aurum

Thanks Please do. As much as I appreciate what self-help has done for me, the devilry is rampant at times.

Depending on the model you want to use, yes. Logic / rationality tends to be more of a masculine energy. It's linear and it's not emotional. Intuition has more of a feminine energy to me. It's primarily based on feeling rather than analysis, although you can analyze your intuition after the fact. It would look like being in touch with your emotions and the signals your body is sending you. Not being so stuck in your head. Of course, you can't actually separate the masculine and the feminine. These are just useful conceptualizations, and so it be a mistake to think you can integrate your feminine without it affecting your masculine. It all relates.

Don't mean to pop your bubble but Game A / Game B has been around forever. My understanding is that it's part of the lingo of the Human Potential Movement. Perhaps it started even before then. The reason it's making rounds on the forum is because Leo has been sharing videos from Daniel Schmachtenberger, who is part of that crowd.

But Leo, why don't women just want a nice guy??? Let's not make an enemy of survival or attraction. Intimacy/connection can have survival value. And no survival means you don't survive long enough to experience Game B dating. The problem to me is not that people meet each other's survival needs, it's that we do so often unconsciously and in a way that ends up hurting the agenda of others and sometimes our own. In other words, moving from Win/Lose to Win/Win. Or ending zero-sum games as Teal Swan calls it. This of course starts with people making a commitment to uncover their biases and their shadow. There's no Game B dating without consciousness, so that should be of highest priority for people interested in this. From there, we see what emerges. Maybe polyamory, maybe monogamy, maybe something casual, who knows. A Game B perspective would allow for relationships to evolve, and not say "this is the one true relationship type". No, there could be many valid structures for different people at different times in their life. All in all, it's a safe bet that Game B dating it will be based on greater unconditional love. But what exactly that looks like is hard to say. I feel The intentional community Tamera has some interesting Green perspectives on dating: They embrace polyamory, which I realize it's not what many people are looking for. But at least they are considering these questions. More Green perspectives:

@Emerald This debate just keeps going in circles. I feel the bottom line is this: Men, if you're looking to just get laid with as many women as possible, even if it's unconscious and not fulfilling, then just become some alpha chad who knows how to play the game of social dynamics. Bonus points if you take a low consciousness job like club promoter. No one is going to deny that will work. But if you're actually looking for something real, something fulfilling, something that requires you to be a conscious adult that can handle a relationship, then you need to integrate your feminine. And integrate it in a way that is authentic to you. Given that this is a non-duality forum, none of this should be surprising. You should have already been working on integrating your feminine, because your feminine is where things like intuition, creativity and compassion come from. This should not be controversial, it is essential to what we are all doing here.

That is literally the opposite of what I said. If anything I would like to see lower tax rates for low / middle income classes and higher tax rates on the upper class.

I feel you are attached to having to solve your attachments . It sounds like you just found in music something you're passionate about. Perhaps I'm not understanding your situation but I don't see the problem.

@Onecirrus Shadow work, shadow work, shadow work. That's what I would do if I was you. And meditate if you don't already. Almost certainly. Nothing to be ashamed of though, we all have programming. Anger is a sign that you have a need that is not being met. Do some introspection. Why do I get angry? What emotional need of mine is not being met? Why do I see someone being more sexually successful than me as a threat?

It's what I said here: But I'll clarify if that didn't make sense. Essentially, my sense is that LOA has gotten wrapped up in stage Orange individualism. People only understand it from that level of the spiral, and that leads to problem. When you do spiritual work, you quickly realize that you are not just an individual. Any demarcation you've made is just a concept with not actuality. Therefore, who is the one "manifesting"? Me as a separate, individual ego? No, that's impossible. There is no way to actually separate yourself from the rest of your experience. I am you, you are me, and everything in between. But what some people do is take the LOA and think they can separate themselves. They think "I don't need to think about politics. I don't need to think about our systems or institutions. I don't need to think about history or corruption. I don't need to think about what anyone else is doing. I can meet all my needs as an individual". Which is pure fantasy. Whatever is happening in Africa or Antarctica might as well be happening in your backyard. It literally makes no difference from a broad enough perspective. So essentially there is a collective reality that humanity is manifesting. But that doesn't sell books or courses nearly as well. That's really complex, nuanced stuff to think about. Much better to sell to people if you can make them believe all their problems are individual problems that they must solve as individuals.

