Emerald

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.

Blue and Green both are pretty dogmatic. Letting go of dogma comes with Yellow. It's just that Blue's dogma is based around traditions, folkways, and social norms. Green's dogma is based around equality, fairness, and justice.

This is probably in part because you don't know a lot of real people who are Green. Most of whom, are cool people. You just see the lowest common denominator of Green in the form of a shouting nineteen year-old blue haired women in videos titled "Feminist Rekt by Logic." So, this is a very uncharitable representation of Green. Furthermore, these caricatures of Green often get lambasted by tons of red, blue, and orange people on the internet for various reasons. This type of widespread social judgment would strike right at the self-esteem of even the most healthy individuals. But for those who struggle with self-esteem, they literally couldn't emotionally handle being seen in that light. So, there is grave danger for those with low self-esteem who already feel rejected to even consider being seen in a remotely similar light to a Green. This is worst bottleneck of transcending Orange-thinking for many young men. So, because of this harsh judgment toward Greens from others (and yourself), to see yourself in a similar light to them, would make you feel lesser and ignites fears of being rejected and lambasted the same way. Perhaps it even steps on old wounds of being rejected in the school hierarchy or being unpopular with women. And my bet is that it is probably a core personal narrative of yours to be admired and respected as an autonomous individual to give yourself a feeling of worth and compensate for feelings of lowliness that stem from isolation, which is further exacerbated by internet culture in general. Plus, all the personalities like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and all those on the "Intellectual Dark Web" all speak from Blue and Orange. These are all cool-headed, 'intellectual-seeming' men with mass appeal who value masculinity and conjure a desire for emulation of their qualities from nerdy guys with low self-esteem who value intellectualism and have a desire to be more masculine. These speakers are heavily rooted in pro-hierarchical, individualistic, Yang-oriented values and see them as absolute positives without acknowledging much about the shadow aspects of those values. Furthermore, people like JBP build upon pre-existing success narratives to make them sound even sweeter than before. And the group-think is very strong around them. These Blue/Oranges also value success as a result of hard work above all or almost all other values. They see success as an indicator of personal worth and character. So, it makes sense that Green would be a threat to someone in these stages because it calls the fairness of the status quo into question. If you are an Orange, who wants success and admiration above all other things, then Green's awareness of unfair social patterns will be quite triggering. Many Oranges have a dream of rising to the top of the hierarchy, and if the hierarchy is unfair as Green notices, it makes their sweet dream very bitter if they acknowledge in any way that the deck is stacked in their own favor (or against them, which can be even more painful). This is especially true for men who struggle with success and self esteem. If they believe with their heart of hearts that success is an indicator of personal worth and character, and they can't even be successful when the deck is stacked in their favor; if they were being consistent with their own values, they would essentially be admitting their own worthlessness and lack of character. But don't worry, you couldn't even pretend to be Green at this point in time. It isn't really a conscious decision to embody certain values that make you resonate with them and ascend on the hierarchy. It cannot be forced or made into an achievable goal when approached from the level of Spiral Dynamics as a system. It is mostly unconscious emotional and psychological attachments that keep you down in your current paradigm. So, because you likely have a lot of psychological protection mechanisms that hide a deep sense of inferiority and pain, you must address those issues first. Right now you're a helium balloon with a weight on it. All you need to do to ascend within this system is to remove the weights. Once you do it will happen naturally and effortlessly. I recommend doing some Shadow Work. I have a video on the topic. You can also try to integrate your Anima, which will help you release resistance to your feminine archetype.

Education-wise- I have a bachelors in fine art and a bachelors in art education (k-12) with a minor in art history. Relative to Spiral Dynamics - I've watched all of Leo's videos about it, and did a little bit of independent research on it. Relative to history - I've taken three college level general history courses, two on Western Civ. I was also an Art History minor, so I took six courses on that topic. I'm also interested in history in general, so I often Google the historical context of things I'm interested in, just for laughs and giggles. Relative to children - I am a mother of two children (ages 3 and almost 7), and I've worked with kids ages 3-17 ever since I graduated from college. So, my job has in many ways required me to notice developmental stages and what the needs of each stage is, to accommodate them better.

Thank you. I don't know where I would put this idea on the Spiral Dynamics map. But the main thing I wanted to get across is that morality has an important practical function for the individual and society. But it can also be problematic for the seeker (and the non-seeker too) because the morality structure can hide so much and can contribute to the shadow. So, my advice was to keep the morality structure very very simple while on the path. Think of a moral as a practical tool for functioning. So, if you have lots of tools, it's going to encumber you and you'll get tripped up with your tools. But if you have one practical tool in the form of the Golden Rule which is simple and flexible and you understand that it's just a tool, it will be easier to just pick it up when you need it and put it back in your tool-belt when you don't. Also, because it's not as complex as having a laundry list of principles, it's easier to dis-identify with it. And you'll be less likely to judge other people for arbitrary reasons. But during my experiences of ego transcendence, I didn't really need morals at all. It was just really obvious that I was deeply intertwined with all of reality. So, I didn't have to use the Golden Rule because I didn't have to put myself in anyone else's shoes. I already knew that harm coming to others meant that harm was coming to me. But for seekers who are actively letting go of ego, which is often the motivator for empathetic/compassionate behavior, it is important to keep morality around as a tool to keep from devolving into Zen Devilry. But keeping it simple is optimal.

There's no source. I just came up with it based off of what I know about spiral dynamics, history, and children.

In the video that I just posted, I talk about how reality is non-dual but there is a duality that can be noticed in the subtle energies of Yin and Yang. I also mention my experiences with the two energies and which expressions they inform.