Matt23

mmm..... I dunno if you can be Turqoise without a sickening degree of embodiment. Meaning; relationships, sexuality, art, kinesthetics, morality, spirituality, logic and reasoning, etc., etc., etc.. I feel it's like comparing, I dunno, the world's most powerful gun that can only shoot once and only in one direction vs. the most versatile, robust, and elite attack helicopter. You're gunna see a huge difference in their abilities to cope with life (i.e., changing environments). It's almost like the gun being so powerful in only a tiny domain actually makes it weak. ---> Specialization = Fragility. So, the gun = the guy who just thinks his way to Turqoise (i.e., his cognition), .. the attack helicopter = the guy who can actually embody and live and Be Turquoise instead of just thinking it. Not saying people can't only develop Turquoise thinking. I'm just saying they'd have to have other lines and domains of development at that stage for me to grace them with the noble title of "Turquoise". I think we're conflating our brain and intelligence maps here a bit too much. Another interesting idea I got from Daniel Schmachtenberger (stage Yellow thinker I'd highly recommend checking out on YouTube if you wanna see what thinking is when mastered) is his opinion that many people who we might consider "low level autistic" are mostly just underdeveloped in some areas. Like that guy who maybe had some bullying in high school, so he stayed alone a lot on his computer and read a ton. He probably doesn't have autism. He's probably simply socially underdeveloped from his traumas, and over developed in his cognition since he avoided the social and used that time instead on his cognition/logic/reasoning etc.. There's also personality functions we can throw into this mix as well. Like some people being more introverted-thinking dominant, etc.. It's a bloody rat's nest imo. But it's fun to play with different perspectives too. We should see how many theories, maps, and models we can apply to this topic.

I skipped most of what your read (:P), but here's my general big picture perspective/advice: Put things into these categories. Do first: The Sweet n' Juicies: Things you most want to do and/or things you think will have the highest return on investment (whatever the return is, be it financial, emotional, or getting more clear about your values, etc.) while also being things that are easiest to do, are the least risky, and require the least amount of personal investment and commitment to do. Do second: Tearing The Band-aid Off Quick (maybe third) Things that you don't necessarily think will help a ton and/or things you don't really want to do while also being things that are easy, least risky and costly, and require the least amount of personal investment to do. Do third: The Long-Term Game (maybe second depending on what you think/feel) Things that you really want to do and think will have a high return on investment while also being things that require a high personal investment, are risky, and aren't that easy to do. Do fourth: the Backburner Things you don't want to do nor do you think will have a large return on investment while also being things that require a large personal investment and risk to do while not being easy. Obviously it's just a template and use it as it suits you and what you think. I think I got it from Jamie Wheal as a decision-making guide. It's a 4x4 grid: Like Dislike Hard to do ---- Easy to do Basically... Do what you most want to do that easiest to do immediately. Then do what's easiest to do but you don't really want to do next. Then do what you really want to do but is hard to do. Then leave things you don't want to do and are difficult to do last. So do all the shit that you can right now. All the easy stuff. Go explore, have experiences. Do some psychedelics if that's easy for you right now or something, while also thinking about longer-term goals that you really want to do but take more effort and planning etc. And doing shit you don't like which is kinda easy might be a dud, but it also might lead you to discover something new and awesome. Never know. Remember, hold this frame loosely. I think life is more complicated than a 4x4 chart Follow your intuition and inner voice and reason as top brass.

@FlyingLotus Is the summaries thread also summaries of the blog videos as well?

Ugghhh.... can we get a background check on this guy?

The Raven Creator God from the North American Native tribe called the Haida. The Raven is seen both as the creator god of the world, and also a trickster, magician, and transformer god interestingly enough, which sort of parallels the idea of reality being an illusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_mythology

Pain and love.

I feel like the debate would also be taking place on a more subtle level too. A level that's not about the content being discussed necessarily, but about "how" the debate is taking place and being framed. Like a subtle debate about the values that are being prioritized, focused on, and displayed during the debate. I think this is where most of the triggering would happen between stages.

I heard Ken Wilber once describe a difference between Stage Green and Stage Yellow. It went something like this: "You put Stage Green in a situation where they're hungry and all there is is a McDonalds, they're gunna have a huge moral dilemma and issue about it. But, at Stage Yellow, they'll have no problem chowing down a cheeseburger and fries. Since it fits the situation. They're flexible." Find the balance between optimizing your own health, sanity, functionality, and kindness and compassion towards yourself and happiness vs. focusing on other(s). After all, You are other to others and do effect your environment. If you are unhealthy and miserable, irritated and dysfunctional, you will more likely effect others and your environment negatively, sub-optimally, and not give your best self to a cause that might have a bigger net-positive that outweighs the net-negative of eating a cheeseburger (a cheeseburger that might satisfy some craving temporarily [a craving which might just be too hard to resolve with mindfulness or something since, say, you're in traffic on your way to work and don't have time or the emotional capacity at the moment to "work on yourself"] which then changes your mood a bit so that you show up to work in a way more positive mood which others then feel and increases work productivity and quality... for example).

