TheEnigma

The thing is, I hang around a lot of stage deep greens and mild to deep yellows, and they found that you can be a little too idealistic. They said what you are saying isnt wrong, but it's not very useful. Because there has to be actual effort to stop people like Trump, Musk and actual conscious effort has to be made to reverse damage. "I think that Leo has a very defeatist attitude, pure survival, zero solution. Like I said, I think engagement is far more effective and necessary. When people disengage, evil wins. It's like the myth of neutrality. It's very easy to say you don't want to get involved, or choose to turn a blind eye and just work on your own business to help people. But that's how the bully wins." They saw your articles and said "But it's definitely a good thing that MAGA is finally getting crushed. They aren't gone yet, but they're at least limping at this point."

: No, I don't. But my point wasn't about his actions being loving, or him deserving sympathy. Hitler as a person is gone. What I meant was nothing exists outside of Existence itself — even someone that twisted. Still you are fighting a ghost.

Hitler doesn't exist anymore.

How come true intelligence takes a more open mind? I notice dumb people just think they're smart but can't understand abstract concepts very well. Like Trump, he just isn't bright and seems unable to grapple with different ideas, or just doesn't understand others. But I notice people with higher consciousness tend to be able to appreciate abstract arbitrary thinking more, and it's more likely they can see that many things are made up by humans, yet they also can understand that they stjll have to work with it.

How come also I tend to notice conservatives seem to emphasize more on having kids? Where as Liberals tend to value more the personal choice of having kids or not, and just has lower birth rates? Why is it not by luck?

Hello Leo and anyone who is reading this. How come I noticed this pattern in North America at least. Right wing conservatives tend to be more pessimistic (the elites are pedophiles!!) So they are more likely to say Canada or America is doomed. Yet Left Wing woke or liberals tend to be more optimistic "I think things will improve! Look our government is already building more housing and transit! Look Carney is so trustworhy he's a banker and not a politican, he is good with numbers he will take care of us" Or i tend to see more conservatives be more likely to say America and Canada are 3rd world countries now. Where as more liberals are likely to still see America as a 1st world country. Why is it not by luck that I observed that more likely conservatives tend to be more negative about the outlook of Canada or USA and I'm more likely to find more liberals with a positive outlook? Also why are conservatives less likely to trust a public government and more wanting private businesses more likely to admire Andrew Tate, Musk etc?

That's true ignorance is bliss!

Sometimes do you ever get exhausted from talking about Truth with others? Because it's become so obvious there's nothing left to say?

Ever find that as you get higher in consciousness, less people can connect or relate with you?

Yes it is guaranteed, for some people it is, for Leonardo Dicaprio it is. Some people they just never have problems finding love. And some people will always struggle no matter what.

I feel taken advantage of, gaslit and scammed by Christianity growing up. How can I make it so that others don't suffer from what I have in the future?

How come whenever I get too philosophical or meta around most Christians it just stirs up so much anger/fear/hatred in them? They either want to correct me, or have to bite their tongue, or they just blow up.

Then is there such a thing as greed? And is it useful to judge people for it?

Hey Leo, what's the difference between a deep green and a mild yellow in spiral dynamics? Aren't they both independent minded thinkers?

I see so many low conscious religious people be able to be at peace. They will say "When I die, I will just be with the lord." So isn't it easier to be happier with low consciousness? They can just deny it and trust their religion, believe they're just moving on to another life and trick their own minds. Yet you said generally higher consciousness is happier. But higher consciousness also means the individual's mind is more complex and they contemplate more concepts.

How come social conditioning is so hard to unlearn? I was raised as a Baptist Christian. But even with a lot of mindfulness and incredible effort it's still so difficult to change my wiring. my friend told me "I know... What happens to us when we are young is just so powerful...!" Even for that friend, they're trying to unlearn all the religious teachings they learned. And now they realized and feel scammed. How come it's so hard to change conditioning learned from a young age?

How come when people come on here and complain about the elites, government and difficult economic times in North America, it disappoints you? I remember seeing a few people starting pages where they were complaining about how expensive things have gotten, and their anger towards government and I remember you went "I'm disappointed to see this behaviour on here."

