Forestluv

There is a natural tendency for humans to think "yea, yea I've got this stage - I want something new". Part of the desire is to create new concepts - another desire is social hierarchies and a sense of going higher - it can give one's self image a boost. In terms of SD, the so-called "Tier 3" above Turquoise is poorly developed and mostly conjecture. It is dominated by cognition, symbols, concepts and intellect. I think most people speculating about stages like Coral and Teal are mostly Orange level theorists, with some yellow mixed in. Very very few people have transcended the personality construct and embodied Yellow and Turquoise. It is very rare. I've spent about 15 years working on Green/Yellow/Turquoise - and have barely scratched the surface. Very few people have embodied Green/Yellow/Turquoise. I've only met a few people in my life. If only a handful of people have embodied Green/Yellow/Turquoise - who is Coral and Teal being revealed to? Who is describing Coral and Teal? I'm not buying it. I don't think those describing "Tier 3" have embodied "Tier 2". Their descriptions are far too cognitive, intellectual, conceptual - indicators of lower stages. As well, when one goes deep into Yellow and Turquoise, they will realize there are distinctions and substages in Yellow and Turquoise. When people start seeing distinctions within Yellow and Turquoise and start creating sub-stages within Yellow and Turquiose, I will know that a critical mass of people have entered and are embodying Tier 2. Yet this hasn't happened yet, imo.

@ShugendoRa It seems like RSD is relatively healthy Orange, such a personal accountability, responsibility, personal development, personal goals etc. Yet Orange will be limited in the same that at it's core, it is two individuals in a transnational relationship. Aspects of Orange is great in a relationship, yet there is much more to be explored in Green. I think people/organizations that promote healthy Orange without demonizing Green is healthy. If a group encouraged men to be accountable, take personal responsibility, set personal goals etc. thats great. Yet if a group taught that men that expressed emotions were pussies and a real man is alpha and must set and enforce the rules within a relationship - that is going to cause problems when the listeners eventually want to evolve upward into Green.

Be aware of false equivalencies. From one perspective there can be equivalency, yet from another perspective it is a false equivalency. Conflating the two creates a mess. It is context-dependent. Leo addresses this in his videos "Sameness vs Difference" and "Recontextualization" As a simple example: a being pisses in the punch bowl at a wedding. Let's consider context: 1) A puppy pisses in the punchbowl 2) A two year old boy pisses in the punchbowl 3) Drunken Uncle Ted pisses in the punchbowl From one perspective, there is equivalency - yet it is context dependent. This equivalency will not necessarily translate to other contexts. We could say the three scenarios are equivalent in the sense that a being pissed in the punchbowl. Yet in another context, it is not equivalent. A puppy pissing in the punchbowl is not equivalent to drunken Uncle Ted pissing in the punchbowl and we would not react the same. For the puppy, we might laugh and put him on a leash. For drunken Uncle Ted we might reprimand him, kick him out of the wedding and send him to an AA meeting. To conflate the equivalency and non-equivalency perspectives would seem ludicrious. One might say "When the puppy did it, you laughed. Yet when Uncle Ted did it, you yelled at him and sent him to an AA meeting! You are a biased hypocrite!!". This is an exaggerated example to highlight the point, so it seems silly. Yet people do this all the time. They say things like "we should be open to all ideas". In one context, all ideas are equivalent - in another context all ideas are not equivalent. In the case of Alex Jones - in one context he is not mentally ill, because his reality is equivalent to any other reality. From another relative context, Alex Jones is mentally ill. He is way outside the collective consensus reality. Mixing up these two contexts creates false equivalencies and leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, miscommunication and turmoil. This is super common in society. Watch how often people recontextualize and create false equivalencies - it's all over the place. This is not to say that true equivalencies and hypocrites don't exist. If a politician speaks out that extra-marital affairs are immoral and is caught having an extra-marital affair, that is a direct equivalency and he would be considered a hypocrite. It's important to be aware of context, sameness and difference to make these distinctions.

