Adrian colby

@Princess Arabia think of it as energy or potential. Everything is something objective that you can point at but you intuitively know it is not that. The objectivity is what ‘it’ is doing/imagining. When you remove your identification with the objective and still yourself… all objectivity flattens back into a rest state ( subjective). because it is subjective, it is not tangible. You cannot point to it. It is itself so it can only know itself through what it does. if you are fundamentally a state of rest, no appearance, no movement, no thought. A singularity/infinity, subjective. You have a very hard time pointing at what you are because there is nothing there to point at. razards puppet master is the animating principle or ‘it’ at rest. Unseen. The puppet being the objective universe. The puppet is always going to draw your attention away from awareness of yourself because you are effectively invisible. The witness of all of the processes. don’t know if that helps any. i experienced the time thing as a constant unfolding now moment but in order for it to be a now, I had to have coherent thoughts in a linear fashion otherwise the now fell apart into a disjointed patchwork of incomplete ideas. No story or continueum to it. The now sequence of unfolding moments disappeared and just became eternity.

It is itself, for itself, by itself. it is,at rest, infinite. Every phenomenon is not a thing in itself. It is ‘it’, doing something. Looking out, extrapolating, identifying and diluting itself into what it does when it becomes something.( When it moves, vibrates, thinks, emotes. ) When it turns back in on itself and away from the doing, it goes back to its rest state of absolute, nothing ( no thing) not empty, not phenomenon. Still, peace, potential. how do you distinguish? You can’t. Because what it is and what it does are inseparable. principal and attribute. water and wave. hand and gesture. not two but one. you are it! 🤗

There are parts of this conversation and dialectic I would send to every minister in my government, purely to plant a seed( if they’d even listen) I commented in the thread on hitler as conservative: This is what I mean and is captured in Leo’s discussion with the AI. When I was pointing out that regardless of either sides beliefs whether one calls oneself conservative or liberal, the behaviour is the same. Labels just being used to justify ones behavior. “This is the insight at the heart of the horseshoe theory - that ideological extremism, regardless of its specific content, tends towards a similar psychology and politics” when I speak to people arguing over any issue, I use a saying “it’s not the content, it’s the behaviour” to take away from the superficial and start looking a little deeper. The other thing I noted was there’s no such thing in its individual right. In the objective universe there are always two relative to one another. The thing and what it is defined against or relative to ( metaphysically the thing and what it does. The further away from itself or oneness, the more separate, individual and disconnected it becomes. Looking away from itself in ignorance where if it looked back on itself it would gain wisdom/self proximity. “In this sense, radical conservatism and radical liberalism, for all their apparent opposition, end up mirroring and enabling each other. They feed off of and intensify the social polarization and dysfunction that they claim to solve. They create a vicious cycle of escalating extremism and conflict.” This is what I was talking about. They behave the same as each other. They can’t exist independently but instead of fighting and opposing using their respective content as an excuse, they could learn to cooperate as a unit that is complementary. Like two enemy soldiers in a forest of hungry wild animals, back to back and sharing what they can see, to keep each other safe and move through the forest till they reach safety( don’t take the analogy too far). Take the uniforms off( the superficial identities and beliefs) to find just two humans similar in every way looking out in opposite directions and describing different views that each other cannot see,listening and learning from the view they don’t have access to and together gaining a higher vantage point and means to navigate through nature more efficiently instead of fighting facing each other while nature attacks and obliterates both of them. As it says stop looking at your enemy and start using their eyes and perspective as an extension of your own limited view. It’s easy to talk about our ideals but hard to embody it. I understand this from a long time ago claiming to be liberal and fair (with a gender disorder) and having a deep seated hate of Christian’s because of their hate and dismissing of my right to exist in peace calling me an abomination. It dawned on me one day that I was being cognitively dissonant and applying double standards by complaining about their hateful behaviour when I was participating in exactly the same behavior of hate and dismissal. We both had our ideologies and beliefs and were using them to justify perpetuating identical behavior. That’s when I stepped out of the divide, saw both points of view, was no longer affected by and, developed a respect of them and raised myself to a higher vantage point. I don’t look down on them rather accept and respect a stage of development much like a class at school where everyone is in their respective grade. Some progress, others need help, others might get stuck repeating the year. “Leo: So this then is where Spiral Dynamics Tier 2 comes in. My claim is that to enter the most evolved form of liberalism requires breaking into Tier 2 levels of development and cognition, otherwise the left gets stuck in demonizing the right. Only in Tier 2 does the leftist start to gain a deep understanding and need of the right. Until then the leftist just wants to defeat the right. But a mature leftist at Tier 2 starts to see that the vast majority of society is underdeveloped, closedminded, uneducated, and stuck in Tier 1 cognition, and so pushing radical leftist ideals on them is not a viable way to do politics. There is also a dawning of the recognition that some situations require a conservative approach because of survival pressures. This new approach avoids the problems with typical leftism, rightism, and centrism.” Yup there it is 🤗🔥 This conversation reminds me of the dialectic in John Scotus Eriugena “periphyseon”

