Emerald

The thing is, you are not even understanding anything that I've said. I've told you a bunch of things, then you respond with mostly straw man arguments against what you think I'm implying, and tons of platitudes to defend your own personal character (despite the fact that I never once attacked your personal character). Your personal character is fine, I'm sure. In truth, I wouldn't have even stopped to answer you question if I thought you were a willful asshole. But I thought you would at least be a little bit more receptive to what I'm telling you about the world that you don't already know, and why the state of things are the way they are. I feel like you're making concerted efforts specifically to avoid understanding what I'm saying, because it contradicts your worldview and your ideas of what equality means. I'm trying to pop your bubble, not hate on you. But character isn't really the issue in most cases. Unconsciousness is. Most of the world's problems are propped up by well-meaning people. And when you let go of your idea that you're not unconscious, then you might be able to empathize a bit better and get a clearer idea of what's going on in the world. But you're afraid of that, because you're content with comforting yourself on the idea that you're a good person and if more people were like you the world would be better. But that's just not the way things work. That's fantasy land. You can't wish the problems away with sunshine and rainbows. But the only way to transcend these issues is if a large percentage of society understands them at a deep level. That way, we don't unconsciously fall into negative patterns that contribute to those issues. The fact of the matter is, if we ignore problems and sweep them under the rug, they don't just magically disappear. They just rot there and get even worse. And these problems may not be super clear to those who aren't experiencing them daily. So, ignorance is not a solution. Unless, you're unconsciously trying to solve the problem of your own discomfort. By which ignorance is a wonderful solution. But otherwise, if you really care about equality and freedom as more than just an ego concern, willful unconsciousness to social patterns is never a good solution. It can be helpful to think more systemically. That way you can see that social problems are not personal. So, if you're contributing unconsciously to a social problem, it's not your fault. But understand that if you're unconscious you will be certainly working as a cog in that machine. Sometimes the most obvious solution is all wrong. So, if you think more systemically, you can entertain different perspectives a bit better. The first twenty minute of the video goes into the basics of systems thinking, and the second twenty or so is about how to apply it to the inner world. So, hopefully this will help you get a better grasp of what I'm trying to say.

If you don't want uncomfortable answers, don't ask uncomfortable questions.

I'm not trying to spread rumors about him. I just always thought that he was. It was the impression that I got mostly because of his mannerisms. So, when you were talking about the other yogi, I thought that you might have been referring to him because Shinzen was in a lot of videos with an attractive woman. So, I was like, "Well, that would make sense." But for the record, I am not saying that Shinzen Young is definitely gay or bringing it up just to stir up controversy or something. It was just my genuine first impression of him.

Okay. But is it Shinzen Young? I'm sure he has the iron-clad discipline to be celibate. I'm not questioning that. But he also has always pinged on my gaydar. So, perhaps practicing celibacy with a hot wife is not as much of a challenge for him as it would be for others.

I'm not arguing with you or trying to point fingers. You read it that way because it's probably what you expect. I don't think you're a bad guy at all. I just think you have blindspots. So, I was just trying to answer your original question to make you aware of why people are acting like they are to give you more context. But, I assumed that you were heterosexual because most people are, quite frankly. Plus, your post made it seem like you're a guy concerned about dating women in the modern world. So, I just assumed that you were. But if you're not, I apologize for assuming. I'm bi-sexual myself. Also, I'm not assuming that you've had an easy life. I'm only assuming that you've never experienced the experience of being woman. And with that, I assume that you haven't dealt with the sexuality and dating landscape from the vantage point of a woman, which has very specific perils that men don't have to deal with. It is these issues, that men often get uncomfortable about and don't like to talk about. But it isn't just willful assholes that contribute to these patterns. The real culprit is unconsciousness. So, even peaceful and caring guys can unwittingly allow and even contribute to these negative patterns without meaning to. So, everything that I've written to you so far is not meant to be a personal indictment. It has been an attempt to show you that you have some blind spots. The first thing is to let go of the limiting belief that everything always needs to be 100% equal to be fair. Sometimes blind mechanical equality can enforce pre-existing inequalities. But it's perfect that you're an agnostic for the analogy. So, Christianity is the most popular religion and Christians get certain privileges in society that people who are agnostic (or any other non-Christian religious orientation) don't get. Because Christianity is so popular, they tend to run with the idea that their religion is best, without being checked on it too much. And they can often think that they're being discriminated against, just by people having a different set of religous beliefs. So, it can be an uncomfortable situation, for example, to be at a public event when everyone bows their head a prays to Jesus. It makes it a social expectation to conform to Christian norms. Or if a Christian person confronts you and asks you what your religion is or tries to convert you, it can be a very uncomfortable experience where you might be tempted to lie just to avoid it. Now, not all Christians are like this. And certainly, most of the Christians that are like this mean well. But it doesn't make the experience any more comfortable for non-Christians. So, if you as an Agnostic complained about that and noted your experience to a Christian. And then the Christian didn't really address your experiences and just answered with, well not all Christians are like that. Anyway, I believe that everyone should be able choose whatever makes you happy and so should Christians. So, those bad Christian shouldn't do that. But it's also important for the non-religious not to Christian-shame too. There are bad people on both sides. But they are not really being empathetic and they aren't really listening. They are just trying to defend themselves and the thing they're identified with. The conversation is meant to shift the focus from real problems to their problem with the solutions.

