Scholar

I have been contemplating the structure of morality and the evolution of compassion in individual human beings and society as a whole. There is a very important dynamic that I have not yet heard anyone talk about. Firstly, the expansion of compassion for different individuals and groups by egoic structures, such as yourself and society as a whole, happens by virtue of: 1. The potential of expansion due to the loss of threats against egoic structures. 2. The functional similarity of any group or individual that will be included in the circle of compassion, which has yet not been included. An example is the historical expansion of identity. Individual -> Family -> Tribal Groups -> City-states -> Religious Structures -> Nation-states -> Ethnicities -> Species (homo sapiens) -> Biological classes -> Life itself -> and so forth (very simplified linear, which is not the case in reality) These expansions happen step by step. The inclusion of different races for example was necessary for us to ever develope structural compassion for a group less similar than other races, namely for us to structurally care about different mammals on a level of included identity, we first will require, as a tendency, to include more similar groups first. We can observe different functions of resistance towards this kind of moral evolution, which I keep observing in the spiritual community: "But plants are sentient, how can we stop exploiting animals if plants are exploited too? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both plants and animals." Notice that this is a very important argument for upholding ones own identity in regards of what creatures and beyond one will include in their circle of compassion. This type of argument is problematic because it pretends to care, or love, a group further away from our current circle of compassion, when it in fact does not care about neither the closer group nor the less similar group. By this dynamic it allows the identity to uphold itself and halt moral evolution. This is very obvious when we put this in an example which we have already transitioned through: The enslaving of different races. "But animals are sentient, how can we stop exploiting black people if we are still exploiting animals? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both people and animals." The reason why this type of argument feels so obviously flawed to us is because we know that, even if it is hypocritical from a certain point of view, the adopting and expansion of ones identity and circle of compassion has to happen this way. Evolution does not work by attaining absolute Love for all Being instantly, especially not on a societal level. How moral evolution works is like this: We have groups from A to F. A is most different to F. A expands towards and includes B AB expands towards and includes C ABC expands towards and includes D ABCD expands towards and includes E ABCDE expands towards and includes F ABCDEF is achieved, a cosmic Identity is created. AB will resist expansion by the following means: "ABC is invalid, because to be truly moral would require ABCD!" Additionally, a structure which goes instantly from A to ABCDEF will actually not have evolved it's egoic identity structures, but instead will remain at that level. Because egoic structures do not dissolve even after complete enlightenment (as these egoic structures are what gives rise to desires and so forth) it leads to people who will act like A despite having expanded to ABCDEF as far as their identity goes. What is important to realize is that there is a difference between egoic structure and egoic identification. The structure can only change in a health way if it expands identity step by step, as each new stage of identity requires time for the egoic structure to adapt itself to that new identity. If identity is expanded instantly in an individual, moral evolution has not taken place and will actually be halted at the level of structure that was previously achieved. Leo can recognize absolute Love in All there is. He can accept the suffering he is causing because there is no structure which keeps him from doing so. His structure is not evolved, only his identity is. If Leo was a rapist and instantly expanded identity to all Being, he would continue to be a rapist because there would be a recognition of it being Pure Love. However, if Leo step by step expanded his identity, he would have stopped being a rapist long ago, he would have stopped being racist long ago, he would have stopped being speciesist long ago and so forth. And then, once the identity was fully expanded, the egoic structure would have had time to develope and evolve into the highest level of moral evolution. The end stage is structural behaviour that even despite the recognition of Maya and Selflessness in Totality, also acts selflessly within the framework of reality which is emerging in consciousness. It would mean behaviour like Christ, and even beyond Christ, not merely the same recognition. There can be Full Love and enlightenment of Identity in someone who shows complete apathy towards all other creatures. But there can also be a Structural Evolution, the change of egoic psychology to such a degree that it effortlessly flows with the greater realization. This cannot be achieved through instant Identity expansion. This takes time. Veganism, even if it is limited and hypocritical, is the next step in moral evolution and identity expansion. It will be necessary if we want to achieve full Enlightenment of civilization itself. Once we include animals, we can worry about plants and other aspects of Being. But skipping it will halt the evolution of collective identity. And identity does not work by merely intellectual acceptance. Identity expansion means that killing that which you identity means killing you. True expansion of identity is only achieved when the threat towards another is perceived as a threat toward oneself. Once that has been achieved, and many other steps on the path of expansion of identity, we can worry about total dissolution and surrender of existence. It will not happen prior to that. This means going against veganism for example, even if it is recognized as dogmatic (much like the abolishment of slavery was dogmatic), is going against Divine Intelligence itself, as this expansion is the next step towards Total Identity. Dogmatism is necessary for evolution. We are speaking strictly about identity here, identifying with other species, not the dietary dogmas surrounding it. In my view an integral teacher will encourage the expansion of identity. It is deliberate building of identity structures which is necessary for us to eventually dissolve all identity structure, especially on the level of the collective. But we have to be careful to let people fully integrate each stage of identity. The ingenius design of all of this is that without compassion, in this context of biological creatures, it seems to not be possible to evolve towards Truth on a collective level. The expansion of identity is a necessity for the emergence of an enlightened civilization. Dysfunctional teachings which do not adapt themselves to the current identity of it's society will be rejected by the collective ego. It is not possible to skip a stage, the structure is as important as the identity. It must be this way. The perception of egoic structures being a problem (especially collective ones) only emerges from the inability to see the grander workings of these dynamics.

