Forestluv

We could make a distinction between populist rhetoric and populist embodiment. In this context, I do not consider Trump's rhetoric to be populist. The core of Trump's rhetoric is not a populist "we the people" vs. the elite/corporations etc. - it is much more tribalistic and seeks to divide "we the people" against each other. For example, to divide "we the people" into tribes based on ethnicity, religion and conservative nationalism. Even when given an ideal scenario to be a populist, Trump falls flat. China is a good example. He could be using populist rhetoric that it's "we the people of America vs China and I will win this trade war for the American people". Yet that's not his rhetoric. He is far to narcissistic and he is getting worse. His rhetoric about China is all about him, his great negotiating skills, being an alpha male and "his" stock market gains. I don't consider Trump a populist. I would consider Bernie a populist for both rhetoric and embodiment.

There might be some of that, yet I don't think it's the main fuel. I think a stronger stimulus is that he packages resistance to Green in a way that is appealing to Orange. For example, undercutting gender equality using intellectual rhetoric that appeals to Orange and gives Orange cover. Green finds this very annoying. That is a false equivalency. There is more going on than that.

He has strong influence on a considerable portion of the populace in a way that some of us believe is inhibiting development and progress. It's not really about trying to entertain myself. It's more about the effect at a collective level. . . If there was a virus that interfered with human development, some people would have a desire to raise awareness to others. They wouldn't say "Well, I'm immune to the virus and I find the virus boring - I'd rather find videos to entertain myself". Others would not find it important and would not engage. And that's cool too.

I think there is a very important distinction here. Trump is oriented toward gaining power and driving others. Bernie is oriented toward giving people the power. I don't think he is saying "You can't trust the corrupt government, you have to trust me" - I think he is saying "You can't trust the corrupt government, you can trust the people". A good example of this is with "democracy dollars". In this proposal, the government would give everyone $200 that they could spend on any candidate they want. Conservatives, libertarians, progressives, corporate democrats, AOC, Trump etc. This clearly shows that Bernie is not about accumulating power from corporations to himself. He is about dis-empowering corporations and empowering the public. If everyone got $100 to donate to their favorite candidate, it empowers the people - not Bernie, democrats, republicans etc. - because the people can donate the money to anyone. It transfers corporate power to people power. This is what makes Bernie such a rare politician. It's not about him - it truly is about the people - and that makes him a very rare politician. Bernie and Trump have very different orientations in this regard. Trump is not a populist. He is a hyper selfish opportunist. This is an important distinction between red/orange and green/yellow. There is much more "full of shit" populism at stage Orange than stage Green. . . Trump >>> Hilary Clinton >>>Bernie And Bernie has been fighting for others his entire life. In the 1963 he chained himself to a black woman at a protest and said if you arrest her, you'll need to arrest me too. He is a very special politician and person. https://medium.com/@ShaunKing/you-dont-really-know-who-bernie-sanders-was-in-the-1960s-79628016125f

You likely have had some direct non-dual experience. Have you ever been so immersed in something that you lost track of yourself and time? Perhaps being in a flow state while playing a sport or musical instrument. Perhaps being in awe while observing a night sky. Perhaps a moment of pure love with another in which there was no "me" and "you" - just love. . . Then we often "snap out of it" and return to conditioned ways of thinking and perceiving. So, from a personal perspective - there can be this sense of flipping back and forth between duality and nonduality. Imagine a person that only saw the Heads side of a coin their entire life. If they caught a glimpse of the Tails side it may be an awakening - that it's not all Heads. That person may have the sense that they are going back and forth from perceiving Heads and Tails. That would be the subjective human experience. Yet transcending that. . . both Heads and Tails are the actual coin. We create the duality of Heads vs Tails, yet it is both one coin. Similarly, if we catch glimpses of nonduality it can be an awakening experience. It may start to feel like we are flipping back and forth between duality and nonduality - yet they are both the coin. There desire to achieve a permanent no-mind nondual state is at the human level. The person has created a story of things called nondual states and dual states as well as a thing called permanence within a timeline. Rather than framing it as a state that can be permanently attained, I think it's more accurate and helpful to frame it as something that can be transcended Now. There is transcendence of the whole kit-n-kaboodle. All of it, including imaginations of no-mind, mind, duality, nonduality etc.

