What stage is Elliot Hulse at?

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, intrastellar said:

So open mindedness is only good if it doesn't interfere with your or your groups self-interest or your ideology? Aren't you two preaching open mindedness all the time? And now you're ridiculing it because you don't like the direction it could lead?

Eliott Hulse in questioning the value of - let's call it 'the accomplishments of feminism' - follows the same rationale that was used here earlier to question the value of 'being alpha and getting what you want': 

I've questioned this topic inside and out for the greater part of decade. And I've really crawled around in the darkness beyond modern concepts of Feminism. And I've done this as someone who would actually be disenfranchised and has an entire self-concept wrapped up in the situation.

So, I don't want to hear a single word from you about open-mindedness, relative to this topic. If it doesn't feel emotionally like you're ripping off your own skin, you haven't even scratched the surface of open-mindedness.

But that skin-ripping, radical open-mindedness that I've engaged in relative to my place in the world has been quite valuable and enlightening to me to question this topic because I'm actually in the group that's being oppressed. I've walked this labyrinth for a very long time, and I've seen things that most men would be too comfortable to look at and most women would be too uncomfortable to look at.

And this descent into the repressed feminine is how I've been able to understand where these regressive perspectives come from and what makes them tick. This is a topic that I know up and down, in a way that few others do. And I'm not saying that to toot my own horn, but as a matter of fact. I've spent longer with this issue, questioning everything more than anyone I've ever known. I've been in the belly of that beast, having all of my attachments to pride and self-hood torn apart and digested.

And the reason why this is possible for me, is because there is no place for me to become comfortable with this topic because I'm a woman. It always feels like death and dismemberment to shed my attachment to my personhood and questioning the validity of my own rights. So, I either have the choice to block it all out or dig deeper. And I'm one to dig deeper because I have a morbid curiosity and a touch of masochism.

So, I'm the one wading through a sea of lemon juice with tons of open wounds. You are not. And your version of open-mindedness and the irresponsible way that you share it, is both disturbing and laughable to me.

If a man is doing this type of questioning, it won't typically yield positive results because he is fundamentally comfortable asking such questions. He doesn't actually have much skin in the game and fundamentally doesn't understand what it is like to be in this position relative to these questions. So, any so-called "open-mindedness" from your perspective is a easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy game of devil's advocate. Where you're just engaged in arm-chair philosophy about the validity of women's rights.

And asking these questions in a public forum the way that you are has real consequences as it normalizes these questions as legitimate platforms which enable things that regress us as an entire species and put women and the Divine Feminine back in the pinions that they used to be in. So, there is real weight behind the way that you're doing your questioning. 

So, dafuq up out my face with your ideas about open-mindedness. Go dig into your own wounds looking for evidence that may undermine your entire sense of self and maybe we can have an eye-to-eye conversation. And stop playing devil's advocate. It's not a virtue like you think it is. And that's because it's too easy. 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

Wow, I've been away for a while.  Seems like these conversations bring out an ugly side to otherwise nice and well-meaning people.  Maybe it's best to get off the Internet and go outside for a while.  Go spend time with people who love you and people you can love.  And then come back balanced and try to help strangers on the Internet.  Otherwise the whole energy is toxic.  And for you too the energy is toxic.  You can't love yourself when you're subjecting yourself to toxic energy.  You're punishing yourself basically.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Wow, I've been away for a while.  Seems like these conversations bring out an ugly side to otherwise nice and well-intentioned people.  Maybe it's best to get off the Internet and go outside for a while.

Sometimes it's important to take the kid gloves off.

And it's always wading through this lazy devil's advocacy with so many people online. And it has a real effect on people and is fundamentally boundary-breaching which conjures a natural feeling of anger that anyone in this position would naturally feel. So, the feeling is the same with what I wrote here, but I usually conceal the frustration more because it more because it can be weaponized against me.

But I figured I was safe to express in that way here. Please don't prove me wrong with your notion that I'm not being nice when i'm just being frank.

 

[bejapuskas]

@Joseph Maynor  I don't know what you mean, are you happy? 

[molosku]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And it's always wading through this lazy devil's advocacy with so many people online.

