soos_mite_ah

@lmfao I think its good to also bring up temperament and personal inclinations to this. I guess I did lean more towards green and away from orange from a very young age. Growing up i wasn't really materialistic. I wasn't the type to want the newest xyz for Christmas, birthdays etc. There was a point where I would look down on people who were overly indulgent when it came to luxury but now I would say that i'm pretty much at peace with it and hell I can let loose and enjoy myself too. I also like how you brought up possible negative past experiences with a stage. I instantly thought of how my mom tried to make me really competitive in school with my friends when that didn't come naturally and my instinct was to be friends and work together with my supposed competition. She tried to push this "every man for themselves and no one will like you if you're not number one" narrative on me and that seemed toxic even when I was really little like say 8 or 9. Now that I'm older, I can differentiate between healthy and unhealthy forms of competition, but I wouldn't be surprised if that experience still effects me since I was exposed to an unhealthy form of competition first. It's still my automatic instinct to shy away from competition and try to build relationships even now.

I'm trying to integrate stage orange in a healthy way and I do see many of the positives associated with the stage. However, I have a huge hang up when it comes to accepting capitalism and neoliberalism (I'm mostly fine with most all other aspects of orange except these two things). I don't catch myself being judgmental towards stage red, blue, green, or yellow but I do catch myself getting triggered over orange for this reason. I can't help but feel that much of the reason why many people are stuck at stage red and blue is because of a lack of proper resources due to poor distribution systemically and therefore they use harsh means to meet their survival needs. A lot of green's excesses is due to the backlash and anger from poor distribution. I can empathize with red, blue, and green, with minimal judgement (I have a couple hang ups here and there, I'm not perfect) but it all seems like to comes back to capitalism being problematic. I would go as far to say that a lot of my empathy for the other stages is rooted in my disdain for the limits of capitalism. I can see why capitalism is a thing from studying history and I do see it as another stage of development, one step above feudalism which I would characterize as a stage blue economic system. I try to have this view while still being able to discern the problems with capitalism however i do find myself sometimes crossing the line from discernment to judgement. I'm currently studying business, specifically finance, in college rn and I would say that has definitely helped me integrate more orange, however, it doesn't feel like enough and I still feel like I'm missing something.

@JosephKnecht I think it would be a good idea for people to have more of a say iin regards to where their tax dollars go. I think I remember reading somewhere of an idea where there is a portion of your taxes and you get to chose which department it goes to. And i mean, some governments, like the U.S. (I know I keep bringing them up, I live there and I have more context to speak on it) do have money to spend, they just put a large chunk of it towards things like the military. It is definitely necessary for security concerns don't get me wrong but budgeting and priorities should be looked at in a more critical lens. But that's a whole separate topic. Also, I like the idea of imagining different scenarios. I think on top of that it's good to recognize their interests as well. I know that has definitely helped me not demonize orange as much as I did in the past. After I started taking classes for my business degrees, a lot of things started to make more sense and didn't seem as malicious. It wasn't good or bad, it just was and in a way that helped me see how the concept/ theory in question would be applicable in which contexts.

@JosephKnecht I think it would be a good idea for people to have more of a say iin regards to where their tax dollars go. I think I remember reading somewhere of an idea where there is a portion of your taxes and you get to chose which department it goes to. And i mean, some governments, like the U.S. (I know I keep bringing them up, I live there and I have more context to speak on it) do have money to spend, they just put a large chunk of it towards things like the military. It is definitely necessary for security concerns don't get me wrong but budgeting and priorities should be looked at in a more critical lens. But that's a whole separate topic. Also, I really like the idea of imagining different scenarios. I think on top of that it's good to recognize their interests as well or by directly getting involved in these types of positions (I believe someone on this thread mentioned starting a business). I know that has definitely helped me not demonize orange as much as I did in the past. After I started taking classes for my business degrees, a lot of things started to make more sense and didn't seem as malicious. It wasn't good or bad, it just was and in a way that helped me see how the concept/ theory in question would be applicable in which contexts.

