Emerald

I agree with choosing your battles as you can't take responsibility for everything. But with climate change, it's really the issue to end all issues. So, it would be unwise to avoid addressing this one and just slip into denial or defeatism. Choosing unconsciousness is the worst choice to make here. There are very real things that people can do to help combat climate change individually, and we have very real social power to influence the leaders and policy makers that make the decisions that exacerbate the problem of climate change. We can also create a demand for new technology that helps us remove carbon from the atmosphere. I'm sure it's possible... it's just not lucrative. But if enough people demand it, I'm sure projects like this will be funded. And then all the workers who lose jobs due to changes in technology and automation, could work in the field of global clean-up in our oceans and otherwise. Again, this is possible... but it's just not lucrative. So, it's a matter of shifting the general public mindset to collectivity-oriented Green thinking instead of self-oriented Orange thinking. For those who are only interested in their own goals, they will be unwilling to find a passion for large-scale global problems. And this interest comes in Spiral Dynamics-wise at Green and above. So, the goal is to shift the public mindset more in that direction, so that we can actually make the jump necessary for humanity and the planet to survive the human Orange phase.

It's a sneaky mindset.

What is your life purpose? And what are the things that you typically fail at or have failed at?

It makes no sense on the surface. But like I said, you get something out of the wallowing that you feel like you need. That's why most of your posts are you wallowing in self-pity.

@Mikael89 If you're complaining then you haven't let it go. But here's the thing. You could make a connection with someone. Like I said, it's possible for everyone who puts themselves out there and has realistic standards. Your problem is that you get more pleasure out of wallowing in self-pity than you would derive from actually having a woman be attracted to you. This is why it will never happen. Because if it happens, what will you be able to wallow about?

So, just let it go. Don't try anymore. It obviously only causes you suffering. And if you don't try, don't complain. If you believe that you can't do it, Just accept that it will never happen for you and stop talking about it already. Move on.

I've seen all kinds of guys get female attention. And these guys are at varying levels of attractiveness and unattractiveness. There are a ton of nerdy guys that I know who get girlfriends and get sex. So, I recognize that, when you're a man, it's a bit more challenging. But it's not so challenging that it will take more than a month (two months tops) if you really put yourself out there, and let go of the negative self-talk. It will be difficult if you come off as needy and clingy... as you probably do because of your mindset. That will intimidate women. But this is fixable. So, it may be the case that because you're in the mindset that you're in, that you repel women, which puts you more in the mindset that you're in, then you repel women, and it becomes a vicious cycle. I could see this happen and that being the 100% cause of your lack of success. There is no other reason than that. Plus, if you actually were to drop this mindset, you wouldn't be able to self-flagellate about it, which would be a bummer for you. You really get your jollies from wallowing in self-pity. But there is nothing inherently about you or anyone else that makes them un-datable. And all this victim's mentality, is just keeping you down. But you get too much out of it to ever let it go. So, you just gripe about things.

Well, if you see the world from this view... how do you know that YOU exist if you're not looking at yourself? Are you just like your mother in this situation? Is the image you see in the mirror you? Is the bridge of your nose that you see when looking you? What is this sense of there being someone you call I? Right now, you've had an insight that shows you that Naive Realism isn't necessarily true. But it could easily lead into a Naive Solipsism. Question even that, and stay in the middle ground of total innocence. I have a video on this topic...

For women it's super easy as it comes looking for you. But for men, it's more difficult... but it's really not that difficult if you're willing to put yourself out there. At the end of the day, people like sex. This includes women. So, you just have to have realistic standards and you can find a woman to have a one-night-stand with no problem. It's a little more difficult to get a girlfriend... but not that much. You just have to actually swing the bat and get rid of these self-defeating narratives. Your self talk is delusion. Your idea of how difficult it is to get a girl to have sex with you is also delusion. Unplug from the rhetoric and just get out there.

Orange was all about bringing women out of the traditional role that women were previously prisoner too. And this Orange anti-traditional femininity and anti-motherhood idea that takes a while to get over. It comes from a subtle misogyny that disguises itself as empowerment by telling women that they can be powerful like men if they divest themselves of the feminine in all but appearance. And this includes anything from wearing pink, wearing bras, being a stay-at-hom mom, etc. Second wave Feminism had a lot of this type of rhetoric that was well-intentioned by still very steeped in the anti-feminine ideals that it reacted against. So, for many women who are Green, there is likely still some of this mindset that hangs out. Plus, Green has different reasons for mistrusting traditional gender roles that comes along with their acceptance for people in the LGBT community. And for Green, instead of being cold toward children, it's generally an awkwardness and not knowing how to act. Or just still being disconnected from the feminine, as Green is like the training wheels of the full integration of the feminine that has been repressed, likely since late early-Purple. Basically, in an Orange society, it's going to prefer the masculine as the society is ruled by the masculine principle. And women are socialized to be more masculine to be seen as worthwhile. This is what enables them to climb higher than Blue on the spiral. Otherwise, if they accept the traditionally feminine role, they won't be in the mind space for that kind of growth. So, it takes quite a while to outgrow. I used to be very awkward around children myself. But being a parent and substitute teacher, I feel like I know how to interact with kids of all different ages. And it doesn't feel foreign to me. I used to think babies were ugly, until I had one of my own. And now I think babies are super cute. I even see babies as being cuter than the cutest of baby animals... which I never thought would be the case. But I suppose it's just the tension between the idea of a baby/child and interacting with a real baby/child who has a complex personality and way of being just like an adult does.

