Consept

Mooji is great, i think one of the most direct teachers around in that if you follow some of his steps he can actually lead you into nothingness

Who said that? The only difference really is that yellow is not 'tied' to particular perspective therefore it can see the pros and cons in every or at least most perspectives. Think about it, if youre tied to lets say Islam as your perspective, you believe that islam provides you with an objective morality, therefore you cant see the nuance on other perspectives if by the Qurans standards they are immoral, you would label them as such. This goes for any ideology, Republican, Democrat, Christian, vegan, all of these offer an objective morality, the implication being that if you follow them dutifully and defend them you are a moral person, if you go against their tenants you are not a moral person (leading to culture wars). The difference with yellow is they are independent of an ideology and recognise that all of them hold a partial truth but it would be impossible for one to be completely right, logically these are narratives created by humans that are usually in service of the individuals following them. Spot on

Would be great but problem is someone will say they're yellow and that trump is yellow in the same breath

Yeah ive thought about this a lot as well, and to @Loving Radiance point it can be frustrating and i do also feel that urge to enlighten them and expand their view, i think ultimately it comes from a somewhat loving place in the sense that it looks like theyve missed something that you can see, im sure there is some kind of ego need to be right in there as well lol. But in terms of how to expose people to truths, we have to appreciate that people are entrenched in their beliefs and a lot of their identity is built up around them, we also have to appreciate that others with opposing beliefs have also probably challenged them in the past in which case theyve worked out defensive tactics to defend this belief, a lot of the time using cognitive bias' and logical fallacies, but either it allows them to hold onto beliefs. So i think one way is to just counter intuitively not talk about it, if theyre a friend maybe understand where they and only really address whatever truth it is, if it comes up in conversation or if they specifically ask your opinion. In this way a seed will be planted even if theyre not aware of it and then you become a part of their journey rather than trying to completely change the course of it. If youre into producing content, i have done in the past, then its an easy way to put information out there and contribute to the resources available. Like the saying says, when the student is ready the teacher will appear. But pushing them toward is just something that doesnt work, there has to be at least a bit of willingness on their part, and from a non-dual perspective its like we are trying to enforce our will on converting people and it just doesnt flow. If you can convert them just like that chances are their mind is not ready and its unlikely they would want the 'truth' when there are so many more exciting narratives out there

Exactly, that is the distinction 'my truth' vs 'truth' (at least relative truth) When i believed narratives in the past i would feel very threatened if an opposing view came up that actually made sense on some level. If it just a stupid argument thats just opposing for the sake of it you feel a sense of glee, because youre like, 'im gonna get em'. Now i like intelligent debates because it actually refines my view and if i am right look at why i'm right and if i am wrong i can adapt the original view in light of the new evidence or perspective, so its a win-win. But this is only possible if i dont have a 'my truth' to start with

Interesting question though is, if lets say your blue or even orange, Actualized.org seems to be the antithesis of your identity, what do you think attracts people to this site? Of course im not saying they shouldnt be here but for example i would be a bit confused by this site if i was still at solid orange

'Discuss for truth' as you put it, is fundamentally a tier 2 value. Below that its really of case of 'this is my point of view, its right and im going to convince you of that', so every discussion within that tier will either be an argument or an agreement, with numerous people it will lead to siding with or that person. Because of being tied to a perspective, when presented with evidence this tier will look for ways to keep their narrative, which is why it sometimes even goes into conspiracies (qanon for example). A personal example is that during this BLM situation, ive been quite critical of the protests here in the UK, not really because of looting, its not much of an issue here anyway (im black btw), but mainly because i dont believe they know what theyre are protesting for, there are many issues to protest about but in my opinion police violence is a thing but its not the cause of black peoples issues in the UK currently, there are far more significant issues that if addressed could make real change but im not sure if people know about these or if they do, how to solve them, either way theyre not being discussed. So if i was to say this point of view to my brother who is quite green on this issue at least and who protested, he might think im against the movement or i dont understand it. Similarly, if i say to people who disagree and that are blue or orange, that black people even have issues in the UK i might be told, 'thats just a narrative' and 'stop being a victim'. So for both sides their world view and identity is more important than the truth or any attempt to get to a nuanced truth. Another issue is that people are used to sensationalising and exaggerating the opposition to their view, in which case you get a kind of race to the bottom, and live in this kind of made up world that fits around these world views. Because yellow doesnt really have a fixed point world view they can be very flexible but this can be seen as uncertainty or even a traitor if they change their mind, in the eyes of tier 1. Its a complexed issue in terms of communication Just to add this as an example, id say a yellow level thinker debating a tier 1 combination -

