Emerald

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.

I agree. I'm sure Mooji is enlightened. But the teacher aspect of his job wasn't done very well in this instance.

To be fair, I feel like Mooji doesn't really properly articulate his pov and reconcile her concerns. So, to her, it seems as though Mooji is spiritually bypassing a time sensitive issue. And by his way of articulating what he's trying to say, I think that's what most people will gather, which is unfortunate. It could discourage people from actually making positive changes. Perhaps Mooji is speaking of the awareness that reality is an emanation of the true nature. So, getting in touch with that nature and the inherent peace of that perspective, would percolate out into reality as you're helping the situation at the level of the projector instead of the projection. So, if you were to actually lend yourself to remedying the situation of climate change with that peace, then it would lend itself to a smoother transition. But for people who haven't experienced that, it would require a whole lot of blind faith in what he's saying, which isn't realistic or advisable. And it would seem like he's trying to solve relative problems from the paradigm of the absolute, as waking everyone up to their true nature is not an actionable way to deal with a practical problem. Most people will never wake up to their true nature. And being enlightened certainly doesn't mean that you can never cause harm. It's the same idea as, "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." You can't rely on an awareness of the absolute to solve practical problems. So, to many people, this is what they'll gather from what he's saying. People have to deal with these time sensitive issues from where they are right now at this juncture in human history. So, her pov and everyone else's pov is exactly where it's supposed to be as all of reality is perfect. So, even if her lack of awareness of her true nature is a problem relative to her peace, encouraging people to focus so individually on their own waking up, gives a lot of wiggle room for less aware people to spiritually bypass practical situations that genuinely need their attention.

In a sense, a system is always an invisible hand thing. So, you could say that no one is actually responsible for a system running the way that it does. So, I get what you're saying. But we also have to understand that the people in power are at the top of the chain of command in determining where that system will go. And that people will mostly follow suit with the status quo set up by people in power. So, they have the lion's share of the power in determining how the system will go. So, they are very much part of the root of the problem. For example, I'm a substitute teacher. And I can tell you, that 95% of classroom issues come about because the teacher has classroom management issues. So, while the students are responsible for their own behaviors, the teacher is always responsible for the behavioral set-point in the classroom. And it's important to know when you're in that position that students are generally the way that they are. Students will be students. And people will be people. So, 10% of the students in the classroom will misbehave no matter what, 10% of the students in the classroom will behave no matter what, and 80% will be taken by the wave of whichever trend is happening in the classroom. So, if students are misbehaving in the classroom, the consequences will come to the student for the behavior issue. But the teacher is responsible as the leader and the one who is managing and setting the behavioral set-point of the class. And if there is an unruly class, 95% of the time, it's because the teacher frequently failed to meet the classroom management challenges head on with a sense of efficacy. So, from this perspective, the people in power are the people responsible for maintaining the status quo of the system. And they are the ones that benefit from the system running the way that it does. And it's important for individual people to be conscious of this, because then we can cease to be complicit within the system. And we can leverage our power as consumers and as members of society to make it clear that we will not subsidize the power of those industry leaders if they continue to allow for negative outcomes. And if those leaders want to keep their power and money, they need for the members of society to be on board with that. So, they will either change their practices to suit the needs/wants of the changing populace or they won't be in power very long. Powerful people only derive their power and status from the individuals underneath them. So, identifying the people in power as the ones responsible will help people realize that they have very real and tangible power themselves, as those leaders derive their power from the people and their attention, approval, and money. And if we cut off that supply, then they have to either change or resign their power. Now, you're correct that just demonizing people in power is not going to do anything. But recognizing that the people in power are responsible for the negative things that come from the system, and recognizing that we are responsible for the people in power, being in power... we can then begin to wield our power to change the system more effectively.

It's definitely one of my favorites so far! It was too good not to share.

Antarctica is not like a giant ice cube floating in the ocean. It is a chunk of land that is connected to the Earth. So, if the ice melts from it, the sea levels will rise because liquid that comes from a glaciers that are above the water will melt into the ocean. Sort of like if there were a mountain made of ice on an island. Then the ice melts and that mountain of melted ice causes a rise in sea level.

