aurum

If this thread is opening back up again, I'm throwing my hat in the ring for Aubrey Marcus. He can be a bit on the new-age hippie side, but he's still a veteran psychonaut and one of the biggest public advocates for psychedelics out there. He is open-minded and a serious student. A crossover with you may help some of his stage Green audience move into more serious spiritual work and tier 2. I'd watch that conversation in a heartbeat.

Relatively speaking, no. Rich is only defined in terms of poor. If no one is poor, no one is rich. Think about it. You're probably imaging a world where everyone has yachts and private jets and has a butler. But if everyone had a yacht and private jet, you would no longer see these things as indications of being "rich". Just like you don't think about the fact that having electricity makes you impossibly rich compared to primitive man. Also, if everyone has a butler, who is going to take the job as a butler??? That all being said, we can raise the general standard of living for everyone. We've already done this to large extent in the developed world.

Oh this does happen. New, naive artists get screwed over literally all the time. Musicians that you might even think are rich could actually be in serious debt, basically a slave to their label. Getting screwed over in a business deal has mostly to do with naivety, bad legal advice, bad judgment of character and lack of leverage. Which could happen to anyone. Read what I wrote above^. No one is denying hollywood has corruption and shadiness.

@Jack_Clark It’s a good book but it also can create an anti-elite bias in you if you take it too simplistically and without balance. The proper balance is understanding that the elites do actually at times provide value for society that is win/win. Anand is revealing a partial perspective of how this narrative can be corrupted, but the narrative itself is still not entirely untrue. Situations are complex. And if you don’t acknowledge that complexity, you just become a Green Meanie.

I don’t really know anything about Walt Disney. It’s partly just numbers. Not every successful person has gone crazy or tried to build a death tower in their old age. Most people’s lives are more normal. There is nothing outside of God that could cause it to react. Everything is simply Self-Creation with no limits, excepts the limits Self-Created.

Yes. I can understand trying to give someone a platform to defend themselves, but I think ideally Lex should have said 'no' to this. This is one of my concerns as well. I can usually listen to someone's argument and at least understand what they're trying to say, even if I don't agree with them. But I've spent almost an hour of listening to Ye's interviews and I still don't really understand his basic points. Something about Jewish people having power and screwing him over in the music industry? And this is somehow related to the "left" wanting to control him and BLM? I don't get it. I'm sure it makes sense in his mind, but it's not computing so far for me. Maybe if I interviewed Ye myself I could get a better sense of it, but right now I'm still at a loss. More than likely they were never as "good" as we originally thought. People are morally complex. Also, the excesses of stage Blue / Orange can get pretty ugly. Also, sometimes just mental illness.

I mean running again

@Krife It's all fun and games until Ye starts trying to build his own cities and run for president.

You obviously feel that Tate's advice is helping you, which is why you keep talking about him. If you need to integrate your stage Orange, fine. But the reality is that Tate is talking about male-female dynamics from BELOW the spiral of stage Green egalitarian people. The doesn't mean there is no truth in some of what he says, you can correctly point out some of the flaws of a higher spiral stage from lower down. But it ain't tier 2. And so there's going to be a lot of bullshit in there as well. You may want to be aware of that.

That’s not an accurate representation of how tier 2 thinks. You are implying that tier 2 has a defeatist attitude when in fact it usually does not. Easy to mistake to someone as a defeatist when in fact they are surrendering to reality. These are not the same. The difference can seem subtle but it’s highly significant. A tier 2 attitude towards growing up in slavery would not just be to shrug its shoulders. It would be to understand why slavery exists in all its complexities. And when you do that, what you will find is that eliminating slavery is far less simple than you originally thought. Which is not to say you can’t work towards that aim, but it should be grounded in the reality of the situation. In essence, you are making the tier one mistake that Leo spoke about when he said that leftists tend to see tier 2 people as not progressive enough.

