French Revolution and Spiral Dynamics

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Emerald I'm at a loss how to reveal social inequalities to help people advance upward on the scale. Sometimes it seems my efforts are counter-productive. It can be really discouraging at times. I appreciate your efforts - it gives me hope and motivates me to get better at this.

The best thing to do is to take a broader and non-ideological stance on the issue. Be ready to be a heretic on either of the two main sides in your mind as you contemplate and observe. Then, just say what you've noticed and deliver it in a way that is optimally palatable to everyone's ego. If you come directly at their ego, they will recoil and hide and guard themselves from it. So, instead of coming directly at the issues, you come from the peripheries of the issue and the scaffolding up underneath the issue that holds it up.

And level with people when they're correct, even if it seems to go against the "right ideology."

For example, people on the right are not correct that the power system issues don't exist. And they're wrong that the power system issues are static and natural and the "glue" that keeps societies together. But they are correct that there is a thing such as masculinity and femininity. And they are correct that biology plays a role in a lot of different things. They just use those truths to solidify and otherwise incorrect worldview that leads to a lot of distortions and unconsciousness because the power systems can't evolve when so many people resist against it. 

Also, keep in mind that the left's Green ideology is still an incomplete picture, even though it is highly akin to the next step in societal evolution. Detaching from all progressive beliefs and honestly contemplating uncomfortable questions will give you many insights. Be willing to see yourself in a negative light. 

This may be even easier to do if you don't have too many demographic factors that make these questions even more uncomfortable. But it may be harder in the sense that it's easy to get power-drunk, lazy, or too comfortable just a couple layers down. A lot of men tend to end up in this trap. They start digging on this issue, and find some validating things and get stuck where the nice stories of male dominance and female submission are... in other words it brings sexual pleasure and a sense of empowerment that they may not feel otherwise. So, they don't want to dig any deeper for fear of losing the excitement of that shallow depth. 

But I don't have to risk getting comfortable because I'm a woman. And I just keep digging to see what's there. So, I have to ask questions like, "Why were women under the control of men across cultures for so long?" "Was that natural or was it a mistake?" "Why have things changed now?" "Are these changes a mistake?" "What function did the oppression of women serve that it no longer needs to serve?" "Is my life wrong because I am an autonomous woman who shares their ideas and does what I want?" "Is my freedom from oppression wrong?" and other such questions like this. These are very troubling and dark questions to ask for me. But when you can go down into the mucky nastiness of the issue, the pieces start to click into place, and you will be able to see more why society has evolved in the way that it has evolved. And you'll be able to see where society is likely going next. 

So, the number one thing is to dig deeper on the issues and look at them without distortion or wanting particular outcomes in society. 

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

The exposure to yellow and turquoise perspectives has got me to realize how people just think and love at their level of consciousness, and you have to deal with it. They are the first ones to suffer from their lack of awareness and this is sad.

That's a good point. I'd say I'm still Green-centered and working on transitioning to Yellow.

It's much harder for me to see suffering within the majority group with power. In Blue and Orange stages a sense of isolation can lead to suffering.

In Blue, there is an "Us vs Them" mentality. For my parents, Us = white Christians and Them = everyone else. Their world keeps getting smaller and smaller. It's caused strain with their friendships and connection with family members. 

In Orange, there can be an over-emphasis on personal freedom, personal desires and achievements. Overly focused on the self a desire to complete oneself from external gains (money, women, power, knowledge etc). This can lead to a lack of human connection and isolation.

The SD model states that these are the type of crises that motivate people to evolve higher.

[TomDashingPornstar]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Okay, first off why would men get erections when their girlfriends are crying? I don't think this is something that men typically get turned on by. It sounds more like a fetish to me. Maybe men might get an erection when their girlfriend is in a receptive or submissive pose... this feels very normal. Or perhaps to take that dynamic further into a BDSM kind of extreme dominance/submission situation... also feels normal, but a kinkier brand of normal. But crying = erection, I don't think is a common thing. So, I definitely don't think that's an aspect of male nature... or not that I've noticed anyway.

Also, women don't only marry equal or up. There may be a tendency of women to do this in general in terms of wanting a guy who has a good job. But my husband and I have equally low-paying jobs, even though he makes a bit more than me as he is a server at a nice restaurant and I'm a substitute teacher. But he got that job after we got together. 

