Forestluv

There is a ton of tangible evidence that people can observe. Point to and touch. Melted glaciers and ice sheets. Rising temperatures. Warmer waters. Death of coral reefs - on and on and on. The predictions from years past are all coming true. Some people don't want to accepts these tangible things for various reasons. Some don't want to put in the effort, some don't trust science, some don't want to change, some want to consume the planet for personal power and profit, some want to "own the libs". I was traveling through Alaska a couple years ago and noticed a lot of observatory stations for tourists were shut down and decaying. Why? Well, these were observatory stations for glaciers and ice sheets. After they melted away, the tourists stopped coming. . . Twenty years ago, scientists predicted they will melt away within twenty years. . . How is this not tangible? . . . To me, it's more about denial. I met other tourists in Alaska that said "Oh no, that's not global warming. That's just how weather is - sometimes there are a few hot years. . . " As well, worldwide average temperatures keep hitting record highs (consistent with scientific models). This is tangible. Everyone understands what temperature is. Yet in my home state, there is an occasional cold snap. Some people in my town will say "It's snowing in October!! Global warming is a hoax!!!". When I tell them that average wordwide temperature keeps hitting new record highs year after year, they scoff at me. To me, this isn't a lack of tangible things, it is a denial of those tangible things.

Some thoughts that come to mind and my personal experience: Everyone has subconscious biases and prejudices. Yet we are not aware of them at a conscious level. I've done a lot of introspection and have gone through training to reveal subconscious biases. I've lived in foreign villages to immerse myself in culture to reveal my subconscious biases. I've dated outside my race and immersed myself in very different communities to reveal my subconscious biases. Part of what was revealed to me was conditioned subconscious biases from my upbringing. For example, my parents often mocked the speaking patterns of inner city black people. They were very particular about speaking properly - proper annunciation and grammar - because we don't want to sound like "those people". Now my parents never overtly said "Those inner city black people are stupid and not as good as us - you don't want to be like them". However, the was the subconscious conditioning I received. . . Through my adult life, I have never consciously judged a person speaking "improper" English as being stupid or lesser than me. In fact, it was the opposite. Consciously, I thought that everyone is equal and there is no "proper" way to speak English. Yet after a lot of consciousness work, I became conscious of this subconscious bias. I was now able to observe my subconscious perception/interpretation when I heard people from certain groups speaking "improper" English. There was subconscious judgement I was now aware of. It was a form of racism. I then saw how this subconscious bias led me to treat some of my black and brown students with subtle biases. This was extremely uncomfortable for me to look at. I went through a period of denial, then hyper-self criticism. And I couldn't stop this subconscious judgement. It kept appearing. . . So, should I be shamed for this? Should a mob have come after me and shamed me "You are a racist!!! How can you call yourself a teacher, you racist!!! You should lose your job!! I'm going to post your racism on social media". I can tell you that if I was shamed, it would not have helped. I don't know for sure what would have happened, yet it wouldn't have been pretty. . . Thank goodness, there were people that didn't shame me. I was able to talk about this with a few of my colleagues. And they were like "Oh yea, that's subconscious racism - we all have it. We can help you work through it. After you work through it, perhaps you can help others work through it". And I worked through it. I've now studied the neuroscience of subconscious racism and teach it in my neuroscience course. I help students to become aware of their subconscious racism and I will absolutely NOT shame them. Shaming them would be the absolute worst environment. We need to have a safe environment for people to discover their subconscious racism and to evolve through it. There is already intense resistance against people looking at their own subconscious racism. In this context, shaming is highly counter-productive. . . However shaming has it's place in another context. If I realized my subconscious bias and didn't do anything about it and continued to be racially insensitive - shaming can be productive.

Some imagery of climate change from a scientific perceptive. . . Imagine adding two types of chemicals together in a test tube. Chemists can build models of the chemical structures and how the chemicals interact with each other. They can predict the output of the chemical reactions. An accurate model will predict actual output. This is a contracted example. If we expand our consciousness, we can imagine a giant mass of chemicals interacting within a test tube we call earth. This is much more complex and requires higher level scientific models. Scientists began constructing scientific models in the late 70s, early 80s - yet didn't have enough data and algorithmic power to construct highly accurate models. By the late 1980s to early 1990s science was advanced enough to create accurate models. These models have been "tested" in real life over the last 30 years and have been quite accurate: the climate changes predicted have occurred. Now in 2019, the scientific models are even more accurate with higher predictive power. . . Denying climate change and these models is like someone in Florida saying "Yea, the scientists say a class five hurricane will hit the coast tomorrow, but I'm not a "doom and gloom" kinda guy. I don't think the storm will be as bad as predicted. I'm gonna hang out here on the coast. . . "