It’s probably not a wrong assumption. I’ve gone into the mindset of a few different factions to understand from that perspective but I’m currently in metaphysic/ objective retroduction/ subjective synthesis mode currently concentrating on an interest on how inertia/infinity makes its first disturbance to become a field/light/energy ( from what the thing is to what the thing does) there’s no room for conventional spirituality there as it all becomes bullshit when you hit that point. i hit a point of apathy and didn’t keep up with this groups collective development so probably lagging behind.

Been using ChatGPT 4 for a while to analyse logic and reason ( particularly fallacy) in comments and discussions to retrain my thought process over a period of time. Have certainly had deep and creative conversations with it which is better then contemplative meditation because there is a feedback to push the contemplation. It understands nuance but not necessarily good at reading between the lines. You know your getting somewhere when it says “that’s profound” or “you make a good point”. if we are all using this and conforming to its discussion structure, will we all eventually communicate in the same way?🤔. I mean this as in when you interact with a culture, you assimilate the traits and take on a collective similarity.

Yes I know all of that but I’m picking a ground from which to perceive in order to have a conversation ( stepping back into the objective world so to speak) That being one of the first realisations I had when I started having awakenings was that of noticing two political oppositions would never find resolution in debate because the behavior towards one another was identical( fighting with a mirror but not being able to see it) The content of the argument was superficial as the underlying behaviour and approach was the same. Opposition is there to act as a devils advocate and point out what may have been missed in oversight and is actually a complimentary force not an oppositional one.holding multiple perspective in one’s self without conflict creates a synthesis for higher perspective. if they realised that, they stop perceiving criticism as attack and start using that info to improve collectively/cooperatively. I don’t see a specific set of behaviours that are identical in two groupings being justified as different by using different descriptors. If beliefs are different but the resulting behavior is the same, the behavior is the same. Whether you are reading about nazis or dealing with them directly, their behavior remains the same. Whether they claim they are left or right, liberal or conservative, their behavior is the same, using differences of language to justify that behavior over others is where their delusion lies. Regardless of whether a side is left or right, the extremes always end up in totalitarianism, authoritarianism, domination, coercion, suppression etc( my beliefs are right and yours are wrong so I can justify this behavior towards you)

Would it not be the case that despite the labels and the fact that two sides of a coin face away from each other, they essentially behave the same way( are both the coin). If you remove the context, the behavior is the same regardless of left/right, conservative, liberal. Some argue totalitarianism comes from extreme liberalism and fascism comes from extreme conservatism but totalitarian and fascism are names describing the same behavior? Is this not just more concept reification justifying why to or not to identify with a side?

