Mert

I thought it would be a good idea after I saw this.

After watching Leo's Spiral Dynamics - Stage Red video some of the questions I've had the back of my mind re-emerged. So, my question is: what does it mean to evolve in the spiral. For example, if you are Stage Green, does this mean that you have more or less integrated the "lower" stages? Is this a necessity? Or do you have nothing to do with lower stages like Stage Red and you can't even relate with a Stage Red person. If you ask me the ideal situation would be the former one. Otherwise wouldn't it be so easy to move up to at least green without doing almost no consciousness work? You just born in the 60's to good parents and ta-daa you are Green. So, for example, we generally use hippie stereotype as an example for Green. But I would say %99,9 of the people that we call hippies are brainwashed into a specific culture and did 0 hours of integration of Red for example. They would say Stage Red is "evil" and Stage Blue is "fascists" etc. To me this is a child-like approach which creates a huge shadow. In fact, I would say the manipulations and strategies they use reminds me of a sneakier stage red. And that's okay but are people conscious of that? If you ask me, If you claim to be Stage Turquoise or Yellow you have to have the Stage Red right inside you. And you have to be able to use it as a tool wisely, whenever it is needed. You can sit all that smoke some weed and sing kumbaya but what are you going to do if there is a zombie apocalypse or any kind of serious situation? A classical so-called Stage Green hippie would cry like a little bitch first. then his shadows would take him over and he would say "fuck friends and family, I need shelter and food, and I'm gonna rape my female friends when I am horny because there is no law now. I am the law." Or he would just panic and die unskillfully. I think you have to be able to activate stages that are "lower" than your current stage at any moment in order to really grow. I'm curious what do you guys think?

This was exactly what I was getting to. Thank you for clearing that up. I completely agree. I can go with calling it hollow Green or any kind of stage. Or I wouldn't even call them Green because of these reasons you have pointed out, but it gets into semantics. To give yourself as an example, some people can watch your channel and agree with you all day, thinking that they are yellow/turquoise but they don't have any practical skills, no job, no high-quality relationship etc. So this amazing content becomes mental masturbation and an ego boost for a lot of people. You had to master Orange to some degree to create a business like this. Without those skills and hard work, there wouldn't be any channel or forum like this. Same is true for all stages. People take this for granted. They just like to think about how spiritual they are. I have to admit that I have fallen into the same trap myself. Watching videos like "how to get shit done" or "no growth possible without training" is always a good slap in the face.

An in-depth explanation of what science actually is. I think it would be very valuable and eye-opening for many people.

The title says it all. I am curious. Notice that I didn't say external reality. There is no external or internal reality. Just one reality. But it seems that some things are actually true that we can or can't agree on. How do we explain this? The reason I'm asking this is to refer to situations like this: Imagine that someone accuses you of stealing something from the supermarket and you know you didn't steal anything. You are sure. You ask them how did they come to this conclusion maybe there is a misunderstanding. And the answer is something like: "Well, I already know you did. You are a stealer and a lier" and no further explanation. They are just convinced. This is a more extreme example but less serious versions of this happens in real life. I refuse to explain this situation just by saying. "Well, my perception and his perception of reality didn't match. Too bad". It's deeper than that. In that situation, you would say: "No this is not a matter of perception. I didn't steal. It's true, and therefore their perception is false for whatever reason". I hope you get where I'm coming from. How can we integrate the "Truth" of a situation without referring to the existence of objective reality? Because I care about what is "actually" true, regardless of whatever I or someone else fucking thinks. That's why I got into non-duality in the first place.

@TheHealer I get where you are coming from. Can you consider this possibility? When Jesus talked about the future, he really didn't believe in a "better" or "worse" future. He didn't believe in a future at all. But he had to communicate with other people who still operate in that paradigm, which is completely fine. Otherwise, we couldn't communicate. For example, I don't believe in good or bad. I know that they don't exist as they thought to be. But I still use the words all the time. If Jesus existed and he was enlightened, which I believe to be the case, I assure you that he was perfectly aware that there is no absolute decent, moral, pure life. He said those things to point to something. He said those things because what we call "immoral actions" come from not being awake to the eternal now and believing yourself to be a separate entity who needs things to happen. You see, things can only be "better" to a subject that needs something to happen. Jesus Christ was not operating from that level. When he was upset he was not upset because he needs other people to do something. He was not upset because of lack. He was upset because of Love, because people were unconscious to Love/Infinite Consciousness. "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do".

@Peace and Love This is my favourite from their last album but basically almost all TOOL songs are related to spirituality. Some of their album covers are inspired by DMT trips. Lyrics: We are spirit bound to this flesh We go 'round, one foot nailed down But bound to reach out and beyond this flesh Become Pneuma We are will and wonder, bound to recall, remember We are born of one breath, one word We are all one spark, sun becoming Child, wake up Child, release the light Wake up now, child Wake up Child, release the light Wake up now, child Spirit Spirit Spirit Spirit Bound to this flesh This guise, this mask, this dream Wake up, remember We are born of one breath, one word We are all one spark, sun becoming Pneuma Reach out and beyond Wake up, remember We are born of one breath, one word We are all one spark, eyes full of wonder

@Matt8800 What do you think actually happens when you "work with spirits"? I believe that what happens in those cases is that we connect to a different part of our mind. It's like going to the collective unconscious. But I believe there are no fixed spirits independent of how you think about them. It's like infinite archetypes. If that's the case can I communicate with any kind of entity that I want? For example, can I communicate with the spirit of Tony Stark(Iron Man) or an ancient philosopher? Does anything go? Can I create an entity of my own and work with it?

