Emerald

That's true that people will always vote based on their current level of awareness. But this doesn't mean that things they're voting for are equally healthy. For example, if we're voting on the type of diet that we eat. And some people are unaware and are voting for the Krispy Kreme doughnut diet, then this poses a threat to human health. So, it's very important that people become more aware of what they're actually voting for and who is most objectively in alignment with human health. So, what I'm saying here is that Bernie is objectively the candidate who is most in alignment with molding society toward human health and prosperity because he is the most dedicated to breaking up corruption. So, I'm saying that, if a person values human wellness, then it's objectively wisest to vote for Bernie. This is a post precisely for raising awareness, so that people can see the value in voting this way. And once people are aware, then they're not going to vote against their own best interests. Thus... this post. I'm trying to bring understanding with what I've written so that people don't get bogged down in opinions and can instead reframe the situation in a more objective and factual way. That's why I said, a person can value corruption and a person can value getting rid of corruption. Those are opinions. But if a person values getting rid of corruption as the desired end, we can then extrapolate some facts for how best to bring about that end in an objective way. So, we can objectively vet candidates based on this desired outcome. And if we're vetting candidates based on how dedicated they are and informed they are about breaking up corruption, then Bernie Sanders is objectively the best candidate by these measures. But if we were valuing the candidate based on how corrupt they are, then we could go back in each candidates record and quantify how corrupt each one is based on how many corrupt acts they've done and how many people it's affected negatively. And then we could make an objective decision that way too. So, as I was dovetailing off the original post's absolutism about Bernie Sanders, I was lighting on the perspective with which it is quite an absolute. And in order for it to be an absolute, there has to be an end goal. So, if that end goal is to abolish corruption in politics, then objectively and absolutely Bernie is the candidate that's most focused on this issue and has been consistent on this issue for his entire 40 year career. That's exactly what I'm doing right now. Perhaps you should cultivate some awareness yourself. You seem to be applying the system of SD onto things, and then thinking that each stage will add up to an equally healthy, harmonious, and prosperous society for all people. So, your end goal is to basically green-light everything because SD validates all perspectives. And while it's true that all the stages in SD are valid and important, not all of them yield the same results. Currently, our society is mostly Orange, and there are very real problems that affect real people that stem from this. So, it's important that we're not intellectual about these issues. If we value living in a healthy society that works for all people, we need to set our end goal as that. And objectively, some politicians will do a better job than others. And some SD levels are more appropriate. In order to do more than just intellectually masturbate about what's valid as a perspective, we need to be more results oriented because people are suffering and our society is suffering. And that's because of corruption. So, we don't need a perspective where someone is using Spiral Dynamics to greenlight things that are objectively harmful for people, based on the relative truth that all SD levels are valid. If we're considering the validity of perspectives, then YES all SD levels are valid. They are important developmental milestones. And we shouldn't demonize people for them. But if we're instead considering what's healthiest for people, then the truth that all SD levels are valid is just being used to maintain homestasis and ensure the perpetuation of the corruption in the current system. When instead, it would objectively be much healthier for society to tackle these issues head-on in grassroots movement and through electing progressive anti-corruption politicians like Bernie Sanders.

So, are you making the argument that the corruption in the political/economic system that we have is necessary for survival? Are you one of the ones I mentioned that values corruption?