What I've noticed in myself and my friends is that women usually seek out men who mirror them in terms of values or identity. Or they want a guy who is equal or slightly lesser in physical attractiveness so that they can be the peacock of the relationship. But women like men as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. There is no particular ingredient that will make a man attractive to any given women. It's how all the ingredients come together, and the particular taste of the woman. 

Red Pill kind of stuff, which doesn't accurately reflect the core of masculinity... and especially doesn't reflect the core of femininity. 

But again, I'm not really seeing how your ideas about hormones and gender go together with most of the ideas that I've been talking about. Do you believe that society has one set "natural" way to go, and that this is the way that our society has been? And now all these "unnatural" movements like the body positivity movement are coming around and trying to change nature? 

If so, then you neglect to see the variety in social structures all throughout human history. Expression of masculinity and femininity all comes trough a cultural lens to have form. So, the expressions of the masculine and feminine are varied and always in flux. But the energies themselves are subtle, and remain unchanged. But because they are subtle energies, they have no expression on their own. So, they need cultural lenses to express themselves through. So, humanity has many different "naturals". 

Also, the body positivity movement doesn't have anything to do with erections. It has to do with people's ability to accept their own bodies for what they are and to feel good about themselves regardless of what they look like. It doesn't mean trying to convince other people that all body types are sexually attractive. It has to do with all body types being valid. 

 

All I can say about the crying thing is, there have been various discussions on Reddit about it, and when a girl cries on a man's shoulder she sinks into him.  I don't mean making her cry, I mean just crying in general for any reason at all often turns to something badass in a few minutes.

I certainly agree with you on the Red pill movement.  It is an extremely inaccurate version of masculinity and also extremely unhealthy for those men.  But right now, it's the only support they have.  There aren't extensive support networks for positive masculinity.  Real Social Dynamics helps some men, but that stage should only go on for so long, and it's not for everyone.

Yeah I agree, shared values is key in relationships.  But right now, zero cultures come to my head where hypergamy isn't existent. That is something that the Red Pill is correct about.  I'm about to order the book Sex at Dawn to see what happens with that paradigm.

Obviously, I don't believe society has one set of ways of doing things, but I do think that power accumulation is primarily driven by reproductive hormones in order to provide for families.  I'll leave you alone on body acceptance campaigns, I don't really have an issue with it.  But men will be attracted to certain body types.

[TomDashingPornstar]

@Serotoninluv I assure you it is not as niche as you think, lol.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

All I can say about the crying thing is, there have been various discussions on Reddit about it, and when a girl cries on a man's shoulder she sinks into him.  

A woman coming to a man, crying on his shoulder and sinking in to him is MUCH different than simply generic crying. The level of intimacy is much higher and I can see how that can transcend into sexuality and turn a guy on.

In general, I imagine that there are multiple dynamics going on leading to the erection - it's not just the crying. If a woman was crying at a funeral, I doubt many men there would get an erection. It depends on context. Crying itself is insufficient for most men.

[Galyna]

6 hours ago, CreamCat said:

You are assuming that sexual attraction for kids is bad. In the past, people used to think being gay was a disease. Gay brain was bad and had problems. To me, pedophilia is an unusual sexual orientation just like homosexuality, bisexuality, and so on. What is actually bad is child abuse. Thinking about having sex with children is not child abuse. Thinking about having rough monkey sex with women as a heterosexual man is not rape. I think about having various kinds of rough monkey sex with women every day, but I haven't assaulted women, yet. You can say the same about every heterosexual man. Actually, I haven't had sex with women, yet. In japan, a large portion of male population never had sex despite watching porn regularly. It's told that most pedophiles are just like us. They have sexual urge, but most of them can control it.

Low consciousness porn is said to affect sexual performance, but it doesn't say anything about crimes. Almost every man watches porn, yet only a few of them commits actual rape or repetitive sexual harassment. I don't care much about porn's effects on sexual performance because being bad at sex is not a crime.