@Synchronicity Yeah I know Leibniz thought them as fundamental substances and I don't agree with him either on that. But this "infinite beings who have their own perspectives and project their own reality" idea seemed similar. I think this is what you are experiencing: My theory is that, and it's not just my theory, consciousness has the ability to divide itself. Somehow. It can disassociate with certain parts of itself and these are what we got as seemingly separate beings. But since there is only one consciousness and all consciousnesses are connected, It's always you that perceives everything. What happens with you as far as I understand, this dissociation with your individual consciousness's "Ethan's perspective's" boundaries become weaker. Consciousness became aware of itself and therefore now has access to all of its content. I don't know lol. And I'm just speculating here. But it's very interesting what happened.

Thank you all so much for sharing your perspectives and resources.

Any kind of source is okay. Books, videos etc. but I'm mostly interested in your experiences. I remember having a couple of lucid dreams when I was a child. Had no interest in spirituality back then obviously. It was one of the best things I've ever experienced. Now I can't seem to have one. 1. How can I do it at all? 2. How can I use it for consciousness work?

@Synchronicity Have you ever heard the term "Monad" by Leibniz. If you haven't, I would strongly suggest you learn about it. Maybe that is what you are experienced. I would be interested to learn your thoughts.

@Nahm Chill bro why is everyone is playing this enlightened character. I'm just trying to make a point for him. All language is dualistic. You want the Truth here it is: "........"

@Inliytened1 Yes I studied him. Indeed he is a dualist. This is a no go. I pretty much disagree with him on every topic lol. But if he was referring to The Self/Consciousness which you can't get behind, only for that I would consider that very significant. I'm not sure though.

@Member What would be outside infinite? I understand your question but there is no internal or external fundamentally.

@Leo Gura That's insane man. I might have to read meditations again just to see if that's the case. Good old Descartes would gain my full respect just for that one thing.

@Member There are things outside of your limited mind which is just a contraction of God's mind. But there is nothing outside God's mind.

@Leo Gura Do you think that Descartes was really trying to point out the primacy of "I AMNESS". "I think therefore I am" seems like an ego identification to me. Maybe you are right, maybe he was trying to say "I am conscious, therefore I am" but they don't have the internet and their terminology is limited and "reason" was treated like a god in his time. So he just used that terminology. If that's the case I would be really shocked and that would mean even western Descartes scholars don't know what he is talking about lol.

@Nahm Depends on what you mean by "I". A person is never conscious. A person is in consciousness. But that is the "real you" so to speak. It doesn't have an identity. Yet has all the identities. It's God.

@Nak Khid I'm really not. Go research what "no-self" means and what "Self" means. Descartes was nowhere near those things.

@Nak Khid They are saying the same thing with a different language. When Buddhists say "no-self" its with "s". When Hindus say "There is Self" it's with "S". So what does that mean? What Buddhist are trying to say is basically there is no ego. The person you think you are the one taking action, thinking your thoughts is not a real entity like you think it is. So Descartes and Buddhists completely disagree with each other. Descartes was confused about thinking. He should've said, "I'm conscious, therefore I am". And that would be not a person or an individual soul but the real Self/Nothingness which both Buddhists and Hindus agree.

@ivankiss No no I agree with you, that was not my point. My point is that you can, and probably already had an "aha" moment. You realized that you were doing something because of unconscious reasons and at that point it became conscious. And that you reflect and say "How I couldn't see that, it's so obvious now". That is unconscious.

@ivankiss There is such a thing as "unconsciousness" but it's still inside the Universal Consciousness. If there is no such a thing as unconsciousness how is it that people act in a way that is dysfunctional and can't stop themselves only to go to the therapy or have a sudden realization that big chunk of their personality was a result of their childhood trauma. But this "unconscious" desires thoughts etc were still present and made of consciousness. Your ego just didn't like them and repressed them. It's like, looking at your visual field right now and only paying attention to things that you as a biological organism decided that important for your survival. But you still saw other things right? They were in your visual field. You just didn't give a shit. At least that's how I make sense of it.

Well. It's more like: What is a "separate self" referring to when her/she makes a truth claim?

@Leo Gura Yes Leo I agree with you. I'm in the middle of a root awakening myself these days. Realizing that I'm God for seconds and laughing and crying at the same time. But this is just way too deep, I'm interested in this because I wanna share these insights just like you and make a better argument for it. Because if I just say "just mediate bro" they don't take it seriously. That's why I'm trying to conceptualize the unconceptualizable and it's really frustrating.(Also for intellectual reasons) I feel like even on a relative level, being curious about subjects like biology, psychology, physics etc. and trying to get the "truth" of the situation has a divine element to it. It's like a divine reflex. Maybe God created the so-called "objective reality" to show the arrogant ego that "Hey you stupid, there is something that you are not aware of and its true, wake the fuck up!" I don't know. This is what I'm referring to: Let's say an arrogant materialist scientist accuses you of being woo-woo and bullshit. And you say "Look, look at this hand! What is "actually" true about it? Not your ideas and projections about it." There is a "Truth" to the situation right? This is the reflex I'm talking about. Why we simply wouldn't say, "Oh okay, if you say so, I guess that's your perception. Have a good day". Even if you said that you would still think that he is fucking deluded. Doesn't matter he is you or both of you are God. I understand your answer but my question is more on a relative level I guess. Maybe I'm trying to conceptualize all this because I too scared of God lol