Stage Blue vs Orange, talking past each other

[Scholar]

 

I find this conversation fascinating, because both sides are almost entirely on point with their critique of the opposite. They point out the limitations of Stage blue as well as Stage Orange, while both of them fail to address those limitations on their side.

 

One of the main problems we currently have in society is solving the dysfunctional outcomes of stage orange. In theory, stage green should be that next step, but in practice social and technological dynamics lead to those stages never developing in a healthy way. The danger here, over time, is that we might see a regression to stage blue, simply because stage green has not successfully solved for the problems of stage orange. A big reason for this is because stage green is developing a toxic shadow towards blue and orange. What is missed is that, to become a healthy individual, one must step through each stage.

This lack is the reason why people like Andrew Tate are so successful, they simply are filling the void that has been left by arrogant and toxic stage green.

 

What Daniel described in the beginning is a monumental problem that we are facing as a society, but of course the arrogant atheist on the other side will not acknowledge any of that, because he can simply focus on the limitation of the religious systems. He is correct, obviously stage blue has it's problems, but he completely avoids ever even considering that stage orange might have fundamental problems that erode the foundation of society. This arrogance, because it is a denial of reality and truth, will bite these people in the ass eventually.

 

Both sides basically don't realize that they are completely self-destructive by denying their own limitations.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Scholar

[zazen]

I watched this a while back - both critique the other very well and pretty accurately. I wrote this elsewhere but it’s relevant:

The flaw of religion and the way its practiced is that it takes myth as literal and a description of historical events (of their prophets) as a prescription for a present where it no longer works - principles that are more timeless can always be used but practices not.

The flaw of secularism isn't so much in the state giving up religion to be a neutral governance system as it is the signal this sends socially to the people that religion doesn't hold value and them in turn giving it up - and not replacing that void with any structure to guide them and instead living entirely in the subjective world of moral relativism or scientific materialism with no spiritual depth.

In both cases, it isn't so much the state or the religion itself that tends to be the problem but how the people use, interpret and react to them.

A secularism that leads people to indulging the subjective world unhinges people from the biological reality they exist in. We can't debase ourselves from reality, the human body is a form through which the formless lives, the mould of our meatsuits allows spirit to unfold, the skeletal structure allows states of being to be. We won't be able to experience the formless without form or states of being without structure.

Sure, these things have their flaws. Moulds become moldy, structures become rickety, forms become frigid, and base reality becomes a basement of dark ignorance when not used for what it is - a base to jump from to the heights of spirit.

It’s funny because secularism has sort of given rise to three splintered extremes. The dogmatically religious, the scientific materialist and the subjective moral relativist where all is fair game in the law of attraction, manifestation and identifying however you so please.

- The dogmatically religious = as a result of too much confusion that moral relativity can bring, the flood of information technology supplies and the excess subjectivity wokism puts on display - many people are regressively returning to religion (in its literal form) almost as mental-spiritual refugees. In a dazed world they seek refuge in that which never changes - dogmatic religion. Religion and tradition become anchors in a sea of excess chaos.

- The scientific materialist = science and rationality became a new religion but one which scorched life with a materialist lens looking at the surface of life but blind to any depth to it. And because Being is depth, people who have and deny any depth to life or themselves will never be fulfilled by source. Rationality includes knowing when not to be - in matters of heart and spirit.

-Woke left = they take the domain and world of spirit and subjectivity and missapply it to objective realty denying objective reality all together. Its not that a spiritual subjective world doesn't exist where probably worlds exist that defy the laws of nature we find on this planet - but they deny that they do live on this planet and under its laws. They do not honor the form in which they have incarnated.

Maybe it’s not so much that religion and science are on different paths but on parallel ones trans-versing the same reality - hopefully to converge one day.