That's why I seek to drop the ego permanently. I am not interested in transcending life itself or extricating myself from the experience of life. That seems quite silly to me, considering the fact that I have an eternity to be the infinite thing that I am, have always been, and will always be. What I want is the integration between a life of complete embodiment as a finite person and that which simply is, just like I had before. To realize that while I'm on my journey that I've never actually left home.

If it's the one I'm thinking about, it's because he's probably gay. That's always the vibe I got from him.

He made the triggered joke because wrote to him (not Leo) on another thread and I suspect he mischaracterized me a bit because I was talking about women's issues... as I typically do. I think it's the most important things to focus on relative to the evolution of humanity, as the Divine Feminine has been repressed in the collective consciousness for many thousands of years. But there is more a slant toward Divine Masculine on here sometimes at the expense of the Divine Feminine, and not so much of an integration between the two. But it's really good to observe through the triggering, and being on here can help show you some of the barriers toward the integration of the Divine Feminine. It's hard to integrate the Feminine in our era because there's so much misinformation and reductionism going on relative to it. I talked about this dichotomy a bit in one of my recent videos. Where there is a the duality of Form (Feminine) and Formlessness (Masculine), which are really both the same thing. Then there is the dichotomy of Love (Feminine) and Emptiness (Masculine), which are also just two aspects of God. And it makes sense that Leo would focus more on the emptiness aspect of it, because it seems like Leo's experiences beyond ego were experiences of the Divine Masculine, which my experiences were less geared toward. But I have experienced the Divine Feminine during my experiences of ego transcendence, and they were more about unconditional love and fuller embodiment of myself as a human being. I had access to divine wisdom that seemed to come from outside of me and inside me at the same time. And I already knew that I had always known. And because I had no fear or suffering, I was very open instead of shut up like I normally am. Because of this my intuition become very sensitive and I was receptive to larger social patterns just by looking at people around me. There was also a deep connection between myself and everything else. I recognized this first in the trees and the grass that were around me. And my emotions were able to play out at full stretch within me, and conveyed wisdom to me. And I experienced all the repressed feminine traits that I had locked away just to be able to exist in society. And despite thinking of feminine and masculine as mere social constructs, I detected an energy buzzing inside me and outside that I immediately identified as feminine which was erotic but not explicitly sexual. It was life-giving and gave me access to my animal instincts. And I felt completely at home in the mundane world, which I recognized as a literal heaven. And I didn't have to prove myself worthy of anything or fear death. My existence was already unshakably valid. So, relationships are an aspect of Divine Feminine and they're also an aspect of the Illusion. So, they are empty in that sense. But there is no distinction between Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine at the end of the day. Duality is not separate from Non-Duality. Form is not separate from Formlessness. It's all one thing, and that one thing is infinite. So, it has all things... including the finite. So, embodiment in this life is just as much part of the path as transcendence.

I understand that you don't have any malice in your intentions at all, and I know you're not attacking me. So, I moreso see your post and the ideas in it as a mild outgrowth of the larger system that creates blind spots. Basically, I see you as thinking un-systemically and taking a narrow view on the issue causing you to have blind spots. So, I'm trying to communicate to you why things are the way they are, and show you that you're taking a narrower view on the issue than is beneficial in hopes that you will zoom out a bit more. I get why you're all about what you call "true equality". I used to have the same exact belief. Just treat everyone the same and it will be fair. But while that idea would make perfect sense in an equal society, which you probably assume we have like I did before I became more aware. But in an unequal society (which is the reality) it's just becomes a feel-good platitude for those who have it quite good already and don't realize the struggles that others are dealing with. It's a way to sweep problems with fairness under the rug and not address issues that affect real people's lives. These ideas of equality mostly function in ways that keep people in an inherently better position in their comfort zone and assured of their own goodness, while washing their hands of systemic societal problems. Also, I've never heard of people engaging in "hetero-shaming", and if there are people doing that it isn't typical of the LGBTQ community. There's FAR more of the opposite. So, focusing on hetero-shaming which isn't a systemic issue EQUALLY to focusing on discrimination of LGBTQ community which is a systemic issue, is inherently unequal and unfair to people in the LGBTQ community who deal with discrimination all the time. Versus straight people who have to actually do a Google search titled "hetero-shaming" to actually find evidence of it. Ask yourself, has anyone in your life every shamed you for being heterosexual? Have you ever lacked representation in the media as a heterosexual? Did your parents ever disown you for being heterosexual? Did you ever get bullied for being heterosexual? So, it's focusing on a non-issue to obscure a real issue. So, it's focusing too much on the smallest potatoes and missing the biggest ones. That's probably why people get mad at you. If someone is in Green, they may even assume that you're being intentionally hateful due to their lack of perspective. So, I agree that it would be ideal if everyone could be free and happy. But society has barriers to freedom and happiness built into it, and ignoring it with sunshine and rainbows platitudes like "let everyone be free and happy" just ignores this fact and allows for those barriers to continue to exist. I may have a better example for you to illustrate the blindspots. Do you happen to be an atheist or follow an uncommon religion?

