Scholar

Yes, that's definitely a reasonable approach in my opinion. I just think that we need to communicate more between the different groups, as we have deeper insights into the dynamics that are playing out. I think we should not dismiss people as radical or militant on the green side, but equally not as bigoted or primitive on the orange/blue side. Instead of focusing so much on the issue itself, it might be helpful to instead communicate how and why we feel a certain way about it. We can try to explain to orange people why people feel angry and sad because of all the suffering that the animals have to endure. Even if we were to talk about terrorists, I think this approach is important. We might disagree with them, but we have to inspect why they feel so helpless and frustrated. When we call them militant or fundamentalist, we dismiss the validity of their views, even though they live and experience these perspectives day in day out. Instead of fragmenting all the groups, we can make an effort to bring us closer by establishing bridges of understanding and compassion. Yes, most people don't think we should go into restaurants and protest, or to arson butcher shops because they sell animal corpses. But we have to recognize that the people who do these kinds of things are still humans, they feel very strongly about this and I don't think we can blame them. We can educate them, but we should not demonize and dismiss them as radicals that are completely unreasonable and destructive. A lot of times we get angry because we are so sad about a situation, but if we were just honest and would show our sadness, I think people would have a much easier time to show empathy for our perspective, and how important it is to many of us. We have to show the process of empathy, so they can see why we have the perspective we have.

But why are you distancing yourself from these "extreme" vegans? What is the point of that? I understand it would not be helpful to call someone names, but again, try to have some empathy for these people. They are suffering knowing what is happening to animals, they cannot handle it. It is like torture to them, every single day of their lifes. They see great injustice, and I cannot blame them. There is so much suffering that could be avoided. It's not about whether you respect someones choices or not, it's about what kind of choices you respect. Do you respect someones choice to rape children? Why not? Because you genuinely feel like you don't want anyone to rape children. On the other hand, when people are enslaving and slaughtering sentience beings of a different species, you actually are fairly indifferent about it, aren't you? To people who actually feel like animals deserve moral treatment, it will seem like you do it out of egoic reasons. You do it because you don't want to be judges as intolerant, or because you want to maintain social relationships, hiding all of it under the veil of futility. There are other ways to go about changing people, but respecting their choices is not one of them. Again, ask yourself, if you lived among people who raped children and it was socially acceptable, would you equally respect their choices? And what would a person who would respect these choices seem like to you?

I feel like there is a lack of perspective here. Are they really extremists considering what is happening to billions of animals on this planet? To them you seem like someone who simply seeks neutrality for egoic reasons. Why is it extreme to get upset about what is happening? Would you call resistance groups who fought the Nazi's during the Jewish holocaust extremists? Veganism is an ethic, not a diet. It's defined by the believe that causing unjustified harm to animals is wrong. It's not a neutral position. Imagine if we lived in a world where women were looked at as second class citizens whom we could rape and kill whenever we want. Would you be an extremists if you were very emotional, very upset about it? And even if you were an extremist, would that be a bad thing considering in what kind of world you live in? They might not be effective in their advocacy (even though that is debatable, as they seem to convince a great amount of people of their cause), but I think you could do well to try to put yourself in the shoes of these people. If you felt that animal were more or less equal to human beings, what would you act like? Do you really expect people to have perfect composure considering the complete lack of empathy we have for certain kinds of animals? When you say "I don't care what others eat", to a person who is ethically more evolved than you it sounds much like someone telling you "I don't care who others rape and murder.".

