soos_mite_ah

The YouTube channel Meet Kevin is a great channel for learning about real estate. While I'm not a huge real estate person, there is a lot you can get from his channel including his over all personality. I would characterize him as a very healthy orange with a some green Here is his channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MeetKevin And here is someone who is describing what he's like behind the scenes: Idk how much of it is true since you can't ever be sure with the internet but if it is all true, this guy is the epitome of healthy orange.

I think this is a good video to watch if you're thinking of what are the positives of the ego. The ego can give a lot of insights of what's bothering you at the moment or red flags you encounter to keep you safe. The ego ultimately came into existence for your survival. Sometimes that is justified to keep you alive but other times it is like an over protective parent that holds you back from experiencing life. Its important to know how to differentiate the two. I'd go as far to say that the ego is a part of the self, mainly a dense protective form of it. Splitting and regecting the ego entirely is regecting that part of you which leads to duality and fragmentation. I think it's important to have a healthh ego and integrate it accordingly by loving it and finding beauty in it.

Yandere: anime trope where a woman is so in love with her love interest to where she is willing to kill him or kill for him so she could have him for herself Hunger games: I'm mainly referring to the games themselves where the kids fight to the death for the entertainment for the wealthy Fire lord ozai from avatar the last airbender: he challenged his son to a duel for being disrespectful after his son spoke out in a military meeting. That ended with him burning half of his sons face and him banishing his son. He also has statues around his kingdom where is depicted as this all powerful strong leader Princess Azula: she was the fire lord's daughter who was very cunning and brutal. The quote that came to mind when I was thinking of her in terms of the spiral is when she says "trust is for fools, fear is the only reliable way." She was raised to be a cold blooded killer by her father. I think her character arc, especially her mental breakdown is a good depiction of how red is created from circumstance rather than inborn psychopathy. State building during the middle ages: basically during the middle ages, there were a bunch of warlords in europe that went around conquering places. It became in peoples best interest to start paying taxes and band together with one warlord so that they can get some type of military protection from other warlords. These turned into kingdoms and its important because the strongest kingdoms eventually evolved into the states that we see as the european countries today

I've been in a particular mood lately Lower self: I'm tired of always having to be the bigger person (mainly with family). I'm only 5' 2" that isn't a realistic expectation lmao. Since I'm already closer to hell, can I just start biting people???? Higher self: If you always find yourself having to be the bigger person, maybe you need to find people who can measure up. It's not you, it's them. But you also have to ask yourself, what's stopping you from finding a new group of people? It's okay to feel weary from dealing with people who drain you, but it's an act of self betrayal to just stay there. Speaking of family, I have been noticing myself fantasizing getting disowned by my family by doing something that they think is unspeakable like marrying someone they don't approve of. I think it's because I don't want to be in a part of this family any more and it's easier for me to play victim and rely on them to disown me than to exit on my own. Because that way, I wouldn't be the bad person. But that's an excuse. Sometimes you need to own up to your truth, even if it makes you undesirable. Sometimes, you have to "be the bad guy." And honestly, in trying to avoid being the bad guy, often times you do something worse. I think it would be worse for me to stick around because firstly, its like this sense of self betrayal because I'm not letting myself be my authentic and joyful self, and second it is bad for them if I stick around and be distant, rude, and emotionally unavailable. One way to look at it is to re-contextualize it in a dating setting (because I take a much more no bs approach to guys than any other relationships in my life). Which option would be better: A) A guy who isn't really feeling it but tells you "hey this isn't working, im going to go on my own way don't take it personally" B) A guy who isn't really feeling it and doesn't communicate with you and instead is passive aggressive, leads you on, and emotionally unavailable The first option would probably sting for a minute but the second one will lead to long term damage on both ends by wasting everyone's time. It's best to walk in the light of the truth and keep everyone on the same page than to risk people getting hurt with a bunch of unspoken expectations. I need to go my own way. I'm simply not happy here. That evaluation isn't coming from pain. I have worked through much of these issues growing up and through therapy. I want to be surrounded by people who are more uplifting and who support my growth. I can stay in this situation and be fine but just because I can take it doesn't mean that I have to. There is something better out there and I want to reach towards it instead of constantly looking back at the past. I'm probably going to refrain from having these tough conversations until after this pandemic is over since it is probably not the best idea to bring something like this up while I'm stuck in the house 24/7 with my family. On top of that, I'm probably going to bring this up when I'm finally financially independent and out of college so that I'm not going to be in hot water in terms of keeping myself alive and well.

