Emerald

You have a choice in how you express yourself. Personality is not fixed.

It's honestly not that hard to get a girlfriend if you're being social and casting your net wide. And you really don't NEED all or ANY of those things on your list. Someone will be attracted to you... and not just one someone. But you also have to understand that women have an intuitive way of becoming attracted to men based on the melting together of various traits including the context in which the man lives their life, and how she feels about a man as a whole person. This is core to choosing a good mate because biologically women can have (pretty much) only one child per year. And it will take a lot of her time to care for the child. So, if a man is lacking in resources, grit, drive, and staying power, then he will lack mass appeal since this was a death-sentence for mother and child in the oldest times of humanity. And these are still concerns that are valid today. No one wants to have a child with someone who is unable to offer the proper support during that time. So, this is sort of woven in to women's natural sexual leanings. So, if I were on the hunt for a new partner, I wouldn't just consider individual traits or personality, I would also consider his work ethic, sense of direction, his job, and his living situation. And if a guy is significantly lacking in these areas, then it's a bit of red flag that he may not share my values and that our lifestyle choices wouldn't be congruent... or worse, that the dysfunction of his life will be invited into mine. I have to have a partner who is stable emotionally, financially, and otherwise. And if a man didn't have these traits, I would be unlikely to get an organic attraction to him because it wouldn't seem like a viable relationship choice. When a woman invites a man into her life she is also risking inviting a lot of chaos if the man is a hot mess. I suppose the same goes for men who invite women into their lives in large degree. And if a guy doesn't have the direction, drive, or ability to keep his own life stable and peaceful, then women who value stability and peace and all those other qualities are unlikely to look twice. And it won't even be a conscious decision, most of the time. But the lucky thing for men is that these qualities can be cultivated. You just have to work hard at becoming a mature adult and having that stability. Since you don't have experience in relationships, I'll tell you that your partner is going to determine how your life goes. So, if you find a partner who is unstable, your life is going to be unstable. If you find a partner who is broke, unless you have enough money yourself to cover all the basics, you're always going to struggle for money. If you have a partner without drive, you'll have to reap the consequences of their laziness. So, your partner will largely determine the quality of your life. I would wager that this is true, especially for women who date men, as men tend to gravitate more toward the dominant role in the relationship regardless of competence to lead. So, if you have a shitty captain, that's a dangerous ship to be on. So, your post tends to demonize women for having these standards as though it's a shallow thing. But for most women, it's just the outcome of the wisdom that comes along with going around the block a few times. And for most women, these are just practical concerns to avoid danger and dysfunction. That said, there are plenty of "hot mess" women that are attracted primarily to "hot mess" guys. So, it's not like you can't find a girlfriend, if you don't have your life in order. Finding a gf will be easy if you just go out there and socialize. But the relationships you form will likely be very dysfunctional. So, I do recommend getting your life in order for a little while before trying to date. Once you even your life out and catch up, you'll be able to find better quality long-term partners. But if you're just looking for sex, none of that applies. So, you'll be able to get it really easily if you just put yourself out there in an effective way and your standards are reasonable.

... or we could try to create a more harmonious relationship between the human species and the Earth. If our technology can mess it up, our technology can also be made in a way that doesn't.

Because a lot of people spiritually bypass whatever is inconvenient, and the ego convinces them that their bypassing is the spiritual "enlightened" response. But it's really just avoidance under a different name and a way to remain in homeostasis. So, if someone posts about productivity, there will be tons of people who are like, "It's all a dream" and advising other people to focus away from matters of practical importance. And this is because they want to further convince themselves that their spiritual bypassing is actually a wise decision to make.

Well, the Green POV does lead to more social harmony, as it is concerned with fairness, green energy, and all kinds of other things that (if enacted) would lead to more social harmony. The issue here is the Green doesn't understand things at a deeper level, and their execution of these goals can lead to more social discord. For example, if there is an issue with climate change then someone who is stage Green will go around moralizing to others and demonizing others which will have a backfiring effect. But if a person is at Yellow, they will mostly have the same goals as a Green person as the Green's vision for the future does lead to more social harmony, but they will execute on those goals in a better way because they have a deeper knowledge of how the system works.

It certainly can become a rabbit hole, if a person is not in touch with their emotions and defaults to thought. To come at this perspective from a purely intellect-based perspective, you can lose all bearings on what path is wisest to take. It's an awful place to be.

All POVs are not true. In fact, all POVs except the absolute have only relative truth. But they have varying amounts of relative truth, as some relative truths are more in alignment with reality and some relative truths are narrower and less in alignment with reality. But they are neither morally right nor wrong, since morality is inherently relativistic. But if your desire is for a particular outcome, such as the social harmony, then it is true that your friend's way of being will stand in the way of that. But if your desire is for social discord, then your friend's way of being will be more in alignment with that goal. So, something is only right or wrong in relation to a desired outcome. And neither outcomes are less valid than the other. The universe is perfect whether or not human beings live in social harmony and peace or social discord and suffering. But it is a nearly universal human preference for social harmony and peace, so it makes sense to behave in ways that beget that end. But it also makes sense to discourage ways of behaving that stand in the way of that goal. But if your goal is to produce as much needless suffering as possible, then going around poking at people's potential insecurities is one way to achieve that goal. Or you could just go around setting homes on fire and killing people. That'll do the trick too, and a lot more quickly and efficiently than calling people fat.

