Forestluv

My favorite stories appear in my mind. . .

No, not the first step.

@CreamCat It depends on how you define "flow" and "awareness/consciousness". There is A LOT of exploration in this area. Don't limit yourself too much.

In 50 years humans will look back at Piers and laugh. He is immersed in such a simple construct. . . The simplest construct we can create is a purely dualistic/binary construct. This could be male or female. Masculine or feminine. Heterosexual or Homosexual. Like all dualities there is an infinite number of connections that can be formed between the two poles. For example, there are an infinite number of connections between masculine and feminine. Between heterosexual and homosexual. . . Yet each of these binary constructs have another duality in another dimension: binary vs. non-binary. Yet it's really hard for a mind to see this dimension because the human mind is conditioned to think in opposites. A simple example would be a binary construct of East or West. We can construct a line that connects New York City (East) to San Francisco (West). There is an infinite number of points we can draw on the line between New York and San Francisco. . . Yet we can move off any point on the line North or South. This would be a non-binary relative to the New York to San Francisco line. We could set up another binary construct of North or South and their is an infinite number of points along this North - South line. And there are infinite number of points that have various degrees of East-West and North-South. The human mind can easily see these binary and non-binary constructs because we grow up conditioned with this construct. As well, there aspects of relativity (The amount of East-ness relative to West-ness) is not personal. It's not a relative experience. One person doesn't say "I identify as bi-directional.". No, we can see points on an external map and there is no personal attachment or identification to those points. And personal survival does not depend on defending an East-West binary construct and preventing a North-West binary construct. . Yet when we move into gender constructs, it's a whole new ballgame. Now we introduce personal attachments, identities, self-survival etc. As well, we introduce relative internal experience. Relative internal experience is much more difficult for a mind to understand that relative points on an external map. . . I understand that this involves transcendence of personality constructs, yet I couldn't help laughing at Pier's child-like simple mind. He can barely comprehend a spectrum along a single binary construct. This is the equivalent of only being able to see the single line connecting New York to San Franscisco. I wanted to cajole Piers and say "Look Piers!! Non-binary Chicago!! Non-binary Stockholm!! Guatemala City!!". Imagine a globe. The equator is "binary" and every point off the equator is "nonbinary". For those that are attached and identified to the equator, this will be oh so uncomfortable and threatening. Yet the true explorers smile as we prepare for a trip. . . Every location off the equator is "non-binary" how many points are there? You got it, infinite. . . I see binary-ists all shocked "What!? They want dozens of new pronouns. A hundred new pronouns!! This is lunacy!!". . . Lol. That is like saying "Some are saying there are dozens of cities off the equator! A hundred cities off the equator! This is lunacy!!". . . Please. . .dozens of nonbinary pronouns is small potatoes. There are millions, billions of non-binary locations. For those with in tune with relative beingness and experience, it gets even better. I just describe an intellectual construct. . . There are also empathic, intuitive, resonative and experiential constructs. It's not limited to intellectual models of binary and non-binary as I described above. You can actually take a non-binary trip yourself - you can BE it. You can directly experience tons of different non-binary locations. Each location with it's own flavor of experience. Just like each city off the equator has it's own flavor. I'm so excited to see all the new non-binary flavors yet to be revealed. We are at a very early stage. Humans restricting themself into a binary construct. Yet you don't need to. You can explore through others and through yourself. Yet humans are creatures of conditioning and habit. And so scared to exit their gopher hole of safety, security and comfort to get out and explore. . . Piers, the frightened gopher. . .

It seems like you are making a distinction between a "you" and an "ego" as two different things. This construct can have practical value at the human level and I often use it. Another perspective is that non-ego vs. ego is a duality. It is also true that non-ego = ego. And there are an infinite number of inter-connections between non-ego and ego.

