Forestluv

From one perspective, it seems over-complicated. I know the perspective of "why don't you just keep it simple? You are over-complicating". This is another block to deeper, more expansive understanding. I don't need to keep it to a contracted simple view. You already have that down. You are an expert in this simple contracted view. This is not where the growth is. If a person wants to grow and expand, they will need to let go of their contracted state and expand. To a mind that has not had direct experience, integration and embodimnet - nuances will seem "over-complicated". This can keep a mind in a contracted state. No it's not so simple. If someone comes to me and asks me how to rape a woman without getting caught, I don't meet them at their level. If we are dealing with a low conscious state that negatively impacts others, we don't give advice to the person to re-enforce the unhealthy behavior. This is called enabling and it too is a low conscious state. "Meeting someone where that are at" means giving someone healthy advise for the stage they are at. In this case, healthier advice would be how to develop a mutually transactional sexual experience - not a guide on how to manipulate reluctant women into sex. No you "should" not give someone advice on how to objectify and manipulate reluctant women into sex to fulfill one's selfish desires at the expense of another. That is enabling unhealthy behavior. Rather, it is better to be a man of integrity and lead by example. "Meeting someone at their level" can be used as an excuse to minimize, dismiss and enable unhealthy behavior. This is the source of the block to deeper understanding. You are seeing this through a filter of men that are willing to manipulate reluctant women to satisfy their selfish needs with no concern of impact. That is "win-win" from the perspective of the male. It is a justification for low conscious behavior. It is actually a "win" situation for the male - the second half does not matter. For a male with this orientation, "win-lose", "win-neutral" and "win-win" all look similar because the male is contracted into the first "win" for me. The male is assuming it is "win" for the woman because he is disregarding the welfare of the woman. This is the key to growth and expansion is to see the other side of the equation. To see, feel and understand the impact and experience of the woman. This is a big step in consciousness: to go from self-centered "me win" with no regard for the woman to understanding impact on others when the male seeks a "win". At it's most basic level, "win-win" would be a transactional sexual experience in which the male is seeking his own needs and the woman is seeking her own needs and there is a transactional interaction of sex. They both understand intentions and there is mutual desire and consent. This dynamic does not require manipulation of the woman. The dynamic in this thread is a conscious level lower than transactional "win-win" sex. In this dynamic, there is objectifying manipulation of a reluctant woman toward sex - with no regard for the welfare of the woman. This is a different orientation and energetics than transactional "win-win". I've experienced both of these dynamics. Using a "win-win" mentality allows a man to avoid looking at the impact of his behavior and enables him to continue low conscious behavior that can negatively impact others. I don't need to "try" and understand the perspective you mentioned, because I have extensive direct experience of that perspective. I know the perspective expressed early in this thread, because I lived that perspective. I was that guy and held that perspective for many years,. I know what its like. There are a variety of defenses to avoid looking at one's own behavior - many of which you have already used: "You are overcomplicating", "It is win-win", "Meet people where they are at", "you are making it 100X worse than it already is", "you are locked into one perspective and can't see my perspective". These are all mechanisms to minimize, dismiss and avoid looking at one's own behavior, realizing the impact their behavior has on another and understanding the impact on another: empathically, emotionally and intellectually. You haven't shown any understanding regarding impact and the experience of the woman after being manipulated into reluctant sex. If you had this understanding you would not be speaking like you are. Thinking in terms of who understands what perspective / lens can be counter-productive at higher conscious levels because it can keep a mind contracted within intellectual concepts. A deeper question is "Do I know what it's like?" because these is broader than intellect and involves direct experience. For example, we could ask the question "Do I know what it's like to be a male seeking sex and wanting to close on a woman?". I'm very comfortable saying "Yes" I know what this is like, because I am a male that had this orientation for many years. And it seems like you also know what this is like. The other key question is "Do I know what it's like to be a reluctant woman that was manipulated into having sex and then carried the impact of that". To me, you don't know what its like and I would bet money that women that actually know what its like would agree that you don't know. . . For me, I've never been a woman in this situation so I don't have 100% direct experience, however I put a lot of effort into learning and understanding what its like. I've been a guy that manipulated reluctant women for sex. I saw the impact of that. Women told me the impact and I listened. I've had many conversations with women what the impact is like. I've asked asked women what it's like and listened. I've spent time contemplating and imagining what its like. I've experienced being manipulated, used and discarded. I've asked women to help me verify if this is what its like. Taken together, I think I have a pretty good idea what it's like. Based on all this, my impression is that you are no idea what it's like. You may respond with things like "You are overcomplicating" or "Well, you don't understand my perspective or this other perspective". Thats fine, you can go that route. Yet it will not get you one inch closer to understanding what its like for a woman and expanding in this area. Yet you don't seem interested in this, so it may not matter. Yet other men on the forum may be interested in raising their consciousness with women and I hope parts of this thread will be helpful to them.

