Forestluv

Esmeralda would be my downfall. Unrequited love is a bitter brew to drink. It is one of Eros’ arrows misguided. Like Quasimodo, the result of such love is a return to dust. For life lost in the pursuit of this type of love is like an exquisite vase where the flowers have withered from neglect. Like water is needed to keep flowers flourishing, love is needed to keep a heart beating with its song of life. G. D. Williams

Do some roof-dwellers stick around to help pull up others to the roof?

You like to cut to the chase. . .

I haven't heard of Yuval Harari. Thanks for mentioning him. . . This wasn't quite the facet I was getting at, yet this is also a profound realization. It reminds me of Leo's "Hand Exercise". . . Here a person observes their hand without any thought. Just observation and feeling their hand. This is actual. Then the person puts their hand behind their back and imagines their hand. They create a thought construct of their hand. This is an imagination. It seems too simple and obvious, yet the direct experience can be profound to highlight the contrast between actual Now and imagined. One can extend this to looking at the wall (actual Now) and then thinking about their parents (imagined). . . One tendency of the mind is to conflate actual and imagined. When presented this a person might think "Duh, this is so obvious. I now the difference between actual and imagined". Yet we then live our lives misinterpreting imagined as real. It is also a good exercise for realizing Now. Not quite, it's even more radical than that. A priori and posteriori and great epistemological ideas about how we come to know truth. Yet my understanding is that it both refer to how a proposition is known to be true. That has great value and practical usage. Yet I'm pointing to something different. I think I added in too much to the example. To re-visit the example. . . How do you know it's now? Try to imagine prior to the idea of now, so all there is is Now. How do you know everything is happening? . . We could theorize about what is a happening, what is sensation and perception, neuroscience etc. That's all good. Yet there is also a "before" all that. Yet here, it's not like there is a me knowing everything. Before all the theory, there is nothing to know. There simply just IS. Think of a baby, they are just simply aware of what is. They have no theory about stuff. Kinda like that. . . So it's not like "me" knowing. It's more like ISness "Knows" itself. Now just Knows it's Now. .. . Another way of saying it is that awareness is aware of itself. All evidence and theory is second order. There is a first order of ISness before the theory, evidence etc. Creating a conceptual framework is helpful, yet one can only go so far with concepts. Ime, concepts can help support direct experience. A person may have a realization of direct experience, beyond words. "Oh, my god!! What just happened? I can't explain it". This can feel groundless and the tendency of the mind is to dismiss it as "woo woo" and return to status quo. Yet a conceptual framework may provide grounding for integration. For example, after the direct experience one may realize "Oh my gosh!! That is what Rupert Spira was talking about!!! I get it. Yet I can't explain it". The point about A is B has to do with the dualistic conditioning of the mind. Anytime we say something is something else we are creating two things in a relative context. Re-vist all of your statements with the word "is". In each instance, you are creating one thing and equating it to another thing. For example you earlier wrote "the ego is a construction. .. ". In some contexts, content is important. Not here. The content isn't important, it's the structure. Notice the way it is structured. You have created two things. One thing you call an "ego" and another thing you call a "construction" and you propose that the ego (A) = construction (B). . . . The mind does this so much it becomes oblivious to what it's doing. This can be helpful to navigate life and survive. Yet the mind gets lulled into believing it's true. One exercise I've done is to walk through nature and notice every time I make statements. I then acknowledge I am creating relative meaning that is not objective/actual. . . That duck is big. No, that duck is a duck. Those clouds are beautiful. No, clouds are clouds. This is boring. No, a thought this is boring is a thought this is boring. That litter shouldn't be here. No, the thought that litter shouldn't be here is a thought that litter shouldn't be here. Adyashanti is the enlightened. No Adyashanti is Adyashanti. The thought Adyashanti is enlightened is the thought Adyashanti is enlightened. . . This exercise is maddening to the mind because it prevents being right, attachment and identification. The exercise still has labels, but its a big step. The next step would further remove labels. Rather than that duck is a duck. It becomes that IS is IS. How is this liberating? The liberation doesn't come from the theory, it comes from the embodiment. For example, suppose you tell me that this passage I wrote is delusional, I have no clue about enlightenment and I need to watch more Eckhart Tolle videos. How might my mind body respond? If there is attachment/identification that my writing is true/insightful and that you are wrong - the mind and body will likely respond defensively. It will want to defend that the writing is true/insightful. I may try and convince you that the writing is true/insightful. Yet what happens when there is embodiment of IS is IS? Then it becomes "writing is writing" and "a thought that writing is delusional is a thought that writing is delusional". There is nothing here to be attached to. There is nothing here to be identified with. It's the same as saying a bird chirp is a bird chirp. Yet it's not the theory. It's the underlying realization and embodiment. Is the mind just thinking this? Or has the mind-body actually embodied it. Is there still underlying feelings of attachment/identification and desire to convince myself and others that the writing is true/insightful? Or does it have not more significance than a bird chirp? What is the sensation of color? Colors don't exist. A tree is not green. The visual cortex is creating a hallucination of green and you have no idea if what I call green is the same thing as what you call green. What is pain? You can define it however you want. Pain to you could be pleasure to someone else. Try some S & M and explore the inter-connectedness between pain and pleasure to the point you can't tell the difference between pain and pleasure. All these concepts are great, yet they aren't actual. Creating a terms like "pain" and "pleasure" is useful to communicate, function in society and survive. Yet ideas of pain is not the actuality. It is not the direct experience. An exploration of pain through observation and direct experience is very different than a theoretical exploration of pain and pleasure. . . Similarly, explore terror and peace so deeply that you cannot distinguish between terror and peace in your direct experience. As well, explore real and imagined so deeply that you cannot tell the difference between real and imagined. Not theoretically. Literally in your direct experience. You are assuming there is a universal, objective thing called "pain". How can it be pain without your interpretation of it as pain? The conceptualizing has value, yet its so easy to get trapped in a vortex of intellect. It goes sooo much deeper. . . Self inquire "what is pain?". Don't think about it or try to figure it out. There is understanding of direct experience. Explore actual direct experience of pain. What are the inter-connections between sensation, thought, interpretation. Yet don't intellectualize. Just ask the question and observe. If you and a gf are into kinky sex, this is a great area to explore. I've been in realms in which I'm at an interface of pain, bliss and humor. My gf couldn't tell if I was screaming in pain or laughing hysterically. She would ask "Is this good or bad?". I'd respond "I don't know, but keep going. . . ". In general, a good way to blast through all this is with a psychedelic.