@Forestluv Like any other stage there is both positives and negatives. I know I have some hang ups but I'm trying my best to be more open towards aspects of stage orange I find myself more reluctant towards. I hope that I am working towards a more balanced worldview and I will say everyone's input in this thread is helping immensely. In regards to competition, I am open to it and I think it can be very good for the overall economy so that companies don't stagnate and settle. I guess my main thing is that unbridled capitalism reduces competition and starts moving towards monopolies and oligopolies. There are laws such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which does regulate enterprises but i think there needs to be an extension to the conversation since a lot has changed since 1890. But a lot like that era in American history, there was also a lot of issues in regards to wealth inequality at the time as well. I don't know whether this would fall under discernment or judgement but that's like the main thing that comes to mind. But then again, maybe orange needs to exhaust itself to the point where they see they are going against their own values. In oranges case, maybe its for them to see that some of their ideas are counter productive and impedes on their wealth, prosperity, and competition. It's just a thought.

Also my other thing is neoliberalism in other countries and how it deals with foreign affairs. Like there are so many violent conflicts that start just for the accumulation of more and more resources. The way cheap labor is used abroad is messed up because it commodifies people into disposable machines instead of seeing them as human beings. And finally, many diseases that are present in developing nations like HIV/AIDs have treatment but people aren't willing to help them because it's "too expensive" and "not on the budget" when its actually totally doable. The thing that bothers me the most is how profits get prioritized over peoples general well being and human rights. I know that's not everywhere in all cases but it is a large consequence

@Raphael I mean yeah that kind of work ethic especially towards a higher purpose is incredibly admirable. There are a lot of practical concerns as well in regards to sustaining yourself especially when working towards enlightenment. I definitely want to work towards similar goals as well in regards to financial stability and giving back by creating projects that better humanity. Accumulating for the sake of accumulating seems like a waste of time and energy, and unfortunately, a lot of people try to get rich for similar reasons, not to better humanity. I have nothing against millionaires, its when you're at or near a billion that bothers me because there is no way you can be spending that much money for yourself.

100% agree. Greed is there no matter what and capitalism is simply the present day tool of it all. It was definitely there before capitalism and manifested previously through stage red pursuits of conquering land for resources etc. I guess seeing capitalism as a tool that people use, like how religion is a tool, is a better way of looking at it rather than demonizing it. Like a knife. You can cut vegetables with it and make a nice meal or you could stab someone. Either way, its just another tool, what matters is how its used. With religion for example, there are plenty of people who use the tool in a healthy way so that they can have a sense of peace and guidance but there are plenty of people who uses religion as a tool to politically rally people and divide groups. Capitalism as a tool needs to be regulated so that people don't go over board, just how countries separate church and state for instance. Again, I agree. But the above countries also have a lot of structures that limit capitalism so that it is there, but in a healthier way. It goes back to regulating capitalism rather than demonizing i suppose.

I try to see the limits of each stages but I'm not going to deny that some of my negative perceptions are projections. I'm just trying to see how I can incorporate those missing aspects As far as demonizing Bezos, I fell into that trap because of how little he pays his workers to where many of them don't make a living wage. And it's not like he's not capable either. He is literally sitting on his billions like "I don't know what to do with all this money..." Also he became a figure head of people getting extremely wealthy while not considering their own employees. I wouldn't say that i demonize Bezos for being Bezos. Amazon is brilliant and I can admire the amount of hard work that it takes to create a company like that. I would say i fell into the trap of demonizing what Bezos symbolizes rather than who he is as a person. Also, in regards to symbolism it's also irritating that he doesn't have to pay in taxes but I mean that's more of a government policy thing rather than a him thing. On average, because of the tendency to hoard wealth, I believe that the government is better at spending the money because they actually put it to use. However, government spending is a whole thing on its own especially in regards to how much of the U.S. budget is spent on the military vs everything else. Because of that, I can see the temptation to want to personally choose how to spend my money so that i can donate more towards things like healthcare and education. Then again, everyone sees themselves as the good guy and as someone who is un-corruptible. However, even if I have a shit ton of money to do that, there needs to be some type of systemic backing for it so funding it isn't reliant on a couple of individuals. One person choosing how to spend that amount of money can get really corrupt (for instance, Mike Bloomberg, who didn't attend a single democratic debate and just spent $500 million on ads and then managed to literally buy electoral votes) and because of that I believe that redistribution is a better, more sustainable path. I can also see how psychologically high taxes and that amount of wealth can impact someone. I touched on it with the notion of being immune to corruption but I can also see aversion in regards to having that much money be taken from you. People are more likely to focus on how much they lose than how much they have left, and you're more likely to view wealth in comparative terms and a large part of that is a survival mechanism. So if you have $500 billion dollars but are taxed $499 billion while being left with $1 billion, you're more likely to relatively look at the $499 than the $1 billion you have left. Even if you have that much left, it is tiny compared to the $499 that you just lost. But then again, i think it's important to be conscious of your position, your ego, and how that money is being used. I get that not everyone can do that, but i still think it is necessary.

