Leo is Wrong About Trump - Accountability Predictions

[Forestluv]

47 minutes ago, Dragallur said:

@Serotoninluv How would you say one discerns between somebody starting debate/conversation on orange or yellow level? What would be the immediate difference that you would spot?

Main things I notice:

1. A sense of attachment and identification to a particular view. I’ve gone through this dynamic sooo many times internally (including within this thread), that I can sense it quickly in a conversation.

2. A lack of curiosity. Yellow loves exploring ideas and integrating components of various views to form more holistic views. A yellow mind is like a curious kid at the creek exploring nature. Orange is not interested in expanding, rather is interested in debating and reinforcing a preconceived idea. 

3. Relativism and contextualization is a key component of yellow. Orange sees their view as objectively true. They will often use terms like “logic, evidence, facts and proof” to get a sense of grounding of inherently groundless objectivism. 

4. Reflection. Contraction for orange gives a sense of stability and comfort. Contraction to yellow is restrictive and uncomfortable. Notice how I became contracted within the thread in my effort to engage at Orange. When @Scholar pointed this out, there was a sense of contracted discomfort in my mind-body. Yet rather than an orange desire to reinforce the contraction, there was a desire to expand. Within my mind-body, reflective and expansive thoughts to expand arose. There was awareness of how personal components entered, how I didn’t handle the situation smoothly and how I could improve in the future. At an orange level, I may have beaten myself at a personal level with thoughts like “ I am not good enough at this”” or “what do other users think of me now”. Or there might be a defensiveness to protect the person with thoughts like “scholar doesn’t know anything about genetics. Who is he to criticize me?”. Yellow has transcended these types of personal dynamics. What appeared in my mind after I grasped scholar’s input was a sense of curiosity of the thought dynamics that arose in my mind and how these thought dynamics are inter-related with Angelo and scholar at a collective conscious level. There is a transcendent awareness and curiosity that is unattached and dis-identified that “wants” to explore this inter-personal communication. Somewhat similar to an dis-identified desire to explore human and plant communication when I am out in nature. Angelo could be a tree, scholar a river and me a chipmunk interacting together. 

[Dragallur]

@Serotoninluv Thanks for the input, I was asking mainly because I was wondering if I am myself transcending stage Green or not.. I think the best cure to holding positions and feeling they are part of you is to change your mind a lot of times about something important for oneself, then one has to realize that it is stupid to hold the positions so dearly because they don't really matter that much and did not make the stuff that is you.

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think part of the trickiness is just the sort of empathy or understanding that is required to navigate someone elses ego in a way that it will actually benefit them, especially in a forum where much of the information needed to get more accurate reads are lacking. 

In this area, the trickiness for me is observing egoic dynamics from a non-egoic space. When what we refer to as ego appears, an egoic dynamic often appears in my mind. This egoic dynamic can be very subtle and sneaky. It appeared within the thread in my mind. A sense that here is an “I” that is more developed and conscious than another person’s “I”. It’s much easier for me to be aware of this dynamic in nature because components of nature don’t have egos that mask an internal ego in my own mind-body. It’s very obvious when ego arises in nature, much more subtle within human interaction.

It might be fun to have a “spiral wizardry” thread. The topics wouldn’t really matter, it’s more about the underlying communication dynamics. Sorta like toastmaster’s - the topic isn’t that important, it’s about learning the underlying skill set of public speaking.

[Forestluv]

23 minutes ago, Dragallur said:

@Serotoninluv I think the best cure to holding positions and feeling they are part of you is to change your mind a lot of times about something important for oneself, then one has to realize that it is stupid to hold the positions so dearly because they don't really matter that much and did not make the stuff that is you.

This gets at the flexible nature of a yellow mind. What you are pointing at is that yellow does not have attachments to ideas and can “go with the flow” like the fluidity of a river.

Yet, it’s not like one intentionally changes their mind to become more flexible. That suggests there is an owner that is giving up attachment for one idea for attachment to another idea. Yet, I think it can be a helpful exercise to transition. I don’t think trying to change my mind from an idea I hold as important to another idea would have worked well for me. I don’t think my ego would have fallen for it. What works better for me is getting into a mindset in which I’m curious about how idea and how/why people become attached to particular ideas. Why is idea “x” important to me and idea “y” important to her? What happened for me to believe “x” and her to believe “y”. If I had the same conditioning as her, would I also believe “y”? This helped me to let go of my own beliefs and really consider someone else’s beliefs and the underlying dynamics of why we believe what we do. Yet, I would also be selective with what I am engaging with. I wouldn’t recommend doing this on toxic websites. Rather, in areas in which ideas are floating around that can lead expansion. For example, years ago I blew off talk of so-called paranormal abilities as “woo woo” nonsense. Then, I became curious and started resonating with people that seemed spiritually mature talking about stuff like intuitive abilities. This open a whole new area of curiosity and exploration.