Apologies bro, misunderstanding

@supremeyingyang Yes I think that has a lot to do with it. At lower stages they tend to have already made up their mind and have a certain ideology that maybe makes up a part of their identity, this comes to the surface when anything that disagrees with their point of view. Almost as if you dispute their point it's like you're saying the sky is red. Higher stages or either happy to talk to others who either come up to their level or are generally at the same level or are happy to learn. If they're not happy to learn and are unknowingly blocked in a lower stage they can regress the conversation significantly as they know only enough to hold onto their beliefs and they see all other information as a threat to that belief and therefore go into attack mode. So you're right if it is lower stage dominant it would be impossible to make that shift into higher stage conversation. Without being insulting, in the same way it would be difficult to convince a 4 year old that santa isn't real

I know what you're talking about and I guess I maybe am one of the ones you're talking about. I take your criticism as I definitely got distracted by the discussions. I will say I was very careful not to directly insult the user, I'm pretty sure if you go through the posts it would be hard to pick out a direct insult. Having said that my personal work would be on letting something like this go when it is clear the person has no intentions of a fruitful discussion, I found it frustrating that someone could be so, as I perceive wrong, not necessarily in terms of the content but in terms of ignoring counter evidence and how they came to their conclusions. I appreciate that it could come off intellectually superior, a better response would most likely have been to just leave him to it, because in reality he was never going to change his mind or concede a point, he wanted to get his rhetoric out and maybe find those that agree. From my perspective if I engage it looks like I'm trying to be superior because I'm consistently showing him where he's wrong and he's consistently dismissing and claiming I'm attacking him. In reality I never felt hate or anger towards him, maybe frustration on occasion. I agree with @DivineSoda the discourse needs to be upped in the sub otherwise I would suggest it should be removed. If someone at red, blue or orange posts here it really stands out, not saying they shouldn't post but I think whatever stage you're at you have to be willing to learn and change opinions in the light of new evidence, if that's the case discussions can flow pretty easily. Anyway love to all you guys

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people" A lot of people do it and I can be seen as a way to bond with people. What's interesting as well is seeing what subjects people get really excited about, for some if you mention a celebrity or someone in their social circle they get energy and start talking enthusiastically. Also be aware of what excites you conversation

It is quite sad, I wonder as to the reason that happened

Id consider saying 'im just saying hi to a minority' trolling

imagine someone else said it, what do you think of the actual content?

lol good luck bro, not sure what youre gonna get from trolling, but you wont get much from me

What did you want, outrage, anger, whats your favourite?

Saying hi to a minority yeah? What kind of reaction you looking for?

What you on about?