Generally, humans desire to let go of unpleasant thoughts and feelings. We want to avoid pain and we like pleasure. I've never heard of someone trying to "let go" of bliss during amazing sex. Or someone trying to let go of their curiosity, fascination and joy. The desire is to let go of things we find unpleasant. Bad habits, OCD, resentments, bad memories, anger, insecurity, fear etc. It's easy to let go of someone sneezing because it is inconsequential. Yet if a stranger walked up to you on a bus and sneezed in your face, that would be a lot harder to let go of. I'd say the most relevant aspect of letting go for humans involves attachment and identification. If there is a thought or feeling without any attachment/identification, it's no big deal. There is no desire to let go of it. A thought might arise "I'm so annoyed she hasn't texted me back yet. After all I do for her, this is how she treats me. . .". There is a ton of attachment/identification there. It's not so much getting rid of the thought - it's getting rid of the attachment/identification. If the thought occurred without attachment/identification it's no problem. There is nothing to let go of, because there is nothing being held onto. The thoughts become like bird chirps. We don't wonder how to let go of bird chirps, because we are not attached/identified with bird chirps. Bird chirps can be happening and all is well, no need to let go of anything.

@Avi Tal At times, it can be hard to care for loved ones in need. When my dad was in critical condition, I felt so powerless. I asked myself/universe what I could do to help. Then I tried to get in touch with my intuition. For my dad, physical presence was deeply meaningful to him. I drove 700 miles twice to visit him in the hospital and it had a huge impact on him. Then I just took cues from him. He wanted to talk about family memories and stories. That was love for him. He wanted to talk about planning future family events when he recovers - that was love for him. It lifted his spirits and gave him hope and energy. It gave him reason and meaning to recover. Your situation and relative may be different. And you may resonate with what I write, or maybe not. Someone else may offer different insight that resonates stronger. I would trust your intuition.

@Yog Look at his underlying orientation. It is a defeatest attitude with an intention of undercutting efforts to reduce global warming/climate change. Here are the points he made. All but one undercut efforts. 1. We cannot unite regarding catastrophic climate change. 2. It is difficult to separate science and politics (we should actually be integrating science and politics and have the two fields communicating) 3. “Radical Claims, if true. . . (“Radical Claims” is a long used trope to undercut efforts toward a goal and has been used for decades to delegitimize and hinder climate progress). 4. We have no idea of consequences (we actually have a very good idea. Predictive models have been quite accurate). 5. We can’t unite on this 6. Climate change projections are unreliable (not true. JP then focuses on 50 yr forecasts to leverage his position) 7. We can’t measure effectiveness (not true) 8. Wind and solar are essentially useless (not tru) 9. Germany has failed with their efforts, so why should we bother. 10. Nuclear is not a solution. 11. Cutting back on consumption won’t work. 12. There are no no solutions for global warming. 13. The best we can do is bring people out of poverty and get them to care about the environment (yet he made clear this is not a solution, because there are no solutions) 14. It is not possible to prioritize climate change or implement initiatives for climate change 15. A team of economists led by Nobel Prize winners to determine how to improve the world didn’t even list climate change as being important. 16. We can’t figure it out. Maybe a future generation will find a solution, but we can’t 17. Global warming is just a feel good issue for some people (and who might “some people” be?) 18. Good luck reducing global warming. Our resolution of thinking is too low. 19. Burning coal has helped forests grow over the last 100 years in the U.S. 20. No one will change their lifestyle to help improve climate. These are the 20 points JP makes. Here is clearly oriented toward undercutting efforts. 19 of his 20 points are defeatist and undercutting. Only one point could be interpreted as supportive, yet he also undercut this point into a neutral point. This is the new resistance to climate progress. JP is a contemporary poster boy for corporations and fossil fuel industry trying to undercut climate progress. Full on climate change denial and obscuration is losing effectiveness. We are transitioning away from 20 years of Koch-funded “debate” on whether global warming/climate change is real and influenced by humans. We are transitioning into the next stage in which the resistance will acknowledge climate change, then resist with defeatest and undercutting efforts. JP gives a blueprint on how to do this in the posted video. And this isn’t simply JP spouting off. This plants seeds. Notice the applause and admiration the young crowd gives JP. They are getting conditioned by him. There have been studies with small groups of people that are assigned a challenging project. One person in the group pretended to be a team member, yet was actually hired to intentionally express defeatism and to undercut efforts - similar to JP in that video. This contaminated the entire group and their progress was much less than control groups. It’s a type of poison.