If more developed stages are not better than less developed stages, one might want to inspect what the even mean when they say something is better. Is our society better than the roman empire that enslaved people? Is our society as good as a future society that will be fully enlightened and reduce harm to all life on this planet? Good and evil are subjective, but I would argue that if one inspected what they value internally, one would quickly come to the realization that yes, one judges more developed stages to be better, as long as they are healthily integrated. What's better, a car that can drive on a road, or a car that can drive on a road and additionally fly? We categorize and value everything, in fact even the notion that everything is relative, and that we should (!!!) think that way is itself a value judgement. The rejection of set categories is very greenish, I think it would help to understand the purpose and usefulness of these categories. Why do we call things better than other things? What will be the consequences of calling more developed stages better? What would happen if we honestly inspected our values and then without prejudice would truthfully represent them in explicit value hierarchies? Maybe we could recognize that betterness can be useful but also destructive, but that in actuality is difficult to truly go beyond these value judgments. I definitely like developed stages more than lesser developed stages, they are better by virtue of almost everything I value. I think a more useful question would be to ask yourself what you value and how any of the stages fit into that. When you see a lot of people saying that one stage is not better than the other, they really just want people to avoid feeling superior because they are more developed. The framing itself is flawed, as something cannot be better than anything else. Rape is not better than saving someones life, and it is quite trivial to say "Stage X is not better than stage Y", because betterness is not founded on objective measures. It is a misuse of language, due to a lack of inspection and self-reflection.

I have been thinking about what it means for existence to be infinite for a long time and it seems like I keep getting stuck. I am aware that one cannot contemplate oneself into true understanding about infinitude, but still I cannot let go the concept of it. If reality is absolutely boundless, does that not mean that everything we are doing is in an absolute and total way fully meaningless? It confuses me that Leo keeps talking about the importance of enlightenment, or of any other thing in life. Is it not inevitable that god manifests all possible and impossible realities no matter what will happen in this reality? Even if Leo gets enlightened now, has the best life he could possibly have, won't god experience a life in which Leo did fail? A life in which Leo never lost his weight and eventually got a heart attack? A life in which Leo keeps little children in his basement who he rapes every day? A life in which Leo, after reading this very sentence, is going to kill himself for no reason whatsoever? And if that is not the case, then how can god be limitless and infinite? And if it indeed is the case, it means that god will experience Leo in every possible form there can be for eternity, and already has experienced all of Leo's possible and impossible life's. Is everything Leo doing not a reaction of his ego, an inability to surrender to the truth? And even if it is not the case, does there not have to exist a reality in which that necessarily is the case? Either way that would mean that no matter what Leo does he cannot avoid not experiencing all the possibilities, one day he will suffer, as an unsuccessful and miserable Leo. I was thinking along these lines and then I remember something I have contemplated when I was a teenager. I had the intellectual recognition that reality had to be boundless a long time ago, by contemplating why reality would be the way it is and why it is not any other way. It seemed very obvious that there could not be anything that would limit reality, as anything that would limit it would itself have to be limited by something else so that it would limit reality in that particular way. But that begged a few very paradoxical questions: If reality is truly boundless, then does there not have to exist a reality which cancels all other realities? A reality which stretches it's tentacles into all of the infinitude of reality to root it back into nothingness? And does there not have to exist a reality outside of ALL realities? It has to exist, after all reality cannot be limited, it cannot be bound whatsoever. If this was the case though reality would be absolutely chaotic, nothing could exist because everything would immediately be taken apart by infinite destructive power, infinite death. There would be infinite realities popping into existence while immediately disappearing. It seems like these two elements would nullify each other, but then there would have to exist a reality in which they don't nullify each other. And then today, when I remembered this, I suddenly had the idea that out of that process would have to evolve intelligence, much in the same way it does in our universe. There is a force of chaos and a force of order, and because all realities which do not have strong order would be ripped apart by chaos, there would only be those realities left which had a mechanism against this chaotic power. And because this chaotic power is infinite, the realities would have to construct themselves in an infinitely intelligent way. In other words, intelligence is and unlimited limit, a limit upon Chaos with a capital C. It would be like survival and evolution were not mechanisms of nature, but rather metaphysical aspects that are unavoidable, and these aspects would then resonate into the realities which prevailed. And now it is obvious for why reality has to be love. The only reality that could manifest and not be destroyed by infinite chaos would have to be a reality which infinitely loves it's manifestation, it's own existence. If it wasn't infinitely loving it's intelligence would not be concerned for the manifestation whatsoever. In a very real sense that would mean that love is a prerequisite for existence, for only that which loves itself will preserve itself. These aspects seem to reflect in some shape or form our ordinary consciousness, as we strive to survive because of our selfish love, and that reminds me of the saying that god created us in his own image. It almost seems like for structure to exist at all there needs to be a fundamental force which keeps it from dissolving, and that force simply is love. But then the question is, would the infinite destructive power not evolve too, being put under the same evolutionary pressures, to then destroy the infinitely loving reality? Would there not be a reality which infinitely loves destruction, death and suffering? And maybe that is what our reality is, a fight between these two forces? It all just confuses me more and more, there is so much I have not even began to think about and it seems like this would go on and on for infinity. But then what is infinite intelligence, why does it exist? Does it exist precisely because this process goes on for infinity? I have no idea anymore. I guess what I would like to know is what infinite intelligence is, why it exists and whether it's existence means that not all realities will manifest, but only particular ones?