@hyruga No one said that Bill Gates himself is only orange. We're just talking about his billionaire status and how his innovations were possible because of capitalism. The main reason he can donate more than the average joe is because he has more than the average joe

I would argue that a lot of jobs that don't make a lot of money such as teachers and nurses who are responsible for educating the youth and maintaining the well being of the population are more valuable than say a star athlete who plays football just for entertainment. If teachers and nurses quit tomorrow, the world would be in absolute chaos while if all star athletes quit, sure it would be sad and some people would take it hard but the world isn't going to explode. However, I will say I can see that there is more scarcity in regards to being a star athlete than to being a teacher and there is a demand for star athletes since society values entertainment greatly. I guess what society deems valuable also has to do with the developmental stage of that society. It's the whole argument in regards to why diamonds are more expensive than water even though water is a need. Because of supply and demand along with the law of diminishing marginal utility, intrinsic value becomes secondary to the subjective value we assign them That said, society would greatly benefit if we valued education and healthcare more and therefore invested in our teachers and nurses. That would greatly increase productivity and the skills people can acquire which in turn would help the economy greatly. Which is one of the reasons why i guess i go back to my more green argument of investing in social infrastructure more and therefore start looping back to critiquing capitalism.

Definately guilty of demonizing Jeff Bezos. However, seeing it as a zero sum game is not entirely accurate . You can make money without exploiting people, but from what I get is that it's difficult to do so. Even if you're not the big CEO that is exploiting workers, simply buying something off of Amazon is voting with your dollar, and therefore in support of it. I feel that the whole "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is partially true because we are all interconnected but there is a lack of agency when it comes to what other choices you have, which is largely a systemic problem. Yeah I agree that capitalism gave way to a lot of societal and technological advancement. I would say that is one of my favorite parts of orange. With the "only" donating 500 million dollars, I don't think its a bad thing as an individual deed, but systemically, it would be more efficient to tax billionaires a hefty amount so we don't have to rely on their philanthropy to get money for different sectors of public well being. Like, good for Bill Gates for having a moral compass to help the poor but this is the exception to the way billionaires spend their money, not the norm. A lot of the wealth is hoarded I'm just articulating my thought process so that yall have more to go off on in regards to where my hand ups are.

@Artsu Yes if you want to characterize much of the U.S. as orange . And i go to a pretty orange college as well. where that stage is glorified by much of the student body.

Love this. This topic so important to be aware of and this is a good video that sums everything up.

Being the One Who Gives More I think it's easier to fall into the pattern of giving too much when you have a lot to give. Sometimes your 10% is greater than another person's 90% and instead of expecting them to do more when they are not capable, you need to acknowledge your own worth and find someone on your level.

@Zak I think it's good to not be unnecessarily charitable especially when it comes to advice. I used to often fall into the trap of being the "therapist friend." While it was all fun and insightful in the beginning, it started taking a toll on me because of how one sided it was. Giving advice when not called for can sometimes come across as preachy which is not always conducive to creating a bond. Telling people what to do is not the same as empathizing with them. Also a big part of it not being one sided has to do with how receptive the person is, whether that be where they are in their journey or if they asked in the first place. I try to refrain from giving advice in my regular day to day life offline because I saw that it wasn't working for me. But on the other hand, I find it much easier to express myself in certain places like this forum where people are more receptive to some of my ideas and therefore there is more of a back and forth conversation regarding what i have to say. Because of that, i think it's reasonable to refrain, but i would also encourage taking a case by case approach with each person you encounter and the circumstances/setting you're in. If you want to have a bond or conversation, you can't be the only one who is open and receptive. That isn't the healthiest position imo. The receptivity needs to be from their end too in order for the dynamic to be balanced.

@Zak I have encountered a similar problem to where I was like *hey i'm not getting anything in return, why should I give advice. They aren't listening or taking anything in anyway* For me, it was coming from a place of a lack of reciprocity where I wasn't getting my needs met. Reciprocity and creating balanced relationships are important and it's important to integrate that by giving oneself some boundaries. But I think that this integration in this case can also be taken to it's pinnacle to where one can start seeing excesses, particularly when there is a hoarding of information as many people in this thread have pointed out. It's also important to acknowledge where someone is at in their journey and whether or not they developmentally in the position for your advice. In some cases they are and sharing can help yall both create a closer bond and grow. In other cases, they aren't there yet and sharing can feel like the advice is falling on deaf ears and you get nothing from that interaction, leaving you feeling regretful and unfulfilled. Whether you share your insights or withhold them from people is on you and where you are in your journey.