In defense of fruit flies. . . I do laboratory research with fruit flies and would like to mention that fruit flies have contributed greatly to our understanding of human health and medicine. Fruit fly research as been awarded multiple Nobel Prizes in medicine. . . For example, fruit flies revealed all the Hox genes involved in development (including human development). In regards to child abuse. . . It is a cycle of pain and suffering. Many children that were abused become damaged and then abuse children as adults. It's easy to restrict our empathy to the abused child. Yet it is often an inter-connected web of suffering. . . A good movie that captures this dynamic called "Little Children". There is a web of about six characters, each of which is both abused and abuser. The tendency for humans is to categorize as good and evil, yet this movie breaks that tendency. It's really profound, yet also really difficult to watch - at least it was for me. I was shaken up for weeks and it still comes up years later. The movie "Crash" also has a similar theme, yet is much less intense. In "Crash" there is also a network of about six characters and the themes are more about racism and sexism. Again, each character is complex and is both good and evil depending on context. There was a police officer that used his power to abuse a woman in a vulnerable position. I got so upset with him. He was the bad guy. Yet later, in a different context, he used his power and risked his life to save the life of the same woman he had abused. She was trapped under a burning car and she refused the help of the hated police officer. Yet he wouldn't be able to live within himself if he left her there and he refused to leave. They would both die together or they would both survive together. They both realized this and there was a beautiful moment of shared humanity. . . Each character was like this. I couldn't hate or love them. In Leo's first video on love, he spoke about expanding our capacity to love. These two movies helped me with this expansion. They helped reveal how my love was contracted and conditional based on my own personal filters.

