Very cool, if true

so, do you think that they are wrong to think there's a right and wrong about these things?

From:

I have no problems with them viewing these things as right and wrong as long as they don't insist that I have the same viewpoint. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case.

From:

Absolutely.

When talking about right/wrong in a logical way you have to do so within a framework - for instance saying "2+2 = 5" is wrong within the framework of mathematics, "Torturing people for no reason" would be wrong within the framework of utilitarianism, etc.

If you have an agreed framework to work within then you have a method of telling wrong from right, but unless you reach that agreement then you don't have anything to work with.

Ask yourself, what does "X is wrong" mean, then ask why it means that and trace your steps back until you find a prime cause. You won't find one, but if you do, let me know :->

From:

i think the closest you might get to a prime cause here would be a framework which encompasses every living human being, though you may well want to extend this to include every living being as well, making you world-centric rather than human-centric, which are both far broader than ego-centric. each of those centres implies a framework, a different frame of reference, within which wrongs and rights have meaning.

isn't 'every living being' prime enough for such a cause? you don't have to reach an agreement, anyway; just trying to do so would instantly hamstring any chance of ever getting anything done, ever. and things *do* need doing; one of those is preventing people killing other people for their own ego- or race- centred purposes. if you were a malevolent dictator, and i had enough power to stop you killing your people, i would think it right to do so (even if the only way to do so was to kill you), and it should be clear to anyone within a wide enough reference frame that i had done the right thing by this. Of course, if i then went nuts and claiming that what i had done was god's will, and that now everyone else should get the fuck out of the way while i carried on my own ego-centric agenda, it would be the same kind of right, by the same kind of token, for someone else to come and kill me or otherwise remove me from power.

logically speaking, there are no absolute rights or wrongs, but thankfully logic can't have the final say on its own. i think you can kill someone compassionately.

i wish i had more time right now for this, but i have to go play trumpet for naked cyclists and tree lovers. hope to see you there?

From:

That sounds rather nifty. May I ask what it's about?

From:

of course :-)
the Edinburgh Tree Festival, in Inverleith Park opposite the Botanic Gardens. My band, the Ruffness, will be playing there at four this afternoon. also, it's the planned end of route for the edinburgh world naked cycle ride, who are gathering this very minute around middle meadow walk (they're due to, anyway). if you're willing and able, come down and say hi..

From:

I think it would be fun to come down and say hi but I live in Seattle. Even if I got on a plane now, I'd probably not make it there in time...

I did see the article about the Naked Cycle Ride in the Scotsman. We have a Naked Cycle Ride here in Seattle for the Solstice Parade but ours is illegal...

From:

guess you won't be down this afternoon then :-D

i don't know if this one's legal or not, but it seems to be happening anyway.

well, with any luck we'll keep going and get bigger and so on and be able to tour the world a bit and keep playing our music to more and more people. so maybe we'll come to you. i'd like that.

From:

dapperscavenger.livejournal.com

I missed it! :p I had no idea it was on so soon. I went last year and rather enjoyed myself. I won a raffle prize too!

From:

isn't 'every living being' prime enough for such a cause?

Well, if you can find something that _every living being_ can agree on, then I'll agree that we have something that's universally true inside the framework of 'what people believe'.

So long as we check occasionaly that nobody has changed their mind, of course.

From:

i know _every living being_ isn't a group we can get to agree, not least because it includes plants, animals, babies, children, the insane, and the bush family. i still think it's a useful framework, though; the (can't remember what it's called) universal human rights thing where as i understand it *everyone* is held to have certain rights, even if they don't agree (or don't understand) that it's better for them to have those rights than not to. I'm well aware of the easy response to this kind of argument, the 'you can't claim superior opinions over anyone else because it's oppressive, fascist, whatever', but i don't think that response is either useful or true (except within a much smaller context).