Part of the dynamic are defenses to protect the dynamic. ime, there needs to be at least some willingness and receptivity. If someone hunkers down behind a barrier with a message "Do Not Enter" - they won't allow entry. At a more fundamental level, it's about survival - including survival of the ego. Attachment/Identification to an identity goes deep and their is a survival mechanism to protect that identity. In a moderate form, it is an identity crisis that can be uncomfortable and destabilizing. Some people may resist and withdraw, others may seek to develop and improve their identity. At a deeper level, the whole house of cards comes down. It is revealed it's all just ideas, stories, perspectives without a "me" owning any of it. This is complete loss of the narrative and is a major threat to self survival. Very few people confront this. It takes a lot of courage and can be terrifying. Most people would rather protect a miserable identity than transcending the identity. For example "I'm a scientist and I value reason and logic. I'm a skeptic and won't believe in something without evidence. I am very analytical and this has caused problems in my romantic relationships. I'm so logical, I have a hard time expressing my emotions and connecting with others. Sometimes I feel like my life doesn't have meaning. But that's just who I am. . . " There may be a very strong attachment/identification to this identity - even if it means getting into debates and arguments to win on logic - yet cause misery. Transcending this identity threatens the survival of the identity - which is a form of death.

@Leo Gura Perhaps a green version of Trump isn't the best way to describe it. I meant it more in the sense that Trump has taken over and is revolutionizing the republican party. I think Bernie could do the same in a Green version. For example, republicans are afraid to speak against Trump in fear of being shamed, primaried etc. Yet this is done with toxic motivations. I think if Bernie got the same level of public Green energy as Trump has red/blue energy, he could use that energy to transform the party up to Green - much the same as Trump has transformed republicans back down to red/blue. Yet Bernie is a healthy version of it. We are already seeing this transformation. After a few years of Bernie, Democratic politicians may be afraid to speak out against Bernie and his follows - in fear of feeling The Bern.

JP is a master "concern troll". He tries to express his "concern" about an issue like Climate change or gender inequality and then trolls. JP is trolling at Orange, so it will resonate with Orange and they won't be able to "get it". One needs to be a Green/Yellow to see/sense/understand the dynamics. Notice how JP states his "concern" about Climate change. There is now enough Green consciousness in the U.S. that people need to acknowledge and address their "concerns" about climate change to maintain credibility. Climate change deniers are beginning to become marginalized and left behind. Anyone who wants to stay relevant now and moving forward needs to a least acknowledge climate change and express "concerns" about it. Yet, there is a big difference between expressing "concerns" at an Orange or Green/Yellow level. Someone centered at Blue/Orange will may express "concerns" about an issue, yet then tries to manipulate the narrative to resist progress up toward Green. "Yes, climate change is real and a serious issue that can negatively impact many of people. However. . . (insert Blue/Orange resistance to Green - "it's not man-made, it's too complicated, there is still so much uncertainty, the world wouldn't unite on this). The energy is to pull down to Blue/Orange. A green/yellow person may address "concerns" yet the orientation is different. A green/yellow person is concerned about climate change and may be concerned about details of certain proposals to address climate change. Yet those concerns are oriented toward improving the proposals, not dismissing, delaying or sabatoging the proposals. For example, a green/yellow may be concerned that Bernie's climate change plan does not engage the global community enough and we should put a lot of energy in developing global climate change alliances with influence to shame and punish those that don't cooperate. In contrast, an Orange-level person may be "concerned" about the impact of climate change, yet is also "concerned" that Bernie's plan would cut into corporate profits and individual liberty. Rather than trying to improve Bernie's proposal with new modifications or innovative ideas, they wold want to dismiss his proposal as being "unreasonable, unworkable, too extreme" etc. to maintain Orange status quo. @Yog You are getting duped by JP because you are not conscious of his orientation and underlying dynamics. It is not just his criticism, it is his orientation.

