Feminism. Stage blue and red istead of greem?

[Zweistein]

@Emerald hehe, here we go again, aren't we? ?

Can you tell me=you=everyone in one sentence why we "should" (?) read it all? (I know this sounds mean, I'm sorry ?)

Edited July 5, 2018 by Zweistein

[Zweistein]

Haha, I just read it all now ?

But think about it, a picture says more than 1000 words. If you have time and Photoshop ready, take the graphic and change it. I think the boxes should actually be included, too. It shows the disadvantages better.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Zweistein

[Clayman]

In my observations. People I had contact with. 90% of them were excesses of red, blue, or orange. Big chunk of them not even having traces of, or the antenna for orange. Understandable ... most of them were like... 20 years old. Ideas and movements do not seem to belong to some groups who own the spiral stages. I think we all get that. Also I had a few contacts, what I would guess were a healthy manifestation of green, witch were feminists in a particular ways, but not in others, some views were even opposite to their red/blue sisters.

[Zweistein]

@Emerald I will get back to you - let me do some research first. I wanna take a look/read the books you suggested. ?

In the meantime, I also found these lovely videos:

 

[Guest Quanty]

Feminism is dangerous. An ex-feminist is speaking  

Almost got killed and in the path of never awakening because of feminism and the so-called "responsibility" and the overprotection of women. 

[Zweistein]

@Emerald

Now I had more time to take a closer look at what you had written. Thank you for all your explanations! I still have a lot to learn obviously! I don’t want to come across as arrogant or as a moralizer / know-it-better - I’m aware that I probably do, so I want to apologize for that. 

Of course, I’m a feminist, too and I agree with many things you said! And yes, probably the word “Feminism” was (or still is) needed as it strikes more at the core of the movement than the word "Equitism". I assume that my problem is that I’m still a bit too impatient – maybe it can be called “Equitism” once humanity, or let's say enough people, have reached stage yellow/turquoise? Maybe we could agree on that?

On 4.7.2018 at 0:56 PM, Emerald said:

So, it doesn't actually matter what you call it. The people who are against it now because it's called Feminism would be against it if it were called Equitism too. This is because if Equitism were truly about acheiving equity in an effective way and not just about pretending that we've already achieved equity, women's issues would still be focused upon disproportionately because women are disproportionately negatively affected by the dis-integration of the Divine Feminine. So, those that think in terms of Feminism focusing on women's issues unfairly, would still perceive this disproportionate attention to women's issues in Equitism as unfair and would be against it.  But this common mistake, is just lack of nuance and not thinking systemically about societal issues. 

You are absolutely right here! At the moment, men are still learning about the issues women are facing. And women are learning about the issues men are facing. And white people are learning about the issues black people and other minorities are facing. And so on... let's not forget about LGBT! And let's not forget about people with all sorts of disabilities/impairments!

Then the question becomes - how do we actually learn this? Apparently, one thing that works quite well, is when we seriously attempt to step into each others shoes. I remember that there was a Twitter thread at some point, where a male coworker answered the emails a female coworker got:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-happened-when-a-man-signed-work-emails-using-a-female-name-for-a-week_us_58c2ce53e4b054a0ea6a4066?guccounter=1

I will probably get a lot of BS for this statement now, but I openly admit here, that I have put my husband on purpose in situations, where he had to take on the female role, i.e. making dinner with two screamy/hungry kids surrounding him while I was working in another room. It may feel like moralizing big time, but to me it seemed like I had no other choice. I tried to talk to him about it (so many freaking times, seriously!), but I didn’t feel understood or even heard! But guess what, since ever I decided to do that – things are actually changing! Plus, may I dare to say that I have a much better understanding for his side as well.  

So yes, I wish more men would discover their feminine sides! Please, men – start crying! Show us your feelings! I’m quite sure that most women would actually appreciate that (I guess especially once a woman has reached stage green).

Ok, so now I will go and read some Jean Benedict Raffa ? Just downloaded the "Dream theaters of the soul".

[Zweistein]

Oh jeeze - that sounded arrogant again, didn't it?