@Eren EeagerReligious scripture can contradict itself because there were numerous writers and numerous figures/ translations throughout history to justify the power dynamics at the time. For example, when it comes to translations, there is one quote in the bible that is commonly cited to justify homophobia that says something along the lines of "God says men shall not lie with other men." However, some people argue that this was a mistranslation and that the original said "God says that men shall not lie with other boys." That would change the passage from condemning homosexuality to condemning pedophilia. Christianity says that you should "love thy neighbor as yourself" but there are also sections that justify slavery which isn't exactly loving everyone equally. Because of these contradictions, a lot of religion is cherry picked. The way religion is practiced in expressed in one area can differ greatly from one area to the next. Religion in a stage blue environment could be used as a tool to further justify existing hierarchies for the lord while religion in stage green can be used to justify fighting those same hierarchies in the name of lord to spread love to multiple groups of people. Even though religion is seen as a stage blue phenomenon because that is were religion is taken to it's pinnacle to where you see all of its excesses and limitations, you can see Christianity in other stages including stage orange too, especially with the televangelist, Joel Olsteen types who preach that success is your god given right from his multi-million dollar mansion. In other words, religion provides the cherries but the cherries you pick are reliant on your particular level of development given your sociopolitical surrounding and the interests of those in power.

Yes I have taken a couple of sociology classes. The classes I have taken does take an approach that analyzes numerous systems and how they all interact with one another. I have also recognized the holistic nature of it as well. However, because sociology focuses a lot on the workings of the collective, I can see how it can also have a lot of green leanings to it (not so much turquoise since it doesn't go into mystical experiences). I think to take a more yellow approach to sociology is also studying a bit of psychology since that has more of an individualistic twist to it. Both subjects have a lot of parallels and it's interesting to see how patterns in a collective also reflect back to patterns in individual minds and how those minds work. I'd put sociology at green/ yellow because it depends how you apply what you learned, the specific subjects that you are delving into etc.

I don't know how to fully go into non-egoic consciousness but I think a lot of it possible though a lot of meditation, self help work, and shadow integration. One thing I will say that feeling like an idiot is a part of the ego because the ego likes to feel smart (its a shadow), but the self, the self is everything therefore it is an idiot and is also smart. It's okay, I've had a similar experience of felt like an idiot because I just accepted the assumptions around me. The best way to integrate feeling like an idiot, is to recognize it without judgement. It seems difficult, but what helps me is to say that it's okay to feel like an idiot, it happens and its natural given the quality of consciousness we are surrounded by. I'm using this as an example because incorporating self love does help in expanding the self while minimizing the ego. In addition to meditation, I would probably add self inquiry and more research into subjects like nonduality and non egoic consciousness. I know you said instead of thinking or studying it but I think that is important because the more background knowledge you know, the more you plant seeds mentally . Therefore if you have an experience or an observation in your everyday life or in meditation, it will register as nonduality and non egoic consciousness and you will be more aware of it because that is what you had your eye out for. Always be looking for connections in the real world on how nonduality plays out. Basically ,the law of attraction is at play here. I don't think you're doing anything wrong if meditation mainly just brings you calmness. That's perfectly fine, you probably need more things to supplement it. I can't say I have all of the answers, but that's at least what I did because I personally don't feel comfortable with psychedelics or a magic pill so that's what I'm trying to stick to. I'm not entirely sure if this helps but I thought I'd put my view out there.

I also found this great video on non-attachment that really resonated with me. To add onto this video, I believe that non-attachment is the opposite of not caring. By caring deeply and being present in the moment, once the moment passes, you won't feel upset. It will be easy to let go because you derived as much joy, or any other emotional experience or validation from that event in the moment. In those cases that event has done its part and you can move on. When it comes to joyous things we missed, it is often because we didn't cherish it enough in the moment. When it comes to painful moments, its often because we have yet to heal fully and derive lessons from that moment. We only feel attached when we feel that there is something left not experienced.