I would also focus on the second part of your post. That is, to let go of attachment to thought stories because “they don’t matter much”. Rather than changing to another thought story to replace it, just allow whatever arises. Maybe awareness of bird chirps or a felling in the body may arise. Let it appear and disappear. Perhaps another thought story will arise. Allow it to appear and disappear. Maybe the two thought stories will merge and create a higher level thought story. Then maybe desire for food or drink may appear. . . After a while, that “person” that is attached and takes ownership of thought will begin to dissolve. There is an energetic shift away from the person to a transcendent energy that is super cool. . . . This is upper green transitioning into yellow. Yet you are in striking distance. A mind-body first becomes aware of it in others and a curiosity and energy toward it arises. One notices yellow in others before it is embodied and naturally arises within themself. It is much easier for one to be “pulled up” to yellow when they are with a yellow-centered person they resonate with. 

 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Angelo John Gage said:

@Serotoninluv  

Again, this is an appeal to consequent fallacy. You assume people who promote race realism and back it with facts, such as the Barny-style examples I gave that two black people will never make an Asian baby, have an agenda to do what exactly? Tell the truth? The reality is, the opposite is the case

 

Notice how there is an orientation of opposites here. Either “a” or the opposite of “a” must be true. As well, there is usage of “facts” to provide grounding for a universal truth. Facts that can be recontextualized.

Again, I did not say that “race doesn’t exist”, yet you keep assuming you understand what I’m saying and interpret it with a pre-conceived filter. I am saying that from a relative perspective the statement “race does not exist” has truth to it at a genetic level. From another relative perspective, the statement “race does exist” also has truth to it at a genetic level. It’s as if I am saying “depending on perspective, there is truth that a coin is a head and there is truth that a coin is a tail”. Yet you are so fixated that the coin must be heads that you keep posting links showing the heads side of coins and ask me to prove that the heads side is actually tails. That is not what I am saying at all.

I will briefly describe the “partial truth” that “race does not exist”. Yet I am NOT saying that the opposite statement that “race does exist” is false. It depends on context.

What genetic criteria would you use to define a race?  For example, which allelic variations of DNA sequences will you choose as criteria of who qualifies as “Chinese”, “Japanese”, “Black”, “White” etc. In more common terminology, what genes would you choose as criteria to determine race? (This is not technically accurate because humans share the same genes, variation comes different allelic sequences of those genes, as well as sequence variations in non-geneic chromosomal regions).

ANY criteria you come up with will have inherent problems with it. There will be MANY different combinations of multiple genes. There will be issues in gray areas along continuums, necessity and sufficiency issues, where to draw threshold allelic frequency limits, relevancy of allelic variation if they don’t contribute to phenotype etc. At this level of analysis, it is highly complex. You are looking at this at an organismal/social level. “That dude obviously looks Chinese and that dude obviously looks Norwegian”. Yet if you look under the hood of the underlying genetics you will find it Is NOT that simple. It gets complicated and messy.

This is a highly simplified example, yet may get the point across. Suppose 60% of humans within the geographic region we call China have a particular gene sequence and only 27% of humans in Norway have that gene sequence (At a conventional social level these two groups of people would be referred to as “Chinese” and “Norwegian” people). Is a 60% allelic frequency sufficient for “Chinese-ness”? What specific percentage in a population is necessary to call it a “Chinese” sequence? 50%, 70%, 90%? And what percentage difference is necessary to differentiate two different populations? And does this sequence have anything to do with what appears as differences to us perceptually? Does it need to? What if an individual lacks a gene sequence that is associated with a group of people, yet contains other sequences associated with that same group? No group of people will have the exact same gene sequences, because there are no groups of identical twin populations, so there will NOT be an objectively definitive set of gene sequences that define an entire group. Any group you assemble will have an immense amount of sequence variation WITHIN the group. MORE variation than your criteria to distinguish between groups (although one could make an argument of what are “relevant differences”). One can set up a reference group of sequences, yet there will be degrees to which individuals match that reference set and aspects that are arbitrary. And who decides what criteria is used to define genetic boundaries to construct categories called race?

