Identity

When you smoke too much weed, it's like you're walking up the stairs of the Titanic. It feels like you're taking profound steps, but the whole boat is sinking That said, I do love weed, and when used in the right balance, it can be truly supportive.

@Leo Gura Alright, thank you for your take, appreciate it.

@Leo Gura Okay, so that's an assessment of his overall character and perspective. What about the line of reasoning and prediction about the next decade of global politics and economics. Do you see any validity to his concerning message, or would you see it very differently?

Okay, so, I'm following the big-picture arguments here and seeing if the steps of reasoning add up for me. Main argument one: Pax Americana is crumbling Due to the corruption of the foundational pillars of the US-based international system, America's position as the global hegemon is losing power and, ultimately, will crumble, thereby ending this chapter of Unipolar central power. --> This is a pretty big claim, and there is some resistance in me about the exact reasoning for all this. Yet, I can't help but shake the intuition that there is quite a bit of truth to this. Just looking at how drastically corrupt and foolish the US politics looks to me under Trump, it feels like a collective ego's last attempt to flex its muscles and maintain its empire. So, yes, I can resonate with the idea that a cycle of global politics is coming to an end, and some kind of new global order, perhaps multipolar, will take hold. Main argument two: Transition full of crises Jiang predicts that the end of this unipolar moment will lead to a challenging period where populations need to be resilient in order to survive. Particularly, because the entire world economy and the abundance of wealth of our current system are based on cheap energy, which may no longer be available in the same way it is today. --> For me, this connects some dots with a different podcast I saw a few years back, and that has stuck with me. In this podcast, the researcher argued that it’s cheap energy that is at the basis of current global prosperity, and not as often preached, technology. This energy is really ‘loaned’ from a history of earth storing in the form of fossil fuels, and we, as a foolish society, are burning through the reserves like a spoiled child that has found its parents' credit card. There is undoubtedly more nuance to this, yet this argument does further shift my perspective towards believing that the current system may not be sustainable. Main argument three: Critical systems collapsing The hugely inflated world population will no longer be sustainable when the old system collapses. Food systems are based on fertiliser, which will no longer be available to the same extent, leading to food shortages. Water could also become a problem. As well as other critical systems such as the energy grid and the internet. --> It sounds plausible to me that there will be stress on these critical systems and that adaptations will be necessary. However, here it does sound to me that he is throwing quite a few wild, bleak hypotheses together that take quite a dark turn, without the necessary support of argumentation. It seems more plausible to me that some of these systems will be under stress, yet not to the extent Jiang is speculating here. Main argument four: A new world is born out of dire consequences The amount of stress put on the world will cause a battle for resources, leading to mass migrations and possible wars. This new world will shift through different forms as it takes hold. Elements include the establishment of local international trade systems between nationalistic, deindustrialised nations. Due to the struggle for resources, all kinds of nasty things could happen, such as genocide, (some form of) slavery, an AI-surveillance state, etc. --> Because of the excessively dark turn in argument three, argument four builds on these bleak assumptions to create an even worse picture of the future. One where the entire world truly falls back on extremely low-consciousness, selfish strategies, just to survive. This seems like an exaggerated, fear-inducing hypothesis. Final thoughts All-in all, I feel like the general direction of Jiang’s predictions of the next decade gives reason for concern. The extent to which he describes a dark future is not something I fully subscribe to. Yet, I can’t help but intuit that indeed we have a fragile global system, that is built on many unsustainable and foolish foundations, which could very well get shaken by a shift in geopolitical power structures. Personally, I still very much stay in a positive mindset in terms of creating my own life and an abundant, conscious, spiritually connected world. Yet, I also recognise that there may very well be turbulence in the years to come, and it’s wise to have both feet firmly connected to the earth. I would love to hear some other perspectives on this line of reasoning! And honestly, I'm also curious what your take is on this @Leo Gura. You have been exploring geopolitics quite deeply over recent years, right. Do you think along similar lines for the next phase of the world, or would you draw a very different picture of the decade to come?

Hee all, Happy to see a thread already exists here on Prof Jiang. Over the past week or two, I've gotten sucked into his sphere, as he has gotten popular. I resonate with the whole mixed bag idea. On the one hand, he is making all these interesting connections and seems to have a genuine take on spirituality. The pictures he paints by pulling all these different lenses together, although grim, appear to be unique independent thought. And the trends he is describing of moving from a US-dominated global system to a multi-polar world kind of makes sense to me. On the other hand, I'm definitely getting conspiracy vibes from him as well. The excessive talk about secret societies, the people he is jumping on podcasts with and appears to make bonds with... definitely feels 'off'. All in all, though, the underlying idea of this new video of his resonates. Unsure of how it will come about, and what it will look like, intuitively it feels wise to make sure to stand firmly on both feet and be ready for some potentially turbulent times. Even if it may not be as extreme as he is describing here, how do you see it, does it not indeed feel like our global system is based on rather weak and unwise foundations, which could quite easily be disrupted by global events such as are taking place right now?

Yes, well put! was just reading the ‘conversations with god’ book and this sentence reminds me of what you mention here: “Being at the spiritual game means dedicating your whole mind, your whole body, your whole soul to the process of creating Self in the image and likeness or God.” So, it sounds like this moment is calling you to further embody your personal strength, and that being the right step in creating Self in the image and Likeness of God. Yeah, that’s I guess also what this post was about. Is the fact that becoming aware of what god is, to deeper and deeper degrees is definitely a key dimension. And yet the creating of self, and life, in the image and likeness of god, seems at least as big a task. And that definitely should be looked at as genuine spirituality.