I don't really see the job of creating video games as being particularly nefarious. I do understand that people get addictions to things like that. But I don't see any harm in video games by themselves. I think the problem with addiction to things like video games tends to come out of a sense of social isolation, which then translates to wanting to busy one's self with too much entertainment. When I play video games, my main goal is to have fun with them. I seldom ever play them, and when I do, I don't experience the pull to continue for hours and hours. I grow weary of it in about thirty minutes and move on. So, my thought is that it would surprise me if a lot of people play video games for the purpose of getting good at playing them. My thought was that video games were played because they're stimulating and fun. I could be wrong here, as I don't know the gamer culture that well. But I would be surprised if there was a conscious goal of getting good at them. But this is coming from someone who has never been addicted to video games, and mostly sees them in a casual and leisurely way. But if you're really that conflicted about creating video games and you're just doing it for the money, can you think of something else that would be lucrative for you that doesn't bother you?

None of this sounds specifically Orange. So, I think it's important to drop the limiting beliefs relative to Spiral Dynamics and making sure that you don't leave a certain stage. Allow yourself to grow with your goals and don't be afraid of making small changes as you progress toward your goal. So, I say continue on with what you're doing. And really focus on your passions. But none of that requires remaining in Orange conceptually, as at the end of the day Spiral Dynamics is just a theoretical framework. Like I said before, I find it to be a more compelling model to use on entire social systems and to understand the workings of society and how to bring humanity forward. But when used as a personal model, I find that people trip a bit over the model and it getting in the way of goals and personal development. But I also don't look down on your video game idea or your goal overall. It seems like you're uncomfortable and expect judgment to come from others relative to your goals. If this has been something you have experienced, then perhaps that's why you've sought refuge in your identification with Orange for fear of losing grip of what's important to you. Do you have a lot of people in your life that judge you?

What are you actively doing to reach that goal?

What is your "selfish goal" that you want to achieve?

Spoofing on earlier Blue societies though and Orange modern lens????

The idea that you don't buy blaming people in power, prevents you from seeing that people in power are objectively responsible. It is this idea that prevents you from seeing clearly what the core issue is and means that you're likely to unconsciously go with he flow and support them and the system that keeps them sustained. But that's not as to say that individuals can't influence things. The power that those people derive from the Orange system are there because most people are Blue and Orange and don't directly do anything to undermine that power structure and unconsciously support it. So, Orange people may compost and do things like that. But they are very unlikely to do anything that is a genuine threat to the powers that be. So, they are unikely protest and boycott the 100 corporations that are responsible for 71% fo carbon emissions in the world. But there you can have individual goals at any stage. There is no need to remain fixed in Orange to have a personal goal. You can create a business and make it Green. So, I don't really see the problem here... unless you want to be an oil sheik or something. But the thing that really separates and Orange person from a Green person is if they value economic and meritocratic things over the collective health of humanity and the planet at large.

Haha! To be fair though, Rick and Morty has a lot of great themes to dig into. I've only seen a handful of episodes though. But it's a really smart show.

On the level of individuals, it's normally Blue people who fall for the anti-environmental rhetoric as they tend to mistrust science to begin with as science comes into conflict with their symbolism-laden worldviews. A lot of individual Orange people will realize that climate change is real and that science backs it up. But individual Orange people don't really calculate into this Orange dominance that happens. And the individual efforts of people to do things that help, like composting and driving electric cars have some impact. But the lion's share of our climate issue comes at the hands of big corporations. So, there's relatively little that can be done on the individual level to truly combat climate change. So, the Orange view of personal responsibility relative to the issue of climate change is good but falls short. But the problem is not usually with individual Orange people. It is the Orange people in power that are the ones that have their interests vested in being anti-environment. So, either through ego-distorted wishful thinking or direct deceitful intent, they rail against the climate change scientists and accuse them of creating hoaxes. And they play off climate change as though it's not real, because the admission of climate change being real would come into conflict with the Orange system that they've come to power in and is a direct threat to that power. And they put out rhetoric that is eaten up by the Blue masses as well as any other people they can convince of their climate change claims. There is an episode of Rick and Morty, where Morty's dad Jerry (who's unintelligent and unremarkable in a lot of ways), is trying to help Morty with a science project where Morty has to make a model of the solar system. And Jerry is very insistent that Pluto is a planet. And as the episode goes on, they end up going to Pluto. And Jerry ends up getting a lot of positive attention by telling the Blue masses that Pluto is still a planet. And the Blue Plutonians are happy because it reinforces the symbolic importance they put upon Pluto being a planet. And the leader of the Plutonians is really excited to have this "super intelligent" Earth man there telling the people that Pluto will rise again in status. And then the leader of the Plutionians reveals in a Freudian slip that he's well aware that Pluto isn't a planet. And that the reason why it's not is because of some environmental reason, and Pluto is shrinking... meaning the eventual destruction of the Plutonians. But unlike his Blue people the Orange leader of the Plutonians knows that the environmental issues faced on Pluto are a real thing. It's just that he gets a lot of cuts from the big businesses and big money interests on Pluto. So, he is willing to sell out his people and his planet, to line his pocket. So, he's using the naive Jerry to shill for him. Then, Jerry finally realizes that he messed up. And this a perfect example of how Orange leaders know how to maintain the Orange system and the source of their power by manipulating those lower on the spiral.

