Zizzero

@Shadowraix Haven't played in months. Also, never played on anything other than EU. But thanks for the offer @Leo Gura What yellow do you see in Switzerland? Because I am from there, and I'm not sure if I would consider my country to be more developed than other countries in Europe and North America.

@jbram2002 100%. Well said

@Shadowraix Well, there's not much to tell, is there? It's the same old pish-tosh. Gallant knight, epic quests, rescued maidens. I came to this land when my head was quite unceremoniously separated from my body. Bad luck that, but you make the best of things.

Ken Wilber introduced a distinction between the left and the right as how they would answer the question "why is someone poor?" The left will typically name things like: Inequality, lack of opportunity - the system's fault The right-winger will typically answer: lazyness, lack of responsibility, bad decision making - the invididual's fault The left by that definition - and I believe this grasps how you defined it - sees the source of human suffering in the exterior. The right more in the interior. Now, both sides have a partial truth to them. What happens with the entrance of tier 2 is that you recognize both truths simultaniously. Here's a thought experiment: In three different dimensions you are president of a country. In the first dimension all your citizens are red/blue, in the second all your citizens are orange/green and in the third all your citizens are turquoise/coral. What laws do you propose? Yellow, unlike its predecessors, will choose policies based on the current circumstances - not based on pure ideology. Another way to look at it is this: the warm colors are more individualistic, the cold ones are more collectivist. That makes yellow a more right-leaning stage and turquoise a left-leaning stage. Green exists to solve the problems orange creates. Yellow exists to solve the problems green creates.

Both the left and the right wing perspective have truth to them. A highly conscious person sees the necessity of both and is nonideological enough to be whatever this individual perceives as needed right now. But the right-left spectrum is confusing; it really depends on how you define "left" and "right" - it's really just a word game. You can call either side "low consciousness" if you choose a definition that allows you to do so. Also, how do you know whether someone is high or low conscious and how would you define those terms? It's easy to fall into circular reasoning: When you define the right as a low consciousness perspective, then you exclude the possibility of a highly conscious right winger through your definition already.

@sausagehead I think it's worth trying! I did some research the last few days on the the possibility of attaining enlightenment solely through the letting go technique, but I was unable to find answers for whether it's possible or how effective it is. Based on my own experience, I can definitely say that implementing a habit of letting go significantly increased my life quality and puts me in a way more present state with less self-identification with my ego. To quote Hawkins from his book "Letting Go": " Eventually, everything is surrendered that stands in the way of the Presence. [...] Instead of viewing this as something in the future, own it now. [...] [Enlightenment] is right here in this instant. The reason you're not experiencing this state of total peace and timelessness is because it is being resisted. It is being resisted because you are trying to control your experience of the moment, and if you constantly surrender it like a tone of music, then you live on the crest of this exact alwaysness. Experience arises like a note of music. The minute you hear a note, it's already passing away. The instant you've heard it, it's already dissolving. So every single moment is dissolving as it arises. Let go of anticipating the next moment, trying to control it, trying to hang on to the moment that has just passed. Let go clinging to what has just occured. Let go of what you think is about to occur. Then you live in an infinite space of non-time and non-event. There is an infinite peace beyond description. And you are home." That makes sense to me and I don't think I will start to do self-inquiry because of it; I rather intensify how often I focus on surrendering; I resonate way more with this method than self-inquiry. If you do your retreat, feel free to share your experiences.

Said the devil. You have a point, but let's at least be fair. Calling someone a devil and getting angry at someone for asking questions is far from being "free from ego". It's always easier to see the ego in others

Never had a nondual experience, but since we're talking about this, please tell me how far off I am with what I came up to understand. So, when we're asking whether 2+2=4 is true does the following analogy make sense: "Harry Potter is a wizard" is a statement that is seemingly wrong; for it is true when there is an existing entity called "Harry Potter" and that entity would have to possess the attribute of "being a wizard". Therefore, in an absolute sense "Harry Potter is a wizard" is not true; Harry Potter is nothing but a construct created by a mind. However; withing the context of the Harry Potter world, the statement is absolutely true; withing that "reality" Harry Potter is an existing entity that happens to be a wizard. In the same sense, 2+2=4 is true; but only within the rules of this dream we call reality. It is relatively true, meaning; true under certain presuppositions or within a context. But on an absolute level, number and mathematics are not entities that exists in the way we understand the concept of existence; they are not independent from "the observer"/consciousness. (Even though it is also quite controversial whether 2+2=4 is true if philosophical realism was true; would be depending on one's position on the problem of universals and on your definition of "truth". But that just as a sidenote from a philosophy freak )

