Parththakkar12

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAnyEQRMQchk9y5tlhU0msA This guy has very good dating advice. Very healthy Stage Green dating advice for men. If not for this channel, I would've never grown past Stage Orange in dating/relationships. One of the big features of the awakening from Stage Orange to Stage Green is the awareness of norms and stereotypes and generalizations. You partake in those before Stage Green but you only become aware of them at Stage Green. He's doing a pretty good and important job educating people about norms and stereotypes. In-depth, high-quality analysis.

@twoosees Thanks. Admin/moderators, please, do the honors. Or not. I don't know the rules.

It doesn't even have to be a really tangible or committed role. It could be something as simple as 'I'm stuck here, can you manage the logistics of this situation for me please?'

You may be laughing about this, as if to 'insult back' or something, but the reality is that this is a very functional and sound dating-strategy! This is what a guy would actually want from a woman, quite frankly. For her to see him as competent and involve him in her endeavors. I daresay this is what most guys actually want. The same would go for a competent woman. The whole problem with the patriarchy is that women who have real competence haven't been valued by the system, unfairly so. This can be fixed by giving them a role in which they are actually valued!

I would want a competent woman if I have a role for her in my endeavors. The money itself would not particularly attract me. If I were to create a replacement for the patriarchy, a system that replaces the patriarchy, this would be it. A system in which I take on the responsibility of providing but I involve her in my endeavors, so I value her competence and she's also playing an active role in creating the money, so she isn't completely dependent on me (which is the objection feminists have to the patriarchy).

@machinegun This is a high-school thing. People mature more as they grow older, this is a temporary thing. At least, people act more mature. At least, in person (the internet is a bit of a shitshow but you get the point).

You dig deep into your subconscious mind to find out why you want a relationship. You find your deal-breakers with women (or men). You use that to create your sample-space. You look out into the world and see the reality of women (or men). You use this reality of women (or men) in the real world to make your expectations from them more and more realistic and you resolve conflicts between your expectations from women (or men) and the reality of them. This can be used to hone your desire more and more and to make it more and more tangible and concrete, based on your knowledge about the possibilities in the real world. You create imagined scenarios in your head with, say, the celebrity you're the most attracted to. You're like 'Say I were dating Megan Fox (or Brad Pitt). Would it work or not? What would be the reasons it would/wouldn't work?' That'll give you insight into potential strategies and plans for making a relationship work that are practical and realistic for yourself to implement. (If you believe that said celebrity who you're attracted to is 'out of your league' or something, you have self-worth issues to work through.) This will also make you more and more cheat-proof/loyal/trustworthy in relationship, because you will start to be more rational and logical with who you choose to sleep with. You aren't getting too excited because they're hot, you're making conscious decisions based on whether a relationship with them would work or not. This will also save you a lot of time in that you won't waste time with the wrong people. You use this to create a dating-strategy that's realistic, tangible and concrete. You will be a lot more rational and logical with who you date, how you date and in your assessments in whether it'll actually work or not. Most people go based on vague feelings and strong attraction. Attraction or 'your feelings' don't mean shit when it comes to compatibility! You have to be very rational, logical, pragmatic with evaluating compatibility first. If you invest your feelings too quickly or you get attached too quickly, that's something you're going to have to work through. Will save you a lot of unnecessary heartbreak and misery down the road. Check for attachment-style compatibilities, love-language compatibilities. This is very important for the relationship to work long-term. If you have bad childhood conditioning and attachment-relationship traumas, you would do very well to work on that first. You don't have to do this alone, you can do it with a partner, in fact, some people will be more than willing to be involved with you in this. However, be the most pragmatic when it comes to working through it. Don't use being alone or being in relationship as a coping-mechanism for your traumas. No matter what other people say, no matter what your partner says/wants. This is a must for the relationship to work long-term and be very mindful of this. Find your core emotional needs in relationship. That's where your deal-breakers will come from and that'll make your dating process more pragmatic and efficient. (I keep bringing up the notion of a 'pragmatic and efficient dating-process' because that is the solution to incompatibility in relationship! That literally is how to create a compatible relationship.) Create attachment-relationships that are compatible relative to emotional needs. For example, if a woman has a need to be provided for and a man has a need to provide for a woman in order to feel strong and masculine in the relationship, that's a needs-compatibility. If a man wants to be with a sexy-looking woman because he likes sleeping with a sexy-looking woman and if a sexy-looking woman needs validation and sexual empowerment in relationship, that's a needs-compatibility. Check for sexual compatibility. I don't fully know how to do this yet, but the above pointers could give you a clue. For example, sexual fetishes have a lot to do with unmet emotional needs. If you have an emotionally compatible relationship, you could create a sexually compatible relationship and you could engage in your fetishes in a very emotionally safe manner! I only know that this is a serious, realistic possibility and that people do this, I haven't fully figured out the nuances of this yet. Maybe you could get some insights from those who know and understand tantric sex on this one. HTH!