CreamCat, I am not sure why have you raised pedophilia topic so many times? Is it to sabotage the people here for various reasons or you mascaraed your deepest issues under the simple discussion and/or wanted to taste the waters, or just hear people’s opinion. It is not a blame, I do not care, but when I read you, I had a feeling that your inquiry about it and desire to discuss this matter carry purpose. The way I noticed it was how you entered this thread. You immediately threw biological sex into the discussion. Also, you mentioned that you have never had sex, how can you advocate for pedophile then? If you never had experience of coitus, how would you know or assume what pedophiles feel or crave for? That is confusing. The pattern of your discussion leads me to believe that you did it for some reason, because usually, people are not so passionate to discuss something so many times if it is not appealing to them, plus you wanted to know Leo’s opinion about this, however he raised this topic a couple of times in a few videos. As well as you threw a couple of contradictory thoughts masquerading them under spiral dynamic biases. People who addressed your question probably did not have time to read between the lines to understand your cognitive structure. I get that pedophilia is a very sensitive topic and would be crazy to confess in front of a large auditory of readers about your sexual inclination. I might be wrong. I just saw a couple of the red flags within the discussion and started to wonder why you are so preoccupied with this premise. Again, this might be my personal projection but I love and am very passionate about questioning others’ motives.   

Secondly, the problem of pedophilia is that the child’s consciousness is not ready and developed enough to fully grasp the act and purpose of sexual intimacy. I am 32 yo and have feeling that I have no clue what real intimacy and sex are yet. This field is so broad and we can explore this field the whole entire life. So which side do you want to discuss here, just a physical act of having sex with a child?  Or mental gratification or pleasure that a child or adult can receive from this action? We need to address both aspects. Please do not get me wrong, I acknowledged everything you said here and have the compassion to those people who are in need to practice this sort of sexuality. But think about it from this point of view: what is the gain from this for those practicing it? and what benefit lies behind it? To explore this and answer this question, we have to address what is real sexual intimacy between two people or groups of people? Same or opposite genders. You must grow for sexual intimacy to fathom it fully. It is not just a simple orgasming or penis friction, or other ways to express it via your body. Real intimacy and great sex start from mental and emotional intimacy. How can you expect little human being to produce this kind of criteria for a great sex, if their thinking faculty is not evolved enough yet to grasp this? Just to derive physical pleasure? Well, then you can really fuck everything and anything for this purpose and claim it should gain social acceptance due to the nature of this need. To answer my question, please define sex here, the purpose of it and its benefit. I am willing to discuss this with you, I just want to shed more light on this issue.

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The best thing to do is to take a broader and non-ideological stance on the issue. Be ready to be a heretic on either of the two main sides in your mind as you contemplate and observe. Then, just say what you've noticed and deliver it in a way that is optimally palatable to everyone's ego. If you come directly at their ego, they will recoil and hide and guard themselves from it. So, instead of coming directly at the issues, you come from the peripheries of the issue and the scaffolding up underneath the issue that holds it up.

And level with people when they're correct, even if it seems to go against the "right ideology."

For example, people on the right are not correct that the power system issues don't exist. And they're wrong that the power system issues are static and natural and the "glue" that keeps societies together. But they are correct that there is a thing such as masculinity and femininity. And they are correct that biology plays a role in a lot of different things. They just use those truths to solidify and otherwise incorrect worldview that leads to a lot of distortions and unconsciousness because the power systems can't evolve when so many people resist against it. 

Also, keep in mind that the left's Green ideology is still an incomplete picture, even though it is highly akin to the next step in societal evolution. Detaching from all progressive beliefs and honestly contemplating uncomfortable questions will give you many insights. Be willing to see yourself in a negative light. 

This may be even easier to do if you don't have too many demographic factors that make these questions even more uncomfortable. But it may be harder in the sense that it's easy to get power-drunk, lazy, or too comfortable just a couple layers down. A lot of men tend to end up in this trap. They start digging on this issue, and find some validating things and get stuck where the nice stories of male dominance and female submission are... in other words it brings sexual pleasure and a sense of empowerment that they may not feel otherwise. So, they don't want to dig any deeper for fear of losing the excitement of that shallow depth. 

But I don't have to risk getting comfortable because I'm a woman. And I just keep digging to see what's there. So, I have to ask questions like, "Why were women under the control of men across cultures for so long?" "Was that natural or was it a mistake?" "Why have things changed now?" "Are these changes a mistake?" "What function did the oppression of women serve that it no longer needs to serve?" "Is my life wrong because I am an autonomous woman who shares their ideas and does what I want?" "Is my freedom from oppression wrong?" and other such questions like this. These are very troubling and dark questions to ask for me. But when you can go down into the mucky nastiness of the issue, the pieces start to click into place, and you will be able to see more why society has evolved in the way that it has evolved. And you'll be able to see where society is likely going next. 

So, the number one thing is to dig deeper on the issues and look at them without distortion or wanting particular outcomes in society. 