I resonate with Teal's perspective in this video. When I look back on my own experiences where I feel I was embodying containment, it felt really right in my body. Like "yes, this is what it means to be a man". Ironically, it could seem like men are getting a raw deal from this. Like Teal is saying men must do everything, and women basically just get to sit back and reep the rewards. But I don't think that is it at all. First of all, we want to do this. Even if there's all sorts of conditioning and shadows blocking that. Second, the feminine is immensely valuable. But if we try to measure its value through the lens of masculine values, we may not see it. The feminine is the restorative energy. It heals. It nurtures. It's being in the moment. So it's also more intangible, it doesn't provide "stuff" that we can count like the masculine. A man who doesn't have feminine energy in his life is going to have many problems. You'll have burnout, you'll lose your joy, and maybe most importantly, you'll lose your heart. All that warrior energy ends up serving egoic desires rather than the whole. So the feminine is vitally important. It would be great if Teal made a video after this explaining what women bring to men, which I think would clarify some of this confusion. Also, none of this stops a man from perhaps also receiving containment at times. I think of my dad, who was such a great provider for our family, but also never let himself receive. And I think he desperately wanted to. He desperately wanted, maybe just a few times, to not have to go to war and instead be the one being taken care of. But the feminine was repressed and so he struggled. As far as whether this is just regressive gender roles rehashed, I feel the answer is obviously no. Gender roles are only repressive if someone is putting force on you to be a certain way that is not authentic. What is being described here is the opposite, it's the genders discovering what is actually real about the experience of being a man or woman.

@Bailey Lawless He has some good points. My biggest issue with the law of attraction is often the lack of collective / systems thinking that takes place. Government and geopolitical realities don't matter, just manifest ya'll. And the people with all the money, like Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, they're just more in abundance than you. There's nothing else to consider here. Needless to say, I feel sorry for anyone who swallows the law of attraction without taking a nuanced, critical view. I do think that can be a recipe for disaster. But there are problems with this guy's video as well. He chalks the whole thing up to pseudo-science and "anecdotal evidence", as if anecdotal evidence is inferior. It seems fairly obvious to me that he has not had serious awakening experiences. If he had, he might be singing a different tune. Here are the principles laid out by Phineas Quimby, the father of New Thought that he points out: 1) "God or Infinite Intelligence is "supreme, universal, and everlasting"; 2) "Divinity dwells within each person, that all people are spiritual beings; 3) "The highest spiritual principle [is] loving one another unconditionally... and teaching and healing one another"; 4) "Our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living" Not only are these accurate metaphysical statements one can realize through awakening, these are the same principles that are found throughout every major religion. Even before organized religion, these ideas existed in Animism. So ironically, there's nothing "new" about the New Thought movement. Now, have these principles been corrupted over time by devilry? Of course! Just like every religion has been corrupted. The mistake is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I feel that is where this video misses the point.

I don't know if it's exactly a Pareto distribution, but certainly the financial rewards of actors follows some sort of power law. I wouldn't say individuals shouldn't be allowed to buy movies either. That doesn't solve the problem of why there's such a power law distribution of wealth in the first place. And that sounds like I'm casting some sort of moral judgment against movie purchasers, when I'm not. What I am saying is that these inequalities are inevitable for a society at a Stage Orange development. They are what push a society towards Green values, which is largely about equality. Green swings the pendulum the other way. So if you've got a massive inequality problem, like presented in these videos, don't go blaming Greenies. Society actually needs far more Green. The problem is that Green people do not exist in a vacuum. Your consciousness and values may be Green, but they still exist within stage Orange systems and culture. Obviously that is changing, but I still feel our center of gravity is Orange. So your ability to help people from a Green perspective are limited. They're limited by our systems and the culture. Which is not to say we should hang it up and not take action. Far from it. But no one is an island separate from the society they exist within. So in reality, if our society was centered at Green, we'd see much different results. Look at Finland. They're much more centered at Green and supposedly they just provided universal housing. We'll see if it holds up, but Green is certainly not inherently bad at solving problem. Green has integrated the problem-solving lessons from Orange, but with more heart, compassion and desire for equality.

When I say "toxic stage Orange capitalism", I am referring to much more than markets. I am talking about a mindset that says "fame is important", and the economics that reward fame. I'm talking about a monetary system that puts people in competition with each other. I'm talking about tax dodging that leads to governments not being able to afford social services without increasing the debt. I'm talking about a culture that prides itself on individualism. This is a multi-faceted, complex issue. Markets are interwoven with all of this. They're just one piece of capitalism, and capitalism is just one piece of stage Orange.