Thank you for these comments. It gives me an opportunity to address a few other points in evolving consciousness. I'm fine I've explaining things outside of SD theory. SD theory offers a very good structural framework for evolution and growth. It can provide a sense of grounding. However, all relativistic models will have some form of hierarchy. That is a core component: relative value. And this discussion is within a relative context. Seeing and experiencing through different lenses is a fundamental trait of growth and expansion. We can create conceptual models that can be helpful, yet direct experience is king. We can create a conceptual models of racism, misogyny, gender, feminism etc. These conceptual models can be helpful, yet they are not the direct experience of racism, misogyny, gender etc. Ime, there is no substitute for the direct experience. It is king. Theorizing in one's mind is insufficient for deep understanding. One must do their research and experiment. One must put themselves in situations that offer direct experience realizations. I have done extensive "research" in this area and I have worn many different lenses. I am not regurgitating and parroting things I read in SD. What I write is based on 30 years of actual experience in this area. The experience of actually being in a wide variety of relationships. The experience of doing hundreds of hours of introspective work. The experience of being harmed and causing harm to others. The experience of deep contemplation and discussions with others. Another way to say "seeing through another lens" is "knowing what it's like". The phrase "seeing through another lens" has suggests an intellectual understanding and what I am pointing to is much deeper and expansive than a simple intellectual understanding. So I will frame this as "knowing what it's like". I am a male and I know what it's like to have an orientation of seeking sex. I know what it's like to be filled with testosterone and to be pre-occupied with sex throughout the day. I know what it's like to be sexually frustrated, to desire sex and a gf. I know what it's like to go years without sex - there is an essence of direct experience to this one cannot intellectualize. Yet it goes deeper. I played this game. I know what its like to manipulate women for reluctant sex and I know what its like to have sex with women without manipulation and mutual consent. When these realization are revealed direct experience, integrated and embodied - it is easy to spot because both "knowing what it's likes" are revealed. What was expressed in the thread is a form of manipulation and objectification of a woman toward fulfilling a self-centered need without regard of the woman. This is a low conscious mentality - it doesn't matter if we call in some SD color. I couldn't care less. What I care about is the dynamic. Objectification and manipulation to satisfy a self-centered need with a disregard of the impact of another is a low conscious dynamic that has many forms and degrees. It can be manipulation of another for self-centered money, sex or power - with disregard on the impact on another. Degree is another issue. Your position is that the strength of my response is 100X too strong for the input. I disagree. I intentionally gave a strong response because men immersed in a manipulation for sex dynamic need a strong stimulus for realizations. Again, I know this from direct experience. This is not something I read in SD or in some textbook. You perceive this as 100x overblown. Again, I know what it's like to perceive what I write as being 100x overblown. I've lived with a form of this mentality for many years. . . One key that reveals this is how the women responded. Your interpretation was that I overblew this 100X. The women's perspective was that I was spot on. . . This is a key point: you are unable to see the "spot on" perspective. This is a much more difficult understanding because it cannot simply be understood intellectually. One cannot simply say "Yea, yea. I can see the perspective of those women". It goes much much deeper than that. Everything I wrote above is still at a relatively surface level. The next level is transcending that self-centered orientation that disregards the impact on others. It doesn't matter if we call it SD levels, stages or levels. Getting caught up on SD can be a form of distraction from deeper understanding. the transcendence I am about to explain has many many forms of resistance. One is the desire for personal survival and seeking ones self-centered needs. All sorts of thought dynamics can arise such as "Well, women are manipulative too", "Manipulation is just part of Game, everyone knows whats going on", "she made the decision to have sex with me and needs to take responsibility for that", "you are overblowing the severity, it's not that big a deal", "I didn't cause harm to her, she wanted it", "It's not really manipulation, its just part of the dating game", "you are one of those green guys and don't understand". "Why should I stop manipulating if women get to manipulate me? If they do it, so can I" - These are all forms mental avoidance and justification. I've worked through all of them over years and years. These dynamics prevent growth to deeper levels. The deeper levels is an awareness of intention and impact. Impact is a key here and this understanding is gained primarily through direct experience. I know what its like to manipulate and mislead a woman into reluctant sex. I know what its like to finish and want to get the hell out of there. I know the negative impact the manipulation caused her. I know what it is like to use a woman for sex and I know what the impact is. I have seen it and experienced it in direct experience. I've seen what I did to her through an empathetic understanding. During consciousness evolution, there is an energetic shift of seeking self-centered desires at the expense to others toward seeing and understanding the impact on others. I've had seen it in their eyes - their mind and body. There is an essence of toxic energy. There is an essence in the beingness, I have been told by women exactly what the impact was. I have had numerous conversations with women about the impact. As well, I have also been manipulated, misled and lied to. A few women have misled me to believe in a lie. I know what its like to believe the lie and emotionally invest. I know what it's like to be manipulated, used and discarded. These forms of knowing are not simply intellectual. To realize, integrate and embody this to deep levels of holistic understanding requires working through many self biases and blocks to overcome. Further, I am not suggesting that sexual flings and one-night stands are low conscious. I've experience both low conscious and high conscious short-term flings. That is not the low conscious part. The low conscious part is an energetic orientation. A moderately low conscious example would be two people having transactional sex. There is mutual chemistry and physical attraction. Both people are oriented toward fulfilling their self-centered needs. There is "my" needs and "her" needs. There is mutual understanding of the situation, intentions and expectations. Both people are into it. . . A lower form of consciousness (expressed earlier in this thread) is manipulating a reluctant person toward sex through various forms of deceit. Without the reluctance, the manipulation is not necessary. The second component is seeing the person as an object and disregarding their welfare. . . There are many higher states of consciousness for sexuality that blow away transactional sex, manipulative sex and sex with a reluctant partner.

@Anna1 Thank you for speaking out. To evolve in this area, both woman and men need to step up and speak up. It can be uncomfortable for men to speak up and call out their peers. I’ve done it myself in social circles in which I was the only man willing to do so. It isn’t easy. As well, high conscious men need to lead by example. To the men: when you see a guy sexually objectifying and mistreating a woman, know that you have the moral high ground. You may not want to get involved, yet if you do - carry yourself and speak with confident authority, because you are at a higher conscious level and have the high ground. Don’t be that guy that manipulates women into reluctant sexual compliance. Don’t be that guy that leaves a dark impression on her psyche and soul. Become a man that carries himself with confident integrity. Become a man that is attractive to women, not manipulative to women. Be a man that will only sleep with a woman with full mutual consent. The sex is so much better.

