No More Conserving, Only Serving

[Oeaohoo]

2 hours ago, How to be wise said:

You need to read ‘The religion of tomorrow’ by Ken Wilber 10-15 times. 

My idea of hell.

Don’t you see how attached you people are to this one stupid system of thought? How do you know that this system is the truth? You appeal to it as though it is some sacred dogma.

Again, I could just as well say: you need to read René Guénon’s The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times 10-15 times.

4 hours ago, aurum said:

You can “understand” relativism in a dry, philosophical way. And maybe then it won’t influence your politics.

But when your mind evolves and it actually becomes more conscious of relativity, it’s going to influence your politics. That’s basically a description of SD Stage Green.

Of course there is an Absolute. But right-wingers have no clue what the Absolute is. They are not conscious of it. Instead they create a false Absolute out of religion, morality, culture, etc.

But, again, if relativism and absolutism are both aspects of what is ultimately true, why is it more “developed” to prioritise one over the other on a societal level?

Of course any earthly representation of the Absolute is ultimately relative; as if every traditional society didn’t acknowledge that. It is not a matter of a false Absolute; it is a matter of an earthly and therefore relative symbol of what is beyond relativity.

[Oeaohoo]

Anyway, I don’t see this going anywhere productive. This place is such a hive mind.

[How to be wise]

4 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Anyway, I don’t see this going anywhere productive. This place is such a hive mind.

You are an Arsenal fan inside a crowd of Chelsea supporters. Beware. 

[Oeaohoo]

33 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

You are an Arsenal fan inside a crowd of Chelsea supporters. Beware. 

Story of my life. 

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

But, again, if relativism and absolutism are both aspects of what is ultimately true, why is it more “developed” to prioritise one over the other on a societal level?

Because as I just said, conservatives tend to not actually be conscious of the Absolute. Their absolutism is based on a simplification of reality for the purposes of survival, fear and materialism. It is less truthful. Less complex of a mind. Less intelligent. Less close to God.

Of course, survival, fear and materialism are all to be transcended but also included in one’s psyche. We don’t need to demonize or exclude them. “Development” is not a judgment.

5 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Of course any earthly representation of the Absolute is ultimately relative; as if every traditional society didn’t acknowledge that. It is not a matter of a false Absolute; it is a matter of an earthly and therefore relative symbol of what is beyond relativity.

No.

There may be a small number of Stage Blue conservative people who have had real transcendental experiences and understand what is beyond the symbol. But the vast majority have no clue. They are not even in the same ballpark.

[Oeaohoo]

18 minutes ago, aurum said:

Because as I just said, conservatives tend to not actually be conscious of the Absolute.

There may be a small number of Stage Blue conservative people who have had real transcendental experiences and understand what is beyond the symbol. But the vast majority have no clue. They are not even in the same ballpark.

Whereas every other cosmopolitan liberal is an enlightened sage… Ridiculous. Tradition provided a much better framework for transcendent realisations than the organised chaos under which we live.

19 minutes ago, aurum said:

Their absolutism is based on a simplification of reality for the purposes of survival, fear and materialism. It is less truthful. Less complex of a mind. Less intelligent. Less close to God.

The exoteric expression of a religion is obviously going to be more limited. However, this is the only way that most of humanity can relate to transcendent reality: a passive participation in a hierarchical order. This is much better than just leaving the masses to themselves, to mindlessly eat, drink and dissipate in their shopping malls and their nightclubs.

I am not denying that, given the decadence of our times, most of the religions have been reduced to an empty shell of themselves, a mere exoterism without an animating nucleus. Of course, this is only exaggerated by the urgent push for global democracy, egalitarianism, and all the rest of it. I’m just denying the idea that your relativised world is any better… It isn’t.

20 minutes ago, aurum said:

Of course, survival, fear and materialism are all to be transcended but also included in one’s psyche. We don’t need to demonize or exclude them. “Development” is not a judgment.

 

We live in the most materialistic, fear-based and pettily egotistical society known to history. There’s your “development” for you!

