Parththakkar12

Oh yeah it isn't a statement of Absolute Truth. I thought we were assuming that no statement can be absolutely right or wrong...? I'll clear that up then : No statement can be absolutely right or wrong because true/false or right/wrong is relative. They aren't claiming that their statements are absolutely true. They are taking their stand as individuals on this. Now I value their perspective because it is a conscious perspective. I don't think that intuition can be deluded. I feel that intuition is the universal mechanism that helps you get out of delusion. Human beings don't have just one ego. We have multiple egos, in fact all egos out there are a part of ourselves. The universe is a fractal, so every perspective can access every other perspective, thanks to intuition/omniscience. It is a very strange-loopy thing where all perspectives are a part of my perspective. Now if one of those egos dies, i.e. goes through an enlightenment experience, the conscious mind still sees that and awakens some more. Edit: You can identify with the universal perspective of Oneness. That would still be your ego, even though it includes everything! Truth would transcend even this ego. However, it can be useful to identify with Oneness because it is better than identifying with a separated ego-self and it causes less suffering. They are not fully enlightened, i.e. not all of their egos are dead. Enlightenment is not a point, it is a journey of awakening. The ego going through this journey of awakening is the aware ego or the awakened ego. If they do become fully enlightened, they will merge with the formless and they will cease to have a form. This would require them to shed their human body. So awakening is a way of life for them. Their practice is to integrate non-duality with the dualistic world, thereby awakening deeper and deeper in mundane everyday life. Edit: Have you seen Leo's video on the 10 Ox-herding pictures of Stages of enlightenment? What I'm talking about is the 4th or 5th stage, i.e. Catching the Ox/Taming the Ox. This is where, you get good at accessing pure awareness through meditation/yoga/psychedelics, and then you integrate it into yourself. You are then able to bring the light of consciousness into the most unconscious, dark ego spaces and create shifts in your own level of consciousness, and then subsequently in other people's level of consciousness.

It isn't possible for people informed by their intuition to disagree, because oneness! Reality is one. Now you can have different perspectives looking at the same reality, but they won't conflict. The universe informing everyone's intuition is the same and it is Infinite and One. If there is a perceived conflict, that is because someone is deluded. In my experience, intuition is directly informed by the Truth and according to the Truth. Yes, the lens would be one of consciousness. However, where do you think the information you download is stored? Who takes care of that information? That is the awakened ego. It is the awakened ego who trusts their intuition as a survival strategy. A lot of what humans do is about survival. Now because it is an awakened ego, even though it has survival needs, it won't see survival as everything. Having said that, even it needs survival strategies. The trick here would be to have conscious survival strategies. The awakened ego will be willing to experiment with conscious survival strategies because it understands that death is an illusion, so you aren't really risking anything if your survival strategies don't work. Having said that, it still wants to live and will participate in survival, because that is the only way to have a distinct perspective and raise your consciousness further. This includes the awakened ego. It doesn't claim to know everything. No ego can know everything as it's just too much. However, your intuition is your access to omniscience, so the awakened ego knows how to access universal perspective. This is what spiritual teachers teach in fact. Their ego, which is one of a spiritual teacher, is good at teaching people how to access their intuitions and have an in-alignment life.

I'm telling you what I know. I'm not telling you to believe me. You can use your intuition to decide whether you want to agree with me or not. However, I do know that in this context, what I'm saying is not an estimation, it is fully fully clear to me. It's not coming from bias or ego. Except that there is one loophole : What if your ego is an awakened ego? Enlightenment means that you realize that the ego is an illusion and that we are all one. Even after you are enlightened, you will have an ego, in fact you will have an ego that has access to intuition and non-dual states. You will still have multiple egos, some will be awakened egos which will be defined by knowledge of non-duality and intuitive understanding. All egos have physical/mental/emotional needs, which is where the need to share what you know comes in. Why do you think they're doing what they're doing, going up against the establishment which is putting in control measures? It is a very human thing to want to help other human beings by telling them what they see from a more elevated conscious perspective. This isn't a fight to prove the validity of what you're saying. That is a game the mainstream media and science plays. This is about telling people who are open-minded enough to consider what you're saying, so that it can help widen their field of view and so that it can help raise their consciousness.

How do you know I don't know! I do know that they're conscious. That is because I can intuitively see and verify a lot of what they're saying. This isn't blind faith on my part. Your intuition is always true (that is if it really is your intuition and you aren't making it up). Intuition is basically universal God-perspective communicating with you and telling you what's what when there are 2 sides debating over something. It is the ultimate grounding you have in reality and it transcends all ideology and rationality. Intuition is your access to omniscience.

