Consept

@LfcCharlie4 @fridjonk Oh my god yeah love island takes over the country every summer and now winter. Ultimate low conscious TV which i find it hard not to watch, actually geordie shore and those types of shows are worse

Again its my opinion that hes not, i could very well be wrong, but also im not sure hes said 'im enlightened' (although you prob wouldnt say that if you were', as far as im aware hes said hes had enlightenment experiences some without but mostly with psyches. He even says in the letter that you cant walk around in a constant state of satori and Ralston says you can and in fact he does. But also there is absolutely nothing wrong with not being enlightened yet, i dont even really like using the word enlightened. Once he does get there he might not even want to teach anymore. Your question only makes sense from the perspective that Leo is fully realised, you may have a confirmation bias around this, once you accept hes not the letter makes complete sense as hes still on a journey and is asking someone who is much further in that journey. If you notice Leo had a lot of ideas about what the end point was, but thats it they are just ideas, Ralston has that direct experience and sits within it so he is able to see what Leo is missing.

@Virtually I'm not saying you specifically are doing that, I think your question is a fair question. It's just I've seen it happen a lot and sometimes I find myself being critical of him as well and I know it's because he puts himself out there but still I think it's unfair considering he's still on the journey. If he was claiming he's without a doubt enlightened and he should be your only source to get you there then criticise away lol

Interesting thread, I think it mirrors some of the criticisms others on the the forum including myself have put to Leo previously. But let me also say its not really fair to pick holes at him as he is also on his journey and I guess by the nature of Leo's work it's very easy to criticise as we consume his content and hear from him a lot. A lot of people put him on a pedestal which then leads to backlash when they finsld he's human too. In regards to the topic the answer in my opinion is that Leo is not yet enlightened, I think he has an exceptional understanding of it as well other topics around it but I don't feel he's able to sit in it just yet. The ease of being is not yet there and I think that is quite noticeable, I also don't think you can get there through logical understanding and I agree with Ralston that drugs aren't a way to do it either. I believe drugs give you a peak at it but its like being shot in the air by a Canon, you're always gonna come back down. The process has to be an emptying rather than a collecting, whether that be experiences or knowledge. Those are my reasons but also you don't come accross many enlightened teachers that have become enlightened through psyches, maybe that will change in the future, but they could also be a distraction from the full realisation or a crutch even. Just my opinions anyway.

I agree there are more green and orange but they're not really aspired to, that's the feeling I get.

Leo's has a massive audience so I think maybe another way to look at it are what values and ideas are regarding as most acceptable on the forum, on that level I would say it's mostly yellow and turquoise with a slice of green

The fact that you can look at yourself like that suggests you are progressing even if it doesn't feel like that sometimes

We don't know but there is something amazing about that girl

I'd say, beliefs on how to achieve enlightenment or even thinking its possible to 'achieve' it

Just curious, why is this the non-degrading way?

Do you think how you interpret content depends on where youre at in the spiral? For example to me this seems a very yellow video as theyve looked at it from a meta point of view and they dont seem to hold much bias, theyre looking at it systematically as far as i can see. Thats not even to say im full yellow but if someone were say green or lower do you think they would interpret it differently, especially if the conclusion contradicted their would view?

Great wisdom, what really hit me is when he says at the beginning, 9 times out of 10 we fear something because we dont understand it

I'm glad but honestly I like it, I just don't think you can use it to work out others, but to observe yourself I think it's excellent

I disagree, i would say SJWs are green but unhealthy version of it. The big difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is that you cant take on others points of view that contradict yours. So SJWs have no understanding or empathy for why a conservative thinks the way they do, they still believe that there is one truth and their opponents are blocking that truth because theyre stupid and dont get it. To communicate this they use red intention, they have no intention of coming to a mutual understanding. However the content of what they believe is green and most likely they even build up communities of people who feel the same way they do and most likely these are lovng communities, but when challanged the loving goes out the window

Thank you bro

I dont think its complicated and like @w4read says its ideal for introspection, im even looking at how i post and referring back to it. I know you changed it but i actually prefer the colour idea. I kinda get where theyre coming from because it means looking at yourself and you may not like where you would be pegged so you argue with the label, but to be honest the slight backlash that youre getting from this would prove your model even more.