I agree. But you should give the details as to why Bernie is the best candidate. Otherwise people will just think you're being opinionated and trying to push your opinion. But you are correct that, if someone values bringing society out of corruption and into a state where politicians work toward the greater good for all people, that Bernie is the best we have right now. And anyone who values politicians working for the people, would objectively be unwise to vote anyone in the race who isn't Bernie Sanders. He's the best and most electable candidate we have toward those ends. Now, if someone values corruption and thinks corruption is a good thing, then you could also say that Bernie is objectively the worst. So, depending on what people value, there can be differences in opinion. But if a person values getting rid of corruption in politics, then objectively Bernie's the right candidate. No opinions here. Just fact. So, I would make an edit to your post. I would say it's those who are misinformed among working people who work against their own self-interest and defend a system that doesn't work for them. This comes from lack of political education and people not really knowing what's going on. But it's pure self-interest for those who are billionaires and have an indifference to working people. They know that, in order to maintain the status quo and/or enrich their pocketbook, they will need to buy out politicians by financing their campaigns. So, someone like Bernie Sanders poses a threat to them because he is not bought and if he were president would be playing hardball and rescinding support for politicians who are bought. So, they will try to smear him. And the mainstream media outlets will do the same. But yes, objectively, Bernie Sanders is the most suitable candidate for making changes that impact human health and prosperity in a positive way. And he's the one that had the most effective strategy for getting those progressive platforms implemented. So, if someone cares most about society coming more into alignment with health, harmony, fairness and prosperity; they would certainly be wisest to vote for Bernie. But if someone wants more of the status quo and corruption in politics, then they should vote for Biden (or any of the other corporate centrists). That way between them and Trump, they are guaranteed to get their wish of more corruption. It would just come down to what flavor of corruption they prefer. So, it's a matter of opinion relative to whether someone values corruption or getting rid of corruption. But for those who don't value corruption, the choice is clear.

Probably a lot of stage Orange with some interest in surface-level Green things. But he also has shown recently a lot of stage Red/Blue to him in that he's very big on the gender difference thing, and even implied that it may be good to stop women from voting. The reason why he said this was basically that society is worse now because men used do men stuff and women used do women stuff, and now that we all do the same things that's caused so many problems. And when the interviewer said to him something like, 'Certainly equality is good in the basic ways like voting, right?' And Elliot responded by saying something that dodged answering the question directly but implied that perhaps we should 'be open minded' and consider rescinding those rights from women. Plus, he's really big into the MGTOW stuff. So, I'm guessing that he's very insecure about his masculinity, and has repressed his Anima which guarantees that a person can never evolve into Green and will likely remain in Orange or perhaps devolve into lower stages and warm toward regressive ideas. Yet again, he may be purely and Orange capitalist and just be uninterested in everything he says, but pedal it out so that he can make money. And now, he may be trying to get the money from people in the 'manosphere' because insecure people are easier to make money off of. This would also explain why he was using and anti-voting rights talking point, because it pleases his target audience who are very misogynistic and would be quite pleased to see women under the boot again. It's hard to tell if he's one of them or if he's just playing to that audience to get some cash.

I think you're doing some mental gymnastics here. And this is what makes you unconscious. Also, I've worked as an assistant teacher before, and it's like 15 times easier than being a full-time teacher. And one of the main reasons why is because you're not responsible for setting the tone of the classroom and being the energy controller. The regular teacher does that. So, as long as you, as the assistant teacher, fall in line and keep to the patterns set by the regular teacher (who is probably actively doing all the work to control the class, which enables you to "have fun" with the kids), then you'll be able to ride the wave he/she is setting without the classroom getting out of control. But understand that the only reason why the environment is conducive to you having fun with the kids is because the teacher who is running the class is doing all the work to maintain a still pond. And you're taking that for granted. But I'm going to guess, that if you have been or will be a full-time teacher of a class, then you're going to have some really big classroom issues where the students don't respect you. And it's best not to bypass these failures and reframe them as you being a more conscious teacher. It's not because you're more conscious, it's because you moralize against the traits that you actually need to be an effective teacher. And this is probably why they demoted you to being an assistant teacher. The kids were probably eating you alive and not learning, and the administration wanted to give you an easier job. And then you rationalized it as "conscious teachers will be fired." as opposed to "I'm not cutting the mustard with my approach to teaching." Is it not so? When the rubber meets the road, your method simply isn't functional. And I know from experience. It doesn't work, and it does the students a dis-service. And that's because you're not having high expectations of them, and the environment is too slack for the students to feel truly challenged and to meet with those challenges. And this just breeds chaos because no one can learn in such an environment.