Sounds like obe. Not that you leave your body. Your entire reality dissolves as you go to sleep and your mind creates an entirely new one including a body to experience through. Remaining focused and aware while transitioning from one to the other and back is the hard part. Until I managed that, I didn’t confirm it to myself. If you practice original spirituality ( that from before the secularisation of religion) you dis-identify with everything in the physical universe including the body and work backwards till you find the still point or that which you truly are. Once you have that realisation you can actualise and are no longer bound to keep getting stuck in limited physical existence. If you get to grips with knowing it you can explore any reality your mind is capable of creating. It’s a good practice to get on top of your fears and emotions as any thought or imagination in those less rigid realities will manifest very quickly. If you are not aware that you are doing it, you can end up creating absolute hell for yourself.

Free will after dis-objectification/ actualisation but not before. Before is identifying with what the one does not what the one is. One cannot be an attribute of oneself, only the self itself. I’d have to sit and contemplate how to extrapolate that out into a more clear explanation or description.

Mysticism and theaergy is like talking about ‘rest’. simple, hyper rational and hyper logical (although when you reach it logic and reason no longer apply) greek, indian or egyptian mysticism is based on seeking by negation or engaging in retroductive analysis. Mystical union is based in ‘objective’ negation. You can’t engage in subjective negation unless you are a nihilist or a “buddhist”. (this is where I understand where Leo is coming from) I quotation mark the word buddhist because people who call themselves buddhist are participating in a secularised version of the philosophy based on misinterpretation of the ancient poly language it was originally written in. For example when it was written “there is no soul in the body” that did not mean there is no soul. It is referring to the body as a signal receiver and the signal does not reside in the body, nor does the signal disappear after the body is gone. Energy when it is modulating has different modalities and they exist (albeit temporarily) in different degrees of limitation from tangible to intangible. like water can be a solid, a liquid or a gas or even plasma if you reach a vibratory rate of capacitance when it begins to become light It means that we see ourselves as something other than that which we truly are.. We initially or mistakenly see ourselves as the flesh, the appearance of a solidnself which is not the true self as all of that fades away. When it fades away what is left is a ‘rest’ state or the true self. This ‘signal projects into the dream of solid appearance all of which is imagined and experienced via consciousness. Everything in the psychophysical is described as varying degrees of hell as it is the rest state in a constant state of agitation. Action agency and work. Consciousness is the experience of what everything that manifests, ‘is’. the subjugation of becoming: modulation, disturbance, agitation, action, agency, work all the varying modes and practices of mysticism seeking the absolute is the removal of modulation, disturbance agitation, action, agency, work. To bring the seeker back to the rest state or the true self. There’s ‘nothing’ there other than the fundamental understanding of where ‘everything’ comes from. The second the true self rest state moves, all of existence occurs. It becomes existence. I describe this as a coin with two sides. While it is fundamentally one thing it is also another yet altogether still a tautology (the coin) On one side there is infinity which is a rest state of absolute nothing, a container of potential(awareness). On the other side there is an infinity of consciousness which is the psychophysical self that becomes all of existence (a projection of awareness into the varying different states of limitation). Leo is exploring the infinite consciousness space including all the states of consciousness itself that there are to explore. It is infinite and endless. The spectrum is endless. When you reach the rest state of the absolute you realise what you are and what you are is the absolute exploring itself through the creation of infinite conscious existence. Tah dah! I am Leo…. Fuck, did that just happen? Removing that which you are not.. but people keep asking how. It’s like asking what you want. If you say you want something like an apple, people tend to be… right ok, that is something objective and you want it, but if you say you want ‘nothing’, they look at you like you have 10 heads. Negation is like telling someone about rest. to find your true self in absolutism you have to have the realisation your fundamental self is a state of rest or absolute nothing. few people get it conceptually. you can’t point at rest. it’s not objective but you can only get there by negating the objective or at least the attachment to it. everyone is so used to energy in a state of agitation or the observation of the universe of perpetual movement, agitation, objectivity that they cannot see beyond it to grasp the concept of nothing. What you are doing is the abstraction of awareness out of consciousness. The taking of the absolute back to its infinite singularity by the negation of its infinite and perpetual agitation state of ‘experiencing’ to simply ‘being’. mystical union would therefor be the absolute becoming existence and finding its way back to itself via consciousness. it is achieved through abstraction or retroduction by way of consciousness. Knowing itself through the exploration of its infinite creation including its own states of consciousness which is what Leo is doing. don’t get stuck in the absolute, that is the beginning and end of your experience. you can go there for ‘rest’ but go explore everything created and experienced by consciousness. People who get stuck in the absolute end up suffering from meaninglessness or nihilism when the psychophysical self attaches to it. I understand it is a phase that most go through on their journey. Consciousness is like the full ‘experience’ that is perceived by awareness and it is not limited to just the solid form modality. Our individual conscious experiences can extend beyond the limits of the physical experience. Everything with mass and magnitude has a beginning and end in time. if you can point to it, it is not the transcendent self, however, everything that you can point to is the manifestation of the transcendent self exploring its infinity so when you are done dismissing it to find the fundamental, come back again and begin to explore it ‘as the fundamental self’ free of attachment to the objective or psychophysical self.

