Apparition of Jack

Is this really a stage Green issue? Being opposed to child sexual abuse doesn’t really have to do with a specific stage tbh.

The good thing about this is that a lot of Blue/Orange football fans will watch this who would otherwise dismiss BLM, but then take a moment to think about the message more critically because it’s coming from a source they put authority in.

Consciousness, consciousness, consciousness! Any policy that helps both individuals and collectives raise consciousness will always be preferable to ones that don't. This can include things like: - meeting everyone's basic needs (so they can then focus their efforts on growing consciousness, not meeting these needs), - promoting health and high-consciousness nutrition - teaching systems thinking and meta-awareness of social issues - teaching people how to find their life purpose And so on. Also, being pragmatic and non-ideological about policies tends to be superior to being stubborn and ideological. You should be willing to work with conservatives if you're a progressive and vice versa, since you're never going to have a government full of people who 100% agree with you. That's not to say don't have values, but it does mean you shouldn't resist the good because it's not your version of the perfect. Although it's important to keep in mind that as you yourself grow in awareness, you will begin to see how everything, even the stuff that looks mean and nasty on the surface (like poverty, war, rape, genocide, etc.), is in fact still the unfolding of universal Love, so in a sense perfect utilitarianism is already happening.

I think he's genuinely stuck at that level of development and can't see problems through anything but a "black vs white" perspective. When he asks "do you support killing babies?", he doesn't understand that someone might find abortions abhorrent but still accept the need for them because of all the unfortunate social / economic / pscyhological implications of unwanted pregnancies. It's either you enjoy killing unborn babies or not in his mind, with no middle ground.

Leo, this is one I gotta disagree with you on. Not that I disagree that death metal isn't generally pretty bad (I've never listened to it in my life for the exact reasons you've pointed out), but the way you're making fun of something so personal and expressive to people is counter-productive, IMO. Unlike say, political opinions, there's little immediate, explicit harm that music choices can have on the world, so it just seems kind of callous to tell people off for liking what they like. And yes people will naturally grow out of it the more they grow and develop in consciousness, but that's a choice they have to make themselves, not one that I think can be forced on people.

Big cities are run by Democrats because they have to be in order to balance all the competing social forces. Democrats, as a rule, are more open-minded and compromising than Republicans. Republicans would have a harder time running a big city without creating more social problems than they fix. As to why there seems to be so much crime in big cities? Well, this is a function of American civilisation as a whole, not any one party. You could have Jesus Christ himself at the helm of a big American city and he’d still have a hard time fixing all the crime and poverty because it’s just that entrenched in the American psyche.

Even conservatives seem to be growing a Green consciousness these days. Yes, it's still obviously very undeveloped and tempered by a lock of Blue nationalism and racialism, but I feel like just over the last few months a lot of Blue people have really had to wrestle with just how unjust US society and history has been.

Noam Chomsky would support progressive policies but I’d have a hard time calling him a “populist.” I’d say populism has less to do with the specific content of any one ideology and more to do with the structure of how it’s promoted.

@Leo Gura Hopefully he grows out a better haircut as be slowly becomes a hippie

@Leo Gura You have to admit though, that in the last few decades the divide between the haves and have-nots has grown, almost exponentially, and that the increasing power differential is causing a lot of problems? Even if it's mostly due to ignorance, it feels like more and more money is just being funneled upwards for no long-term benefit for society. I understand that your average hedge fund manager or tech billionaire is more evolved and conscious than your average person, but even an undeveloped construction worker or nail groomer needs to eat food, have a secure place to live, etc.

Sometimes you just won’t feel horny for a while no matter what you expose yourself too. Horniness comes and goes depending on life circumstances, dating situations, mental health, current preoccupations, etc. If you felt like you’re no longer attracted to feet, give it a few months and see how you feel then. It might come back when you’re feeling a bit better about things.

Being a turmeric

Maybe use this as an opportunity to try out new things that aren’t composing. Yes it sucks that you can’t do that since it’s your passion, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t find other passions too. Maybe try learning languages, or researching interesting topics, or getting real good at film critique, or hell just listen to music yourself and be inspired by what others have created. Maybe take up another way of expressing yourself, like drawing or writing. Music is your one love but it doesn’t mean you can’t cheat a little while she’s out of the picture, and I’m sure there’s plenty of other frisky hobbies waiting for you to fool around with them, haha ?

I think he’d have a heart attack and die due to being unable to process the completely alien industrial technology we’ve used to terraform reality since his time

Covid exists. It’s dangerous and deadly. If you’re asking this question because you feel fear about the current situation, then that I understand. Some part of the ego-mind always wants to deny the parts of reality it finds uncomfortable. But the solution isn’t to dig your head in the sand and look for ways out of accepting this fact of life. It’s instead to look at the situation, cooly and calmly, and try and understand how what is unfolding is the work of Love. Even a global pandemic has useful lessons for us to get us to grow in awareness and Love. Wisdom abounds if you know how to look for it.

No, astrology is astrology for smart people You should go to a certified astrologist and see what they say about you. You’ll be surprised.

