Forestluv

Theory is one component. This is why stage green is so important to embody, because it ventures into non-theoretical modes. A pure theorist is contracted and limited. This is my biggest concern about orange intellectuals trying to theorize their way past green into yellow. They would be highly limited in yellow. People that simply theorize from some elevated academic mindset and environment have value - yet that don’t fully “get it”. One needs to get in there and actually experience, embody and be it. This is important because we need well-balanced individuals in yellow. In this context, AOC and Gabor Mate are at a higher level than Wilber since they have embodied green through direct experience. They “get it” in a sense that Wilber does not. In terms of ways to solve the problem, one solution might address the point you brought up about the deconstruction of blue community such as religion with no replacement. Well, in a lot of communities there is replacement, yet at a small scale. Many towns and cities offer plenty of multicultural events with an expanded sense of community. It’s natural and people from many different ethnicities, religions and sexual orientations are co-existing in harmony. We just don’t hear much about these thousands of events that occur each week in the U.S. It doesn’t make the news as it’s not nonconflict and bad for ratings. As well, we can do better at reaching out to people that feel like they are being left behind as culture evolves. . . You had mentioned that Orange is overly de-constructing blue and demonizing blue. Perhaps we can highlight the value of dignity, responsibility and the rule of law. Perhaps we can get Orange atheists to stop mocking blue as irrational idiots. Perhaps we can get Orange intellectuals to stop mocking blue as irrational idiots. Perhaps we can show that intellect is just one aspect of intelligence. In the U.S. one of the biggest insecurities of men is intelligence. It doesn’t help when politicians, media, academics and elitists are looking down on blue as lesser.

Multiple times you have recontextualized what I’ve said into an absolute binary either / or framework. This is not my perspective. You are having a discussion with someone else that you are imagining. You have imagined someone who thinks we should have no blue teachings and the problems are purely reactionary against Green. I’m sure that person exists, yet that isn’t me. I don’t see this through a binary lens. I see it as nuanced with binary, spectral and relativist components. For example, I see some Blue aspects as helpful for forming developmental foundations and that a portion of the problem is reaction toward green. If one is to explore systemically and integratively, one cannot be restricted to a simple binary framework. I don’t see it as one of us is right and the other is wrong. And I don’t see the solution as coming from either reasoning or intuition. I see things much more nuanced, integrative and holistic. For example, I see value in integrating reason and intuition for higher-order problem solving.

I never said that and that is not my view. That itself would be a blue level binary “all or nothing” frame. What I said was there are structural components of blue that I see as being helpful in building a foundation for development and components of blue that are not helpful because they need to get unlearned. For example, teaching a novice skier to snow plow down the mountain is not helpful in the long run because the person will have to unlearn snow plow before learning how to parallel ski. Unlearning the snow plow technique is a major neuromuscular retiring process and can take a person years to break out of. Imo, it’s much better to teach someone parallel skiing from the beginning. Progress will be slower in the begging, yet will be much more efficient in the long run. Of course, this is all dependent on the particular value or teaching. I’m not making a back or white blanket statement. There are many blue values that I think are good to build a foundation for development - as long as their is understanding that it is a foundation to build upon and is not the end. For example, I think it’s helpful to establish some people as authorities to children - such as a parent, teacher and police officer. Yet this is just a transient stage since young children don’t have the capacity for higher level cognition yet. After about 8 y.o., a child can start learning that parents and teachers are human too and that we all make mistakes from time to time. I agree that Orange has been the driving force in deconstructing Blue. Orange rationalists deconstructing and rationalizing Blue. Orange will demonize blue to a greater extent than green, yet to a lesser extent than blue. For example, Orange may call a blue religious zealot as being an irrational idiot. Yet most Orange would be cool if religious blue just kept their irrationality to themselves - Orange gets most upset when blue tries to push religion into secular culture - such as teaching creation in science courses. In contrast, blue demonization would be more intense. Blue would see an Orange atheist as lacking morals and even a demon. Ultimately, much of blue values will be better taught through green. For example, loyalty would be better taught through a green lens than a blue lens. It isn’t necessary to create a blue level foundation on loyalty. Perhaps just a tiny bit to get started since green level loyalty is more nuanced. Yet it’s not like we need a whole stage of one’s life dedicated to learning blue level loyalty. Teaching blue level absolute respect and loyalty for authority makes it a lot harder to evolve to Orange and green down the road.