I'm glad it helped!

This might be worth watching, it can be applied very broadly:

No, what is the quote about?

To make Truth comprehensible, to turn Truth into a thing conceivable. That is the Devil's greatest trick. And not only is it his greatest trick, it is also his last. It is the last Wall which stands infront of the Light. In desperation he will build it in a way so that it will seem to be more sophisticated, so that it might stand taller than all other walls. He will make it so that the Wall itself will be confused for the Light. Make it so that all who stand infront of it look at it in awe and wonder. It will be those who sought the Light themselves who will come in the defense of the Wall he has constructed. This is the Power of the Father of Lies.

I don't care about that. What might be missed here is this: The Devil is not merely within Individual or Chimp Ego. The Father of Lies exists in even the interactions between individual chimp egos. The Devil exists not merely in individual mind, it exist both Above and Beneath it's surface. The Devil swims between the collective minds and that which gives Rise to Structure of individual minds. All Teachings that speak truth come from the Father of Lies. Enlighten two people, but keep trillions in the Dark. That is the work of the Devil. To hide Truth in plain sight, all one needs to do is speak truth. The Devil creates the Intellectual curious. The Devil let's him find Truth. The Devil then let's him speak truth, so that noone shall ever find Truth. The Devil cannot persist in the Light of Truth. This is why the Devil let's the Messiah speak truth. He let's him speak truth, because the Devil will always win in the Realm of truth. The Devil makes the Messiah take Truth into the realm of truth, because this is where all of the Devils power remains. Noone can argue with Truth, but everyone can argue truth. Noone can delude themselves with Truth, but all can do so with truth. Remember the Father of Lies. He had billions of years to evolve. He contains unsurmountable Divine Intelligence. The arrogance of the Messiah, the lack of Devilry, is precisely that which is the Devils greatest gift. The only weakness of the Devil is his inevitable dissolution. Once, the Devil put the Messiah on a Cross. Now he gives him a social media following. Same results. He plays us like a damn fiddle, precisely because his intelligence surpasses that of any chimp that has ever walked this earth. Only collective wisdom can fight the collective Devil. No single chimp can hope to do so alone. If he believes he can, the Devil already won. This is the way of sabotaging the collective wisdom, by corrupting that which collects around the uncorruptable.