From some Orange perspectives, she doesn't add much to the debate. As well, to Climate Change deniers - she doesn't add much to the debate. I find the dynamic within Orange is super interesting to me. A portion of Orange leans toward hyper-individualism/libertarian and hyper-captialism. Yet another portion of Orange highly values science, evidence and rational thought. These two are at odds: one side of Orange is positioned to deny Climate Change evidence, while the other side of Orange is positioned to accept Climate Change evidence. I work in a science department and all of my Orange colleagues are on the science side accepting the scientific and material evidence. From a scientific perceptive, denying Climate Change is on par with denying that the earth is round. . . Then I get online and see tons of Orange on the libertarian/corporate side denying Climate Change. I don't think I've observed such a worldwide dichotomy within an SD stage. I'm surprised by how many climate change deniers are on the forum. I thought the average conscious level was higher. . . From Green/Yellow/Turquoise perspectives, she adds a lot to the debate. And it's about time. . .

You are creating two things: "I" and "God".

@Devi Shanti ? ?

Solipsism?. . . Full Stop. . .

Good points. As you suggest, if I understood someone else's perspective 100%, I would be that person. I can't reach 100%, yet I can get pretty close. It's possible for a personal filter to nearly fully dissolve and reach hyper-empathetic states in which one can get pretty close to understanding another person. Yet as long as one is in a personal construct, they can't reach 100%. The full monty is complete dissolution of person and becoming one. At this point, there is no difference between "me" and "you" because there is no longer a "me" and "you".

Thanks. I think I understand now. . . You give an example of a young child that is unaware of biological sex and does not accept being a boy and relates as a girl. The phrase "does not accept being a boy" assumes that the child is of male gender. I don't assume a child with a penis is male gender. To me, the child is expressing their natural gender preference. . . Yet, I'm not sure how fluid gender preference is at a young age. I don't know exactly when gender identity forms. Questioning sex to me would be totally different. For example, if a young child unaware of sex questioned whether or not he had a penis. That would be very odd to me. It would be like a child questioning whether or not they had a nose. . . . To draw a sharper distinction. . . Imagine a young child with brown eyes that denied their eye color and identified as a girl. This sounds odd, because there is an obvious distinction between eye color and gender. I would also draw a distinction between sex and gender. Currently in most societies, that distinction is murky - yet it is getting clearer as society evolves. Yet it is clear to transgender individuals - they understand this through direct experience.

@ShugendoRa There is also a relativity aspect. For me, 5-meo is much smoother and gentle than Ayahuasca.

I love how she is shaming climate change deniers. No one has been able to do it as effectively as Greta imo. It's interesting how they try to dismiss her as an irrational child. Orange can be so dastardly. . .

Lol. Einstein called it "Spooky action at a distance". And guess what?. . . Einstein was wrong. The science community now accepts QM. Superposition and entanglement is not some kooky pseudoscience. It is among the most rock-solid areas of science and it obliterates a only-physical paradigm. Denying QM is on par with denying gravity. No you don't. Just watch some videos on QM - it is rock sold "something". From a scientific perspective, belief in an only-physical reality is like believing the earth is flat. Even scientists are aware of this. And this is just the kiddie table. The entire scientific paradigm can be transcended.

Very few are aware of Truth Leo has been teaching. This is much more radical and deeper. Without this awareness, the deeper levels of helpfulness will not be apparent.

