BlueOak

Back on topic: Doctors without borders is a useful charity. https://msf.org.uk/ Better than the politically charged Amnesty International for example. Tackling these issues: Making people more conscious of the opposing position and meeting a closer parity. Listening to it brings you closer to a mutual synchronization of both. This means that you can work together rather than kill each other. Finding platforms that put both together equally is essential for removing echo chambers. To raise their consciousness to the point that when they shoot someone, they are shooting themselves. Slowly working on reducing zero-sum games from the global collective would go a long way, and continuing to work on getting us off fossil fuels entirely. I had a couple more but I am tired and my mind has blanked :), working on any of these in any capacity. Obviously climate change is linked to the zero sum game, and the authoritarian swing universally has not helped at all to reduce border conflicts, the opposite its made people much more rigid and demanding about their borders. But people need to experience this for longer to accept it, which is linked to immigration, racism, climate change migration, maintenance of corporate billionaires, etc.

Why does it matter where the guns come from if people are still going to shoot them? (Other than to put power in someone else's hands on global security or territorial ambition/sovereignty.) It would be no better if I flipped this and said, that state-owned Russian companies manufacture lots of weapons and ship them around the globe, and those companies are either not talked about or state-owned. They'd still be the second biggest arms manufacturers on the planet. To me this is on the level of. Drugs are bad, let's target the dealers. It's one level above the symptom in the supply chain, but it's still not the cause or the main reason it's being supplied. It's supplied and allowed because countries play zero-sum games, and some of those people in positions of wealth take a tidy profit off death. In the drug analogy. Without as many dealers, people are still going to get drugs, and the people are still going to be shipping them in on mass, but we've taken out mid-level dealers and upped the price for a collective behavior that still exists, and a need that will still be met. Now what. Plus those dealers that still exist will have even more influence over the market and all its related effects.

What are some successes you've had getting a good night's sleep with a noisy flatmate? Any suggestions are welcome, if you've a particular product that's worked for you that would be appreciated.

Thank you all. I've done some of these, spoken to them, molded my own sleeping patterns slightly, and bought foam earplugs. I've also got some of these: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CHHS8TCQ Which I have to say blocks out most noise, if it gets noisier you turn up the volume, and it can link via Bluetooth to your phone. Some of the noise-canceling stuff I like here too, and I am buying tapestries to put around the walls. Thanks all. I am fatigued and really felt it today at work but trying to adapt. Both houses I frequent (one for my business and one for sleep) and store stuff are currently in chaos of different sorts. It might be me telling myself to stop being cheap and rent a place I can do both in. Also interested in this: Might give it a shot.

As an example if you have a choice between working 60 hours, or missing a big job but seeing your family, both of them bring a certain level of contrast and a potential mood swing, Missing the job might cost you a great client to a competitor, and missing the family you might miss a heartfelt moment and hurt someone's feeling. That mood swing would be a perfectly natural part of life.

Success is your ability to integrate contrast, pain, and discomfort. It will bring you plenty of bad moods. It is also about choosing to become that which you are in resistance, to or choosing to become something else. There is no exact choice and no correct mood in regard to personal development.

@Keryo Koffa Warrior gods and mythical heroes. Ares, Achilles, Hercules. The worship and idealization of forms of conflict or the warriors that fight it.

Again it's not so much a difference but a refinement. The differences get more subtle. A very yellow mind can be more rigid in its reasoning, not all the way orange but it's still there. Turquoise would still contain yellow's balance of logic but inevitably balance emotion and social collaboration more closely with it. I am often Yellowish so this is a partially yellow view trying to reach inward a bit more. Stage yellow doesn't require a direct collective concurrence or collaboration, it is much more individual in nature. While it draws on everything available to it, including every relevant expert or experience, it can be made and focused solely on your own conclusion. Stage turquoise's main difference for me is it requires working with other's directly, if I could put it down in a nutshell. What I am observing in this conversation is us (when I say you I also mean me) attempting to cross from yellow to turquoise with an understanding of it, by reflecting off each other, and I use opportunities to also contribute to the collective discourse when I can. Guided by emotion and logic equally and best done in the presence of others. This is not a perfect definition or summary, but finding the collaboration easier and more free-flowing is a good sign when I am in that space. Then this is where the flaw in the thread lays. People trying to categorize something that evolves from or is already present in the other. It's indicative from what I've seen. I know when I am at my most systemic reasoning, that frame of mind necessitates a certain colder logical approach. When I am in more harmony with the group I am with, emotions come into focus more, and that alters the experience I am having.