"If I am pure emptyness then why don't I feel other bodies" The mind loves to create stories. . . For example, "Pure emptyness should mean that I feel other bodies. Yet I don't feel other bodies. I must be doing something wrong. . . " Emptiness isn't a thought story. It comes prior to thought stories. Yet how do we transcend thought stories and get insights of direct experience? A few things I've tried. 1. Ask "what is emptiness?". Yet don't enter thought stories such as "I read that emptiness is XXX. . . I watched a video and the teacher said emptiness is ZZZ. . . . Emptiness should be nothing. Or maybe emptiness is a lack of something, like I feel empty. . . ". Just let all of this go. Everything you think you know about emptiness. It's not a thought story exercise. Rather, it's about the essence of emptiness being revealed in direct experience. Just genuinely ask and let it go. Perhaps sit in silence. Or just do something else. 2. Humbly and genuinely ask that emptiness be revealed. This sets and intention to the Universe. Just humbly and genuinely set the intention without any expectations. Don't try to figure it out. I like to go to bed at night setting the intention such as "Please show me the true essence of Emptiness". I don't obsess about it and try to figure it out by thinking, reading or discussing it on forums. The humble/genuine intention can plant a seed in the Universe. Maybe the sprouts tomorrow, maybe next year, maybe never. . . What often happens, for me anyway, is that it may be mysteriously revealed. Maybe through LOA, maybe through Synchronicity. And things can get weird. I may be in a cafe and her a child say "Emptiness is blah blah blah". And I'm like "wtf, did that just happen?". Or I may be walking in nature, see a bee in a flower and realize emptiness. "Holy shit! Emptiness!". Then my mind is like "Whoa!! What?? Where?? We need to figure this out. What's the Emptiness". Then I often laugh at the Cosmic Joke. . . The Universe is such a prankster. . .

That is so beautiful

This is your unique journey and there is only one person who can take that journey: you. It seems like you have a mixture of desires - some at odds with each other. I would get in touch with the source of the desire. What is the essence of that desire? Does it feel genuine and pure? Or does it feel in-genuine and muddy?. . . Yet it can get tricky because the mind has so many conditioned filters. And sometimes it seems best to go counter to desires. . .

Of course. I just slipped on ice outside and to say I was "dissatisfied" with the outcome is an understatement. A much stronger word would be appropriate. Yet what is is. Slipping on ice is slipping on ice. Feeling pain is feeling pain. Feeling dissatisfied is feeling dissatisfied. . . There is a tendency for the mind to think "Once I realize what is, I should be satisfied with what is". Yet this is still playing an egoic game. . . ISness is ISness. Any satisfaction of dissatisfaction is itself ISness!! There is no escape. . . Try to stop ISness from ISing. Try to change ISness. Try to exit ISness. . . You can't. You can be disatisfied or satisfied. You can hide in a closet. You can sing a song. Jump off a bridge. It all IS. You could call Leo for help and anything Leo says is ISness. Self criticism IS self criticism. Self acceptance IS self acceptance. The transcendence is not what is to the left and right of IS. The transcendence is IS itself.

These types of constructs can be insightful and beneficial. Some with depression may have a realization that "suffering is an illusion". This might be a paradigm shift that reduces mind-body distress. As well, I often like to contemplate about the inter-relationship between whats real and what is illusion. Yet there isn't there also a prior to this? In which suffering is suffering and an illusion is an illusion. How can one thing be another thing? We need to take out a knife and carve out a thing called "suffering" and carve out another thing called "an illusion" and we can say the are the same to each other, yet different from our other carvings. For example, our suffering carving is different than our tuna sandwich carving. . . Yet what is there prior to these carvings? What is the substance from which we carve? Regarding an enlightened person. . . who/what is this person that gets enlightened? Again, this can be a useful construct, yet what is prior to "I am enlightened"? . . What is prior to "I am XXX"? . . . I am a scientist. I am an athlete. I am intelligent. I am a belly dancer. I am enlightened. . Prior to this is simply "I AM" without any add-ons. And this "I AM" can be deconstructed to "AM". Simply AM-ness. See what is happening here. A statement was made that "Suffering is an illusion" and then a story is written titled "Suffering is an Illusion". We are now writing a story about how pain/suffering affects a person, how an enlightened person would interpret pain/suffering, whether we need to overcome pain/suffering for another thing called "intuition" to be revealed and this intuition reveals that suffering is an illusion. . . . There is a lot in there. This type of construction can be helpful, yet it can also be mesmerizing and distractive - especially when there is immersion into the content. . . What comes prior to all these ideas? That prior in which an idea is an idea? I like to walk through nature and simply observe. Sometimes I see a sunset and think "That sunset is so beautiful". I may see a group of dragonflies dancing together in the air and think "Those dancing dragonflies are so amazing!!!". This is part of the human experience and I wouldn't want to live without it. Yet I also wouldn't want to live with attachment either. . . A sunset is beautiful and a sunset is a sunset and beauty is beauty. Dragonflies are amazing and dragonflies are dragonflies. . . With this realization of "prior" there is a price to pay. There is a certain type of loss and sadness when the magic trick of "A is B" is revealed. Yet there is also a liberation and doors to magnificence open. Here, one doesn't need to convince themselves or anyone else that dragonflies are amazing or that a sunset is beautiful. Or that suffering is an illusion. One no longer needs to prove their worth and win debates by proving that dragonflies are amazing. A is A and B is B. And All carvings arise from Nothing and return to Nothing. To me, it's profoundly beautiful and profoundly sad.