Right, I hear you. And can definitely see in my own process also how at times there can be this pure intent, and at times there are other desires/motives behind the same practices. With that, there is also a new respect for the need to be have a narrow and pure definition of what the word ‘spirituality’ refers to. Thanks!

To be transparent; I read the original post and looked at some others, yet did not read the entire thread. Yet the topic does interest me as well. Understanding more about how form operates. I agree that there is more to it than simply saying ‘consciousness is fundamental, yet for the rest let’s stick to the laws of materialism’. From my own experience, there is clearly a more personal, intelligent, way that god operates through form. Especially in more expanded states of consciousness, things like synchronisities are definitely a thing. The chakra system clearly has some connection to phenomenon that can be directly experienced. And, at the same time, it’s a slippery slope as well to veer off to much from ‘common sense materialism’. I’s definitely also not the case that reality is so contextual and moldable (at ordinairy states or consciousness) that any thought or belief goes. There seems to be a connection there between degree of consciousness and fluidity to form. Yet how this all works exactly is quite a mystery to me. Especially also because it’s easy to fall into self-deception…

@Sincerity If I get you right, you’re saying from one perspective all developmental persuits are ‘spiritual’, whilst from another perspectice it can be seen as a spectrum ranging from ‘physical/survival’ to ‘spiritual’. Both being true in their own sense. Yeah, that’s a nice way of looking at it

@Carl-Richard Hmm, what are you pointing to with this sentence? Do you mean, that the intent behind spiritual practice is the best way to suss out ‘real’ from ‘fake’, since before complete enlightenment there is always a sense of self in the work?

Hee Leo, hee community, It’s been a while since posting. To be honest, over the last year or two the newer Actualized material resonated less with me. But this recent video on ‘fake spirituality’ really reconnected me again. What struck me most was the longing and integrity for God. It reminded me of the genuine leadership Leo embodies, which reignited my motivation to deepen my spiritual practice and connection. Interestingly, the time Leo has taken away from the regular pace of content creation has been valuable for me too. It gave me space to step back, integrate, and explore other perspectives. One of the main perspectives I explored was a form of Nondual Tantra. Over the past two years, I’ve participated in a course with six week-long retreats and 10-day retreats, together with my girlfriend. It was nice to see how well these teachings hold up against Leo’s “pure” yardstick for spirituality. The focus is on inquiry, direct experience, and practice, with with little dogma, and whatever tradition exists is held loosely, without the need to conform. That said, while I see the value in separating “pure spirituality” from “survival,” I also feel something gets lost in that distinction. The biggest growth I’ve experienced lately has been about integrating and embodying the spiritual connection I’ve built on my own. In previous years, the spiritual connection and understanding became solid; through years of meditation, 50+ trips, and a general attitude of metaphysical inquiry. There’s real substance in my experience of what the word God points to. By no means do I claim to have mastered this field but that hasn’t been the main growth edge for me. What’s been most transformative is the integration work, especially during group retreats with around 50 people, where many inquiries are done in relationship with others. If we use the chakra model for a moment, it seems Leo’s “pure spirituality” focuses mostly on opening the top two chakras. But for someone like me, whose challenge has been authentic expression, going deeper there without integration creates a separation between my solo work and the rest of life. Simply drawing a hard line between “spirituality” and “survival” can be limiting. A big part, maybe the majority, of the work is allowing insight to permeate into life, into form, into survival. One retreat exercise really showed me this. Using breathwork and meditation, I entered a mystical state where emptiness and infinity were crystal clear. Yet I could feel how it wasn’t fully integrated, how I longed to feel it in my heart, my bones, every cell of my body. So while I see the value in a no-bullshit definition of spirituality, and the danger of muddying the waters, I also see the need for nuance. For expanding spirituality to include integration into form: in how we relate, live, and embody. Just throwing this out there to see if it resonates. Also curious if you, @Leo Gurahave any thoughts on this. With much love and gratitude.

This video was helpful for me in creating more nuance about what discipline is, and isn’t. I’ve been contemplating for a while what ‘conscious discipline’ would look like. Mainly because of the limiting aspects unconscious discipline can have. The self-guilting, the lack of self-awareness, the boxing oneself in with too much structure. And what Teal Swan refers to as bulldozing. In conscious discipline none of those elements are necessary. One can have complete self-awareness, compassion, nuance. And at the same time decide from will to act in a way that is beyond the path of least resistance. To act in alignment what one believes to be right, that contributes to their vision, that contributes to expansion. When developing discipline, I would be wary of unconscious discipline, as I find that there is plenty of that to go around in the personal development spheres. Then again, arguably there is a natural evolution where one first needs more of these unconscious elements as support structure before letting them fall away. At least, that seems to be the progression happening in my own life. I hope some of these thoughts help you with your goal to develop self-discipline this year. Good luck!

@integral Haha, daym, looks like you’re crossing boundaries I aint ready for yet. Agreed though; underwear? Silly restraining invention 😝

@Moutushi hahaha, that sounds like a fantastic time 🕺🏻

Haha this discussion puts a smile on my face. Love you guys ❤️✌🏼