Caring/Compassion/Sensitivity/Tact vs Lying/Faking

[Tenet Nosce]

It's more due to convenience. I definitely had to know algebra before calculus.

Convenience for... who? The teacher? The "system"? Education should be based on what it effective rather than what is convenient.

Algebra. Tabula Rasa. From where (or more importantly when) did these ideas originate? Interesting how willing some people are to take certain things for granted as useful or necessary.

As far as SD goes, no stages can really be "skipped", but that does not imply linear development.

Then how would SD explain this?

Your point is taken, but by learning needs I was not implying formal education. The educational system can be improved in many ways, of course.

Then perhaps this is one of the areas in which we have been talking past each other.

It depends on the subject matter. There are many practical skills, for example, which do not require anything more than blue/orange valuing.

Yes, this is true. What I mean to say is that it would be an improvement if the context of education (formal or informal) were to be expanded to acknowledge the existence of all these viewpoints. The problem, as I see it, is too many educators not only teaching from blue/orange, but also refusing to acknowledge the existence or validity of higher memes.

Also, keep in mind that these levels tend to be centers of gravity when averaged over different circumstances - some may draw from higher values, some from lower - just as Ra says when particular catalyst happens people regress from an average "yellow ray" to "orange ray". There are both healthy and pathological ways of being at each level. Possible "greed" and reductionism at Orange, when in search of self-fullfilment but also the start of egalitarianism.

Yes, I can see how this works. The main issue I see here is when those stuck in pathological and lower-level memes are put into positions of authority and are given decision-making power over others.

According to this scheme, the blue "Purposeful/Authoritarian" meme started 5000 years ago, around the time of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. (For the moment, let's set aside that the Ra contact with Imhotep offers evidence that higher memes were actually introduced way back then.)

The focus of my frustration/beef is that those who are still operating out of the blue meme appear to be "in charge" where societal institutions are concerned. The people who can demonstrate a healthy appreciation of the higher memes should be the ones "in charge". People who are overexpressive of blue/orange should be disqualified from taking positions of authority, in my opinion.

The needed system is one which addresses everyone core needs, on up the spiral. That's what they are calling an "integral approach". This involves promoting healthy expressions of those values so that learning can take place in a more cooperative manner. No vMeme, be it higher or lower should be allowed to stifle this healthy progress through their pathological misunderstandings. Unfortunately, this requires a "2nd-tier" understanding for such leadership, which "Green" rejects as impossible (their can be no heirarchies). We should be attempting to optimize the social system by providing more freedom in general.

Agreed. Any ideas on how to better achieve this?

The way copyrights must be used for protection is unfortunate, but not sure how there could be a better way when people are not yet on the same page.

Well again, this gets back to how the majority of society's institutions appear to be held hostage by those stuck in pathological blue. I understand that people need to make a living and all, but really this concept of "information ownership" is patently absurd. (Pun intended.)

This is the sort of thing where I am not satisfied to fall back to "well this is just what we have" or "it's all we know". The ownership of information is really a ridiculous notion. Information is simply light. I know many would call this an "oversimplification" yet it is true.

So, will somebody please explain to me, exactly how does one "own" light? How can we possibly expect to continue our own evolution in a context which says this is "my" light and that is "your" light, and we need to exchange little green pieces of paper in order to transfer this light from one to another?

I don't think people to reach or to look very far at all, either into the past or the future. Those things do not exist.

I said "reaching for what is next". Life develops and evolves- it does not reach a certain stage and declare "This Is It". Really... no higher memes should be necessary for this. It is built into the DNA of all living things. Only earth humans (whose DNA appears to have been jacked with) declare that they are at the top of the evolutionary pyramid, and consider themselves the pinnacle of Creation.

I see. Then who are the ones that flatly deny that such people exist? Who believe that "everybody is just doing their best" and "nobody would ever commit such heinous acts against humanity"?

I don't think it's really an important question.

Interesting that you chose not to respond to this. It seems rather pathological to blindly accept the "official" story on anything, out of a misguided appeal to authority. It also seems pathological to offer a fabrication as the "truth" in the first place.

For example, we may never know what really happened with JFK's assassination. What we can say with 100% certainty is that the "Magic Bullet" theory defies the known laws of physics. Yet, this theory remains as the "official" view, and is presented in textbooks and documentaries as "fact".

For example, we may never know how exactly the pyramids were built. What we can say with 100% certainty is that moving around 1000-ton stones and fitting them together such that a sheet of paper cannot slide between them, is WAY beyond anything which could be fabricated by slave labor with levers and ropes. Yet, this is what is offered as the "official" view, and is presented to the public as "fact".

For example, we may not fully understand how the chemicals we put in our processed foods affect human health. But what we can say with a high degree of confidence that the human body does not respond well to foreign chemicals being put inside of it. Yet, the "official" view says that processed foods are just fine, and that their safety is backed by "science".

However, putting extra nutrients into the body via dietary supplements... now THAT is something that people should REALLY be "concerned" about for their own safety. Now is that so? Really, this is how people are taught to think? Nothing wrong with a Diet Coke, but watch out for that vitamin C tablet?!

Shall I go on? Will you even respond to this? :-/