[Oeaohoo]

There are many beautiful expressions in the Schuon essay which I linked above. An example:

‘Relativism engenders a spirit of rebellion and is at the same time its fruit. The spirit of rebellion, unlike holy anger, is not a passing state, nor is it directed against some worldly abuse; on the contrary it is a chronic malady directed against Heaven and against everything that represents Heaven or is a reminder of it. When Lao Tzu said that “in the latter days the man of virtue appears vile”, he had in mind the rebellious spirit that characterizes our time; but for psychological and existentialist relativism, which by definition always seeks to justify the crude ego, this spiritual state is normal, and it is its absence that amounts to disease, whence the abolition of the sense of sin. The sense of sin is the consciousness of an equilibrium surpassing our personal will and operating ultimately for the benefit of our integral personality and that of the human collectivity, even though occasionally wounding us; this sense of sin goes hand in hand with a sense of the sacred, which is an instinct for what surpasses us—for what should therefore not be touched by ignorant and iconoclastic hands.

As limited and degraded as man undeniably is, he yet remains “the proof by contraries” of the divine Prototype and of all that this Prototype implies and determines in relation to man. Not to acknowledge what surpasses us and not to wish to surpass ourselves: this in fact is the whole program of psychologism, and it is the very definition of Lucifer. The opposite, or rather the primordial and normative, attitude is this: to think only in reference to what surpasses us and to live for the sake of surpassing ourselves; to seek greatness where this is to be found and not on the plane of the individual and his rebellious pettiness. In order to return to true greatness, man must first of all agree to pay the debt of his pettiness and to remain small on the plane where he cannot help being small; the sense of what is objective on the one hand and of the absolute on the other does not go without a certain abnegation, and it is this abnegation precisely that allows us to be completely faithful to our human vocation.’

Wonderful.

[How to be wise]

@aurum Weren’t you a moderator?

[Danioover9000]

@Oeaohoo

14 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

There are many beautiful expressions in the Schuon essay which I linked above. An example:

‘Relativism engenders a spirit of rebellion and is at the same time its fruit. The spirit of rebellion, unlike holy anger, is not a passing state, nor is it directed against some worldly abuse; on the contrary it is a chronic malady directed against Heaven and against everything that represents Heaven or is a reminder of it. When Lao Tzu said that “in the latter days the man of virtue appears vile”, he had in mind the rebellious spirit that characterizes our time; but for psychological and existentialist relativism, which by definition always seeks to justify the crude ego, this spiritual state is normal, and it is its absence that amounts to disease, whence the abolition of the sense of sin. The sense of sin is the consciousness of an equilibrium surpassing our personal will and operating ultimately for the benefit of our integral personality and that of the human collectivity, even though occasionally wounding us; this sense of sin goes hand in hand with a sense of the sacred, which is an instinct for what surpasses us—for what should therefore not be touched by ignorant and iconoclastic hands.

As limited and degraded as man undeniably is, he yet remains “the proof by contraries” of the divine Prototype and of all that this Prototype implies and determines in relation to man. Not to acknowledge what surpasses us and not to wish to surpass ourselves: this in fact is the whole program of psychologism, and it is the very definition of Lucifer. The opposite, or rather the primordial and normative, attitude is this: to think only in reference to what surpasses us and to live for the sake of surpassing ourselves; to seek greatness where this is to be found and not on the plane of the individual and his rebellious pettiness. In order to return to true greatness, man must first of all agree to pay the debt of his pettiness and to remain small on the plane where he cannot help being small; the sense of what is objective on the one hand and of the absolute on the other does not go without a certain abnegation, and it is this abnegation precisely that allows us to be completely faithful to our human vocation.’

Wonderful.

   Technically, all that is still relative to one's stage of development, cognitive and moral development, ego development, personality typing, life experiences per area of life and other lines of development and circumstances. Also, it depends on one's mind, what worldviews it has, indoctrinations in it's upbringing, shadow aspects from it's family, and self bias and preferences and what senses it likes to process more.

   So, If I'm a conservative, I'd view relativism with some close mindedness and defensiveness, because relativism follows with it moral relativism, which can challenge and attempts to detach moral absolutists frameworks, traditional and religious moral constructions enforced culturally throughout times and generations. However, if I'm more liberal minded, I'd view relativism with some open mindedness and less defensiveness, as the moral relativism that follows is antagonistic to the traditional norms and absolutist/traditional morality, which is bias opposition to this view, especially if I also identify as progressive/socialist or even communistic.

   Plus, If I'm a business minded stage orange person, I'd view this for the potentials and efficiency of how this relativism can increase my productivity and profits, and how I can set up these transactions to leverage that. If I'm more stage green values, I'd view this relativism as good for the down trodden, and a force against the bourgeois class of rich and their moral mechanisms. If my value set is more stage blue or even stage red, I'm going to try to control, manipulate and exploit this relativism for amassing a following that I can gain a cult following, and benefits from.