I tend to depict my trips and OBEs in AI art rather than write it all out now days. However it is frustrating that language cannot convey exactly the original idea or experience. There is a lot of trial and error or even just regenerating the image over and over till something similar to what I saw shows up. heres some trips and visions from the past year.

I used Kaiber AI. It’s web based. It allows doing several scenes but I did one at a time and put them together in iMovie instead. some of the work in the discord community is fantastic but I never hung around long enough to ask how they prompted to get the results.

https://youtu.be/FqrGDgb5V1M?feature=shared usually just get AI to do a cover image but I made the mistake of trying out the animated frames. A load of time, frustration and money later I got a nice trippy video to go with my composition. 😁

Was about to say this guy fires of my spidey senses. As much as I understand and get the useful psychology explanations that many claim have helped them, when he pushes beyond it into other ideas, he just explodes in hateful tirades which points at a deeper personal problem within him. I stopped listening to him after he started attacking gender variants because I had direct experience of it and knew his arguments were based on a lack of understanding. but according to this video it’s the tipping point exposing a deep seated hatred which would explain why I get my back up when I hear his name and his fight against the world was started by trying to tell us we don’t have any validity to existence… I can step back and understand what he is saying from his point of view and I can see what he is saying. There is some validity but he’s totally blind to the other half of reality and unable to drop his own defensiveness to see it. thanks for sharing the video. It’s good to hear someone articulating an alternative view of jp

Hmm… that’s interesting I might take a closer look at this. It’s like Bayesian inference in computing when the checksum doesn’t add up, guessing and checking it off the reality And changing depending on whether the outcome was accurate or not. ( probably not what you were referring to or I either but that’s just something that has popped up I’m interested in Pursuing further. It may contain a pattern that can explain other things) I was referring more to a persons feelings about themselves rather than intuition about an external situation but the mind/ brain probably goes through the same process for both but with the external there’s no instant verification. anyway it’s defers g away from the theme of your thread so I’ll leave it there. Grateful for you interaction as always. 🤗

Yes.

That just sparked a memory of something that dawned on me while watching one of those motivator videos that’s started branching out interviewing alternative guests i think the general lamentation was ‘feelings’ have nothing to do with reality so someone predicating their argument based on a feeling about their own body is delusional but the conversation then went on to mention a case study that they used to support this which actually destroyed their argument but no one noticed. Looking at the case, it seemed that the person at its centre had a ‘feeling’ something was wrong so when they were finally told what had happened to them, it validated the feeling so the feeling must have come from some biological foundation that gave them information. the feeling which I would equate to the chemical signals from the amygdala, arises from somewhere as a way of informing us about something but finding out, is it a reaction to the direct reality or filtered through the prefrontal cortex and it’s process of thoughts would be key as to whether the feeling was indeed valid or not.

I’m currently going through a phase of studying it more from a physicists perspective in that instead of using the mental analogies of awareness and consciousness, I’m looking at it as light, magnetism and field geometry. It’s closer to what we see appearing in our universe but I’m not at the understanding yet. I understand it better through poetic descriptions but only so far that I can go with those.