 

Exactly. I mean, how hard you need to think to come to the conclusion that leaving all the nations decicion making to 50% of the whole population is a bad and regressive idea. Being radically open minded is NOT about just juggling with ideas and not leaving anything out, an intelligent and well contemplated choise has to be made at some point. The left, right nor the middle ways are always the right ways to go, but sometimes there is a definite left or right. Let women vote. 

[Emerald]

18 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 And for you too the energy is toxic.  You can't love yourself when you're subjecting yourself to toxic energy.  You're punishing yourself basically.

Also, relative to this point, which I didn't address before.

This deep digging that I've done into this topic has been specifically to untie myself from what constrains me. And it's a pattern that affects every single person... especially women. It keeps them cut off from their natural power-source of the Divine Feminine. And this is 100% necessary for humanity going forward. 

So, the pain of this exploration is worth it to me. 

And if you've enjoyed my perspective in my videos, as I know you've said you've enjoyed them and got a lot out them. Then, you can only thank my willingness to descend into what's ugly and dark and pulls everything apart in me. As I wouldn't have the perspectives that I have without having done this. 

 

[Forestluv]

@intrastellar My donkey metaphor seemed ineffective. I’m referring to open-mindedness of ideas, not judging people based in their ideas. Perhaps a better metaphor: The idea of replacing the London subway system with donkeys. If you were on the London Board of Transportation, you would have the maturity to immediately recognize that this is a juvenile idea which is bad for London transportation. This is not being closed-minded. 

In terms of SD, transitioning into Tier2 involves a trans-personal evolution. Attachment and identification to ideas dissolves and there isn’t a sense of *my* perspective and *your* perspective. There isn’t the energy to be right at a personal level. There are simply ideas and perspectives floating around. 

The perspective that we should consider rescinding women’s right to vote is simply an idea. We don’t need to place ownership of the idea to anyone. We don’t need to identify with the idea or the opposing idea. We can simply consider the idea. The idea is a very regressive one. This idea was relevant over one hundred years ago. Other regressive ideas would include stoning women and reestablishing slavery. There is no need to introduce personalities into our consideration. We can simply see that these are regressive ideas that do not warrant serious consideration in adopting as social policy. Just because it is an idea does automatically grant it legitimacy for consideration.

These types of ideas are indicative of poorly developed minds. In terms of consciousness expansion, they are at a child’s level of development. If teachers were planning a school trip to China and the children wanted to fly there on unicorns, the teachers would be at a developmental stage and maturity to recognize that this is not the best idea. However, the children are not at this development stage and might get upset because they can’t travel via unicorn like in the movies. We would not judge the children for their idea because it is appropriate for their developmental stage. 

Similarly, Elliott’s idea is appropriate for his developmental stage. The idea rises from an early stage of consciousness development. It is the equivalent stage of a child. There is no need to judge Elliott personally, as this is a perfect expression of his developmental stage. However those at a more developed stage of consciousness can see his ideas  are regressive and arise from an earlier developmental stage. In a relative context of social evolution, they just don’t carry the same weight as higher conscious ideas. 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, molosku said:

Exactly. I mean, how hard you need to think to come to the conclusion that leaving all the nations decicion making to 50% of the whole population is a bad and regressive idea. Being radically open minded is NOT about just juggling with ideas and not leaving anything out, an intelligent and well contemplated choise has to be made at some point. The left, right nor the middle ways are always the right ways to go, but sometimes there is a definite left or right. Let women vote. 

Exactly. So, there are two things here. One of the things is self-exploration and pulling things apart and being able to suspend beliefs. And this is incredibly important for consciousness work. It's about turning over all the rotting logs inside yourself to free yourself from what holds you back. And to become aware of what you would otherwise hide from.

The other thing is much more external, practical, and results oriented. And those are the parameters, rules, and guidelines for how society runs. And it's important that we're able to draw blacks and whites even though reality and our relationship to it is anything but black and white. But if the end goal is to have a functional and healthy society (which is wisest if you value a high quality of life), then you have to be able to draw a distinction between what's acceptable and unacceptable.