I'm not doing a terribly good job of elucidating this, but luckily Ken Wilber has already done an excellent job of that in his books on integral studies. There he outlines (and substantiates) a kind of meta-theory which does attempt to 'get everything in', but it's not as clumsy or fragile as you might think. It's done in terms of mapping the development of consciousness from birth to the state of conscious unity with all, the zen 'not-two', union of atman and brahmin state. he's particularly good on the 'pre-trans fallacy' which refers to making the mistake that anything non-rational is somehow sub-rational, and (for me, anyway) makes a hell of a lot of sense of a hell of a lot of things.

the stages of development are (arbitrarily) assigned colours, and this post of yours about non-primacy of one opinion over another strikes me as a very 'green' response. this is in no way pejorative; there is a ranking but (in his words) it's 'an elitism to which everyone is invited' and there is nothing in any of the books which makes me think there's anything sinister or hidden about it. if you've never read any, and if you're interested, google him and read some of the stuff from his website and also the Integral Institute stuff, which he heads, i think. 'A Theory of Everything' is a good introduction, though you might find it unsatisfyingly brief. also, 'boomeritis', which was in Waterstones last time I looked, is good - written as fiction but there entirely for the purpose of describing the theories.

any thoughts?

From:

I've got Boomeritis. His dissection of everything up to Green is great - all sensible, although the book is horribly patronising and transparent to almost scientology levels. But when he goes onto second/third tier he adopts the Green defence/attack method of simply stating things as Truth and stating that anyone who doesn't just agree with him without proof as "idiotic...dumb-down, ding-bat egos...nitwit...timid"

He uses the phrase "post-rational" to escape having to actually give explanations that mean anything - especially as there's no way given to differentiate between pre- and post-rational states. And especially as he says earlier that many people claim to be rebelling for Green reasons when actually they're experiencing a Red lashing-out, this is particularly unhelpful.

The book basically reads like recruitment literature for a cult, feeding you enough solid information on things that are obviously bad, a few insights into things that some people may not have realised are problems, some sex to keep you interested and a few likeable characters that berate the main character whenever it looks like he stops paying attention (and by proxy, the reader if they stop paying attention). It's got several good ideas (including the classification into the various colours), but doesn't really hold together. Shame, I was rather enjoying most of the earlier bits.

From:

there's plenty in his non-fiction books to differentiate between pre- and post- rational and also attempts to give meaningful explanations. I'd reckon the green defence/attack method is employed because the book is aimed squarely at Green values, and it's supposed to be speaking that language. not sure about that though.

i don't think it's a cult. there's no secrecy, the theoretical books spend plenty of time discussing the theories and referring to evidence which supports them; the most in-depth treatment i believe is 'sex, ecology, spirituality' which is one of the earlier books and also (afaik) the longest. The main thing, though, is that he *doesn't* just tell you to accept the things he says as Truth. In every one of the nonfiction Wibler books you're encouraged to practise meditation, as in 'to start a meditative practice', on the grounds that if you continue such a practice for long enough, eventually you will understand those 'truths' for yourself and not because someone else told you to believe them.

so not 'accept that i'm right', but 'if you do x, you will perceive y'.

I suppose the key question is, what if it *is* true? what do you stand to lose by accepting the possibility that the second and third tier states are just as real as any of the rest? you don't have to give up your rational respectability; you just try an experiment with defined parameters, and see what the results are. you don't have to go in blind at any point, you're not asked to make a leap of faith; you're instead told that if you fancy taking a look at what's claimed to be at the other side of the leap, you can build your own bridge to get there. you don't have to give him, or anyone else, your money (the books are normal book-price and otherwise freely available); you don't have to swear yourself to secrecy or join any kind of cult; you just *do* meditation and eventually second and third tier awareness becomes available to you as a matter of choice, and as real as your awareness is now.

supposedly, it's a characteristic of being at any given level to believe that it's the best and only level to be at; to see the levels before as misguided (or 'evil' or 'childish') and the levels after as unreal, nonsense, or delusions held by those at lower levels. so again, what if he's right about that? say you're centred at green; the next level is yellow, the first of the second-tier, post- or trans- rational levels. that would make you prone to finding everything up until green all very reasonable, and everything after green total nonsense. and that's what you're saying, isn't it?

apart from all that, he's reasonably well respected as an academic, he's openly building on the work of many, many others (as is the academic way), the non-fiction writing is open, clear, and well-referenced. are you *sure* you're not letting your habitual assumptions hide a genuine, new idea from you?

From:

(that would be 'Wilber', of course, not 'Wibler' :-)

From:

dapperscavenger.livejournal.com

I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that there is a wrong and a right - itjust goes back to the concept of Absolute Truth, which has been around a while. However, it is presumptious to believe that your truth is THE truth and thats when conversations get sticky.

Generally speaking I find that these people have latched onto thei version of the truth for a reason and it may not be safe to go undermining it!

From:

btw, isn't that mostly blank?

