Fran11

@Preety_India Don't take me wrong, I absolutely love the country. And most people are good people regardless of their Stage. But the socioeconomic developement is what it is. Read in high-school. Fascinanting.

@Preety_India Yes, I understand where you are coming from. I'm also from an underdeveloped country, Argentina, I would say we have 35-40% solid Red/Blue. So of course if you aren't able to access some Red traits yourself people are gonna walk all over you. Interesting. Those are activities that would engage Red, and they have a strong component of Blue discipline, which would help him drop the unhealthy and impussive asspects and elevate him. @integral Nice, I like how he emphatizes the importance of Red's healthy asspects in the hero's character. That's absolutely necessary. "seems like your transitioning out of turquoise. maybe lol" My spiritual ego would wish. LOL

That's right. Even people from higher stages sometimes leave you no choice but to apply some proper Red

Well, I wouldn't consider an educated and consciously revolutionary person solid Red. For example, Leo used Che Guevara as an example of Green in the respective video, altough he embodied the violence of Red. But I understand what you mean, there are social situations in which violence, which is a Red trait, is necessary in order to avoid abuses. That's why is important that we don't demonize lower stages and instesd integrate their healthy asspects and capacities.

@Preety_India I feel you are thinking more about higher stages with a healthy embodiment of Red traits (like Green being involved in a violent revolution) than solid Red.

Yeah I know. And honestly even living conditions and education don't seem to do much unfortunately... I was wondering if I am missing something... or the sad truth is just that we can't do much about them.

What would be for Red to exhaust itself? Yes, I was asking that from the POV of the higher stages, to discuss what they can do to promote Red's transition.

This is absolutely necessary, but not enough in my experience. Social programs are important because otherwise people would just starve. But for themselves, I don't see them generating the necessary oportunities and incentives to move peopl forward, people just become goverment-dependent. Education also plays a major role. When dealing when Red, it could be an useful tool to inculcate them with propouse like you said.

Yes, I see. Good point. Any idea of how a goverment could acomplish or at least promote this in the XXI century?

Elaborate please

Sure, and even if we take out the notion of personal responsability understood as a sort of "blaming", goverment and higher stages still need to take responsability and create the structure, the possibilities and incentives for the lower stages to move up instead of keeping them stuck and depending on the goverment forever.

But you are putting national economical growth (GDP) as the top priority. It's still dogmatic. That would be Orange. Yellow, if it's in an already resonably developed country, may sacrifice some extra economical growth for the sake of achieving greater equality and helping the lower classes. Among other things like protecting the enviroment. Economic growth has been shown not to increase the happiness of a society after a certain point. The World Value Survey shows this, you can see it in Leo's video. So, after societies achieve a certain degree of economic developement, it's natural not to prioritize it as much, and start looking at other asspects of society. Just like if an individual becomes rich, he/she won't be all about making money anymore. But this, if applied in still underdeveloped countries, can be catastrophic (Argentina, Venezuela). Green doesn't understand the difference, neither does Orange.

I already defined some at the end of my first post. The most important for this discussion are: - Yellow is not naive about economics like Green, but it's not ideological about it (is not trying to dogmatically maximize indivudual freedom like a Libertarian, just for the sake of it). For example, Yellow may want to reduce public expediture but just to a point where it is affordable for the country in question. While Orange will want to reduce it as much as possible because it's dogmatic about it. Orange will be against all social policies, out of ideology. Green will be for all of them, also becouse of ideology. Yellow will consider each one in particular and their systemic effects. - Yellow cares about Green values. But it's more effective at solving problems because it thinks holistically and avoids backlashes. Orange, on the other hand, is much more egoistic and doesn't care about society or the enviroment, just personal gain.

No, I'm not saying Right is Yellow, probably is mostly Orange. Orange doesn't understand systemic analysis either. But the problems of neglecting systemic analysis become more evident when you try to reform a system (Left) than when you try to mantain the status quo (Right).