Where will this lead us? The more I look, the more I believe Mysticisms proper place is Mystery. To cut the tongue of those who speak of it. Only a geniune Spark can lead into the Abyss. For the Spark to take flame it needs Questions, not Answers. Esperanto extinguishes the Spark.

I feel like you have created a duality between: Objectivity, Universality vs Subjectivity, Relativity Look at how you are categorizing different aspects of Isness into these two categories. You say "Judging insects are gross is not universal". Observe very carefully what the chimp mind is doing. Look at it. 1."Insects are gross" 2."World and Person, Person and Person!" 3. "Person insects are gross, Person insects are not gross" 4. "All Person insects are gross, Universality! Person insects are gross, Person insects are not gross, Relativity!" This is the whole stick of the chimp mind. You have created, from "insects are gross", a thing that is foreign from "insects are gross". "Insects are gross" is not relative, nor universal. "Insects are gross" is "Insects are gross". Relativity is Relativity, Universality is Universality. This duality is illusional. There is no such thing as Universality, Objectivity, Relativity, Subjectivity. These things only are because the duality is so. What you have not realized is that the deconstruction of the Chimp Mind will, necessarily, lead to these kinds of Untruths. The Duality which comes forth as a result of having collapse another one. There is no person which judges. There is no "validity to them", outside of "validity to them". Your philosophy is abitrary, a result of dualities which have yet to collapse. And even that is nonsensical. The nonsense is everywhere, in all things made. Nonsense is fundamental. Language is utterly impossible. Reality and Insanity are equal, there is no difference between them, they are the same thing, yet two labels. Empty the cup, empty the cup, empty the cup.

Star Trek holodeck will be nothing in comparison to what is possible. Look at how few dimensions of existence and duality the chimp mind is accessing: Sight Hearing Taste Smell Touch Temperature Location Dimensionality Geometry Feelings and Emotions Identity Worldness Entitiness Force Rythm Math Logic Thought and so forth and so forth. With all the subtleties it is probably a few thousand dimensions of existence. There are infinite. Dimensions so foreign to us, but familiar to an animal or a plant. Dimensions so foreign no blubble of consciousness in this universe ever contained it. We will be able to explore millions upon millions of dimensions. Dimensions so foreign, the worlds we will construct will be beyond what we could possibly imagine. Beyond everything I just mentioned. Imagine a world in which all of our current dimensions are mere additions rather than the main menu. Dualities which no creature ever experienced. But before that, we will be able to expirience all creatures themselves. We will be the spider which weaves it's net. We will require no speculation no more. It will be the ultimate expression of art for the worldly creature.

He is from Scotland, too.

I think I can frame it like this too, without going to deep: We need not to abandon judgement to find Truth, rather we: A) Need to see judgement for what it is. B) Cease to identify with judgement. And this applies to all dualities. The seeing of any aspect of Isness will connect us to it's Divinity, as the closer we look the more it will dawn on us how utterly mysterious and impossible it is, among many other things. The cecessation of identification let's us see it even more clearly and not only that, it will also reveal it Divinity within. Judgement is impermanent either way, it will come and it will go. It is not our work to manipulate it. This means to not say morality is merely relative, but to also observe goodness and badness very closely, and to cease idenitifying with it, but yet to not attempt to deny it. To accept that one will suffer and feel sorrow, to accept that one will judge and feel evilness. To not view it as impurity, but rather to see the purity within. Let the purity of the substance purify itself, just so we can see that there has been nothing to purify all along.

The Goodness you speak of is not the same goodness and badness we speak of. I am still referring to the duality. By having pointed to Devilry, you yourself have created Devilry. Accept goodness and badness instead of denying it. See the Goodness in goodness and badness, instead of claiming it to be Devilry. Use goodness and badness instead of throwing it away. It is a wonderful tool, and it's design is beyond intelligence. Relativity is an aspect of what surrounds goodness and badness, but that which it is itself is far more mysterious and wonderful than our chimp concepts that revolve around it. To deny and attempting to get rid of goodness and badness is literally like trying to get rid of any other of your sense. It is like trying to get rid of your vision. It is non-sensical. Instead learn how to use it properly. Before that, you need to examine what it even is that you are using.