I still have some Tier 1 issues to work through. I can get into the frame of mind that if more people would just evolve up to Green and see things "our" way - we would have more peace, love and harmony in the world. I like how you shifted the focus inward and work through deeper inquiries.

I know Leo did a video on Yellow stage, I'll re-watch it. I think it would be cool to workbook for high Green transitioning to Yellow. There aren't that many Yellow-level teachers out there. The Turquoise-level teachers teach to a Green audience. Yet, no one seems to be teaching Green to Yellow.

[SFRL]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

@Serotoninluv @Emerald

Those stories of yours brother and friend John are examples of how the Family Law court is canted against men in their own right. 

But those are examples where the mother is an edge case, SO it's better for the father to have full custody. 

BUT the majority of the cases both parents are just normal people, both perfectly suitable to raise kids. And if the father does not fight the case (spends a shit load of money on lawyers) he does get stiffed with having his children every other weekend, and dinner on on Wednesday evening. 

Having his children every other weekend, and Wednesday evening dinner. That's the standard court verdict. 

So the dad becomes a glorified babysitter. 

 

Now again we are not talking about edge cases here. Just normal regular people. Why should the standard ruling not be to assume both parents having custody of the kids? And an equal amount of time shared with the kids? 

It's flashy to discuss the edge cases. But although I am sure not intentional, it does injustice to the normal regular dad dealing with a normal regular mom. 

 

Now on top of that let me explain how childsupport works, because most people don't know this. 

To determine how much childsupport a parent needs to pay there are really TWO BIG factors. 

1. The parent that earns more money is the one paying child support to the other parent. The bigger the gap in income the more the higher earner needs to pay. I am sure everyone is familiar with this. 

2. This is the interesting one. Because most people don't know about this one. The more you see your children the less child support you have to pay. The less you see your children the more you have to pay. 

Now the guy who only gets to see his children every other weekend and on Wednesday evening he effectively realy sees his children 3 out of every 14 days. Much less then the mom. So the guy ends up paying a lot more, because the court ruled he can only see his children that little. 

So he gets screwed twice. 1. He is not allowed to see his children much at all. 2. He ends up paying a lot more because he is not allowed to see his children a lot. 

 

Now ofcourse a father needs to provide for his children. But it's not a good feeling to be handing over money to the mother and then she decides what's gets done with it. If the dad is a capable parent he should be able to spend the money directly on his children in my opinion. 

On top of that a lot of times fathers end up paying more then what the mother spends on the children. Effectively sponsoring the mothers lifestyle and not the needs of the kids. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by SFRL

[Annoynymous]

1 hour ago, now is forever said:

@Annoynymous mhhh complex. are you sure it’s impossible to start with more green values? i know how the discrepancy between the actual situation and green is. think about some cultural knowledge and how green export could be a way.

you see how problematic orange can get if it’s strictly orange...

Well leo said that no stage can be skipped to go further. So we have to be at orange first. Otherwise they won't resonate with green value.

 

1 hour ago, now is forever said:

@Annoynymous mhhh complex. are you sure it’s impossible to start with more green values? i know how the discrepancy between the actual situation and green is. think about some cultural knowledge and how green export could be a way.

you see how problematic orange can get if it’s strictly orange...

1 hour ago, now is forever said:

@Annoynymous mhhh complex. are you sure it’s impossible to start with more green values? i know how the discrepancy between the actual situation and green is. think about some cultural knowledge and how green export could be a way.

you see problematic orange can get if it’s strictly orange...

1 hour ago, now is forever said:

@Annoynymous

 

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

All I can say about the crying thing is, there have been various discussions on Reddit about it, and when a girl cries on a man's shoulder she sinks into him.  I don't mean making her cry, I mean just crying in general for any reason at all often turns to something badass in a few minutes.

I guess so. But I think that vulnerability and intimacy of her sharing her feelings with the man and the man being there to support her is more what the attraction is about, and not the crying itself. The only man I ever met who spoke about enjoying that sexually was a friend of mine from college. He was turned on by the idea of being the white knight to a woman in distress. And I guess this wouldn't be an uncommon desire. It's just that the crying=erection thing doesn't sound like something most men would say is a turn-on in and off itself.

12 minutes ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

I certainly agree with you on the Red pill movement.  It is an extremely inaccurate version of masculinity and also extremely unhealthy for those men.  But right now, it's the only support they have.  There aren't extensive support networks for positive masculinity.  Real Social Dynamics helps some men, but that stage should only go on for so long, and it's not for everyone.