Beautiful conceptualization, Lukas. . . Notice how you have created a duality. A duality so intense that you have two hands!! You have constructed systems vs. creativity. The integration is simple, yet not easy. . . All dualities involve opposition. Here, systems and creativity are opposed. The mind is conditioned to see in opposites and will resist integration, because integration seems to lose the opposition to which the mind is attached. One key for integration is that loss of duality does not invalidate the duality. Saying systems is the same as creativity does not mean that systems isn't different than creativity. In this case, your mind is conditioned to see systems as different than creativity. Your mind has invested a lot of time and effort learning about systems and creativity and building constructs of how systems and creativity is different. The mind may resist seeing systems and creativity as the same. The trick to being a master integrator is being able to deconstruct to Nothing and then begin construction. From a purely deconstructed state of Nothing, Systems is Creativity and Systems is not Creativity. Both are true. When one can see this, there are an infinite number of inter-connections between Systems and Creativity. . . Yet to get to full deconstruction, one needs to let go of attachment to objective reality. If you see Systems as being objectively different than Creativity, you are in paradigm lock. I spent 20+ years working as a scientist. One of my major dualisms was between science and art. I saw them as separate and wanted to integrate them. However, I was locked into a construct of what science is and that art was outside of science. I thought that if I integrate science and art, I would need to re-define science is and I wasn't willing to do that. This was my biggest block. What I learned was that it isn't about redefining science and art. It's about transcending science and art. From a transcendent perspective, my old view that science is different than art is still true AND a new view that science is art emerged. Both are true. With this realization an infinite number of interconnections appear. Everywhere. . . . Yet this didn't happen in one jump. It was a process. If I could give my previous self one piece of advice it would be that Science is the same as Art does not mean I have to reject that Science is totally different than Art. You said that Systems is on one hand and Creativity is on the other hand. It is true that your two hands are different, yet it is also true that your two hands are the same YOU. Your two hands are different, the same and have an infinite number of connections. (Leo did a great video on this called "Sameness vs. Difference"). To start the process, I tried to have a blank slate and see the art in science and the science in art. Any inter-connections. I started hanging out with artists and observed them from a scientists perspective. I began seeing the science in their artwork. As I performed science in the lab I started seeing the art. I read the book "How to think like Leonardo DaVinci" and I started to realize DaVinci was both an artist and scientist. I spent a lot of time in nature and started seeing the inter-connections between science and art. At times I did moderate doses of psychedelics which dissolved the duality and allowed space for inter-connections. . . Eventually, the duality between science and art totally collapsed: science IS art . Yet this did not invalidate the duality that science is not art. This opened up infinite inter-connections that integrates the duality with the nonduality. At first, it took effort to come up with ideas to integrate science and art. Now integrative ideas happen effortlessly. . . Einstein is Mozart The other thing I learned is that it is more than intellectual. My mind was heavily tilted toward intellect, logic, science, evidence, analysis and concepts. Part of the integration process was to learn new modes of being: Intuition, Empathy, Feeling, Knowing, Being and Creativity entered the picture and became just as important as intellect. For example, I would intellectualize about what creativity is and created concepts about of creativity. Yet then I became creativity - I knew creativity through Intuition and Beingneess in nonverbal, non-intellectual ways.

Let's see if I understand. . . Sometimes we say "you are god" and make a distinction between the "little you" and the "transcendent YOU". This can cause confusion at the personal level. An ego may interpret this as the egoic "little me" is god. This misinterpretation could allow this egoic entity to justify it's egoic actions. . . I think this is what you are pointing to. If so, I think it is a very common dynamic. If one is still contracted within a psychological self, they will misinterpret the phrase "You are God". . . as "you are god". If my understanding is correct, we can go a level deeper. If we say there is an ego that justifies it's actions, ego (relative to non-ego) needs to be created. Who/what creates the ego?

As a general reminder to the forum: namecalling is against forum guidelines. Please make your points without namecalling.

No. I am not saying your view is right or wrong. I am saying it is incomplete. You keep saying that a radiator is a car. I don't disagree with that. I am trying to show you that the radiator on it's own is incomplete, that there is more to a car. You keep asking me to prove that a radiator is not a car. . . Every time I point to other parts of the car, you respond "But that's not a radiator! Prove to me a radiator is not a car!". . . You are missing the point. You have an incomplete picture of what cultural appropriation is. . . Another way to look at it. . . You think the running back is the football team and can't see the other players on the team. I'm not disagreeing that the running back is a member of a football team. I am saying that there is more to a football team than the running back. As well, there is more to cultural appropriation than what you can see. Yet you aren't curious and open to that - which is fine. Maybe you will be someday, maybe not. Who knows. There is nothing I can do at this point.

How can I disagree with you if I don't disagree with you? You are having an argument with yourself.

If God is "everything as whole", wouldn't that *you* calling Everything God also be God? How can one step outside of Everything, point at Everything and say "That stuff over there is Everything"?