Thank you @see_on_see for your comments regarding green-level dating. I would also like to see the forum community evolve from Orange to Green. Guys that have a hidden agenda and manipulate women to satisfy their own self-centered sexual desires are a low conscious Orange - which ranges from mildly to severely toxic. And it's a crappy thing to do to women. I've had intimate conversations with women who have been treated this way by men and it has a negative impact on karma and psychology. Not just temporarily. It can have lasting effects. . . The guy may experience temporary sexual relief and feel like "a man" - yet it often has a negative impact on the woman and their mental health. . . As well, women often the most vulnerable to manipulative tactics had been in unhealthy relationships or were abused as a child. What type of man do you aspire to be? Do you want to be a man that manipulates and uses women for sex - then leave a negative imprint on her after you finish yourself off? Do you want a woman that reluctantly has sex with you after you manipulated her? Do you want to finish and then want to get the hell out of there as she wants to emotionally snuggle? Do you want her regretting having sex with you as you rationalize your unhealthy behavior? You will carry that karma too and will one day have to work through it. . . Do you want to be a man that lacks integrity and lives his life manipulating others to satisfy his own selfish desires? Do you want to be a man that lives with a hidden agenda leaving a trail of damage behind him? Such a life will catch up you. That stuff is conditioning and karma. And green level sex is soooo much better than Orange. Aim higher guys. You won't regret it.

@Bno I'm unable to connect with you on what I want to communicate. To me, you seem so immersed in content that the content can no longer be freely explored. I think a meta view of the structure of the content would be helpful. . . . That's just my impression - perhaps it has value, perhaps it does not have value. All value is relative. If it doesn't resonate with you, feel free to trash it. I think you make a lot of good points and I appreciate your passion to move toward a better America. Yet we aren't on the same frequency and you don't seem interested in exploring what I'd like to explore. That's fine, it happens.

I would agree with this. On balance, I would say domestic election interference is more of a concern. For example, corporate finance of campaigns and voter suppression is largely domestic influences. Here is where I would say it's a mixed bag and you are attached too tightly on one side. There are some with the intention of portraying Trump as a Russian asset for political gain. And there are some that are genuinely trying to get to the root of the problem and help to secure American elections. People like Mueller and Fiona Hill are not democrat hacks trying to portray Trump as a Russian stooge. . . As well, there have been bills passed in the House of Reps designed to protect American elections from foreign interference. Yet, McConnell will not allow a vote on the bill. There are some house reps genuinely trying to secure the integrity of US elections. Reps like Rho Khanna are not motivated to push false narratives to make Trump look like a Russian asset. I can see both forces - some wanting to use any story to harm Trump politically and some that want to get to the root of the interference. As well, I'm sure there are some Russian asset stories that are false, some that are partially true and some that are true. To me, you seem attached to one narrative and are not open to seeing nuances. A nice way to sneak in an assumption and ask a question based on the assumption. I don't accept that assumption and the premise of your question and therefore cannot answer it. To me, you don't seem genuinely open and fluid. Everyone says they are "open-minded". This is one of the traps of having mental filters - there is lack of awareness of one's own filter. Open-minded is allowing space for exploration. It means not having attachment to any one theory. To me, you seem hyper immersed in content and are not aware of structure. For example, one could consider Trump's financial ties to Russia. Yet my impression is that you have attachment to a filter that will dismiss this as irrelevant or a nonfactor in one way or another. Again, I am not taking a position opposite to yours. I think you make a lot of good points and some of your points I hadn't considered. I've contemplated them and I've explored new theories. I'm not attached to a binary theory of "this vs that". I like to explore nuances. To me, you seem to be in a debate mode, rather than an exploratory mode of curiosity and expansion. An exploring-oriented person that comes to mind is Steven Kotler and his relationship to conscious flow states. To me, the guy has an exploratory mindset. He is not attached to any one theory about flow states. He can hold multiple theories. He can integrate and de-integrate theories. His conversations are fluid. He is not attached to ideologies of science, metaphysics, intuition, or energetics. He can flow from discussing scientific perspectives of flow states, yogic perspectives, intellectual constructs, direct experience, physical and non-physical evidence, drug-induced states, sober states. . . and on and on,. This is a very different energetic orientation than someone attached to one theory of flow states and wants to debate people with opposing theories of flow states. To me, you are so immersed in the content, you are unaware of the structure. Another way of looking at structure: Imagine discussing Harrison Ford's character. One can be so immersed into Indiana Jones that they think Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. They may interpret all information through a lens of Indiana Jones. That movie is the content. The structure is that Indiana Jones was a movie created on a movie set. Harrison Ford was an actor that played many different roles in many different movies. . . Yet a person immersed into Indiana Jones will not be aware of this. If someone says "Let's talk about Harrison Ford's character as Blade Runner. Let's consider the similarities between the characters Indiana Jones and Blade Runner". The person would be like "Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. Show me evidence from the movie Indiana Jones that Harrison Ford is not Indiana Jones". This mind is hyper immersed into content and all information goes through a filter of the Indiana Jones movie. I'm not saying that all of your views are wrong. To me, you seem immersed in content and are missing a lot of nuances. For example, you wouldn't be open to discussing the nuances of Harrison Ford's acting career because you are immersed and attached Harrison Ford being Indiana Jones in that movie.