Upon closer inspection the genetic constructs of “Chinese-ness” vs “Japanese-ness”  vs “Indian-ness” vs “Caucasian-ness” etc, breaks down. Just like ALL dualistic categories collapse under intense scrutiny. In this context, the statement “race does not exist” has truth from a genetics perspectives. Yet it does NOT mean that the opposite statement that “race exists” is absolutely false. It’s dependent on context.  If someone was arguing that “race does not exist”, I could make an equally strong argument that race does exist. As well, I am not saying constructs of race lack value.

You can send me scientific articles all day long about the genetic basis of race and I will not disagree with it.  Yet I also understand the underlying problems that constructs of race based on genetics have. 

[Leo Gura]

@Angelo John Gage

Your worldview may not be racist, but it is fundamentally ethnocentric. Your worldview is that you see the world in terms of races and cultures which cannot get along. Notice that your position is coming from a place of FEAR and LACK. That has nothing to do with truth, it's a limited, constructed worldview, and this worldview is serving your survival as a self.

If those immigrants were your own mother, you'd sing a different tune.

IQ is a silly metric. To make any arguments based on IQ difference is absurd because IQ depends upon the country's infrastructure and level of development, not racial differences. And even if there is an IQ difference, so what? A nation has people of all levels of IQ in it. You cannot keep all the low IQ people in some sealed off part of the world. Low IQ people are all part of our situation on this planet. Also, just because someone is high IQ does not make them an angel. There are many high IQ people who are ruining this country with financial exploitation. IQ is not equal to moral development or consciousness. Which is why it's such a bad metric.

The world is going to be a multicultural place no matter how much you resist it, so might as well embrace it and get used to it. It already is multicultural. Immigration is the result of multiculturalism. When you create boundaries between countries, nature will obviously work to blur those boundaries. So the irony of what is happening is here is: humans invented all these imaginary ethnic and national boundaries, and now the forces of nonduality are telling you: not so fast! Those boundaries cannot remain permanent because no boundaries in the universe are permanent.

The logic that you're using is that same kind of logic that people used against the Jews, Irish, Italians, and other people who immigrated to the USA throughout history. These Europeans were considered dirty, uneducated, non-White, and that they would corrupt society. Now it's totally obvious such logic is silly. Your logic is warped by fear of "other".

No one is saying that we should have Wahhabist communities in the USA. And to conflate Latin American asylum seekers with Wahhabists is absurd. Again, coming from fear.

Immigration has been a part of American culture since the very beginning. So to say that somehow these different races and cultures cannot get along is a projection of your own fear and also historically inaccurate. They CAN get along, but certainly not if you have an ethnocentric worldview which believes that different races cannot get along. By believing it won't work, you manifest it. To get along, you gotta stop seeing the world as all these different groups and start seeing the fundamental humanity of all humans. You also need to stop thinking so negative of people with lower IQs. As if IQ somehow determines a person's worth.

The ultimate reason immigration is happening is because you cannot have a wealthy country next to a poor country. Nature will try to equalize that differential until both countries are equalized. Don't forget that much of American wealth and success is built directly off of exploitation of poor countries. The US manipulates Latin American countries to exploit them financially. Then when asylum seekers come, that's directly related to American foreign policy around the world.

It's all interconnected.

Your fundamental argument is that people are just too different to get along. But all of these people are on the same planet. So whether you like it or not, we have to learn to get along or we will kill each other. Learning how to get two different people to get along is our whole job! You cannot have a global economy as we do while also segregating people. What you're basically talking about is segregation. Your same logic was used to oppose the integration of black kids into white schools in the 60's. The whites' argument was identical to yours: "We aren't racists! All we're saying is, if you integrate dumb black kids into our elite white schools, this will ruin our schools. And they will get into fist fights because they are too different." Yeah! That's called segregation, LOL. That's ethnocentrism and selfishness.

All of this is collective ego 101. We've seen it happening in human history from the dawn of civilization. Nothing new in this logic.

[Angelo John Gage]

@Leo Gura  thanks for chiming in.