When you say 'they should consider all possibilities', you're assuming they don't know what they're talking about and are shooting darts in the air. That isn't the case at all. Same with London Real people. That's the thing with this forum! Whenever you share something you know that is unpopular and outside the mainstream opinion, you will get told to 'admit you don't know' when actually you do know! You have your intuition showing you the power dynamics, which is where the fact that they are non-dual mystics comes in. You can't prove what your intuition tells you, like you can't prove non-duality. They are spiritual teachers who are relaying to us a very conscious perspective. Will people take this as dogma? They aren't meant to, but if they do, that's their mistake. This won't stop them from sharing what they know.

That is precisely correct! However you are missing something. School is an institution designed for collective material survival. Nothing more and nothing less. When a kid comes into the world, it is clueless about this world. The slate is blank. The whole point of school is to have kids spend time in an environment where they're getting indoctrinated with basic information about our world. Even though the passing percentages are low, they still have to spend 12 years of their childhood in that environment which goes to show it's not about giving them useful knowledge that will help them later in life, rather it's about indoctrination. They don't teach kids to push their limits, face their fears, shift their attitudes and increase their creative capacities for this very reason. We can say school has successfully done its job if kids who pass can: Do basic math Read/write basic English Know basics of history/geography/science We can say school has failed if we get the following problems: People can't agree on basic rules of mathematics People can't agree on what the English language is, i.e. some people have been taught different words/grammar rules than others and now there's a language barrier. People can't agree on the name/map of the country they live in The point here is to cater to a general population, so that the mass of young adults who get out of high school know the basic theory about how our world works. The purpose here is collective material survival. It is not to teach individuals the skills they need to create a happy, successful life. This is an individual endeavor and at this point in time, individuals have to figure this out themselves. I know you can get lost in various traps and mazes, but this is where we stand today.

David Icke lacks an understanding of systems thinking and how this stuff works. He was literally playing with fire. What did he think was gonna happen the way he was handling this? Was Bill Gates gonna say 'Oh man I completely missed that vaccines are trash! Thank you so much David Icke for opening my eyes to this.' Nope. What happens is that you get banned, sued, hate-speeched, taken out. Look at my last post on the 'Collective Ego Mega-Thread' where I go into why collective egos follow simplistic ideologies. You're either for them or against them. If you're for them, they'll not hurt you, they may even be on your side. If you're against them, they will ruthlessly and efficiently get you out of their way when they go about trying to achieve their objectives. There are more strategic ways to take your stand. You can have a solution-oriented approach to this where you get in the shoes of Bill Gates and really understand what he's doing, you really understand what mainstream medicos are doing and why they're promoting vaccines. If you create an us vs them, even if you win, you'll incur collateral damage.

There is a huge reason collective egos are ideological and take one-dimensional stands on certain issues. The reason is that their stand directs their action in a particular situation. Whenever you are trying to decide how to solve a particular relationship problem or complex social problem, there are a number of perspectives you can take on it. There are a number of approaches you can take to it and there's infinitely many directions you can go with it. It is important that you take a one-dimensional stand that informs your action, such that your action will be concrete, decisive, well-directed and strategic. You will take this stand according to what you believe, what you want from the situation at hand, your total perspective and what you want to do. If you are a Stage Yellow thinker, your stands on particular issues tend to be nuanced, right? A multi-perspectival approach doesn't work when it comes to taking a stand which will inform your action. Your multi-perspectival approach will work in order to have a broader view of the situation at hand and not miss shit. Ideologues can be myopic, closed-minded and limited in their view. A multi-perspectival, holistic and integrative approach to analyzing the situation can be helpful when you're trying to deeply understand it, analyze it systemically, get to the root causes, etc. However, when it comes to taking action, what you do will depend on what you want from the situation. You will take a one-dimensional stand according to what you want and your action will be directed and informed by that stand you take. Collective egos are almost always defined by what they want to collectively do in the world. This calls for taking a simple, pragmatic stand and spreading an ideology that serves your objectives. Very rarely will you see a collective ego take a nuanced position on a particular issue for this reason. If you try to inform your action using a complex, nuanced position, it is often seen as indecisiveness. Collective egos are very sensitive to indecisiveness as they're defined by what they do, so they will not tolerate indecisiveness relative to it. Since they're defined by their actions/goals, it's simple - you're either with them or against them. If you aren't decisive about whether you're on their side or not, they will not trust you. They'll kick you out and replace you with someone who is surely on their side. There's nothing nuanced about this decision!

I have noted all of Yamada Mamon's quotes Leo cited in his video on the Ten Ox-Herding pictures. There's all the verses with the pictures, and what Leo cited about all the stages. Zen quotes.docx

I can't watch 2 minutes of him cuz what he says makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like he uses a word-salad to cover up the fact that he's simply full of shit. Like for example 'The Neo-Marxists are bad.' Why? 'Because delinquescent koala-bears and effervescent panda bears said 'Oh baby kiwi, love thyself'.' What?!?!?! 'This isn't me. The studies show it all.' Fuck you. I saw the comments section on a video of him crying, and the comments were all as if he touched their hearts so deeply, and they had thousands of likes!! Like I saw at least 5 comments with likes on the order of 5K, 10K, 7K! WTF IS GOING ON?!?!?! Somebody please explain this to me.