And how would that go over with a blue-centered person that has resistance to Orange? A blue-centered person that sees Orange as immoral atheists that are arrogant sinners. . . . If it is a blue-centered society, how would that look? An Orange-level person could be seen as an evil apostate. They would likely be ostracized. They might even be beaten or killed. . . How did Aristotle go over in a blue environment? As well, Turquoise has awareness of Oneness. There isn't a strong dynamic of "I am at a higher level and I need to help these other people at lower levels to evolve". There is a transcendent awareness present - a type of collective consciousness.

@outlandish Sure, from a scientific perspective we will learn a lot more over the coming years. From initial studies looking at harm of drugs relative to individuals and society, psychedelics ranks low. Below things like caffeine, marijuana or benzos. In this context, psychedelics wouldn't be considered an unhealthy substance. Yet these studies were with regular psychedelic doses, were not fully comprehensive and did not include any cellular data. It's just based on a portion of the limited information we currently have. We will learn more as we go along.

Technically, microdosing is below threshold so there would be no impairment of driving capability. On a microdose, someone isn't like "Wow, this microdosing is awesome! I'm so much more creative. I'm totally at Yellow now". . . It more like one doesn't even notice. They forget they even took the dose. At the end of the day, they might reflect "Today was a pretty good day. I had some nice creative moments. Oh, I microdosed. I forgot about that". It would be like taking a sip of beer and worrying about driving since drinking and driving is a No No. Yet we don’t currently have safety thresholds for psychedelics. We know the most people’s ability to drive starts to decline at a blood alcohol level of about .07. Yet we don’t have a safety level for psychedelics. As well, one needs to be mature and responsible. One needs to find their personal sub-threshold dose. As well, one needs to be mindful of effects. If someone is a Nervous Nellie and freaks out like "Oh my god, I took a microdose and now I'm mowing my lawn!! I could stick my hand under the mower and chop my hand off!! I shouldn't be using a lawn mower". Even though the dose is subthreshold and is not impacting the capacity to use a lawn mower, the person's anxiety and psychology is indirectly impairing their ability to use a lawnmower and it's best that they don't mow the lawn while MDing. For me, texting while driving is a much higher risk than microdosing and driving.

@Derrida Consider what knowing is. It seems like your construct of knowing is limited to knowing something like a fact. Or knowing a concept is true. For example, someone may speak of neuroscience as if they know what they are talking about. Yet also consider a different form of Knowing. . . How do you know now is now? . . . Do you wake up each morning skeptical that now is now. Do you spend your whole day trying to determine if now is now? Do you seek evidence and proof that now is now? Of course not. There is a Knowing of Now that is prior to all the thought stories and evidence. There is simply a Knowing of Now. . . Similarly, how do you know you exist?. . . Do you go to scientists seeking proof that you exist? Are you seeing a psychiatrist to help show you that you are alive and exist? . . . Of course not. There is a Knowing of "I AM" prior to facts and evidence. As well, the Knowing that ISness is ISness comes prior to evidence and facts.

All maps have relative value. If I am looking for a restaurant in Paris, a map of Paris will have high relative value and a map of Los Angeles will have low relative value. . . And it's easy to conflate the map and territory. The map of Paris is useful, yet the image of the restaurant on the map is not the actual restaurant.