I wonder if a similar thread for INFPs/INFJs would be useful. I would imagine that they’d also be pretty common here, since these types are very into spirituality, self-discovery, creativity, etc

First of all, ask yourself what is it that each stage values, and then see if you can reframe your argument to better fit within those values. Take universal healthcare for instance. A Green argument for universal healthcare is that no one deserves to go bankrupt (or even die) because they can’t afford healthcare. However, this argument falls on deaf ears to Blue and Orange people because their circle of concern isn’t large enough. If they hear that, they’ll just think “well that’s life, tough shit” and not think about it any further. So instead, you could sell universal healthcare using Blue and Orange values. These stages view fiscal responsibility as important and prefer policies that make it easier to conduct business, so you could sell it by saying that it removes a huge unnecessary burden on businesses who currently have to pay for their employees health insurance. It’s basically a tax on business that wouldn’t exist if a large number public health services existed. Hiring and firing employees would be much more simple which would make businesses more competitive. This is something they can understand yet is still advocating a stage Green policy. Basically, get good at understanding what each stage values and doesn’t value and sell your ideas using that language. Also don’t forget that some people just don’t want to change. Some people will be stuck in their stage their whole life and that’s ok. You just shouldn’t waste your time on them.

Australia, 25 million Spiral Dynamics: Anywhere from Late Red/Early Blue to High Green, both mostly centered around a Late Blue/High Orange with some sprinkling of Green (and some small Yellow elements) in select areas. Dominant cultural trends in 2020: - Anglocentric nationalism as a result of increased migration / diversity. Anglo-Australia used to be closer to High Orange but has been feeling an ego backlash at changing demographic realities, so many are now dealing with an unhealthy Blue shadow. Fear of the growing power and influence of China and the weakening influence of the US is adding to this. Of course, it's not exclusively Anglo Australians who feel this way, and many Australians from different backgrounds share the same sentiments (especially if theyre at a Blue level of development), but its mostly centered on the "core" Anglo demographic. - Strong progressivism influenced by US / EU progressivism centered in the major cities. A lot of Australians, especially the youth, and especially those in the major urban centers, are reacting against the Orange/Blue cultural dominance and are being pushed up into True Green, which triggers a lot of the Blue/Orange Australians. Having nearly a full decade of Orange/Blue governance by the Liberal Party is adding to this, which is a party that denies climate change and Green is mobalising as a response. - Dominant Orange mindset: Despite the previous two trends, Australia is still mostly an Orange country. Most people, regardless if theyre conservative or liberal, wish to have a nice house by the beach full of designer furniture, most people value material status as something to strive towards, and since our country is so rich on the whole indulging in hedonism is seen as acceptable and even desirable. Growing inequality is making this harder to achieve for many Australians however, especially the young, which is pushing many up towards True Green, but overall people are still at Orange. Things are changing though. Education: Like most things, this is being increasingly privatised and is being geared towards accommodating rich overseas students, so the quality is overall declining and people are finding it harder to find value in their education degrees, especially if they're not studying STEM, law or business. Religion: Mostly secular, a few holdouts of Blue Christianity, as well as Blue Islam, Buddhism etc. as a result of migrant communities. Most people aren't religious at all, and in fact will find it weird if you show yourself to be overtly religious. People celebrate Christmas and Easter but these are more an excuse to eat lots of food and get together with family than any real religious celebration. There are some prominent Christians with influence though, including the Prime Minister who is a member of a prosperity-gospel evangelic Church (which ties into the unhealthy Blue backlash I mentioned before), but on the whole this country takes a rationalist and secular Orange stance to religion.

@JessiChell Blue justice and Green justice are different. Blue justice would be locking up a murderer for life without any chance of parole, so that the family of the victim gets some sense of closure and the perpetrator gets their due punishment. Green justice would be ending systemic discrimination against minorities, so that anyone who wants to succeed can do so without fear of being held back due to their skin colour. Both are ideas of "justice" but one is more based on punishment for wrongdoing whilst the other is based on fairness in social interactions.

@The Blind Sage Red respects confidence and self-control, so if you can display you have both of those Red will be convinced to listen to you. Of course, since Red is full of itself to begin with you have to be very upfront and brutal with them, but do so in such a way that doesn't threaten their ego too much and gives them room to understand that what you're saying is wise and true. It's a very difficult balancing act and requires a lot of discipline and courage, which is why so many people can't do it effectively and end up feeling intimidated by Red.

@Leo Gura Come on man, you can’t leave us hanging like that...

@Leo Gura Do you think paying police officers more would help reduce a lot of the stress and insecurity that causes them to be so ready to resort to excessive violence? In the sense that even if they're putting themselves in harm's way, at least they know they're getting decent compensation for it, so don't have to worry about bills / paying for family needs / etc. I've always found it slightly absurd how we pay the people who prevent the physical destruction of society (cops, nurses, etc.) so little, considering how crucial their work is and how stressful these jobs can be. I've met a few nurses in my life for instance and they're all very compassionate and hard working people, but I always feel sorry for them because they always have some sort of sob story about not being able to make rent or having to look after sick family members and so on. I imagine for cops it's similar (not saying cops are the same as nurses but they have similar-ish lines of work and come from similar pay brackets.) If a cop who had to deal with violent criminals every day at least knew his daughter would be able to afford college no problem, would he be as likely to use excessive force?