I know, but if we keep the conversation at that level we are limiting ourselves and students to that level. The Nowness within Goodness is utterly mysterious, it can't just be waved away by saying "It's all relative". This is to me especially important because telling people morality is relative often creates a shadow and this weird kind of relativising of everything. It is a stage green trap, and I see it time and time again. Then they wonder when relativity bites them in the ass. Instead I think it would be better for focus on closer inspecting first the conceptual framework and then the underlying dimensions of existence which make up these frameworks and labels. That way there will be an emotional integration and we will go beyond the relativistic notions of the already sufrace level frameworks of morality. Basically what I am trying to say is that what we are suffering of is kind of naive realistic notion of Morality. Like saying a ball is blue, when blueness is not part of any object, and when the object itself is actually a construction. Just looking at this dynamic will help us seperate the Badness/Goodness from the actions, situations and mind-states we correlate them with. Not because we create dogma around it, but because we can CLEARLY see that they are two distinct substances. Seeing they are two distinct substances is the next step of moral evoluton. It allows us to see that Goodness exist in all Humans, literally, also in all animals. The same is true for Badness existing in all humans and animals. It makes us see that it is part of us, that it is a dimension of our Being. The trick of the snake was to convince us not of there being Good and Evil. The trick of the Devil was to convince us that Good and Evil are attributes of things not Good and Evil. We do not have to get rid of Good and Evil, and in this sense of morality. We only have to clearly see it for what it is. And that has nothing to do with relativity. This is the next step after having realized the relativity. This is in my view true inspection of what morality is, instead of constructing new frameworks or trying to somehow denie it. I am saying all of this because the framework you currently use creates such needless confusions. People think they have to abandon goodness and badness, and they create shadows or delusional philosophies. Goodness and Badness will still be there, you are simply going to ignore it and call it something else. I view it to be more Loving to see Goodness and Badness rather than denying it. To embrace it even. Obviously that kind of Goodness and Badness will have a very different effect on us than our current way of using it. But the importance is that we can Accept Reality fully without abandoning Badness and Goodness. And I think you have recognized that in the past few months. If you are going to be tortured, Badness will still exist within you. It will arise, and you do not need to deny it. You do not need to deny yourself. Accepting that badness arises when you see your child being raped is so much more powerful than trying to somehow construct your mind in a way so that there does not arise badness when your child is being raped. This is the genius of God. He gave you all the tools, you just need to know how to use them. Instead you are throwing them away. An utter shame, when the badness you are accessing is as divine a thing as Blueness is.

No, this is all logic non-sense. It is conceptual. If you saw what I talk about you would laugh at the absurdity and impossibility of existence. You wouldn't just go on and say "Oh well, you are just chasing you own tail making concetual distinctions.". There is noone to accept anything, there is no "making disinction" or "chasing ones tale". This is a fantasy, a fantasy which tells itself, which stands by itself. This is precisely the magnificence which is not seen. The fantasy is literally impossible, it is completely and utterly mysterious. Get over this non-duality concept. I don't even know why I am bothering with this. If you are curious you will see yourself. If not then I doubt you ever will. The reaction to this shouldn't be. "Ah, you are doing this, bla bla, you are doing that, bla bla." The reaction should be: "Holy fucking Jesus Chirst how the fuck is this even possible?! Blueness is FUCKING INSANE. IT IS INSANE!!! How can this EXIST?!"