I agree that there's a lot of men who don't really know how to get in touch with their masculinity in a healthy way. There aren't good examples or supports for doing that. Most of it is taken from the garbage cans of history and cobbled together to create some semblance of the masculine. But looking to history or groups for the masculine in the current day, is not realistic. It has to be sought out internally, as these energies are immutable. Then, if you gravitate toward certain things, your natural energy will come to the table.

16 minutes ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

Yeah I agree, shared values is key in relationships.  But right now, zero cultures come to my head where hypergamy isn't existent. That is something that the Red Pill is correct about.  I'm about to order the book Sex at Dawn to see what happens with that paradigm.

You're not going to have a society completely free of women who use men for money, ever. There will always be gold-diggers. 

But I never really looked to money as an indicator of attraction until I was trying to gain social status myself through conforming to social expectations and being a young adult with a white collar career. I really banked my identity on making it into the middle class. Then, I began to find signifiers of maturity and being middle class to upper middle class to be physically attractive. And I would have fantasies about sexual interactions with older men who were in higher positions in my field. So, I would be attracted to a male boss because he represented something that I wanted. It wasn't that he made more money than me. I was just attracted to the projection onto him and sort of seeing him as what I wanted to be like. 

Currently, this was never the case prior to valuing social status in myself. When I was a teenager, I liked poor tough guys who had long hair, who smoked pot, wore a lot of black, and did edgy things. Because I identified myself with those things. They were things that I liked. So, I liked those guys because they were an embodiment of the things that I was into. 

So, I sought these things out of a sense of congruence and/or admiration for what the guy was into because I was into those things. It wasn't really about wealth or status... but about the guy leading a lifestyle that I resonated with and would like to join him in. It's just that a lot of women would like to have a lifestyle that includes a nice home and middle class things and all that bourgeois stuff. So, they will be attracted to men who live that lifestyle.

So, I think the idea of hypergamy has a little bit to do with reality, but is ultimately a distortion of female nature. Unless a woman is a gold-digger, she's not going to be interested in a guy based on money. She may be subconsciously attracted to wealthy guys if she's trying to fit the persona of someone who would look right with a guy like that. 

26 minutes ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

Obviously, I don't believe society has one set of ways of doing things, but I do think that power accumulation is primarily driven by reproductive hormones in order to provide for families.  I'll leave you alone on body acceptance campaigns, I don't really have an issue with it.  But men will be attracted to certain body types.

As a highly motivated woman, I have to disagree with this because it is incongruent with my experience of my internal world. I can see in myself that I've always had a strong creative drive and very passion focused life. I enjoy competition for self-betterment, setting/reaching goals, ideation, and serving people in the best ways I know how. So, if it were on the basis of a man's drive to provide for his family, then I wouldn't get so jazzed up about these things. It wouldn't even come up as a desire for me. Plus, women lose the ability to reproduce in middle-age, and yet their behaviors in these ways remain the same. There is still motivation in lieu of the potential for creating and raising a new child. Also, on another note, many of the most powerful men have inherited their power from their fathers. So, a lot of powerful people have just been born into it.

So, I believe in more of a sexual transmutation perspective on this matter. Libidinal energy can express as sexual energy if it's kept low. But if someone exalts the libidinal energy it can be used to produce and provide services for humanity... or even to transcend the ego. So, I think that the people who accrue the most power will always be the people with the form of libidinal energy that has been exalted to the level of societal success. This is presently easier for a man to achieve because there is no strong taboo in the most influential social circles of a man taking ownership of his own libidinal energy, where women have to walk a bit of a tightrope if they want to own their libidinal energy and maintain their social status within the most influential circles.

But if a person doesn't care as much about social status, they will be able to be more creative without the max level of influence. And we're seeing more of this kind of thing come through with the open nature of the internet. 

