aurum

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.

@MsNobody I believe wordpress does have a forum plugin. That's what Leo uses for this forum if I'm not mistaken.

The relative has value. I’m not claiming these distinctions are the equivalent of awakening. It’s because making distinctions are so useful that we need to be careful not to confuse them with higher spiritual wisdom. But that’s not what I’m doing here. This is mostly about pragmatism.

@integral There definitely needs to be more discussion about the differences between men and women when it comes to spiral development. For instance, it’s easy to basically just paint every modern woman as green because she seems to value relationships, emotional connection, etc. However, I think the conclusions drawn in this particular post are shakey at best. I don’t see a woman reading her horoscope as a sign she is more inclusive of her stage Purple or her emasculating her parter as Red. Not all behavior is easily mapped to the spiral model.

Well yeah. Family is tough since most of us are not willing to abandon our families even if we don’t particular like hanging out with them. But you also don’t have to spend excessive time with them. You can keep it to the essentials, like holidays and birthdays. Workplace is also tough since the main priority of most workplaces in not authenticity, it’s to produce for the company. And you have to go there to survive. So you could either find a better workplace or start building a life purpose to become financially independent.

Fair. I have a hard imagining that such a realization wouldn't end up having some impact on a person's actions related to the Earth. But I could be wrong, wasn't my awakening.

Are you an alien?

That can happen, but socializing does exist on a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, extreme banality, gossip, and general low consciousness behavior. On the other end of the spectrum, you actually can have higher quality social interactions with people. But if you're so focused on how you don't enjoy it, you likely never will. No one ever enjoyed socializing while sitting there thinking about how much they don't enjoy socializing. You have to buy in to the idea at least somewhat that socializing can actually be fun and fulfilling.

There have been many threads on the topic on veganism already. The future scenario I've been thinking about lately is humanity genetically engineering superfoods in the future The problem with GMOs and other attempts at this is that the food has either been unhealthy, bad tasting, or both. Humanity should spend billions of dollars researching this. If you could eat a GMO food that was super nutrient dense, bioavailable, contained no toxins or heavy metals, and overall improved your biomarkers for health, would you really not eat it? I would.

Interesting. I’ve felt for a while now that the earth has a consciousness, but I’ve not had a deep experience of BEING the earth like you’re describing. Would you say this have implications for environmentalism and what a healthy relationship with the earth looks like?

You're going to have to get your hands dirty and explore a bit. Take some classes and see what you feel called to. See what works with clients and what doesn't.

Get in it while can during the summer lol. During the winter months, red light therapy. It’s not the same but it will help. You can also do cod liver oil for vitamin d, assuming it’s not full of heavy metals or toxics. Which is questionable. I’ve also heard people recommend indoor tanning beds for UV light, but I personally have not tried that. Might do more harm than good.

1) Sunlight. You can also use red light therapy to supplement that end of the spectrum. 2) Massage or regular bodywork 3) Mix of zone 2 steady-state cardio and HIIT 4) Functional breathing, i.e healthy breathing mechanics and healthy breathing volume 5) Working on your emotional wellbeing with through meditation, therapy, shadow work or some other modality. Stress is not good for your health 6) Getting outside into nature

@AtheisticNonduality No, he just became an alien mouse.

For sure. If nothing else, it has made my hourly daily meditation a breeze. At higher levels in the program, they give you access to tracks that let you access specific brain wave frequencies (alpha, gamma, theta), which is a nice added bonus. Of course I do a lot of other spiritual work too. So it can be hard to separate the effects of these things. But I really enjoy the daily meditation and plan on finishing the whole program. I think if combined with safe psychedelic use and perhaps something like neurofeedback, you almost have everything you need to rapidly advance in this work.

Lmao In the past you’ve said that channeling spiritually evolved non-physical beings (like angels) is not worthwhile and you’re better off just channeling straight from God. Do you think this encounter has altered your opinion?

@melontonin Been doing holosync for years but never combined with psyches. If you’re going to try it, I would stick with a program level you’re relatively comfortable with. Or a psychedelic dose you’re comfortable with. I wouldn’t hit the gas on both at the same time. Realistically, if you’re a more powerful psychedelic experience, just do a larger dose. You don’t need to combine other techniques unless you really want to. Psyches should be enough for most people.

What do you mean by frivolous? We don’t really know their full personality from this short clip. You could clip some of my behavior in a video and get a very distorted perception of who I am. Even non frivolous people like to cut loose and have fun. They’re likely SD stage Green, which is relatively high. Regardless, I don’t find it that surprising. Just because you are a serious intellectual doesn’t mean you want to date someone else who is also a serious intellectual. That’s too much serious intellectualism

They're certainly not all cults. Cult is a strong accusation. More likely than a cult is just the challenge of such close relationships. You don't need to be in a cult for relationships to be draining or toxic at times. Especially when you're practically living on top of each other and need to work together. It's definitely not just going to be paradise. More like a lot of conflict, arguing, fighting etc. You have to decide what it most important for you. For some people, they value the vision of the community enough to deal with the drama. You will certainly be forced to work on your communication and conflict-resolution skills if nothing else. Co-housing will likely be the least intense of everything on that list. It's relatively normal living compared to ecovillages, intentional communities and communes. The latter can get very, very extreme depending on which one you join. Hostels aren't really intentional communities, they're more like hotels where people sleep in the same space.

No. This narrative that all the power is at the top is incomplete at best. What you’re dealing with is a complex system where the people influence the elites and the elites influence the people simultaneously. It is not possible to have a truly top down, authoritarian regime. Although certainly some structures of government (like monarchy, hint hint) can push it that direction. You very clearly believe you have solutions. You said the best hope for the future is “liberal monarchs to unite distinct kingdoms” in your original post. Don’t squirm your way out of it now. Will you find it so cool to break things when it’s your head that’s on the line? Or will you wise up and realize breaking things has real consequences?

@RoyalFool I don’t disagree that democracy has flaws. But I deeply disagree with your solution being monarchy. Monarchy cannot solve any of the problems you described, and in fact democracy arose because monarchy failed so badly. If you go back to monarchy, all that will happened is that people will eventually begin to demand democracy again. It’s a natural consequence of the raising consciousness of a society. And we’ll be right back where we are now.