What do you mean by that?

It is very possible that he might not fit the Spiral Dynamics model.

What you might have seen is that your mind is awareness. Rocks, trees, walls and the universe are happening in awareness, so by nature they must be awareness. I think your interpretation is deluded, as you lack a realization that the rocks are not what you think the rocks are. Nothing is aware, there simply is awareness, and when you are conscious of that without having the proper intellectual framework, it will to you seem as if these objects are aware, even though these objects are no objects at all. In my opinion the more accurate interpretation is: "Cells are awareness. The whole universe is awareness and aliveness. It was on mushrooms that awareness came alive, that everything was revealed to be consciousness. Rocks, trees, the wall, etc."

It's because Leo created a purple cow.

I have had these troubles too, and you lack a realization that all your questioning isn't really questioning at all. With every question you ask, you simply construct new ideas, and you keep blindly believing them. When you say "How can I be certain that I can doubt stuff?", you are not really asking anything. The process of doubt is not a concept, just as certainty is not. By forming any question or doubt whatsoever, you have already assumed something. What is basically happening is that you are using a tool designed to inspect certain phenomena to inspect itself, which simply does not work, because as soon as you are inspecting it you have constructed something that is not it. Reason is not what you think it is, but you equate it to a thought that was created by reason. By asking these questions you are constructing a new story, a complete delusion. When you think, "Oh my god, I can't trust anything I am thinking!", you are actually trusting that very thought. You have replaced your story with one that you like less, and that is why you are suffering. You have to use the tool for what it was made for. You cannot deconstruct anything with thought, you can only reconstruct. Deconstruction happens with experience, which can be triggered by a thought, but not at all necessarily so. Instead of asking more questions, start observing what the words you use to establish the questions truly mean/truly are. You don't need to do anything but look to see how silly everything you have told yourself was. Here is a hint: There is no answer to the question of "How do I know?", I simply know.

You have to be really careful with media representation of these kinds of people, they are usually very biased and looking for clicks.

I think you are asking the wrong questions. God doesn't want anything, as he is the source of wanting. God doesn't create any particular game, he creates every game there can be, because there is nothing to stop him from doing so. God is nothingness, and nothingness does not feel bad about creating a world full of misery, because that would require for god to have already made himself in a way to dislike a particular thing. Nothingness doesn't want to create anything at all, it simply does, because there is nothing to stop nothingness from making everything come into existence. It is wonderful, but it is also terrible. It is every adjective you can possibly imagine and more. It is the is-ness of every idea and emotions you can feel, of everything you have every experienced and ever will. How would infinity be infinite if there was something lacking inside it? You have yet to grasp what there even is to grasp.

There is no outside the matrix outside the matrix.

How does one know whether one has a metaphysically-oriented mind and personality?

Not sure why, but I thought Coral had to do with becoming one with the emotions and states one experiences? As in becoming "anger" or "sadness", similar to what an animal might be, without any resistance of morality, but a complete immersion into reality, not as an observer or actor but simply as reality itself. So I guess instead of sitting there and appreciating the infinitude of nothingness, one would again become immersed into the being of certain aspects of reality. Kind of like a loop?