Sarcasm? This interview is more of a train wreck than anything else. Yes we can learn from anyone, but there are limits.

I've been following for Leo's content for years now, but I think my appreciation for his work is at an all-time high. You don't see many teachers like this that can make so many good points on such a diverse set of subjects. I think the biggest thing I took from this mini-series is just to have way more patience when it comes to politics and people's growth in general. Appreciate that you have had massive privileges and sit at the top of the spiral. And don't be so eager for change that you underestimate the intelligence of things already in place. Even when a society is ready to move up the spiral, there are still going to be big challenges with integration as the old falls away.

Fair critique. Now here’s my critique of some of your critiques. It’s not full scope but it should be sufficient. 1) Understanding the relative domain is limitless. But consider that you actually can understand absolute truth totally. And consider that understanding can also come from a place of beyond standard ego-mind 2) The limitless nature of infinity / reality is not a problem or reason to not seek understanding. In fact, I would argue it’s the infinite nature of understanding that makes it interesting at all. If life was finite you’d just traverse the whole thing and be done. Just don’t get attached to the idea of getting it all done. Given that you’ve never taken psychedelics, any beliefs that you have about psychedelics are heresay and based on zero experience. This doesn’t automatically mean you are wrong. But you may want to consider that you’re talking out of your league on this one. The only way you change anything about yourself is through properly understanding it. What is a better use of your time than understanding God and the deepest questions of the universe? If you want to criticize understanding, don’t be surprised when you are mistaken about all sorts of things. Including spirituality. To even appreciate going beyond the ego-mind requires tremendous effort, dedication, and yes, understanding. As far as you know, he is raising it. He has talked about raising your base many times in the past. You also are missing how these peak experiences can permanently affect someone’s psyche, even if the “trip” itself is temporary. One bad experience of getting bitten by a dog is enough to make most people avoid dogs for the rest of their life. What might a peak experience of becoming God do for them? Yes, Leo can come off as arrogant and kind of a prick at times. I’ll grant that one. And he has admitted he is working on that. But also, God-realization is pretty radical. And Leo is showing it to us in real time. That’s pretty rare and is going to be a pretty gnarly process. Don’t just judge people on their worst moments.

You can reconcile it by realizing that the “finite universe” is a construction of infinite consciousness. That includes time, space and any notion of an external physical reality. Physical reality is a subset of what consciousness can be.

@Holykael I’d suggest that if you’re still angry at the world and with god, you haven’t fully understood solipsism. I would keep contemplating.

Going to the dictionary is going to severally limit our ability to understand what insanity is IF we truly want to know. Anyone who is writing these definitions has more than likely never actually experienced insanity. So you understanding is purely conceptually and heresay upon heresay. Which is fine, but I would recognize it as such.

@Magnanimous Have you done any of your own research? It’s not healthy to expect us to just give you the answers or solve your problem. With just a little bit of research, you will be more than able to determine what kind of yoga protocol this community typically endorses.

@petar8p He’s a good mix of mostly SD blue, orange and green. If I was speaking from the perspective of universal intelligence, I’d say his function to help move people from Blue to Orange and those in Orange to Green. He’s not awakened and is stuck in some tier 1 traps, but you could do much worse.

@Optimized Life Check your male biases on this one. Your post lacks balance and is one sided. The whole reason there is a push to believe women in these circumstances is because for so long women have not been. There has historically been little to no accountability on this issue. I’m not saying false accusations are impossible. We still need a justice system and for things to go through the courts so we don’t succumb to witch hunts. But it’s not hard to see why the MeToo movement has been necessary.

It is legit. Fracking is an environmental problem, and in that sense I’d be happy if it disappeared. My point was that there would be consequences for doing so that I don’t always see environmentalists acknowledge. It can be easy to get wrapped up in trying to save the planet without thinking about the larger systemic ramifications. She’s definitely lost the plot politically, that’s for sure.