What I talk about has nothing to do with constructs or ideas. I am no constructing Blueness, as much as I am not constructing Suffering. Maybe I am in the sense of being God and imagining all that, which I would frame differently anyways, but that is obviously not what we are talking about. We are not talking about Ideas, we are talking about the Substance of Goodness, the Substance of Redness. While I am framing this understanding in language and with relative terms and concepts, it has nothing to do with what is pointed at. Notice how many different ways of explanations I am able to deliver, how many conceptual frameworks I can construct that are foreign to each other. I do not care about these things, I want Leo to see, or atleast know that he can already see. The layer I am refering to is prior to Relativity. It is not prior to Absolute. Blue is Blue, to say Blue is Relative is to say Blue is Relative. But Blue is Blue. This is not language, the language is there for you to see through delusion and through the world. What is another relative perspective supposed to be? Perspective is an idea within Now. Now is not Perspective. Now is Now. Blueness does not exist in Perspective, rather Blueness lies next to Perspective. It is not the child, but a silbing of Perspective. I am not married to spritualistic ideologies that have been constructed. I am not satisfied with common sense, as I can clearly see the absurdity which keeps it together. The absurdity which is so obviously mysterious and inexplicaple. There is no Subjectivity in that sphere of mystery. There is no Relativity. That is all Chimp Talk, as much as what I am doing now. I can Chimp talk forever, I can Chimp Talk with different bricks, different frames. It doesn't matter, this is not about the Chimp talk.

Again, you fail to see what I am pointing to. I actually am mind blown that this is so difficult to see. You are referring to a conceptual idea of right and wrong, much like there is a conceptual idea of color, how it arises and so forth. This is surface level, this does not go into any depth at all. Goodness is not merely a conceptual idea, if you sit down and observe how the conceptual idea arises and what it is linked to, you will observe that what Goodness is actually far better categorized as is an emotion. It is deeply imbedded and influences how we perceive all sorts of things. Nobody agrees on what is Good and Bad because in each individual mind Goodness and Badness emerges at different kind of mind-states. It works exactly the same as Anger does. Some people get angry at some things and others get angry at other things. However, they can never disagree upon what Goodness and Badness itself are. That would be like disagreeing on what Blue is. That can only be part of a conceptual framework, it can only ever be a confusion of labels. To say something is "Bad" is like saying something is "Annoying". This is delusiona, nothing can ever be annoying. Trees cannot be annoying, trees are trees. Annoyance can emerge in the presence of trees and therefore there can be a conflation of two dimensions of reality (namely colors and the emotions of annoyance), but that does not mean the delusion is socially constructed. It is exactly the case that anger is as much socially constructed as right or wrong, literally. Your perception of what will make you angry will also make you perceive it as bad, vice versa. But all of this is still too surface level. I am talking of one layer deeper. The layer in which only anger is anger and only goodness is goodness. In that layer, goodness is not created or correlated to anything. It comes directly from the source itself, it is an expression of all possible dualites. It is Pure, and it is there. It is just as much a fascet of existence as Blueness is, and it is just as Absolute as Blueness is. It is not relative as much as Blue is not relative. You do not truly see the mysteriousness of goodness and badness. You think it is an invention of a chimp, like some sort of tool it has created. As if Blue and Red were tools a chimp created. Goodness, like Redness, is utterly mysterious. It can exist on it's own, with no survival agenda, with no chimp to cling to it. It can be a pure expression of duality. It just happens that the chimp mind found use for that dimension of existence. It found that with it, it could create the Play of the World. And no, it was not the Chimp Mind which found that to be the case. It was a far Greater Mind, a Mind which can make pop Blueness and Redness, Goodness and Badness, into existence, just like that. That is completely beyond survival, it is pure Expression, pure Dance. However, that Pure Goodness or Badness would obviously not have such a label. It would not have all the moralistic notions attached to it which you currently do. It would be pure, like Suffering is. Like Redness is. Like Shouldness is. Of course, without contrast there no Duality, there is no Maya. I am not trying to go that deep here. And look carefully: There s no Good and Bad in Absolute, relative to what? There being Good and Bad in Absolute? These language games make no sense to even talk about, as the presence of the sentence itself is duality, thus the grasping of that will always be the proof of duality. Also this is a huge trap as it creates a Duality between Absolute and Relativity which literally is one more duality. When I look at what Is, it is more like a dance than this binary machine thinking. Sometimes I feel like Leo is not reading what I am writing and just skipping over it. Maybe he has no time. When I use these concepts i always move in the sphere of Maya. I don't think this way when meditating, it would be absurd.

