tsuki

@Faceless Bring this indescribable movement of creativity into the everyday experiences. You don't need ? any longer.

@Faceless I can understand what you wrote and I agree, although I can see that it is only partial. Either because you didn't notice it, or because you simply didn't want to go this deep. The difference between our understanding is that even if you do not make a duality of Fear - Non-Fear and say that Love has no opposites, the there is still a duality between ? and love (in your sense of the word as Non-Fear vantage point that observes the mind). As you zoom out of the ? to observe it - you experience the state of the beautiful infinite creativity which deepens. I relate to this experience, as I am undergoing it myself. What I suggest you explore is to introduce that very infinite creativity with no thought - the high vantage point - to everyday situations where you would normally expect to need thought. The point is that you can learn for yourself that you actually don't need ? at all. The distinction between the high vantage point and ? is false. As you zoom out of ?, the thought is still in place, but its movement gets more subtle. As you observe the [??] (what you called the high vantage point) that observes ?, at some point you will see the similarity between these two movements. Given enough time and consideration, they will actually be recognized into one and the same ?. That is when you know that whatever you are describing as ? right now is actually the same movement of duality, but very diluted. Very subtle. The more you zoom out, the more subtle it gets. As you observe that ? is equal to ??, then you will be able to zoom out of ?? to arrive at ???. There is still possibility of observation of the movement. After some time - you will instantly recognize movements at all levels of magnification and ? will be the zoom itself. This is what I mean by self reference. As you zoom, the level that that is observed is the same as the level that observes.

@Nahm Wasn't it the opposite back then? That tsuki did this. It just feels upside down. It's fun this way I suppose but so it was back then. Does it switch for you sometimes? Wouldn't that make Buddha or Jesus half-baked prophets though? Why would anybody wish for others to be enlightened?

That's a tricky question. Back then, I would rather be somebody I thought would make me acceptable. Even if somebody liked me, then from the point of view of the new 'me', there was nobody to like there. It was more of a mashup of reactions to projected expectations. Overall, there are less people that consistently like me, but now at least they know me. And, there are now long-lasting relationships where I can be 'me' despite the drama. Other people are not a reliable source of acceptance if it's needed. Why the questions though?

@SoonHei Are you a volunteer for the test?

@Zweistein Hahahahahaha At first, some. Then we drifted apart. Then, some others. Then we drifted apart. Then I met the old ones that told me that they wouldn't have recognized me if the passed me on the street. They seemed genuinely impressed, but they didn't stick. Nowadays I just don't talk much about what I do in my free time with people. They also don't ask questions, as we usually don't have anything common to talk about. It doesn't make me feel lonely. On the contrary . I even started talking about the weather lately .

@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.