tsuki

@now is forever Now you're stretching the metaphor too thin. What is outside of Matrioshka is not a middle Matrioshka . I am not that as well .

Like I said, I'm not monkeying words. What I was asking about is what is the incentive to make any deal out of it post-enlightenment.

@Zweistein Because Leo explains his wisdom mostly in terms of material wealth vs inner wealth. That's an Orange duality. Orange is blind to the inner wealth (mostly). To Yellow - fake growth could be figuring out this new shiny theory to explain this particular problem. When he keeps doing that and starts to gain momentum - at some point there is a brick wall that will resist him. Hit enough brick walls and you will see the bricks. It is then wise to bring a rope instead of a sledgehammer. Shiny theories are an inner wealth, but to Yellow - they become fake at some point.

@now is forever This difference keeps bugging me. It is not a middle Matrioshka. It's only one of many Matrioshkas. You can never tell it's a middle one until you open it. My expectation is that there will always be a Matrioshka to open. And every single one of them is the middle one until you do open it. What I think we misunderstand about each other is that we both assume that the other stopped opening. The phrase that 'there is no middle Matrioshka' means that there is no bottom to reach and be done with.

@Zweistein When you inspect growth, then you can divide it into chunks and call them whatever you please, like Fake and Real. Fake and real growth are elements that resonate with each other. All real growth becomes fake once you understand what you're doing. It is only real because you identify with the part that you work on. Realization of fakeness comes by noticing what does not change despite your efforts to change your whole identity. Then, this real (but fake) area is dis-identified with and the lack of fixation is what opens possibility of noticing other areas. Those areas, which are identified as constant (by neglect), are the new basis for identity. This video is mostly targeted at the Orange viewer, as Leo assumes that real growth is inner growth. Orange people work on money, as they identify with wealth. For them, it is as real as it gets. Until of course, they turn green and notice the inner world. There is also fake growth within inner growth. Yes, @now is forever - it is a strangeloop. There is no middle Matrioshka .

@Big Guru Balls Still not seeing the difference. One is not, and never has been separate from the source. That is also true pre-enlightenment, from the post-enlightenment point of view. What is the incentive to make a big deal out of it? Why make spirituality out of it? And I'm not monkeying words here, mind you.

@Nahm Yes, before any polarities subside, there is a place of stillness. If fear is love, then again: what is the difference between pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment? When fear is love: pre-enlightenment is post-enlightenment.

@Nahm Can't see the difference from my point of view. First, there was running away from the things we fear. Then, there is chasing the things we love. Running away is like chasing with respect to movement. Is there a polarity to be seen? Can we really choose the things we love? Is there any basis for such a choice?

@now is forever Green does not reject status. Status is something different for it than for orange. It is simply that status for Green is not in opposition to collective benefit. It's about overcoming the duality of personal success and collectivism. For Orange, personal success is opposite to collectivism because he is in reaction to Blue. Edit: Sigh... you didn't say that it did reject status. Wrrr...

@Zweistein Regardless of the position on the spiral, one's beliefs about the world are projected as the world's benefit. Educating others is nothing else than an attempt to make them conform to our beliefs. I believe that the world have had enough of that. How would green recognize that yellow is not orange? Green resists both.

@Zweistein Hahaha thank you for your recognition, although I feel like you knew exactly which questions ask to pull my intuition

Aren't we trying to build a ladder to climb somewhere higher? Wouldn't this be the most poignant lesson for us, builders? Wouldn't this be the most useful tool for self-actualizers as well?

@Saumaya What is the meaning of self if there was no self to begin with? What is the difference between pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment?