@lmfao I think its good to also bring up temperament and personal inclinations to this. I guess I did lean more towards green and away from orange from a very young age. Growing up i wasn't really materialistic. I wasn't the type to want the newest xyz for Christmas, birthdays etc. There was a point where I would look down on people who were overly indulgent when it came to luxury but now I would say that i'm pretty much at peace with it and hell I can let loose and enjoy myself too. I also like how you brought up possible negative past experiences with a stage. I instantly thought of how my mom tried to make me really competitive in school with my friends when that didn't come naturally and my instinct was to be friends and work together with my supposed competition. She tried to push this "every man for themselves and no one will like you if you're not number one" narrative on me and that seemed toxic even when I was really little like say 8 or 9. Now that I'm older, I can differentiate between healthy and unhealthy forms of competition, but I wouldn't be surprised if that experience still effects me since I was exposed to an unhealthy form of competition first. It's still my automatic instinct to shy away from competition and try to build relationships even now.

I'm trying to integrate stage orange in a healthy way and I do see many of the positives associated with the stage. However, I have a huge hang up when it comes to accepting capitalism and neoliberalism (I'm mostly fine with most all other aspects of orange except these two things). I don't catch myself being judgmental towards stage red, blue, green, or yellow but I do catch myself getting triggered over orange for this reason. I can't help but feel that much of the reason why many people are stuck at stage red and blue is because of a lack of proper resources due to poor distribution systemically and therefore they use harsh means to meet their survival needs. A lot of green's excesses is due to the backlash and anger from poor distribution. I can empathize with red, blue, and green, with minimal judgement (I have a couple hang ups here and there, I'm not perfect) but it all seems like to comes back to capitalism being problematic. I would go as far to say that a lot of my empathy for the other stages is rooted in my disdain for the limits of capitalism. I can see why capitalism is a thing from studying history and I do see it as another stage of development, one step above feudalism which I would characterize as a stage blue economic system. I try to have this view while still being able to discern the problems with capitalism however i do find myself sometimes crossing the line from discernment to judgement. I'm currently studying business, specifically finance, in college rn and I would say that has definitely helped me integrate more orange, however, it doesn't feel like enough and I still feel like I'm missing something.

@JosephKnecht I think it would be a good idea for people to have more of a say iin regards to where their tax dollars go. I think I remember reading somewhere of an idea where there is a portion of your taxes and you get to chose which department it goes to. And i mean, some governments, like the U.S. (I know I keep bringing them up, I live there and I have more context to speak on it) do have money to spend, they just put a large chunk of it towards things like the military. It is definitely necessary for security concerns don't get me wrong but budgeting and priorities should be looked at in a more critical lens. But that's a whole separate topic. Also, I like the idea of imagining different scenarios. I think on top of that it's good to recognize their interests as well. I know that has definitely helped me not demonize orange as much as I did in the past. After I started taking classes for my business degrees, a lot of things started to make more sense and didn't seem as malicious. It wasn't good or bad, it just was and in a way that helped me see how the concept/ theory in question would be applicable in which contexts.

@JosephKnecht I think it would be a good idea for people to have more of a say iin regards to where their tax dollars go. I think I remember reading somewhere of an idea where there is a portion of your taxes and you get to chose which department it goes to. And i mean, some governments, like the U.S. (I know I keep bringing them up, I live there and I have more context to speak on it) do have money to spend, they just put a large chunk of it towards things like the military. It is definitely necessary for security concerns don't get me wrong but budgeting and priorities should be looked at in a more critical lens. But that's a whole separate topic. Also, I really like the idea of imagining different scenarios. I think on top of that it's good to recognize their interests as well or by directly getting involved in these types of positions (I believe someone on this thread mentioned starting a business). I know that has definitely helped me not demonize orange as much as I did in the past. After I started taking classes for my business degrees, a lot of things started to make more sense and didn't seem as malicious. It wasn't good or bad, it just was and in a way that helped me see how the concept/ theory in question would be applicable in which contexts.

