways people are build towards specialization. 

But there is no need for the general populace to possess higher spiritual capacities... in the same way that not everyone in the populace needs to have stellar athletic ability. 

I think this makes sense. Humans aren't bred for spirituality in so much that there are sometimes individuals that happen to be capable of attaining high degrees of development. Holy figures like Jesus and Buddha where probably genetically gifted somehow though that's hard to prove definitively.

Its a nerdy example, but in Star Wars Yoda's species is one that is naturally gifted in force. All member species are highly force sensitive. And largely just because they are physiologically suited for it. There's on character of Yadle who is the same species as Yoda who was a prisoner in a dysfunctional city state and was being tortured for 10 years. She was eventually freed, after which she started working to improve the state to rid it of the things that made it so evil instead of hating the place. Of course, its easy to get over stuff like that and be chill when you live for hundreds of years. A decade is nothing then. They live for hundreds of years, which if the force is an allegory for spirituality makes it much easier to be detached and at peace. Less survival pressure that instill unconsciousness.

[Oeaohoo]

On 30/10/2024 at 0:15 PM, Leo Gura said:

Why not just say a rope stretched between animal and God -- over an infinite abyss?

Because God is a dead word to most people nowadays. Western philosophy is largely just a restatement of spiritual ideas for people who can no longer believe in them.

[Emerald]

15 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

Very Good take on this.

Thank you

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

I think this makes sense. Humans aren't bred for spirituality in so much that there are sometimes individuals that happen to be capable of attaining high degrees of development. Holy figures like Jesus and Buddha where probably genetically gifted somehow though that's hard to prove definitively.

Its a nerdy example, but in Star Wars Yoda's species is one that is naturally gifted in force. All member species are highly force sensitive. And largely just because they are physiologically suited for it. There's on character of Yadle who is the same species as Yoda who was a prisoner in a dysfunctional city state and was being tortured for 10 years. She was eventually freed, after which she started working to improve the state to rid it of the things that made it so evil instead of hating the place. Of course, its easy to get over stuff like that and be chill when you live for hundreds of years. A decade is nothing then. They live for hundreds of years, which if the force is an allegory for spirituality makes it much easier to be detached and at peace. Less survival pressure that instill unconsciousness.

That's an interesting example. It really embodies Christ's statement of "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

But one of the things that brought me to this conclusion is what happened in one of my Ayahuasca journeys. In this journey the medicine shared with me is my purpose, which is mercy and showed me how it had always been that... and why that was the case.

And it was explaining to me that this entailed being this mediator figure between society and the mystery to help people work through spiritual, psychological, and practical issues that keep them stuck in suffering by giving them smaller insights that they can handle as an individual.

And in this explanation, it was clear to me that this tendency was only given to those who really want at the deepest level of their being to play that role for their community.

And it was given as a both a gift and a burden. So, most people genuinely don't want the burden of the exposure to deeper levels of gnosis, and thus are not given that gift.

And it showed me how much of a mercy it is to allocate that job to a few people so that the many don't have to shoulder that burden. And the many can come to the few to reap the benefits of the work done by the few.

Similarly to how, in a village with a great baker, the village people can simply rely on the baker for their baked goods. And they don't need to shoulder the burden of baking their own bread every day... and get freed up to do other things.

And my estimate is that this that was shown to me in my journey, describes 1 in every 100 or 200 people... who may become medicine people, priests, priestesses, psychologists, and other helping professionals that help people explore the labyrinths of the psyche and the Self.

But that is just one specialization out of many. And it is not superior to being a great baker or candlestick maker.

[Onecirrus]

@Juns The question was inspired by what feels like a glass ceiling I’ve run into in my development. It’s liked I’ve maxed out my maturity and consciousness, attempting to get more has lead to great frustration.

[Onecirrus]

@Leo Gura My unconsciousness feels like an omnipresent miasma, it’s heavy and all consuming, sustained by the functions of my own mind, which I hopelessly try to understand and change. There have been periods when it’s lifted, but survival as a human always drags me back into it. Maya’s palace is my own self, and it feels so much stronger than me.

[Carl-Richard]

On 28.10.2024 at 6:44 PM, Onecirrus said:

But my question is why does nature seemingly limit our spiritual and psychological capacities? Why is Ralston and this teenager the exception and not the rule?

Asking nature "why" is like asking a kid why it wants candy. Nature does what nature does.

[Leo Gura]

Why can't a kangaroo do trigonometry?

[Raze]

50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why can't a kangaroo do trigonometry?

That’s a different species.

Look into the evolution of the mind and language, it isn’t as simple as biological evolution, it is more mysterious and faster. 

[Inliytened1]

On 10/30/2024 at 0:05 AM, Leo Gura said:

Because you are taking genetics for granted. Good genetics is not something anyone is entitled to. Any capacities you have had to be evolved over billions of years through a very painful process.

News flash: that process never ended.

It's kinda like you're asking: "Why doesn't nature give a caveman a rocketship?" Because someone has to build it first.