@Faceless First, there is nothing. Then, there is a duality of opposites. The direction between positive and negative is what defines movement. This direction is the possibility of decision between opposites. Either one, or the other. Repulsive movement is fear. Attractive movement is love. Duality is what constitutes knowledge/belief. Then, we notice the duality of the '+' and '-'. That love and fear are the same direction seen from two points of view. That love attracts and fear repulses, but the direction is the same. That the movement is not a choice. That knowledge predetermines outcome. In seeing the connection of the opposites, we recognize their union. Thought is the recognition of division and hierarchy. Insight is the recognition of oneness by noticing the movement. Is there any difference between the two above pictures? Can we locate the movement that the second picture implies? Is there a difference between duality and unity? Is there a difference between (+) and (-)? Fear of fear is the lack of recognition of self-reference. Without it, knowledge of knowledge is born and duality is a (-) and non-duality is a (+). Then, there is a movement of insight that is taking place, which is a fear of fear. It is nothing else than fear itself. Is it clear, or are we constructing knowledge of knowledge of knowledge?

@Faceless What is the origin of fear of fear?

There is a connection between I=you=we and embodiment. When 'the other' turns to I=you=we, resistance is transformed to surrender. Resistance is suffering. Surrender is bliss. What is the relationship between I=you=we and embodiment? Is embodiment the phenomenological description of bliss?

@now is forever What do you think about this post in relation to spiral dynamics? To me, all stages are the same and the model became unusable.

@now is forever The project you are aiming at bears resemblance to an ancient Chinese book called 'I ching'. Some time ago @deci belle suggested to me that the version re-contextualized into Taoism is a very good starting point. She suggested to me Taoist I Ching published by Shambhala. I haven't read it yet though, as the language is too obscure to me for now.

I agree.

@now is forever Only when I miss you and you miss me, is when the conversation is not missed. Yes, there is always a matrioshka, but how do you tell that it's the middle one until you open it?

@now is forever Hahaha, you sound exactly like my fiancee . Missing is missing. Mutual misunderstanding. Either I will miss what you say or you will miss what I say. Or both, hopefully. At that point, the conversation will end. Isn't it natural? There is no middle Matrioshka .

@Zweistein From one particular perspective in which there is one particular paradox, then there is one particular I=you=we. When I say that teacher=student it reveals a paradox in relation to 'the world needs healing'. That particular paradox can be resisted, or surrendered to. When you resist, there is a boundary and 'the other'. When this particular paradox is surrendered to, then there is one particular I=you=we. From the point of many particular I=you=we, then yes - all that I=you=we can do is to surrender. Over and over again. To many different paradoxes to arrive at many different I=you=we. To me, all of those I=you=we bear a similarity between one another. They are all perspectives from which the total I=you=we can be observed. What is common to all of them is what happens at the moment when resistance changes to surrender. To embody this commonality and experience the total I=you=we, the duality between resistance and surrender has to be overcome. From that point on, there is neither 'the other' nor 'I=you=we'. From that point on, there is neither resistance, nor surrender. Does this make any sense to you? I can't really answer your question with a yes or no. Such answers bear no meaning to me. They are both a lie. That is because surrender and resistance are merging into indifference. There is also a ridiculous sense in which I can understand your post. You are identifying with I=you=we. I don't. There is no me to identify with anything. It is only cuddling if you expect a dualistic expression of language from which you can derive a X vs Y. That something is more important than something else. That you should surrender to this and not surrender to that. From this point of view, we're just taking our sweet time talking about nothing. That, or any other explanation about stroking our egos. From the non-dual point of view, this is an exercise of our polar-thinking muscles which is very rare. This is actually the first fruitful non-dual conversation that I have ever had. The gradual drifting apart of understanding is expected. That is a contemplation, after all. Its whole point is to deplete your knowledge. As I am doing that, I am building knowledge on how to deplete knowledge. By doing that, I am preparing to do contemplation on the nature of contemplation. The result of this is the lack of duality between resistance and surrender. This conversation will end at some point in which we will miss each other completely. But at that point, it will feel appropriate to do so. To me, it is not yet. This was the point from the very start.

Sorry. I'm talking about my impressions, that's all. Any comments about the discussions yet @dorg?

@now is forever If you assume that, then I'm not using language at all. I'm starting to get the impression that you just want to cuddle .

@now is forever Sigh... That's what I'm saying. Maybe what I'm looking after is the Tao of Tao. lol