What is a thought? What is mine? What is yours? Who is the owner of thoughts and facts? What is a collective consciousness? What is empathy? What is expansion? We often have assumptions about what words mean without even realizing it. Contemplating these questions at an existential level can lead to insights. There is an underlying energy motivating you to keep returning to the forum. There is something here for you. I don't know what that is, yet I encourage you to be open to it. Sometimes during growth there is a "pull" toward something, yet we can't quite put our finger on it. During my path, there have been times when I could tell there was a "something", yet I didn't quite know what that "something" was. . . For example, when I first joined the forum I was very scientifically-minded. I've been trained as a scientist for entire adult life. When people spoke non-scientifically it seemed like irrational "woo woo" stuff. Paranormal, Spirits, Reincarnation, Past lives, Noah's Ark, Magic was all airy fairy nonsense. . . When I came across Leo, I knew there was something different about him, yet I didn't know what it was. He understood science and could communicate logically/rationally, yet there was also something else beyond science/logic/rationality that got me curious. . . I remember we got into a conversation about "What is intelligence"? I had a very scientific/logical view on intelligence and tried to tell Leo what intelligence is. Leo kept pressing down on my definition. I became aware that he was aware of something I was unaware of. Yet I didn't know what it was. That question of "What is intelligence" kept appearing in my mind over and over. During walks in nature, while cooking, in the shower. . . "What is intelligence?". Then I really wanted to know. That opened up the door. I started genuinely asking "What is intelligence?" to Leo and I got some breadcrumbs as I got stuck. Then new insights arose. This was one of the events that helped me transcend my scientific paradigm. Importantly, there was some deeper desire to keep returning to the forum. In hindsight, I now know it wasn't to convince Leo and others what Intelligence is - the deeper desire was that I wanted to find that "something" I knew deep down I was missing and could sense that others had. . . I don't know what your question is, yet my sense is that there is a deeper "something" happening here and that you may find - beneath the surface of thought stories of democrats vs republicans. If so, it is much more magnificent than the thought stories at the surface. The fish below the waves are extraordinary.

What you listed seems like distractions to me. I would face the issue as directly as possible - as much as the mind and body could tolerate. Something like a solitary dark room retreat in which there is no place to run or hide. Another option would be psychedelics, yet that has risks for an unstable mind and body. A milder method would be extended shamanic breathing exercises. I would let go of the frame of "making myself more sick" or "making myself better". This seems like a thought story that is distractive to deeper issues.

@Matt8800 I'm not saying you are wrong. I am not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to show what a contracted lens is. You are perceiving through a particular lens. If you insist on viewing cultural appropriation through that lens, that's fine - yet you won't expand into a deeper and broader understanding/knowing of cultural appropriation. There is nothing I can do to pull that lens out. You would need to do it. Yet you are not interested or open to doing that at this time. Maybe you will be in the future, maybe not. Who knows?

Non-binary is not a green value. The green values are the recognition and inclusion of the relative existence of non-binary beings.

There is further expansion. One can be exploring Room 227 of a Grand Hotel. There is a subjective sense of exploration, discovery and forming holistic views as they explore Room 227, yet they haven't realized they are in Room 227. . .

For sure. This enters into the realm of ISness. So much to explore

You are missing the point. The point has nothing to do with rules, shoulds, shouldnts, guilt, shame or apologies. Yet that is the lens words are going through. If someone insists on wearing a red pair of glasses, they will interpret everything as red. They will not see orange, purple, pink, magenta, violet. . . If one asks "What is color?" and defends Red-ness, they won't see other colors people are trying to show. . . There is nothing wrong with red, yet the person will be missing out on a lot. This can create inner-turmoil. You are assuming I am wearing a blue pair of glasses trying to tell you that my blue is real and your red is unreal. This is not the case, yet through a red lens it is the case.

Who/what would identify as God? Identification requires separation. "I am X" means "I am not Y". There is something prior to that. Who/what is this "you" that is identifying as God?

@Mason Riggle Very nice. I like that imagery. What do you think of these basic stages? Stage 1: the person on the left can only see the six. They are attached/indentified of being a six. They debate and argue with others that it is a six. Stage 2: After years of arguing Six-ness, the person is getting worn out of the inner-turmoil and inter-personal conflict. One day they question their assumption and ask "What if it isn't just a six? What if there is another way of looking at it?". Stage 3: Intellectually realizing that there is another way to perceive the six and it could be perceived as a nine. However, there is still subconscious attachment that "it could be seen as a nine, yet it is really a six". The key here is that this is a subconscious belief. There is not awareness of this filter. Stage 4: The person has a false sense of "knowing". They are limited to an intellectual understanding that it could be perceived as a nine. They continue to intellectually argue for six-ness. Then there is a realization that "I am missing something". A curiosity and openness to explore what's missing arises. Stage 5: The person gains direct experience. For example, the person lives in a community of Nines. One day he sees the Nine and directly experiences Nine-ness. For a moment, there is Nine-ness and the person "gets it". . This is a profound experience that can trigger a groundless existential crisis. The person may think "What is real Six or Nine? Does this mean I am a Six or a Nine?". Stage 6: Attachment to Six vs. Nine dissolves. There is liberation from personal attachment to Six. A new realm of transcendent exploration opens up. Transcendent questions arise like "Who/What painted that number? What was their intention? Was the intention a Six or Nine? Or perhaps the intention was to allow awakening? . . What type of conditioning is necessary to become attached to being a Six or Nine? How does one de-condition the mind to awaken?"