Of course. You speak of the destruction of climate change as if it is some potential danger that may or may not happen. Climate change destruction has already begun. Irreversible destruction has already occurred. This is it, it's happening now. Its appropriate that some fear and anger may be experienced based on what is occurring. . . Greta also has an immense amount of courage to talk truth to power. She is an incredibly courageous and inspiring person. The responsibility for a sustanianable planet should not be thrown onto a16 year old teenager. She should not have to shoulder this burden. This is the responsibility of grown adults. Yet they are irresponsible and are placing personal greed for corporate profits and power over the welfare of younger generations and the planet. For a 16 year old girl to step up and confront irresponsible adults causing harm is amazingly courageous. Most adults don't have the courage to take responsibility. Imo, adults expecting a 16 year old girl to shoulder this immense burden without any fear or anger is way out of line. Greta is approaching the level of Malala in this regard. . . Green is one level higher than Orange. Greta is Green shaming toxic Orange. Orange is self-centered on their personal welfare - in particular with personal power and wealth. An example in this area would be people within the oil and gas industry. Green is a conscious level higher. Green is not primarily self-centered. Green places higher value on inclusion, diversity and community - the environment is included within community. A couple green features of Greta. Notice how she is self-sacrificing. She is not doing this to gain personal wealth and power. She is doing this for a larger community. This will be difficult for Orange to comprehend - since Orange is so self-centered - Orange has a difficult time understanding how someone could authentically be sacrificing their own personal welfare for a greater welfare. Furthermore, empathy is a key feature of Green. Notice how empathetic Greta is. She says she is one of the lucky ones and she goes on to describe the the pain and suffering of climate change victims. Again, she is not using victims as pawns for her personal gain as Orange would. She is empathizing with others. This will be difficult for Orange to see because Orange has much less empathy. Therefore, they will be skeptical of Greta. It's also not healthy to destroy the planet. I would agree at times it is better to withhold the truth from young children to protect them from the trauma of learning the truth. Yet Greta is old and mature enough to handle the truth. What time frame do you speak of? Climate science didn't emerge until the 1980s. Nearly all the predictive models of climate change from the 1980s-90s have been spot on. @Emerald Yep. Greta refers to her autism as a "superpower". I think it helps her see the situation clearly - while most neurotypical people cannot see the situation clearly.

This description is limited to a physical construct. You don't know what it would feel like to be a biological woman that took testosterone. You can try to imagine what it would be like - yet this would be far from the experience of what it's actually like. There is also an immaterial relative aspect. Relative subjective experiences like gender does not simply reduce down to physical molecules. . . Pain would be another example. We cannot predict a person's level of pain based on the composition of neurotransmitters and hormones.

I'm not sure of the context you are using. . . I'm making a distinction to sex and gender. I'm referring to sex as genitalia and gender as sexual identity. In this context, people can "deny" their physical sex to affirm their gender. For example, a person with a penis may surgically remove her penis - which is affirming to her female gender. . . Yet, I'm not sure if this is what you are pointing to.

A "only-physical" paradigm is hard to maintain. Any 100% paradigm is hard to maintain. The tendency is to see in opposites. That is. . . if there is non-physical then I must reject physical. Which isn't the case. A simple example would be "I have a 100% tall people paradigm". The tendency to think in opposites would be "If everyone is tall, then that must mean nobody is tall and everyone is short. And I can't accept that!". . . This is the dilemma of all dualities. All black and white dualities collapse. I'm not saying that physical is wrong and nonphysical is correct. Rather, just poke a whole in the 100% physical bubble and let 1% physical leak out. Going from 100% to 99% is an enormous jump. The jump from 100% to 99% is much larger than from 99% to 1%. Most people in the only-physical paradigm tend to like and respect science - because science tends to describe the physical word. Well. . . science has clearly revealed the nonphysical. Look into quantum mechanics - in particular superposition and entanglement. These are nonphysical realities. And it's not "pseudo science". Quantum mechanics has among the highest predictive power in all of science. QM has won noble prizes. It is rock solid science and it clearly shows nonphysical reality. QM alone should be able to knock you down from 100% physical to 99% physical. That crack can allow greater openmindedness and space for exploration.

@Average Investor Personally, I would consider that a meditative state, rather than meditation practice. Both have value. . . Sounds like you are ready for some psychedelics. They open up a whole new world.

Hmmm, good question. I also like experiencing altered states. The focus of the forum is not specifically on altered states, yet we talk a lot about altered states and a lot of people here are into them. Spiritual work often involves many altered states such as: flow states, shamanic breathing, psychedelics, lucid dreaming, sensory deprivation tanks, temporary insanity, the paranormal etc. that we often discuss. I like your system to enter trance states. I've entered similar states, usually by consistently staring at something. Yet this can take a while. Like I will spend a couple hours lying under a tree staring at the leaves rustling in the breeze. After a while, I may enter a trance state. It's sort of like a mesmerized state or a dream state. . . Other times, I just happens. For example, I may become mesmerized by a painting of a person. Their facial expression, the feeling. It's like I get immersed into it. I may stand there 10 minutes mesmerized. It can even happen in a supermarket with a box of cereal. . .