   Also, If I'm cognitively different, if my mind is more Schizophrenic minded, how I think of relativism will be more different than the normal range of cognition of the masses, my mind would likely more literally interpret whatever interpretations of Relativism. If I have a bipolar disordered mind, then I'd be talking and thinking more in the lines of Kayne West, jumping and abstracting several topics without properly resolving each thread idea.

   

[Romanov]

7 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

This is a very childish view of authority. In fact, life is much harder at the top.

‘The most spiritual human beings, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in severity towards themselves and others, in attempting; their joy lies in self-constraint: with them asceticism becomes nature, need, instinct. They consider the hard task a privilege, to play with vices which overwhelm others a recreation… Knowledge - a form of asceticism.’

‘Inequality of rights is the condition for the existence of rights at all. - A right is a privilege. The privilege of each is determined by the nature of his being. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life becomes harder and harder as it approaches the heights - the coldness increases, the responsibility increases. A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base, its very first prerequisite is a strongly and soundly consolidated mediocrity.’

‘Whom among today's rabble do I hate the most? The Socialist rabble, the Chandala apostles who undermine the worker's instinct, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his little state of being - who make him envious, who teach him revengefulness... Injustice never lies in unequal rights, it lies in the claim to ‘equal’ rights… What is bad? But I have already answered that question: everything that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revengefulness. - The anarchist and the Christian have a common origin…’

Nietzsche in The Antichrist crushing all your delusions!

I spoke about an esoteric priestly class, which you have immediately interpreted as “strong man”. You think you’re being clever when you’re just being silly. This attitude towards hierarchy is exactly what every stupid TV show, mass-market novel and mediocre atheist “intellectual” promulgates today.

Oh yeah… Woke Capital is the perfect earthly embodiment of transcendent wisdom and beatitude. What could possibly be the problem?! It’s practically the Absolute incarnate!

So in a nutshell, you’re only for the ruler vs. ruled model if you are part of the ruling class…that’s the real problem. And any ruling class is going to be seen as tyrannical by some folks in society. Many republicans already view Biden as a tyrant whilst at the same time contradicting themselves that Biden is not really in charge and that someone else…the “deep state” is pulling the strings. 
“Biden is a tyrant!”

”Biden isn’t the one in charge.”
 

Tell me what about life at the top is harder? Not paying your yacht bill on time? Not being able to decide between black caviar and white truffle? 
 

You said, “Let’s us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre.” That sounds like victim blaming to me. Why is victim blaming in fashion for conservatives? Could it not be that they are projecting? What happened to personal responsibility and picking themselves up by their bootstraps? 
 

You hate the socialist rabble yet conservatives claim they back the blue and other first responders. They also support social security and Medicare. Is that not socialist? Trump called for 2k stimulus checks as opposed to only $600. Is that not socialist?

Edited December 17, 2022 by Romanov

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, How to be wise said:

You are an Arsenal fan inside a crowd of Chelsea supporters. Beware. 

An atheist in the a crowd of Gods

[aurum]

6 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Whereas every other cosmopolitan liberal is an enlightened sage… Ridiculous. Tradition provided a much better framework for transcendent realisations than the organised chaos under which we live.

It’s not my argument that liberals are enlightened sages. We can critique liberals. Most liberals are also materialists who are not conscious of the Absolute. And indeed, they tend to throw out a lot of the wisdom in ancient wisdom and Stage Blue in general.

However, you have to see this as stages of growth. Development is a messy process. But when you can see the whole map, it’s clear that liberals are more developed.

6 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

This is much better than just leaving the masses to themselves, to mindlessly eat, drink and dissipate in their shopping malls and their nightclubs.

I am not denying that, given the decadence of our times, most of the religions have been reduced to an empty shell of themselves, a mere exoterism without an animating nucleus. Of course, this is only exaggerated by the urgent push for global democracy, egalitarianism, and all the rest of it. I’m just denying the idea that your relativised world is any better… It isn’t.

And this is precisely where you are making your error.

You are failing to see that shopping malls and nightclubs are actually cultural progress relative to Stage Blue. You are failing to see how messy growth actually is. Growth leads to new problems and new errors than then require new paradigms to solve. Not just a regression back to traditional conservatism.

6 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

However, this is the only way that most of humanity can relate to transcendent reality: a passive participation in a hierarchical order.

I grant that this may be the only form of spirituality many people are ready for. But the question we’ve been debating is about stages of development, not the practical details of handling the masses. Don’t move the goal posts.