I'm not pointing to one set of content. I'm pointing to a variety of content. Is there a context in which there is a strategy to hurt Trump politically by associating him to Russia and Russian interference? Yes. Is this the best political strategy to harm Trump? Probably not. As you say, most people do not care. This is one set of content. Another set of content is the actuality of Trump-Russia relations and foreign government interference into US elections. This is a different issue. It doesn't matter if people care or not in this context. Let's assume that any mention of Trump, Putin and Russia in the same sentence helps Trump. That does not mean that there is no underlying threat to election integrity. It just means that it's not politically helpful in harming a political adversary. The reason you don't know is because you are attached to a particular narrative and not open to seeing underlying threats Russian interference can take. With this lens, all evidence will be dismissed or recontextualized to be consistent with this lens. As long as you are wearing this lens, it does no good showing you any evidence of Trump-Russia relations or Russian interference. You will dismiss it one way or another. This isn't a content issue. The content doesn't matter. The content could be sports, Trump, Russia, airplanes or toasters. It is a structure issue. The structure of forming, holding and being attached to a perspective. Notice how you are trying to define what "politically stage yellow" people see. Conveniently, what politically stage yellow people are seeing just happens to be what you are seeing. What a coincidence!! What if I told you that there are politically stage yellow people that do not hold the same view as you. Politically stage yellow people can hold multiple views. They are not attached to any view. They can see the relativity and partial truths in each view. Again, I am not pointing to content. I am not disagreeing with you. I am not saying that Russia-Putin has 100% control over Trump and Trump is merely a puppet. This is what I mean by black and white thinking. It is much more nuanced than this. There is partial truths in several perspectives. There can be aspects in which Russia can exert influence and aspects in which Russia cannot exert sufficient influence. There are competing factors influencing Trumps behavior. Yet one will not be able to see this if they are locked into one view as being the "one and only correct" view. Of course these are all factors. I am not saying this is false. I am not saying this does not have relevance. I am saying that you appear to have attachment to a particular narrative. I am not saying that that narrative is completely false. I think there is a lot of value in it. However, I also think there is value you are missing because you are locked into a paradigm. Part of the issue here is assumptions, biased declarations of what counts as truth and evidence. This will lead to categorizing people that are seeing other partial truths as a problem. Also, there is a distinction between what is politically beneficial and what is fundamentally beneficial. For example, let's say that creating a chicken with Trump's head on it damages Trump politically. People associate Trump to being a chicken and he loses independents and then the election. That is politically advantageous, yet there is no underlying substance to parading a Trump chicken around to all his rallies. . . Let's say that Trump wants to ban minorities to voting. Yet if we reveal this, it will rally his base, Trump will get massive turnout and win the election. Politically, it would be disadvantageous to push this narrative since it is politically advantageous to Trump. However, there is underlying substance and concern. In this context, it would be best to work on the down-low. It would be best to let progressives know whats going on and creating a resistance - yet not going full mainstream media on it. Similarly, if the Russia / Ukraine story is advantageous to Trump, it does not mean that there is no underlying substance and concern regarding election integrity. It may be best to keep the situation on the down-low and organize resistance under the radar of the mainstream media. Whether a situation is beneficial to Trump and whether a situation has fundamental substance, concern and threat are two different issues. A problem can arise when the two are conflated. This will distort looking at a situation from multiple perspectives clearly. For example, the highest level national security, fbi, cia and diplomats are not primarily concerned with whether a situation will help or harm Trump - they are primarily focused on whether a situation poses a fundamentally threat to the US and election integrity. This allows them to perceive through a lens that is not distorted by whether something will help or hurt Trump.

One aspect of Yellow is systemic thinking. Another aspect of Yellow is the ability to see relativity and partial truths. Including being aware of the relativity of one's own perspective. This allows for viewing multiple perspectives, without tightly holding any one perspective. This in turn allows for a form of fluidity which allows seeing partial truths in various perspectives and the integration of various components into a holistic view. What good is a systemic perspective if I believe that one systemic perspective is objectively and universally true? This would be a highly contracted view. This is just one view that is appearing to me. You seem to tightly hold certain content and perceive through a particular lens. This creates an "either / or" filter of perception. Not allows, yet sometimes. For example, you appear to have a strong attachment to a "Russiagate" narrative and perceive through that narrative. You seem to hold it as a binary construct in that "Russiagate" is a complete hoax and that anyone who sees any validity in this "Russiagate" hoax is not a true progressive and distracting from "real issues". You also seem to have a hard binary construct of what is a "real issue" vs "a not real issue". This binary construct and attachment is so strong you even put REAL ISSUES in ALL CAPS. This mindset is highly contracted and will influence how one interprets their reality. With this mindset, if I see a person discuss concern about Trump's relationship with Russia and Russian interference, I will categorize this person as being a "Russiagate" believer who is not a true progressive and is distracting people from the REAL ISSUES. I will now perceive this person as part of the "problem". Yet part of this "problem" is the attachment to a narrative I have created. You seem to relate to things like "Russiagate" as being objectively true. This is an assumption I don't think you are aware of. Part of Yellow is to see that any perspective that arises in our mind is relative and any perspective has partial truth and partial falsehood. In previous threads, people have tried to state some evidence and truth of Trump's relations to Russia and Russian interference. Yet you take an extremely strong stance against this argue against it. Did some people overblow and embellish aspects of Trump and Russia interference? Of course, yet this does not mean that there is not underlying truth and concern. You mention that you are interested in biology. A similar dynamic is when I scientist overstates their claim. For example, an oncologist may conduct research and discover a link between high fructose corn syrup and cancer. He may claim that "Artificial sweetener causes cancer!! We need to fund this research and ban artificial sugar". We could divide this into two camps people who believe the "Sweetener causes cancer" story or the "Sweetener Cancer Hoax". Anyone that sees validity or concern with artificial sweeteners is now in the "Sweetener Hoax" camp that is not a true scientist and is distracting from the REAL ISSUES of science. Are there some scientists that overstate claims? Yes. It happens all the time. Yet that does not mean there is no underlying truth. Perhaps the oncologist did studies on mice and mice exposed to sweetener had a 30% increase in cancer. Well, this isn't quite as dramatic as the oncologist's claims, yet it is substantial. It is worthy of concern and further research - and many would consider it a real issue. There are many different issues progressives care about. Not all progressive will have the same value hierarchy as you. Progressive issues include racial, gender and LGBTQ inclusion and equality. Other issues include climate change. There is also wealth inequality, corporate corruption and campaign finance issues. There is also M4A, election integrity and maintaining democracy. These issues have distinctions and they are all inter-related. Some progressives will prioritize certain issues. For example, a gay person who has suffered marginalization and stigmatization may prioritize gender and LGBTQ equality. A person who lives in a part of ohio devastated by the opiod crisis may prioritize M4A and regulating toxic corporations. A biologist may prioritize climate change. A historian that understands how democracies gradually erode may prioritized election integrity. I can see all of these issues and the relative priorities of each. For example, I can see a strong argument why progressives should prioritize election integrity. This is a fundamental grounding for democracy and the strongest resistance to authoritarianism and fascism. I can see how a progressive could consider election integrity to be a real issue and have deep concerns about foreign interference with involving countries like Russia and the Ukraine. If election integrity and democracy decays, good like fighting for issues like M4A, LGBTQ equality and climate change initiatives.