@Forestluv Like any other stage there is both positives and negatives. I know I have some hang ups but I'm trying my best to be more open towards aspects of stage orange I find myself more reluctant towards. I hope that I am working towards a more balanced worldview and I will say everyone's input in this thread is helping immensely. In regards to competition, I am open to it and I think it can be very good for the overall economy so that companies don't stagnate and settle. I guess my main thing is that unbridled capitalism reduces competition and starts moving towards monopolies and oligopolies. There are laws such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which does regulate enterprises but i think there needs to be an extension to the conversation since a lot has changed since 1890. But a lot like that era in American history, there was also a lot of issues in regards to wealth inequality at the time as well. I don't know whether this would fall under discernment or judgement but that's like the main thing that comes to mind. But then again, maybe orange needs to exhaust itself to the point where they see they are going against their own values. In oranges case, maybe its for them to see that some of their ideas are counter productive and impedes on their wealth, prosperity, and competition. It's just a thought.

Also my other thing is neoliberalism in other countries and how it deals with foreign affairs. Like there are so many violent conflicts that start just for the accumulation of more and more resources. The way cheap labor is used abroad is messed up because it commodifies people into disposable machines instead of seeing them as human beings. And finally, many diseases that are present in developing nations like HIV/AIDs have treatment but people aren't willing to help them because it's "too expensive" and "not on the budget" when its actually totally doable. The thing that bothers me the most is how profits get prioritized over peoples general well being and human rights. I know that's not everywhere in all cases but it is a large consequence

@Raphael I mean yeah that kind of work ethic especially towards a higher purpose is incredibly admirable. There are a lot of practical concerns as well in regards to sustaining yourself especially when working towards enlightenment. I definitely want to work towards similar goals as well in regards to financial stability and giving back by creating projects that better humanity. Accumulating for the sake of accumulating seems like a waste of time and energy, and unfortunately, a lot of people try to get rich for similar reasons, not to better humanity. I have nothing against millionaires, its when you're at or near a billion that bothers me because there is no way you can be spending that much money for yourself.

100% agree. Greed is there no matter what and capitalism is simply the present day tool of it all. It was definitely there before capitalism and manifested previously through stage red pursuits of conquering land for resources etc. I guess seeing capitalism as a tool that people use, like how religion is a tool, is a better way of looking at it rather than demonizing it. Like a knife. You can cut vegetables with it and make a nice meal or you could stab someone. Either way, its just another tool, what matters is how its used. With religion for example, there are plenty of people who use the tool in a healthy way so that they can have a sense of peace and guidance but there are plenty of people who uses religion as a tool to politically rally people and divide groups. Capitalism as a tool needs to be regulated so that people don't go over board, just how countries separate church and state for instance. Again, I agree. But the above countries also have a lot of structures that limit capitalism so that it is there, but in a healthier way. It goes back to regulating capitalism rather than demonizing i suppose.

I try to see the limits of each stages but I'm not going to deny that some of my negative perceptions are projections. I'm just trying to see how I can incorporate those missing aspects As far as demonizing Bezos, I fell into that trap because of how little he pays his workers to where many of them don't make a living wage. And it's not like he's not capable either. He is literally sitting on his billions like "I don't know what to do with all this money..." Also he became a figure head of people getting extremely wealthy while not considering their own employees. I wouldn't say that i demonize Bezos for being Bezos. Amazon is brilliant and I can admire the amount of hard work that it takes to create a company like that. I would say i fell into the trap of demonizing what Bezos symbolizes rather than who he is as a person. Also, in regards to symbolism it's also irritating that he doesn't have to pay in taxes but I mean that's more of a government policy thing rather than a him thing. On average, because of the tendency to hoard wealth, I believe that the government is better at spending the money because they actually put it to use. However, government spending is a whole thing on its own especially in regards to how much of the U.S. budget is spent on the military vs everything else. Because of that, I can see the temptation to want to personally choose how to spend my money so that i can donate more towards things like healthcare and education. Then again, everyone sees themselves as the good guy and as someone who is un-corruptible. However, even if I have a shit ton of money to do that, there needs to be some type of systemic backing for it so funding it isn't reliant on a couple of individuals. One person choosing how to spend that amount of money can get really corrupt (for instance, Mike Bloomberg, who didn't attend a single democratic debate and just spent $500 million on ads and then managed to literally buy electoral votes) and because of that I believe that redistribution is a better, more sustainable path. I can also see how psychologically high taxes and that amount of wealth can impact someone. I touched on it with the notion of being immune to corruption but I can also see aversion in regards to having that much money be taken from you. People are more likely to focus on how much they lose than how much they have left, and you're more likely to view wealth in comparative terms and a large part of that is a survival mechanism. So if you have $500 billion dollars but are taxed $499 billion while being left with $1 billion, you're more likely to relatively look at the $499 than the $1 billion you have left. Even if you have that much left, it is tiny compared to the $499 that you just lost. But then again, i think it's important to be conscious of your position, your ego, and how that money is being used. I get that not everyone can do that, but i still think it is necessary.