I agree on the focus toward these things. That's the way that the people in power come to change the way that they run their businesses. The people need to change first for the people in power to have to adapt to them. Because the people in power derive their power from the people who are willing to support them. And this is true for business owners and policy makers alike. But I ultimately think that we're just talking about different angles of the same issue.

I think it's probably technically possible for somewhat extended periods of times by monks who have spent decades conditioning themselves to open that... sort of like a siddhi. So, I'm sure there have been monks that have been able to fast for weeks at a time... perhaps even over a month for some really hardcore monks. But I don't see any reason to try it or focus upon it, and I think it's rather foolish to have such high ascetic expectations of one's self as an everyday householder. There is no need to be in conflict with our animal/Earthly nature. As human beings, we are designed to need food and water. And I think that the movement of breatharianism is going to attract a lot of people with eating disorders who are trying to hide their eating disorder from others as well as themselves. Or it will attract a lot of people who are in resistance to their body and life in general. So, if a person wants to awaken, there is no need to starve the body of what it requires to live. And if the person in the video is claiming to only eat one mushroom and one square of chocolate per year (like in the post above), I'm sure that they're making it up and capitalizing on people who are interested in Breatharianism. So, I would say that Breatharianism is a b.s. thing, meant to capitalize off of vulnerable people's willingness to harm their body.

@Aimblack Then, if you don't see the leaders as a leverage point, then what is the actionable solution that everyday people can leverage?

@winterknight Do you abide in the state of freedom from ego constantly? Or do you flip back into the ego-perspective here and there? Also, how long were you engaging in the self-inquiry and searching for the feeling of "I" before the shift happened?

I would honestly guess a bit more myself. But maybe a third.

It makes sense to me to help in-so-far as I can. And I have a strong drive toward altruism. Now, at present, this drive is most certainly co-opted by ego. But even in my state of ego transcendence, there was a strong lean toward empathy and compassion. So, I personally think it is best to help.

From that point of view, there is no issue. Reality is 100% perfect no matter if human beings continue to exist or cease to exist. I have had a couple of awakenings in the past. So, beyond ego, it is a literal heaven even if the apocalypse is upon us. And death is not a problem. And everyone only dies once. So, in the grand scheme of things, there is no issue with planetary destruction. But while I had my awakenings and the detachment inherent to them, it paradoxically awakened intensely humane and empathetic responses in me and I had the capacity for unconditional love. So, I felt sorrow for individual struggles and collective struggles. My emotions were fully intact, and could play out at full stretch. And I still had preferences for things on the relative level. And it felt right to honor them, if they didn't cause any issues. So, I genuinely loved and wanted sentient beings to suffer as little as possible, even in my realization that everything is already perfect. So, I think it is a matter of being able to recognize the illusion of duality as an extension of non-duality, and to be able to validate our relative imperfect human experience within the context of the perfect non-dual beingness. So, I recognize that planetary destruction would cause a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. So, it makes sense to me to put effort toward raising awareness and helping toward that cause in whichever ways that I can. Now, I have only had two experiences of ego transcendence that lasted only a few hours each. So, take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I am not awake now. But I clearly recall both paradoxical awareness of the relative imperfection and absolute perfection inherent in existence. So, it only makes sense to me now to honor both of those truths.

I agree and think he could have articulated these truths a lot better, especially since he's in front of an audience of his followers whom most are probably not where he is in terms of awareness. I think the message coming across to the woman and probably many in the audience is probably not exactly what he was trying to get across.

I agree. I'm sure Mooji is enlightened. But the teacher aspect of his job wasn't done very well in this instance.

To be fair, I feel like Mooji doesn't really properly articulate his pov and reconcile her concerns. So, to her, it seems as though Mooji is spiritually bypassing a time sensitive issue. And by his way of articulating what he's trying to say, I think that's what most people will gather, which is unfortunate. It could discourage people from actually making positive changes. Perhaps Mooji is speaking of the awareness that reality is an emanation of the true nature. So, getting in touch with that nature and the inherent peace of that perspective, would percolate out into reality as you're helping the situation at the level of the projector instead of the projection. So, if you were to actually lend yourself to remedying the situation of climate change with that peace, then it would lend itself to a smoother transition. But for people who haven't experienced that, it would require a whole lot of blind faith in what he's saying, which isn't realistic or advisable. And it would seem like he's trying to solve relative problems from the paradigm of the absolute, as waking everyone up to their true nature is not an actionable way to deal with a practical problem. Most people will never wake up to their true nature. And being enlightened certainly doesn't mean that you can never cause harm. It's the same idea as, "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." You can't rely on an awareness of the absolute to solve practical problems. So, to many people, this is what they'll gather from what he's saying. People have to deal with these time sensitive issues from where they are right now at this juncture in human history. So, her pov and everyone else's pov is exactly where it's supposed to be as all of reality is perfect. So, even if her lack of awareness of her true nature is a problem relative to her peace, encouraging people to focus so individually on their own waking up, gives a lot of wiggle room for less aware people to spiritually bypass practical situations that genuinely need their attention.