There is more to it than that. I agree that JP often derails threads. In this case, the video was JP on climate and I think it’s relevant since his resistance is representative of a lot of people that hinder progress on climate. Yet I think you make a good point about how JP can move threads off-topic. Also, you can make your points without passive aggressive pokes.

I realize you have good intentions and sincerely want to help your relative in a way you think will benefit her. Yet to me it seems like you are trying to force an idea you have about enlightenment onto to her - and it isn’t resonating with her. I would look at intent and impact. You say your intention is to help her recover quicker, yet the impact is the opposite. She has told you it is causing her stress and humiliation - and that she is a simple person. I would trust her on this and re-orient. I would focus on one thing: Love. Not conditional love. Unconditional Love for who she is. Visit her with unconditional Love in your heart, not conditional love for what you think she should be. Listen to her. She is trying to teach you how to love others unconditionally. This is an awakening of the heart. To sit with someone with unconditional Love is a beautiful gift. No agenda, no expectations, no judgement, no pressure. Just pure presence and Love.

At an individual, personal level, I have the privilege of being unaffected and I don't have to burden the weight. I also have the privilege of saying it's just imagined and it's not really happening. I can blow it all off if I want to. Yet I choose not to do that. You are seeing this from your perspective. You seem to put a lot of value on entertainment. That is not the only skill and it is not the only area that moves people. For example, someone could have low entertainment skills, yet may be able to move people through fear. Or a person may have high intellectual skills and manipulate a situation through intellect. JP has a type of communication skill and rhetoric that resonates with certain people. It doesn't resonate with you, yet it resonates with others. I don't find him credible, because I can see underlying dynamics. However, I understand other mindsets and how he has credibility with certain minds. In particular, those that value intellect, logic and reasoning. As well, JP has a certain level of knowledge, education and career experience that will give him credibility in some minds. Perhaps not your mind, yet other minds will. This is clearly obvious in all the speaking and media engagements JP has. He is consistently invited to Town Halls and mainstream media interviews and commands high speaking fees. This is reflective of credibility. JP is not just a guy with a YouTube channel. He has a higher platform than that. JP is not operating in the same territory as some of us on this forum. Yet, it can be hard to see these distinctions.

Yes, now that I think about it - Trump has had more populist rhetoric than I gave him credit for. During the 2016 his rhetoric was much more populist. His mantra "Drain the Swamp" was very populist. Yet he seems to have drifted off his populist rhetoric since 2016. Part of that might be that he now has power and he is now "The Swamp". As well, his "Fake News" rhetoric has some populist appeal. If he shifts populist for 2020, I think it would be "the people vs. the media" and "the people vs. the FBI" - for example, the FBI is corrupt and they may come after you like they came after me. If Warren is the nominee, he will likely go with "the people against elites". I think these are hard sells, yet Republicans are very good at framing rhetoric and democrats suck at it. For decades Republicans have convinced lower/middle class to vote against their own economic interests. For example, Trump's tax cut was heavily in favor in the ultra wealthy - the lower/middle class got peanuts and many people paid more. With an effective populist message, 90% of the population would realize they didn't benefit and the ultra wealthy benefited. Yet republicans are so good at framing economics and taxes that about half the population don't realize this. Bernie and Warren have a much stronger economic populism , yet they need to do work to overcome prior economic conditioning. For example, about half the country doesn't understand that out-of-pocket expenses can decrease in spite of a tax increase.

"Is there not even a tiny bit of free will?" This reminds me of holding an empty tube of toothpaste and trying my darndest to squeeze out just a tiny bit of toothpaste.