I think it's also interesting to consider the "Red vs. Blue" split and battle is still happening today (i.e., Dems vs. Conservatives). It's as if a huge part of the fabric that created the USA, part of the USA identity is connected to the conflict between Red vs. Blue. Like, you become a US citizen, and then have to pick between the two. I'm sure also that this goes beyond just the US and touches on the spiral stages of development. Since probably in every country which is populated by a wide range within the spiral comes upon these battles between conservative and progressive mindsets and ideologies. Maybe it's like, the fundamental battle between Spiral stages (conservative vs. progressive, to put it very simply) is universal. But what's unique to each battle or country is the narratives and histories and specifics of that battle and those identities. Like Conservatives will be battling progressives in the U.S., Britain, and elsewhere. But the conservatives in the U.S. might tell a different story based on the U.S. Constitution, the Civil War, etc., whereas the conservatives in another country will identify with different narratives. etc.. Likewise with progressives as well. What's progressive in one area/country might be different in the specifics than what it means to be progressive in a different country. Yet both share a similar attitude towards life and value systems that overarch the specific battles and ideas they attach too. Like one country might be more involved with battling systemic racism, whereas another might be focusing on Apartheid or something.

The meta-question seems to be "Why does human development look the precise way it does and not some other way?" And perhaps, to go even more meta, "Why is anything the exact way it is and not some other way?" I could hypothesize that maybe it works like an infinite chain of cause and effect, with all previous "chains" or causes being sort of imprinted into our DNA and psychologies. Like the transcend and including + epigenetics + evolution + human psychological development. To bring it to the concrete. Here's an example that illustrates the theory I'm talking about. As a hypothetical. Stage purple came about and got "imprinted" into the human psyche since, at a point in our history, we became aware and evolution selected for people to form tribes. Then Stage Red came around since evolution selected for that psychological makeup since our tribes were getting decimated by other tribes, and our tribes were getting to big and fragmenting so we needed an iron fist to aggressively bring the tribe back together. But then Stage Blue came along and got "imprinted" into the human psyche since stage Red was becoming a hinderance to our survival by being too destructive and domineering, so then evolution selected for a more tradition, hierarchical, and civilized psyche. My theory of everything.

Also consider that what you now see or think of as your "personality type" might not actually be it. Consider it might simply be a false depiction of what you think is your personality type. From what I've learned, it's difficult to actually see oneself and "true personality type" accurately. Whereas others probably see your "true type" in a amore accurate or objective manner. I'm making a distinction here between A) your personality type, and B) the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, desires, fears, etc., that you notice and have "cherry picked" unconsciously to create the image of who you think you are. These might be separate things, and I think this is where people can get confused as to what personality type they truly are, vs. what personality type they think they are or really want to be. But maybe you see yourself clearly. I dunno. Discovering your "true personality type" might also be something not so spectacular and amazing. The way Objective Personality speaks about what they've found, usually upon discovering one's true personality type, people aren't like "Oh yay! That's me!'' Usually the personality types people really want to be and idealize aren't what personality type they really are. I've heard it's usually like "Oh.. ya, I guess that kinda makes sense.'' I guess I'd suggest to make a distinction between what seems to me as the negative images of yourself you seem to identify with. Like "shy, thoughtless, loner, irritable, numb," etc., vs. your personality type. I don't think there's a personality type who's core characteristic is "numb" or "irritable" etc. Sure, maybe if you count neuroticism from the Big5, but even then I think you can run the risk of attributing negative labels and characteristics to your personality type, which kind of makes it seem more unchanging and innate, like you're somehow stuck with them. Maybe focus on characteristics you "resonate" with and feel inspired by and try to embody those more without thinking too much about it. What characteristics do you get inspired by in others? What are your hero's and why? What makes that person inspiring to you? What do they do and how do they do it that you really appreciate and admire? ...also, remember to not create a huge shadow out of the things you don't like about yourself as well and repress your "stuff". Haha, just to make things more complicated. Do what feels good. I'd recommend checking out their stuff and method. Probably the most rigorous and scientific personality testing I've seen so far. They have a YT channel and website with all their info and how they do their testing.

Wasn't the "North" in the civil war also more progressive? I wonder why this has seemed to be a theme spanning a century or more. It's like the more North you go, the more progressive you get. Obviously there's nuance, but it seems like a general trend.

i relate

The term personality could be seen different ways. In a more psychological sense, usually it is something more fixed and doesnt change much. Like your Big5 or Myers Briggs types. In a personal development sense, you can absolutely change your beliefs, behaviors, feelings, thoughts, interests, fears, etc. I see it like everyone has a more fixed personality type which just sort of "comes through" naturally, and the perso themselves probably isn't very aware of it as much as others are. But then you've got all the other stuff, like behaviors and feelings and thoughts etc., which you can change. Basically, i think it's part working on changing what you can change and want to change, and part accepting yourself as you are authentically. Work towards creating the you that you want to be. Discover and accept yourself and authenticity exactly as you are.