@billiesimon I agree with this. Orange guys tend to be very competitive and robotic. So, they don't have a lot of heart. It's almost like you're in the same room as him, but not really in the same room as him at the same time. He can't appreciate much. That said, Orange guys will have a lot more success with picking up women than Green guys, because there are more Orange women than Green women. So, Orange women will fall for the Orange man's games. Also, running game itself is very Orange. This is what give the illusion of the Orange way as being the best way to attract women. But Green women (and women in the stages above), will find these types artificial, cold, and unattractive. They will not admire Orange men.

Third-Wave Feminists are usually sex-positive and support body positivity and fat acceptance. They are pro-freedom of sexual expression for everyone regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. They are also usually accepting of polyamory. And they disapprove of double standards against women being promiscuous, and dislike slut-shaming. And many support sex workers and want the profession to be legalized and safer. So, Greens are actually radically accepting of sexuality in all shapes and forms... except if it encroaches upon the lives of others. So, they have discovered the pattern of rape culture which is an outgrowth of the stages before it that see female sexuality as a commodity and the woman as an object and not a subject that still flows as a strong undercurrent through society. Bottom line is, the problem is that women have to deal with a lot of issues relative to sex that men don't have to deal with and that men usually aren't aware of. So, unaware men usually end up stepping on women's toes in various ways and going over boundaries. Or some don't even care or hate women and want negative things to happen to them. So, because these experiences are so common and sexual harassment and misogyny is just a given if you're a woman, there are many Green initiatives to fight against this problem. The issue is that many Orange men are usually unconscious to these social patterns, given that they don't know what it's like to experience it firsthand. And they're also likely to equate female interest with their own worth, seeing female sexuality as an object and hot commodity to enhance their status. Then Blue men shame women for having sexual feelings or any divergence from monogamy. Then Red men don't care and will just do whatever they want without any qualms about what women think because they see women as property. So, men from these stages will be very unsympathetic to the struggles women go through and will make initiative like #metoo all about them and the restriction of their own freedom, without considering the state of society that produced so many "metoo" stories. They'll be like, "But what about my sexual desires?" and will even conjecture that women are making things up always assuming the perpetrator to be innocent of sexual misconduct and the accuser guilty of false accusation. But as a woman who was molested as a child by an older child and who has woken up three times in my teenage years to three different full grown men trying to do things to me in my sleep (and countless other minor experiences ranging from mild catcalling to outright stalking threats), this concern for men not wanting to date just isn't a priority compared to the broader social issues and their unique effects on me as a person. So, Greens gets very angry at Oranges especially for prioritizing their desires over the physical, psychological, and emotional safety of women. That's why all the blue haired ones are always pissed off and yelling at everyone and jumping up and down like yo yos. But it's not because they're anti-sex. Quite the contrary. It's because they see that some people are taking up all the room in the collective "bedroom", leaving little room for others.

Sorry about that. I misunderstood. Basically, I think the variety of different interpretations that can be applied to his words is part of his tactic for getting people to move back toward a patriarchal, traditionalist social structure. He's very intelligent so he knows what to say and what not to say to give him plausible deniability and an appeal to a mainstream audience including people on the right, middle, and moderate left.

Thank you. But I don't believe that I've misunderstood him at all. I think I've hit the nail on the head.

Paradoxically, it is human nature to be critical and react in particular ways to things that are seen as harmful. So, to say "all criticism is untenable" is true. But it is also true that I have strong feelings against what Jordan Peterson says and how he says it. So, I try to make space for the integration of both truths. That way I don't invalidate and repress my emotions, which is also an integral part of the infinite nature of reality. To paint over emotional truths with intellectual truths is just using the truth to lie to one's self. So, while I recognize that on the ultimate level everything is 100% perfect, including Jordan Peterson. I also recognize that my emotions are telling me that I don't like his schtick. And my emotions are also 100% perfect because they are part of the everything. They are not separate from the everything.

