WiseOldOwl

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the correct section to post this topic - it was the closest I could find. I've noticed for the past couple of months when I try to listen to Actualized.org content on Google Podcast, I get the error seen in the attachment. I think it's because content is hosted at http://actualizedfiles.com/audio/... instead of https://actualizedfiles.com/audio/... Are there any current plans to create an HTTPS-hosted version of the content? Thanks!

Possibly, but the odds are against it (in my humble opinion). Here's an interesting read: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/new-religions/533745/

I get the feeling Leo doesn't "feel the Bern"

@hello1234 Different strokes for different folks (as seen by the previous comments). Some are disillusioned with politics. Their attitude is "Why should I bother getting involved when I have no influence over public policy?" And they're not wrong. A study once done by Princeton University basically revealed that public opinion has "near-zero" impact on U.S. law. In its current state, our democracy is a facade. At best, we're living in an oligarchy. Some who want to get involved don't know what to believe. In a world of information overload and disinformation, separating fact from fiction isn't always easy. Like Denzel Washington once said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed, if you do read it, you're misinformed." Is it possible to get to the truth instead of believing everything you hear? Of course. But it takes time and we live in a fast-food, fast-car, fast-internet, instant gratification world where time is a menace. Others have too many other day-to-day concerns to worry about. Some parent who's trying to get insurance to cover their child's chemo treatments may have a caring heart but little time to fret over the crisis between Russia and the Ukraine or net neutrality. How much can one person fit on their plate? Some would say it's better to simply focus on your sphere of influence and not burden yourself with such a heavy weight. And still others would argue there's no such thing as being apolitical. They'd say things such as this: silence is complicity. By not taking sides, you're siding with the status quo. By sitting on the sidelines, you're supporting the system "as is". I'm not sure the question "is being apolitical a sign of selfishness" has a yes-or-no answer. It depends on the person and the situation. If it's someone who has the power and influence to effect change and aren't because they "just don't want to work that hard" or "as long as me and mine are comfortable, who cares", then perhaps. If it's an average joe who's only going to live 80 years (sitting aside non-duality for a moment) and doesn't want to spend 40 of those years fighting for backyard chickens in their city, perhaps not. It depends on your perspective.

@aurum Thanks, all excellent points. The purpose of the think tank wouldn't primarily be to try to change people (at least not directly in the sense of trying to accelerate folks through the spiral) As you said, a person who's at stage blue (for example) can't instantly jump from blue to turquoise. They must progress naturally through orange, green, and yellow. One of its objectives would be to change conditions that would collectively benefit society and hopefully create an environment that promotes progression through the spiral through education and gaining more of a foothold as policy makers. If I remember correctly, stage yellow people only account for 1% of the adult population (and only have a 5% influence over the world). I believe that needs to change if our society is to reach its fullest potential and transcend the petty infighting we see in today's world. We need more tier 2 politicians. We need more tier 2 companies. We need more tier 2 general influence. (But of course, not at the cost of drowining out the other stages, as everyone has something useful to bring to the table.) Another objective would be to help the different tiers find common ground. When someone who's stage orange can find common ground with someone who's stage green and stops demonizing them as a "free-spirited hippie who's all about peace and love" and realizes that green's perspective is just as legitimate as theirs, then this helps them to see things from a fresh perspective. This also helps them to come face to face with the transformational dilemma that separates them from moving up the spiral and helps them to slowly open up to embracing the next stage. You're also right that such an undertaking could easily face much opposition from those in tier 1. Planning ahead and figuring out how to present the think tank in a way that's non-threatening and where the anticipated objections from each stage of the spiral could be addressed in a way that speaks to that stage's fears, concerns, and limiting beliefs would be critical. As far as me having all the answers, that's not a problem. I don't have any of the answers. But I do have a passionate desire in the limited time I have on planet Earth to leave it in better shape than I found it.

@BlueOak Excellent insights. Finding solutions is the easy part. The hard part is cutting through a polarized two-party bureaucracy. The hard part is selling solutions that will be generally accepted by a population that's far too easily influenced by the opinions of others. The hard part is getting a think tank off the ground in the first place. Logic alone won't do it. Most beings are emotional first and logical second. People do illogical things all the time because their emotions contradict what's logical. That's where (as you pointed out) the need for charismatic speakers who understand how to speak to people in a way that resonates with their emotions comes into play. If I did it as a non-profit, I'd have to decide on 501(c)3 or 501(c)4. The gotcha with c3 is that it can't involve itself in political activism. The gotcha with c4 is that contributors can't write off their donations. I agree that such an organization could focus specifically on one or two critical issues (the ones you named are certainly fairly pressing). But ideally I'm envisioning something more ambitious. After all, there are already niche organizations that focus on those specific problems. I'll continue to study on available options. Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Thanks @Johnny Galt - I look foward to any additional insights you may have. I will say that I stand corrected on one thing: I think the think tank may also need a few stage green thinkers (or people with elements of green and yellow - after all, most people aren't solidly only one color). In the @Leo Gura video/podcast "Spiral Dynamics: Stage Yellow" (highly recommended to all who haven't watched it by the way), he mentions that one of the limitations of yellow is that people in stage yellow can sometimes come across as a bit cold and distant where their head is constantly in models and theory and problem solving. Having stage green thinkers might help add some much-needed emotion and heart and empathy to the equation to create a more sustainable balance. After all, it's not enough to just come up with solutions. Those solutions have to be sold to a stage one dominated society. And to do that, yellow has to be able to masterfully speak the language of stage 1 (which it's capable of doing when it steps away from the systems thinking for a moment and is reminded of its need to do so).

As I'm sure anyone who has studied spiral dynamics would agree, our society is largely stuck in tier 1 - mostly blue, orange, and green. And the mutual loathing that has arisen between the factions is having a very negative impact on society. If tier 2 people had control of the world, the COVID pandemic would already be over. If tier 2 people had control of the world, global warming would still probably be an issue, but much less of one. If tier 2 people had control of the world, the education system would be teaching kids how to think for themselves, how to question everything (i.e. see the world objectively), and preparing them for success in the real world instead of manufacturing wage slaves via rote memorization and a hive mind mentality. I believe that if a stage yellow political think tank could be orchestrated, it would have the potential to change the world. (I say stage yellow even though turquoise is also tier 2 because once a person reaches turquoise, they probably have less than no interest in such things as politics). But back to the point, similar to the way that Don Beck and his students tried and succeeded to some degree to improve relations between Israel and Palestine (until financial issues and geopolitical complexities derailed their efforts), I believe a similar holistic approach could be taken to solve much of the world's problems (regarding healthcare, the economy, education, climate change, etc.) and to create a better world. The million dollar question is how would one even begin to put together such a think tank and sustain it long enough for it to positively impact society? What form would this think tank take? A new political party? A non-profit organization? Is such a solution untenable due to the never-ending roadblocks and opposition it would face from tier 1 stages? Anyone with thoughts or comments feel free to chime in.