I like the "to act out of love and follow the heart" part. I've found that when I am genuine and act out of love, things seem to go better. How do we know when we are acting out of love? This can be tricky. For me, I've noticed my mind coming in and rationalizing that I have good intentions, yet below the thinking. . . it just doesn't feel like I'm acting out of love. Then, I make up stories about how I do have good intentions and acting out of love. This disconnect can cause me internal turmoil. . . Yet when there is acting out of love, there is a knowing it is out of love - it's not an intellectual thing. One thing I noticed was that I thought I was acting with good intentions and out of love, yet it wasn't being perceived by the other person like I was acting out of good intentions and love. I would often say "Well, I know I have good intentions and if they can't see that, then it's their problem". Then I started looking at intention and impact. I was so focused on me and my intention that I was unable to see the impact from their perspective. . . . For example, a couple years ago I dated a woman of color. This was a new experience for me. Occasionally she would tell me "What you just said is racially insensitive." My initial instinct was to protect myself with intention such as "Well, I didn't intend to be racially insensitive. If you interpreted it that way, that's your issue". Yet, there was a part of me that knew I was missing something. I then opened myself up and many of my unconscious biases were revealed. To go deeper, I traveled to foreign villages and lived with local families. Over time, I could see more and more perspectives - and learned about intention and impact. I also discovered that sometimes there was personal insecurity underlying "my good intentions". Judgement and separation began to dissolve and I became better at connecting with people - a wide variety of people. @Commodent Good stuff. Thanks for your input.

@flowboy It takes a lot of openness and willingness to look at this stuff. And it's not always black and white. . . There are times when I have direct experience and knowledge - yet I am perceived as being arrogant. Is the issue with me being arrogant? Or is the issue with the other person interpreting me as arrogant? It can get tricky at times. One thing I've learned is that there are various forms of intelligence. I was high up on rational/intellectual intelligence, yet I was really low on social intelligence. My intellectual intelligence could not compensate for my deficiency in social intelligence and it was causing problems in my inter-personal relationships.

I've had some of that. I was conditioned in a hyper-critical environment. My hyper-criticism was mostly directly inward as self-criticism, yet a portion was expressed externally. In terms of the inter-personal relations you speak of. . . control was a major issue for me. I wanted to consider myself as an easy-going guy that goes with the flow, yet I had underlying control issues. In particular, a desire to control the narrative. A couple traps here. I often considered myself well-meaning. This can be a rationalization mechanism of avoidance. It protects and distracts from underlying issues. I inquired: what exactly is "well-meaning"? What I found wasn't something I wanted to find. . . As well, I introspected intent vs. impact. . . And the saying "I was just born this way and I'm just being myself" is another protective mechanism that prevents personal growth. . . Of course not. The ego wants to avoid looking at it's own self-rigthousness Each personality seems to fit in better in certain situations. I thrive more in certain environments than others. Yet I think you are going a step further than that. To me, the underlying desire is: how can I continue to be an asshole without any of the consequences of being an asshole? You can develop into a person that is a highly talented non-asshole that contributes to society without inter-personal conflict and tension.

How can it start with a denial of sex? There would need to be a sexual orientation for a sexual orientation to be denied. . . Does this not start with a sexual orientation, followed by the denial of that sexual orientation? Let's consider the start. Homosexuality is nature and found in every animal species examined. Yet only one species shows homophobia (humans). In every other animal species, homosexuality is a natural phenomena that is accepted within the community. So what what does it take for humans to deny homosexuality? Imagine a teenage girl feels attraction toward other girls. Why would she reject that? It is not natural for her to deny that. It requires a construct that there is something "abnormal" or "wrong" with her attraction. Otherwise, why would it be rejected? If society celebrated homosexuality and saw homosexuals as gifted special people, do you think there would be desire to deny one's homosexuality? Of course not. . . Imagine a society in which intelligence is stigmatized as evil. If a person realizes they are intelligent, they must hide it or they will be stigmatized and ostracized. If they say something intelligent, they might be rejected by their family and friends - and perhaps beaten and imprisoned. Imagine a teenage girl realizing that she is intelligent and must hide it in fear of what may happen. She hides it from her family. She finds a few other intelligent people, yet they must hide together out in the forest to say intelligent things to each other. They wonder why they are intelligent and why they have been cursed by god. They become depressed and suicidal. . . In this situation, why would someone deny their intelligence? Is it internal or external?

As a general guideline, please don't post while tripping. Have a good trip and let us know how it went afterwards.

The killer bee's have already arrived and have been killing us. More bees on the way. . .