I think the issue is that those who would peg themselves at yellow or maybe higher are realising that on your intention model some of their communication is probably lower like orange, so its the cognitive dissonance that they cant accept being at stage orange. But of course youre isolating to just intention of communication which is different to world views and things like that. So as i understand it you can embody green but post something in a way thats orange even if the content itself is green the intention could be orange, for example if youre trying to prove someone wrong about veganism

I agree you should test things out if you feel to and if it works for you great! I still havent started the wim hof thing but i will. @fridjonk Yeah a lot is to be said for the placebo effect, if we should look into anything it should be that. Apparently placebos can be just effective as the real drugs - https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect which is amazing when you think of the potential that we have in our bodies. But then also makes me think can we make ourselves more ill, for example if you really believed in 5g being dangerous would you actually get sick? Think of Chuck from Better Call Saul. A good example of Big Pharma being overly money focused would be them not looking into the placebo effect as much as they could, obviously if people are healing themselves, theres not much money in that

As i understand it what youre saying is, the intention behind why people post a particular post. Is that right?

@The observer true well said, openness is key

@LfcCharlie4 I agree big pharma is a massive money making industry and to be honest a lot of the things the do are shocking. But for one doctor who let's say doesn't like big pharma (if I was a doctor I'd feel like that) and wants to make money this is a good route. With business it's an extremely effective strategy to niche down and find passionate, active consumers that will be die hard for anything you produce. Now if you look at say this doctors strategy it is definitely that, I don't think it's even possible to find more passionate consumers. If you can say what they want to hear and offer an argument against what they hate, they will love you for life. I would intuit that the doctors that do this are very aware that this is the case, they are smart people. As I mentioned with Wakefield he was very aware of the consensus in science and he couldn't even say that vaccines cause autism because he knew all the studies, but getting money from lawyers made him try and force a way to make it look like that. And it worked for him anti vaxxers love him in the states now, despite all the madness that happened before, so in this case it's definitely a business strategy. Regarding Mercola it's not as clear cut as Wakefield, although he has a lot of shady things in the past, but I'm merely speculating that this is a plausible business strategy. It's either any doctor will go against scientific consensus because he's truly found the answer that no one else has or he's found a way to make money from peoples beliefs over facts. I take that government would have an agenda of what they want studies but there are many studies that are looking for issues with vaccines just as there are for 5g. Saying you reject all of them because one guy with a usually shady past says to, strikes me as a confirmation bias situation rather than looking at it scientifically. Having said that there's nothing wrong with questioning things and experimenting yourself. My only point is that people esp those in all media's, have agendas, they're not just there to help you, you'd probably get that at turquoise or maybe yellow but otherwise it's very rare

@The observer I mean it feels like you're putting a lot of pressure on this. I get your point it's not a perfect model but why would it be? What I took from it is let's look at our intentions behind what we post, if you want to put it into sd it will of course be open for interpretation, but a lot of people don't consider why they're are posting and I think this is a why of looking at it that I've not seen discussed before.

Personally I think this is a good idea, not to judge others as people have said but to judge yourself and your intentions behind each post. For example I do post up sometimes because I see something that is really wrong in terms of how they arrived at that, and I feel an urge to correct that or offer a different a perspective. Now part of this is I want to help but there is also a part where I want to be right or at least challanging to their view. I'm not sure where that falls in this model. But anything that builds up awareness to the reasons you do things is a positive I think

How to start an ideological movement 1. Identify a marginilsed group of society or point out how a group is being marginilsed. Group can be any set of people that have at least one commonality 2. Create a story around this group, why they're important, how theyre being shutdown, how they're being unfairly treated, how other groups are being treated better. Can include past history of others being treated how your group is being treated. Look for studies that could back up your story but be sure to exclude those that contradict your message. Stretch truth or create truths that could be difficult to disprove. 3. Create the enemy. Find an opposing group whose beliefs directly contridict yours, point out the most exaggerated section of this group, the ones that look crazy and use them as examples of that group. You may also want to create boogeymen who is the absolute extreme of this group and deomonise them. Make it seem as though everything would be fine if they weren't there. 4. Recruit your group using exaggerated stories about your opposing group but also use the story created in point 2. Explain how you're good people and misunderstood, you only want fairness. Use YouTube and social media to get to your people and blame mainstream for not allowing you to have a voice. 5. Set up marches, protests, anything you can think of to get people energised. Once they are they will start trying to get other people into it and it will catch steam 6. If you really get going you may get supporters with a bit of money, if this happens get them to invest in documentaries that frame your plight and mix truth with opinion. You may also be able to push into politics. Any backlash you get just accuse them of not caring about your issues Once you've completed these steps your group will be ready to take on society ??