aurum

Relevant: I don't think Bill Gates is evil. But I certainly don't see him as some savior either. People are fooled into thinking that because he gave some money away he must automatically be a good guy. But of course it's not that simple.

I'd say that's it. It's a good lesson for everyone here. Most of us are probably moving way too fast. When the mind slows down and a person adopts a healthier lifestyle, they slow down in general. Less anxiety and need to speed things up or fidget. Grounded.

@Anton Rogachevski The problem with shitting on PC culture or SJWs is that most people have never bothered to integrate their POV. Like sure, we can talk about where SJWs have got it wrong and unhealthy manifestations of Green consciousness. But have you actually read someone like Angela Davis? Or studied the history of colonization? Or seriously listened to BIPOC and LGBTQ people about their struggles? It's very rare. In other words, many people criticizing SJWs have no idea what social justice is all about and why it exists in the first place. It's stage Orange failing to understand Green and then laughing at it.

@How to be wise I have a bit of a different perspective on this. Racism in many ways is about survival. For centuries, white people have been exploiting people of color through colonization and slavery. And more recently with global debt, the war on drugs, prison labor, etc. Now, if I was going to exploit a group of people, I would need a narrative to justify this. Perhaps the people I am exploiting are savages that need to be civilized. Or they are violent and lawless. Or perhaps our race is just superior to their. Either way, I now have a solid narrative on which to rationalize my behavior. Which is the whole point. Not truth. Of course, any good rationalization can cherry pick evidence in order to support the narrative. So maybe there are instances where POC act that way. But because this is about survival and not about truth, you're not going to think very hard about why POC might be acting that way and how even my own actions may be affecting that. This is part of my problem with spiral dynamics in general. I do believe in cognitive development, but it seems at times to paint this picture that each nation is just evolving independently of each other. If one country is highly undeveloped, it has nothing to do with what developed nations are doing. It has nothing to do with how developed nations may actually be causing undeveloped nations to struggle. It doesn't seem to account for centuries of imperialism and exploitation.

Enter Sandman + about a million others. Yeah that was the album that changed Metallica. From thrash to more just heavy pop rock. Interesting to think about what are the systemic causes of musicians “selling out” like that. Which is not to say Enter Sandman isn’t a fun song or there’s anything wrong with pop. But there definitely can a sacrifice of uniqueness in order to appeal to mass markets.

Here's an EDM song I made a while back. I usually write more acoustic music, but someone wanted me to produce a song for them and I ended up with this.

Good stuff man. I like the guitar loop and what I think was either a harmonica or an accordion. Your album artwork is also really cool, did you draw that yourself? As far as critical feedback, I would have mixed your vocals louder. They get drowned out at certain points, especially when you went heavy on the reverb. It also sounded like there may have been some mistakes you made on the guitar at around 2mins, but maybe that was intentional, I'm not sure .

The Addiction Formula is the Hero's Journey translated into songwriting. The basic idea is that you start your song with low energy (Ordinary World) and amp up the energy over time, eventually leading to your big climax (final Chorus) and outro (Hero returns home). This is basically the formula every hit song has followed ever. In terms of real simple song structure, it looks like this: Intro -> Verse -> Chorus -> Verse 2 -> Chorus 2 -> Bridge -> Final Chorus -> Outro Which each part gaining in energy, i.e verse 2 having more energy than verse 1, Chorus having more energy than verse 1 or verse 2. And the final chorus having the most energy of the whole song. It is useful if you're new to songwriting. This at least gives you a framework to start with as opposed to being paralyzed with infinite opportunities. But of course, like any good artist, you also want to break the rules. Don't get trapped in it or start thinking you *must* write this way.

@tuckerwphotography That lines up with my experience as well. All of my new age hippy friends want to talk about "divine masculine" and "divine feminine". They're very open to the idea that men and women are different, without it feeling repressive. In fact it feels more like embracing who we actually are. It is ironic, although perhaps not surprising, that mainstream feminism seems to express stage Orange values. An empowered woman is essentially seen as a woman that has embraced her masculine, i.e career, individualism, leadership, assertiveness, etc. Actual feminine values, such as nurturing and surrender, are rarely held up as ideal feminist examples. The move towards stage Orange feminism is an obvious swing of the pendulum swing from repressive stage Blue & Red societies where women did not have autonomy and were male property. The next step for feminism will be to integrate. And I think we're starting to see pockets of that happening in stage Green gatherings like you talked about.

@roopepa Of course there's negative entities. They're still all figments of God's imagination. But God can imagine some pretty wild shit . I wouldn't get hung up on it. Stick with your spiritual practice, learn how to control your energy and you'll be fine.

This whole podcast and Barstool in general is solid Orange:

Nahko is Green. Except for when he gets in trouble with women.

This girl also feels really Green to me:

Kamea Chayne is peak Green with a mix of some Tier 2 consciousness. Her podcast is literally called "Green Dreamer" .