Shadows and the Cobwebs of My Mind Pt.3 Okay this is the last part. When it comes to analyzing the different labels that was used to define me, I also decided to look at how positive labels were slapped on to me as well. I don't think it's bad to have positive labels slapped onto oneself. In fact I think it can be beneficial in integrating those positive parts of yourself and then act them out as a self fulfilling prophecy. However, the ego still needs to be transcended and I think it's more sustainable to transcend a healthy ego than to deal with an unhealthy ego because with an unhealthy ego, there is an extra step. You have to undo the conditioning, build a healthy ego, and then you finally have a good ego to transcend. Nevertheless, in both cases transcending the ego can help one become more expansive since you are now integrating numerous parts of yourself. This is all kind of vague so I'm going to pick one of my positive labels to articulate what I'm trying to say. Being labeled as smart: From a young age I was labeled as smart. It was not a conscious choice, just a label some people slapped onto me like some of the more "negative" labels on top (I say this in quotes since no one label is completely positive or negative and have both light and dark aspects that one needs to integrate). A lot of the reason why I was labeled as smart is because my mom took an extra initiative when it came to my education. She made sure that not only I did my school work but that I was also being introduced to material that was a couple grade levels higher. Then when I got to school, everything came easier since I was exposed to the material previously and because of that people continued to label me as smart. There wasn't anything inherently smart about me. It wasn't nature, it was nurture. I went on to healthily integrate this notion of me being smart. I took more challenging classes, well because I had the confidence knowing that I could. That enabled me to meet my own standards by working hard. I also had the confidence to get involved, to try new things, to challenge ideas because I knew that what I had to say had some type of value. Those experiences then turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I thought I was smart, I took on challenges based on those assumptions, and then i became more smart through experience. However, I didn't integrate the notion of me being dumb until I got to college. Integrating the notion of being dumb, or any other more "negative" labels shouldn't be done in a self-deprecating way. That won't happen if you effectively integrated the more "positive" notion. Yes it hurt my ego that I wasn't the smartest in the room once I got to university. Things didn't come as easily. But that isn't because I'm not smart, it's because I didn't have previous exposure to a lot of the subjects I have had to take (mainly business and social science classes, most of which I never encountered in high school things like political science for example). Smart wasn't even a thing from the very beginning. It was a label that was slapped on to me. Again, this integration wasn't done in a self hating way. I tried not to fall into the trap of going on a spiral of how I'm stupid as it it were a bad thing. Instead of getting consumed in it, I tried to take a more of an awareness approach without judgement. Every time I did something stupid, instead of getting up into a twist because this doesn't match my ego, I said to myself "hey this happens, it's okay to recognize it. I am still worthy of love even if this doesn't match my ego. I accept this part of myself" Accepting something sometimes just has to do with acknowledging it without judgement or resistance. Because ultimately, shadows are made when we don't accept ourselves. Getting defensive about something is a part of resistance. Now what used to happen before I integrated this shadow. Well, I would beat myself up or feel a twinge of shame for every stupid thing I did. I was hesitant to recognize my wrongs, and therefore I was reluctant to rectify my wrongs, which then put me in a self fulfilling prophecy. If a smart person always thought he or she was right and never acknowledged their short comings because they didn't want to hurt their ego, they wouldn't learn much would they? They wouldn't be as smart and recognize the nuances in their thinking would they. See it's rather counter intuitive. It does come full circle You could replace this analogy with any other positive label such as being kind or being beautiful to name a few. If a person was dead set on their identity of being kind all of the time, that isn't very compassionate of the times when they don't feel too kindly upon others. They might be harsh towards people who are unkind and make it into a dogma instead of doing the actual kind thing and empathizing with those people to find out what is causing them to act the way they do. If a person was dead set on their identity of being beautiful, they might beat themselves up for days they look less than perfect and then lose their confidence or sense of life in their eyes which actually does have to do with one's beauty. Someone might go to the extreme, think there is terribly wrong with them because of their shadow and then get plastic surgery that messes up their face and body even more than what the previously perceived to be their flaw. Instead, to truly embrace one's beauty is to go beyond one's external looks and be genuinely comfortable in oneself, and therefore still be okay with themselves when they feel they look ugly, thus transcending the label of being beautiful. Ultimately, what I realized with shadow work so far is that a lot of it does root back to the notion of being unlovable (which is why I'm not surprised that this particular shadow was a linchpin for me). We accept these labels because we believe that there are certain metrics that we need to achieve in order to be loved instead of thinking we are love, awareness, and consciousness itself. We tell ourselves that we are smart, kind, and beautiful not because they are true but because they have positive connotations that make us feel desirable. While it is good to internalize those beliefs, we also need to know that even when we are dumb, harsh, or ugly, we are still worthy of love. In fact, regardless of the labels the ego likes to clothe itself in, we are underneath all love. Sometimes that love is in a more rigid sense in which it creates the ego and carries out egoic motives for the sake of survival and sometimes love is expansive and fluid with one's higher self. Either way it is one. I know this video is taken out of context and there is no real intention of being deep here but i still found something (I think she was supposed to be dragging people) But, I always found this strangely comforting and empowering lmaoooooo Then again, depth isn't something that is dependent on the object, rather it is determined by the oberver and what kind of meaning he or she derives from it . The object is just what is. Some of us are fat are ugly and are unattractive. That is okay, just be who you are because either way you're still worthy of love lol So get it together

