"My Descent into the Alt-Right Pipeline" Good video on internet radicalisation.

[mandyjw]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

You are touching upon a "place" I don't know how to communicate. That is part of the yearning, to communicate and express it. 

Sometimes there is surrender that it cannot be communicated and shared - and often a deep deep sense of sadness arises. 

There isn't resistance, yet I would say there is avoidance of it. 

Love can't be communicated, it can only be felt. Let it in. It can be shared though.  Just not through words. 

 

[Andreas]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There is an underlying dynamic here your mind-body doesn't seem open to observing. On a personal level, I think the storyline your mind is immersed in has a point and value. Yet your awareness won't expand if it stays contracted within that storyline.

This is an impersonal observation. If it is helpful, great. If not, ditch it.

What if it is your own mind that is unopen to new perspectives? Just a thought..

[now is forever]

we got two winners ??

can‘t believe it i just invented the devil award.

Edited April 22, 2019 by now is forever

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

LOL. Calling people "devils", "low consciousness", etc is not effective or helpful in anyway. How do you not see this?

I acknowledged that this storyline you are offering has a point and value. My sense is that I do see this.

I'm making another point: if you stay contracted within this storyline, your mind's awareness will not expand - it will stay contracted.

Sometimes pointing out conscious levels can be very helpful. I've been in many dynamics in which a mind is open to observing their own psychological dynamics and pointing out levels of consciousness has helped them. That is what they have told me.

However, in other dynamics using terms like "conscious levels" are not helpful at all. In the psychological dynamic playing out here, usage of conscious levels is not helpful. Your mind has shown a strong reaction to the term and you have explicitly said you don't like it. My sense is that using related pointers such as developmental "stages" would not be helpful either. I'd go so far to say that any type of hierarchical terminology and concepts in this dynamic here would not be helpful. I therefore find it to be a very difficult dynamic to engage with. My sense is that your mind-body wants to engage within this dynamic and has no interest in expanding beyond it. 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Love can't be communicated, it can only be felt. Let it in. It can be shared though.  Just not through words. 

Yes, that is something I am working to deepen. Thank you. 

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Andreas said:

What if it is your own mind that is unopen to new perspectives? Just a thought..

That is a good question. I would say psychological dynamics get more and more subtle/sneaky as a mind-body expands it's consciousness. When one works through psychological dynamics in themselves, it becomes very easy to spot in others. What used to be elusive and subconscious becomes totally obvious. Imagine the development of childhood to adolescence. Are there things that you are conscious of that a 5 year old child is not conscious of? Of course. Are there things a monk is aware of that you are not aware of? Of course.

The problem with the earlier stages of consciousness work is that the psychological self has control over the narrative. Within this the psychological self sees things as very personal. By it's nature it desires to protect and defend itself.  Are you "better" than a 5 y.o. child because you are more aware of certain things? Of course not. The two of you are simply at different developmental stages. 

During consciousness work, there comes a time in which perspectives and ideas are not "mine" or "yours". There are simply perspectives and ideas floating around in space. There is no attachment or identification to them. . . Imagine if we we listening to two different birds chirping. One in a pine tree and another in an oak tree. Imagine someone said to you "my bird chirps in the pine tree is better than your bird chirps in the oak tree". Wouldn't that sound odd to you? Yet that's what human minds to all the time with thoughts - they get attached to them and identify them.

Yet be aware of drawing false equivalencies. The idea that "well we both just have opinions here" can be a technique of an ego to maintain control of the narrative. It can neutralize another and block one's own mind from learning and expanding.

There are many many egoic games. It's fascinating to my mind.

[whoareyou]

22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I acknowledged that this storyline you are offering has a point and value. My sense is that I do see this.

I'm making another point: if you stay contracted within this storyline, your mind's awareness will not expand - it will stay contracted.

Sometimes pointing out conscious levels can be very helpful. I've been in many dynamics in which a mind is open to observing their own psychological dynamics and pointing out levels of consciousness has helped them. That is what they have told me.

However, in other dynamics using terms like "conscious levels" are not helpful at all. In this dynamic playing out here, usage of conscious levels is not helpful. My sense is that using related pointers such as "stages" would not be helpful either. I therefore find it to be a very difficult dynamic to work with. My sense is that your mind-body wants to engage within this dynamic and has no interest in expanding beyond it. 