It really depends on how much it is worth to you and how much they are willing to listen. I've found that most fundamentalists aren't willing to listen, no matter how it is presented. If both of you are willing to invest sufficiently, then it might be possible. Some people can be swayed by logic, some by beauty, some by passion, and some induction. It's really a play by feel thing. Ultimately, you have to put things in their language that their language isn't designed to convey, so it can be very difficult and very frustrating. At times, it's really mental masturbation because neither of you will convince the other. At other times, you can gain a great friendship.

P.S. A fundamentalist is anyone that believes that their world view covers 100% of all phenomena. It has nothing to do with religion other than by example. If you try to present something that doesn't fit in their world view, you are being unscientific, blasphemous, non-objective, or a variety of other epithets...

From:

green-amber.livejournal.com

What, and when you insist that you're *always* right in knowing they're *always* wrong, you're *not* a fundamentalist?

Grow up.

"I have a clear logical view of the universe, you are a bit misguided but I can show you the error of your ways, he/she is a fundamentalist."

All beliefs - all - are subjective. Yours aren't privileged just cos you're an alpha geek. Using fundamentalism as an insult here is just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, yah boo sucks" - exactly what you've just accused the "fundamentalists " of.

You think you're so smug about having no subjective claim to truth, but I bet I can predict RIGHT NOW what you believe to be the essentialist truths of the universe: coding is good, fashion is bad, monogamy is for wimps but actually you only ever sleep with one person, religion is bad but believing that science is more important than art, beauty or love is good. How right am I? We ALL have subjective opinions and beliefs. No one is much worse at this than anyone else. Anything you can actually prove tends to be opretty trivial in the feelings department. Real wisdom is to acknowledge this.

Nosce seauton.

From:

When did he say that they were always wrong? When did he claim privilege? You appeared to just restate what he said, in the tones of violent disagreement.

I'm somewhat confused.

From:

I'm confused too. Is this the same person I had disagreements with before? He/She doesn't seem to remember that I take a very non-serious view on life. This doesn't tend to be compatible with being an alpha-geek or having a "clear, logical view of the universe".

From:

Uhm, this is the wrong person to try this on. I'm very much not your typical geek.

Where did I ever say that I'm always right in knowing they are always wrong? That's rather confusing. Did we read the same comment?

Coding is only good if it makes me money or helps me communicate. I code because I'm good at it and the money is good. I couldn't have my lifestyle as a masseuse yet there are times when I'd love to give up the coding all day and instead spend my time making others feel better. Money is a right royal bastard.

I wear silks, velvets, and regularly order from International Male.

I have many friends that practice monogamy and it's wonderful for them. I sleep with many people. I have sex with fewer. I cuddle with more. Using the phrase "sleeping with someone" to mean having sex with them is rather misleading.

Religion is definitely not bad. I happen to host the DNS and mail for Church of All Worlds. I happen to be very religious and very spiritual.

In the list of science, art, beauty, and love, science comes in fifth; at least in the manner that you are thinking of it. Any of these can be found in any of the other three. My favorite Museum in DC was the Corcoran Art Museum, not the Air & and Space.

How right are you? Well, if you were trying to describe me, you did a pretty miserable job. If you'd taken even a brief glance at my interests list you might've realized that you were targetting the wrong person.

If you looked, in my comment, I presented a variety of options: "swayed by logic, some by beauty, some by passion, and some induction". Of those I find that logic tends to be the most useless to use since anything can be proven with logic. For me, I use intuition as my guide through life and I make up the reasons later.

As I mentioned to

freemore above, I have no problems with people having any viewpoint they want as long as they don't try to impose it upon me.

From:

octopoid-horror.livejournal.com

I found that your phrasing here

attempt to enlighten them

use their language, it's what they're comfortable with

given your usual style of writing, carries the implication that your views are privileged over theirs. You sound like a British colonialist back in the 19th century talking about "strange foreign chaps and their funny ways"

You might not have meant it to sound that way, but that's how it sounds.

Being more tolerant of other people's views isn't necessarily a sign that you're better. It's a sign that you let other people express themselves. Some people would say "That doesn't make you intellectually superior/a better person/more socially adjusted, they could say that it makes you weak, less firm in your views" and so on.

Those aren't -my- opinions, necessarily.

Oh:

As I don't view it as possible to be wrong about these things

Isn't that you telling some of "them" (assuming some of "them" read this journal) that they're categorically wrong to do what they do and think what they think, by the way?

From: