How do you deal with toxic Green?? Leo? Help

[Vagos]

1 minute ago, Vagos said:

@Cykaaaa This is helpful, I will try this too. Thank you very much.

@RendHeaven  Thank you for your answer. I think that you have some things mixed up. The fact that there is no true(er) opinion from an absolute perspective does not mean that there is no true(er) opinion from a relative perspective. Don't think that just because ABSOLUTE Truth is infinite there aren't partial truths that are not. 

The pythagorean theorem say, is a definitive partial truth that is extremely solid FOR THE PARTIAL bubble in which it is existing. If you start questioning the ontological metaphysics of its essence (eg what is a line or a point or length and so on) then it of course collapses as a house of cards. That does not mean that it is not extremely solid in its relative domain.

You don't need do anything but imagine a team of ten people, one of them a bomb diffuser, with a bomb in the center of the room. Let's say one of them is you. Are you really going to contemplate if the bomb diffuser is the one who needs to diffuse the bomb? Are you really going to argue with him about it, using your arguments about how what he has read in diffusing manuals is interpretable in many ways ?

Not all opinions are of the same value. Not inside the relative domain in which they are referring to. Outside that, and when being exposed to the absolute yes, all of them crumble to pieces. Language itself crumbles to pieces for that matter.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Vagos said:

@Leo Gura It feels lonely where you are... doesn't it...? :-/ 

It's lonely being God

But also wonderful.

- - - - -

@Vagos

1) Most people actually cannot be helped. If you want to help people, you have to learn how to distinguished the ones who can from the ones who can't. You cannot help a mind that is closed.

2) You also have made a shadow out of those who cannot be helped. You have to realize that ignorance is a part of reality you must integrate as part of your Total Self.

[Eren Eeager]

@Vagos I use these techniques to relieve all the judgment and remove any sense of superiority.

1. Seeing my own ignorance. Seeing how much ignorant I was and how much silly still I am. It is all relative. You are a fool compares to a spiritual master And others are fools compared to you. So it is the same thing.
2. Seeing the whole picture. People are just at different stages of development. Wisdom is a very slow and painful process. This is how the ego works and develops, slowly and gradually. You are not more developed because you are better. No!, you are more developed because you have less karma. And because you have made so much mistakes and stupid things in your past life to the point where it pushed you towards development.
3. Putting myself in their position and seeing things from their ignorant prespective. Oooh, this is a very powerful one. When you start seeing things from the prespective of other people, you will relaize why they think and act in these ways. Take the prespective of racists, criminals, religious people, atheists... Etc. If you do that enough you will lose all your anger and judgment towards these people. You will become more loveing and compassionate because you understand from where they are coming from.
4. Finally, this is a hard one. Realizing that these people are you! And you are all the ignorant people in the world. Can you see it? Can you see that there is only one experiencer that experience everything and all the stupid people are actually you!

[TDLH]

On 6/24/2021 at 2:28 PM, Vagos said:

But when people start having logical fallacies and epistemologic blunders I just lose it... 

Have you ever heard the phrase?

"God only helps those that help them-selves"!

 

Using your perspective, I could say that your point of view “may” have “logical fallacies and epistemological blunders”. 

What makes you think that it’s your job to correct, or educate someone that does not want to learn?

Not even “God” interferes with an individuals experience or journey!

 

God does not judge opinions, whether they are right or wrong!

God does not get angry with fools and dump people, nor does God praise or reward intelligent spiritually people!  That’s all EGO!

God does not seek justice, teach or discriminate between perspectives and realities!

 

God Loves “All-That-Is”.

God is "All-That-IS"

 

God allows all creations imagined to explore and expand, to stagnate and contract, within unconditional Love!

God is “SHARING” it's "self", as infinite bubbles of consciousness that are within infinite bubbles of consciousness, that are within infinite bubbles of creativity.

It’s not the Job of one bubble of consciousness to Judge or teach unwilling bubbles of consciousness that have chosen to remain stagnate or contracted within there bubble.

We are bubbles of consciousness within much larger bubbles of consciousness, that are also within much larger bubbles of consciousness etc. 

Be “All-That-Is”, and “SHARE” your wisdom to those that want to learn and listen with Kindness, Love and Joy. 

Share wisdom with no strings and attachments, with no judgement, force, anger or vengeance!

 

Just “SHARING” a few thoughts, ideas and beliefs!

Edited June 26, 2021 by TDLH

[RendHeaven]

@VagosRespectfully, I feel like you missed the point of my earlier tirade  I'm glad that you've made the relative-absolute distinction, but I can feel that you're still bound tightly to your conception of the relative, which I'm trying to loosen!

Since I can tell that you care about truth, let's go deep.

11 hours ago, Vagos said:

The fact that there is no true(er) opinion from an absolute perspective does not mean that there is no true(er) opinion from a relative perspective.

THIS DEPENDS ON YOUR FRAME OF REFERENCE.

To some extent, I agree with you. But even then, you must in good faith ask yourself, "what are the boundaries of this so-called relative perspective?" Consider the possibility that what YOU consider to be a self-evident relative perspective shared by humanity is a projection. A total myth, in fact. Maybe from your frame of reference, in YOUR partial relative perspective, some claims are "more true" than other claims.

But don't make the leap that YOUR partial relative perspective is somehow universal or absolute. You see this? You're implicitly claiming some things to be absolute under the guise/label of calling it "relative." You admit yourself that the Pythagorean theorem falls apart entirely if you step outside of Euclid's frame of reference, but I don't think you realize how easily you can throw aside Euclid's frame. There is nothing solid about his frame. More on this later.

Please notice that my critique is going for the jugular. I'm not randomly stabbing in the dark. I see no epistemic blunders with your personal conclusions under your own perspective. The blunder I am seeing is the projection of these personal conclusions onto ALL relative perspectives. Let's go back to the silly argument example I posted earlier.

16 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

To you, it seems like they should just be less sensitive, I mean fuck it's really not a big deal dude it's literally just words! Get over yourself! But to the other person, it really feels like wow this guy has no regards for my emotional world at all - they're completely blind to their impact on others, they have no self-awareness beyond their own skin, and now they're blaming me for something they did, how the hell is this fair??

So I ask you now, who is "right?" Who has the objectively correct worldview? Before you try to get out a measuring tape where you try to discern how "objectively" hurtful a statement is, lemme just spoil for you that there is no such thing. In fact, both interpretations that we found above are valid when we realize the role of relativity in the way that reality unfolds. The statement was simultaneously innocent and hurtful.

Notice that to reach the wider conclusion of: "The statement was simultaneously innocent and hurtful" we had to step outside of both frames of Person A and Person B. If we locked into either individual frame, the conclusion would've been more narrow: "The statement was innocent" or "The statement was hurtful."

Yes, from within the frame of Person A, "The statement was innocent, full stop" is true. Nobody is disputing that. But I'm showing you that you can literally throw aside the frame of Person A, and the conclusion changes. 

THIS IS THE CASE FOR ALL RELATIVE CONCLUSIONS - YES, INCLUDING SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS.

11 hours ago, Vagos said:

Don't think that just because ABSOLUTE Truth is infinite there aren't partial truths that are not. 

It's actually the other way around.

Absolute Truth is Certain and more or less Monolithic. It has no frame of reference, and so there is nothing to "step outside of." In many ways, it's more definitive than the partial. You know when you Know.

Partial truths are ALWAYS uncertain and multi-faceted. These can NEVER be cemented as permanent structures other than by a fiercely imaginative mind that refuses to step outside of its own self-limitation.

11 hours ago, Vagos said:

The pythagorean theorem say, is a definitive partial truth that is extremely solid FOR THE PARTIAL bubble in which it is existing. If you start questioning the ontological metaphysics of its essence (eg what is a line or a point or length and so on) then it of course collapses as a house of cards. That does not mean that it is not extremely solid in its relative domain.

Again, yes.

But then your mind makes the unfounded leap that all humans live inside of the partial bubble of Euclidean structures. And then you're tempted to prescribe geometry as ABSOLUTELY true "for all humans." And you'll concede that on some mythical cosmological level that Euclidean geometry is partial, but you'll adamantly defend that it still retains a nugget of truth for human purposes.

Such defense is false!

People live outside of Euclidean structures all the time. For example while you're having sex, feeling various warmth and moisture sensations all over your body, you have no conception of the Pythagorean theorem whatsoever. These structures literally cease to exist. You're in a whole new dimension of interfacing with reality.

"But shapes still continue to be shapes even while I'm having sex and I'm not thinking about Euclid! As long as shapes are present, Euclidean geometry is running in the background!"

Lol nope. For Euclidean geometry to function, you have to consciously imagine yourself stepping into the bubble of Euclid - i.e. suspending all of his axioms and each proposition one after another in the mind's eye and sincerely believing in their relative truth. Only then does Euclid become true in any sense.

"But I haven't even read Euclid's Elements, and the Pythagorean Theorem is still true for me! Look, I can show you the squares on the triangle adding up right now, hand me a pen."

See, but now you're dragging a whole slew of symbolic reasoning into this inquiry. You'll triumphantly draw the symbols "3, 4, 5" on the sides of a (symbolic) right triangle and show that 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 as though you've cemented a universality of humankind... and yet I ask you, to a man who has no conception of symbol, what "truth" is there in your scribbles? Such people do exist, by the way.

The trap would be to insist that "oh those people are uneducated/mentally abnormal" or some excuse to that extent. The epistemically honest thing to do would be to admit that - "My system of understanding is specific to myself and those who share my axioms."

Or in other words, if you really embodied the above realization in bold - when someone who doesn't share your axioms disputes you, you're able to laugh and embrace the novelty and distinct truth of their perspective.

11 hours ago, Vagos said:

You don't need do anything but imagine a team of ten people, one of them a bomb diffuser, with a bomb in the center of the room. Let's say one of them is you. Are you really going to contemplate if the bomb diffuser is the one who needs to diffuse the bomb? Are you really going to argue with him about it using your arguments about how what he has read in diffusing manuals is interpretable in many ways ?

Lol  Of course not.

I'm advocating for you to develop a profound deconstruction OF YOUR OWN MIND AND YOUR OWN VALUES. Not of other people's minds.

In fact, it's precisely the guy who hasn't fully deconstructed his own mind who would stop everyone and cause a commotion about "who should defuse the bomb." The guy who has fully deconstructed his own mind would just allow events to unfold.

11 hours ago, Vagos said:

Not all opinions are of the same value. Not inside the relative domain in which they are referring to. Outside that, and when being exposed to the absolute yes, all of them crumble to pieces. Language crumbles to pieces for that matter.

Agree. But please acknowledge that the value of opinions are arbitrary. These values come from you and your culture, and they are constantly prone to flux. There is nothing solid about them, as a matter of fact. All solidity is imagined within pre-accepted values, but the values themselves are LIQUID.

I have a feeling that you might want to contend with some things I've said, so please lay them out if you have time!

Remember, I'm explaining to this extent because I feel like you're on the precipice of letting go of knowledge structures - and trust me, the freedom, well-being, joy, and even TRUTH you experience afterwards are unspeakable.

To be clear, "letting go" of knowledge structures does not mean you become dumb and mute and unopinionated. As you can tell, I am clearly opinionated. The difference between a soul that has and has not let go is that the soul which HAS "let go" sees through himself and all things he holds dear, and thus surrenders his arsenal of intellectual weaponry spontaneously and even willingly. And with nothing left to cling to or defend, this soul is free to receive anything and everything.

I recognize in my own life when people are deluded and self-deceived and frankly "wrong." But I take great care to listen to, support, and even bear the perspective of these people. Typically, it's not worth my time. As Leo says, there are much better things that you could be doing.

But nonetheless this is an area of maturity to master, because the alternative is to continue to be in argumentative "debate mode" until the day you drop dead. Which is an EVEN WORSE use of time!

[Nahm]

@Vagos

Life is already the teacher. The debating, the suffering, the tension, the reactivity & anger, all are the teacher-teaching you’re looking for yet not finding in the conceptualizing of yourself (or any other), as a teacher. The attaching in the this & thating of thought, the identifying in the left & righting, the comparative lenses in the me vs theming, all are the teaching. 

[RickyFitts]

On 6/25/2021 at 10:09 AM, Leo Gura said:

1) Most people actually cannot be helped. If you want to help people, you have to learn how to distinguished the ones who can from the ones who can't. You cannot help a mind that is closed.

Yep, spot on, it's a complete waste of time trying to have a discussion with a mind that's closed, and I think it's very important to examine your own motivations if you do find yourself engaging in such futile discussions over and over again because it says at least as much about you as it does the other person. That's not to judge people who do engage in such behaviour, it's something that's all too human and I'm not pretending for a moment that I'm immune to it, but self-awareness and self-honesty are so important if we're truly sincere about spiritual growth.

[bejapuskas]

On 24. 6. 2021 at 8:28 PM, Vagos said:

Due to having suppressed anger in the past for other reasons (also having to do with a feeling of not being able to prove my points and being ridiculed even though I was right and feeling that a huge injustice is taking place) I now have panic attacks that build up from the exact same bodily sensation and it so much resembles what I'm feeling in these anger-causing situations it's uncanny. It's just like this anger has to come out no matter what and finds other ways around.

@Vagos  I am still curious about the toxic stage green examples. Green is still very revolutional. If the world becomes Green centered in my life time, I would be very pleasantly surprised. Why fight against Green in time where Green can in fact solve so many issues? Trying to jump to Yellow seems like the path of more resistance. I notice there is a lot of triggering happening on this forum and in the world around Green opinions and I don't know how much of this is about the kind of triggering that came with every spiral shift in the history of humans and how much of it is about Green being somehow wrong or invalid or unhelpful. 

[bejapuskas]

I mean it is disturbing to me, that we are talking about toxic green without giving specific examples here on a forum with such a huge green shadow and yet people act like they know what toxic green is.

[captainamerica]

On 28/06/2021 at 7:35 PM, bejapuskas said:

@Vagos  I am still curious about the toxic stage green examples. Green is still very revolutional. If the world becomes Green centered in my life time, I would be very pleasantly surprised. Why fight against Green in time where Green can in fact solve so many issues? Trying to jump to Yellow seems like the path of more resistance. I notice there is a lot of triggering happening on this forum and in the world around Green opinions and I don't know how much of this is about the kind of triggering that came with every spiral shift in the history of humans and how much of it is about Green being somehow wrong or invalid or unhelpful. 

@bejapuskas What according to you is toxic Green?

Would love to understand. Not looking for stupid debates. 

[bejapuskas]

@captainamerica  Of course you are not.  You just made me rewatch Leo's video on Stage Green. Not the entire thing, but like 60 %, especially the part about toxic manifestations. I think my understanding has changed since the last time I watched it. I am not sure whether Leo's understanding of Green changed since he has uploaded that video, but I must say that my understanding of it is slightly different.

Leo seems to be criticizing the groupism and mob mentality of Green and calling it extrimist, polarized, trap etc. In my interpretation, I think the individuals who get triggered by Green groups, protests, movements, art etc. are a way bigger problem than the Green people themselves. They are just less loving and less developed, they judge Green from below. They might be the ones who slut shame, make racist comments, vote for a lower consciousness politician because "the Stage Green candidate is so fake"... I think these people receive too much judgement. I honestly think Green is so "weak" because it just does not have the majority. If it had power, it would not be that much of an issue. But this kind of triggering and groupism emerged with every stage - Beige serving its own benefit in a Purple group, Purple dethroning the overly ambitious Red leader, Red killing and raping Blue moralists, Blue lynching the revolutionary Orange scientist... We forget this has been an issue before and we put too much judgement on Green and resist it. This forum is below Green in my opinion. 

I don't know how else would a Green majority in society happen in a way different from groupism, nothing can work individually. You can't have Green policies as a Green individual in a Red society. You need most people to subscribe, dethrone, vote (if you live in a democracy). I see groupism as a hope for a better future. I mean, if you are the more developed one but the stupidity of society triggers you, you need a group in order to not burn out, no? Isn't that how everyone feels? What if Leo has zero followers?

Now I see that there are some individuals who adopt ideologies that are typically associated with Green, such as feminism, yet they are toxic. For example women who are "feminists" but judge men. They are not real feminists in my opinion, because they are not actually fighting for the equality of the sexes. I mean this is less common than the average Incel Joe thinks it is, but still, it helps to sit down with an Incel, show them that you relate to them, tell them a better truth, rather than to demonize them. I guess Yellow does this better than Green, but I don't think Yellow should be passive, I guess Leo mantioned passivity as a pitfall of Yellow. I think a balance between Green activism and Yellow overthinking is best.

I honestly don't know how one could care too much for human rights on which depend many human lives. That sounds like discrimination. Of course, if you become financially independent and lead your life in a way that encourages understanding, that might leave more impact than a Green hippie who smokes weed in the park and does not have a job. But the Green fundamental values still mostly stay the same higher up the Spiral. People should have equal rights etc.

But on the other hand, demonizing companies, business and materialism is not as off. For example, the US and EU bought so many vaccines for themselves that they could vaccinate their entire populations multiple times and the companies supported this, while they refused to sell these excess vaccines to "less developed" countries. This is called vaccine nationalism. Do you seriously think this is a soft issue that one can care too much about? When it literally kills millions? The development of these countries is often underestimated, they are capable of creating and distributing these vaccines, but the system fucks them.

I agree with Leo that Africa, Middle East etc. need basic infrastructure before adopting higher values. Higher values are impossible without resources. (These resources are manipulated by the West or were manipulated by it in the past without the West ever repaying) How can you care for a human life when you don't have a hospital to treat them and schools to educate doctors? It is truly impossible. But in the West, society is way too Orange, people have so much infrastructure, yet their value systems suck ass. It is excess materialism that needs a bit of hippie. 

I agree that a society can be more developed than another society, but I think we overestimate the development of the West. For example colonizers in India intentionally did not try to free the native people from their lethal stage Purple and Red rituals (burning widows etc), because it would make it harder for them to manipulate the resources. The US killed 80 times more civillians in the Middle East than died in the Twin Towers. This excessive western pride is source of so much evil.

Leo mentioned flattening hierarchies too much, but that just does not at all seem like an issue of our time.

Leo's example about sensitive women staying with toxic guys can be a real example of toxic Green, also vice versa.

Lying in order not to hurt is a Green issue, but also anti green at the same time because of suppressing expression.

Worshipping gurus.

Leo gave this example of some cultures in Scandinavia demonizing individuals who want to rise above others by utilizing their talents and taking them down as a group, that seems similar to the stage Blue in Japan. This is a serious issue, but also it is anti green because Green is supposed to be pro self-expression

Bullshit spirituality - I think this coin has too sides. People with strongly developed value systems whose emotional mastery and self-knowledge sucks and then also mystics who have pride about their mystical states, for example Baba Ramdev. Baba Ramdev has amazing yoga products, but he calls untouchables in India who are protesting for their rights "terrorists". This is very toxic, because of how much influence he has. (some of these yogis have so much influence precisely because they are corrupt)

I don't think identity politics is an issue. It is just the people who get triggered by it. Of course identifying with gender, sex, race etc. can hinder your spiritual progress, but so can not understanding your white privilege and thinking that colour of skin does not matter at all, that's is just so unconscious and politically undeveloped mindset.

 

Last point - not being pragmatic enough in order to pick up oneself and try to bring about change in a systemic way - sometimes I wonder why I am spending so much time on this forum. Maybe I would be better of creating content on my own and influencing people that way rather than talking to a handful of people here on this forum and influencing only part of them. Well, I guess I might do that in the future, thanks Leo.

[Windappreciator]

On 25.6.2021 at 0:17 AM, Vagos said:

@Leo Gura Alright yeah that helps to some extent. Although I'm still very sad and also angry at myself for not being able to help people with really strong minds that can take it a step further. It's a pity really. I so much believe that these people can make it to the next level. Then again maybe they can't... I don't know, the jump from green to tier 2 is sure gigantic and highly underestimated. Anyway thanks, I highly value your opinion. 

 

The thing that hinders people from unterstanding your points here is less of an intellectual issue but more so an emotional one.

You must ripe emotionally.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Windappreciator

[Depersonilized]

@Vagos That is ideological-green; not a fully-realized green. I think it's safe to say that there is a certain amount of blue in there too. Especially college students. Most college students didn't give a crap about anything in high school, and suddenly after going to college, they have all these green ideas. It's not really their ideas, and they don't necessarily know what they're talking about. They're mostly just trying to realize themselves as functioning adults. There is no point in trying to argue with them because it isn't necessarily "them" yet. I'm only assuming it's young adults you're talking about. If it's not; it's still an ideological-green. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Depersonilized
Grammer

[Snader]

@Vagos I totally feel you. That toxic Green ignorance is a bitch. Most times it seems like the best alternative is to explain and rationalize Green to take a more holistic view, but as you've probably noticed, it doesn't work. It's like trying to tell a fundamental christian that 10 commandments isn't the absolute truth or a elite capitalist that there is more to life than status and money. They are just simply unable to play around with ideas outside of their comfort zone and identity if they are in CLOSED state of spiral change. Like Don Beck and Christopher Cowan describe a person locked in CLOSED state: ''Psychological blindness keep the person from seeing alternatives, either in the past or future ways to be''. You can always try to carefully and gently plant a seed of a bigger perspective to a Green person, even if he's CLOSED, but it's not up to you whether the seed starts to sprout or not.

I have some friends with strong Green and I've had so much frustration with them, while on the other hand I've got love, approval and sense of unity. What I've learned is that the frustration is not just a negative aspect, but it's an important -- even maybe necessary -- aspect of development. It's a emotion that shows you what triggers you. Then it's your job to contemplate that triggering to see where you come short in your understanding.

I think as you expose yourself more to Green, you start understanding the Green nature more so that you stop demanding certain understanding from them. The triggering can also imply of your own insecurities. You might have a need to make everyone agree so you know you are right. As you develop you start trusting yourself more, despite what other people think or say.

So I wouldn't be too worried about that ''negative'' aspect of yours when it comes to dealing with Green, because it's part of development. Keep pushing yourself, but maybe take a step back. Maybe try having less contact with Green for a while so that your cup doesn't spill over. That's what I do when I get emotionally triggered with Green, and I've seen some real progress there. You can't force change and understanding.

 

[Snader]

13 hours ago, bejapuskas said:

Last point - not being pragmatic enough in order to pick up oneself and try to bring about change in a systemic way - sometimes I wonder why I am spending so much time on this forum. Maybe I would be better of creating content on my own and influencing people that way rather than talking to a handful of people here on this forum and influencing only part of them. Well, I guess I might do that in the future, thanks Leo.

I like the clear points and perspectives of yours. You make inclusive arguments that are easy to read and relate to. I find them valuable, even though I don't really interact with you. I'm sure many feel the same.

It's not always the effort that gets the most approval and visible attention that is most influencing  although it's good to use this forum and people here as feedback information for your future endeavors.

[captainamerica]

@bejapuskas Thanks for sharing.

[WelcometoReality]

On 2021-06-24 at 8:28 PM, Vagos said:

Please give me some fruitful ideas about what can I do to solve this.

It's usually hard to convince people that they are wrong. If that's your mindset going into the discussion people will pick up on it unconsciously and then you'll have a polarized discussion on your hands and I don't know about you but I've never managed to convince someone that they're wrong, but maybe you're better at discussing than me. ? Usually when I start to feel when things are getting heated and feel the anger bubble up I recognize it and let it go.

Check out David R. Hawkins book letting go. Great book on how to deal with these sticky and difficult feelings like anger. 

Then instead of keeping my original stand point I start to move in on their view point instead. Asking questions with curiosity on how they came to that conclusion. That's usually enough to loosen things up alittle and making it more dynamic.

Not only does that keep things from getting heated but I find that I enjoy the discussion more when it's more an exploration together than a holding on to separate beliefs.

I'm not an expert at this though. I still find myself stuck in my own view point sometimes. We're all a work in progress I suppose. ?

[captainamerica]

6 hours ago, Fearey said:

I think you need to approach them from their stage of development. Explaining why they're wrong may not be the way to go, and can easily be seen as a threat. Instead, try to form your argument in a way where they'll have to get to the correct logical conclusion by themselves.

A lot of the time they are not really at that stage of development and that is why it is nearly impossible to discuss with them.

Orange is not fully integrated leading to wrong Green ideas.  (like hippies thinking no more new technology is needed for eg. or they are anti corporations/wealth instead of standing for reform and taxation or it could be talk about flattening the hierarchies without truly understanding its survival function right now and in decades ahead)

College Green is not Real green in most cases as let alone Orange, even Blue is not properly integrated. It is generally difficult to discuss with people in such a position as they will probably only learn from experience through time. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by captainamerica

[bejapuskas]

@Snader  Thank you so much, this really means a lot! <3

I am still waiting for examples of toxic Green from the OP. I am curious how our individual understandings of what Green is are different. There are many people here, coming from different backgrounds, paths, states of consciousness, it is really a pitty that we are discussing something so complex without defining it first. It is really disturbing.

6 hours ago, captainamerica said:

A lot of the time they are not really at that stage of development and that is why it is nearly impossible to discuss with them.

What do you find impossible to discuss with stage Green people? 

6 hours ago, captainamerica said:

Orange is not fully integrated leading to wrong Green ideas.  (like hippies thinking no more new technology is needed for eg. or they are anti corporations/wealth instead of standing for reform and taxation or it could be talk about flattening the hierarchies without truly understanding its survival function right now and in decades ahead)

I agree with you that new technology is needed. For example there are people working on public toilets in 3rd world countries that can transform shit into drinkable water. That would easily be one of the most useful inventions and also very stage Green. Have you considered any arguments against worshipping corporations and blindly falling for the illusions of capitalism? Buying clothes in HnM, looking at the pictures of pretty child models, without knowing that the clothes you are looking at were made by enslaved kids in India and Bangladesh. In our system, it is basically impossible to ethically consume almost anything, so targetting the moral codes of corporations in order to stop them from neo-colonialism and slavery might actually be the more spirally evolved than living by example... Of course, do both, but like if most companies are immoral, you literally can't make a significant change without targetting companies. I also think in today's world most hierarchies are too hierarchical. What do you think is an example of a hierarchy that's too flattened? For example in education, kids rarely feel safe to question their teachers and if they feel like what they are learning is useless (it mostly is), they are told it is a part of the syllabus (that's organized in a useless way) and they cannot do anything. On this forum as well, some people are afraid of the moderators.

8 hours ago, captainamerica said:

College Green is not Real green in most cases as let alone Orange, even Blue is not properly integrated. It is generally difficult to discuss with people in such a position as they will probably only learn from experience through time. 

What do you mean by College Green?

[sethman]

forgiveness and boundaries.