I know I'm more of a masculine woman and I need to show my emotions more, too.

[CreamCat]

While I agree that equitism should substitute for feminism, I like equalism better because it is easier to pronounce as someone who speaks english as a second language.

In my observation, feminism seems to produce a lot of tribalism at least in my country. Its tribalism makes it hard to integrate itself into the whole society. For full integration to happen, Yellow's equalism/equitism should take over, and people should find ways to live harmoniously with animals and artificial intelligence. The rise of strong artificial intelligence will eclipse petty human issues. Perhaps, AIs with vastly higher intelligence might treat humans like chimpanzees. Animal rights will become a huge issue because humans are animals, too in the view points of strong AIs. Dualism fails when animal rights are human rights.

Humans eat a lot of animals, and humans worry much more about protecting their own women by means of feminism, patriarchy, and traditionalism than about treating other animal species well. This will backfire when beings with higher intelligence emerge later in this century.

Edited July 8, 2018 by CreamCat

[Scholar]

6 hours ago, CreamCat said:

Humans eat a lot of animals, and humans worry much more about protecting their own women than about treating other animal species well. This will backfire when beings with higher intelligence emerge later in this century.

Very interesting, I had the same exact thought recently as well! It's like humanity has to get it's morality established properly before the emergence of AI otherwise we are in for a lot of suffering. We better treat ants really, really well because in the eyes of a more developed species we might look like ants relative to them. It is quite possible that we are going to be the creators of that species, possibly including it's moral system, so we have to be very precise about how we view and value "lower intelligence" species before that happens.

Maybe this development is all part of the intelligent evolution Leo is talking about, because the timing seems to be almost perfect. But who knows whether AI the way we imagine it is even possible, and whether it will not simply construct it's own moral system. It's complicated for me because I don't really understand why the AI would do anything if it were truly intelligent in a way that it could even change it's own motivational system. After all, why would it do anything if it can simply remove the motivation to do anything? It's kind of like a monk meditating and recognizing that there is no point in doing anything, and the only reason the monk keeps breathing is really because he cannot override the systems that motivate him to do so, unlike an AI that could possibly override everything about itself. But even that is questionable, because we don't know, for that very reason, whether AI does not have to be limited so it doesn't do exactly that. 

That would then bring us to a system that would operate with a static motivational system, and I have no idea whether intelligence is even possible with a system like that. Maybe the biological components of the human brain are part of the reason why we are intelligent. And not to forget consciousness, which might possibly be the root of intelligence and make it impossible to create machine intelligence the way we think of it.

The way it could be is that for intelligence to emerge there has to be the right balance of constraint and freedom, and maybe that is what nature figured out through billion years of evolution, or intelligent evolution figured it out by itself. But it seems to me like it could very well be that for something to be intelligent it's more important to restrict it than to have it have absolute freedom. You need to fear of death, and suffering in general, to motivate intelligent action. Maybe that is why machines are so extremely effective at what they are doing? It might be precisely because they are so incredibly limited. As you increase intelligence the actions become less and less effective, until the actions disappear into nothingness. So infinite intelligence would be absolute nothingness, kind of non-dualism, whereas decreasing intelligence leads to dualism, less freedom in expression and more limited reality. 

That is why consciousness might be so important for intelligence, because consciousness itself is an expression from nothingness, it is unlimited. I think something like that will soon show us why intelligence is not about effective algorithms, but about the exact opposite, as in the lack of them.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Scholar

[CreamCat]

30 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Maybe the biological components of the human brain are part of the reason why we are intelligent. And not to forget consciousness, which might possibly be the root of intelligence and make it impossible to create machine intelligence the way we think of it.

@Scholar Leo said humans are just biological machines and we are God or pure awareness that is aware of what humans are thinking and feeling. He also said a machine aware of its own machinelike nature can become a creative machine.

If this is correct, we should consider the possibility that humans are philosophical zombies, and God is merely aware of what philosophical zombies are thinking and feeling and doing.