I agree that Blue has an immense amount of infrastructure that has been built over hundreds of years. Green is relatively new and has no where near the infrastructure of blue. For example, for hundreds of years people based their community on their religion. They go to church each week and are involved in church community events. It had been the foundation of most people’s social foundation and identity. Over the past 20 years, church attendance has plummeted rearing a void. There is no green level infrastructure to accommodate the exodus. Even if there was, Blue would need to jump Orange to reach green. Foe many people, “Spiritual, not religious” is a big jump. And there are many many more churches than spiritual centers. The question of how to efficiently evolve upward is nuanced, imo. One strategy might be to utilize Blue infrastructure to transition to Green. For example, to keep the social fabric of community gatherings each Sunday, yet more toward Green spirituality. To evolve churches into spiritual centers. Of course there would be resistance to this. I think the idea of building on previous stages is helpful in certain contexts and unhelpful in other contexts. In particular, teaching someone something they will later have to unlearn and re-learn is not helpful. For example, if we wanted to learn how to pronounce Spanish, we would start with simple mono-syllable words and then build on that for more complex words. Yet the key is, we would teach proper pronunciation for the simple words. We wouldn’t teach them improper pronunciation in the beginning, yet will cause problems later on. That would be inefficient. To me, saying we should use Blue as a foundation is only wise for what is useful as a foundation. For example, learning the difference between good and bad during childhood is a useful framework for future frameworks of continuums of good/bad and relativism of good/bad. Unfortunately, Blue wants to stay contracted within blue, so we would need a center of adult collective consciousness higher than blue to allow development beyond blue. There are also rotted foundational components that would actually interfere with future develop. For example, teaching children that of thinks homosexuality is immoral or that a women’s place is within the home. These are not good foundational aspects and would need to be de-conditioned and unlearned. There is a lot of this going on and it makes the process highly inefficient. Regarding demonization: I think the Jew of Green demonizing Blue is grossly exaggerated, in part due to dramatic exaggerated YT videos and media portrayals of unhealthy green as being the norm. There are several problems with this. First, it misses the whole point of development. Blue demonization of Green is more common and intense than Green demonization of Blue. Green is further developed. Similarly, 12th grade students are more mature than 6th grade students. To say they are all immature is a false equivalency within an important context. The majority of Green are good decent people that value and are embodying Green values of human connection, empathy and love. That is what they want more of. Yes, Green will blame blue and orange for many societal problems and will demonize, yet at a lower frequency and intensity than blue. If one goes to a Bernie Sanders rally and a Trump rally the difference in frequency and intensity is palpable. In 2016, Trump crowds wore “Trump that bitch!” t-shirts, while Bernie crowds wore “Free Hugs” T-shirts. Blue is a stage currently worthy of consideration in the short term. Yet over the long term, most of blue will evolve away - just like purple has mostly evolved away. And. . . there is a lot more going on in the spiral than intellect. Intellectual abstraction, modeling and an analysis is one component - yet I think a lot of people are missing non-intellectual information.