The only constant is change. To want to 'preserve something' is more egotistical than to want change and expansion! This is why conservatism, as an attitude, is fundamentally less conscious than progressivism. This doesn't mean that it isn't important or needed, in fact. You absolutely can. It's not at all out of the question. There can definitely be a more conscious version of conservatism at Stage Yellow. In fact, it is pretty important that you are able to be a conscious conservative in order to truly create systems for the world that are healthy and sustainable. Healthy conservatism is all about sustainability, creating long-term sustainable systems. Systems that are strong, resilient but also flexible. Stage Yellow will be flexible. They won't have the problem of rigidity, which Stage Blue hierarchies have. Because they will be more flexible, they will be more resilient overall. The definition of resiliency, if you look it up, will contain strength+flexibility. We have the aspect of strength down but we lack flexibility right now in our systems. Stage Yellow conservatism takes this into account, which is why it can make for much more resilient systems that will hold up against all forms of adversity. Those systems won't be like sand-castles that get washed away by one wave of water, they'll be like a ship with adjustable sails. The adjustable sails represent the flexibility that a system has to change course in the face of adversity or 'strong winds'. That's true conservatism! That's the true potential of conservatism at Stage Yellow. The current form of conservatism is dogmatic, closed-minded and rigid. This toxifies it. What you need is a healthier form of conservatism that's more flexible to replace this current situation with conservatives.

@Opo You can change a Blue person's mind only if they want to change it. If they don't want to change their mind, it's never going to happen. This is true for anyone, really, but especially Stage Blue people. Let them take responsibility for changing their mind. Absolutism is a huge thing for Stage Blue people. They haven't realized yet that their conditioning is their conditioning, it's not the absolute truth. They haven't seen that 'I'm conditioned with this morality, that other person is conditioned with that morality. I believe this because I'm conditioned with it, not because it's true! Why can't I successfully debate with and proselytize my morality to the other person if I really do have the absolute truth? Why do debates not work?' They haven't realized that debates don't work, which is why they will proselytize their worldview to others, as if it is the absolute truth. That is a sign of closed-mindedness. Not only do they think that their worldview is absolutely true and not only do they not see the limits of their worldview/conditioning, they think that other people should believe what they believe, they can change other people's minds and that they have the right to proselytize their worldview to others! A lot of Stage Blue people are just too far gone. Let me remind you though that if you try to change their mind, you would be falling into the very same trap that they're falling into! Proselytization. That is, if you're dealing with a closed-minded person who doesn't want to change their mind and who spends their time proselytizing to others. If you are dealing with an open-minded person who wants to grow though, you could answer their specific questions. Maybe about God, maybe about morality, maybe you could show them the limits of being stuck in their narrow morality and that a world exists outside of it. Maybe about materialism, you could change their mind about materialism if they have an anti-materialistic attitude they were indoctrinated with. Maybe about science, atheism, rationalism, how they're different from religion. Depends on their question though!

Yes! That's exactly how it would work. The difference though is that if everyone's honest about what they actually want, not everyone wants 50 big houses, so there wouldn't be a need for competition. It would be easy co-operation.

Find the right meetups. They tend to be about vulnerability and sharing. Go to those and tell people how you feel! They tend to act like a lovely safe-space for everyone involved. It's appropriate in those situations. If you don't really want to open up or if you don't have feelings and emotions to share, don't bother. Don't fake it! It can be seriously hurtful and disrespectful if you fake it.

Yes, you can. It's not government-mandated, at least. Yes, there are some old-school landlords who only give their place for rent to couples or families, not to single people (because they are morally threatened by the whole notion of hook-ups and dating), it's harder for single women than single men because patriarchy, it's harder for divorcees (especially divorced women) because divorce has been a bit of a taboo until very recently, but rental companies won't get in your way.