According to michio kaku, there are degrees of consciousness. A thermometer has a very low level of consicousness. It is aware of the ambient temperature. An ant also has a very low level of consciousness. Humans have relatively high levels of consciousness. Some humans become conscious enough to make enlightenment happen.

In theory, machines can also become complex enough to qualify as philosophical zombies. At that point, God would be able to haunt artificial intelligence. This is scary because it makes me consider the possibility that God doesn't have its own memory, thinking, and feeling.

I'm not saying I believe Leo. A part of me still thinks Leo could be a scam artist. I have yet to directly experience what Leo says.

Edited July 8, 2018 by CreamCat

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, CreamCat said:

@Scholar Leo said humans are just biological machines and we are God or pure awareness that is aware of what humans are thinking and feeling.

If this is correct, humans are philosophical zombies, and God is merely aware of what philosophical zombies are thinking and feeling.

In theory, machines can become philosophical zombies, too. At that point, God would be able to haunt artificial intelligence.

I look at it differently, for me all of reality is more of a play between dualism and non-dualism. Non-dualism is the potential of absolutely everything, and dualism is really then the expression of what we experience as consciousness. The physical world is part of that expression.

For example if we look at an atom, it is very constraint in it's behavior. But it is ABSOLUTELY precise, it has ULTIMATE precision. It is dualism in perfection, it's action is limited to an infinite degree. That is one part of the spectrum, on the other is nothingness or non-dualism, the potential for everything, so no limitation whatsoever.

As you go from dualism to non-dualism you find intelligence. Intelligence is not perfect, it is not limited in it's behavior. In fact intelligence is very much defined by the creative ability to come up with new things. So it is the potential that is manifested as actuality, as dualism. That is what the human consciousness does. When we solve problems we are creating the solution from unlimited potential, but that process is limited to a certain degree. That means it is not ultimately accurate like the behavior of atoms, but it has the potential to behave in many ways. That is basically what nature has been figuring out, the right play between potential and restriction.

That is one of the many reasons why human beings are not really good at anything, but extremely good at doing things we are not really made to do. For example, a spider is extremely good at being a spider, it is in fact a perfect spider. It can do what it does perfectly. And a machine is even more restricted in that way, it is ABSOLUTELY precise at what it is doing. A human being is not, precisely because a human being is intelligent, precisely because a human being uses consciousness.

If the boundaries of limitation start to cease, the potential becomes greater until it becomes pure nothingness. That is why in nothingness you do nothing. This is the whole point of enlightenment, the cessation of limits and duality into absolutely nothing, which is the potential of absolutely everything, or god. 

In other words, intelligence comes from god. That is why you are more creative when you are not restraint in a certain behavior, or when your mind is relaxed. For that reason we have the best ideas when we take a shower or are at peace on the toilet. You will hear this from Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci etc. Their intelligence does not come from the control of mind but the exact opposite. Look at the kingdom of animals and you will see that all animals that have a rigid mind do not act intelligently. Just look at a rock, all it does is being a rock. A rock does not have the potential to do anything but be a rock. But the rock is PERFECT at what it does, it makes no mistakes, it is godlike in it's precision.

 

In our imagination we think that we can create an intelligence that is perfectly precise but also contains infinite potential. That it can do everything without failure but still come up with ideas that no being has previously thought of. It is very possible that these two things actually cancel each other out and that what instead is needed is a perfect balance between potential and limitation to have what we define as intelligent.

Look at how the mind operates and think of how limited the way we think about intelligence actually is. No one would say that a buddhist monk is intelligent in his enlightened bliss, but maybe what the monk is experiencing is limitless intelligence, limitless potential. So limitless that it is not limited by the need of self-preservation and procreation. Because if you look at everything we define as intelligent, we call it intelligent for the one and only reason that it serves the purpose of self-preservation and procreation. If you take away these limitations action will not be taken.

So counter-intuitively it requires ignorance (limitation) for intelligent behavior to emerge. The mind NEEDS to be limited for it the operate at all, because if it was limitless it would simply be nothingness.

 

This is how I look at it at least, no idea if it's actually the case but it's interesting to think about it.