[Forestluv]

@Galyna The issue CreamCat raised for me is: what is the healthiest way to view/treat adults that have unwanted sexual desires for children? There is a huge stigma against this. Many of these adults were abused as children and many do not want to experience these impulses. I imagine most repress their urges and fear being judged or ostracized. The movie "Little Children" dug deep into the suffering of a pedophile that didn't want to feel the urges he was. It was heart-breaking. . . Here, I'm just considering adults that have unwelcomed sexual desires for children. Those that don't want to feel that way, but cannot change it. I bet it's more common than most think. They repress it and fear others finding out. I suppose they could go to a psychologist, yet there would be fear that the psychologist would report them as an imminent threat. Aren't these cases within the broader "harm impulse" disorders? This would include postpartum depression. I've known mothers with strong harm desires to kill their own children. They didn't want to feel this way and couldn't change it. They thought they were a monster and terrified that someone would find out - so they repressed it. I have a friend who had it so bad she thought she would be overcome by the urge and actually kill her child - she almost killed herself so she wouldn't kill her child. There has been a lot of awareness of postpartum depression and less stigma. I'm wondering if many pedophiles experience a similar form of suffering. I haven't had postpartum or pedophile urges - but I have had a harm impulse episode and it was absolutely awful. There was an impulse to harm someone I loved and I could not turn it off. I couldn't share the experience with anyone or ask for help. I believed there was an evil monster within me. I questioned my sanity and it was perhaps the worst suffering I have endured in my life. I think about this experience regarding people that have unwanted harm impulses they can't stop. I've seen it brought up several times on the forum. In the cases of unwanted impulses, I think there should be less stigma and more help available for them. I don't know what that help would be. Would 2D child porn help alleviate the symptoms or intensify the symptoms? I don't know.

[now is forever]

@Annoynymous mhhh. for your own development yes. for a country it might not matter if an orange stage is based on a multitude of colors understanding your cultural heritage? i‘m a regionalist if it’s about economy - if you still have values don’t loose them but think global. that’s a cultural heritage of europe.

Edited October 10, 2018 by now is forever

[CreamCat]

1 hour ago, Galyna said:

I had a feeling that your inquiry about it and desire to discuss this matter carry purpose. The way I noticed it was how you entered this thread. You immediately threw biological sex into the discussion. Also, you mentioned that you have never had sex, how can you advocate for pedophile then? If you never had experience of coitus, how would you know or assume what pedophiles feel or crave for?

You're right. I didn't have sex with pedophiles when I was a child. I am not a pedophile myself, either. I don't have direct experiences with pedophilia.

1 hour ago, Galyna said:

Secondly, the problem of pedophilia is that the child’s consciousness is not ready and developed enough to fully grasp the act and purpose of sexual intimacy. I am 32 yo and have feeling that I have no clue what real intimacy and sex are yet.

Notice that you have a specific way of interpreting raw data. I just noticed that I had one, too. People interpret children's relative naivety in one way or another. In one of Leo's videos, he said that there are infinitely many ways to interpret raw data and none of them is truth. Given what he said on this thread, he is very likely to object that that argument is related to nonduality and doesn't pertain to social issues. But, for me, there is no clear separation of nonduality teachings from other things.

I was deluded about the whole topic of pedophilia. But, others are deluded about it too because they don't have direct experiences, either. It's like two blind persons talking about the shape of a skyscraper by touching it on the ground level.

Once you recognize that you were adding interpretations upon interpretations to raw data, you will not be so sure about your opinions. I guess I was trying to demonstrate that we take our bullshits too seriously.

Let me add more bullshits. I'd like to add that any degree of intelligence that you have as a human is tiny compared to infinite intelligence which also manifests itself in social structures and education system. Infinite intelligence is the order of the whole system. The order of a whole society is also part of infinite intellgience. In specific configurations of society, it may not be safe to have sex until age 30. In other specific configurations, it may be safe for most children to have sex due to infinite intelligence scaffolding human intelligence. We can talk eloquently and have various kinds of sex because of infinite intelligence, not because of human intellect. Without social structures, you can't even speak human language. Human intellect would become very primitive like a chimpanzee without the help of infinite intelligence. Human intellect is the work of infinite intelligence. Look at what happens to people who spend their first years with animals. Beyond a certain point, such people cannot learn human language until death. If you were raised by wolves, you would act like wolves until death. You acquire wolf intelligence.

I suspect that we assume children are incapable of safe sex because we attribute our results to human intellect. What's great is not human intellect, but infinite intelligence. Even, chimpanzees beat human mind in some areas. If you tap into infinite intelligence the right way, an 8 years old child can get a PhD. If you don't tap into infinite intelligence, you might even give up getting a PhD at age 35. I think the same can apply to sex.

I hypothesize that with the right structures, it's possible for infinite intelligence to make people good at sex before they hit puberty. It's basically infinite intelligence accelerating learning process. Our current model of bureaucratic education system is extremely inefficient. Infinite intelligence is an aspect of God. God can surely make people good at sex before they hit puberty. But, it's just a hypothesis, and I know that it is just another interpretation of raw data. Ignore me if you think I'm bullshitting.