@SFRL I understand that from your perspective JP is boring. Yet in the bigger picture, I don't think it's just about being boring, intriguing, entertaining etc. My concern with JP is the influence he has with a large cohort of men. Other YouTuber's may have similar views. I would have concerns about them as well. Yet my concern is higher for JP because he has credibility and skills in which he can wrap toxicity. He is an academic with a doctorate in clinical psychology. This gives him an elevated stature, authority and platform. With this comes a higher standard of responsibility and I think he is using his authority and platform irresponsibly in some contexts. You may categorize people as "boring" and "not boring". That's fine. Yet, there is more to it than that. Imagine someone was undercutting you in a very "boring" way. This person created YT videos that undercut you in intellectually sneaky ways. Before long, the community turned on you. Your neighbors are petitioning that you be kicked out of the neighborhood and lose your job. You are receiving threats to you and your family. And it all stems from the boring YouTube guy. My guess is that you would become interested in neutralizing his "boring" rhetoric against you. You have the privilege of finding JP boring and irrelevant - you don't have to burden the consequences.

We could make a distinction between populist rhetoric and populist embodiment. In this context, I do not consider Trump's rhetoric to be populist. The core of Trump's rhetoric is not a populist "we the people" vs. the elite/corporations etc. - it is much more tribalistic and seeks to divide "we the people" against each other. For example, to divide "we the people" into tribes based on ethnicity, religion and conservative nationalism. Even when given an ideal scenario to be a populist, Trump falls flat. China is a good example. He could be using populist rhetoric that it's "we the people of America vs China and I will win this trade war for the American people". Yet that's not his rhetoric. He is far to narcissistic and he is getting worse. His rhetoric about China is all about him, his great negotiating skills, being an alpha male and "his" stock market gains. I don't consider Trump a populist. I would consider Bernie a populist for both rhetoric and embodiment.

There might be some of that, yet I don't think it's the main fuel. I think a stronger stimulus is that he packages resistance to Green in a way that is appealing to Orange. For example, undercutting gender equality using intellectual rhetoric that appeals to Orange and gives Orange cover. Green finds this very annoying. That is a false equivalency. There is more going on than that.

He has strong influence on a considerable portion of the populace in a way that some of us believe is inhibiting development and progress. It's not really about trying to entertain myself. It's more about the effect at a collective level. . . If there was a virus that interfered with human development, some people would have a desire to raise awareness to others. They wouldn't say "Well, I'm immune to the virus and I find the virus boring - I'd rather find videos to entertain myself". Others would not find it important and would not engage. And that's cool too.

I think there is a very important distinction here. Trump is oriented toward gaining power and driving others. Bernie is oriented toward giving people the power. I don't think he is saying "You can't trust the corrupt government, you have to trust me" - I think he is saying "You can't trust the corrupt government, you can trust the people". A good example of this is with "democracy dollars". In this proposal, the government would give everyone $200 that they could spend on any candidate they want. Conservatives, libertarians, progressives, corporate democrats, AOC, Trump etc. This clearly shows that Bernie is not about accumulating power from corporations to himself. He is about dis-empowering corporations and empowering the public. If everyone got $100 to donate to their favorite candidate, it empowers the people - not Bernie, democrats, republicans etc. - because the people can donate the money to anyone. It transfers corporate power to people power. This is what makes Bernie such a rare politician. It's not about him - it truly is about the people - and that makes him a very rare politician. Bernie and Trump have very different orientations in this regard. Trump is not a populist. He is a hyper selfish opportunist. This is an important distinction between red/orange and green/yellow. There is much more "full of shit" populism at stage Orange than stage Green. . . Trump >>> Hilary Clinton >>>Bernie And Bernie has been fighting for others his entire life. In the 1963 he chained himself to a black woman at a protest and said if you arrest her, you'll need to arrest me too. He is a very special politician and person. https://medium.com/@ShaunKing/you-dont-really-know-who-bernie-sanders-was-in-the-1960s-79628016125f