You may see what I am saying, but you don't see how significant it is. 

Calling people "devils" and "low consciousness" without providing any reasoning is not effective, and also counterproductive. It is counterproductive, because in a lot situations, it will come off as threatening to the ego. It also comes off as arrogant and disrespectful. And at the end, you won't get your message across.

The goal is to deliver your message in the most effective way possible. The language that you choose plays a huge role in this, especially as you move into the higher stages and try to explain your POV to people you perceive to be in "lower stages".

If you are not aware of this or have lost sight of this, it means you are not as "conscious" or "aware" as you think you are.  

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by whoareyou

[Andreas]

1 minute ago, Etherial Cat said:

So now, it is a cult like behavior to try to put the light on social mechanisms which are almost totally consensual among academics and are taught at  top research universities like Harvard, etc?

Obviously, we're not facing individuals who are refusing to see a reality heavily backed by specialist in order to justify their own biases.

 

What are you talking about? He is basicly saying "You are wrong because you are stupid. And you are too stupid to realize you are stupid so I can't help you." This is pure stigmatization and cultish behaviour. Giving criticism to this is totally valid. Don't think professors do that at Harvard. That is, bully their students into believing what they feel is true. What you are trying to do is put a strawman on him with an incorrect context in order to defend your ideology. 

[Forestluv]

58 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

Enlightenment or tier 2 in spiral dynamics development are treated like necessities and if you are not in possession of those, then all you say is ego and bad; so do your practices and blindly believe what us, the mystics, tell you.

I appreciate this point and I find it helpful for my own development in communication. I can see how that impact you describe can cause inter-personal conflict. Thank you.

[Leo Gura]

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

You may see what I am saying, but you don't see how significant it is. 

From what I have observed, it can be a significant source of inter-personal conflict in some psychological dynamics, have a mild impact in some dynamics and have no impact in other dynamics. In the case here, it's obviously very significant. You are spending a lot of effort trying to express how significant it is.

26 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

Calling people "devils" and "low consciousness" without providing any reasoning is not effective, and also counterproductive. It is counterproductive, because in a lot situations, it will come off as threatening to the ego. It also comes off as arrogant and disrespectful. And at the end, you won't get your message across.

This is clearly true within this psychological dynamic. It's so purely true that a mind would not be able to see any falsities within it.

[Andreas]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I know your post was supposed to make us seem stupid and all, but it actually backfires and just makes our points even stronger.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I know your post was supposed to make us seem stupid and all, but it actually backfires and just makes our points even stronger.

This is a great example of relativity. My mind interpreted Leo's image very differently than your mind. Can you see that your mind gave relative meaning to that image and that the image has no inherent universal objective meaning? My mind gave it different meaning than yours, so it clearly has relative meaning. 

[Andreas]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is a great example of relativity. My mind interpreted Leo's image very differently than your mind. Can you see that your mind gave relative meaning to that image and that the image has no universal objective meaning? My mind gave it different meaning than yours, so it clearly has relative meaning. 

Not in itself, but when you put it all into context it makes perfect sense.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Andreas

[Joseph Maynor]

The reality is that there are pros and cons to both liberalism and conservativism, and the Stage Yellow and above person keeps the pros but ditches the cons and gets away from being ideological one way or the other.  People get so entrenched in ideology that it thwarts your ability to be open and to solving problems where you need the best idea for the job no matter what it's labeled as.  Sometimes it's best to be a little more liberal and sometimes it's best to be a little more conservative, it depends on the context.  You can see how you do this in your own life too.  So, don't pooh pooh conservationism.  We all appreciate and use conservativism in our own lives in certain contexts -- you just gotta notice it.  Sometimes it's wise to be conservative, it just depends.  But don't white-knuckle cling to either liberalism or to conservativism in some kind of context-independent way.  That's a very limited Tier-One way of thinking about things.  There's a kind of Yin/Yang aspect to liberalism and conservationism.  You wanna balance liberalism and conservativism in a healthy way that's sensitive to context.  I call this context-dependence.  In contrast, people wanna have these context-independent ideological views that they white-knuckle cling to which is very limited.  You do your ideas, don't let your ideas do you!

Edited April 23, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Not in itself, but when you put it all into context it makes perfect sense.