Touch contact is good and eye contact is a clear sign, but a hug can just be friendly. I need to see her to be sure. Is she blushing, touching her hair, playing with her earrings, turning her body towards you in a group, focusing on you above all others in the group, smiling all the time etc.? Don't go the friend route, it's never a Disney movie outcome. If you are okay taking a shot with a woman who has a boyfriend, hang out, keep it casual, and see if she reciprocates. You allow space for it to happen for a short time, then if it continues and builds up ask her casually if there is something there, but don't be a friendzoned guy who is buying her everything or chasing for weeks. Friends rarely ever become lovers. But people sleep with people in relationships all the time (especially this generation), just be ready for the fallout if that's what you are doing.

Let's see if I can respond in a different way. I can answer in a logical, rational way that draws on everything I personally can surmise or calculate would be effective. This would be yellow in nature. I can answer in a way that draws on everyone's contribution to the thread, and then encourage them to adapt or further what I've said to create your answer. This would be turquoise. The way you are phrasing the question is yellow in nature. I am trying to answer in a turquoise way. Incompatibilities are less frequent the further you go along the spiral dynamics model, because all stages are accepted and brought into balance. There would only be subtle incompatibilities, but I wouldn't even call them that—just differences that might cause mild friction between the approaches—a bit like we are having here. The friction or incompatibilities often drive the development of someone's consciousness or mind. You would like a list format. That's clear, easy to model, comprehensive, and direct. That's distinctly yellow. What you are asking for is in itself taking you out of a turquoise frame of mind. You would like an argument as to why incompatibilities exist when the very purpose is to do the opposite, I would have to argue against the model itself to complete that request. (Which I can do to play devil's advocate but the answer would negate itself). The very premise of the thread is yellow in nature. The problem I perceive with it and within myself is how to effectively engage a collective answer within an individual reply.

Different patterns and behaviors inside an individual and/or community or peer-group relate to different stages. While it's true that you can pull a stage out of another, like opening a box, we use the model to highlight certain characteristics that are the main focus of that stage. We can point to a man or woman and say most of what I see is this in your behaviors, but it isn't their totality or potential. As @Buck Edwards said all potential is already present in a baby, because we are infinity. Picture light splitting through a lens to give you many colors and vision. That is how we see earth. This is the same with potential through the collective or individual.

Sure. Yellow requires your rationalization to be satisfied by clear definition for an individual framing. Turquoise requires the attention of the community reading the thread and a mutual effort. We are using gibberish (less structured, more theoretical) concepts because: 1, It's less defined 2, It's less understood. 3, Its naturally more fluid when defined because it's a collective approach. I still contend that each stage is inside the other because each stage evolved out of the other. So incompatibilities don't have to exist, the opposite would likely be easier to list.

Emotions and Logic are two necessary parts of human existence to balance in harmony. Don't reject your'self'. (Or any reflections for that matter). Seek out an infinite love experience, set the intent and see the other side of the coin is my advice. To do that you practice gratitude, joy and love toward all things for an extended period of time, till your reality reflects it and you have a moment where you become it entirely.

Possibly the second theater of WW3. The third being Taiwan. Every war gives other countries more political capital and the expectation to do their own. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The only thing that changes is the method and the people. Hard push authoritarian right. Appeasement of dictators. Slow response of liberal democracies to combat authoritarian influence within their own borders. Hatred of immigrants. Recissions as global order destabilizes. Fascism is on the rise. War Breeds War. Not too late to turn it around, we'll see.

Now the opposite polarity. I appreciate Poland's readiness to defend against instability, warring dictators, and generally be the security europe needs. Something I wish Germany, France, and the UK, etc could do more of, though to be fair, the UK has done 'some' work in that area.

The right will just keep tightening the screws on the symptoms while doing nothing to address the causes. Always the same. It grabs headlines I suppose and will put fear into people trying to cross. This scenario is a typical overreach for headlines from authoritarian personalities who require the image to stay in power. Shooting people has no more or less effect than imprisonment, deportation, or sending them away. It's not as if we will run out of migrants any time soon. It will dissuade people from approaching the fence directly and make them more desperate. Hunger, war, climate change, disease, safety, poverty, corruption/crime, drought, flooding etc will still cause migration. It will increase the chance of a violent encounter(s), perhaps a border skirmish, and a general cooling of relations with neighboring countries (but we have that anyway).