Haha! That's what I was just mentioning in my previous post. And I don't think you've read it yet.

I'm not talking Orange in terms of individual people. Certainly there can be people in Orange that can get behind Green level green initiatives on a purely rational basis. And I don't think of post-rational thinking at the level of Green, but moreso at Yellow. But I'm talking about Orange and Green relative to the system at large which is made up of more than just individuals. And from this stand-point, there can be a mix of different levels on the spiral within a general Orange society on the level of individuals. But when it comes to which ideas and people are in power, in an Orange society, the people who are in power have a strong vested interest in maintaining the Orange status quo, and resisting Green changes. This is all due to their investment in their individual Capitalistic success and valuing that over the interests of the planet and humanity on the collective level that Green values. So, there can be individual Orange people who are willing to accept the existence of climate change, since it is a scientific reality. And Orange is really the birthplace of science. But the difference is that the Orange person will likely value individualism over collective concerns. And if these collective concerns come into collision with their ideas about the free market or their success in the free market, then they will default to concerns about the economy over concerns of ecology. And if that doesn't describe you, I'd say that you're Green in that facet of life. But the key here is to look at the issue in terms of the entire societal set-point as opposed to on the level of the individuals that make up that society. I tend to think that Spiral Dynamics is best used as a tool for social engineering, as opposed to personal diagnoses.

EXACTLY! That's what the video's about! Duh!

Height is usually an aesthetic preference for many women. So, taller guys will have more mass appeal than guys of average height, and guys of average height will have more mass appeal than shorter guys. But this is speaking on the metric of height considered in a vacuum without regard to a litany of other factors. Does this mean that a guy who's 5'3" won't be able to find any women who are interested in him? Of course not. He just won't have as much mass appeal than a man of equivalent attractiveness to him otherwise in other factors, who is over 6 feet tall. But if your height is 5'10", that's tall for most women. I'm 5'2", so a man who is 5',10" he is 2/3 of a foot taller which is a whole lot taller than me. So, he's nearly indistinguishable from a guy who's 6' tall. And really, as long as a guy is a few inches taller than me, I don't really consider height an issue, even though I do have an aesthetic preference for taller men. I think I might be weirded out to date a guy who's 5'1" or below, because I don't like the idea of being the taller one in a relationship. So, I could see it be a dealbreaker then. But only because I'm on the shorter end of average for women myself. Perhaps if I were 5'9" as a woman, I would be okay with dating a guy who's 5'8" as I would recognize that as an average height. So, height matters a bit, but being a 5'10" guy is not going to be a dealbreaker for the vast majority of women.

From what I've found so far, most likely that's the case. A person who is genuinely in Yellow might critique certain methods and motivations that a group may have and question the efficacy they have toward creating a more harmonious society. But they will also recognize that Green's vision for the future (fairness/equality, green energy, acceptance, etc.) tends to be a lot more positive than the status quo, even if there are logistical problems with their methods. But an Orange person would likely demonize these groups and try to justify that these groups as lesser to maintain homeostasis in their Orange identity and worldview. And if they are aware of the Spiral Dynamics model, they'll want to recast those groups as Purple, Red, or Blue, as opposed to Green. This is a common Blue/Orange response to Green, to do mental gymnastics to convince themselves that a group is lower on the spiral than they are. Or another tactic is to convince themselves that they're already in Yellow as someone in Orange, to justify their superior position on the spiral. They may also label themselves as Green because they can look at their Orange/Blue perspectives and convince themselves it's Green. For example, someone who is an MRA, can think of MRA as a Green movement because of the supposed questioning of the status quo and a fight for equality of men. But the viewpoints of that group tend to be a mix of Red/Blue/Orange, and it's a group that largely works to maintain the Orange status quo in society to resist against Green. These are the most common tactics I've seen, with the first being the most widely used. You can see it a lot on forum particularly with people who are in resistance to Feminism which is largely a Green movement, and classifying Feminists as primarily a Red/Blue movement, because it would rub their ego the wrong way and undermine their worldview to see them as higher up on the spiral than them. And they have lots of propaganda of "Feminists Rekt by Logic" videos, where they have the least charitable representation of that group that's easy to demonize to help convince themselves of this.