It seems like he had an Orange-centered crisis. His experience at 6:40 seems to be direct nondual experience that he contextualized at blue, rather than at Turquoise. Notice how much of his blue level religious conditioning enters to contextualize his non-dual experience. At Turquoise, he would have realized that he is Jesus. When he described the essence of his experience as Jesus, the wind, rustling leaves and crickets - he was super close to transcending Green toward Turquoise and awakening that he is Jesus, the wind, leaves and crickets through direct experience. It looks like he jumped up a conscious level to glimpse Turquoise. This creates groundlessness and the human will want to establish grounding. This can be done by staying in the discomfort of groundlessness and gradually form new higher grounding through integration. Or one can re-establish a sense of grounding from a place of previous grounding. Notice how after his nondual experience he contextualized it at his previous blue grounding. That he met Jesus, we are sinful and should stop watching porn, quit personal indulgences like drinking etc. I don’t think it will last to long though. I don’t think he will be satisfied with Blue very long. I predict he will come across some Turquoise level teachers and resonate with them.

The title of the article claims consciousness can be modulated with chemicals. The first sentence reads “Many readers are likely familiar with the theories of Roger Penrose on the topics of consciousness and how it relates to physics and even cosmology.” Notice how this model portrays consciousness as a thing. That is, consciousness is a thing that can be modulated by chemicals. Consciousness is a thing that is separate from physics and cosmology that can be related to physics and cosmology. The term consciousness is used in different contexts, which has practical value. For example, people often speak of personal consciousness in the sense of personal awareness, sensation and perception. This can be useful in personal development and raising one’s consciousness so that they become conscious of what is subconscious. Similarly, exploring the mechanisms of reality through quantum mechanics, chemicals, physics and cosmology can be fascinating, insightful and practical. The problem comes when relative and absolute is conflated. When one believes that personal consciousness is absolute Consciousness. Or a belief that chemicals are separate from consciousness and can modulate consciousness.

Below is a link to chapter 1 excerpt from the book. I think Wilber is placing far too much emphasis on toxic postmodernism as being the leading edge and failure of green. That is, the belief that everything is relative and social constructs, which leads to nihilism and narcissism. Since there is no truth there is no truth to lead toward. This has been Wilber’s bread and butter for years. To me, he seems to be immersed within a academic philosophy and perceives through that lens. Perhaps Wilber would take issue with this as I am suggesting his view is relative, based on his own conditioning in intellectual and academic theory. I don’t think Wilber has embodied essential essences of green and I don’t think he fully “gets” green. Green is not simply an intellectual model of the shortcomings of post-modernism. My actual direct experience immersed within green contrasts with an intellectual model such as Wilber’s. Emotion, feeling, intuition, empathy, love. Wilber writes about “inclusion” like an academic conceptualizing in his office. A key to fully understanding inclusion is not purely through intellectual modeling - it must also include the direct experience of being marginalized and ostracized. My experience within green communities is not the nihilism and narcissism Wilber suggests. The essence is not a hyper-relativistic mindset in which there is no common truth or meaning - an anything goes nihilistic/narcissistic hybrid. Yet I can see that perspective from an academic observing world events and intellectualizing at home or in their office. The leaders of green are not postmodern academics promoting a truthless, meaningless free for all. The Green leaders are Bernie Sanders and AOC - that is who Green resonates with and who speaks the collective voice of leading edge Green. They are promoting a common truth/meaning that incorporates relativism yet not to a toxic degree as Wilber suggests. For example, they see the relative experience of gender identity and support inclusion, equality and fair treatment for the LGBTQ community. Yet it’s a long stretch to label this as nihilistic/narcissistic. That is not how I would describe Green leaders like Bernie and AOC. To me, Wilber seems to heavy on intellectual modeling and hasn’t actually embodied green. And I don’t think he will fully “get it” until he does. https://www.shambhala.com/trump-and-a-post-truth-world/

There are for duplicate threads on this video

Orange will seek to capitalize on Green. Notice how Orange motivational speakers use Green values to sell and profit.

Imagine you are dreaming. You are a dream character called Paul with his friends Jack and Samantha. You are all at a concert. . . . Isn’t this all a dream within one mind? Isn’t Paul’s experience a dream? Yet it seems very real to Paul until you wake up (not Paul) Now go one level higher. Like Paul, you are a dream character within a larger mind. Yet it seems very real until You wake up (not you).