No that is not my fundamental argument at all. Also, I do not have any fear of other or lack of understanding, I can see why you believe I do, and I don't think you have read all my posts in this thread because as I have stated several times that have a simple worldview: I realize that not all people can nor will get along so each should have the right to be in either homogenous OR mixed societies. I envision a world like our body and its organs; each nation doing its part for the whole. There is nothing wrong with it at all.  You can even have multiculturalism if you wish, shit you can make new cultures, or you can reject everything and conserve your culture to the max by being isolationists. Who am I to judge? Who is anyone to? Each nation has its right to do what it wishes for the will of its people. I do not see how anyone could reject this simple and just worldview. For one to reject it would mean that they believe no nation-states should exist and should all be controlled by a centralize world govt, which is an utter fairytale and a form of supremacy. True diversity is actually having different cultures and people's around the world; sharing and caring with a global economy as you stated, but this must be organic and not some giant melting pot (by force) that actually blends away and destroys culture. Again, even the Dali Lama in the video said it. Its not about fear at all, none of it is. 

My activism on twitter is nonstop criticizing American foreign policy; from wars to sanctions and bullying of other nations. Although I voted for Trump thinking he would end war and "drain the swamp," which were the reasons I did ,not some retarded wall or tax cuts for rich folks, I have been one of his harshest critics out there the second he bombed Syria illegally and showed me he is a neoconservative cuck. I pissed doff all the maga folks whom I was associated with by calling them out because they REFUSED to call him out when he lied to us all, because they became e-famous blowing him. I had to defend Ilhan Omar when the media took her 911 comments out of context to twist her words. I don't agree with either her or Trump yet I defend people from lies and nonsense. I don't pick sides. I have compassion for the Palestinians and constantly expose Israeli war crimes which always gets me "anti-Semite" thrown at me; especially  when Israelis are sniping children in crowds. I have compassion for women in India getting acid thrown on them; Little black girls getting their clitorises chopped off because of the barbaric practice of female circumcism in Africa. I care for animals. I'm nothing what everyone seems to be saying I am. Don't mistake my statements that I made (which have none have been refuted at all btw) with my world view. In fact, none of the things I posted were used to justify any policy or push any political ideology whatsoever. I was simply posting facts to remind us all that we are not just spiritual, but also biological machines. I used to be ethnocentric...yes, I was. I said that I was ultra-right, but before tha I was also super left. Neither is the case now. I took what was true and factual from those worldviews and discarded the rest. 

Whether you guys believe me or not is irrelevant, I'm telling you what I mean and what I am. but is is rather annoying to be called something you are not. If I started calling you a flat-earther after explaining that you weren't 1000 times, you'd be annoyed too lol.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Angelo John Gage

[Angelo John Gage]

I myself actually am an immigrant. I have nothing against legal immigration so long as it benefits the nation. What we have today is nonsensical immigration policies that are harming nations. 

[Angelo John Gage]

@Serotoninluv  Ok I see what you mean. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

[Angelo John Gage]

My tweet directly to Trump right under his attack on Ilhan that went viral; addressed to the maga crowd and whoever else spreading this nonsnse.  I don't agree with her policies but that doesn't matter. I stand with justice and truth, nothing more and I will change my positions if my research or experiences lead me to do so. I've been criticized for that very reason, which is why I have pissed off so many different groups. 

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Angelo John Gage

[Leo Gura]

@Angelo John Gage Good for you then.

But drop the IQ debating points. You should be above such arguments. IQ comparisons are a red herring.

Yes, unity through individuation is important. Trying to erase all differences is not the solution. There needs to be a very delicate balance between individual autonomy and collective unity.

The whole point is that there are no easy black and white answers to complex systemic global challenges.

[Angelo John Gage]

@Leo Gura  I agree 100%

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Angelo John Gage Leo has a book on his list explaining some factors which involve genetics and how reproduction etc. works, I don't assume it is as detailed as a lecture about genetics, yet it explains some mechanisms how differences in species and theories which have been debunkend and used as a scafold for other scientists, so potentially you can find some answers there. I did not read if fully yet, it it is mostly about sex and reproduction and why it occurs in the first place. IIRC. If what I understand correctly, as I read the book I could even have children with blue eyes by chance. Because I am mixed and my grandparents have blue eyes etc. The book explains it technically, but it is still understandable. For instance how something like this can happen inside the same population, where everyone has brown eyes. Is explained there I can't explain it in detail currently. I'd have to study the book more in depth and I did not even read it fully. 