@assx95 Attention, awareness and beingness are curiosities of mine. One of the things I observe and contemplate. As I type these words, thoughts and images are appearing. If I focus on these thoughts and images to create a clear expression to everyone on the forum, I am not paying attention to the background noise of the heater in my room. Or I may, to some extent have partial attention. I may be paying some attention to the background noise of the heater and some attention to what I write here. I really like this imagery in the context of relative perspective. Right now, what is "distracting" to me? It depends on the perspective. From the perspective of engaging with what I am typing, the background heating noise is distracting. As my mind tries to connect dots and create a holistic image that can be communicated, that damn heater is distracting me. It keeps interrupting the flow of thought. . . It is like a person learning to drive a standard - the car keeps lunging forward, then stops. The car is not flowing forward. . . Yet from the perspective of engaging with the sound of the heater, these thoughts I am typing is the distraction. If I was fully engaged with the sound of the heater, I would notice a whole new world of details. As I listen now, the heater has a very smooth, consistent sound. Yet now that I closely listen, it also has a subtle pulsating to it. Yet I really have to pay attention - writing these thoughts about attention are distracting me from immersing myself into the sound of the heater. . . . A thought/imagine is painted on a blank canvas of nothing - which is the same thing as everything not that image. For example, think of an elephant. Thinking of an elephant is the same as not thinking of everything that is not an elephant. Everything = Infinity - an elephant. The background blank canvas is everything not elephant. This allows contrast for the elephant to appear. This is a major realization and is just one step away from another realization. Close your eyes and imagine an elephant. There is Nothing, but that elephant. This is a hyper-focused state of consciousness. If our intention is to focus on an elephant, all appearances not elephant are distractions. If our intention is to focus on something else, like solving a math problem, an appearance of an elephant is a distraction. If our intention is to go into an empty mind space during meditation, an appearance of an elephant is distracting. . . The example of an elephant distraction is a bit silly since it doesn't impact our personal welfare and survival. When we have an intention to focus on something, appearances of other things ("distractions") are more likely related to personal welfare and survival. As well, I've been contemplating meta awareness. Can the mind focus on something and be aware of that focusing? Can the mind focus on something and be aware of other things? What is the mind-body's relationship with appearances in the environment and mind? Notice how the mind likes to create "internal / here" and "external / out there". As I type this message, a teacher across the hall ("out there") is giving a lecture. His voice is as loud as the background heater. My mind-body finds his voice bothersome, yet is not bothered by the heater. My mind-body can "tune out" the heater from my attention, yet cannot tune out his voice. There are thoughts appearing like "I wonder what subject he is talking about?", and "He speaks way too loudly and is manner of speaking is annoying". There is now competition in my mind for focus. My desire is to focus on writing this post, yet how can I do so with all these appearances of "distracting" thoughts? Should I try and suppress attention to the distraction and not pay attention to it? Or can I change my relationship with the stimuli. Can I expand my field of awareness to include the heater, voice noises and the images related to the post? That is very hard to do for a mind, yet I have found it's possible. I've had experience in which awareness expands to Everything and there is no separate thing. I've also had experience in which awareness became hyper-focused. For example, hyper-concentrating on a candle for a 1hr meditation. If this awareness becomes hyper-contracted into the candle, there comes a point in which the candle now longer exists. If my mind is hyper-concentrated on the candle such that the only thing in existence is that candle, then there is no longer anything to contrast the candle to. It is a "candle" relative to what? In this hyper-focus state, there is Nothing but the candle, so the "candle" disappears. There is Nothing "not candle" to contrast it to. Ime, this is also an approach to have a direct experience with Nothing/Everything/Infinity.

That’s funny.

@Urgency Ime, enter conscious states in which I can’t determine what is real or dream.

Imo, Rising with Krystal & Saagar is a quality green-level program. They have solid progressive views. I also like Krystal's demeanor and delivery. She is very approachable and has a joyful demeanor. I also like how the interact with guests that have conservative or corporate dem. positions. It seems like a discussion to me. Most political shows with that have guests with opposing views often turn into arguments, yelling over each other and namecalling (e.g. kellyanne conway on any program other than FoxNews). That doesn't resonate with me.

@Byun Sean We want the person to grow and develop on the forum. We have been encouraging his genuine desire for personal development and life purpose on those subforums. And we have been discouraging his red pill ideology on the dating subforum. Some of this has been behind the scenes. Sometimes these matters aren't simple. There is a balance between using a carrot and stick. And there is a balance between the welfare of each individual and the welfare of the community. It's not always easy to balance and handle.

It seems desire gets a bad rap in spiritual circles. Genuine desire also has it’s merits.

We could say it gets confusing when things can have multiple meanings. We can also say things get mysterious when things have multiple meanings. Things get fascinating. . . Things get miraculous. . . Things get magical.. . . Things get liberated. . . Things make complete sense. . . This can be a problem or this can be a solution. . . There is an underlying freedom available here.