@machinegun Congrats on being able to see through the cultural bullshit. What it actually means to be a nice person is to see people for who they are, to integrate who the other person truly is and what the truth about them is in a situation, to have respect for that truth and act accordingly. That's what it actually means to be a 'nice person' or a 'decent person'. That's what it actually means to 'treat others with respect'. Stage Blue people will have these puritanical rules of 'Don't swear' and 'Do charity' and stuff like that to be a 'nice person' or a 'respectful person'. This is not accurate at all. It's not about what you say or do, it's about your level of consciousness. If you're a selfish person right now, that's fine! It takes a lot of work and effort to work up to 'niceness' or 'decency' the way I've defined it. Very few people actually do meet this definition, as a matter of fact. This is not a moral standard, you're not going to go to hell if you don't meet this standard.

I can't tell you what to do, I can tell you what I'm doing. I think that a good idea relative to dating when you're self-actualizing is to find a partner to self-actualize with. Have a relationship in which you are self-actualizing together. The way you go about doing that is to : First stay single for a sizeable amount of time, a few years and work on yourself, grow yourself, prepare yourself to have a relationship. Then, you date and you get done with the dating-process as quickly as possible. Design the most pragmatic and efficient dating-process to test for whether the given woman will be a compatible match to you or not when it comes to self-actualization. Waste no time with the wrong people! Be open to relationships that don't feel that great on the surface, like the girl you're seeing isn't the hottest ever, but your relationship is strong and you get along well. Growth doesn't always feel good but if you're able to grow together, that's what you want to go for. Prioritize self-actualization over any relationship. Use relationships as a tool to self-actualize as opposed to using the self-actualization process to line you up with 'The One'. You can use the self-actualization process to get laid more though and to better your game with women.

If your society is trade-based, money is the best possible method of trading. Works far better than barter. So, if you're wanting to evolve past money, you are looking to evolve past trade. The only way to do that is a gift-economy.

Say what you want about the New-Age, it does have a way of uniting people and bringing them together to form a common vision for what they want the planet to look like. This is something amazing and special about the New-Age believers that you don't quite see elsewhere. Most of them want World Peace, most of them want to live a more natural and healthy lifestyle. Stage Green ftw on this one!

My bad. I get what you're saying. It doesn't have to be agenda-driven from their side or in this case, your side.

Then what is 'the objective truth'? I've seen this countless times where you say something about relationships, people ask you 'who hurt you', they tell you to 'integrate your shadows'. It's almost as if they're wanting you to reach a conclusion they want you to reach but they aren't directly telling it to you, rather they're trying to control your mind and your growth-process and saying that 'If you arrive at my conclusion, you're doing it right, if not, you're doing it wrong'. This applies especially to therapists.

Are you implying a lack of objectivity? Are you implying that 'the other person's judgement is clouded because of their hurt'? Cuz that is a personal attack. Are you implying that what they're saying is false? Is it true or false? What is it?

Is it false? Is that what the 'who hurt you' question means? I've heard the question 'who hurt you' before and it never made sense to me, like what does my hurt have to do with this conversation? Why is this going personal?!

In my knowledge, Teal Swan is the only person, female or otherwise, who is an amazing role-model in terms of relationships. She is also a teacher of relationships but even in terms of role-modelling, she is amazing. She has a really amazing intentional community and it's very functional on a high level on all fronts.

Out of curiosity, what does your reply have to do with what @Mesopotamian said? Why are we turning this personal? Why aren't you arguing with the content of what they said as opposed to making assumptions about the person? What does their personal hurt have to do with what they said? What do you mean with the question 'who hurt you'?

What Leo teaches is more logically accurate or conceptually sound. He's coming at non-duality from a philosophical perspective and he's wanting to be philosophically accurate with it and he focuses on the strange-loop aspects a lot. He pre-empts questions and objections and works on making his points conceptually sound and his stances philosophically sound. The New-Age is more about energy, perceiving energy through felt-perception and visual. It's more intuitive and less logical. Not irrational, a-rational. It's not very philosophically rigorous, they don't focus on that too much, on the logical rigor aspect but it's more about community, veganism, connecting with nature, guided meditations, psychics and healers, crystals, One-Love visualizations for the world, etc.

You're right. Although I meant poison that's well-known as poison and that's branded as poison!

Only the brand. The brand is literally immortal until they do something drastic like poison their food or something.