bmcnicho

Member
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bmcnicho

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Location
    California
  • Gender
    Male
  1. I suppose it’s possible. If we imagine a time in the future where most of the population is yellow, then lower consciousness people would remain stuck at green. Although, stage green tends to value compassion and nonviolence, so it’ll be a bit different than the extremism we see today.
  2. If you haven’t read the Spiral Dynamics book by Don Beck and David Cohen, I’d recommend it. It provides lots of great insights on how to help people develop. One of their key ideas is describing what happens when someone becomes essentially trapped between stages. In your case, you’re trying to transition people from blue to orange. Now, if you reveal to them the problems with blue, one of which being that objective morality doesn’t exist, you also need to guide them toward stage orange. Otherwise, they’ll be trapped between the stages leading to nihilism and depression. Some people could regress down to red, but most will cling to blue for as long as possible, despite it no longer working for them. Since you’re specifically addressing childhood shame, maybe you could tell people that pursuing personal achievement could increase their confidence and self esteem. That way they could begin developing healthy stage orange rather than a dysfunctional stage red.
  3. Yes, I think the shadows of most people tend to have a lot of stage red attributes. This is largely because our society has moved very far away from stage red including its positive aspects. Most of the time if people act on stage red impulses they’ll damage their relationships, or at the extreme end up in prison. However, strictly speaking the shadow consists of any parts of yourself that you deny and repress. For example, my shadow is largely stage blue because I dislike societal rules and authority. I’d also imagine that a hardcore conservative would have a largely stage green shadow and a radical leftist would have a largely stage orange one.
  4. This is a rough pattern not meant to be taken too literally, however I think it provides a quick breakdown of the underlying structure of ideologies. We, the righteous (blank) people, are the greatest because of (blank). They, the evil (blank) people, are deluded by (blank). Therefore, if we follow (blank) principles we can maximize goodness (conveniently our egos), defeat all evil in the world (conveniently our enemies), and bring about (blank), a final utopian solution to all possible problems. It’s funny when you start to realize that over 99% of people live their lives this way. (INCLUDING ME AND INCLUDING YOU) While not realizing that all the so called enemies are doing the exact same thing!!! 😂
  5. Something I’ve observed from studying history is that its periodization (terms like ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, modern etc.) is broken up into smaller chunks near the present and larger ones in the ancient past. For example, we make fine distinctions between the 1970s and 1980s but lump together all of ancient Egyptian history into only a few periods. Therefore, you would expect that a thousand years from now the 70s and 80s wouldn’t be viewed as distinct and the entire period from 1945 to today would be thought of as the post-WWII era. Relating this idea to spiral dynamics, the stages purple, red, and blue each lasted for thousands of years but orange has only been around for a few hundred years, green has only been around for about 60 years, and they’re saying yellow is already starting to emerge. So maybe orange, green, and yellow could more accurately be thought of as merely more advanced versions of blue. The one value they all have in common is cooperation on a large scale, as contrasted with red which is based opon struggling for power, and purple which is based on tribal unity. Maybe under this model, the stage after blue would be more equivalent to yellow/turquoise. Now, I would definitely agree that the traditional model is more useful for our purposes of personal development. I’m just providing another perspective here. I think that the main point here is that both history and personal development are continuous processes that don’t actually have any “periods” or “stages”. There’s nothing objective about these boundaries, they’re just useful ways of conceptualizing things.
  6. @Nahm Yeah basically, like someone who hasn’t even started their hero’s journey talking about how great the holy grial is
  7. @Truth Addict Free will doesn’t exist in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense it’s an important pragmatic reality. People have conflicting impulses and tendencies which can be thought of as semiautonomous sub-personalities. The ego is the psychological structure that selects which inner voice to listen to and carry out into action. While this description isn’t literally true, until someone has become enlightened, this is how they must act in a practical sense
  8. This idea might be a bit controversial, but I don’t think people should concern themselves with enlightenment until they’ve first developed themselves to the highest levels. In mythological stories, the enlightened mystic is always an old man or woman, and I think there’s a very good reason for this. When you’re young, you should be boldly embarking on your hero’s journey. I think it’s silly to talk about the self being an illusion before you’ve first developed yourself and accomplished something great in the world I think when undeveloped people pursue non-duality, it can easily lead to zen devilry, because they haven’t first integrated their shadow elements. Also, it may come less from genuine spiritual interest and manifest more as a depressive denial of life Carl Jung described two traps of pursuing spirituality recklessly. The first is an ego inflation where one literally identifies oneself as some kind of transcendent being. The second trap, which he viewed as more difficult, is being flooded with so many images from the unconscious that you lose yourself in them and become possessed by them. The solution he proposed was the Individuation Process, essentially his model of self actualization. This is a process of confronting your shadow and integrating your opposite tendencies until only at the end do you achieve self transcendence I think meditation and yoga techniques could still be useful for general psychological health, but my impression is that most people on this forum should be focused on self actualization @Leo Gura Do you think there’s some validity to this? Or do you think this is mostly my ego trying to avoid doing consciousness work?
  9. My problem with Pinker’s argument is that it is mostly based on stage orange materialistic values. While it is a valid perspective, his stats are somewhat cherrypicked and they fail to take into account the deeper existential issues with modern society. It’s entirely possible to make the opposite case. For example, J. R. R. Tolkien viewed human history as a continuous spiritual decline and represented this idea in his expanded mythogies of Middle Earth I would try to integrate both perspectives to get a more accurate view
  10. @brugluiz Yes, Jung’s writings on alchemy are fascinating! I haven’t read all his books yet, but from what I’ve read so far it’s surprisingly relevant to consciousness work In their goal of creating the perfect substance, the alchemists theorized that the answer lied in the unification of opposites. This wasn’t a mere physical hypothesis, for they applied the idea at a deep psychological and spiritual level. Their key insight was that within each pair of opposites lied a “hidden third”, a transcendent principal that would allow for their unification. So you could say in a metaphorical sense that alchemy was actually describing a path to non-duality It’s very difficult reading, but highly worth it if you have the patience
  11. I’ve noticed that the only way to describe something is in terms of other things. For example, something that’s bright is brighter than something that’s dark, something large is larger than something small, etc. I’m wondering if things then have any qualities in themselves, or if quality is just a relative way to draw distinctions. Maybe in itself each object is infinite or nothing or one with infinity/emptiness I remember as a child that I only felt like I had a significant identity when I was being oppositional in some way, whether to a parent or a teacher or to a cultural expectation. Maybe that’s why to this day I despise the idea of conformity, because I know that the ego only exists to the extent it can declare itself separate from something else Like everything we do seems to be defined by our limitations. We eat because we lack sufficient nutrition, we socialize when we’re lonely, we entertain ourselves when we’re bored, we even develop a life purpose because we perceive some problem in the world. If there were no problems, we lacked nothing, and had no limitations, then what would we be and what would we do? I guess in some sense things are defined against their opposites. You could even say paradoxically that things are what they are not
  12. I came across the term pataphysics in relation to the surrealist art movement of the 1920s and 30s. It was basically described as being as far removed from metaphysics as metaphysics is removed from physics. Most of what I read about it consisted of jokes and trolling, but I’m wondering if it could also have some deeper philosophical and spiritual implications. It got me thinking that traditional science is by definition focused on what’s real, but when you start getting into non-duality/absolute infinity, the distinction between reality and imagination begins to break down. It would therefore make sense to also have a science of the imagination, since, at least from the limited dualistic perspective, it’s a domain orders of magnitude larger than what’s normally thought of as reality. If anyone knows more about this, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on it. I’m also really curious what @Leo Gura would think of it!