Also there is an example of anarchy in history even mutliple ones in russia with the bolchevists and such. I've read this book https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/produkt/anarchismus-theorie-kritik-utopie/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

I don't know if there is an english version of it. But anarchism did exist, it was fascinating to read about it, and discuss it. Yet, I don't think it would work the way the world is now. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by ValiantSalvatore

[Dragallur]

@Serotoninluv What I meant with the first part was not that I change my opinion however I want rather that in the past it has happened to me that I changed my mind about something crucial for me and it hit me right in heart, then again and again and I started to realize that the reactions were not at all "appropriate" and every time it hurt a little less and then I knew I dont have to fear it anymore.

[Truthority]

Quote

Those who get elected tend to be the most ambitious, ruthless, and manipulative ones. Rarely a selfless person will get elected, but he will quickly be demonized and kicked out of power by the selfish people who feel threatened by his selflessness.

And those who lead with love don’t need to be president of any nation state. 

They already rule the world with their existence and life work. 
 

Quote

If your priority is to create a space that helps people grow on a personal and spiritual level, then the current state of the forum does not contribute to that I find.

Depends on your perspective and level. Don't assume that spiritual growth is non-threatening to one's expectations.
 

Quote

 

I simply believe that ideological wars and constant arguments have no place on a personal development and spirituality forum.

 

Then stop arguing.
 

Quote

 

As a teacher and researcher in genetics…

 

You bring this up too much. Appeal to authority. 
 

Remember...

Quote

 

A great teacher will teach in a way so that the student does not even know he is his teacher.

 

Beautiful.

“Our life has to be our message.” 
- Thich Nhat Hanh

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

@Leo Gura

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But drop the IQ debating points. You should be above such arguments. IQ comparisons are a red herring.

Here's my question then.  Do you seek to hangout with low IQ people yourself? 

Would you want to immerse yourself in a low IQ society?

Edited July 23, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Angelo John Gage]

@GenuinePerspectiveXC  I think what he is saying is, and I have implied in my previous posts, that IQ can surely help predict somethings statically or whatever but does no good for individual cases, and, doesn't encompass all other forms of "intelligence" which some have postulated are anywhere from 9-12 types. 

 

 

[Inliytened1]

13 hours ago, Scholar said:

Unlike in the Peterson/Wilber thread I feel like this time we understood each other better. I think part of the trickiness is just the sort of empathy or understanding that is required to navigate someone elses ego in a way that it will actually benefit them, especially in a forum where much of the information needed to get more accurate reads are lacking. For example, you might notice someone not reacting well to what you say immediately in a conversation whereas in a forum people can talk past each other entirely without really noticing.

In the end I think it's best to look at this as it's own area of mastery. It takes deliberate practice, which involves much failure and mistake, so as to get better at it. And maybe Forum Spiral Wizardry is in itself a different kind of skill from in person Wizardry, as many things are just different in these kinds of interaction. I myself used to think that at some point one would be infallible and just be able to manipulate everyone into a higher stage with just enough skill in Spiral Wizardry, but it does definitely seem like it is limited in many ways. It's not always possible to change someone at all, or it might require a lot of effort.

 

For me the lesson of the day is to recognize that communication is limited and that often the truth must be conceiled in the favor of... well the truth. It's quite interesting how saying the truth can sometimes lead to more delusion, whereas delusion might lead to the discovery of truth. It's not really a lie because when the truth cannot be received by the recipient, it is not really the truth. The truth must always be in direct awareness, and only one's own consciouscness can truly create that awareness. All the others can do is hint at it.

Indeed.  And for the "others" the Truth cannot be spoken but it must be spoken as language is all we have..so sometimes this leads to the snake eating its own tail 

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

@Angelo John Gage Let Leo answer.  I love putting idealists on the spot.

[kieranperez]

53 minutes ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

@Angelo John Gage Let Leo answer.  I love putting idealists on the spot.

Dude. Be here to learn and not be an ideologue. 

Materialism is just flat out untrue. IQ at the end is but one lines of intelligence and is largely not even that significant this day in age. Much less so an indicator of how intelligent someone is. If you’re gonna speak from a “scientific” POV you can’t just sweep the implication of all the shattering evidence and implications done WITHIN science that debunks materialism. 

Is it a coincidence that the most breakthrough revolutionary scientists were deeply interested in mysticism? That what mysticism and the core of all scientific discoveries point to that which is infinite, deeply interconnected, oneness with all that we call reality, that 0 and infinitity is the same thing, etc.? 

Notice how you’re not interested in being open.