You have a choice in how you express yourself. Personality is not fixed.

It's honestly not that hard to get a girlfriend if you're being social and casting your net wide. And you really don't NEED all or ANY of those things on your list. Someone will be attracted to you... and not just one someone. But you also have to understand that women have an intuitive way of becoming attracted to men based on the melting together of various traits including the context in which the man lives their life, and how she feels about a man as a whole person. This is core to choosing a good mate because biologically women can have (pretty much) only one child per year. And it will take a lot of her time to care for the child. So, if a man is lacking in resources, grit, drive, and staying power, then he will lack mass appeal since this was a death-sentence for mother and child in the oldest times of humanity. And these are still concerns that are valid today. No one wants to have a child with someone who is unable to offer the proper support during that time. So, this is sort of woven in to women's natural sexual leanings. So, if I were on the hunt for a new partner, I wouldn't just consider individual traits or personality, I would also consider his work ethic, sense of direction, his job, and his living situation. And if a guy is significantly lacking in these areas, then it's a bit of red flag that he may not share my values and that our lifestyle choices wouldn't be congruent... or worse, that the dysfunction of his life will be invited into mine. I have to have a partner who is stable emotionally, financially, and otherwise. And if a man didn't have these traits, I would be unlikely to get an organic attraction to him because it wouldn't seem like a viable relationship choice. When a woman invites a man into her life she is also risking inviting a lot of chaos if the man is a hot mess. I suppose the same goes for men who invite women into their lives in large degree. And if a guy doesn't have the direction, drive, or ability to keep his own life stable and peaceful, then women who value stability and peace and all those other qualities are unlikely to look twice. And it won't even be a conscious decision, most of the time. But the lucky thing for men is that these qualities can be cultivated. You just have to work hard at becoming a mature adult and having that stability. Since you don't have experience in relationships, I'll tell you that your partner is going to determine how your life goes. So, if you find a partner who is unstable, your life is going to be unstable. If you find a partner who is broke, unless you have enough money yourself to cover all the basics, you're always going to struggle for money. If you have a partner without drive, you'll have to reap the consequences of their laziness. So, your partner will largely determine the quality of your life. I would wager that this is true, especially for women who date men, as men tend to gravitate more toward the dominant role in the relationship regardless of competence to lead. So, if you have a shitty captain, that's a dangerous ship to be on. So, your post tends to demonize women for having these standards as though it's a shallow thing. But for most women, it's just the outcome of the wisdom that comes along with going around the block a few times. And for most women, these are just practical concerns to avoid danger and dysfunction. That said, there are plenty of "hot mess" women that are attracted primarily to "hot mess" guys. So, it's not like you can't find a girlfriend, if you don't have your life in order. Finding a gf will be easy if you just go out there and socialize. But the relationships you form will likely be very dysfunctional. So, I do recommend getting your life in order for a little while before trying to date. Once you even your life out and catch up, you'll be able to find better quality long-term partners. But if you're just looking for sex, none of that applies. So, you'll be able to get it really easily if you just put yourself out there in an effective way and your standards are reasonable.

... or we could try to create a more harmonious relationship between the human species and the Earth. If our technology can mess it up, our technology can also be made in a way that doesn't.

Because a lot of people spiritually bypass whatever is inconvenient, and the ego convinces them that their bypassing is the spiritual "enlightened" response. But it's really just avoidance under a different name and a way to remain in homeostasis. So, if someone posts about productivity, there will be tons of people who are like, "It's all a dream" and advising other people to focus away from matters of practical importance. And this is because they want to further convince themselves that their spiritual bypassing is actually a wise decision to make.

Well, the Green POV does lead to more social harmony, as it is concerned with fairness, green energy, and all kinds of other things that (if enacted) would lead to more social harmony. The issue here is the Green doesn't understand things at a deeper level, and their execution of these goals can lead to more social discord. For example, if there is an issue with climate change then someone who is stage Green will go around moralizing to others and demonizing others which will have a backfiring effect. But if a person is at Yellow, they will mostly have the same goals as a Green person as the Green's vision for the future does lead to more social harmony, but they will execute on those goals in a better way because they have a deeper knowledge of how the system works.