100% A resemblance to a cult cannot be denied. This community is full of people who share the same worldview and reinforce this worldview in this echo chamber that is the forum. I mean look at this thread here; once someone says he supports views that go against what the consensus or Leo beliefs, it's seen as ego trying to protect itself Everything is filtered as either in alignment to Leo's views and therefore good or not in alignment and therefore "devilry" and "ego protection". The forum is completely out of alignment with its own teachings. Where can I find the unconditional love or search for truth? Enlightenment or tier 2 in spiral dynamics development are treated like necessities and if you are not in possession of those, then all you say is ego and bad; so do your practices and blindly believe what us, the mystics, tell you.

What's a cult is primarily a linguistical question. No need to argue for or against the label "cult" for this community. First one has to define the word "cult", then we can talk whether actualized.org is one.

Full agreement with you here. That's where we disagree. I believe you're belief of "left is generally more developed" is incorrect. As you wrote yourself: I don't mean conservatives vs liberals when I say right vs left. I mean the underlying values. "The commies want to destroy our superior country because they're evil" is what blue would say. A yellow right winger would instead say something like: "I see the appeal in both, but I choose freedom over equality". There's always going to be a fight in politics between those who value fairness, criticize hierarchies and have a more collectivist perspective and those who value freedom, welcome hierarchies and have a more individualistic perspective. There's more than one reason why someone supports a particular policy; some are simply more developed than others. But it's not the policy itself or the political side that's developed or not-developed. Also; spiritual development doesn't mean being better at politics. Not that anyone claimed otherwise, but just so it's been said.

You connect Truth, Goodness, Love, Consciousness and Harmony with left-wing politicial views in that case. In other words: someone who's run by the values you named would inevitably choose the political left over the political right according to you. If I understood you correctly. I'm not here to argue than there is a political ideology that is free from ego and selfishness, but to claim that Goodness leads one to see the necessity of more left-wing is a way too simplistic view that completely ignores the philosophical depth and complexity that can be found on the right side of the spectrum. The right has way more to offer than just protection of the ego.

No idea. Never been religious; so I don't know enough about Jesus to even understand what you wanted to show me with that counterquestion . It would actually be news to me that Jesus ever said something political at all. Just to be clear: I wasn't asking the question to imply something like "Leo shouldn't have a political opinion" or anything similar. I was asking because I also believe that you have a bias and I'm genuinly curious whether you are in agreement or disagreement towards that claim and - if you disagree - why you disagree?

@Leo Gura Would you agree with the claim that you have a left-wing bias?

Ask your political opponents why they disagree with you - and listen. You wrote in your first post: The idea of Spiral Dynamics is that you move up the spiral to adapt to newer, more complex challenges. You can't make a newborn see the necessity of stage green because he is very concerned with beige issues because that's where he is at in life. A more helpful question would be: Why are stage blue-orange people seeing a necessity of staying in blue-orange? Something I believe to observe is that a key difference between green and yellow is humbleness. Yellow is very humble and open. Green, however, likes to make everything about green; green believes that everyone should be green, everyone should talk about green topics and use green tools. If you want someone else to move up the spiral, you cannot make this about you. You cannot expect others to be open to learn about your perspective when you aren't open to learn theirs. Now, that's a tricky thing; you learned about this fancy SD-theory and you already integrated blue and orange; basically, blue-orange people should become green and not you should become blue-orange. If that applies to you, then you demand openness from other people, but you don't practice it yourself. What you have to do to reach your goal is this: Create an environment where the ego doesn't cling to its views; make it ok for people to change their views on fundamental matters. How do you do that? By personifying this belief yourself. How about going up to a blue-orange person and instead of going in with the mindset: "I want to persuade you", you say: "This is something we disagree on. Can you explain why you support this policy?" Make it about them; validate their perspective and don't label what they say as "stage blue", "short-sighted" or "driven by fear". Try to understand on a deep level why they believe what they believe and be genuinely open to have your mind changed; allow them to change your mind. Ironically, by doing this, you will move more and more into deep yellow yourself. What might help you is the fact that your political views are not determined by SD; there's more factors like personality, gender or social conditioning that influence your political stance; so if you assume that everyone on the right is below green, that's a fallacy; there are a lot of amazing or integral ideas in right wing politics; discover them. Basically, what green needs to realize is that it doesn't have to wear an orange coat to be heard; focus on what makes green amazing: letting go of making a competition out of everything and loving things just for how they are. Show orange that it's ok to be vulnerable - and nothing makes you more vulnerable than agreeing with the side you fought against and saying you were wrong - and instead of explaining the benefits of green, focus on integrating green yourself. Make it so that when an orange person doubts his orange worldview, his ego allows him to learn your perspective and instead of saying: "told you I was right all along", you just say how you see things and you already exemplified that there's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. Now, what I just wrote is SD focused; it's on actually helping people move up the spiral. Remember; moving people up the spiral might not have the result on democratic decisions that you like; that belief would be rooted in the deeper belief that your perspective is the right one and if people would move up they would realize the necessity of your values. If your goal is simply to get more politicians that you like in power or change certain policies; study psychology and political sciences. The key to winning elections is not to persuade people on the other side of the political spectrum, it's to mobilize the people on your side to actually go and vote.

