Consept

So imagine this guy at a trump rally who was attacked legally had a gun and shot a couple people because he was attacked, would that be justified?

I think anyone would feel threatened if some 17 year old came into their area from some other state and started walking around with a rifle, i can get defending your own property but this is such a stretch. It wouldnt make too much difference i think the idea of vigilantism is just going to cause more problems than it solves any way. But in this case its illegal for him to be carrying the gun in the first place so yeah it does make a difference that hes 17. The other point is that obviously this has escalated the tension that was already there so i dont see how this can be condoned, if someone was walking around your area with a gun youd feel very threatened. Regardless whatever people decide here the courts will ultimately decide his fate and in a way i feel empathy for him because he'll probably get quite a sever sentence and its specifically to do with people like Trumps rhetoric and the ongoing sentiment thats been going round, he has been radicalised and the this is the result of that

Imagine this was the other way round and a black 17 year old shot a couple people at trump rally, would anyone be justifying that? This is actually bordering on insanity now

So just as a matter of logic you think it's acceptable or even lawful to have an armed untrained 17 year old policing the streets?

End of the day this kid should not have been there and especially should not have had a gun, as I understand it you're not allowed to have a gun if you're 17 in the states. Yeah you could argue that people shouldn't have chased him but it can't be a normality that unqualified 17 year olds are policing the streets, specifically because it will probably end in situations like this, the police are having a hard enough time doing it

Yeah turquoise will be a stretch for most so maybe leave that out for now, but if your professors are at least green i think they should be able to get their head around it. Im really interested to see (or hear about) the reaction

Do it bro!

Just had more of a think about this, most people think they are at the pinnacle of human evolution so much so that they may not even take into account that they way the think could be outdated in 50 years say. So if you present them with a model that puts them lets say at blue or orange they would most likely wont take you seriously because youre pegging them way down the spiral, its like if someone came on this forum and said yellow or turquoise thinking is actually low consciousness, the real high consciousness is blue conservative, none of us would take them seriously, i think that the equivalent to how they might see it. You would really have to be somewhat detached from your beliefs and mindset to be able to see the limitations of it and because being detached is more of a tier 2 perspective i dont think many tier 1s would grasp it. It would essentially be dismissing everything their identity is built on. Also if you are trying to tell people about it most likely youll be yellow or maybe green, so its like youre saying im superior and im gonna tell you how inferior you are. At yellow level theres not this issue because you look up to those above you, you want to learn from turquoise and higher level yellows, you also take value from lower levels, this is not the case for tier 1, each stage rejects every other stage. The only one where they start learning from higher levels is green

There is no enlightenment in the same way there is no salvation for religious people, in the same way that there is no happiness from material things or relationships. There is only what is and acceptance of that

Would you say exposure to it can help you up the spiral?

Interesting observation, i think people, on here especially, will never really take to idolisation of public figures, even gurus or people at higher levels shouldnt really be idolised. So yes maybe if they/we sense that it could raise a red flag. Having said that, in this thread no one has really been that negative toward Kiyosaki, even there is decent evidence to make the argument hes a fraud, everyones said hes a good orange teacher they just dont agree hes on a yellow level. Also keep in mind you can be like 60% orange, 20% green and 20% yellow, im not saying he is exactly that but its likely that he has some percentage of yellow but anchored in orange. This isnt a negative opinion its just an opinion and the fact that its echoed here i would say its likely, you either resonate with people or you dont, i dont think you can argue someone into it, even if i didnt like someone i would still be capable of saying they were high level, for example i dont listen to Byron Katie but i know shes very high on spiral dynamics. If you feel hes high level then thats your opinion but i would watch your attachment to people

He has some good nuggets ill give you that, but i think the test is really if people resonate with him on a higher level, which i dont think has been the case from our small sample here. I think hes a decent orange teacher but surely if you want higher level teaching hes not the first youd go to.

Do you work for him or something?

Yeah ive told quite a few people expecting their mind to blow up with the realisation that the way everyone thinks can be modelled but the response i get is usually, 'hmm, ok'. Could be that its difficult to get across SD in a short conversation, you probably need at least a few hours to grasp it, but it is weird to me peoples interest is not even tickled a little bit

I agree hes a nutjob but do you think he's legitimately stage green? Seems like strange behavior to be a stage green, if he genuinely believes it then maybe but if hes doing it for the views youd have to say theres a lot of orange there

you can talk about them as in the pyschology of them or effect, as is the case with op, but we're not gonna have discussions about whether theyre true or not. Its not complicated. Im not telling you what to do im just saying have a bit of respect for the op and dont derail the thread

Whatever you say man, anyway look stop hijacking this thread to post conspiracies, we all get it youre enlightened and that has led to you finding the truth about covid, depopulation and whatever else, one day maybe all of us and Leo will evolve to your higher consciousness and post memes on the internet and try and awaken the other sheep. OP had real questions and observations that he wanted to discuss, your point is conspiracies are real, we understand your point of view, no one agrees but either way its not on topic

@r0ckyreed Youre right the government can and probably is full of a lot of people who are corrupt or are just in it for power and money. But i would say this almost a natural thing that would happen given the stage of our development as a human race, until we get to higher levels of green and then yellow, we will as a collective be quite self-serving and corruptible. What should give you some solace is that we have progressed immensely over the last few 100 years, imagine how corrupt things were 50 years ago or 100 or 500 years ago when humans were in deep purple and red, so things have and will continue to improve, you could even feel empathy for those that are stuck in lower stages. In terms of knowing who to trust and believe i would just say dont follow anyone blindly, the reason why most get into cult like situations with people like Ralph Smart is because he said some stuff you liked and that helped you and now he can do no wrong, hes become a false idol. Go by the content of what people say, if it doesnt make sense to you research it and find out why theyre saying it. I guarantee you most of Smarts followers are not even thinking about questioning what he says, that becomes cult behavior when if you question the leader youre thrown out of the group, its a known tactic. Try and look at things objectively without saying things like the government is all bad or is all good, what ive learnt is every situation is very complexed and is never binary, its important to learn the nuances of situations and how they fit into systems. But youre doing the right thing questioning things