This is the problem when people are guided towards a goal rather than truly having a desire and curiousity to discover the true nature of existence.

They are however not socially constructed, as much as anger, blueness, hearing is not socially constructed. No blueness, no noness, no noself. All is illusion, what I am pointing to is not as fundamental as what you are pointing to. Goodness is as much invented as blueness is. It is not for survival, it is for expression itself. Survival is more surface level analysis then what I am pointing to and all is illusion/imagined is too deep and fundamental. You see quarks and biology, yet you might not see the chemistry inbetween, the molecules which are made of quarks and give rise to biology. You are throwing the ball either too high or too low. There are layers between Absolute and Relativity. There is absoluteness in all relativity, and there is relativity within Absolute. However look at how binary that is, it is more like a dance of waves that are playing with each other and the interactions between them themselves are what we can observe too. It lies in the crust of Unity and Reflectivity. Not the surface, nor the light, but reflectionness itself. Goodness cannot be Invention, as only Invention is Invention, and only Goodness is Goodness. Pure duality is still illusion, but duality flowing into itself is delusion. The world is delusion, and all dualities that make world are illusion. You see all the fish in all the oceans, the greatest of depths. You see all the birds and all the insects in the skies, high as it goes. Yet you seem not to see the critters which walk upon the earth, which crawl through the dirt and climb through the trees. That which slumbers between the Ground of Being and the World. That which was so subtle, you have not noticed that it has dissolved when you fell into the Abyss, because all your eyes were trained to see is the World, not the parts which the World is made of.

Why do you limit morality to this relativistic stage green understanding? No action could ever be good or wrong, as only goodness and wrongness can be goodness and wrongness. To believe something is wrong is the same as to believe something is blue. It is a fundamental and deliberate deception, a way how the mind plays around with dualities. It conflates ideas and all sorts of objects or dimensions of existence for each other. It says the chair is blue, when only blue is blue. It says killing is wrong, when only wrong is wrong. Why do you limit yourself to this kind surface level analysis? I keep noticing this. It is like you do not see the layer between delusion and illusion. Yes, all of this is illusion, but so is the very notion of illusion. So is blueness, so all there is. Yet, to say good and wrong is relative is not merely illusion, it is delusion aswell. This is the dimension which I see lacking in so many spiritual teachers, and I wonder why. It is so foundational and so obvious. It's like people just skip over it and don't bother looking. Yes world is illusion, but world is also delusion. Delusion is that by which all duality dances with each other. If this was seen, it would not even make sense to ever say something like "From the absolute perspective nothing is wrong with this.". That would rely on so many delusions that it would be utterly incoherent to even say it. And it is incoherent if truly inspected. It is the essence of incoherence, incoherence itself is that which it is. Imagine a swarm of fish. Your level of analysis is the following: "Swarms of fish can have all sorts of different shapes. There is no true shape to swarms of fish! Every swam can have any shape relative to itself and other swarms." Of course. But this is what is being missed: "Every swarm of fish contains swarmness. Independent of the shape of swarm, swarm is present in all swarms of fish. It is not merely the fish that create the swarm, the swarm itself exist as swarmness itself. That is which swarmness is, and all swarm are swarmness." It's like you lack insight into the structure, into the essence of that which is being labelled. You are lost in the shape of the swarm and do not recognize swarmness itself. You do not see that the swarmness is not merely a collection of fish, that swarmness is swarmness. The shape of the swarm, of any swarm, is not swarmness itself.