@rnd Not paying your taxes is not a solution to corrupt politicians. If anything, it's the opposite. What's one of the causes of corrupt politicians? Wealth inequality. Wealthy people have so much money they can buy politicians easily. And what's one of the ways you get wealthy inequality? Wealthy people not paying their taxes. The two go hand in hand. Huge amounts of government revenue is lost every year from wealthy people dodging taxes. Which puts the government constantly in a bind. Theoretically, maybe we actually could have lower tax rates. If people didn't dodge taxes in the first place. But they do, and so the government has to raise the rates on taxes that already exist. Your taxes do not go towards lining the pockets of politicians. Perhaps some salary comes from your taxes, but the majority of it goes to the social services everyone relies on. What's lining politicians pockets is private campaign donors, lobbying, etc.

All of that is signs of toxic Orange capitalism. The very fact you have lots of people trying to make it in Hollywood at all is a reflection of an Orange mindset and the systems it produces.

@Lyubov It’s not at all a reflection of the limits of Green. California might be fairly progressive, but it still exists on the whole within toxic stage Orange capitalism thinking. More green is what will solve this, not less.

This is a good theoretical game to play. The most common argument against UBI besides “people will be lazy” is “how do we pay for it?” Financing is of course a real question. There does need to be a plan to finance UBI. But ultimately, I find this argument holds little weight. If we want it, we can find a way to finance it. I’ve various plans that have been proposed, from Andrew Yang’s VAT tax to a cryptocurrency direct deposit. Most of them I feel would work fine. I think the most credible argument is that UBI is just too radical. It’s too big a shift for society to make all at once. It needs to be further tested at smaller levels before it should considered at the nation-state. There are many other critiques worth mentioning too. One is that UBI could be used to dismantle the welfare state, when in reality you likely want some of both. Another critique is that UBI is just another redistributive policy and isn’t radical enough. And I’ve also heard people who argued that UBI will reduce tax revenue for the government, actually making it harder to pay for UBI in the future. I think all these critiques are relatively straight forward to solve. But people do make them and so they should be addressed.

I agree with that. These solutions are unscalable. That I do not agree with. The work being done at many of these places is integral to solving the really big stuff IMO. I feel it is both going to scale up and scale down. Here are some assumptions I'm making: 1) Society is set up for globalization and centralization 2) The directionality of society is for increased globalization and interconnection 3) There are real benefits that can only be had at the local / scaled down level Therefore, what I feel needs to happen is a sort of integration between localization and globalization. Let's look at something like regenerative agriculture. I'm not a farmer, but from what I understand, inherently regenerative agriculture does not scale well beyond a certain point. It is highly productive, but it is too labor intensive and requires the farmer to really be in relationship with that land. And yet, regenerative agriculture is exactly what we need. Industrial, large scale agriculture cannot last. It destroys the soil, requires chemicals that pollute, destroys biodiversity via mono-culture crops, destroys the ecosystem of that area, uses too much water and cuts people off from their relationship with their food. It's only benefit is that you can do it at a larger scale, at least temporarily until the Earth gives out. So something like agriculture needs to scale down. It's done better at the local level. I've not heard anyone argue otherwise. At the same time, some things need to scale up. Our human capacity to collaborate and innovate from that collaboration would be one good example. That I think is something everyone would agree only gets better at a global level. We need more of that, not to shut ourselves out from the world. So we have this interesting problem of benefits from both localization / scaling down and globalization / scaling up. Which leads me to think, is it possible to do both? Can we scale down what needs to be scaled down and scale up what needs to be scaled up? Can we find a way to get the benefits of both? I do not have all the answers to how this would happen but it seems plausible to me. We've evolved for small tribes and local living, is it not possible that we can find a way to integrate that into the modern global world? And there certainly is a role for government in all this, especially considering government is what we got. I am also not convinced everything can be totally decentralized, especially not any time in the meaningful future. There are plenty of public policies I would like to see implemented.

I would like to continue this conversation but I will not. I find your rhetoric unnecessarily rude and combative.

