bmcnicho

Wearing makeup (other than for costume or artistic purposes) is a form of manipulation. On a subconscious level, they're lying about their level of youth and fertility. This isn't only to attract men, but perhaps more importantly to intimidate other women. (Women who say they wear it for themselves are being self deceptive.) I'm not blaming women, as our culture strongly supports this, and cosmetic and beauty companies exploit this to make massive profits. Also, women who are highly attractive are more likely to be stuck up and lack consciousness, as receiving large amounts of positive attention can easily inflate someone's ego. Your resentment could be a sign that you should look for higher consciousness romantic partners. Resentment is a natural emotion, but it can become toxic. Understanding why people act the way they do along with doing consciousness work will generally reduce this. If you experience insecurity, then I'm sure there other posts discussing that, but the main thing to realize is that these women are not actually high value in a dating sense. Our culture is very shallow and materialistic, so it pedestalizes them, but look at your own values in a romantic partner, and you'll realize that they're quite lacking in higher consciousness virtues.

Well for me having repeated experiences of the lack of consciousness of girls my age has gradually made me jaded about relationships. I wouldn't say that I've completely transcended the desire for one, but I've mostly lost interest at this point. I see two possible paths for myself, either I will find a well functioning relationship with a relatively conscious person fairly soon, or I'll naturally transcend those desires within the next few years. Getting your heart brutally broken is a good way to detach yourself, although it's definitely not a pleasant solution, and it'll be a huge distraction for awhile. Modern culture will tell you that you should continue seeking out new relationships regardless of how badly past ones have failed - otherwise known as Einstein's definition of insanity. But hopefully you've evolved beyond such mass cultural delusions. As far as sex is concerned, I find that masturbating in moderation takes care of that fairly well. I view it as akin to eating junk food: not an ideal habit, but esentially harmless if not done too often. Ultimately it comes down to your core values. If you focus intently on solo personal development work, then you should naturally transcend conflicting desires over time. However, if you're able to find a high consciousness woman to start a relationship with, then it could potentially boost rather than hinder your growth.

Enlightenment certainly seems complex with Leo shooting hours and hours of metaphysical videos, and the multitude of different techniques, and the dozens of books on the booklist, and the endless forum discussions... Yet fundamentally it's one of the simplest things there is: just surender everything and become One with Truth. Maybe all the abstractions and complications are necessary in order to trick the ego into letting go - the thing it would otherwise least want to do Imteresting paradox I noticed

@Leo Gura Yes very true! Thanks for the wise advice, I think that something like that is my true calling! Your latest episode on survival was fantastic by the way! It helped me realize how much of an identity I had formed around getting a PhD back when I was stuck at stage orange

Issac Newton was a very different man than how mainstream culture portrays him. Most people know him as a mathematician and physicist, but the truth is he actually spent over 90% of his time on alchemy and hermeticism. While these practices seem primative by today's standards, they were the precursor to modern science. More significantly though, the real value of hermetic practices was psychological rather than physical. Aspects of Christian mysticism were also involved. In fact, mathematics to Newton was more of a means to the end of knowing the nature of God. So despite basically being the father of modern science, Newton was no mere rationalist. He had a genuine desire for a more holistic truth. This contrasts starkly with modern science, which has largely abandoned truth and become simply a means to produce technology. It clings to its rationalist, materialist, reductionistic paradigm, and can't even consider knowledge that lies outside of that. It brings me no joy to say this, as it was my dream to become a scientist since I was a kid, but I must now abandon that dream in order to seek truth in another way. Maybe someday science can return to its origins and become a more holistic natural philosophy, because sadly I don't think Newton would approve of his legacy.

I think the key is that Self-Actualization is about inner growth, wheras Life Purpose is an outward attempt to improve the external world. (I'm using inner and outer in the everyday sense, even though metaphysically there's no distinction) The other issue is that Self-Actualization is a very broad domain, including any theories and practices that could improve yourself or your life in any one of a countless number of facets. Try to narrow it down to what specifically draws you to self-actualize at your deepest, viseral level. (For myself, I've narrowed it down to the pursuit of truth, but even that is way too broad) Then try to apply that idea to an aspect of the world that could be improved. In a sense that is just Self-Actualization because you are identical to the entire world, but in another sense Life Purpose is a separate endeavor.