This is another one of those spiritual bypass and idealism kind of things. People simply don't work that way. You come in like that, and the kids will eat you alive. I've met teachers like that who had that kind of philosophy about teaching (not as extreme of course, or they wouldn't survive through the week with that plan), and the classroom is the opposite of inspiring. The kids just don't respect the teacher because they feel like the teacher has no boundaries and no expectations of them. And many students feel overwhelmed in such a loose environment, especially ones who have sensory issues and/or are on the autism spectrum. But most kids really feel much better with routine, and many experience anxiety at changes. You have to have a lot of warrior energy at your disposal to be a good teacher which includes strategy, discipline, leadership, and high expectations of those who are following your command. They have to know that you're expecting a lot of them and have a sense of stakes. And if they feel like you respect them and have those expectations of them, they will try to reach and impress you. You're not really understanding how human beings work and what they need and want. Structure is a deep need for those growing up. Kids may consciously want more freedom. But they thrive best when that freedom is comfortably supported by discipline and order. So, you can't just be like, "Who wants to learn today?" and then teach based on that. Number one, the kids that don't will create an unbearable classroom situation to teach in. If you even have one student who's allowed to do whatever they want to do, they'll create so many ripples in the pond and the energy of the classroom will slide toward entropy. Things fall apart very easily. And as the teacher, your job is to notice and address all the micro-patterns in the classroom that are a barrier to teaching and student engagement. So, you're really more of an energy director than anything else as a teacher. And the best teachers can pick up on those energetic patterns quickly and put a stopper to them to still the pond so that the kids can focus. And the kids get an intuitive sense for how good the teacher is at doing this. And if they sense weak boundaries, the top three mischief makers will start making energetic ripples in the pond. And then, this will spread out to the next tier of students who are not really mischief makers, but really like socializing and are a bit lax with the rules. And then, once the energetic pattern of entropy has hit that group, you have like 1/4 to 1/3 of the class off-task. And at that point, everyone else but the most responsible students (maybe 1 or 2 of them), is just engaged in doing whatever they want to do... which is socialize and be free. But they are no longer engaged in active learning, and you can't do your job as a teacher at that point. And you're doing the kids a dis-service.

I certainly wasn't in a threatening position relative to her position. So, it wasn't anything like that. Now, she does pride herself on being academically intellectual, and I had thought that perhaps she may have been envious relative to the way I generally think about things because I am intelligent but in a more intuitive kind of way that she's not very good at because of her rigidity. But I would say that I can see that she was inundated by similar conditioning to me, only she never really got out of it. I really feel like, to her, achievement equals inherent value. And I was certainly on that track until my awakening experiences 10 years ago. But on the surface, in life, I don't think many people (including her) would recognize that similarity of conditioning. She would probably see me as quite the diametric opposite to how she is. And that's really why I think she disliked me, as she saw me as fundamentally weird and 'not one of her kind'. She's very extroverted and I'm very introverted. She's very type A and I'm very type B. She's quite keen to interject herself and pressure others, and most people would describe me as quiet, reserved, laid back, and unlikely to impose upon others. And the primary way that the vast majority people would describe me as would be as nice but a bit shy and a bit spacey and a bit awkward. I think you might see me as a more forceful person because my views differ from yours, and the fact that the forum has this particular format that's very conducive to sharing ideas directly. And on certain issues, I do stick to my guns because I see it as wise because the situations involving them have real consequences. But in life, I'm very unlikely to interject in any way. Most of the time I'm very relaxed about things. And I don't share a lot with others because I've learned my lesson on that.

Being fixated upon who's alpha is the definition of being beta. Just drop these ideas. They're not real.

You should check out Jean Raffa's books as well as her blog Matrignosis. She's not very well-known, but she is my favorite Jungian author. Plus, she has bibliographies in the back of her books that give a lot of resources that are also very helpful for exploration into Jungian perspectives.

Perhaps are you doing this to women for their looks, and then the judgments you make toward them looks-wise come back to bite bite you because you then start thinking in an objectifying way about yourself in terms of status and questioning which men deserve and don't deserve an attractive woman as a signifier of their worth? This is really the reason why so many men are freaking about hypergamy. They engage in hypergamy with women for their looks and then project that every woman on the planet is doing it to them for their money and status, when it's really just a small minority of women who are like that. The solution is to integrate your anima and to be a real person and see women as real people.