Notice how both of our minds put that image into context. Both of us have been reading all the posts and writing our own posts. Both of us have been engaged in this thread and is aware of the context.

Notice how your mind gave different context and meaning to the situation than my mind. I am not saying you are "wrong". I am saying that the meaning your mind gave to that image (with all the context) is different than the meaning my mind gave to the image (with all the context). We both had all the context and say the same image - yet each of our minds gave different meaning to it. So the meaning you gave is not universal objective truth and the meaning my mind gave is not universal objective truth.

In general, expanding beyond an external objective universal reality and seeing the relative nature of reality is a major expansion - yet it comes with dangers as well. One can take it too far. . . 

It makes perfect sense to your mind and I can see that. It also makes a different type of perfect sense to another mind - can you see that? In a relative sense, we are both right.

Leo's image could be given many different meanings (including all the context). I've already imagine two new meaning since writing this post. . . If we put our minds to it and got creative, how many different meanings do you think we could create? 

[Andreas]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Notice how both of our minds put that image into context. Both of us have been reading all the posts and writing our own posts. Both of us have been engaged in this thread and is aware of the context.

Notice how your mind gave different context and meaning to the situation than my mind. I am not saying you are "wrong". I am saying that the meaning your mind gave to that image (with all the context) is different than the meaning my mind gave to the image (with all the context). We both had all the context and say the same image - yet each of our minds gave different meaning to it. So the meaning you gave is not universal objective truth and the meaning my mind gave is not universal objective truth.

In general, expanding beyond an external objective universal reality and seeing the relative nature of reality is a major expansion - yet it comes with dangers as well. One can take it too far. . . 

It makes perfect sense to your mind and I can see that. It also makes a different type of perfect sense to another mind - can you see that? In a relative sense, we are both right.

No we are not both right. I get what you mean though, but I disagree. For example flat earthers and regular people. One group is right and one IS wrong. Some perspectives are more true than others, and those are in return easier to defend which makes us all evolve. 

Giving criticism to rationalism, using any type of stigmatization (indirect or direct) to a person or something a person says or even muddying the waters with interpretations of epistemoloy just tells me that a perspective is harder to defend. Here is an example:

«I believe X about Actualized.org because of Y»

«Question that belief, this is the devil»

This is not only stigmatization, but also weaponizing epistemology. If you actually break through all of these defences you will either recieve threaths, anger or simply be ignored as an attempt to stigmatize you even further. 

I am currently writing a book on this to how this relates to psychiatric patients and there is a lot of overlap. 

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Andreas said:

No we are not both right. I get what you mean though, but I disagree.

Are you saying that your meaning of Leo's image is right and my meaning of Leo's image is wrong? 

[Andreas]

46 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Leo got accused of having a leftist bias for stating that race is playing a role in economic inequality. That's not an opinion but the state of things. It is taught literally everywhere, backed by evidence.

But people who do no like that info or do not see it call him biased and try to flip the situation instead of re-asserting their worldview.

Instead, they accuse everyone who do not agree with them from being cultish.

You see what you are doing here is indirectly stigmatizing the people who stigmatize yourself. And what I am doing in this post is stigmatizing you. What you can do in your next post is stigmatize me and this can go on forever. 

What I am proposing is focusing purely on the facts. You don’t need to engange with people like that. Focus on what’s objective not make assumptioms and strawman people. Focus on the evidence you are talking about and convince people through reason. I personally don’t believe what you do about inequality but you can convince me otherwise, with evidence. 

This is what I call toxic femininity. Toxic femininity is when the focus is less about what the person is trying to say, but more about how the person is expressing his opinion. It’s when it is emotionally dificult to admit you are wrong. I guess this is what’s trying to be modelled in Spiral dynamics with the tier 1 and tier 2. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Andreas

[Andreas]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Are you saying that your meaning of Leo's image is right and my meaning of Leo's image is wrong? 

No I am not. That is not what I was referring to. I disagree on your statement that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I might be wrong here absolutely. I don’t believe I am wrong but my argument is not about who is right and who is wrong. It’s about how we draw a conclusion on that. What I call toxic femininity. This is especially important when it comes discussions with between people of power and people with less power:

- A child and a parent

- A socalled witch and the accuser

- A student and a teacher

- A psychiatric patient and a psychiatrist

- A corrupt judge and an innocent man charged with a crime