@Leo Gura It seems distinctions are arising between Bernie and Warren. Warren is progressive on a lot of issues, yet is reaching out to corporate democrats and talks about "working together as a team". Bernie is very much not reaching out to corporate Dems - he is calling them out and shaming them. In terms of SD, I would put Warren at high Orange/low Green and her motivation is to unite and lead the Democratic party and country up the Spiral, while maintaining aspects of Orange. I would say this is the reciprocal Hilary Clinton - she was Orange-centered with bits of Green, yet seemed oriented toward maintaining the Orange-centered status quo. In contrast, Bernie wants to blow up the corporate democrats, revolutionize the party an pull everyone up to solid Green. As you mentioned, as president Bernie would likely not get much done - yet could radically raise awareness by constantly calling out and shaming Orange corruption. In terms of consciousness evolution, I'm curious which path you think would be most efficient. I think Bernie's approach is more radical with high risk of backlash, while Warren is more gradual - yet also carries risks since she might just be temporarily taming corporations. For example, if Dems had 50 senators + the House and there was a contentionious bill for M4A, I could see Warren "working together as a team" with a Blue Dog like Steve Manchin from West Virginia and watering down the bill to get his vote. That's not Bernie's style. He would probably hold a rally in West Virginia to shame Manchin in front of his voters and Bernie may indirectly support a primary against Manchin. In some ways, Bernie is a green version of Trump.

For sure. Notice orientation in movement. . .

There are individual egos of corporate owners. There is also a collective ego of corporate owners and a corporate ego. That is not what I am saying. That is a recontextualization. The original context is that personal empowerment and economic income are factors in well-being. This does not imply that economic income is sufficient. It would be like saying: to become an olympic athlete, training and healthy diet are both factors. And then saying: perhaps we should give everyone a healthy diet and make them olympic athletes. . . It doesn't make logical sense. As well, necessity does not mean it can be solved by a simple mechanism. That would be like saying "To end world hunger, just give everyone lots of food". Again, I am not disagreeing with you. Over and over, I have agreed with you. I am saying that personal empowerment AND economic empowerment are BOTH factors in promoting well being. You seem to be at one extreme and I am trying to show balance. . . If someone was on the other extreme and said "Economic income is sufficient for well being", I would be saying that personal empowerment is also a factor. I don't think dropping a ton of cash in a poor neighborhood is the most effective mechanism. I think part of the investment should go toward promoting personal empowerment. To give disadvantaged people the resources to empower themselves and reach their potential. Resources includes cash, yet is not limited to cash. Resources goes way beyond cash. You are making a distinction between "God" and "Us". This can enter into metaphysical realms, yet you seem to be using the term "God" in the classical sense that there is an anthropomorphic entity separate from a person. You have consistently valued and promoted personal empowerment. I find it interesting that you suddenly embraced personal dis-empowerment. In terms SD, it is like going from Orange-level personal empowerment to Blue - in which personal empowerment is delegated to an external god. I think if you got a taste of Green empowerment, you might be surprised.

It is not a claim that is dependent upon evidence and proof. It is prior to evidence and proof. I'm not saying that what you write is wrong. I am saying it is within something more fundamental. And you can realize this for yourself - you are the same source as every sage that has ever lived. Another way to point. . . If it's all ocean, how can a whale be more complex than seaweed? . . These questions of complexity are super interesting, yet they are within something more fundamental. I am not saying there are no differences between a whale and seaweed. There are differences and the mechanisms of those complexity differences are super interesting. Yet there is also sameness because it is all Ocean.

I try to be careful with opposites. If I say "at the end, it's all about having the nondual experience" - it implies there is an end and it's not about having the dual experience. It is both One and Not One. A rock is the same as a human and a rock is different than a human. A great paradox that can't be solved intellectually, because intellect is within it.