For sure. Luckily, at the time, I was listening to a lot of Law of Attraction stuff from Teal Swan. And I was able to redefine the narrative in a more empowering way. And it's ultimately what's lead me to create my channel and have a career that gives more of the impact I want to have doing what I do best. So, it's a stroke of good luck in the end. But I'm not gonna lie, I think that lady was a ______. Exactly. See the reply above. I'm over 4 years out from that situation and it's much better now, beyond what I could have imagined. She wasn't like Mrs. Trunchbull. She was much more like academic, high-acheiving, judgy, attractive young business lady boss who's very assertive and Type A and thinks she knows everything. I'm trying to think of a character like that. It's like if Hermione Granger grew up and kept her high-acheiving nature but lost her heart. Mind you, administrators are USUALLY required to teach in a classroom for at least three years before becoming an administrator. But she was in VIRTUAL school for about 6 months teaching, but her boyfriend was able to open some doors for her to climb a bit higher, earlier. None-the-less, she loved telling teachers what they were doing right and wrong, even if said teacher had had 30 years of experience in the profession. So, that's the best impression that I can give you of her. But as for the question about the systematic thing, I think it was actually very pointed toward me. But I think it does, in a sense, have to do with my personality type. I've noticed a lot of leadership types really dislike me, and it's always been that way even when I was a small child. I think I read to them as just incredibly strange and crazy. I was actually really surprised about this myself. I had never been targeted out like that before. I've gotten vibes like that, but it never went beyond vibes. So, I actually genuinely thought that if I changed the things she wanted me to change that she'd be taking that into consideration. But she's already made up her mind. Maybe she was actually going to fire me on the spot if I failed to change the things she wanted me to change. Either way, by the end, it was really clear that she had all the power in the situation and I had no recourse to fight back. So, I will never work for anyone other than myself ever again.

I really think that the assistant principal there had a personal vendetta against me. She basically tortured me for two or three month beforehand, having me overhaul my entire classroom management plan (behavior stuff). And it was not directly said, but it was quite clear that my job was on the line. And I worked so much overtime just to meet her expectations... and I did. I came through on every change she wanted me to make. But it was never really about that. And I asked her when she was coming into observe me (around two weeks before she called me in to tell me about the contract non-renewal). And I said, "I'm 8 months pregnant. What happens decision-wise if I go into labor over the weekend before you can observe?" Then, she literally said with a serious tone but a smirk, "Don't go into labor over the weekend." And I was absolutely devastated when I found out that my contract wouldn't be renewed. I tried so hard, but it didn't matter in the end. And I was so stressed out that I was unable to eat properly for days and was losing weight. I was afraid for my baby because I was having such a bad time emotionally, like to the point of shaking and crying. I had teachers that heard about that through the grapevine, come into my room very upset about the treatment I was getting. One lady teacher was literally in tears. It was bad. I'm glad for how things have gone. But I still think that the AP's treatment of me was purely malicious. I was always thinking of the reason why. I was 25 at the time and she was about 30 or 31. So, I thought that perhaps she is jealous because I'm pregnant and maybe she was unable to get pregnant or something like that, as she has no kids. Or perhaps she thought it was improper for someone of my age to be pregnant and have another kid already at home... as I became a mom at 22. My daughter was 3.5 at the time of my son's birth. Or maybe she just was a sadist who saw someone in a vulnerable position, and got a lot of pleasure out of causing pain and stress to me.

Not in Florida. Teachers in their first three years of teacher can have their contract not renewed for "any reason and no reason." And even though, it's not technically firing, it's totally the same as firing. When I was let go, they gave the reason of "didn't fit the culture of the school". I was 8.5 months pregnant when they called me in to tell me my contract wouldn't be renewed for the next year. I'm glad though, at this point. It's really the impetus for starting my channel and getting on the path that I'm on right now career-wise, and that's a lot better.

When you say it that way it sounds a little bit more appealing. Never tried it organic before.

No. Obviously, I suspected the vanilla was fake. That's a duh, right there. Everything's artificial. I expected that it was made out of some synthetic blend of chemicals and other stuff. What I didn't expect was that it was made out of beaver butts.