Where is what I said wrong? I am open to critique. That is the point of this dialogue. But so far in both your responses you have provided no counter points, you've simply dismissed mine as naive and simplistic. I am not comparing government debt to personal debt. I'm aware of MMT and its ramifications. Exactly. You're essentially talking about a ponzi scheme. Create more money to pay off your debt, which then creates more debt, which means you need to create more money, which means more debt, ad infinitum. It is a problem, because more debt essentially equates to more economic activity. Which equates to environmental pressures on a finite planet, as well as psychological limits of people continually having to work to service debt. You're welcome. Don't feel bad, most people don't have any idea because it's never taught. I myself would probably have no clue except that I studied economics at university. As far as the disaster waiting to happen, I'm more optimistic. It is unlikely that any government will default, it would simply be too big of a collapse. They will likely keep creating new money to pay down the debt as @datamonster mentioned. That said, I still find it a highly problematic. The modern monetary system was largely created at Bretton Woods after WWII, and it feels to me that it is starting to outlast its usefulness.

I agree, I would actually be in favor of it if I thought there was a the right economic plan in place to make it happen. Happily. It is very simple if you understand the monetary system and how money is actually created. Money is not created by the government printing paper. At least not any significant amount of it. The vast majority of the money supply is loaned into existence via commercial banks and the fractional reserve system. In this way, every $1 dollar created is the equivalent of $1 of debt created. Money actually equals debt. There is a one to one ratio in our current system. If everyone paid off their debt tomorrow, including governments, you would completely destroyed the money supply. There be nothing left. In sense, as long as we need money and keep our current system, it is impossible to pay off all debts. There be no more money. BUT it is actually far worse than that. Because a loan from a commercial bank never comes with 0% interest. There is always some amount of positive interest attached to any loan, e.g 4%, 8% etc. So in reality, you didn't create a one to one ratio of money to debt. You created MORE debt than money. Because someone has to pay not only that loan back, but also the interest. Compounded over time, there is no other option but for exponential debt to accumulate. However fast the government thinks they can pay it off with taxes, it will never happen. Which is of course why they never have been even close to doing so in over a hundred years. Here are independent sources backing up what I'm saying: And if you really want to go deep:

It's a good question. Partly because people like Joe Manchin would never vote for it. You also have to account for inflation. Pump too much money into the system and and you risk devaluing the currency. But as I said before, I feel the biggest problem is with the monetary system. People who say "who cares about the deficit, rack it up as much as you want" are half-right. They're right in the sense that governments do not technically need to keep balanced budgets to operate thanks to their ability to create money. In that sense, they are not like a household that must budget. But the debt is still highly problematic. Because debt is what keeps the hamster wheel of capitalism running. As long as you are in debt, you must keep working. But our debt is a constantly growing, moving target because of how the monetary system works. We will never, never, never pay it off. It is mathematically impossible. And even if we did, it would simply start growing again and we'd be right back here. So in practice, huge stimulus like 10k checks for everyone would be problematic. You'd either have to pull huge amounts from other places in the budget, like the military (good luck with that). Or the government would have to create it as new money, which would inevitably would drive up the debt by some degree. But these are very different reasons than what conservatives usually give, like "people don't need it" or "people won't work".

@Socrates Good video. It’s a shame because there are a lot of good ideas in the self-help world, even at stage Orange. But it gets abused and then can even turn people off from the whole thing. Even Tony Robbins I feel falls into this trap to a certain degree. When you go to UPW, there’s tons and tons of sales pitches. The biggest one being for Tony Robbins platinum group, which is like 80k a year if I remember correct. It’s set up with a whole story Tony tells beforehand about how success is all about proximity to powerful people. “Proximity equals power”. By the way, have you joined our inner, inner circle of super successful people? Can’t afford it? Limiting belief. I know one guy who is in it. From he told me, most of the people are just people who can’t possibly afford it and even go into debt. I can’t confirm that, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Witnessed the same thing at Grant Cardone’s 10XGrowthCon. Less pitches than Tony but still many upsells. And of course if you buy the highest ticket, you think you’re going to be rubbing shoulders with all these successful people, but it just ends up being people who can’t afford it. You really gotta watch out for these business gurus. Most of the value they provide could be learned from cheap books. Leo remains one of the most legit people in this space.

Why not? I'm assuming you believe there will still need to be central, global authority running the show and managing everything. I feel this misses the point. The solutions presented by these villages are not supposed to scale. Scaling is the problem. The solutions we need now are unscalable in many ways. In other words, it seems to me that we need to scale the unscalable. Which is what this movement is about.

@integral I'm loosely helping out with this project, it's definitely excellent and the team is good people. Would recommend anyone here who is interested in Game B type of thinking to get involved, especially if you're local to British Columbia. Looking for engineers, real estate developers, builders, architects etc.