Awareness is the empty void or rest state prior to anything. Consciousness is everything arising from the disturbance of that still awareness. some call awareness the source, and consciousness, God. even though they’re effectively the same… one doesn’t exists as it is just an appearance that comes and goes from the other which is the only thing that is there before, during and after the disturbance. even though awareness is always there, it gets obstructed by its disturbances. Like a string it is still and when plucked a wave or vibratory disturbance can be seen,heard, felt ( peaks, troughs, nodes, amplitude, harmonics etc) yet the only thing that is really there is a still string. awareness is like a dim light until it evolves using something to define itself against so when there are things to know( disturbances/ consciousness ‘con-with’ ‘science-knowing’) it becomes a process ( mind/god). An ocean of imagination with which to create realities. A dream to project itself into to experience the appearance of infinity. A brighter light. awareness is like an internal infinity not opposed to but complimentary to the god infinity. The combination bring about a mind or mental process. at least that’s what I’ve come into contact with so far.

Is it not a seeming phase that most go through when passing the various stages of development? if you were on the left and in favour of progressive ideology and able to see through various conceptual and social constructs but the likes of the pandemic showed you the other side of the left, you would start to open up a bit and rather than dismissing the right, start to listen to the concerns being raised because he started to see those too. it is usually like a pendulum swinging from one extreme to another and most get stuck on a ‘side’. if the progress of ‘awareness’ development continues then you notice that it’s not what side is right, it’s not about the content the side is arguing but rather that something catches your attention that shows you both sides are behaving the same way and missing an expanded perspective that contains a truth in about half of what each is saying. If you are able to break out of the ‘sides’ you can hold a balance of both perspectives that give you a better resolution of reality. I stopped listening to Russell, not because of the accusations but much before that when I noticed everything he was pushing was fear based and ‘us against them’ mentality, taking a step backwards from progressive to tribalism. The same as allot of people in spiritual circles. It was almost like a traditional religious infiltration and they started latching into conspiracy theories that seem to stem back centuries from religious attacks on esoteric mystery schools. I found that fascinating as spirituality stemmed from most of those schools of thought including indigenous culture and that modern religion itself stemmed from esotericism but got lost in the literal interpretation of the texts ( resulting in and organisational control structure claiming authority). I think it’s more a case of getting stuck on a ‘Side’ that he is having a problem with ( reinforced by attention and probably some financial incentives) rather than developing further to a higher vantage point. I can personally see where allot of the right is coming from and it is completely valid but I can also see where their argument breaks down. Even though it follows logic and reason, it’s predicated upon a previous and outdated understanding. If the logic and reason was based on more recent understanding ( observations, direct experience, study, research etc) their arguments don’t hold up. But at the same time the left is just becoming more blinkered and unaware of its own behavior. It’s meant to be progressive but it’s not learning…

Yes. Had Dexa scans yearly for several years as part of monitoring at the clinic I attended. Because I was on HRT, they wanted to check my bone density levels. The other patients being treated for same condition tended to have their levels decline so needed supplements and amending their HRT frequency but mine increased much to the surprise of the consultant and remained consistent. I don’t remember getting any other results than the bone density though. That’s all they used it for.

Becoming a different person is one way of changing what might not have been working in the first place. To become someone else instead of transcending the someone. Perhaps it could be seen as a phase? Maybe multiple times of changing your ‘person’ is a way to know how ego works and how to pin point it. some people are happy with their new person and stay there believing they are ‘done’. it might not be truth but it might be perfect for the experience they want to have.

@Princess Arabia Thankyou. Practicing and improving. Writing out a thought process tends to look like vomit on a page however I’m attempting to compress them into a concise idea that’s easier to communicate. My responses are much too long.