I would say it depends on resonance. Some people might not resonate with dreams and lucid dreaming. They may not have the predisposition. As well, I think it becomes harder to recall dreams and lucid dreams as we age. To me, the lucid dreaming path to awakenings would not merely be through analysis and creating intellectual constructs. The direct experience is key. One would need to actually lucid dream in both sleeping and wakeful states - and have direct experience of dualisms such as "real vs imagined" start to become interconnected and collapse, then reform in many different ways - then collapse again and reform again in new ways. Formless = form. Many children seem to be talented at lucid dreaming. My three nieces are aged 7-11 y.o. They are masters of lucid dreaming. High level stuff. Yet adults try to suppress this and to create/condition contructs of real (waking life) and imagined (sleep life). This can have practical value to function in society, yet it comes at a cost. Last summer, I spent a week with this part of my family. My nieces and I tried to enter group dreams. I talked about us having a collective consciousness within a shared dream and the "got it". We went to the beach and drew large portals in the sand. We created all sorts of realms we would enter. Each night, we got together and formed a plan. We set an intention to meet at the portal and what our mission would be. . . Yet this wasn't "pretending", unless we framed it as "pretending". It was as real as waking life. Yet there was no "real vs. imagined". The idea never even entered our discussions or experience. . . . One of my nieces identifies as a cat in a cat world in her dreams. She says at times she sees things differently and "knows everything", like where a mouse hiding. She doesn't have words like "omniscience" or "meta view". Yet, she has the direct experience "knowing" that comes prior to those words. We call it "Big brain awareness". That term works for her. . . When I ask her if she likes the "big brain awareness" - she says "not really, because I am no longer being the cat and being the cat is fun". Her she is having direct experience of being One "Big Brain awareness" and partitioning herself off as a cat, so she can identify as the cat and have a subjective experience of a cat. This is a nondual awakening. Yet it is getting conditioned out of her by adults. She tells me I'm the only one she can talk to about this. My nieces' minds are not yet grounded in "real vs imagined" now - yet they will be. Most adult brains are conditioned to perceive dualistically as "real vs imagined" or "dream vs not dream". . . If I perceive and interpret my waking world as "real", I already have that part down. I don't need any practice or training for that. The contraction is a binary "real vs imagined". At an extreme, a thing is 100% real or 100% imagined. One key for me was to start entering grey zones, where it's sorta real and sorta imagined. Then the boundaries start to break down. I start seeing interconnections. Another realization is that my waking life "is all a dream". If I was locked into "my waking life is all real", seeing "my waking life is all imagined" is a big realization. Yet we've got to be careful not to re-create our "real vs imagined" duality and become attached/identified with the other side of the duality. We could say waking life is either 100% real or 100% imagined and become attached/identified to everything is imagined. That's a big realization, yet now we are locked back into one side of the duality. Another realization is that "real = imagined". This is "prior" to the constructs of "real" and "imagined". This realization allows for flow. Now infinite possibilities arise. Everything is real, check. Everything is imagined, check. Some things are real, other things are imagined, check. An infinite number of possibilities of what is real and what is imagined, check. We can flow with it all. Form now equals formless. Ime, when that first duality fully collapses a domino falls and then other dominoes start to fall. Slowly at first, and then more rapidly. I don't think it matters that much which is the first dualistic domino to fall and the path taken to that falling. . . If we realize real = imagined, then there is space to see that the past = Now, that form = formless, That "I" = "You", material = immaterial, truth = lie. Not intellectually, yet in "omg!!" realizations. And all sorts of windows open up. Our relationship to reality changes. It's not just intellectual, there is an energetic shift. When we have realized that real is not imagined, real is imagined and real is sorta imagined in an infinite numbers of ways, we enter a miraculous groundedless grounding. We can create form from formless, de-create form back to formless and create new form. Like a mound of clay. We are free. We are no longer restricted and trapped - trying to figure out and define what is real and what is imagined. I can read a book in which an author says "this is what dreams are. . . " and he can create a construct. We no longer need to think "Yea, but is that really what dreams are?". We don't need to grasp what he writes and think "he is an expert on dreams. This is what dreams are". This is a contraction. We can read his creation of what dreams are and appreciate the beauty of his creation. It can expand our experience and mental imagery. Yet we aren't attached or identified with it. We can read another book on dreams having a different contruct and appreciate that. "Wow, I haven't thought of it like that, how beautiful. These two books have different views on dreams. In a way they are inter-related, in other ways unique". Almost like going to various rooftops and getting various views.

@astrokeen I know it feels disappointing, yet what you wrote is beautifully poetic of the human spirit ♥️ I would try and get glimpse of a mystical experience. Psychedelics are nearly a sure bet. Cannabis edibles have a good chance. Other things like a solo retreat in nature, shamanic breathing, a yoga/meditation retreat, sensory deprivation tank etc. I would also be careful imagining what a mystical experience “should” be like. There are a lot of glimpses available to subtle forms of mystical experiences. They all don’t involve drama. Ime, genuine is one of the most important traits. To me, you seem genuine and that would be good news, because being genuine is really hard to develop for someone conditioned as in-genuine. Someone who is naturally oriented as genuine will have a huge advantage for spiritual progress. Other important traits are effort and consistency. To me, it does’t appear as these two are your natural abilities. If you want to get to the next level, it will take some effort and consistency. I would consider making spiritual growth a high priority in your life. Even committing one hour a day would pay huge dividends. Perhaps start with four hours a week. You will see some progress and that could motivate you to up to an hour a day. This was one of the keys in Leo’s 64 keys to a good life. Meditation, yoga, journaling in nature. That kinda stuff. I would also consider making a sacred space with a meditation cushion and spiritual items that you resonate with. If you want to advance a level, create a space that is supportive if that spiritual growth. Create a space that spirituality resonates with you. In addition to having a spiritual environment and practice, be mindful of things that are dragging you down. Things like video games, excessive social media, junk food, getting into stupid debates, worrying about stuff I have no control over, trying to look good so others like me. All that kinda stuff can take up mind space. You’ve got to create open, empty mental space to allow insights to arise and then contemplate, integrate and embody. Be mindful of distractions interfering with this process. We can’t completely get rid of all distracts, yet we can limit them. Especially in the beginning of the spiritual path. We are so busy doing other things that most of our life can be a big distraction. Designating space and time to step outside of all that and engage in spiritual practice can be very powerful.