One point I found interesting: The internet tends to hinder development during stages 1-4 and the internet can enhance development at stages 4-5.

All conventional terms can be used unconventionally. That is not the issue. You portrayed an unconventional usage of a key term as if it was conventional. This is intellectually dishonest - and in this case moderately inflammatory and borderline trolling.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you would like to debate on this issue, be intellectually honest. Yes. Would you consider the death penalty for a 20 y.o. murderer to be "abortion"? You are presenting an unconventional use of a term as a if it was conventional. This manipulates a narrative and is intellectually dishonest. Use terms in their proper context.

That is not abortion, that is infanticide. Abortion is the termination of life during embryonic and fetal stages, not infant stages.

That is how it is perceived from a self-centered individualistic perspective. In SD theory of consciousness, this would be stage Orange. As I stated, you are not aware of your privilege. From a self-centered perspective, one will not want to introspect their privilege. It's a very challenging thing to do because it is threatening to self preservation. I have been through this developmental stage and understand it. The next stage of psychological development and consciousness expansion involves understanding other perspectives - not just in intellectual theory - but also in direct experience and embodiment. If you spent 10 years in inner city Chicago living in a poverty-stricken community, your mind would expand. You would broaden your understanding beyond your current contracted theory. I'm a white male that currently lives in a predominantly black poverty-stricken community. As well, I have lived in a poverty community in Honduras. I am telling you that there are things you are unaware of. Yet, you aren't open or willing to expand your understanding and consciousness. This development is essential for forming holistic and systemic understanding. I'm not here to argue within a highly contracted self-centered Orange narrative. That would only reinforce your contracted mindset. The deeper value of this thread is to reveal what a highly contracted stage Orange mindset looks like and what is needed to evolve upward. You are unaware of your potential for growth - growth that would be more fulfilling than you can imagine. If that does not interest you, fine. Yet I have a hunch there are others on the forum that are interested.

You are seeing this from a privileged perspective. You have the privilege of not seeing it through another's perspective that has to carry the burden. You have the privilege of sitting at your computer and pontificating about how others should just take responsibility and pick themselves up by their bootstraps. If that is how you want to express your privilege, that is your right. Yet I think it's a self-centered low conscious expression of privilege. Yet you cannot help it, since your perspective is contracted into your own experience and beliefs - which have been conditioned into you. And you are not aware of this. It is subconscious.

I understand your perspective. As you said, it is very simple. I am not disagreeing with you and I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is something you are not seeing. This would not invalidate your perspective. It's not an "either / or" scenario.

The key term here is "harm". You seem to assume that there is an objective, universal thing called "harm". Harm is a relative term. What you consider to be harmful, another person may consider to be beneficial. Yet if one assumes their idea of harm is objective and universal, they will not be able to understand another perspective. This creates a limited, contracted state of mind that is present in the universal objectivism of Ayn Rand and libertarian philosophy. . . A major part of self actualization is to expand one's consciousness out of such contracted states. It is unwise to concede this point to a libertarian unless they offer an objective, universal construct of "harm". Conceding this point allows a libertarian to frame the narrative in such a way that they gain grounding within groundless assumptions. As well, this framework allows a dominant group with majority power to maintain that power - by defining what counts as "harm". The group with power will often define "harm" from their perspective, not from the perspective of the minority group with less power.

There is something intuitive to me about the dissolution of space and time into Here and Now. Yet gravity isn’t as intuitive. I don’t know why. Perhaps it hasn’t been at the forefront of consciousness. I’ve had many nondual experiences with space and time. Yet only a few in which gravity was the theme.

I ask to be shown gravity without the construct of time. Can gravity be revealed Now? I don’t know. It seems easier to transcend space and time than it is gravity. Lol

Yet Oliver is an imagination in your mind while you are sleeping. Is Oliver's sadness real or an illusion?