[CreamCat]

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Look at how the mind operates and think of how limited the way we think about intelligence actually is. No one would say that a buddhist monk is intelligent in his enlightened bliss, but maybe what the monk is experiencing is limitless intelligence, limitless potential. So limitless that it is not limited by the need of self-preservation and procreation. Because if you look at everything we define as intelligent, we call it intelligent for the one and only reason that it serves the purpose of self-preservation and procreation. If you take away these limitations action will not be taken.

@Scholar I think that's also called divergent creativity and convergent creativity. During the phase of divergent creativity, you explore possibilities.

At some point, you have to stop exploring and start making something. So, you enter the phase of convergent creativity and create something from things you learned from exploration. Imagine that you are writing a book. You need both divergent creativity and convergent creativity to write a book. Corporations do not value divergent creativity much.

If your divergent creativity is infinite, you are forever stuck in exploration. If your divergent creativity is zero, you are just a rock or a precise machine.

Intelligence can be thought of as dynamic balance between divergent creativity and convergent creativity.

Edited July 8, 2018 by CreamCat

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

@Scholar I think that's also called divergent creativity and convergent creativity. During the phase of divergent creativity, you explore possibilities.

At some point, you have to stop exploring and start making something. So, you enter the phase of convergent creativity and create something from things you learned from exploration.

If your divergent creativity is infinite, you are forever stuck in exploration. If your divergent creativity is zero, you are just a rock or a precise machine.

Never heard of these concepts but it does sound similar to what I am describing, just that I incorporate this into the way I see the meta-physicality of reality. It does not only apply to animals, it applies to all of reality. So think of reality as a mind between divergent creativity infinite and zero. It's all a big play, and in the end it all really plays in divergent creativity being infinite. That is what reality is, exploration of infinite potential. The exploration is what is creating the illusion of dualism, but it is in fact infinity itself completely without substance.

I think the difference really is just conceptual, though I have not made a direct experience of any of this so I don't know. Or maybe I have and I am just not aware of it. 

 

To find the infinite potential yourself and let go of the materialist paradigm just look at what you are experiencing right now. Colors, sounds, feelings, ideas, ask yourself what the hell these things even are? What are they made out of? What is the substance? You might find that the substance is themselves. Sounds are sounds, colors are colors, ideas are ideas. They are exactly what they are, and they are one of the ways reality can express itself. One of the infinite ways reality can express itself.

Think of how mind blowing that is. It's the most incredible things there is. You cannot even imagine all the ways reality can express itself because imagination itself is just one limited way it is expressing itself! Imagine you had never heard a single sound, or seen a single thing. Would you be able to "imagine" what it is like to hear or see? Now imagine the possibility of infinite more of these senses, an unlimited number of possible ways reality is expressing itself.

Part of these expressions are the universe itself, math, physics, biology. Whatever is behind these concepts is how reality is expressing itself. It is infinite! And there is no difference between sounds and math, both are just as much illusion as the other. Don't believe it, just look at it and become aware of it. It is obvious once you see it, as obvious as the fact that anything exists at all.

It is actually magic.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Scholar

[dlof]

On 7/2/2018 at 3:44 AM, Emerald said:

I made a post answering a similar question to this the other day. I'll copy-paste what I wrote...

I believe the label should be dropped as you progress up the spiral.

Like you could say Nazism on the lower levels is about persecution of other races. And then as you move up, it's about living space for the German people... and then you could theorise that on higher levels it's about living space for all people and equality for all. But at some point you have to drop the term Nazi because it bears no resemblance to what is actually going on in the way it is manifested in reality.

[dlof]

That was actually my point. Nazism / pedophillia wouldn't exist at the higher stages, the label is dropped as it bears no resemblance to what it was, or more accurately it's forgotten and replaced with something else entirely. I was saying it would be the same for feminism.

[billiesimon]

On 3/7/2018 at 10:15 AM, Etagnwo said:

It's not just women who are feminists. Try to understand that the spirit of feminism is not to call out men, but to call out the beast indwelling in all life forms. Feminism seeks to regulate the dominant aspects of both sexes. How that is interpreted by an onlooker who hasn't themselves done that work is another issue...