Wow! I looked it up, and it's true-ish... it's actually made from a compound in the beaver's buttocks. That's crazy. Guess it's not Vegan then. I was just wondering the other day why stuff with vanilla in it isn't crazy expensive. One vanilla bean, is $11 on average if you go to the spices section. Literally, just one is that expensive. And it's the size and shape of a long green bean. So, I was wondering how vanilla ice cream doesn't cost like $30 for a pint. Now I know... It's made of beaver butts. You learn something new every day.

The main focus in the dating/pick-up industry is just about getting success from the male point of view. So, it's very numbers and quantity oriented. But it's not actually helping men give women a genuinely good time. Like, if we make an analogy to a business... pick-up is helping guys get "buyers" but not "satisfied customers". And the problem is that it's teaching men to determine their success with women on the number of "buyers" as opposed to the degree of satisfaction women get from being with them. So, I would say that it could improve as an industry by actually having a knowledge of what women genuinely want and enjoy... instead of just what a sizable minority of women will settle for. And as the guys above me in the posting mentioned, a lot of that will have to do with authenticity and depth. No woman really wants a cartoon of masculine stereotypes cobbled together to look like a personality. Women are attracted to real people. But of course, the pick up industry might not do as well financially if men knew that. The industry thrives on inexperienced and/or insecure men to have the placebo effect with their techniques, and ascribe their new-found success with women to those techniques. As opposed to realizing that some women will be attracted to them, just as they are. And it was only the added confidence of doing the techniques that inspired them to approach, and not the techniques themselves, that got them success. I would say that 80% of the benefits of pick up come from this placebo effect.

You're not really saying anything concrete here. You're saying it's not down to the fact that we're eating all the nutrients. But if it's not, then what does it come down to, if not nutrient consumption? Isn't that the reason why we eat? We have macro-nutrient needs... carbs, proteins, and fats. We also have micro-nutrient needs like the essential vitamins, minerals, fats, and amino acids. We can also parse that down to phyto-nutrients and anti-oxidents, which are found in plants exclusively in phytp-nutrients and mostly in plants in the case of anti-oxidents. So, if all of these factors are covered on a Vegan diet, then what is this mystery ingredient (or ingredients) that you're talking about? Now, you could say that some people have issues processing nutrients in general. But I don't see how that would be different if they were eating a Vegan diet versus an Omnivorous diet, as even an Omnivorous diet also includes plants. Now, there is the case of the Inuit population that has had to make due with eating only meat because of the cold weather. So, I might be willing to buy it, if the population comes from that region because there is thousands of years of evolution behind that. That said, the Inuit population that still lives in that area (as late as 1991) tend not to live very long compared to people living in other places, and perhaps limited diet may have something to do with that. Their average life expectancy was about 10 years earlier than Canadians up until about 30 years ago. But this has changed a lot since then, perhaps because there is more access to a variety of foods as opposed to just the animals they have there to hunt. And there is near parity of life expectancy now. So, can you be more specific with your claim?

Thanks!

Try some science for a change. You can get everything you need from a plant-based diet, except for b-12. And even the major health organizations agree that all nutrient needs can be met on a Vegan diet at any stage in life. If you don't believe me, you can use the site Cronometer which is a site for monitoring whether or not you've met your macronutrient and micronutrient needs. And it's not a site designed for Vegans. It's just a general nutrition site. So, it monitors carbs, proteins, and fats as well as amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. I monitor my diet through that site, and I can pretty easily meet all my needs as a Vegan. Lentils, peas, and beans have lots of protein and complete amino acid profiles. Also, if you tried to meet all your caloric needs through killing a single animal, then your diet would be incredibly imbalanced... getting way too much of some things and way too little of others. I just typed in the profile for steak, if you got 1,973 calories met by eating just that. Macronutrients-wise, you get too much protein (576% of what you need) and fat (146% of what you need). And micronutrients wise, you get too much saturated fat and too much trans fat (which is really bad for you). You also get too much Zinc (700% of what you need) and too much Niacin (698% of what you need). In terms of deficiencies macronutrients-wise, you get 0% of the carbs you need and 0% of the fiber you need (constipation- ouch!). In terms of micronutrient deficiencies, I'll list them below... Omega-3 - 22% "of the needed daily value" Omega-6 - 27% "" Vitamin B1 - 87% "" Folate - 15% "" Vitamin A - 7% "" Vitamin C - 0% "" (Scurvy ahoy!) Vitamin D - 2% "" Vitamin E - 23% "" Vitamin K - 26% "" Calcium - 20% "" Copper - 81% "" Magnesium - 60% "" Sodium - 55% "" This equals out to meeting only 68% of your nutrient needs. And when I eat a Vegan diet that meets my caloric needs it's quite easy for me to hit all the targets without going over, and I only take two supplements. So, you may want to consider that all the things you think you know about diet are incorrect. Edit: You're also way over on Amino Acids, getting 1300%+ of your daily recommended needs for all 11 essential Amino Acids, except for Cystine which is over by 693%.