The statement "It's ironic that you react the same way the people who you call devils do." is highly nuanced. The key term that orients the view is "same". Assumptions about "same" and "different" can blind a person to seeing false equivalencies. A false equivalency manifests when a person creates an equivalency and believes it to be objectively and universally true. They are unaware of another perspective, or realm, in which that equivalency is false. You perceive that Leo is reacting the same way the people who Leo calls devils do. You see that sameness as an equivalency that is objective and universally true. I am not saying that perspective is wrong. What i am saying is that by assuming sameness, one contracts themself into that sameness. If all one can see is Sameness, they will not be able to see Difference. In other words, if all one can see is an equivalency, they will not be able to see the false equivalency. Attachment/Identification to an equivalency will make it much harder to transcend and expand beyond it. Your statement is both right and wrong, yet you seem to be attached/identified to the rightness and cannot see the wrongness. . . Judging the sameness carries more relevance than the difference is also relative, yet one must be able to see both the sameness and difference to make this judgement. For example, if you saw two antique cups as being the same you would not be able to assign relative value to one tea cup over the other, because you don't see any differences between the tea cups. If you said "the two tea cups are the same" and I told you "that is a false equivalency", you wold disagree because all you can see is sameness and are unaware of difference. . . Leo did a good job explaining this in his "Sameness and Difference" video.

There has never been "Green socialism" before. It is evolving for the first time in human history. No country in the world is Green-centered. It will be more advanced than previous Blue socialism and Orange capitalism. This is a short-sighted view. That is like someone in the 15th century saying the emerging Renaissance would be a terminal stage. Not even close. Green is just scratching the surface. And Yellow is where things start to get real interesting. Orange sees Green as undesirable, yet when one embodies Green it is no longer undesirable. One "gets it". What you are not taking into consideration is that Green is more developed than Red and Blue. Orange does not understand higher stages of development. It often misunderstands Green as being Blue. Green socialism is hard to imagine through an Orange lens. Yet the key is, the people are different. They have an expanded consciousness. Green will be more advanced and healthier, because they have a higher understanding and embodiment of community. They can better see how they are not only an individual, yet a component of a larger community. This will include corporations. Eventually corporations will be Green. Green-level CEOs will not be screwing people over because they will place community higher than personal profit. Not because of regulations or because they are forced to. Because that is their beingness. They are genuinely kind to themself and others because they are starting to see/emody the inter-connectedness between self and other. In 100 years or so, the consciousness will be Green-centered and they will look back at self-centered toxic capitalism as barbaric. Just like we view tribal human sacrifices as barbaric. . . The illusion of a separate self will begin to dissolve at a population level. All this "me, me, me" and "us vs. them" will dissolve as people wake up to our true nature. Collective is more than a theory. It is a consciousness and beingness. Milton Friedman had good intentions for capitalism and collective welfare, yet he didn't fully consider the toxicity of excessive capitalism. These excesses didn't exist during his lifetime. Eventually, free capitalism would implode on itself. As a simple exercise: imagine each cell in your body was self-centered. Each cell was motivated for it's own survival and personal gain. That would be very unhealthy to the organism. It is cancer. . . Now imagine cells cooperating together for the functioning of a human body. This is a major transformational and energetic shift which is much healthier for both individual cells and the collective human body. Currently, most people see themselves as separate "cells" motivated for their own survival and personal gain. The next level of consciousness, people will become aware of themself within the higher collective consciousness of society. This is a transformational awakening and will lead to a major energetic shift, which is much healthier for the individual person and the collective community.

That's some neon Orange. Evolution of consciousness is a major component of SD. Evolution over the history of time as well as an individual's lifetime. In this context, of course there are no Green-centered nations. We haven't evolved there yet! That is like asking if there has ever been android communities. . .

Of course you do. That's how Orange looks at Green. You want to control the narrative. In other words, you would like to maintain your current level of consciousness, which is based and restricted on individual freedom, logic, rational thought, evidence, facts etc. Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand stuff. There are more expansive levels of consciousness.