@bazera A lot of people call that being an ambivert. It means that you're cool with doing both If you want to get technical with the notion that get you get your energy when you're alone while still liking social stuff, then you're just an outgoing introvert. It's possible to be an outgoing introvert or reserved extrovert. Outgoing and reserved has to do with the way you react in a social setting while introvert and extrovert refers to your energy source. You can get your energy externally and be an extrovert while having that extroversion be expressed in a reserved way where you're just more quiet in a social setting (and vice versa). That's at least what I got from reading about it.

Shadows and the Cobwebs of My Mind Pt.2 Being seen as the therapist friend: This was established by the family dynamics present in my childhood. I will refrain from too many details for their sake, even though it is highly unlikely they will ever see any of this. But the over all jest is that I was emotionally in the caring role while I was still a child. Because I was in a chaotic environment I couldn't get out of, I resorted to analyzing people around me. This eased a lot of the frustration/ confusion in regards to "how could someone do such a thing" or "why is ___ the way that they are." I also took on a more therapist work by working on myself because I knew that I wasn't coming out of this house perfectly okay (this caused me to grow immensely as a person independently). Because of that, I'm incredibly good at reading people and finding neuroses, that includes myself and others. I'm good at empathizing with people because I have a range of my personal experiences to choose from. And i give pretty good advice, or so I've been told. Of course, there are blind spots, especially when analyzing yourself so this is not an absolute. But as of recently, this dynamic really blew up in my face with a friendship. I was always the one supporting and rushing to help. I was too quick to give advice, which isn't the same as empathizing and building a connection. The relationship was incredibly unbalanced and was ultimately draining me. I got out and I took a good hard look at the areas of my life that seemed unbalanced in terms of reciprocity. I eliminated those people and situations and I'm focusing on finding people who are more so on an equal footing for more sustainable relationships. The notion that I'm unlovable: This was due to a lot of bullying growing up. Most of it doesn't even make sense. I remember as a child when I was 8 years old, i was ostracized by other children because I was seen as "too childish" for liking the shows I liked among other silly metrics. I also had children start spreading rumors that I was adopted because no one could possibly ever want me. My adult brain wants to rationalize this because it's so ridiculous. Essentially, there were a bunch of children, bullying a child, for being a child. Also, me being adopted makes absolutely no sense since I look like my mom. It's all so silly and comical. But I do nevertheless try to tap into that inner child wound, that 8 year old girl who doesn't have much of a sense of self who had a bunch of small children, who also didn't know what they were doing, slap a label on her. She's 8, how could she know better than to take in what the world said about her. She hasn't explored who she is yet. She is still cognitively developing in early childhood. There was no agency in that situation and as I reflected on each of these instances, tears rolled down my cheeks because I was feeling that exact sense of unwanted-ness I felt back then. I also repeated this process with some of the things that I dealt with in my family. I can see how many of my shadows are connected to this notion of me being unlovable. While my adult brain knows better, my inner child just needed to speak her truth through her tears. This lack of agency in which labels were slapped on to me is what motivated me towards shadow work. I want to consciously choose labels instead of going on autopilot because of what other people have said to me. I know this is simply meaning making but the key is to be conscious of the meaning you are making instead of accepting them as absolute truth. I reread Psycho-cybernetics and I derived so much more from it now than when I first read it since it is so applicable to where I am. Everything is meaningless, and these labels don't exist. I could have easily ended up as something completely different given a simple change of circumstance because I wasn't consciously behind the wheel when these labels were being slapped on to me. It was a circumstance of survival, that's how personality comes up in the first place. I'm not inherently anything. I am nothing, therefore, I can be anything. I am what I choose to be and I choose to be integrated. That notion is empowering but it is also terrifying, especially for the ego that likes to identify with something. I made a pretty lengthy list on paper of all the ways this particular shadow manifested in my life. I am working on tackling each and every one of them one by one. As I tackled each of these manifestations, I could feel my ego screaming. I felt myself getting depressed which lasted for about a month. The truth hurt but it felt like rubbing alcohol. It burns, but it is being cleansed for the sake of healing. This particular shadow is the linchpin to my other shadows (for instance, like my shadow about being weird, this shadow makes me feel like I am unworthy of connection which is what was implied when I looked back at my past to when this label was first assigned to me). That's why I believe it's been the most painful to come to terms with, the most extensive to work though, and the hardest to integrate.