Thanks for the encouragement everyone! I guess what I meant was I think I need to abandon science in the institutional sense, i.e. getting a PhD and doing large scale orthodox research. I've been considering learning a trade while I continue to develop myself, and then doing independent work on the side that's scientific in the more holistic sense But I'm debating this from a strategic perspective. It can be very difficult to change systems from within due to strong collective ego and paradigm lock. So that's why I think it would be better for me to remain independent. Although I could be wrong, and be throwing away an opportunity to make a big impact. I also have to consider the bias of my personal ego resisting complying with large institutions.

Maybe find a way to become a Stage Turquoise musician. I really have no idea what that would look like, but in theory it's certainly possible. Or if you have another idea for a life purpose, then you can always continue music on the side, or better yet find a way to integrate it with something seemingly unrelated! Limiting beliefs are a huge trap here, because ultimately it all comes down to creativity. Who knows what possibilities there could be! One of my father's friends is a musician. He's a native Hawaiian and adapts traditional Hawaiian stories into Western style music. He tours all over the US and is able to impact lots of people because he performs from a very authentic place. Not only is he technically talented, but he's able to convey emotions that make the stories come alive for people who wouldn't otherwise get to experience that culture! So music can certainly be high consciousness if done in the right way, but by all means explore other possibilities as well!

Well in one sense the present is all there is and the past is just in the imagination, but in another sense the boundaries between past, present, and future are the greater illusion. Your past is implicitly expressed in what you currently are, and, since being is in a way identical to becoming, so is your future. The traps of dwelling on the past have been expressed above, but I wouldn't say it's inherently unspiritual to do so. Personal evolution is a natural instinct, just as cosmic evolution is a property of the universe as a whole. Modern industrial society wants people to behave in mechanical, unchanging ways for decades and to strive to climb up constructed corporate ladders. This is an unnatural state for man. So I wouldn't sabotage the progress you've already made, but keep finding ways to become better and better versions of yourself. Ultimately that's what we're all doing here.

So I've tried a few different jobs and a couple of college majors, and I'm having trouble deciding what to do next. Every time I try something I end up quitting within 6 months. I was more idealistic when I was younger and thus more motivated, but after the past few years I'm just feeling really jaded with college and career stuff. I don't think it's depression, because I'm still really passionate about reading books, contemplation, spending time in nature, practicing music, etc. I'm still very new to spiritual work, so I don't think it could dark night of the soul or anything like that. (My sympathies to anyone going through that by the way, I've heard that it can be brutal.) I am autistic, so that could have something to do with it. I'm very resistant to conforming to any kind of institution or structure because of that. I mainly just feel out of place in the world, and don't feel like it's worth the effort to try anything else. I have completed Leo's life purpose course. Probably the best insight from that was nailing down truth as my higher consciousness virtue, not exactly sure how to go about pursuing truth though. Leo did say that it can be difficult to get results from the course if you haven't had much life experience. I'm only 22 now, so maybe I just need to experience more things in order to figure stuff out.

Thanks for the advise everyone! I guess I've just got to be patient and gain some more life experience @Leo Gura The life purpose course is very well made! I plan to redo it in a year or two and hopefully I can get some great results!

That’s really interesting! I once had a dream where at the end there was an image with no one seeing it. It was super weird!

I’m considering checking one out and was wondering if anyone’s had experience with this. Unitarian Universalism doesn’t have any official dogmas, but is open to wisdom from all spiritual and philosophical traditions. I thought it might be a good way to learn more about spirituality and have a sense of community for self-actualizing. However, it was originally a Christian church, so I’m wondering if it’ll have some of the same traps of traditional religion. If anyone has experience with this, do you think it’s something worth looking into?

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.

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.

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.

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!!! ?

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.

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?

@Nahm Yeah basically, like someone who hasn’t even started their hero’s journey talking about how great the holy grial is

@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

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

@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

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

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!