You likely have had some direct non-dual experience. Have you ever been so immersed in something that you lost track of yourself and time? Perhaps being in a flow state while playing a sport or musical instrument. Perhaps being in awe while observing a night sky. Perhaps a moment of pure love with another in which there was no "me" and "you" - just love. . . Then we often "snap out of it" and return to conditioned ways of thinking and perceiving. So, from a personal perspective - there can be this sense of flipping back and forth between duality and nonduality. Imagine a person that only saw the Heads side of a coin their entire life. If they caught a glimpse of the Tails side it may be an awakening - that it's not all Heads. That person may have the sense that they are going back and forth from perceiving Heads and Tails. That would be the subjective human experience. Yet transcending that. . . both Heads and Tails are the actual coin. We create the duality of Heads vs Tails, yet it is both one coin. Similarly, if we catch glimpses of nonduality it can be an awakening experience. It may start to feel like we are flipping back and forth between duality and nonduality - yet they are both the coin. There desire to achieve a permanent no-mind nondual state is at the human level. The person has created a story of things called nondual states and dual states as well as a thing called permanence within a timeline. Rather than framing it as a state that can be permanently attained, I think it's more accurate and helpful to frame it as something that can be transcended Now. There is transcendence of the whole kit-n-kaboodle. All of it, including imaginations of no-mind, mind, duality, nonduality etc.

Part of the dynamic are defenses to protect the dynamic. ime, there needs to be at least some willingness and receptivity. If someone hunkers down behind a barrier with a message "Do Not Enter" - they won't allow entry. At a more fundamental level, it's about survival - including survival of the ego. Attachment/Identification to an identity goes deep and their is a survival mechanism to protect that identity. In a moderate form, it is an identity crisis that can be uncomfortable and destabilizing. Some people may resist and withdraw, others may seek to develop and improve their identity. At a deeper level, the whole house of cards comes down. It is revealed it's all just ideas, stories, perspectives without a "me" owning any of it. This is complete loss of the narrative and is a major threat to self survival. Very few people confront this. It takes a lot of courage and can be terrifying. Most people would rather protect a miserable identity than transcending the identity. For example "I'm a scientist and I value reason and logic. I'm a skeptic and won't believe in something without evidence. I am very analytical and this has caused problems in my romantic relationships. I'm so logical, I have a hard time expressing my emotions and connecting with others. Sometimes I feel like my life doesn't have meaning. But that's just who I am. . . " There may be a very strong attachment/identification to this identity - even if it means getting into debates and arguments to win on logic - yet cause misery. Transcending this identity threatens the survival of the identity - which is a form of death.

@Leo Gura Perhaps a green version of Trump isn't the best way to describe it. I meant it more in the sense that Trump has taken over and is revolutionizing the republican party. I think Bernie could do the same in a Green version. For example, republicans are afraid to speak against Trump in fear of being shamed, primaried etc. Yet this is done with toxic motivations. I think if Bernie got the same level of public Green energy as Trump has red/blue energy, he could use that energy to transform the party up to Green - much the same as Trump has transformed republicans back down to red/blue. Yet Bernie is a healthy version of it. We are already seeing this transformation. After a few years of Bernie, Democratic politicians may be afraid to speak out against Bernie and his follows - in fear of feeling The Bern.

JP is a master "concern troll". He tries to express his "concern" about an issue like Climate change or gender inequality and then trolls. JP is trolling at Orange, so it will resonate with Orange and they won't be able to "get it". One needs to be a Green/Yellow to see/sense/understand the dynamics. Notice how JP states his "concern" about Climate change. There is now enough Green consciousness in the U.S. that people need to acknowledge and address their "concerns" about climate change to maintain credibility. Climate change deniers are beginning to become marginalized and left behind. Anyone who wants to stay relevant now and moving forward needs to a least acknowledge climate change and express "concerns" about it. Yet, there is a big difference between expressing "concerns" at an Orange or Green/Yellow level. Someone centered at Blue/Orange will may express "concerns" about an issue, yet then tries to manipulate the narrative to resist progress up toward Green. "Yes, climate change is real and a serious issue that can negatively impact many of people. However. . . (insert Blue/Orange resistance to Green - "it's not man-made, it's too complicated, there is still so much uncertainty, the world wouldn't unite on this). The energy is to pull down to Blue/Orange. A green/yellow person may address "concerns" yet the orientation is different. A green/yellow person is concerned about climate change and may be concerned about details of certain proposals to address climate change. Yet those concerns are oriented toward improving the proposals, not dismissing, delaying or sabatoging the proposals. For example, a green/yellow may be concerned that Bernie's climate change plan does not engage the global community enough and we should put a lot of energy in developing global climate change alliances with influence to shame and punish those that don't cooperate. In contrast, an Orange-level person may be "concerned" about the impact of climate change, yet is also "concerned" that Bernie's plan would cut into corporate profits and individual liberty. Rather than trying to improve Bernie's proposal with new modifications or innovative ideas, they wold want to dismiss his proposal as being "unreasonable, unworkable, too extreme" etc. to maintain Orange status quo. @Yog You are getting duped by JP because you are not conscious of his orientation and underlying dynamics. It is not just his criticism, it is his orientation.