To have a "system", a system must be created. The system will be limited to that system. For example, a construct of science is limited to that construct of science. Same goes for any system. For example, how should we score "glifjic"? . . . Huh? What the heck is glifjic? . . . Glifjic starts of as being very expansive since it is undefined. It could be anything or nothing at all. Yet even creating the term glifjic imposes limits. The term is a series of letters. The word has a type of sound. The letters may remind someone of a similar word they have meaning. There is an expectation that glifjic must mean something. So it is relatively expansive, yet nowhere near as expansive as infinity. As soon as we create an essence of glifjic, we have entered a human realm, which is also a limitation. We can give glifjic meaning and score it, yet this is in a human context - again a limitation to humans. . . We could say glifjic is a type of enlightenment that appears at a score of 1250. Yet it is an extra special form of enlightenment - not just a generic type of enlightenment found at 1000. No, this is a form of groking enlightenment, yet it is beyond linguistic expression because linguistic expression was transcended at a score of 1100. . . This also brings into question relativity and objectivity. Who/what determines whether a being has officially reached the glifjic stage? Do we need a glifjic-awakened being with a score of 1350 to determine whether a being deserves an official glifjic stamp of embodiment?. . . All of this construction is limited. . . . One can create an elegant sand castle beyond imagination. Yet it is still made of sand. . . These types of systems can have value, yet they can also be a huge distraction.

Not now. A solid green like Bernie is the highest for the current state of consciousness evolution. Perhaps the first Yellow-centered leader will appear three generations. . . Of course a turquoise person could run. They just won't be taken seriously. They will be perceived as a "quack", "woo woo" or irrational. For example, Marianne Williamson has aspects of turquoise and she was ridiculed and not taken seriously. Based on historical trends of social conscious evolution, a turquoise president is many years in the future. And it's not just politics. A work at a University and I often need to back away from Turquoise. Mainstream academia just isn't ready for it. If I go Deepak Chopra, I will lose credibility and be dismissed. If I took it far enough, it could even threaten my job. Look how societies have treated Turquoise-level leaders throughout history. The treatment is often very ugly.

One of the limits of a scoring system is there must be a "thing" to score.

Don’t hijack this thread. It’s not a thread to vent personal frustrations. The below thread is appropriate for this.

You are only seeing things from your perspective. People are trying to show you other perspectives. If you want to stay locked in one view, that’s your choice.

For creativity enhancement, microdosing is 100X better than coffee. And it’s healthier.

@Einsteinonacid Your natural state of being is being. You don’t need to figure out a secret code to be.

You are seeing this from a male perspective and missing the point. It is culturally acceptable for a young male to engage in pick-up, practice having sex with women and gain experience. Consider the impact of this on women from the woman's perspective. . . It is an erroneous extrapolation to say "Men and women have one night stands all the time. They have fun and no one gets broken-hearted". This is an immature male perspective that avoids looking at the impact asymmetric gender/sex dynamics have on women.

Who are you referring to as "he"? And the grammar is hard to read without punctuation.