It certainly can become a rabbit hole, if a person is not in touch with their emotions and defaults to thought. To come at this perspective from a purely intellect-based perspective, you can lose all bearings on what path is wisest to take. It's an awful place to be.

All POVs are not true. In fact, all POVs except the absolute have only relative truth. But they have varying amounts of relative truth, as some relative truths are more in alignment with reality and some relative truths are narrower and less in alignment with reality. But they are neither morally right nor wrong, since morality is inherently relativistic. But if your desire is for a particular outcome, such as the social harmony, then it is true that your friend's way of being will stand in the way of that. But if your desire is for social discord, then your friend's way of being will be more in alignment with that goal. So, something is only right or wrong in relation to a desired outcome. And neither outcomes are less valid than the other. The universe is perfect whether or not human beings live in social harmony and peace or social discord and suffering. But it is a nearly universal human preference for social harmony and peace, so it makes sense to behave in ways that beget that end. But it also makes sense to discourage ways of behaving that stand in the way of that goal. But if your goal is to produce as much needless suffering as possible, then going around poking at people's potential insecurities is one way to achieve that goal. Or you could just go around setting homes on fire and killing people. That'll do the trick too, and a lot more quickly and efficiently than calling people fat.

I agree on the focus toward these things. That's the way that the people in power come to change the way that they run their businesses. The people need to change first for the people in power to have to adapt to them. Because the people in power derive their power from the people who are willing to support them. And this is true for business owners and policy makers alike. But I ultimately think that we're just talking about different angles of the same issue.

I think it's probably technically possible for somewhat extended periods of times by monks who have spent decades conditioning themselves to open that... sort of like a siddhi. So, I'm sure there have been monks that have been able to fast for weeks at a time... perhaps even over a month for some really hardcore monks. But I don't see any reason to try it or focus upon it, and I think it's rather foolish to have such high ascetic expectations of one's self as an everyday householder. There is no need to be in conflict with our animal/Earthly nature. As human beings, we are designed to need food and water. And I think that the movement of breatharianism is going to attract a lot of people with eating disorders who are trying to hide their eating disorder from others as well as themselves. Or it will attract a lot of people who are in resistance to their body and life in general. So, if a person wants to awaken, there is no need to starve the body of what it requires to live. And if the person in the video is claiming to only eat one mushroom and one square of chocolate per year (like in the post above), I'm sure that they're making it up and capitalizing on people who are interested in Breatharianism. So, I would say that Breatharianism is a b.s. thing, meant to capitalize off of vulnerable people's willingness to harm their body.

@Aimblack Then, if you don't see the leaders as a leverage point, then what is the actionable solution that everyday people can leverage?

@winterknight Do you abide in the state of freedom from ego constantly? Or do you flip back into the ego-perspective here and there? Also, how long were you engaging in the self-inquiry and searching for the feeling of "I" before the shift happened?

I would honestly guess a bit more myself. But maybe a third.

It makes sense to me to help in-so-far as I can. And I have a strong drive toward altruism. Now, at present, this drive is most certainly co-opted by ego. But even in my state of ego transcendence, there was a strong lean toward empathy and compassion. So, I personally think it is best to help.

From that point of view, there is no issue. Reality is 100% perfect no matter if human beings continue to exist or cease to exist. I have had a couple of awakenings in the past. So, beyond ego, it is a literal heaven even if the apocalypse is upon us. And death is not a problem. And everyone only dies once. So, in the grand scheme of things, there is no issue with planetary destruction. But while I had my awakenings and the detachment inherent to them, it paradoxically awakened intensely humane and empathetic responses in me and I had the capacity for unconditional love. So, I felt sorrow for individual struggles and collective struggles. My emotions were fully intact, and could play out at full stretch. And I still had preferences for things on the relative level. And it felt right to honor them, if they didn't cause any issues. So, I genuinely loved and wanted sentient beings to suffer as little as possible, even in my realization that everything is already perfect. So, I think it is a matter of being able to recognize the illusion of duality as an extension of non-duality, and to be able to validate our relative imperfect human experience within the context of the perfect non-dual beingness. So, I recognize that planetary destruction would cause a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. So, it makes sense to me to put effort toward raising awareness and helping toward that cause in whichever ways that I can. Now, I have only had two experiences of ego transcendence that lasted only a few hours each. So, take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I am not awake now. But I clearly recall both paradoxical awareness of the relative imperfection and absolute perfection inherent in existence. So, it only makes sense to me now to honor both of those truths.

I agree and think he could have articulated these truths a lot better, especially since he's in front of an audience of his followers whom most are probably not where he is in terms of awareness. I think the message coming across to the woman and probably many in the audience is probably not exactly what he was trying to get across.