In that case, maybe he is more evolved than I think but simply lacks the mental discipline to communicate concepts clearly. If that is the case, it is completely understandable. Mental discipline is something that some people easily have and other people struggle with. Most youtubers/public speakers tend to be mentally disciplined people in this regard. Maybe what I was missing was that you can be more evolved on the spiral even though you lack mental discipline. When you're not mentally disciplined, you tend to be unconscious of the logical inconsistencies in what you're saying. I was equating this to Stage Blue. My thinking was that someone at Orange would have had the mental discipline to develop rational mind skills like logical thinking, critical thinking, technical analysis, conceptual thinking, mental modelling, etc. and would be able to communicate those concepts/analysis/models. This was my experience developing from Blue to Orange and it's something I've seen most Orange people exhibit as a matter of fact. Also what he says tends to not be about fixing your life/self-help/success, rather it tends to be about preaching what you should do (get your shit in order) so that we have a more orderly society and 'slay the dragon of chaos together'. That's his idea of contribution apparently. His teachings tend to be about maintaining social order. Now he may have had genuine insights on how to do this from his own contemplation. I'll give him that there is a certain element of cause-and-effect thinking/logical thinking (which is necessary for any contemplation to work btw) but he's not quite there yet. Am I making sense? What do you think I'm missing?

@blankisomeone You understand that rationality has its limits once you've gone through the whole rationality process which is to learn logical thinking, conceptual thinking, critical thinking, analysis, mental modelling, etc. and then you see the limits of all of this. JP hasn't quite gone through this, i.e. he is still propagating what he's been indoctrinated with. His critique of rationality is from below, not from above! He is a nuanced thinker, but that doesn't mean he's at Yellow at all. You can be a technically nuanced religious scholar at Stage Blue! Everything he does is informed by some book or another. His thinking is second-hand as opposed to having an independent understanding of concepts. That is logical/conceptual/mental autonomy which doesn't come from reading tons of books, it comes when you realize that your indoctrination may not be 100% right and you have a genuine interest in understanding the truth. All of his talks about 'the nature of reality' are armchair philosophy and he's just out there proudly showing how well-read he is.

A lot of times conspiracy theorists have gotten their hands on some big shadow of mainstream society/mainstream leadership. Even if the content is debatable, generally the structure makes sense. The problem here is that they create an 'us vs them' and get hyper-identified with one side of the coin. This skews their view and doesn't let them really see the solutions to these systemic issues. For example blaming Bill Gates - It really could've been some other billionaire doing it instead of him. The problem isn't Bill Gates, the problem is that we live in an unconscious society which isn't conscious enough to intuitively sense the effects of vaccines. Now I'm not taking an anti-vax position, hell you may find that vaccines are good when you intuitively sense into them! The thing here is that people rely on mainstream science as opposed to their intuition, which doesn't really allow people to deeply consider the anti-vax position.

The way egos work is they have existential suffering, so they conceptualize of the opposite experience of that suffering. That becomes your desire. You pursue it, get it, then realize that it didn't fulfill you 100%, i.e. it didn't end your suffering. You now feel existential suffering and you are unable to escape it. You previously equated forward movement to life and surrendering to the suffering to death. The suffering is because of your resistance to death, because what the ego fears the most is death. A spiritual teacher would tell you to surrender to your suffering and just be unconditionally present with it, i.e. face death head on. Maybe practice self-enquiry too along with it. Just so you know, this is the difficulty level for an individual when it comes to facing your death. Now lets say an individual has a survival strategy they want to change, because their current one is causing them suffering, or is outdated and is creating problems. Say you have survival strategy A, and you want to switch to survival strategy B. If you let go of survival strategy A, and try survival strategy B and it doesn't work, you die! So, the way this typically works is that the suffering caused to you by survival strategy A keeps increasing up until a point where you have to choose between survival strategy A and death. The only reason you will wilfully risk your life in trying a new survival strategy is if your ego would prefer to surrender to death than live with that suffering. This would require you to really face your death and go through the process mentioned in the previous point. This is also why it can be difficult for an individual to leave their comfort zone and try something new for the first time. Staying in your comfort zone is a survival strategy and leaving it could be equivalent to risking your life, and a typical Stage Blue person wouldn't want to do that because their survival strategy is to cling to the status quo. You can see the aforementioned dynamic on a collective level in multiple situations. When we're talking about creating social change, what we're really talking about is changing survival strategies of collective egos. One of the features of Stage Blue Collective egos are that they tend to cling very hard to the status quo. They see the status-quo as survival and letting go of the status-quo as risking death. If you are a Stage Green person who is asking for social change, understand what you're really asking for and what you're expecting from your society.