I wouldn't even necessarily consider that taking it too far. If you're young and going solo that sounds like it could be a fun adventure. Taking it too far might be something like trying to ban fracking, without understanding any of the energy, economic and geopolitical implications of what you're asking for. I also wanted to add something to my previous post. When I was talking about the cost of mudslinging, the recent jumping ship of Tulsi Gabbard I think is a perfect example. Tulsi is decrying the political left for "wokeism" and group think. I think she is completely wrong if she thinks the joining the Republican party is the solution to these problems. But the issue is that she's not 100% wrong in her critique of the left. And in that small amount of truth, conservatives can use that and feel justified in their beliefs. Which just reinforces their position. Of course conservatives can do this even if the left makes no mistakes. I'm not trying to blame this entirely on the left. But still, these mistakes do create a backlash and strengthen the right.

Just finished the video, very much enjoyed it. Here's my analysis: Leo's strongest point was that progressives tend to excessively demonize and misunderstand conservatives. At lower levels of the spiral, "mudslinging" at your opponent is more appealing. And the mudslinging of stage Green does help to some degree, since it can appeal to stage Blue and Orange people. They are more likely to tune in to one of Kyle Kulinski's or Hasan's videos than a complex and respectful tier 2 conservation. And if some conservative is slinging mud at you, it's likely at some point you'll sling back. But at the same time, this conservative demonizing has a tremendous cost. And the cost is that you are unable to accurately SEE reality. Which deeply alienates the other side and polarizes politics, since people accurately recognize they are not being understood. It's like the left develops their own form of intolerance or bigotry. Instead of Xenophobia or Islamaphobia, it becomes Conservatiphobia. In particular, I feel I see this a lot when progressives gloat about some political or cultural victory. I can understand celebrating a win, but if you're getting an ego rush from seeing bad things happen to your opponents, you've gone too far. I myself have done this. It just further polarizes things and shows conservatives that you are against them. Leo's weakest point was his critique of government spending in favor of being more fiscally conservative. In essence, what he is arguing against is called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which has become popular in progressive circles. We were taught it as economic students university. Leo is correct on this point that debt is a problem, but his solution of being more fiscally conservative I don't think gets to the heart of things. The reasons I say this is because national debt is more complex than simply balancing your budget. It has to do with how money is created in an economy. I'm not sure how familiar @Leo Gura is with the technical details of the monetary system, but money is hardly "printed" anymore. It is created digitally through the fractional reserve system and commercial bank lending. There is a growing consensus among economists these days that this creates a situation where the more money is created, an even larger amount of equivalent debt is created simultaneously. Which inevitably leads to national debt. If this theory of debt is true, it throws a wrench in Leo's argument. You cannot just save your way into a balanced budget. You must first adjust the monetary system itself. The thing I'd like to see the most in part 2 would be a critique of environmentalism. When does environmentalism go too far? This is a strong issue for me and therefore one I am mostly likely to have a bias about.

@Ethan1 It’s a super complex question, one that requires deep technical and theoretical understanding to undertake. You can’t just casually dabble in a question like this and hope to get serious answers. Here is Jim Rutt giving a presentation on his thoughts. I’m not saying I agree with his ideas per say, but just to show the complexity of what we are dealing with: It’s difficult for even me to understand and I have a Masters degree in financial economics. And this video only really scratches the surface.

From a practical perspective there is fear, but that’s only a partial truth to explaining why people are not more awake. From the perspective of the God Self, being asleep is not a problem. In fact, if you are asleep it’s because this is what the God Self is constructing. You’re just not aware that you’re constructing it or how you’re using fear to lock yourself asleep. Which is also part of your construction. None of it is an error. There is value to be had from the experience of sleeping. Of course, eventually you want to wake up. And that will also not be an error. But on the otherside of awakening is realizing that fear is your construction, not something outside of you that is holding you back and making you a victim. The fear is created for you, by you.

There's a whole mega-thread on 5me0 you may want to check out.