Also notice that if that’s all you think people can handle, then you run the risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think that’s all people can handle, then that’s what you’ll teach. And then that’s all they will understand. Versus actually attempting to lead people some place more evolved than mindless participates in a false spirituality.

6 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

We live in the most materialistic, fear-based and pettily egotistical society known to history. There’s your “development” for you!

Again, you make this same error. You do appreciate or understand why modern society is the way it is.

Edited December 17, 2022 by aurum

[aurum]

5 hours ago, How to be wise said:

@aurum Weren’t you a moderator?

Yes. Took a break from the forum for a couple years, stepped down.

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

14 minutes ago, aurum said:

It’s not my argument that liberals are enlightened sages. We can critique liberals. Most liberals are also materialists who are not conscious of the Absolute. And indeed, they tend to throw out a lot of the wisdom in ancient wisdom and Stage Blue in general.

However, you have to see this as stages of growth. Development is a messy process. But when you can see the whole map, it’s clear that liberals are more developed.

And this is precisely where you are making your error.

You are failing to see that shopping malls and nightclubs are actually cultural progress relative to Stage Blue. You are failing to see how messy growth actually is. Growth leads to new problems and new errors than then require new paradigms to solve. Not just a regression back to traditional conservatism.

I grant that this may be the only form of spirituality many people are ready for. But the question we’ve been debating is about stages of development, not the practical details of handling the masses. Don’t move the goal posts.

Also notice that if that’s all you think people can handle, then you run the risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think that’s all people can handle, then that’s what you’ll teach. And then that’s all their understand. Versus actually attempting to lead people some place more evolved than mindless participates in a false spirituality.

Again, you make this same error. You do appreciate or understand why modern society is the way it is.

   I'm worried about some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors here and there you are making. Is it the auto correct?

[How to be wise]

27 minutes ago, aurum said:

Yes. Took a break from the forum for a couple years, stepped down.

Time flies. It seems to me like yesterday when your name was in green.

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

32 minutes ago, aurum said:

Yes. Took a break from the forum for a couple years, stepped down.

   Aye, are you the user that has the profile picture of a guy with the beach and shore?

[aurum]

34 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@aurum

   I'm worried about some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors here and there you are making. Is it the auto correct?

No, I’m just hella sloppy with how I type out my replies  I need to work on that

13 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@aurum

   Aye, are you the user that has the profile picture of a guy with the beach and shore?

That was me

18 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

Time flies. It seems to me like yesterday when your name was in green.

I know. I felt so special 

[Oeaohoo]

I see very little here that is worth responding to. On the other hand, the recent Liberalism video literally implies that God-realisation is liberalism turned up to 11…  This is such a childish worldview! 

It is always valuable to take things to their conclusion. Like holes in a balloon, you can see the absurdity of something much more easily when it has been inflated. This place and others like it are useful because they take “Spiral Dynamics” and Wilberism, and indeed all unconstrained visions of endless “growth”, to their absurd conclusion: 

“We’re just gonna get more and more liberal forever, dude! It’s gonna be awesome, totally rad, bro! And at the end of the road of liberalism - there lies God!” 

Ridiculous.

On 17/12/2022 at 7:21 PM, Leo Gura said:

An atheist in the a crowd of Gods

‘Inversion’ really is the key to understanding all modern deviations... “The Great Parody: Spirituality Inverted”!

[Leo Gura]

@Oeaohoo The only thing that keeps anyone from being infinitely liberal, is fear.

Think about it.

God is fearlessness. If you cannot die, you can be infinitely liberal and infinitely free.

God is Infinite Freedom.

The only reason you are not infinitely liberal is because it would literally kill you. But God doesn't have this problem.

Ta-DAAAA!

Edited December 18, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Oeaohoo]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Oeaohoo The only thing that keeps anyone from being infinitely liberal, is fear.

Think about it.

God is fearlessness. If you cannot die, you can be infinitely liberal and infinitely free.

God is Infinite Freedom.

The only reason you are not infinitely liberal is because it would literally kill you. But God doesn't have this problem.

Ta-DAAAA!

Ah, Actualized… When it isn’t obscurantist oneupmanship, it’s a tenuous appeal to logic culminating in the inevitable: “TA-DAAA!” 

God is also Truth, Order, Law, the Good, Necessity, the Absolute. Even the Infinite Freedom of God is one which contains every permutation of unfreedom, otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite! Therefore, and I find it amazing that I even have to say this, God is beyond both liberalism and conservatism.