Yeah. He seems to buy into a lot of ideas about what's natural (and not natural) based upon other animals, the social patterns of early humans, and the 'lower' nature to the exclusion of the higher nature. It's like he thinks that there's some golden age in the relatively recent past when we were living in tune with human nature and the natural order of human society, and that any progress we make from that point is all a huge mistake. But he fails to realize that we've always been in tune with nature, every step of the way, and that there are no mistakes. But my main issue with him comes down to the fact that he is very well-educated on the topic of depth psychology and esotericism, but he (purposefully) distorts this knowledge toward his own ideological convictions. I basically think he's being intentionally deceptive by working at a deeper paradigm that most people are unconscious to. And he sets out pieces of self-help advice, like breadcrumbs leading people unwittingly backward while giving them the illusion of going forward. It's kind of like he's trying to put a goldfish back into a tank that it's already outgrown, all-the-while thinking that it's good for the goldfish. And he's being relatively successful with it by approaching his goal by working on a level that most people are not aware of. Plus, everyone who debates him isn't anywhere near in the same paradigm, so they basically bring a knife to a gun fight making him look smart and them look dumb by comparison. This differentiation in paradigm also allows him to hide his intentions and true positions by omission, because the people he converses with don't know the right questions to ask. To speak in Spiral Dynamics lingo, he's basically a "Yellow" trying to reinstate "Blue" by giving his "Orange" audience a pill hidden in some peanut butter. He's like the Trojan horse of human regression. Anyway, I'm glad to rant a little bit. It's nice sometimes. Plus, I suspect that you feel similarly for similar reasons, but perhaps with less targeted vehemence toward him specifically. But that's just a suspicion.

Both perspectives are valid. It is true that ultimately, from the perspective of God, that good and evil are not qualities inherent in reality. But the illusion is also a valid part of God. The illusion of duality is an integral aspect of non-duality. So, from the perspective of duality, there are actions that are beneficial and actions that are detrimental. There is also a deep drive toward compassion and creation in all people, which is constantly clashing against an equally strong drive toward destruction. And it is the chaos that occurs between the two within us that makes the internal landscape a beautiful aspect of duality. It is in being able to accept and integrate all polarities as valid aspects of the infinite nature of God: Duality and NonDuality, Form and Formlessness, Love and Emptiness, Good and Evil, etc. that we can become whole again. So, the trick is to hold space for and integrate both paradoxical truths. So, you can realize that good and evil don't actually exist as inherent qualities in reality, but on the level of duality be able to recognize which actions are coming from the "good" drive or the "evil" drive. They are aspects inherent to the internal landscape, just like volcanos and oceans are aspects inherent to the external landscape. And the former is just as non-personal as the latter. I made a video on the topic that addresses this paradox if you're interested...

@Leo Gura Yes indeed! But in all seriousness JBP = bleh

I'm right there with you on this topic. He's difficult not to demonize. But every time I hear him speak and I'm like "NOOOO! You're on the right platform but going the wrong way!!!" He's totally guilty of what I like to call, "Pseudo-Jungian Neo-McCarthyism."

@Clayman Yes. This is she.

Well, Greens are very tolerant and aware of the fact that there are many different perspectives, coming from many different backgrounds and cultures. So, they don't believe that their cultural perspective is better than anyone else. So, they see perspectives as basically equal. So, they aren't going to judge someone for thinking or doing something different than themselves or the social norms within their culture... UNLESS. And this is a huge UNLESS. Greens are tolerant of all perspectives, UNLESS they perceive a perspective as intolerant to other people and their perspectives. Then, they will be very judgmental of any perspective that is encourages, enables, or is complacent to discrimination, bigotry, oppression, and unfairness in general. Also, Greens have started to take baby steps with systemic thinking and tend to be more aware than oranges as to the structures that create an unfair society. They also tend to be more concerned with justice, equality, and fairness. So, if they see a perspective that creates an unfair society, the most outspoken Greens will lambast that perspective and anyone who holds it. But those that hold those perspectives rarely know that their perspective is perpetuating so many problems. So, those Blues and Oranges will just be like, "Wow... Over-reaction much?" Then the Greens will just assume that they recognized the problems with their perspective and just don't care... or are actually trying to create problems. So, they'll demonize people with those perspectives even more.

Are you talking about Yellow as the stage that is relativistic and includes infinite perspectives? If so, it is basically a realization that different perspectives have their own relative truths. For example, an ant may say, "The flower is huge!" or an elephant may say, "The flower is tiny!" Both of these statements are true from a particular perspective, but false from another. A person who is in yellow, will be able to recognize that these perspectives are valid and will be able to make room for that paradox of conflicting perspectives. But ultimately, the idea of "big and small" is a false dichotomy not based in reality. It is just a relative truth of which its understanding of that truth has a practical function for a person's (or animal's) unique perspective. This understanding is also key to Yellow-ness.