It doesn't answer it in a way that is satisfying to you. From one perspective you are asking "There are differences. How can there not be differences when there are differences?". You are assuming those differences are objective reality. You are assuming it is objective reality that there is an entity called a rock that has no machinery and an entity called a human that has complex machinery. Consciousness as Everthing comes prior to these "complex machinaries" your mind is creating. If Everything is Consciousness, there is no separate "they" to have complex machinery. You are adding in separation and distinctions. There is nothing wrong with that, yet that orientation will not help in realizing Everything is Consciousness, because there is an inherent assumption that everything is not consciousness. From a relative perspective, I think mechanisms of complexity is super interesting. I spend time everyday thinking about this. Yet, you seem to be conflating absolute and relative a bit here.

You didn't make any claims about it. That is why I said you are assuming it. You are unaware of it. We can create distinctions of complexity and examining underlying complexity. Some people are really interested in that.

You are essentially asking "If there are no differences, why are there differences"? You can construct distinctions. You can also deconstruct distinctions. What happens if you deconstruct all distinctions such that there are no longer any distinctions? How could you tell the difference between a rock and a human body without distinctions? You are assuming that distinctions are objective reality.

Yep. It's all fun and games until. . .

I think you underestimate the power corporations have. It's not that corporations should have zero power. It's a balance of power. Excessive corporate power threatens democracy. Look at the effect of corporate power on politicians. The conflict of interest is off the chart high. Accountability is low. Corporations buy off and control most politicians. This isn't about not buying corporate products. That train left the station in the 1980s. This goes much deeper and systemic than that. Personal empowerment is fine and dandy. Yet economic oppression is also a factor. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between well-being and income up to an average salary (about $60,000 family income). Who should fight for systemic change and when? Systemic change doesn't magically happen on it's own. It's fought for by people Now and it takes time to evolve. Currently, democracy is on the decline and authoritarian/totalitarian/corporatism is on the rise - domestically and globally. It will continue to worsen if there is no counter-effort. That effort comes from we the people, now.

Yep.

This is a good example of collective consciousness. The globe is a giant organism and one of it's lungs is burning up.

Sometimes the ego gently falls asleep, sometimes it goes down kicking and screaming.

There is a difference and there is no difference. This is the big leap for a rational mind because it doesn't make rational sense. The mind creates criteria of what is "real". Some may say "You create your own reality". This is one area psychedelics can be helpful, because they are nearly guaranteed to break down this duality and leave the person asking "what is real?". Yet, anything that disrupts one's sense of grounded, objective reality can be helpful. There are some neuroscientists open to the relativity of perception, dark room retreats, sensory deprivation tanks, lucidity during sleep and wake. Yet these can be minor disruptions of one's conditioned sense of reality. Psychedelics are like a bulldozer.

This is a dream vs real duality that can cause a lot of distress. Imagine having a coin in which all you have ever seen in your life is the Tails side. You get a glimpse of the Heads side and now question whether the Tails side is actually Tails. Maybe Tails is actually Heads. This sounds like no big deal in terms of a coin, yet can be a very big deal at the human level. Because, Tails represents people we love and care about. What you aren't seeing is that Heads and Tails are both the same coin. @Alex bliss Our brains are wired to see in opposites. If it is true that wakefullness is the same as a dream, then the mind will want to believe the opposite is false. I.e. it is false that wakefullness is different than a dream. The mind wants to work in binary "either / or" orientations. That is, a dream is either the same as wakefullness or different than wakefullness. Expanding beyond this orientation can be quite challenging and many paradoxes will arise. You can realize a truth without rejecting the opposite as being false.It's not an either/or decision. Just set aside the opposite for a bit and see truth.

Because it doesn't happen "there".

I don't mean relating sleeping dreams to wakeful life. I'm referring to within the dream itself. Within the dream itself: do fear, self and emotion exist? (without considering waking life). Imagine a dream character named Oliver who is sad within the dream. Does Oliver and his sadness exist? Is it real or an illusion?