I agree with your basic premise. It also depends on how you define addiction. I see addiction as a bottomless attempt to meet a need through a means which is not working. For instance, if I lack a sense of belonging in my life, and I attempt to meet that need with shopping, my quest will be endless. You are not really meeting the need. Supernormal stimuli tends to create this effect. I think I want the fast food from McDonalds because it's loaded with salt, sugar and fat, but in reality it is lacking in substance to what I desire. Sex, especially casual sex, can potentially fall in this trap. To put it more simply, you can't get enough of something you don't want. Hence, destructive addiction. Agreed. If we pile more shame on top of our addictions, then we just push it further into the shadow / unconscious. That's awesome. And it's good to see you around the forum. I'm enjoying your content.

@Dany Balan It’s a bit of both in my experience. Yes, power draws out devils who are seeking power over others. And it often flows to people who are power hungry and willing to do the devilish thing to get it, which means devils are often likely to be in power. But also, @Parththakkar12 is right in saying that maintaining your integrity in a position of power can be extremely challenging, even if you have good intentions. Often times you can just get swept up in corrupt institutions and systems. You may even really believe you are doing the right thing and have people around you who believe the same. That’s what makes corruption so tricky. It’s not as obvious as finding the “bad guy”, the cartoon super villain who wants to rule the world. Often times that “bad guy” could be a “good guy” in many other ways! It could even be you. Do you think you don’t participate in exploitation and corruption? Of course you do. But you may not realize it. And you will think yourself as one of the “good” ones. And why wouldn’t you think of yourself that way? Probably most of the time you live a normal life. You have people you care about. Generally speaking you try to do the right thing. And of course, the more we think of ourselves as “good”, the better it is for us. If all the devils were aware of how they were being a devil, there be no devils.

This thread is pretty old. I don’t practice sungazing consistently anymore. But when I did, I usually did it during sunset. Sunrise was too early. And you don’t need to do sunset and sunrise, just one or the other.

*Warning, sungazing can be potentially dangerous for your eyes. Use all described safety precautions* What is Sungazing? ~18 months ago, I came across this practice called sungazing. Some of you may have heard of it, but for those of you who haven't, let me explain what it is. Sungazing is an ancient practice that recently started getting popularity due to the work of a guy named Hira Ratan Manek (HRM). The idea is simple: all things are energy, and we can absorb the energy from the sun through looking at with our eyes. Specifically, here is the practice HRM recommends: Wait until what photographers call the "golden hour", which is one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. This is to prevent damage to your eyes, so take this seriously! Stand with bare feet on bare earth (sand, soil) and simply look at the sun. On the first day, look at the sun for only 10 seconds. Everyday afterwards, increase the time you look at the sun by 10 seconds until you get to 44 minutes. If you did this everyday, it would take you 9 months to get there. Once you get to 44 minutes, stop. For the next year continue to gaze 15 minutes a day, or just walk on bare earth with the sun on you. Say goodbye to sungazing, you're finished Here is a video of HRM explaining the practice in more detail: My Sungazing Journey I had never heard anyone recommend sungazing before, so I was intrigued. Old beliefs like "staring at the sun will damage your eyes!" came up, but I decided to let that go. It seemed incredibly simple and the claimed benefits were pretty wild. Some of these benefits included: Mental, physical and emotional healing Spiritual development Improved eyesight Reduction or complete elimination for the need to eat food More energy, less need for sleep. Since I just finished my initial 44 minutes, I'm going to go through each one of these benefits and explain what my experience was. Claim: Mental, physical and emotional healing Result: I've definitely noticed a change for the better in all of these areas. It was very common that after a long sungazing session, I would find myself having an emotional release. However, I think HRM's claim that sungazing will fix all your physical and mental problems is a bit exaggerated. Claim: Spiritual development Result: Positive. To me, spirituality and well-being are one in the same. So since I saw an improvement in my emotional and physical health, I'd definitely say there were spiritual benefits. I also became much more interested in nature during this time. Claim: Improved eyesight Result: I have pretty bad myopia, and I can't say sungazing improved my eyesight at all. However, it also didn't destroy my eyes as most people would assume. Claim: Reduction or complete elimination for the need to eat food Result: I also can't say I noticed any difference here as well. Another claim that may be exaggerated Claim: More energy, less need for sleep Result: I do feel like I have more energy overall. Sometimes after a session I would feel particularly "plugged in" so to speak. I also noticed that when I started a session, I would usually start yawning. Yawning is a classic sign of an energetic release and sudden upshift in your vibration. However, I still sleep the same amount as before. Overall, I think sungazing is a beneficial practice. It takes little to no effort to go outside and look at the sun, and you will see improvements. However, my results could be biased. I also do a lot of other spiritual practices. So it's hard to isolate sungazing as the cause of some of the benefits I've seen over the last 18 months. For that reason, I think it would be awesome if more people on this forum would be willing to give it a try and post their experiences. Sungazing has the potential to help a lot of people but there's little to no mainstream scientific research on this stuff. So this could be like an underground group experiment. Who needs grant money? TL DR; Sungazing works, but potentially not as well as some people claim. More people should try it!

Totally, I see that in some of my new age friends as well. Seems like you and I always end up talking about Green traps, we must both be spending too much time around greenies Some people do regress down the spiral. And that is concerning since I also see Charles as one of the most important voices out there for social change. My perspective is that he is still solidly in Yellow. He has been doing this for years and years and has consistently demonstrated that integrated awareness over time. If he did legitimately backslide, I’d be pretty shocked.