I disagree, most of what you have mentioned to me is grounded in orange not yellow. Threat to humanity is not systems thinking, it is contracted collective egoic individualistic thinking. It comes prior to truly caring about the environment and species outside of human beings, it is orange rather than green. Orange would not see a fundamental problem with climate change, environmental destruction and animal suffering as long as it does not effect human beings in some way. The human centric framing of this problem as being an existential threat to mankind, when mankind has been an existential threat for all other species on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years is precisely a hallmark of stage orange limitations. The environment nor other species have been truly included in the ingroup, rather they are still viewed as an extention of value for our own species. True Green would react to the animal holocaust as dramatically as to a human holocaust. There are virtually no human beings on this planet who fully integrated green. Our cultures are far too strongly weighted at strage blue and orange, it does not allow for a truly green frame of mind to develope. This will be obvious to people living in the 22nd century. The entire spiral dynamics model is limited and everything passed blue/orange are more of first signs of a truely new stage than how it will be viewed from a perspective of a culture which is founded at these stages. Everyting passed what we consider orange today is a contracted extention of orange which will from the pov of future civilizations be viewed as orange. We currently view these individuals as green, yellow and so on based on the relative distance they take from our current cultural vantage point. Basically from our standard if someone is 5% green they are considered to be extremely green. Much like 500 years ago someone with 5% orange was viewed as radically developed. However from our pov pretty much every person 500 years ago was almost entirely blue.

I've had similar issues. Power-fantasies and paranoia, it as always roots in fears and loneliness. You would somehow have to increase your level of confidence and feeling of security. Not sure how I resolved it to be honest, I think it dissolved from my awareness alone. Took some time though, 2-3 years. I kind of miss the rants though I remember I gave epic speeches about all sorts of stuff in my mind. Although to me it was more like an act, a role play almost. You could try canalizing the urges into something artistic, depending what you like doing. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

@Recursoinominado Find out yourself. Learning to do this will be part of learning autonomy and therefore moving into yellow. Figure out how you could integrate these values. It's not rocket science.

I heard someone talk about cacao and somehow being correlated to cleaning the pineal gland though I don't remember anymore what exactly it was.

I have cut out Gluten a few days ago and the difference in energy, ability to focus, sleep quality and so forth is just staggering. I was struggling with concentration a lot the past few months. I also woke up really dehydrated and feeling terribly each morning, which already seems to be getting much better. I have only noticed this because I was already avoiding wheat products, but the past two weeks I was eating a lot of bread and pasta and my concentration went really down the drain so that I decided to try and cut it out completely. I haven't felt this good in months, only now I realize how bad I have felt. I was utterly emotionless and unmotivated in comparison to how I feel now. The times I felt better in the past I never correlated to Gluten but rather thought I have nutritional deficiencies due to my vegan diet. However I never had any digestive problems and from what I read most gluten insensitivities or celiac disease comes with these kinds of symptoms. I have been doing some research on gluten and it seems like it can hinder vitamin and mineral absorption and therefore cause disruption in hormonal production. From what I have gathered so far the research is rather limited especially on Gluten-sensitivities. Does anyone here have some comprehensive and reliable sources on this topic in general? I never thought Gluten could have such an impact and I suspect that I have developed a sensitivity in the past few years. It is kind of scary to think that I could have continued to struggle not realizing it was Gluten all along.

You don't have to do anything, I just think your inability to accept flaws in teachers will give you a harder time in this work in general. Integrating different kinds of information from different kinds of sources will not be possible if we get annoyed by presentation style and are unable to retrieve any valuable information. You had expectations and were spouting them as a critique of said content, when they are not a critique but rather your personal preference. "But I want it like this, I don't like how they look, how childish they are. I want my information to come in this form, from these kind of people, in this very particular manner!" You came to me with those critiques so expect me to respond to them. I think you are being childish.