Shadows and the Cobwebs of My Mind Pt.1 I have been more and more intrigued by shadow work in the last few months. I wouldn't say I have a lot of super serious emotional issues as I have sorted out a lot of it though therapy and self development especially in the last year and a half. Quarantine has put me in a more meditative like state because I am stuck with my thoughts all day and I have slowed down considerably. Normally because of the rush of daily life, I suppose the shadows just lurked in the background as my conscious mind was occupied with everything else I needed to do. Some of my biggest shadows include not being able to express anger, seeing myself as weird, being seen as the "therapist friend," and the notion that I am inherently unlovable. Not being able to express anger: Growing up I was discouraged from expressing my anger to the point where it was deemed unworthy. On top of that, my parents still expressed their anger and I grew to resent it even more because I could see how destructive it was. It was to the point where I repressed my anger to where I just thought that I simply didn't feel anger. Once I realized it's a shadow, I began to try to take notice of my anger and to analyze what it is trying to tell me. I didn't have anger issues in the traditional sense where my aggression is out of control and unbridled rather it is that I don't recognize anger and instead get depressed. I can say in the last couple months I have stopped demonizing anger in myself and others and this has done wonders. I stopped being afraid of confrontation, I became even more in tuned with my feelings, and I got a better sense of where my boundaries are/ when they are being violated. I would even recognize my reluctance of embracing my anger as a stage red hang up that I needed to integrate effectively by being more validating and accepting of this emotion. These two videos by Teal Swan helped me immensely. Seeing myself as weird: I had this label slapped on to me as a child pretty early on. Now that I think about it, the label didn't even make any sense and might have had racial connotations to it since I was the only brown kid in my predominantly white school at the time. I carried on that label as I grew up and the label evolved with me. I also learned about how subjective weird can be in different circumstances or how the notion of what is considered "normal" and what is other-ed out can be due to societal power dynamics. From the time I was 10 to 14, I had what many would call the "I'm not like other girls" phase. I thought I was weird because I wasn't traditionally feminine. This label helped me break out of the stereotype that a woman was portrayed as but the backlash was that I demonized notions of femininity and saw it as less than. I have since became more open to my femininity and have embraced it more. Then from like the ages of 13-16 I had what I would call my "fake deep" phase where I thought I was ~~~so edgy~~~ for liking alternative music, anime, and other nerdy things. In retrospect I think it's rather silly to think of oneself as so different because of interests but I think this label was beneficial in me being more open minded towards things that may seem more unconventional and building some sense of self. However, the backlash was that I demonized things that were seen as basic or mainstream and since then I have tried to embrace the more basic side of me. Even though it might not always resonate, I do have an appreciation for basic things and can enjoy myself. Now, I would say the reason I find myself weird is because I think my growth over the years has aged me. I made a whole thread on this subject and I was surprised on how many like minded people I found on this forum. It definitely helped me get over this and integrate the notion that I'm not that weird. While I did embrace this label and it helped me in numerous ways such as breaking free from stereotypes and being more open minded, I would say that I also used this label as a shield. I faced a lot of rejection from other kids growing up and I started using this notion of being weird as a reason to isolate myself and not relate to others. It was as though if I gave myself the rejection first, I wouldn't have to get it from other people. That gave me a sense of control from the feeling of vulnerability. After realizing this, I began to slowly dismantle this label while still acknowledging that it did serve some purpose in its integration. Unlike the previous label, I am still working through this one. Truly, there is nothing weird about me in the sense that it will stop me from forming connections. It's simply a label I have internalized. Now it's time to pick up a new, more expansive label.