@hyruga No one said that Bill Gates himself is only orange. We're just talking about his billionaire status and how his innovations were possible because of capitalism. The main reason he can donate more than the average joe is because he has more than the average joe

I would argue that a lot of jobs that don't make a lot of money such as teachers and nurses who are responsible for educating the youth and maintaining the well being of the population are more valuable than say a star athlete who plays football just for entertainment. If teachers and nurses quit tomorrow, the world would be in absolute chaos while if all star athletes quit, sure it would be sad and some people would take it hard but the world isn't going to explode. However, I will say I can see that there is more scarcity in regards to being a star athlete than to being a teacher and there is a demand for star athletes since society values entertainment greatly. I guess what society deems valuable also has to do with the developmental stage of that society. It's the whole argument in regards to why diamonds are more expensive than water even though water is a need. Because of supply and demand along with the law of diminishing marginal utility, intrinsic value becomes secondary to the subjective value we assign them That said, society would greatly benefit if we valued education and healthcare more and therefore invested in our teachers and nurses. That would greatly increase productivity and the skills people can acquire which in turn would help the economy greatly. Which is one of the reasons why i guess i go back to my more green argument of investing in social infrastructure more and therefore start looping back to critiquing capitalism.

Definately guilty of demonizing Jeff Bezos. However, seeing it as a zero sum game is not entirely accurate . You can make money without exploiting people, but from what I get is that it's difficult to do so. Even if you're not the big CEO that is exploiting workers, simply buying something off of Amazon is voting with your dollar, and therefore in support of it. I feel that the whole "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is partially true because we are all interconnected but there is a lack of agency when it comes to what other choices you have, which is largely a systemic problem. Yeah I agree that capitalism gave way to a lot of societal and technological advancement. I would say that is one of my favorite parts of orange. With the "only" donating 500 million dollars, I don't think its a bad thing as an individual deed, but systemically, it would be more efficient to tax billionaires a hefty amount so we don't have to rely on their philanthropy to get money for different sectors of public well being. Like, good for Bill Gates for having a moral compass to help the poor but this is the exception to the way billionaires spend their money, not the norm. A lot of the wealth is hoarded I'm just articulating my thought process so that yall have more to go off on in regards to where my hand ups are.

@Artsu Yes if you want to characterize much of the U.S. as orange . And i go to a pretty orange college as well. where that stage is glorified by much of the student body.

Love this. This topic so important to be aware of and this is a good video that sums everything up.

Being the One Who Gives More I think it's easier to fall into the pattern of giving too much when you have a lot to give. Sometimes your 10% is greater than another person's 90% and instead of expecting them to do more when they are not capable, you need to acknowledge your own worth and find someone on your level.

@Zak I think it's good to not be unnecessarily charitable especially when it comes to advice. I used to often fall into the trap of being the "therapist friend." While it was all fun and insightful in the beginning, it started taking a toll on me because of how one sided it was. Giving advice when not called for can sometimes come across as preachy which is not always conducive to creating a bond. Telling people what to do is not the same as empathizing with them. Also a big part of it not being one sided has to do with how receptive the person is, whether that be where they are in their journey or if they asked in the first place. I try to refrain from giving advice in my regular day to day life offline because I saw that it wasn't working for me. But on the other hand, I find it much easier to express myself in certain places like this forum where people are more receptive to some of my ideas and therefore there is more of a back and forth conversation regarding what i have to say. Because of that, i think it's reasonable to refrain, but i would also encourage taking a case by case approach with each person you encounter and the circumstances/setting you're in. If you want to have a bond or conversation, you can't be the only one who is open and receptive. That isn't the healthiest position imo. The receptivity needs to be from their end too in order for the dynamic to be balanced.