@Leo Gura It seems distinctions are arising between Bernie and Warren. Warren is progressive on a lot of issues, yet is reaching out to corporate democrats and talks about "working together as a team". Bernie is very much not reaching out to corporate Dems - he is calling them out and shaming them. In terms of SD, I would put Warren at high Orange/low Green and her motivation is to unite and lead the Democratic party and country up the Spiral, while maintaining aspects of Orange. I would say this is the reciprocal Hilary Clinton - she was Orange-centered with bits of Green, yet seemed oriented toward maintaining the Orange-centered status quo. In contrast, Bernie wants to blow up the corporate democrats, revolutionize the party an pull everyone up to solid Green. As you mentioned, as president Bernie would likely not get much done - yet could radically raise awareness by constantly calling out and shaming Orange corruption. In terms of consciousness evolution, I'm curious which path you think would be most efficient. I think Bernie's approach is more radical with high risk of backlash, while Warren is more gradual - yet also carries risks since she might just be temporarily taming corporations. For example, if Dems had 50 senators + the House and there was a contentionious bill for M4A, I could see Warren "working together as a team" with a Blue Dog like Steve Manchin from West Virginia and watering down the bill to get his vote. That's not Bernie's style. He would probably hold a rally in West Virginia to shame Manchin in front of his voters and Bernie may indirectly support a primary against Manchin. In some ways, Bernie is a green version of Trump.

For sure. Notice orientation in movement. . .

There are individual egos of corporate owners. There is also a collective ego of corporate owners and a corporate ego. That is not what I am saying. That is a recontextualization. The original context is that personal empowerment and economic income are factors in well-being. This does not imply that economic income is sufficient. It would be like saying: to become an olympic athlete, training and healthy diet are both factors. And then saying: perhaps we should give everyone a healthy diet and make them olympic athletes. . . It doesn't make logical sense. As well, necessity does not mean it can be solved by a simple mechanism. That would be like saying "To end world hunger, just give everyone lots of food". Again, I am not disagreeing with you. Over and over, I have agreed with you. I am saying that personal empowerment AND economic empowerment are BOTH factors in promoting well being. You seem to be at one extreme and I am trying to show balance. . . If someone was on the other extreme and said "Economic income is sufficient for well being", I would be saying that personal empowerment is also a factor. I don't think dropping a ton of cash in a poor neighborhood is the most effective mechanism. I think part of the investment should go toward promoting personal empowerment. To give disadvantaged people the resources to empower themselves and reach their potential. Resources includes cash, yet is not limited to cash. Resources goes way beyond cash. You are making a distinction between "God" and "Us". This can enter into metaphysical realms, yet you seem to be using the term "God" in the classical sense that there is an anthropomorphic entity separate from a person. You have consistently valued and promoted personal empowerment. I find it interesting that you suddenly embraced personal dis-empowerment. In terms SD, it is like going from Orange-level personal empowerment to Blue - in which personal empowerment is delegated to an external god. I think if you got a taste of Green empowerment, you might be surprised.

It is not a claim that is dependent upon evidence and proof. It is prior to evidence and proof. I'm not saying that what you write is wrong. I am saying it is within something more fundamental. And you can realize this for yourself - you are the same source as every sage that has ever lived. Another way to point. . . If it's all ocean, how can a whale be more complex than seaweed? . . These questions of complexity are super interesting, yet they are within something more fundamental. I am not saying there are no differences between a whale and seaweed. There are differences and the mechanisms of those complexity differences are super interesting. Yet there is also sameness because it is all Ocean.

I try to be careful with opposites. If I say "at the end, it's all about having the nondual experience" - it implies there is an end and it's not about having the dual experience. It is both One and Not One. A rock is the same as a human and a rock is different than a human. A great paradox that can't be solved intellectually, because intellect is within it.