Be careful with conflating absolute and relative. The truth is both simple and complex. . . In the car metaphor I've been using, we could say "It's all the One car. It's simple". That is one view. Yet there is another view. The car is also very complex. Within that One car there are many parts interacting with each other. It's takes years of study and work to understand the individual functions of each part and how all the parts interact with each other to give rise to a car. To understand a car, one would also need to study all the different ways in which a car could break down and what that appears as relative to the function of the car. As well, there are many different forms of cars that have similarities and differences. If we ask "What is a car"? We can have a simple answer that "All the parts are a car" or a complex answer that explores are the parts of a car and the inter-relatedness. There are also degrees of complexity. I'm not interested in deeply exploring car complexity. However, a car mechanic is very interested in exploring car complexity. The problem isn't so much about a holistic simple answer like "all the parts of the car are One" or a more complex answer like "a car engine is composed of five main parts". The problem arises when there is conflation between the two. When someone says "The radiator is the car. Talk about all these other car parts is mental masturbation. The Truth of the radiator as car is simple. There is no need to make it more complex". This would be a conflation between relative (the radiator as a part) and absolute (One car). In this example, there is no identification, so it is easily understood. No one thinks "I am the radiator. The radiator is mine and I need to protect the view as the radiator is the car". Without attachment/identification, there is space to explore and learn about different parts of a car and how they inter-relate. Yet if a mind is contracted and attached within the conflation that the "radiator is the car", various mechanisms arise to protect that contraction. One protective mechanism is "It's simple: the radiator is the car". The attachment to such a conflation will maintain contraction and block expansion. . . Another protective mechanism is to interpret expansion as anti-radiator. If someone points out "The radiator isn't the only part of the car. Look there is also the windshield". A contracted mind may interpret this as "No, the radiator is the car. Not the windshield. You are saying the radiator is not the car which is not true". The human mind is conditioned to think in opposites. This puts the mind in a situation in which it thinks it must choose between the radiator being the car or the windshield being the car. If the person is attached to the radiator being the car and sees the windshield being the car as an opposing threat - they will enter a defensive mode to protect their view that the radiator is the car.

You seem to be oriented toward debating opposing view points in a rational matter with evidence, facts, proof etc. That's fine. There is value in that. I am more oriented toward exploration, discovery and forming integrative, holistic ideas. We aren't on the same frequency, which happens. Personifying points can be helpful in certain contexts, yet it can also be unhelpful in certain contexts. For example, telling someone "you are Orange" can be helpful if the person has desire and openness to observe the personal "you" part. For me, this is the deepest part - the actual issue of the debate is usually secondary. Yet it depends on context. On a forum with a mission of consciousness evolution, the "you" part is usually primary for me. If I was on a committee designing public policy, the content could be primary. In contrast, personifying points can be unhelpful. For example, telling someone "you are Orange" can be interpreted through a personal filter. When there is attachment/identification to the view, the personality is center-stage. The personality may think "He thinks he is so smart, well he isn't. He is being unfair to me. He doesn't consider my view. He is trying to make me look bad. He can't prove my points are wrong". Inter-personal communication through personal filters is a very common. It is the vast majority of communication. There is a his view and my view in opposition. Ime, debating opposing views have practical value in certain contexts - yet debate/arguing is very inefficient in learning, expanding and creating integrative, holistic views. Debating/Arguing over whether the radiator or alternator is the car is very inefficient in learning about all the parts of the car and how all the parts inter-relate to give rise to an emergent entity of the car. To me, the main inefficiency comes through personalization. If one person thinks "I am the radiator, I am the car" and the other person thinks "I am the alternator, I am the car". The "I am" association creates a new dynamic. Those two people debating whether the radiator or alternator is the car will not be able to see their contraction. They will not be able to see that both the radiator and alternator are the car and there are actually other parts of the car - and how all these parts fit together. . . This is how my mind is oriented. Others have a different orientation, which is fine. Not everyone resonates with each other.

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong and what you should or shouldn't do. The discussion is about cultural appropriation. I am saying that your view is incomplete. . . Imagine if we are having a conversation about how a car works and someone says "The car is the radiator and I am going to behave like the car is the radiator". . . This is a limited, incomplete view. If the person wants to learn about how a car works, they would need to expand beyond "The car is the radiator". They would need to realize the other parts of the car and how they work together. If someone insists that the car is the radiator, it will cause confusion and turmoil. For example, if the car's alternator is broken it will cause confusion because the person is trying to fix the radiator and can't figure out what's happening. @Key Elements Those are great points about resolving bigger picture issues in relationships.

@Key ElementsYou make good points, yet we are in different realms. ?