@Zak I have encountered a similar problem to where I was like *hey i'm not getting anything in return, why should I give advice. They aren't listening or taking anything in anyway* For me, it was coming from a place of a lack of reciprocity where I wasn't getting my needs met. Reciprocity and creating balanced relationships are important and it's important to integrate that by giving oneself some boundaries. But I think that this integration in this case can also be taken to it's pinnacle to where one can start seeing excesses, particularly when there is a hoarding of information as many people in this thread have pointed out. It's also important to acknowledge where someone is at in their journey and whether or not they developmentally in the position for your advice. In some cases they are and sharing can help yall both create a closer bond and grow. In other cases, they aren't there yet and sharing can feel like the advice is falling on deaf ears and you get nothing from that interaction, leaving you feeling regretful and unfulfilled. Whether you share your insights or withhold them from people is on you and where you are in your journey.

@Eren EeagerReligious scripture can contradict itself because there were numerous writers and numerous figures/ translations throughout history to justify the power dynamics at the time. For example, when it comes to translations, there is one quote in the bible that is commonly cited to justify homophobia that says something along the lines of "God says men shall not lie with other men." However, some people argue that this was a mistranslation and that the original said "God says that men shall not lie with other boys." That would change the passage from condemning homosexuality to condemning pedophilia. Christianity says that you should "love thy neighbor as yourself" but there are also sections that justify slavery which isn't exactly loving everyone equally. Because of these contradictions, a lot of religion is cherry picked. The way religion is practiced in expressed in one area can differ greatly from one area to the next. Religion in a stage blue environment could be used as a tool to further justify existing hierarchies for the lord while religion in stage green can be used to justify fighting those same hierarchies in the name of lord to spread love to multiple groups of people. Even though religion is seen as a stage blue phenomenon because that is were religion is taken to it's pinnacle to where you see all of its excesses and limitations, you can see Christianity in other stages including stage orange too, especially with the televangelist, Joel Olsteen types who preach that success is your god given right from his multi-million dollar mansion. In other words, religion provides the cherries but the cherries you pick are reliant on your particular level of development given your sociopolitical surrounding and the interests of those in power.

Yes I have taken a couple of sociology classes. The classes I have taken does take an approach that analyzes numerous systems and how they all interact with one another. I have also recognized the holistic nature of it as well. However, because sociology focuses a lot on the workings of the collective, I can see how it can also have a lot of green leanings to it (not so much turquoise since it doesn't go into mystical experiences). I think to take a more yellow approach to sociology is also studying a bit of psychology since that has more of an individualistic twist to it. Both subjects have a lot of parallels and it's interesting to see how patterns in a collective also reflect back to patterns in individual minds and how those minds work. I'd put sociology at green/ yellow because it depends how you apply what you learned, the specific subjects that you are delving into etc.

I don't know how to fully go into non-egoic consciousness but I think a lot of it possible though a lot of meditation, self help work, and shadow integration. One thing I will say that feeling like an idiot is a part of the ego because the ego likes to feel smart (its a shadow), but the self, the self is everything therefore it is an idiot and is also smart. It's okay, I've had a similar experience of felt like an idiot because I just accepted the assumptions around me. The best way to integrate feeling like an idiot, is to recognize it without judgement. It seems difficult, but what helps me is to say that it's okay to feel like an idiot, it happens and its natural given the quality of consciousness we are surrounded by. I'm using this as an example because incorporating self love does help in expanding the self while minimizing the ego. In addition to meditation, I would probably add self inquiry and more research into subjects like nonduality and non egoic consciousness. I know you said instead of thinking or studying it but I think that is important because the more background knowledge you know, the more you plant seeds mentally . Therefore if you have an experience or an observation in your everyday life or in meditation, it will register as nonduality and non egoic consciousness and you will be more aware of it because that is what you had your eye out for. Always be looking for connections in the real world on how nonduality plays out. Basically ,the law of attraction is at play here. I don't think you're doing anything wrong if meditation mainly just brings you calmness. That's perfectly fine, you probably need more things to supplement it. I can't say I have all of the answers, but that's at least what I did because I personally don't feel comfortable with psychedelics or a magic pill so that's what I'm trying to stick to. I'm not entirely sure if this helps but I thought I'd put my view out there.

I also found this great video on non-attachment that really resonated with me. To add onto this video, I believe that non-attachment is the opposite of not caring. By caring deeply and being present in the moment, once the moment passes, you won't feel upset. It will be easy to let go because you derived as much joy, or any other emotional experience or validation from that event in the moment. In those cases that event has done its part and you can move on. When it comes to joyous things we missed, it is often because we didn't cherish it enough in the moment. When it comes to painful moments, its often because we have yet to heal fully and derive lessons from that moment. We only feel attached when we feel that there is something left not experienced.