Sorry for commenting on a month-old post, but I just wanted to say that what you wrote here is brilliant.

Not by showing them a list of orange's limits and fails. People wont respond well if they sense that your agenda is to try to change their world view. It's not as simple as: "Let's debate and my green facts are gonna make you realize the necessity to expand your worldview" If you want to help people move up; stop pushing them. Instead; remove what's preventing them from moving up. We have a natural drive to move up, so; eliminate the reason they don't.

Careful not to do the very thing you're criticizing. I see a lot of examples of propaganda in this thread; and I'm not talking about PragerU

"Does integrating green mean that you cannot go back to an orange career?" No, it does not. You can do what you want. Spiral Dynamics is not a moral theory; it's not a map on how to live life the right way. Don't let a psychological theory prevent you from doing what you want.

To be fair; one video was designed to make the person in it look bad. And in the other, the person just uses a lot of set phrases that sound good, but what did he actually say other than his typical political "vote for me! justice is good!" talk which all politicians do. The question was about God and to me it's clear listening to them that both don't care about God that much. But please let's not turn this into another religion-war thread, this forum can't handle two of them at once.

@kieranperez @Serotoninluv Relative values (inferiority/superiority) require a premise of value. If you for example assess value to human survival, preventing WW3 is morally good within this context, but not absolutely good. But if you are an endangered species, and assess value to humanity's end, WW3 is a moraly good idea all of a sudden. I think we generally agree. All I intended to argue for is to say that what matters to a turquoise or a green person might not matter to a blue person. Realizing green ideals in a society is good for anyone who cares about green values, but not to those who don't. I believe the main disagreement throughout the thread is what the practical political steps are regarding spiral dynamics and our current society. I'm ok with us agreeing to disagree on this matter. Thanks guys for the interesting debate and sharing your thoughts, certainly enjoyed it as well.

More inclusive does not equal superior. Every stage in the spiral is designed to solve the problems of the previous stage. A normative claim by a turquoise person is not more true than a normative claim by a red person

@Serotoninluv If I understand you correctly, you're saying something along the lines of: Yellow wants to raise the level because yellow realizes the advantages of being in the second tier. Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on that. But with that, you also agree with me that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about it, though. Our disagreement might just be the following: I don't think a perspective gains validity from being higher up in the spiral. Turquoise lacks good reasons just as much as blue does; the only difference is how much more complex the world is that turquoise sees.

Never denied that. I stated what makes green's self-righteousness more interesting than blue or orange's in a post above. No, these are opinions; your opinions. If those are facts; prove them. Prove that, let's say, racial equality is a necessary change that needs to happen. And try to stay away from justifications like: "if you moved up to green, you'd know". You are claiming that these are facts. Back up this claim or any other normative claim you made in your post. Agreed, but is green better or more right than orange and blue?

@Serotoninluv I like your thoughts. Even though you strawman-ed me with what my concerns are My question would be this: -Why is raising the collective level of the spiral desirable/valuable? - why does yellow have this goal?