I just looked over his QAnon essay and I can see what you mean. He definitely went hard on the “it’s the system” side of the argument. Obviously systems do matter. Someone who is unaware of the systemic view is going to be helplessly lost. And we don’t want to fall into the trap of blaming individuals for obvious collective failures. That would almost be the moral or psychological development equivalent of the “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” argument conservatives make. In other words, Charles is arguing that our systems generated the alienation and ignorance that then lead to alt-right conspiracies and Trumpism. However, I think you are also right that it’s not that simple. Even systemic thinking is just a lens, and we have to know when to put it down. Just viewing everything through “the system” may leave important things out. Which, ironically, tends to be something Charles is very good at noticing. He often calls out our tendency for reductionism and simplification of our problems, and yet talking about “the system” could fall into the same trap. It may be that some people are just not ready for love and harmony. It doesn’t serve their spiritual journey at this point. They still have lessons to integrate. If we try and push people too far too fast, that could really be our own agenda sneaking in the backdoor. An agenda that wants them to be the way we want them to be. That would definitely be a potential Green trap.

I can’t say I’ve noticed a shift. But I also have never met the guy. I would say he seemed discouraged in his last essay that mentioned the screen play. Perhaps he was just burnt out. And maybe the screenplay is the thing to put life back in. What do you feel was an example of his perspective shifting to a more radical green?

I'll second this. There are limits to systems thinking. Map is not the territory, trying to access Truth via logic etc. But that's like a 1% problem to have. Most people are no where near systemic enough in their thinking. If you've truly maxed out systems thinking, that's a good problem to have. You're probably at least SD Yellow. First you have to learn about it. So read books on systems thinking / systems theory. Then practice the lens. When you see something happening in the world, try to apply that lens of systems thinking. It doesn't make it the only lens, but it can be a useful one. Practice when to pick it up and when to put it down.

Yeah I love Charles, his social commentary is off the charts. And he hints at deeper spiritual truths, like at the end of The More Beautiful World. But it would be fascinating to see how his perspective would change at even higher levels of consciousness.

I've been talking about degrowth economics for a while now. Was excited to see CNBC just did a good article on the topic: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/19/degrowth-pushing-social-wellbeing-and-climate-over-economic-growth.html "As policymakers prioritize an economic rebound, scholars are backing an idea that pushes social and ecological wellbeing over a system that pursues relentless economic growth. "Degrowth would require societies to abandon the idea that the percentage change in gross domestic product is an accurate indicator of progress, and instead learn to live better while producing less." “We must ask ourselves; do we really want to pursue aggregate growth if it’s going to put our planet — and our civilization — at such extraordinary risk?” Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist, told CNBC via telephone." “Ultimately, this is the core insight of degrowth. Right now, we assume that every sector of the economy must grow, all the time, regardless of whether or not we actually need it. A more rational approach would be to think about what sectors we actually need to grow, like public transportation and renewable energy, and what sectors are clearly too big and should be scaled down: like SUV production, private cars, the arms industry, advertising, and so on,” Hickel said. This is where economics is heading. The endless debates about capitalism and socialism totally miss the point. Market activity is also on the chopping block of things that will "degrow". Although I don't see that mentioned. There is a lot, lot more to the story than this simple article, but it is a good primer for those of you interested in the economics of the future.

The same way any social charge is made. The old thinking begins to deviate so hard from reality that it cannot survive. Glitches are being thrown in the matrix created by the older economic paradigm (2008 financial crisis, health crisis, ecological crisis, etc). Denial has to get larger and larger and becomes more and more obviously untrue. Eventually reality wins. Even degrowth is just a subset of new economic thinking that I’m watching emerge. So it’s already happening. In term of more actionable ideas, here’s a list: 1) Education. There is a debate in the community about the word “degrowth” and whether it’s a useful word or not. On the on hand, it accurate gets to the point. On the other it can trigger misconceptions, such as that degrowth implies society will be worse off. However, if people are properly educated on the topic, then some of those misconceptions can be avoided. 2) Utilizing decentralization methods of communication. Mainstream outlets are limited in their ability explore heterodox ideas. Their function is mostly social coherence, not to deeply explore the cutting edge. Using decentralized means of communicating (social media, local events, dialogue etc), these ideas can get out there. 3) Success cases. There has to start to be experimentation and successful examples of degrowth being implemented. The more people see it working, the more it will catch on. Andrew Yang will likely be bringing a few degrowth ideas to NY if he wins mayor. So that may be a start. 4) Better transition scenarios. Right now degrowth and other heterodox ideas are suffering from realistic transition scenarios for politicians. It’s nice to say “we should do a UBI!”, but how? Economics involves complex systems, and unintended consequences can abound. The details of any sort of new policies must be clear and well defined, accounting as much as possible for possible failure scenarios. Politicians generally will not do anything overly risky, lest they make a mistake and get voted out. So anything not “business as usual” must be well prepared. There of course will still be resistance, despite everything I just said. That’s inevitable. But I trust time to do its job.