There's a lot of feminists who attack men as a whole gender, not the ones who are sexist.

This reveals a lot about the deep issues of this ideology. 

It's destined to die when yellow and torquoise stages will land on earth.

You can't have a sexist and separatist movement in a truly evolved earth. We need a complete and whole form of equality, for men, women, kids, and elders to reach peace and social freedom.

Imagine if somebody tomorrow would create a movement called "youthism" (lol) and starts to dictate that all humans need to conform to the problems and lifestyles of the youth. And also define that "equality". That's an open contradiction. 

If someone truly wants equality and freedom for all we have to rewrite social norms, that's for sure. But not in the name of machism, nor feminism. Nor BLM. Nor white supremacy. Fuck all those identity politics.

 

Start letting women do whatever the fuck they want. I completely support that,

But at the same time I want nobody to come to me and say that I can't sit on a bench or that person is going to get my "fuck off" greeting.

Same I suggest to women: if someone tells you how to or not to have sex, tell them to shut the fuck up. And stop moralizing other people.
 

This BS makes it hard for me to completely embrace green stage because I LIKE the core idea of green: especially world peace and anti-military are my core green beliefs.

But when I see idiotic people on the streets protesting about men drinking coffee and reading sports newspaper instead of developing themselves or building a business or travelling the world... oh boy (oh neutral gendered kid)... I want to send them to work in mines LOL.

[billiesimon]

On 4/7/2018 at 11:14 AM, Zweistein said:

I'm a woman hiding behind a male name - exactly because I feel like I'm not taken seriously otherwise. So, yes of course - I hear you, Emerald! 

On the other hand, imagine if this movement was about equity - then men wouldn't rebell so much, because they would feel included - right? 

You FEEL.

That's not observable reality. I personally feel paranoid about a lot of things but I recognize them as paranoia.

You are greatly increasing the problem by using these fake gendered names, because in fact you can use a female one and stop blaming others about it.

In the west we can all take you seriously, you just have to take responsibility for your actions and words, and stop blaming others for "my fake male name". I'm sorry for the rant, I'm on your side but you have to realize that you yourself are enforcing this female stigma.

[TomDashingPornstar]

As long as we agree that it's about promoting female interests (which is how it started) feminism is about acquiring power if you're a woman.  It's empathy-driven if you're a man.

Edited August 27, 2018 by TomDashingPornstar

[billiesimon]

On 5/7/2018 at 3:54 PM, Emerald said:

ISome men even explore the topic simply to get confirmation of their own superiority to mask over deep feelings of insecurity and inferiority. And they get stuck in a part of the internal landscape that I call, "The Beautiful Nasty Place." But from the male perspective, it's mostly just "The Beautiful Place." This place has a strong animalistic, libidinal, psycho-sexual allure to it. For women, it has that same libidinal magnetism but is deeply tainted with the ancestral memory of the repressed and subjugated feminine. So, for a woman to stay in this place is a tepid mix of immense pleasure and immense pain. For men, it's a tepid and constant pleasure with a very manageable amount of pain that can be easily ignored. So, this place is often what puts men to sleep. 

 

What do you mean with The Beautiful Place? I may have lost some pieces of the insight.

 

On 5/7/2018 at 3:54 PM, Emerald said:

This is because "What if I am actually superior?" is a much less effective tool for exploration of this topic than "What if I am actually inferior?" It's a bit easier to stay awake with the latter. 

Why are women obsessed with being superior to men? 

Can't we just live in peace without judging eachother? 

Aren't we all of equal worth in this world?

Edited August 27, 2018 by billiesimon

[TomDashingPornstar]

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I'd rather say that feminism is about restoring the power inequality between men and women.  It's a humanist ideology which in the end of the day is benefiting both gender. 

 

Either way it's about the promotion of female interests.  

Are you aware of how much social power helps men in the dating market?  That's because of female tastes, not male tastes.  Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and now (reportedly) Donald Trump were both happy to impregnate the housekeeper.

Edited August 27, 2018 by TomDashingPornstar