That too! The Einstellung thing looks like a subset of what I was talking about. I was talking about the tendency to strawman complex concepts. That is why rules are very simplistic and straightforward, so that there is very little arguability on their meaning. People who want to argue on even the simplest rules can argue their asses off! For example courts, where clever interpretations of rules are formally debated.

Another important dynamic: Say you have a collective ego, and say you have a dissident faction inside the collective ego (For example you have a group of employees in a company that don't like their jobs) What the collective ego will do is it will see the dissident faction as a threat and it will immediately stamp it out. This will be done in fear that the dissidence will grow like a cancer and take over the parent ego, thereby killing it. This is one of the big reasons it is very very difficult to create change on an organizational/social level. A lot of times this involves calling out shadows of the whole organization, which can make you seem like a dissident. Collective egos can be very simple-minded, i.e. it is very difficult for collective egos to think in a nuanced manner, so there is a very very high chance that they will misunderstand/strawman what you're saying. It is very possible that you will come across as a dissident, or someone who is deluded/doesn't know what you're talking about. This will result in you getting burned at the steak/nailed at the cross if you're not careful. It takes a great deal of intuitive awareness and patience to implement incremental changes in complex collective systems.

Interestingly I was just starting to find parallels between JP and Fox News! My image of JP previously, according to what people say about him, was this 'learned college professor who is very hard-nosed and does research in sociology'. It was very jarring to me when I watched his videos and it was a big 'expectation vs reality moment'.

Blue doesn't admit that! Blue doesn't account for that, Orange does. It is absolute from Blue's perspective, not Orange/Green. Blue doesn't care about forming a consensus, cuz it believes it already has the absolute truth! Now the quest is to integrate all perspectives, but the way to do it is to preach its own perspective, not understand other perspectives and integrate them. To be fully clear, I'm not demonizing JP here. Just separating the wheat from the chaff.

I like to listen to people who have clear points to make with clear reasons. When that is the case, you can argue with them, debate with them, question them and understand their position well enough from a logical perspective. When someone is just preaching what they believe without any logical context though, you cannot come up against that. That's a very scary and threatening situation for an independent thinker to be in. Preaching as in 'Clean up your room. Take responsibility for your life. Be someone everyone can count on.' There is a difference between having logical context/backing for what you're saying, and having logical-sounding rationalizations/justifications once you've proclaimed the absolute truth. It is important to get behind this and expose the reality that the backing isn't logic or reason, it's indoctrination. It is not an accident that Stage Blue sees questioning as an 'insult to authority'. I can feel that JP fans will get very defensive the moment I question what he says for this reason. You may ask me 'Why are you bothering yourself with JP? You don't have to listen to him.' I like exploring collective ego behavior and why they do what they do, and this case was very weird to me at first. Everything I'm doing is a part of my study on collective ego.

I mean general problems in society, like failing relationships, high divorce rates, etc. They are very statistics-oriented and their solutions always pertain to stuff like 'Based on these statistics, we should make these changes in the education system' or 'We should change our attitudes towards this specific thing'. It's using logic and rationality to have more of a social consciousness.

I think this happens when Orange isn't well-integrated. Green people can be very logical and hard-nosed. Watch TED talk speakers cite study after study to support their claims of social injustice and propose systemic solutions.

Yes, there is this sense of us vs them, that 'We should eliminate the 'Dragon of Chaos'! We should struggle for good to keep out evil.' He's all for good, against bad, whatever that means. Tons of 'should' statements sprinkled in. SJW rhetoric coming across as moral insults. It is unbelievable to me that this serves as motivation to people. More power to them, I guess...! I have been traumatized by feminist SJWs. Women do use feminism as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their relationship life. The thing is, MRAs do the same, even more so. It's not a gender thing, it's an individual thing. I choose not to do that.

If we look at it from this recontextualized perspective, now we see that he can serve as a role model for men. One big problem in Western society especially, is that men have no role in society (or so they feel) because it's so independent and individualistic. What he says could serve as a guiding light for men to feel more useful, to create for themselves a role in society (aka life purpose). I haven't worked out the nuances of how would this work, but it is a possibility.

Something that's typical of Stage Blue is - Word-salads without any logical/conceptual context. You can indoctrinate people with rich and complex language and then use it as a ground to relate on. You can see this with religion, superstitions, etc. Listen, I have no problem with JP if this is the case. I was confused because that's not what people say about him, they see him as this 'great intellectual influencer'. If he will use a word-salad as faulty reasoning for upholding Stage Blue values he's indoctrinated with (12 rules for life and so on), that's completely fine! Lets be clear that this is what's happening though.

I'm not criticizing him. I'm trying to make sense of what he's saying and I'm reporting the findings. If it comes across as criticism, well, it is what it is.