In a sense, a system is always an invisible hand thing. So, you could say that no one is actually responsible for a system running the way that it does. So, I get what you're saying. But we also have to understand that the people in power are at the top of the chain of command in determining where that system will go. And that people will mostly follow suit with the status quo set up by people in power. So, they have the lion's share of the power in determining how the system will go. So, they are very much part of the root of the problem. For example, I'm a substitute teacher. And I can tell you, that 95% of classroom issues come about because the teacher has classroom management issues. So, while the students are responsible for their own behaviors, the teacher is always responsible for the behavioral set-point in the classroom. And it's important to know when you're in that position that students are generally the way that they are. Students will be students. And people will be people. So, 10% of the students in the classroom will misbehave no matter what, 10% of the students in the classroom will behave no matter what, and 80% will be taken by the wave of whichever trend is happening in the classroom. So, if students are misbehaving in the classroom, the consequences will come to the student for the behavior issue. But the teacher is responsible as the leader and the one who is managing and setting the behavioral set-point of the class. And if there is an unruly class, 95% of the time, it's because the teacher frequently failed to meet the classroom management challenges head on with a sense of efficacy. So, from this perspective, the people in power are the people responsible for maintaining the status quo of the system. And they are the ones that benefit from the system running the way that it does. And it's important for individual people to be conscious of this, because then we can cease to be complicit within the system. And we can leverage our power as consumers and as members of society to make it clear that we will not subsidize the power of those industry leaders if they continue to allow for negative outcomes. And if those leaders want to keep their power and money, they need for the members of society to be on board with that. So, they will either change their practices to suit the needs/wants of the changing populace or they won't be in power very long. Powerful people only derive their power and status from the individuals underneath them. So, identifying the people in power as the ones responsible will help people realize that they have very real and tangible power themselves, as those leaders derive their power from the people and their attention, approval, and money. And if we cut off that supply, then they have to either change or resign their power. Now, you're correct that just demonizing people in power is not going to do anything. But recognizing that the people in power are responsible for the negative things that come from the system, and recognizing that we are responsible for the people in power, being in power... we can then begin to wield our power to change the system more effectively.

It's definitely one of my favorites so far! It was too good not to share.

Antarctica is not like a giant ice cube floating in the ocean. It is a chunk of land that is connected to the Earth. So, if the ice melts from it, the sea levels will rise because liquid that comes from a glaciers that are above the water will melt into the ocean. Sort of like if there were a mountain made of ice on an island. Then the ice melts and that mountain of melted ice causes a rise in sea level.

I don't really see the job of creating video games as being particularly nefarious. I do understand that people get addictions to things like that. But I don't see any harm in video games by themselves. I think the problem with addiction to things like video games tends to come out of a sense of social isolation, which then translates to wanting to busy one's self with too much entertainment. When I play video games, my main goal is to have fun with them. I seldom ever play them, and when I do, I don't experience the pull to continue for hours and hours. I grow weary of it in about thirty minutes and move on. So, my thought is that it would surprise me if a lot of people play video games for the purpose of getting good at playing them. My thought was that video games were played because they're stimulating and fun. I could be wrong here, as I don't know the gamer culture that well. But I would be surprised if there was a conscious goal of getting good at them. But this is coming from someone who has never been addicted to video games, and mostly sees them in a casual and leisurely way. But if you're really that conflicted about creating video games and you're just doing it for the money, can you think of something else that would be lucrative for you that doesn't bother you?

None of this sounds specifically Orange. So, I think it's important to drop the limiting beliefs relative to Spiral Dynamics and making sure that you don't leave a certain stage. Allow yourself to grow with your goals and don't be afraid of making small changes as you progress toward your goal. So, I say continue on with what you're doing. And really focus on your passions. But none of that requires remaining in Orange conceptually, as at the end of the day Spiral Dynamics is just a theoretical framework. Like I said before, I find it to be a more compelling model to use on entire social systems and to understand the workings of society and how to bring humanity forward. But when used as a personal model, I find that people trip a bit over the model and it getting in the way of goals and personal development. But I also don't look down on your video game idea or your goal overall. It seems like you're uncomfortable and expect judgment to come from others relative to your goals. If this has been something you have experienced, then perhaps that's why you've sought refuge in your identification with Orange for fear of losing grip of what's important to you. Do you have a lot of people in your life that judge you?

What are you actively doing to reach that goal?

What is your "selfish goal" that you want to achieve?

Spoofing on earlier Blue societies though and Orange modern lens????