ChatGPT made it up. And I just researched it. 7. Yellow – Integrative / Systems Focus: Knowledge, functionality, self-actualization. Thinking: Systems thinking, flexible, nonjudgmental, pragmatic. Scale: Global / organizational Real-world presence: Visionary leaders, holistic thinkers, futurists. Rarity: ~5% Why rare: Requires cognitive flexibility and emotional intelligence; most people remain in first-tier thinking. 8. Turquoise – Holistic / Planetary Focus: Unity, global consciousness, holistic life-systems. Thinking: Collective intelligence, long-term planetary perspective. Scale: Global / planetary Real-world presence: Some spiritual/environmental visionaries, certain scientists and philanthropists. Rarity: <1% Why rare: Requires transcending ego and first-tier limitations; few achieve this level. 9. Coral – Evolutionary / Planetary-Integrative Focus: Evolution of life and consciousness; integrates spiritual, scientific, social wisdom. Thinking: Multi-systemic, evolutionary, non-linear, paradox-embracing. Scale: Planetary / evolutionary Real-world presence: Mostly theoretical; some visionaries or “consciousness futurists.” Rarity: Extremely rare; maybe <0.1%. Why rare: Humans haven’t widely evolved beyond Turquoise; few can consistently think on planetary + evolutionary scales. 10. Pearl / Teal – Cosmic / Universal Focus: Universal evolution, cosmic consciousness. Thinking: Integrates multiple realities, sees universal patterns, beyond human-centered ethics. Scale: Cosmic Real-world presence: Theoretical; described in philosophy and speculative futurism. Rarity: Essentially 0% today. 11. Diamond / Crystal – Fully Integrated / Meta-Conscious Focus: Multi-dimensional evolution of consciousness. Thinking: Meta-systemic, transcends human ego, guides evolution of life and consciousness. Scale: Multi-dimensional / universal Real-world presence: Speculative; not observed. Rarity: 0% Why rare: Humanity has not yet reached this stage; possibly a future stage in evolution of consciousness. Step 4: Summary Table of Rarity Stage Ratio Percent Green 1 in 10 10% Yellow 1 in 100 1% Turquoise 1 in 10,000 0.01% Coral 1 in 1,000,000 0.0001% Teal / Pearl 1 in 100,000,000 0.000001% Diamond / Crystal 1 in 10,000,000,000 0.00000001%

So stage turqoise is 1 in 10000 humans. What's the ratio of humsns at stage coral? And then stage teal and finally stage Diamond/Crystal? I am reading coral is 1 in 1 million people then teal is one in 1 in 100 million people. Almosr doesn't exist yet, but is in future consciousness of some humans. And Crystal or diamond is 1 in 10 billion people. No practical real world example yet. Do you agree with these numbers and explanations?

In this entire world, there's apx 8.2 billion people. Of all of them, how many people will be truly in stage green or above, if you can make guess? Because I remember you saying the most liberal parts of the world, even in the most developed countries, only maybe 10 percent or less of the people have truly realized stage green. So adding those and in the entire rest of the world, how many of the entire 8.2 billion people would be in stage green or above?

So how can psychedellics just make you into a being that's the next level of consciousness than a human? Because for a dog to have the consciousness of a healthy adult human, it would take many years to train it, even if it had the potential. So how can a human being just take psychedellics and expect themselves to be the level next of a being just for a few hours? for a dog to become the level of consciosuness of a human, it has to train to read, write, speak, understand logic, math science etc... so I just don't see how taking psychedellics can create such a short cut. Cause if a dog or chimpanzee took psychedellics it still has to learn how to be an adult human and what an adult human does, it will just be given the mind, but an adult human understands things because we also have life experience. A person can't just take psychedellics and expect for themselves to understand what it's like at the next level in just a few hours, because that next level has years of being that self, therefore has the experience that a human can't just understand in hours, similar to how a dog can't just take psychedellics and become like a human, nor understand what we understand. How would you explain this Leo?

I saw the entire 2 part of The DemystifySci Podcast. What stage in spiral dynamics would those two people be?

Is deconstructioning rationality part 3 still coming?

Wouldn't this mean almost everyone in the world is epistemically irresponsible? Still to this day almost no one takes.psychedelics

I saw your entire video. I agree. But in defense of science, I would say it is much easier to deal with specific variables for most people. My brother is in science/comp sci and he doesn't like it when I talk about too many examples at once, he will say "focus on one specific challenge/topic/issue at once. It's just much easier to discuss and improve. If you are talking about different aspects even within one axiom, then it's hard to know anything." How come not taking psychedelics is epistemically irresponsible?