"Forgive them for they know not what they do" "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" Just follow those two and we're golden

I'm all for reform but this is a real knee jerk reaction

Yeah of course, a balance between socialism and capitalism is needed. Im pretty sure most governmental ideas could work if the level of consciousness is high enough. For example if capitalism was truly fair, maybe that could involve not being able to leave everything to your kids so that they dont get a crazy head start, or all education being the same high standard. The problem with capitalism is that a lot of those at the top of the tree are there because of history, what the parents and grand parents did has led to their head start. Conversely if your family wasnt so successful you are then way behind through no fault of your own, in which case you have to hope youre gifted in some way to succeed. As consciousness rises amongst everyone i think things will naturally shift to a fairer society, humans like to be competitive and thats important but we also like it to be a fair game and i think thats what democratic socialism is intending to fix, whether it works or not is another thing. From a libertarian, capitalist point of view, its not in their best interests to make the game fairer, which is why theyre fighting for the status quo. You can see some of the tactics in this thread ie making it seem its solely the minorities fault, othering them, promoting their own culture at others expense. These are all tactics and mind games really, to keep minorities where they are, another way they do this could be the welfare system that gives just enough to survive but not enough to thrive, and makes them dependent on the system and therefore continuing the status quo. I mean its so much effort to keep this going in why not just give in lol. But obviously comes down to fear that they will lose everything and that they wont have the same status in society. I will say we seem to have come further in terms of a fair society than most other large scale civilisations in history, which we are even aware of how unfair it is. These battles are really the last efforts of a dying system and we're getting to a stage where if you dont evolve you will get left behind

Well i mean its not really insane or radical, its been the definition for years, its one of the main tenants of white supremacy. It may seem insane to you if thats what you truly believe and you dont want it to be called white supremacy. Its kinda weird you can be so proud of white nationalist and white supremacy rhetoric but at the same time not want to be called one. Most people who do follow that rhetoric dont mind being called a white supremacist, maybe its just a language thing. Heres the definition from dictionary.com - the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society. Would say youve said quite a few things along those lines - I mean thats pretty squarely in the white supremacist definition, sorry to break it to you bro. As a test why dont you visit a white supremacist rhetoric page post some of your beliefs about immigrants and see if they agree with you, if they do then that would be pretty conclusive, then at least you dont have to pretend youre a yellow thinking systems thinker anymore, could be quite liberating

Its no hate from my part im just pointing out something. If you say and believe that white culture is superior to other cultures that means you have a white supremacist belief. You might not like that definition and notice i havent actually labelled you as one, but that is literally the definition. In this post youre essentially doubling down and justifying your position, youre even saying theyre the best because they got rid of slavery first, which is quite funny. So it seems like you like saying things that are white supremacist rhetoric but you dont like the label and thats fair enough, out of respect i havent called you it, but when you post on social media, here and other forums that you mentioned you will definitely get labelled a white supremacist by people. Its like a duck quacking and then saying 'no im not a duck its all brainwashing'. If you go to right wing and white nationalist forums they will agree with you completely. To @Serotoninluvs point most countries try to instil this exceptionalism idea, Americans do the pledge of allegiance and are really brainwashed to think USA is the best, i think out of the western world they are at the pinnacle of exceptionalism but most countries do it to a certain extent, so its understandable you feel as you do, so i empathise with you. Theres a lot of stuff i like about the UK, where im from but there are also many complex issues, this is the same everywhere

If youre fed up then why not fight to close the gap in all the sectors whites are benefiting unfairly such as education, then we can start to forget about racial issues or even race as a whole. As long as its unfair people will complain, i dont know how you can get around that, why should American white kids get 23 billion more for the education than black kids just because of how the system is set up?

My beliefs are irrelevant, your issue is more with the dictionary, factually youve said things that would be classed as white supremacy. - "Different forms of white supremacism put forth different conceptions of who is considered white, and different groups of white supremacists identify various racial and cultural groups as their primary enemy.[3] "youve consistently mentioned Moroccans and Erdogon as your enemy even when no one has asked "In academic usage, particularly in usage which draws on critical race theory or intersectionality, the term "white supremacy" can also refer to a political or socioeconomic system, in which white people enjoy a structural advantage (privilege) over other ethnic groups, on both a collective and individual level." Sorry bro the dictionary and Wikipedia is what it is. What would you say you are a white nationalist? Do you support the Dutch Peoples Union?