Edited October 10, 2018 by CreamCat

[TomDashingPornstar]

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I guess so.

Simple as that.

 

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But I never really looked to money as an indicator of attraction until I was trying to gain social status myself

That's called hypergamy. It's your hormones, and it usually doesn't kick until you're just about 30 or a little earlier.  People need space and abundance to start families, and so do mammals.  This is instinctual.  This doesn't mean you won't be attracted to edgy guys.  Dual mating strategy is a thing in birds and people.  

 

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

As a highly motivated woman, I have to disagree with this because it is incongruent with my experience of my internal world. I can see in myself that I've always had a strong creative drive and very passion focused life.

Cool, it's not going to be the same for everyone. Not all men provide for three families either, but it's just a small example of something that could easily be offsetting power balances that nobody cares to properly look at.  I feel like feminism has completely disregarded hormonal drives as a source of inequality.  Definitely nothing to dismiss.

Edited October 10, 2018 by TomDashingPornstar

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

Notice that you have a specific way of interpreting raw data. I just noticed that I had one, too. People interpret children's relative naivety in one way or another. In one of Leo's videos, he said that there are infinitely many ways to interpret raw data and none of them is truth. Given what he said on this thread, he is very likely to object that that argument is related to nonduality and doesn't pertain to social issues. But, for me, there is no clear separation of nonduality teachings from other things.

To me, this is a broad form of moral relativism - not nonduality. You are saying that how people interpret data is relative to them and there are an infinite number of interpretations of pedophilia and none of them is truth. That is moral relativism. One can take it one level higher and claim that there are an infinite number of interpretations of moral relativism and each of those is relative to the person and none of them is truth. That would be relativism. 

I think relativism is at a higher level than rationalism - not due to complexity. Rather, because relativism is so much more unpalatable than rationalism (for most people). Orange stage rational thinkers hate relativism. I have found that relativism can be a huge trigger for Orange and relativists can be incredibly annoying to have discussions with. All they need to do is keep saying "Well, that view is just relative to you - it's not true". It's green/yellow level thinking that can get unhealthy. A person can go around causing harm and keep saying "Your interpretation is just relative to you. That is just one interpretation of an infinite number of interpretations". 

For example: An alcoholic loses his job and beats his children - she confronts him saying "Your drinking is harming the family, you need to get help". He responds "Your interpretation is relative to you. My interpretation is that I am a wonderful father. There are an infinite number of interpretations - none are true". 

Relativism is a powerful tool of thinking - but it can be used in unhealthy ways. That's why objectivists hate it so much.

[CreamCat]

@Serotoninluv That was a bit of relativism. I basically wanted to say that we shouldn't be sure or dogmatic about certain beliefs. I could see through beliefs which others were not so sure about. People are desperately trying to believe beliefs which they are not sure of. I have beliefs I'm trying to believe, too.

Your beliefs are fragile. Actuality is not.

People are so sure about pedophilia while they know little about it. I'm talking about actuality rather than relativism.

In a similar manner, people are so sure that not sending children to public schools will ruin them. Well, I'm relatively sure that I can guide education of my future children myself. I will know after I acquire direct experiences with unschooling. Unschooling has been done for decades, and it has been working. I think public schools are good for parents who don't have money and time, but it's delusion to think that it is the only sane way.

Beliefs about compulsory education, unschooling, pedophilia, and so on really need revisions through direct experiences. I can see through dogmatism without direct experiences.

Edited October 11, 2018 by CreamCat

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

That's called hypergamy. It's your hormones, and it usually doesn't kick until you're just about 30 or a little earlier.  People need space and abundance to start families, and so do mammals.  This is instinctual.  This doesn't mean you won't be attracted to edgy guys.  Dual mating strategy is a thing in birds and people.  

But here's the thing. I was attracted to that when I was 22 to 25. But now I don't care about it again, and I'm 29. I phased out of wanting that social status because I found something more in congruence with my natural tendencies. I don't work at a white collar job anymore, I work for myself as a life-coach and I substitute teacher (I guess that one is kind of white collar). I also don't care about living a respectable life-style in accordance with the middle class aegis. Right now, I just want authenticity, stability, consciousness, and an easy-going life. And again, my idea of an attractive man has changed again to men with a "Rupert Spira-like" type of demeanor and a kind of mature and subtle masculinity.