Maybe you are confusing Orange with Yellow. Green tends to treat economics from a very idelaistic position without considering the systemic consecuences of some policies, or if they are apropiate for the country and historical time they are living in. This sort of "Lets just take all the rich people's money, give it to the poor and damn the long term consecuences" very simplistic attitude. This is much more problematic in underdeveloped regions than in first world countries. It backlashes hard. Venezuela and Argentina are examples of what happens when you try to rush too quick into a first world-like state, while being in a still highly corrupt and low socioeconomically developed country. Therefore when they learn to think more systemically (Yellow), they may incorporate some seemingly Orange elements, but the difference is that they will do so from a purely pragmatic position and not because of some libertarian ideology and dogma. They will still care about Green values like helping the poor, taking care of he enviroment, etc. But from a more down to earth and effective position.

I see a lot of people getting demotivated by spiritual work. I went trought a similar phase but now I have my motivation back, and want to share some words with you. I do not intend to present this as an absolute truth, but as a motivational perspective. Spirituality has made me see life as the infinitely beautiful miracle that it really is. You being here, in that body, in this universe, in this world, in this age, having the life you have, is fucking milacrous and precious. Impermanence will devour it all before you know it, and that just makes it all more precious and deserving of your full apreciation and commitement. You may have endless lives, but this one won't ever come back. Each second is unique and precious, once it's gone it's gone forever. There's no time for bullshit. Appreciate each moment you spend with your family, your friends, your partner, your work. Even the "bad" things and moments you will learn to apreciate and see the Love within. Pursue your dreams. Go out and start your business. Create Art. Learn pickup. Play sports. Study. Whatever your hearth tells you. But do it. When you are angry, fearful or wasting time, look at it from a higher elevation and realise how pointless all of that is. There's just no time for that shit when you really apreciate the miracle of life moment to moment. Everything that's not Love is a waste of time. Surrender to Love and you will have the strenght to drop all nonsense. Live with all your strenght, hold nothing back. You have nothing to gain or to lose, so fear nothing and give your whole harth to life without any hesitation.

Science cannot produce conscious A.I because they are only working at the material level of reality. A conscious being like us, consists of a Mental body, an Astral body and a Physical body. The first two can be created by advanced magicians.

I've already heard this argument and examples from both the left and right wings. Which shows is just cherry picking. We could also find examples to say Google is pushing a Reptilian Overlord agenda if we wanted

It's the only way to cut out the hurt chain

What I don't about you, I correct it in myself. Practice this, and people's attitudes will stop bothering you. You will feel compassion and understanding instead of being triggered. Only competitive people are offended by other's competitiveness. Only arrogant people are offended by other's arrogance. Is Leo arrogant? Yes, but who gives a fuck? Only your hurt ego. If you were more mature you would take the useful part of the content, and feel sorry or indifferent for him about his arrogant traits, because they add 0 value to his work and slow his developement. He's actually the most hurt by this.

Only snowflakes who are afraid of being banned create new accounts to write hateful posts.

- Being less tolerant of toxic habits, thoughts and people. - Being more concious about how I spend time. - Giving love and compassion if possible, and if not at least not giving out negative energy. - Appreciating them for their uniqueness, both "positive" and "negative". But still seeing them neither worse nor better than me in absolute terms. - Trying to really understand their perspective and avoid projections. Respect can either be becouse of fear or because of love. The former is a survival thing. When it comes out of love it's a higher form of respect which is much more enjoyable and makes you grow.

Nice points. Libertarians tend to convenientely define disruptions to personal freedom only when it's caused by a direct action (a thief taking your money at gunpoint) and not indirect systemic consecuences (difficulty to start your bussiness, negotiate in a work interview, etc). They have this bias because their ideology has a great deal of moralization. "If someone abused you directly, they are evil and must be stopped. If the consecuences of the non-evil actions of the society created a dynamic that damaged you, no action should be taken because they weren't directly being evil." Of course, this is not a very smart distinction to make from the practical point of view because the end result is the same, having less freedom, so taking action should be considered in both cases. Anyway, that's not to say every version of capitalism is less free that any version of socialism, there are many degrees of each, and many asspects to consider.

I like it, that would help making the communication more effective. And one when one is on the other side, I feel it's healthy to give the other person the benefit of the doubt and asking him/her views on the matter instead of projecting them. The problem is that the more Tier 1 one's thinking is, the more likely one is to separate people and perspectives using simplistic binary categories ("people are either racists or not-racist, either conservatives or liberals, pro-lockdown or anti-lockdown", etc.) And also more likely to misunderstand multiple-POVs analysis and the difference beetween talking from a zoomed-in or a zoomed-out .