Very interesting video that has changed me in many ways.

Post Reply New Topic

**PLEASE TAKE THE POLL BEFORE WATCHING THIS VIDEO.

you can take this as light-hearted or as serious as you like.




[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvKByYOPdo[/youtube]

I have a couple problems with this:

1. Your poll was a little unclear. I answered it based on misunderstanding what you were trying to say. (I also notice that you left out the seventh level. Don't think any of us are there? )

2. This is NOT the first time in history that people have begun to be at the 6th and 7th levels (possibly even beyond). It's just chronological snobbery that makes people say that.

Other than that, it was rather interesting.

I do like the idea of a hierarchy of pretty much everything that's not completely subjective. I always advise Christians that, when considering the Bible, they should listen first to Jesus, then to Moses, and then to other prophets given what they think of their wisdom, followed by church leaders and priests. If there seems to be a conflict between them (either in exact words or, perhaps more significantly, their message), then go with the one that's ranked higher. I do the same with Taoism (Lao Tzu first, Chuang Tzu second, then others in an order I'm not going to go into). I also think it's important to know where you are. For example, if you are at the seventh level, but are unaware that you are, you may drop down to, say, the fourth level.

Edit: I'd also like to point out how similar the 3rd and 5th levels are, but it seems that this video was made by an atheist, so I suppose they had to place the science level above the religious level.

I'm not sure what you find ''unclear'' about the poll.as for the seventh level missing I noticed straight away after posting but seen as I am still new to wrong planet layout I am not sure how (if possible) to edit polls.



I do see your point,I picked this point up in a slightly different way.I perceived that 'he' (the creater of the video) was talking in about the majority.say ,1550-early 1700's (the age of religious war) had more people at the personal world of stage 4 than that of people in late 1900's.I dont mean the statistics or rise and fall of the amount of people practising religion but the personal ,individual practise of it in their lives.
but that just my opinion


perhaps...

Umm... The penis hat on the "christian soldier" kinda gives it away.

I also think the maker is a dirty Canadian Hippie.

Personally, I strive to live according to nature and be rational, moderate, virtuous in all things.

There's 7 levels, but you only gave us 6 options?

I've come across spiral dynamics before. What does spiral dynamics have to do with Bi-polar? I might have missed that part of the video. Is it saying that the way 'we' treat people with a bi-polar experience is wrong because bi-polar people are simply in another dynamic 'bracket'?

Well, I answered the fourth one because I do try to do what's right. The only reason I didn't choose the last one was because you talked about me "beginning to question [my] materialistic ways." Problem is, I'm not really materialistic. At all. That's the reason why I didn't pick that one.

Edit: Heck, I almost answered the second one because I wasn't sure if you meant magical as in DND magic or magical as in wonderful.

None of these seem to fit me. :/

Very interesting video, I like this kind of stuff. I think it is correct in most ways, the problem I see, is that I feel like I belong in different levels, there are aspects in my life that belong not only to 1 level. I guess my level also changes depending on situations and on moods.
Even though I understand things pretty clearly now it's still hard to get to level 7, I feel like I'm stuck in previous levels.

I think people often have a spread of traits from various levels.

somebody please explain to me how this differs from Maslow's Hierarchy [pyramid] of Needs.

Another thing I'd like to point out is level 6 specifically healing the planet, as if that particular action is required to attain a higher level of consciousness.

Also, I disagree that this is the first time in history that the majority has been at one level or another. 2500 years ago, the Greeks were at level 5. Now, they didn't have the tools we do, but they were working on it. 2000 years ago, there were many people seeking out the 7th level, and a number attaining it, or at least the 6th level. Some even argue that Jesus preached the 7th level (or perhaps even something beyond), rather than the 4th. Though this goes into the lost Gospels. In this day and age, you still have many people at the 3rd, 4th, and 5th levels, and I firmly believe that the percentages really haven't changed that much in quite some time.

7's appear to appear in all times. I discussed the spiral dynamic concept with a friend last night, and she said 7 (turquoise) seems equivalent to enlightenment, and I agree. The Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates... possible 7s? Countless others that haven't been documented by historians? What about Atlantis?

Kinda similar; Is anyone familiar with and interested in the 8 Circuit Model of Consciousness, as written about by Timothy Leary, Robert Anton Wilson, and Antero Alli?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0p7TC2mHRI[/youtube]

http://deoxy.org/8brains.htm

I think all stages have appeared at all times but not at constant percentages...

The Greeks and Romans produced some pretty clever fellows, but as a group they were very superstitious and unenlightened.

Remember, these guys were not just gifted philosophers and engineers, but brutal slaveholders and enthusiastic bloodsport fans as well.

As far as specific 7s go, I'd agree with the above EXCEPT for Socrates. He was an obnoxious git (it's the reason he was executed).

I'd also like to nominate Marcus Aurelius as a possible 7...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJp4RLQ6zx0[/youtube]
That first meditation is pretty generous for a man who could kill you with a word.

I could be wrong, but I THINK that the Greeks and Romans weren't the only society at the time.

Also note that not ALL Greeks or Romans appreciated blood sport. Again, you're looking at the popular picture of the average person (spotlight fallacy) rather than how it really was. Yes, many Greeks and Romans appreciated brutality. Many also did not.

Also note that cultural advancement is not the same as individual advancement. Today, we hold slave ownership as wrong, but that exists outside of the 7 levels. First because how an individual treats their slaves can be affected by what level they are on and second because, as I said, it's a cultural advancement, not an individual one. The reason we hold slave ownership as wrong is because people in a position to influence our morals said so. What about dogs that people use for similar purposes as people used to slaves? "Well, they're dogs," people say, but that's pretty much what they used to say about slaves. And what exactly says that a dog should have fewer rights than a human being?

I think it's possible to be a git and be enlightened.



Could be.

I agree with Mr. Looney that you can't lump societies and the individuals that sprang from them together. A lot of my fellow Britons enjoy watching televised talent shows and drinking themselves insensible at any given opportunity.

No, they weren't the only society at the time, just the ONLY SOCIETY YOU MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY IN YOUR POST. Hence that's the society I discussed.

As a student of classical history, I think I have as good a grasp as anyone concerning how it really was (unless you have a time machine).

It is true that among the educated elites, many did not care for brutality and bloodsport--Cato the Younger, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus are on record...

However, among the unwashed, uneducated mob of Rome (more than 1 million strong at its height) bloodsport, brutality and superstition were very popular.

My only real beef with your original post was your assertion that the PERCENTAGES of more enlightened folks had not changed. That, I vehemently disagree with. There are certainly more people among the ranks of the enlightened these days simply because more people have time to THINK, READ, and LEARN these days. They aren't living at subsistence, survival level like the majority of humanity was 2000 years ago.



Once again I was questioning your assertion that PERCENTAGES of enlightened IN THE CULTURE had not really changed.

I would say that it is pretty unlikely that you could find an enlightened individual who could make a logical argument that ownership and exploitation of a sapient being is just.

I find it difficult to believe that a society with a high PERCENTAGE of enlightened individuals would be a slaveholding society.

As far as your argument about dogs goes... come now, that's just silly. You cannot enslave a being that cannot formulate a concept of freedom or bondage.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think taking delight in publicly humiliating people is not a very enlightened trait.

Also, Socrates' philosophy is very negative and simple (even if it is a clever bit of thinking). It can pretty much be summed up in the phrase "all I know is that I don't know nuthin'..."

That's good, but it ain't on a level with Buddha, J.C., or Marcus Aurelius as far as I can see.

Last edited by GoonSquad on 27 Dec 2010, 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.