And when these devil's advocates are mentally masturbating and pontificating upon the validity of women's rights, then it create a gray area in the social and political discourse. And it opens to doors to human regression.

And as a woman, I have very real skin in the game. I would probably rather kill myself than live in a society where I don't have basic human rights, as I'd rather die with dignity. 

So, it's very annoying and extremely disturbing to see these "rogue intellectuals and philosophers"  casually questioning the validity of my right to be seen and respected as fully human. And then thinking of that dangerous game of armchair philosophy that will never affect them as virtuous and open-minded. And then chiding me on my own open-mindedness, when I'm the one down in the trenches as they're watching the war from on television.

 

[Joseph Maynor]

32 minutes ago, bejapuskas said:

@Joseph Maynor  I don't know what you mean, are you happy? 

I'm better than I was yes.  I'm happy, but I still need to integrate Maslow 4 which I was meeting superficially with my participation on here.  So, I kinda took 2 steps backward to take 10 steps forward.  My self-esteem has taken a hit, but I'll be fine.  Maslow Stage 2 and 3 really need a strong 4 and 5.  All the stages work together as well as each stage needing the stages that come before it.  Stage 4 needs 3 or else you don't really got 4 fully.  But I got Maslow 1, 2, and 3 pretty good now.  Unfortunately, I have very little 4 now though which has set me back a peg when it comes to self-esteem and a feeling of power.  But I wanna make sure 4 sits on a strong foundation of 1, 2, 3 and 5 in my life.  I see the mistake and tragic results that people who shoot for 4 and 5 but lack 1, 2 and 3 get.  A missing 3 will throw everything off.  You can't have a healthy 4 and 5 without a healthy 1, 2, and 3.  Finally, you gotta apply the Paradox of Needs And No Needs -- which is a corollary to applying the Paradox of Ego And No Ego. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[bejapuskas]

@Serotoninluv  That's an important insight on personal level, to not suffer from these ideas, that is nonsensical, but are you also against protesting? Elliot is 40 years old and has a community of immature men (who he wants to be the ones to decide about the results of the elections), which might seem odd when you take into account what he is saying at that age and with that much responsibility. Do you think no conflict is the best way at this level of development of society?

[bejapuskas]

@Joseph Maynor  Do you think that it benefits you to think of your life as a bunch of stages, or wouldn't it be better for you to just throw that away and live intuitively from a position of acceptance? It is important to analyze yourself sometimes, but I find it interesting that you apply this so much. it is something totally different.

[Joseph Maynor]

12 minutes ago, bejapuskas said:

@Joseph Maynor  Do you think that it benefits you to think of your life as a bunch of stages, or wouldn't it be better for you to just throw that away and live intuitively from a position of acceptance? It is important to analyze yourself sometimes, but I find it interesting that you apply this so much. it is something totally different.

Gain a Maslow stage and then lose it and you'll find out the worth of each stage.  Maslow's Pyramid is brilliant as a model.  Of course, you do need to balance the Paradox of Needs And No Needs.  Gain Stage 2 and lose it, gain Stage 3 and lose it, and gain Stage 4 and lose it -- then you will know.  It's very common to lose Stage 3 say in the case of divorce.  See what that does to your life, especially if your intimate partner was the centerpiece of your love and belongingness needs and you have few close friends.  Maslow figured it out for us to apply.  It's a powerful model for personal/ interpersonal development work.  It's not the only model you need, but it's a key one, a big one.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[bejapuskas]

@Joseph Maynor  I see what you mean now, interesting  

[Forestluv]

@bejapuskas Regressive ideas are always present in society. There is always resistance to progressing and evolving upward. There will be people who want to maintain the status quo and there privilege. 

I’m not sure of the most effective way to deal with such regressive energy to allow progress. Throughout history, there have been both violent and nonviolent means to dissolve such regression. 

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@bejapuskas Regressive ideas are always present in society. There is always resistance to progressing and evolving upward. There will be people who want to maintain the status quo and there privilege. 

I’m not sure of the most effective way to deal with such regressive energy to allow progress. Throughout history, there have been both violent and nonviolent means to dissolve such regression. 

I think the main thing that helps is finding the deeper emotional roots and needs from which these issues spring, and dealing with the underlying issues directly through awareness and direct structural change.

So, for example, if we look at misogyny, a part of getting rid of it is changing things practically and structurally in terms of how society works and the paradigm we ascribe to.

But a lot of the misogyny is directly because of how men are conditioned to repress emotions and punished for any signs of anything that could be construed as feminine. And the glue that hold back all the self-esteem issues and keeps men emotionally safe is a mix of misogyny, homophobia toward gay men, and trans-phobia toward trans-women. But what's really underneath that is a lot of pain, and those things function as a coping mechanism to both hold back the pain and fight against who they perceive as the bringers of that pain.

So, these communities of pain, based around hatred and victim's mentality, are really just a group of people in pain who are scapegoating to cope with the pain. But it just winds them up more and more. But if you make the communities of pain obsolete, then they won't gain any more traction. And the regressive ideologies will fade more and more. 

But this would take a complete overhaul of peoples state of consciousness, which will likely take many generations to really address everything. But I think this emotional core of these issues is the most effective pressure point to target to make incremental change and help people face their shadows and love themselves.

It's always the most insecure people who are in victim's mentality that are the easiest to recruit, brainwash, and weaponize. And so we have to address those insecurities at their roots to make the hate groups obsolete.

[The Dopamine Cleric]

That's what I love, Doing gods work to spread self-entitled bitchiness. It's much easier and quicker than having good self-esteem.

[The Dopamine Cleric]

I'm here cause I like Leo. I admire his work, and more importantly.

The Truth!

 

 

Sure. If you INSIST, I'll invoke the daemon of dominatrix cock slapping.

Edited July 7, 2019 by The Dopamine Cleric

[CreamCat]

17 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@bejapuskas Regressive ideas are always present in society. There is always resistance to progressing and evolving upward. There will be people who want to maintain the status quo and there privilege. 

I’m not sure of the most effective way to deal with such regressive energy to allow progress. Throughout history, there have been both violent and nonviolent means to dissolve such regression. 

Cheaper guys win eventually. If regressive ideas are economically expensive, they will lose in decades.

Regressive ideas are usually regressive because they are unnecessary constructions which are economically expensive and hold ourselves back.

The most effective way of dealing with regression I know of is trials and errors.

Edited July 7, 2019 by CreamCat

[intrastellar]

@Emerald To make this clear again: I never said that women shouldn't have a right to vote. I didn't even question it. Actually I said the opposite a few comments below and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise or cause anyone here to feel threatened. 

And still I see some value in Elliots perspective to be open minded about it. I understand that regarding this topic you have more skin in the game as a woman than he or I as men but that doesn't mean only women can talk about it or can add value to the conversation. If you don't see any value there thats your thing but if you're not willing or able to have a respectful eye-to-eye conversation then it's better we have no conversation.

 

@Serotoninluv The idea that women maybe shouldn't vote is simply an idea and I agree with you that it's a regressive one. But I think it does matter who promotes the idea because the person behind the idea provides the context to understand where it is coming from and where it could lead - the context in which the idea might be realized (or not realized at all because there's a higher idea that blocks it).

Also in reality it's not always so straight forward to determine the degree of development of an idea - they don't just come with coloured lables ready to be ordered in a hierarchy. 

[CreamCat]

Whether women or black people should vote was settled many decades ago and is a stupid question. It's been thousands of years since democracy was developed, yet it hasn't evolved. Evolution is very slow in politics. People drag each other down with stupid questions or stupid issues. It's time to accelerate evolution instead of being stuck with stupid questions.

I think democratic voting is very inefficient because it requires synchronizing millions of people.

Voting with your wallet is a lot more efficient because it happens asynchronously at the individual level. Thus, money is more powerful than democratic votes.

How can we make democratic voting totally asynchronous? How can we make it as easy as spending cash in wallet? Can we turn democratic votes into a form of currency that we can spend any time? If you make voting asynchronous, it'll evolve fast, and we will not be stuck with entirely unnecessary constructions for a long time.

What I suggest here could mean the death of democracy as we know it. Can it be called asynchronous democracy?

Edited July 7, 2019 by CreamCat