That might be the best thing to do

Well two questions, do you think that you can be 100% certain about covid being fake? and do you think that money is not a factor at all? Bonus question, what do you think of the DMs Ralph left for that girl? Also just to say im very comfortable being uncertain about things, i always find it suspicious when someone is 100% certain about something that has not been proved and also when they are not even well versed in the subject area, those that are well versed in the area wouldnt even say theyre 100% certain but somehow this person whos watched a few youtube vids is, serious red flags.

Putting aside whether the conspiracy theories are true or not, there are a lot of people who have profited from talking about conspiracies over this covid period, specifically people like - Dr Buttar, Brian Rose(London Real), Teal Swann, Ralph Smart, Aaron Doughty. Now the question would be do they genuinely believe the conspiracies or do they not but know they will get a lot of views if they pretend they do? Who knows, but they must be aware of the uptick in views for this content, (you can check social blade, Buttar only had a few thousand subs now has nearly 500k), and they also must be aware that conspiracies are not 100% true, i dont think most are true at all but no one can say that theyre 100% sure theyre true as there just isnt the evidence for it. So keeping those 2 facts in mind there must be some awareness that they at least could be wrong and if they are wrong the damage caused could be serious even if its just creating stress for people who have now become convinced covid is fake from watching these videos. Also note that all these people have highly monetised themselves, Ralph Smart for example charges £350 an hour for skype coaching on top of an extensive merch catalogue and other money making outlets. I think it would be naive to think that money isnt a big factor in this. What ive noticed about youtubers in general, is that they jump on popular waves, whether they care about the subject or not. A recent example is the wave of 'apology' videos from youtubers where they apologise for some past bad behavior. Its not a stretch to think that these spiritual youtubers would do similar, at least with normal youtubers theyre quite honest and direct in saying that they want to make money. Personally I'm quite disappointed in Smart as although i never really resonated with him i felt he was a positive person and was probably helping others, but after seeing whats happened over the last few months im not sure thats the case, really i hope people move on to real spiritual teachers, i think guys like smart are no better than the prosperity preachers that ask for money from their congregation so they can buy planes and whatever else. I think for everyone on this forum working on their bullshit meter is very important, a good start is if a 'guru' is asking for crazy money be aware that might be their main focus. I came accross this expose vid about Ralph Smart, if you look at the messages he leaves youd have to say its very strange -

Im not really arguing for predestiny im just saying it would be hard to pin down how free will could actually work. If you didnt choose to be born and the circumstances of where you were born etc then every following choice has its root in those seemingly uncontrollable circumstances. Also you didnt choose your genetics, so you may have a genetic disposition to be athletic and like sports for example, you then make a career out of playing sports but the only reason you did that is you were genetically coded to enjoy those activities, so was that your free will to choose sports? I think what i would ask anyone who makes an argument for free will is, can you give me an example of a choice that can be made that is completely independent of any influence? and, bonus question, do you choose your thoughts, if you do where did the thought to choose a specific thought come from? (if you dont choose your thoughts how can there be free will?) This could be the case, who knows i havent had direct experience of it either, maybe no one will until we die. But even if it is the case, if you cant remember that youre God then whoever you think you are (ego, conscious mind) specifically doesnt have free will as only God would have free will. If you surrender to something higher then again the little you specifically doesnt have free will, potentially the higher you does.

What i think about in regards to free will is what does a choice completely of free will even look like? Lets say you want lunch and your choices are a sandwich or a salad, what determines you choosing one or the other would be lots of different things, like if you had either before and preferred one over the other, did you get some information recently that told you a salad is a healthier option? Does a sandwich remind you of something? There are so many factors that the choice could never be completely independent and therefore free of influence. You could say if you make a random choice that could be freewill but it wouldnt be as it would be random. if we take it further, any decision you make in your life is proceeded by the fact that you were born, as far as we know, without you choosing to be and without you choosing what circumstances or what type of personality, brain chemistry, upbringing, parents, etc. All these things have immeasurable influence on what your choices in life would be, so if your choice making function was developed without your input how could any choice you make be independent and of your own free will. If there was complete free will, why would anyone make bad choices? Why would anyone be poor or homeless or unhappy? Potentially you could make better choices if you are more conscious, but again its dependent on the information you have. For example i could read a book that teaches me how to eat healthy, if i follow that book ill change what i eat but im only changing what i eat because ive followed that book, so its not an independent choice, ive been influenced, it may not even be the best advice. So for me i dont see how there could be free will unless it can be proved and defined properly, what a choice that is completely independent and comes about through free will even looks like

Free will kind of falls apart when you consider that you had no choice or free will in being born, in what circumstances and with what brain type or personality. Let's say you were born into really bad circumstances, abuse etc which led you to become a criminal, where would the free will be in that? You may say, but you can build up awareness and get out of that criminal mindset, but if you're not aware in the first place how could you choose to suddenly be aware? Something may happen to make you aware but that again wouldn't be free will. If the root of every action you make didn't involve free will how can any proceeding action be because of free will?

I found this study very interesting and relevant to this topic