@actualizing25 I haven’t seem anyone suggest a person needs to be in “perfect” mental health to take psychedelics. Average mental health is fine. People that have had a history of mental health issues such as anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, PTSD and clinical depression should take extra caution. Especially those on medications like SSRIs. Yes, psychedelics can help alleviate these conditions yet there needs to be care and responsibility. Recent clinical studies have shown psychedelics to be highly effective. Yet this was done in combination with therapy and in a clinical setting with the guidance of health care providers. If someone is trying to do psychedelic therapy on their own, they need to do their research and be extra careful. . . Yet for average people without serious mental health issues, just a basic amount of research and caution is generally sufficient. In a sense, psychedelic therapy a form of exposure therapy. The person is exposed to their issue in a way they have never perceived it before. That can be extremely profound and powerful for some people.

@PlayOnWords I think you have a healthy orientation and mindset. 5-meo can teach you more in 1 hr than I could in 1 year.

For me, their are two ways to Self-Love. One is the direct experience of Being Love. One Love. Everything is Love. From a human perspective, this isn't easy. We may have small transient glimpses here and there. Moment of awe in which Everything is Love. For me, I needed psychedelics for this. My first exposure was in an Ayahuasca retreat in Peru. There was a transcendent Love of Everything. From the human experience, there is a feeling associated with it, yet it isn't quite like the emotional feeling of relative love. It sorta does, yet relative love is contrasted by not love. Absolute Love has not "not love" contrast. Another approach I took was to expand my Unconditional Love. Unconditional Love = Absolute Love. It is always present and has no conditions. In Leo's first "What is Love video" he spoke about expanding one's capacity to love. Everyone likes the idea of "Unconditional Love", yet when they look under the hood, they don't like all of it "So that means I have to love him? I have to love that?" And then they recoil. I think a good exercise to expand one's capacity to love is to enter our stretch zone (not panic zone). Some people go straight to Hitler or pedophiles, go into a hissy fit and say "No way!!". It's just too far of a stretch. It's better to go after a shorter putt. Think of someone/something that is in your grey area of love. Who/what is something that doesn't quite deserve your love, yet might kinda if you re-oriented. Then get to know that and learn to love it, then go after the next one on your list. . . For example, at one point - people with insanity issues were borderline for me. Like people with schizophrenia. It's not like I hated them, yet I didnt' feel love for them. They made me kinda uncomfortable and I didn't want to be around them. I wanted them put away in psychiatric wards. . . So, I started volunteering in a psychiatric ward. My first day sitting with psychiatric patients was extremely uncomfortable - I wanted to get the hell outta there and was afraid for my safety. After a few visits, I realized I had some dementophobia. I had a subconscious fear of going insane and people with mental illnesses triggered that. At times during the volunteer work, I felt like I was going insane yet I continued on. As well, I started doing psychedelics and went into insanity zones. This helped me relate to people with mental disorders - our resonance completely changed. They were me and I was them. I was now completely comfortable sitting down with them and felt complete love for them. We often laughed together and hugged each other. They were able to act crazy if they wanted to. In some ways, my "crazy" is much more comfortable being with psychiatric patients. In a way, I feel at home now. They helped me as much as I helped them. Now, many of my students at the college come to me to discuss their neuroses. They know "I know". I don't judge and I love them and their neurosis. . . Next on my list was criminals. . . Overtime, I started inching my way toward Unconditional Love. Another exercise is to go in nature and notice the things you love and don't love. For example, last summer I was hiking in Sedona, AZ. It was a beautiful day and I was feeling blissful. Yet then I noticed the prickly pear cacti. There were large clusters of cacti - some regions where green, healthy and beautiful. Other regions were a nasty, greyish/blackish death. It looked like some type of plague coming through. I felt so bad for the cacti. Then I got upset that the park rangers do not maintain the park and help the cacti stay healthy. I went into a thought story about writing a letter to the park services and letting them know about my concern. . . Then I saw a large trail sign explaining that the prickly pear cacti are actually a large community of many organisms living together. The green, grey and black parts are all part of the multi-organism living in harmony together. As well, it is important for the health of the entire ecosystem. The sign asked that people not try to "help"the cacti by removing "decaying" parts. The "decaying" parts are actually thriving microorganisms. . . This totally recontextaulized things for me. I fell in absolute love with the cacti and microorganisms. The whole thing was so beautiful. I even got on my hands and knees to observe it closer. . . Yet at the human level, am I capable of loving both the human and the cancer in the human? That's a lot harder because I have a stronger connection/identification to the human than the cancer. If it was my gf or me with the cancer it would be even more challenging.

It depends on the person and their conditioning. I was raised in a hyper-critical environment. My parents went waaay overboard criticizing me when I was a child. Later in life, I dated women that were hyper-critical. It was a toxic extreme, yet it seemed normal to me. As well, I would be hyper-self-critical in my own mind. Any little mistake I made, I would beat myself up. I would often analyze my behaviors and was self-critical even if I didn't do anything wrong. . . Based on my conditioning, one of the keys of self-love was to observe when and how I go into hyper self-criticism, self blame and guilt. And how I would take responsibility of other people's actions and feelings - as if I was responsible. Then, I learned how to let it go, realized when I start doing it, and to stop doing it. . . . For me, this was one of the most important self-love processes. Yet each person is different, has different issues and areas in need of self-love. You have your own. As well, there are general forms of self love like taking care of one's mind and body. Cooking for themself, eating healthy, doing yoga, massage, relaxation exercises, doing things we love etc.