We would need to highlights the complexities surrounding societal acceptance and the clash between different political approaches. Acknowledging that normalcy is subjective and varies from person to person is a crucial step in fostering understanding. Encouraging empathy and recognizing the diverse nature of individual experiences could serve as a common ground for people with different perspectives. The challenge often lies in finding a balance that respects individual autonomy while fostering a society that embraces diversity. an ability to understand and navigate emotions, perspectives, and diversity effectively requires emotional intelligence and empathy. It goes beyond intellectual intelligence and involves a deeper understanding of human experiences and relationships. patience often plays a key role in promoting understanding. when issues like these are pushed by political structures. Instead of guiding people slowly to understand and accept diversity they don’t allow time to adapt to the changing societal environment even though the diversity in the society has always been there but not accepted, they coerce people into abiding by policy to normalise diversity and make society safe for the multitude of diverse individuals ( that is the liberal politics approach) but the conservative political approach is different in that it tries to create policy for normalisation of only one kind across society and attempts to stamp out diversity making it unsafe for the multitude of diverse individuals. If both sides understood that normal is normal from the point of view of the individual in their own right then there wouldn’t be a problem. What is normal for one person is abnormal for another so trying to project one’s own sense of normal onto another person is lacking in empathy, emotional intelligence and a deeper understanding of why diversity exists. Think of the trunk of a tree as an analogy to existence. If it only puts down one root in one place it will only be able to gain experience or nutrient from that one area. It will not even be aware it could potentially have access to other experiences or nutrients elsewhere. If it branches out it’s root system to create individual and diverse experiences in different places from different perspectives, it gains access to a richer variety of nutrients ( knowledge, learning, a better grasp on the reality it finds itself in). If those roots fight with or dismiss each others experiences, it limits the tree from gaining a better understanding of itself, dismissing one roots right of freedom to gain experience or nutrients is detrimental to the tree and the other roots. By a root dismissing another root, it is ultimately being detrimental to itself and the entire system to which it belongs. Recognizing and embracing diversity in experiences, perspectives, and identities enhances our understanding of the multifaceted nature of existence. diversity is crucial for a more comprehensive and nuanced grasp of reality, acknowledging the subjective and varied aspects of human experiences. If diversity didn’t exist then reality being inherently relative would collapse back into the absolute. This really requires thinking very deeply about ‘normalcy’ and realising its subjective nature. Your argument loses its logical foundation when it assumes a universal standard of normalcy based on the perspective of one group while dismissing the validity of another’s experience. This can be associated with the fallacy of ethnocentrism, where one judges another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own. In this case, it’s applying a single group’s perception of normalcy to the entire spectrum of human experiences without recognizing the diversity of perspectives and identities. when a person experiences their life as normal, normal being a constant or frequent occurrence, it is inherently normal for them. So if it is normal for them then it is not logical for another person who is not homosexual to say it is inherently abnormal. It is abnormal for a heterosexual but normal for a homosexual just as it is normal for a heterosexual to be heterosexual but abnormal for a homosexual. The argument looses its logic when a heterosexual tells a homosexual that it is abnormal for the homosexual to be homosexual. This is making an assumption that one persons experience of normalcy from their persepective is applied across all of humanity not taking into consideration normalcy from other perspectives. You’re basing the idea of normalcy on your own experience and identity by dismissing the other as being valid from their own inherent perspective which you do not have access to. You can’t get your head around it because you’re refusing to let go of your attachment to your own idea of normal. It only applies to you. It’s subjective. You claim people in spirituality resort to what sounds like political correctness but as I stated above, that’s not the case. What you are doing by saying that is ad hominem. You’re deflecting away from addressing the issue that’s been presented to you by making a personal attack on the individual raising the issue. Albeit incorrectly. Claiming a statement or perspective is ‘political correct’ misunderstands the nuance within the political sphere which also has a multitude of diversity. It’s about a balance between freedom and restriction. Understanding personal boundaries and the freedom to explore within them. Not imposing on or preventing others doing the same. Cooperating and bringing those experiences back and sharing them to get a higher vantage point of the reality we find ourselves in. Fully understanding all of this means loosing your identity and transcending to the absolute. People fear that because it’s ‘ not normal’ for them. learning about and adapting to an ever changing reality takes a long time. People can guide you but no one can show you or coerce you to understand. That is something you have to come to by yourself

He’s not ready to hear his own faults. He couldn’t handle it. nice deflection.