I'm interested in starting a conversation and getting some stories about misapplying certain techniques, philosophies, attitudes, practices, and the like. I'm particularly interested in examples about times when you've overapplied a technique. I think it's likely that most people underapply techniques, and that stressing this would be beating a dead horse. So I'm really interested in hearing what people's experiences are when they overapplied something. Be it a specific practice, a habit, or even a certain attitude and stance towards life. What happened? What was out of balance? How did you know you were out of balance? What did you do, what shifted, in order to reorient you towards balance? Are you still orienting towards balance? I'm more interested in hearing about people's actual experiences rather than philosophizing and discussing the theory of this topic. Cheers.

I don't think "lusting after girls you're not dating" is bad or unnatural at all. It's perfectly natural. To expect your partner to not be attracted to or masturbate to other people is kinda ridiculous if you ask me. It would probably make the relationship worse too since you'd feel all bottled up, guilty, and such.

I think he actually may have. I've heard Ken Wilber, and I think some people from Rebel Wisdom (who've interviewed him and also have spiritual backgrounds) say he did. And I guess he spoke about it somewhere, but I dunno.

I think strengths exist, and in that talent exists, but if they aren't utilized or developed, they won't flourish into anything real. Just like how many people frame genetics: genetics aren't everything, they are simply potentials which are activated by the environment (to put it probably simplistically). Maybe it's like talents or strengths are like seeds in the soil which has seen no rain yet. But then you start practicing and "watering" the seeds such that they sprout into actual skills that people see. And ya, sure, certain people will pick certain things up more easily and maybe have a "knack" for some things and not for others, and that it's probably super hard to really know how much was due to the environment or practice and how much was due to genetics or predispositions. Like for me, ever since I was young, I never did well or liked things like math, logic, languages, etc., but did really quite well in sports and athletics. Now, did I do well in sports cuz I grew up in an athletic household? Or did I find math, logic, and language type stuff difficult because I didn't like them, or did I not like them because I had a genetic predisposition which didn't make my mind find those types of subjects easy? Dunno.

Thanks How did Ben and them feel about the whole thing?

Good job though in just going ahead and doing something new and sticking your neck out. I did enjoy the parts you spoke about spirituality, love, and consciousness/god etc. Those to me were some of the clearest interestingly. I felt the need to balance some of the criticisms with some positive reinforcement.

Hah, ya. Just reread what you wrote and totally assumed it was about me.

Ya, this to me woulda made a big difference. Like one question in particular that was asked was "can you give some examples of assumptions in the scientific paradigm". I think he gave one or two or something, but to me, i think it woulda been great to just give a list of several examples to show people "ooohhhh ya, never thought about that. There are lots" and then discuss why they are assumptions. Maybe a better speaking strategy is to first just go with the concrete answers and then go into the details and caveats etc. Like when Ben (or Charlie, dunno his name) asked "how do you know absolute truth right now, since you aren't currently on psychedelics and are presumably remembering those experiences?" I think it woulda been better if he just said "Because I'm directly conscious of it now." And then gone into what that means. But hey, I could be way off or something.

I wasn't necessarily being negative. Admittedly at times I was like "argh! You coulda answered that better" and wish he woulda, from my POV at least. I was trying to give some constructive critiques of things I didn't like or/and thought he can improve on. I think he's got good stuff to share and that from my POV he coulda said it in a way that might help others be more open to his content and understand it better. Hopefully it's useful. Maybe it's not. Dunno.

I kinda get it though. I think it's Leo's speaking style and just how his mind works. Like I do love his stuff, but i found a few things in this video which i thought he didnt't do well and could improve on. Addressing questions in more concrete ways and using more concrete examples and being less abstract. A few times he had questions asked tp him to give specific and i think he either couldn't think of any or for some reason didnt't give them. Addressing questions more directly. It seemed like he was asked a question but then he jumped around it a lot. I think his mind just naturally works this way. I found he often didn't answer it directly and instead went into tangents and never fully or directly answered the question. I think this gave him a vibe of evading questions, not that I think he was actually doing that. Talk slower, give more pauses (for the audience to keep up and space for the questionner to speak or ask clarifying questions. Several times the interviewer started speaking or asking a question but Leo kinda kept on talking. I think this kinda let Leo go all over the place and not stay on track. Those are my main critiques. I think it's a great thing to start to have conversations with others and hope he does more in the future. Thanks for the talk

I had a period where I was waking up around that time consistently just spontaneously without an alarm. I'd meditate usually. It was during a period where I was doing a decent amount of meditation. I dunno if I was more creative though. Hard to remember what I felt. Maybe, maybe, more clear-headed. But I dunno.