I can tell you that I would have never started consciousness work, or even self-improvement, if I never would have felt as lonely as I did a few years back. I would say loneliness and suffering can be as much a motivating force as it can be a destructive one. When I look around me though and I see "normal" people, I pity them for the fact that they will never suffer enough and be forced to be open minded enough to maybe embrace something like spirituality or self-help.

Is it still worth buying this course if one has seen Leo's video on strategic thinking? https://www.thegreatcourses.co.uk/courses/strategic-thinking-skills.html

Is it the case that the various dystopias people came up with throughout history were basically predictions of the unhealthy versions of each of the spiral stages taken to the extreme? Was it a result of an intuitive realization of the changes that were happening at that time, by the authors whose passion it was to reflect upon the motion of the zeitgeist? It seems like the dystopias were written in times when the changes were most radical, and thus most obvious to the people effected by it. Though it seems like there was always a lack of realization that there is a next step to the evolution, another stage past the stage they were currently going into, which by the model of spiral dynamics will not happen as a realization until stage yellow is reached, correct? If this is the case and dystopias are a reaction to the transitioning into new stages, then are utopias an extreme version of each stage if it was ultimately healthy and not restricted by the evolutionary force of nature? It seems like the current dystopia as a reaction to stage green is some sort of tyranny that will control language and behavior to mold society into compassion-robots who need to be careful about everything they say and do. Now my question is whether this process is useful for the stabilization of the given civilization? If there was no fear of the dystopia, would it be more likely that the dystopia would actually take place due to no resistance? It seems like any new stage is the reaction to an older stage and will naturally want to go as far away from the previous stage as it can so that it can fully propel itself into the new stage. Though the force that requires that transitions is so great that once the stage is reached it will simply continue to transition into an even more extreme version of itself, as there is nothing that stops the force. On the other hand, if there is resistance, it will take longer for the new stage to be reached, but it will not as easily spill over into the extreme. It's as if there was a pendulum and we wanted to get it from one side to the other, and the quicker we want it to get to the other side the more it will actually swing past target, and the greater will be the the fall back to the other side again. If we attached some sort of rubber mechanism that would keep it from swinging quickly, it would not overshoot but it will take longer for it to reach the other side. Is the fear and the inability to change basically like that kind of rubber mechanism just on a societal scale? And is it something that evolved and is important for survival of the civilization? Is it the civilization trying to remain in homeostasis so that it doesn't fall apart when changes are taking place? I see Leo criticizing negative reactions to individual stages, and I recognize that it is useful from an individualistic perspective, but might these reaction be something important from the perspective of the collective? Let's say there was no one resisting to stage green and a revolution would take place within a few years, would that actually be desirable? It seems to me like there needs to be a balance, so that change can take place but so that it meets just the right amount of resistance so that it doesn't go into extremes. And it seems like this mechanism is also true for the individual ego.

Does that mean that animals are enlightened?

I think he meant that taking psychedelics might make you unable to properly get to non-dual states by traditional means, in which case you will need more psychedelics to properly develop. The shortcut would "steal" emotional growth that otherwise you would have have to go through to get such an experience.

Can you see intelligence in the manifestation of reality?

Even if there is no multiverse, there are certainly multiple/infinite universes. A multiverse is different from multiple independent universes as it implies that the universes interact with each other, one multiverse containing multiple universes instead of completely separate realities. Don't conflate infinity with the properties of this particular realiy. Etven if this is not a multiverse, there still can be infinite multiverses "outside" of this particular universe. When talking about multiverses as it is referred to physics it is talking about a very specific model and interpretation of what our particular universe is and how it acts. In fact even if it is true, the multiverse would still be infinitely small compared to infinity.

Sexual Transmutation seems to be one of the best tools I have found to increase energy, motivation, focus and the ability to self-inquire, though I rarely hear Leo talking about it. Is he not convinced of it?

The wet dreams are something I am trying to counteract as well, at the moment it is going well for me though I do not know exactly why. Whenever I have sexual dreams I am able remind myself and resist it. Other than that, it seems like using your energy and transmuting it consciously can help avoid having sexual dreams. It's just something one has to figure out.

Have you ever tried it for a prolonged time, like several months, just to see what it could do for the pursuit of your life purpose?