In consciousness work, we often just use personal pronouns for convenience. There is a knowing that "me", doesn't exist - yet using personal pronouns can allow for more efficient communication. . . Sometimes personal pronouns are used for convenience, other times there is attachment/identification to "me". These observations come from my experience - perhaps they may shed some insight, perhaps I'm way off. Feel free to integrate them or throw them in the trash. I common stage I see is a "good ego" vs "bad ego" structure. I would also call it "my higher self" and "my lower self". Here they psychological self tries to partition itself into a "higher me" and a "lower ego". The "higher me" are things that the self aspires to: self esteem, being a kind person, being a person that contributes to society etc. and the "lower ego" would be things like self-centerdness, greed, anger, laziness etc. - stuff we want to get rid of. I think this can have value in a certain context, yet a meta view sees that this "higher self" and "lower ego" is all personal self/ego. There is a transcendence to all of it. I would try to transcend it all rather than continuing with a "higher self", "lower ego" construct and creating stories about how the ego helps me conduct my daily life. <-- That "ego" and "me" are the same thing. . . The entire story of "me" is the self/ego. That includes the good parts of the story and the bad parts of the story. It's all part of the "me" story and all of it can be transcended. If this route resonates with you, I would recommend observing all appearances of the "me story" without categorizing them into "me over here" and "the ego over there". It is tempting to identify with the "good me" on the spiritual path. If this route doesn't resonate with you, I would recommend working on personal development, including some aspects you refer to as "ego". Yet rather than identifying as the "good me", I would see it all as aspects of my personality structure. For example, rather saying that my competitiveness is "my ego" that helps "me" survive - I would probably look at it like "aspects of my personality, such as competitiveness, manifest at times to help me survive and excel at life. Yet at times, the same personality aspects can become too intense and harm others. For example, I got so competitive with someone that I sabotaged their project. This was unfair and I felt bad after I did it. Why did I behave this way and why did I feel bad afterwards? Hmmm, it seems like I was feeling fear of failure before I sabotaged him. That could have motivated me. And afterwards, I felt guilty - perhaps the guilty feeling was a signal I need to introspect my internal dynamics". For me, this open observation of my personality works a lot better than partitioning me into "my good self" and "my ego self". The above paragraph is a semi-meta view. There is an awareness observing all of the personality traits appearing. If I added in "my good self" and "my ego self", there would be identification to the "my good self" and this would distort the image. There wouldn't be detached, objective observation of all the personality traits appearing and disappearing.

@Austin Actualizing Are you referring to self love or Self Love? Both have merits, yet have different approaches, imo.

Two threads by the same user on Kundalini awakening have been merged. Please keep posts on this personal topic within this thread, rather than starting new threads.

@Bno Notice rigidity in the mind, black and white thinking and attachment to ideas. This can create a lens that distorts perception. Quite often, there are nuances and partial truths. For example, Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson are a mess when it comes to existentialism. Yet Dawkins has done some very nice work on evolutionary genetics and Peterson has made nice contributions to clinical psychology. It would be best if they stayed within their area of expertise. If they stayed in their areas of expertise (genetics and clinical psychology) they could make great contributions at an Orange level. For example, Dawkins would be great at helping Blue people transitioning from a hyper-moralistic views to rational views. The problem comes when Dawkins and Peterson demonize Green and come off as Yellow/Turquoise wanna be's. Ben Shapiro is waaaay down in Blue. Of course he won't carry much weight. If we were living in the 1600s, Shapiro would be highly progressive and help Red to advance to Blue. Yet in the US in 2020, Shapiro is regressive. Could he help red transition to blue? Sure. Yet there isn't that much red in the US and Shapiro doesn't have much value in terms of helping to raise the collective consciousness because he is below the the average consicousness of Orange in the U.S. Shapiro is dragging people down. If we sent Shapiro off to a red-centered middle-eastern culture, Shapiro's value would increase. Sam Seder is solid green and two conscious levels higher than Shapiro. Seder is a full conscious level higher than the average Orange in the U.S. Seder's value in raising the collective conscious is much higher that Shapiro's. Is Seder 100% clean of Orange? No. We are all combinations of stages, including me. If you gave me a test for 100% purity of Turquoise, Yellow or Green I would fail. I still have aspects of Orange shadow that pop up. As well, you seem to be attached to a rigid definition of "progressive". There are different expressions of progressive. MSNBC is Orange-centered and would carry intermediate value between Shapiro (low) and Seder (high). MSNBC is corporate-dominated, yet they are the average Orange conscious level in the US. That means they can expose a lot of red / blue and pull a lot of people up to Orange. The problem with MSNBC is that they are also pulling Green down to Orange. Look at how they cover Bernie Sanders. Yet that doesn't mean they are 100% evil. For example, Rachel Maddow has done some really nice investigating reporting showing red/blue corruption. She often sweeps Orange level corporate corruption under the rug because her network is Orange level corporate. Yet that does not mean they have no value. They have an important role to play in the evolution of consciousness - yet they are both raising red/blue up and pulling green down. Yet we can't expect MSNBC to regulate themselves, this is where Green comes in. People like Seder and TYT are solid green progressives and are a full conscious level higher than the average in the US. They are very important for the evolution of consciousness. Yes, they have sprinklings of Orange toxicity, yet there strongest energy is pulling up Orange - by far. They play a critical role. As well, they are not trying to pull down yellow. . . Each green progressive can have certain skills and specialties. For example, Seder is very good at describing the importance of governance from a green perspective. He is very good at revealing the fallacies of Orange libertarianism and corporatism. Other green progressives are more skilled at revealing gender and racial inequalities - others are good at revealing corporate corruption. It also seems like you are highly contracted in some very narrow narratives that are distorting perception. For example, you keep coming back to "Russiagate" and judging people on where they stand on "Russiagate" - yet your Russiagate ideology seems hyper contracted and distorted to me. . . Did some democrats overblow the story about Trump's links to Russia? Yes. Did some democrats embelish stories and use them to harm Trump's image for their own gain? Yes. Did this effort backfire? Partially yes. . . However, there is some truth within these stories. Don't hold views so tightly. There is some connection between Trump, his personnel and Putin/Trump that is unhealthy. This isn't a black or white issue that "Russiagate" is a 100% hoax or "Russiagate" is 100% true. This mindset will discredit and dismiss anyone that sees nuggests of truth in the Trump - Russia relationship. In doing so, one may blow off Seder as a "Russiagate" hack and fail to see any insights Seder may have of Trump-Russia as well as non-Russian issues. For example, Seder is very good at explaining the positive roles in government and why we need to expand government, which he did in this video. He also highlighted corporate corruption (such as Amazon) and why we need larger government to stand up to corporate corruption. This is very important for high Orange to hear.