In his Conscious Politics series Leo talks about promotion and creation of a singular world government as part of his policy ideas, and it's been something I've been mulling over for the last while. Like many people I used to think such an idea was just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that sounds nice on paper but ultimately wouldn't work and would cause more problems than it solves, but as I've been increasing my consciousness and looking at world issues on a deeper level, I've come to see the wisdom in such an idea. Think about it - as we move forward in the 21st century, the processes of globalisation, technology, immigration and so on are only going to increase, not decrease. Yes there will be obvious backlashes to these things, as we've already seen to some extent, but the conditions are such that the set-up for increasing global integration is more or less inevitable at this point. Plus, the collective issues the world faces - climate change, income inequality, national tensions - need to have broad, inter-national co-operation in order to solve, not just local governments trying to fix these things piecemeal. Not only that, but, based on what I've observed, a unified "global culture" is already starting to emerge, depending on the places you live and the people you interact with. You could meet, for instance, a woman born in India, raised in Spain, educated in the UK and now living with a Japanese husband in the US, and it will feel completely natural. The old idea of "solid," distinct nation-states that served humanity in the 19th and 20th centuries is starting to lose its cultural hegemony, IMO. So then let's talk about the benefits of increasing government integration between nations. If nations start to come together and operate in a more unified manner, the ability to distribute resources where they're needed will increase massively. For instance, if Canada and the US unite, you could drastically improve the health standards in Alberta by getting rid of the expensive taxes on imported medical technology from the US, which would do a lot to reduce the rates of cancer, heart disease, and so on in that province. Or if France and Germany united, then access to well-built German electric cars would improve dramatically for French drivers, which would do a lot to reduce emissions for France. Plus, if we are to get serious about space travel and colonising other planets, then the only realistic way to do that would be to have as much co-operation between countries as possible, and to share the most amount of resources, time, expertise, etc. possible, because such an undertaking will require these things on a level that a single nation alone wouldn't be able to accomplish. Another benefit would be the obvious reduced risk of war and conflict between nations. If, say, eventually India and Pakistan unite, then the threat of armed conflict between those two countries - as well as the endless blaming each other from both sides, and all the cultural tensions that exist between them - would disappear, as instead arguments over land and resources become mediated through the unified India-Pakistan authority, rather than through trying to negotiate between two different authorities. Of course there are downsides to this too. As national identity is still a key part of most people's psyches, telling people that they will now live in a nation with people who (for the time being) have a distinct language and culture to them won't go over well with a lot of people. Plus, the fact of the matter is that distinct local cultures will be hurt by this - for instance, using the France-Germany scenario, French people will begin to see more German beer, more German words, more German songs in the places they live, and in Germany people will begin to see more French wine, French words, French songs and so on. The ideas of "Frenchness" and "Germanness" would get muddied, and for a lot of people that will seem very alien and confusing, especially in the short term. But the benefits of this over the long-term would be that people begin to feel a sense of connectedness with people they previously didn't - after 50 years of France and Germany being one country, a person born to French parents would no longer see a person born to German parents as an "other", and would at that point probably share the same values, ideas, and even language (a French-German hybrid.) Plus, the two cultures coming together would create benefits too - Germans would learn to appreciate taking life easy and leisurely from French people, and French people would learn punctuality and industriousness from the Germans, which would improve the lives of both peoples. Or, to put it in other words, this new French-German synthesis would be greater than the sum of its parts. Now, obviously such ideas are still relatively far off in the future from happening in real life, but I think for us here at Actualized.org it's a good thing to start thinking about, since it'll help us clearly navigate the direction the world is headed. Prior to WW1 and 2, the idea of an international organisation that works to prevent wars and promote harmony wouldn't have been possible - the two most powerful countries in the world before this - the British Empire and the Germany Empire - would have never agreed to solve their disputes through an impartial international organistion, especially since they had such great success previously using force of arms instead, and the result was the two most destructive wars in human history. But then, the UN was created, and the mechanisms it utilises has helped prevent the two newest most powerful countries on the planet - the USA and the USSR - from going to war with each other. Instead, the UN helped the USA and USSR resolve its disputes diplomatically instead of military, and ended up presiding over the most peaceful and prosperous time in human history (despite some wars in hotspot regions during this time.) So if a Unified World Government seems unlikely or impractical, then just remember so did the UN, and the massive period of peace and prosperity it created. Yes, there will be problems with greater international integration, and no one is saying it will be an easy or straightforward process, but for the sake of humanity's long-term evolution and consciousness, I think it's actually one of the most realistic and practical things we can help create. What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Are you sure that’s real? Obviously the reduced human activity will allow nature to slowly come back, but that’s a huge amount of Australia - which is very sparsely populated - growing back in such a short time. I think it’s fake.