Nice inspection. . . I think this gets at the next layer. At first, one may realize "Thoughts just appear. I am not the author of my thoughts. However, I can choose between two thought options. I can choose to act toward one option or the other". To me, this is the next layer. Observe this choice. Is there a chooser? Is there simply the appearance of choice? Is there a subjective experience of choice? Is there a thought story of choice? I imagine driving in my car. Sometimes my driving is automatic. I don't think "I am now facing a choice between turning on my turn signal or not. . . I am now choosing to accelerate. I am now choosing to make a left turn". Sometimes it's just automatic. I just drive and listen to music. Sometimes I sing along or think about memories of the song. . . Along the drive, there are countless "choices" being made. What speed to go, whether to brake, whether to stop or turn left. Yet are these really "choices"? Sort of, but not really. We can imagine choices are being made, yet there wasn't the subjective experience of a chooser making a choice. . . So now let's say I realize my highway exit is near. I don't have the GPS on and I don't have time to input the destination. Shoot, the next exit is here. Should I exit here? Or is it the next one?. . . Now the story and subjective experience of "choice" and a "chooser" arises. I may think "Dang. I should have been using GPS. I made a bad choice. . . . I don't know whether to choose this exit or the next exit. If I make the wrong choice, I will be late for my Doctors appointment. I'm feeling stressed now. I don't want to make the wrong choice. Ok, I will choose the exit here. I hope I am right.". . . So. . . are these simply happenings with a story and experience of "choice" overlayed on top of the happenings? Is "choice" simply imagination? Or is "choice" real? . . It's tempting to get into a duality of choice vs. no choice. This is a form of a "real" vs "imagined" duality. And it's tempting to take one side or the other. Human minds are conditioned to think in opposition. There must either be choice or no choice. . . The challenge is that we put ourselves in a binary position. Most people are conditioned to believe in choice. There is a very strong subjective experience of choice. As well choice is tightly associated with survival. Here, it is insightful to realize the opposite side of the duality. . . There is no choice or chooser. . . Yet then the temptation is to grasp "no choice" and reject "choice". We may create a website and videos about how there is no choice/chooser. We may state personal and scientific evidence. We may get into arguments. . . The next layer is to let go of the opposite side of the duality and start to see the inter-connections between the duality. Eventually the duality collapses and there is knowing of both choice/chooser and no choice/chooser. A few things I think worth considering. . . The context of the thread is about free will and choice. In this context. . . When you state that the assumption is arrogant, was that a choice you made? . . . The human mind can get lulled into assuming objectivity. For some minds, this is hard wired and relative awareness is deeply subconscious. For other minds, awareness of relativity is just below the conscious level and a person just needs a little nudge. For example, we may ask the person "When you say the statement is arrogant, is that your personal interpretation or is that objectively and universally true?". . . When pressed, most people would realize that their statement is a personal interpretation - however their is an issue of underlying attachment and identification. . . Another person may get defensive and say "No, it really was arrogant. That's just how it is". Yet clearly this isn't an objective and universal truth. How could we objectively determine if a thing is "arrogant". Would we use a computer algorithm to determine if it was objectively "arrogant"? As well, this clearly isn't universal. Even within this thread, one user said the statements were "arrogant" and another user said the statements were "good points". So obviously neither statement is universally true. So back to the theme of the thread. When the mind thinks "that is arrogant". Is this a choice? We could say yes, because there were lots of options available to choose from. We could say the statement was: arrogant, humble, sweet, loving, condescending, kind, rude, insulting, insightful, delusional . . . and on and on. We could create a massive list to choose from. . . We could also say there was no choice. Did the mind actually consider various ways to interpret the statements? Did the mind consider the strengths and weaknesses of each option? Did the mind narrow the options down to either "arrogant or condescending" and then finally choose that the statement was arrogant?. . . Probably not. For most minds in this situation, the stimuli goes through a lens - a feeling and thought arises that this is "arrogant". Usually, this is accepted and not question. It just is arrogant. It's obviously arrogant. The mind doesn't even question the underlying psychological dynamics. . . Yet as mentioned, when this is revealed the person may get defensive and argue that the statements are arrogant. This would be a relatively low level of consciousness (stage orange and below on SD). Or when someone reveals this the person may shift and become aware "Well, of course it's just my personal interpretation. That is so obvious." This is a higher level. From here the mind may still stay attached/identified to "this is arrogant" or there can be a letting go. Perhaps the person starts to contemplate the patterns in the own mind. The next "stage" is when one starts realizing relativity on their own and there is little attachment/identification. This gets into stage Yellow on the spiral. Another point: conflation between absolute and relative is super common. As well, there is often conflation between objective and absolute. Here, I am expressing relative. Any expression is relative. There is realization of this and embodiment of this. This is easy to observe in one's mind body. . . When you point out "this is just your own experience and something you came up with. It's not absolute truth", I can observe my own level of development. What is my mind body response? Do I think defensively? Do I think "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He obviously hasn't had the direct experience". Or is the mind body in a place in which there is knowing of relativity and that any point is relative? Does the mind and body know that any contextualization of ISness is relative? . . . How does the body respond? Where their feelings of internal tension? This is a good example of how insightful simple observation of one's psychological dynamics can be. Early on in self actualization, it's super helpful to get feedback from others to help reveal underlying dynamics. Yet as we develop, the person becomes their own best teacher. Eventually there is an integration between introspection of the individual and extrospection within a collective. And all of this is relative and has an infinite number of interpretations. How will you choose to interpret it? Is it insightful? Is it New Age bs? Perhaps it's delusional word salad. You get to create your own reality. . . And whatever you imagine to be true is true. What is, IS.