I've been back and forth between Vegan and Vegetarian for over 3 years now, with most of that time spent Vegan. And I've never had the issue of receding gums. You can get everything you need from a Vegan diet except for b-12. So, be sure to take a b-12 supplement. Also, I recommend using the site Cronometer, because you can monitor your macronutrients (carbs, proteins, fats). You can also monitor your essential vitmains, minerals, and amino acids. That way, you know that you're meeting your needs. And you can absolutely meet 100% of your needs on a Vegan diet as long as you take a b-12 supplement. I know because I monitor. The most difficult need to meet, by far, is Potassium. And that's true for Vegans and Omnivores alike. You'd have to eat line 9 bananas a day to get all the potassium you need or 3 potatoes. And the supplements have 3% of the daily value of potassium max, as they're not allowed to have any more potassium than that. So, sweet potatoes and regular potatoes are your best friends for your potassium needs. Otherwise... 9 bananas. Calcium is difficult for Vegans, so be sure to find natural Calcium sources like cruciferous vegetables or Spirulina or use supplements or fortified plant milks. Vitamin D is also difficult for both Vegans and non-Vegans alike. You can get it naturally through certain mushrooms or through exposure to sunlight. But I take a supplement for this as well. Otherwise, everything else is pretty easy to get, including protein. Just, be sure to get a minimum of .36 grams of protein for pound of body weight. So, for me, I need around 40 grams of protein per day but I aim for around 60 grams. So, if you're a man, you might need a bit more like 50-55 grams. So, you may want to shoot for around 75 grams of protein. I recommend lentils, split peas, and other legumes. They have a lot of protein in them as well as a complete amino acid profile.

I've skated back and forth between the poverty line a lower middle class quite frequently in the past decade, especially in my early 20s. And I'm just now, with my channel and life-coaching and other sources of income, getting to a point where I am a solid candidate for joining the regular middle class soon as I'm currently making about $3.5k per month, and I anticipate that number growing since I just recently raised my prices a bit. The main thing to contend with poverty-wise is the psychological states that naturally come along with the amount of money a person has. I've noticed, that when I'm poor, survival-based concerns take up 95% of my RAM. And it's much more difficult to make good long-term decisions, be optimistic about the future, and focus toward life-purpose. But when I'm lower middle class, this can be challenging, but I have a lot more energy and and brain-space to focus toward growth. It's really difficult to work at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy when you're struggling to meet the needs of the bottom rung. It takes up a lot of energy. So, you have to build stamina, optimism, and intense focus if you're dealing with poverty to take you forward. And then, from there, you must find something that provides a ton of value to offer, and build a following around it to get it in front of its target audience. And ideally, it is something that's so natural to you and that you do so much better/differently than other people, that they can't get exactly what you're offering from anyone else. But the good news is that you'll be able to improve your financial situation more rapidly if you find a working business model, because everything will be a gain for you. You just have to find something that works and grow your audience.

Thank you!

Considering that all existential questioning (and all questioning in general) must happen on the level of thoughts, then of course it's relative. Existential questioning and contemplation is primary for letting go of non-truth and emptying the cup of delusion. And both the existential questioning and the delusion are happening in the relative. It is like the one thorn that you use to remove the other thorn that's stuck in your finger. Once you use the thorn of contemplation/existential questioning to remove the other thorn of delusion, you can throw both thorns away. And there, you are clear enough approach the absolute. But you need the one thorn to remove the other, which are both happening on the relative level.