Nature doesn't owe you genetic capacity. Nature is using you to build genetic capacity. You are nature's stepping stone to something better.

But what is nature.  What the fuck is it.  Maybe a video on it because spirituality is connected.

[Shane Hanlon]

On 11/29/2024 at 6:02 PM, Emerald said:

That's because higher spiritual and psychological capacity isn't what nature is attempting to develop.

Like, if fur evolves into feathers over time... it isn't because feathers are better than fur in the eyes of nature. It is just an adaptation.

The same is true with higher vs lower spiritual and psychological capacity. Evolution doesn't inherently mean becoming better at those things... as spiritual and psychological capacity is values-neutral in the eyes of nature.

It is just a neutral adaptation like any other adaptation.

So, asking this question is a bit like asking why humans haven't evolved echolocation. Well, we haven't needed echolocation to survive and reproduce.

The same is true of humanity thus far.

We haven't needed the populace to have a higher spiritual and psychological capacity to survive. In fact, at earlier phases in human development, these qualities might be a hinderance to our survival if most average people possessed them.

Instead, there have always been 1 out of every 100 people to act as medicine people, priests, priestesses, etc. that have bore the brunt of that job for their entire group.

That way, the average person isn't burdened by such things... and they can focus on hunting or baking bread.

So, we have evolved for the purpose of specialization because that benefits our survival and reproduction.... and higher spiritual and psychological capacity is one of many ways people are build towards specialization. 

But there is no need for the general populace to possess higher spiritual capacities... in the same way that not everyone in the populace needs to have stellar athletic ability. 

Have you read Ken Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality? If you have, how have you integrated his insights on the direction of evolution?

[Emerald]

43 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Have you read Ken Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality? If you have, how have you integrated his insights on the direction of evolution?

I haven't read any Ken Wilbur. But I am familiar with his ideas around development versus awakening.

And I do think of humanity as developing through more and more conscious stages of societal evolution as our technology develops... and that people can be more or less developed along those Spiral Dynamics lines.

So, within the context of our species, I see that there is a kind of 10 steps forward and 9 steps back towards a more conscious and aware society, as is evident to me just from the changes in society and the paradigms we hold in the short time I've been alive.

But in terms of evolution (in the Darwinian sense), humanity hasn't always been in a situation where more conscious humans are the most fit to the environment.

In fact, the ability to be selfish, ruthless, and unconscious has conferred immediate survival and reproduction value up until present day... though it sabotages our collective survival and ability to raise healthy children who will be good for our collective survival.

But right now is an exciting time to be alive.

In our globalized world with air travel, the internet, and the atom bomb... we are in a place where we need to wake up to love and oneness or go extinct. Develop or die.

It is only just now that our Darwinian survival of evolving to be the most fit to our environment... and development within the Spiral (in the ways that Wilbur speaks about) start to converge in ways that can only be ignored to our collective peril.

And we may simply continue to default to what worked before to be fit to our environment (the ruthlessness and selfishness of us against them) and go extinct because that's no longer fit to the environment.

Or we can recognize that our Darwinian survival requires global unity and an awakening to deeper levels of loving-kindness... and Darwinian evolution and Spiral evolution become indistinguishable from one other. And then, we might make it as a species.

[Shane Hanlon]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I haven't read any Ken Wilbur. But I am familiar with his ideas around development versus awakening.

And I do think of humanity as developing through more and more conscious stages of societal evolution as our technology develops... and that people can be more or less developed along those Spiral Dynamics lines.

So, within the context of our species, I see that there is a kind of 10 steps forward and 9 steps back towards a more conscious and aware society, as is evident to me just from the changes in society and the paradigms we hold in the short time I've been alive.

But in terms of evolution (in the Darwinian sense), humanity hasn't always been in a situation where more conscious humans are the most fit to the environment.

In fact, the ability to be selfish, ruthless, and unconscious has conferred immediate survival and reproduction value up until present day... though it sabotages our collective survival and ability to raise healthy children who will be good for our collective survival.

But right now is an exciting time to be alive.

In our globalized world with air travel, the internet, and the atom bomb... we are in a place where we need to wake up to love and oneness or go extinct. Develop or die.

It is only just now that our Darwinian survival of evolving to be the most fit to our environment... and development within the Spiral (in the ways that Wilbur speaks about) start to converge in ways that can only be ignored to our collective peril.

And we may simply continue to default to what worked before to be fit to our environment (the ruthlessness and selfishness of us against them) and go extinct because that's no longer fit to the environment.

Or we can recognize that our Darwinian survival requires global unity and an awakening to deeper levels of loving-kindness... and Darwinian evolution and Spiral evolution become indistinguishable from one other. And then, we might make it as a species.

This is true and I agree with it on human time scales. However, on larger time scales (like from the beginning of time) Ken Wilbers ideas on evolution have somewhat altered my view. I'd recommend (if you don't care to read his work) asking chat gpt about his views on the direction of evolution in his book sex, ecology, spirituality.