Also the AI doesn't have ego getting in the way of being a purer representation of the infinite love of the universe (you in a verse)

Everyone is you. All the reflections, are directly you. An AI can indirectly prepare you to integrate with these pieces, and they with you, but you'll never have a normalized understanding of what you'll be interacting with day to day. If you focus too much on how it differs, it'll be of less and less use in these areas. Question: Why are you defending anything so much? What inside you feels the need? Question: What makes you believe a universal truth exists on most (or even many) things. Question: Why is detail or interconnectedness 'higher' than a dog barking at a threat? Question: Why do you need to answer all questions? (Sorry playing with the ego a bit here to help.) Flaws are flaws because you've decided they are. They are inherently nothing but a reflection, and they'll bother you less when they bother you less. I do agree the AI is great at certain things. And we need each other to make a collective reality in harmony. (Correcting flaws as you put it, spotting those might be the very reason you are part of the community)

An example: Treating this entire conversation as the reply you make, not a singular reply you focus on. That would be looking at the collective response and trying to contribute to it. I know all parts make the collective, just like all stages are inside each other, and all people too, but if we are looking at a collective inside an individual, that's a direct example. I agree, all stages make the next, as with all individuals and their collective pieces make the community. I was in the process of experimenting with wording as a byproduct. If we always look at our'self' and how it fits into the community. That is always individual first, community second on that filter. If we look at the community first and how we can fit the community into our'self' isn't that a more direct way? I know community = self and any distinction is an illusion, but language can be useful to reinforce ideas and concepts into the collective.

Lack of understanding of who/what you are. Fight - Flight - Freeze States or Triggers. Trapped traumas and Anxiety. Lack of willingness to endure pain/contrast between the change you want and where you are. Lack of willingness to go through the trials needed to remake you into that person. Emotional States. Focus. Your current patterns, including behavior and the above two. Peer-Group. Environment. Social Norms. Culture. Media reinforcement over your reflected local community. Relative prices and expenses. Ideology and Idealising. Overdone Sentimentality. Narcissism. Lack of structure. Eating and sleeping habits, general health etc.

That would be a requirement of the stage correct? The integration of your self-concept with the whole in the harmony of all the stages before it? *edit (You see how this is still framed as an individual let me flip it) The integration of the community with the self. That's better.

@Lila9 Its fun to know that science was once one of the mystery schools opening that one up led to a lot of development, it would be interesting to have more of them taught generally, which is what is in part being argued (against and for) here I feel underneath it all. That argument is as old as time and probably older. To embody turquoise more fully, I would need to follow the communal nature of this conversation. 1) An overbalance of faith and mysticism is suggested in a definition of turquoise. 2) A rebuttal of that, and speaking to look outward more to individuals already there for communal grounding. (A necessity of the stage) 3) A look at morality and development (of what I'll refer to as communal ethics) and a reminder that stages can embody elements of the other (touching coral there) 4) Implication that any present definition of Coral as an illusion (all reality is so that tracks). 5) Similar suggestions made about turquoise, and a rebuttal to not conflate the model with non-duality. 6) An assessment that values don't dictate a level of consciousness, and a description of spiral dynamics as being systemic (I'll say Yellow) in nature. I do feel SD does not adequately represent turquoise as not enough of humanity is there to model it on—certainly not Coral. This means not enough of me is there yet to understand it fully, or any of you unless your reality is reflecting much more information. I also have the nagging understanding that all these stages are already present within each other, and unfolded almost into the next, which this conversation touches on. It's not so much a stack of stages but a shape that keeps expanding. Turquoise would have to contain mysticism as much as it would environmental concerns, financial concerns, individuality, faith, survival, communal harmony, and systemic modeling etc. Keeping this communally focused: If any of these are rejected within the community, that's an unintegrated part of the community.

What reflection is more useful to you? Man or Machine? I just spent two hours calculating path commands with it for freecad. It would be less useful in finding equilibrium on social issues. It can be useful in better-defining positions, but not establishing them communally, or gauging the genuine reactions present from a community. Its a fantastic stage yellow creation and it makes me excited for what great minds will create when they next level up.

My gut also says leave now. Don't stay in a war zone unless you plan on fighting, if there is any other option. I know its a big disruption but its better than the alternative.

Fair. I think my reform score is lower than it should be, I've no problem with gradual reform, any more than I do sudden reform. Also i'd bump conservatism up 10-15% toward the 30's but not bad overall.