So, again, this is not hypergamy... at least not as the theories on hypergamy go. It's more that for women, context matters. And they will look for men who are shining examples of what they value that are also congruent with them in terms of attractiveness. 

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, CreamCat said:

@Serotoninluv That was a bit of relativism. I basically wanted to say that we shouldn't be sure or dogmatic about certain beliefs. In your abusive father example, the father "believes" he is a good father which is yet another delusion. The family directly experienced physical damages. The fact that physical damages occurred and they are related to alcohol is just direct observation. Physical damage is raw data.

I hear you. Moral relativism is a great tool, yet it can be overused. Each SD stage provides a valuable tool: Blue provides rules and laws, Orange provides rational thought to guide the formation of rules and laws, Green provides relative thought to give insight into various perspectives and is a check against dogmatic views. All three tools are valuable - at least during this point in human history. 

Even your statements above are subject to relativism. You say "the father "believes" he is a good father which is yet another delusion.". Yet one could say "that is an interpretation relative to you. I believe the father is not delusional. There are an infinite number of interpretations for the alcoholic father. None of them is true."

You say "The family directly experienced physical damages.". Again, this is a relative interpretation. Who gets to decide what "damage" is? What you consider to be "damage", the father considers to be "a good thing". For example "I beat my child to teach him to have respect for his father. That is not damage. It is a good thing". 

We could go on and on down this rabbit hole. Relativism can be great. As you said, it is a great tool so we are not too sure or dogmatic about certain beliefs. Yet, one can take relativism to unhealthy extremes. A society based on unhealthy relativism would be anarchy. Lots of people would use it too justify unhealthy Orange or Red behaviors.

[CreamCat]

29 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

We could go on and on down this rabbit hole. Relativism can be great. As you said, it is a great tool so we are not too sure or dogmatic about certain beliefs. Yet, one can take relativism to unhealthy extremes. A society based on unhealthy relativism would be anarchy.

I wouldn't go that far down the rabbit hole of relativism. Read my comment above again. I wanted to use relativism to soften dogmas, but not to justify unhealthy behaviors. Beyond a certain point, relativism becomes ridiculous.

I advocate obtaining direct data through your own little experiments. Become a mad scientist for your own life. For any belief that people have, there are better beliefs. Do you believe in black holes? Or, do you want to test validity of black hole theory? Most beliefs are like black hole theory which is convincing but might crumble under examination. My current beliefs about pedophilia are a sand castle and can crumble in the future.

At least, I recognize my beliefs as a sand castle. Some people consider their beliefs as facts. I'm not sure whether Leo recognizes his beliefs as a sand castle because he seems to have strong convictions.

Edited October 11, 2018 by CreamCat

[Forestluv]

40 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

I wouldn't go that far down the rabbit hole of relativism. Read my comment above again. I wanted to use relativism to soften dogmas. Beyond a certain point, relativism becomes ridiculous.

I know. I was just saying to be careful with the relativism tool. The below statements could be used to neutralize someone else's views about morality and harm. In this case about pedophilia. Person A believes children are too young to make their own sexual decisions and that it is harmful for an adult to have sex with the child. Person B believes children can be mature enough to make their own sexual decisions and it is not harmful for an adult to have sex with them. Person B can use moral relativism to neutralize Person A's claim by saying "People interpret children's naivety in one way or another. There are an infinite number of ways to interpret data and none of them is true". I'm not saying this is your intention - yet in a discussion, that statement could be seen as discrediting someone's view. What if the data showed that 99% of children that have sex with an adult commit suicide and the other 1% suffer depression the rest of their lives? A person interprets that data to mean that pedophilia harms children. Would you still stand by your statement that the data can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and none of them is true?

I don't intend to mean that what you wrote is wrong. I'm just saying be aware of a slippery slope with relativism. It can shut down discussion and digging to deeper levels.

Consider another viewpoint that combines relativism and reason: "There are many ways to interpret the same set of data. Perhaps several interpretations hold some value. How can we connect the dots from various perspectives to create a more holistic view?". This acknowledges that their are relative views, that various views may have value and that it is possible to develop an integrated holistic view with even higher value. This isn't easy to do because one must be open to considering other views that make them uncomfortable. It is something I am working to get better at.

1 hour ago, CreamCat said:

Notice that you have a specific way of interpreting raw data. I just noticed that I had one, too. People interpret children's relative naivety in one way or another. In one of Leo's videos, he said that there are infinitely many ways to interpret raw data and none of them is truth.