Forestluv

@Schahin It depends on one’s notion of “you”. Who/what are “you”?

Also consider: no-doer means no “I”. If there is no-doer, there is no “me” to act as a doer. If there is no-doer, how can I sit on my couch and do nothing? That would require a doer! There is no longer a “me”, doing or not doing anything. That gets transcended/removed. There is simply happenings without a “me” taking ownership of anything. Fun stuff ?

@Mezanti “Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.” Based on this definition, Orange would be the last bus stop.

What counts as “labor” or “service”? The teenagers playing soccer and pickpocketing tourists seemed to obtain a return for their labor. Did the banking CEO that pushed toxic loans earn his millions as a return for service? From the perspective of the banker, he provided a service and earned a return. They even said this in Senate hearings. From the perspective of the famil that declared bankruptcy, it wasn’t a service at all - it was a fraudulent scam. These terms are relative depending on context and perspective.

@Meditationdude Are you ok taking a cannabis edible? Edibles can have a quasi psychedelic state. And I had a cannabis edible in a sensory deprivation tank that was on par with a full psychedelic trip.

@Beginner Mind I think this is one of the most important realizations. The illusion of personal choice causes an immense amount of stress and turmoil in the mind and body. The realization of no-doership can relieve a of of suffering. Yet, absence of responsibility does not mean that I am not responsible. I see a lot of people partially realize no-doer and then hold the belief “I am not responsible”. That is only a half truth.

@InDeep “Teaching” is just one way of describing it. Every approach or pointer will have limitations and won’t seem useful from another perspective. From one perspective, to “teach” suggests a hierarchy. From that perspective, there are limitations. I often take views from various levels and see how different evils are integrated. For example, atoms compose molecules which compose cells which compose tissues which compose systems which compose an organism which composes a population. I use examples like this many times and they have great value in certain contexts. When we say “levels” here, that can be interpreted as being superior. A “higher” level is superior to a “lower” level. When we say a cell is at a higher level than a molecule, this is for convenience. “Superiority” is not necessarily inherent to the model. Similarly, we could interpret “teacher” as being “higher” than a student. Yet that is not inherently so. These are add ins. This intention can be present in some contexts, yet not in other contexts. I could talk about “levels” of consciousness in a context of superiority and I could talk about “levels” without a context of superiority. I like the imagery you use, yet no one model or imagery is complete. If SD is a whole, there are no levels. There is no levels to move up. From a perspective, “moving up” is similar to “build”. If a cell is whole, there are no levels to “move up”. Atoms are not at a lower level than molecules at a lower level than the cell. It is certainly useful to build a model of atoms-> molecules -> cell. Moving up levels is similar to build. Atoms build molecules which build cells. We could say the cell is both one whole and contains parts which we can organize into levels. In terms of “listening” to each other, that has value in some contexts as you mentioned. Yet is not very helpful in other contexts. This is were development, expansion and “teaching” comes into play. For example, Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or. In some contexts, this is useful. Yet in other contexts, it’s not useful. My mom is blue and would see someone as a racist or a non-racist. I understand this simple binary construct and it is useful in certain, yet not in others. In another context, people are not simply racist or non-racist. There are degrees of racism. Someone can be strongly racist or mildly racist. As well, everyone has subconscious biases regarding race. In this sense, we all have components of racism. As well, some might be racist toward certain groups and not racist toward other groups. I would not be able to have this conversation with my mom. She would say “Why do you always have to complicate things? People are racist or not racist. That’s what it boils down to”. Here, I could listen to my mom for hours talk about who is racist and who isn’t racist. I can understand her perspective because I have developed above Blue. However, my mom will not be able to understand Orange. She cannot comprehend gradients and nuances. She can listen to me when I speak at Blue, yet she cannot comprehend me when I speak at Orange and above in this area. If she was open and curious about developing this ability, I can explain it to her. I would call this “teaching” since I would be transmitting a cognitive skill to her. . . Similarly, an Orange level thinker would have difficulty comprehending the relativism of “racism”. Orange understands in terms of objectivism and would not be able to comprehend a yellow level thinker. When “pulling” someone up the spiral, we can try to use terms and modes at that level. And I agree that keeping it impersonal is important. Yet this has limits. One cannot explain gradients in strictly binary terms. If they did, it would be binary and not a gradient. Similarly, one cannot communicate relativism in strictly objective constructs. One cannot communicate intuition or empathy strictly through material evidence and facts. There comes a time a person has to make a “jump” in consciousness. For example, when a dog sees itself in a mirror it will not recognize itself and bark at itself. You can point to the dog and the mirror over and over saying “look it’s you!!!”. Yet the dog would need a jump in consciousness to realize “whoa!! That’s me!!”. This is a dramatic example, yet this component is with developmental psychology as well, which is integral to SD. Personal hierarchies in Tier1 is a common manifestation of a personality construct. The dissolution of a personalized construct begins in Tier1 with empathy and cultural relativism, yet is more of a feature of Tier2. Then, attachment/identification dissolves one can mucbetter see multiple perspectives without judgement and superiority. Having transcended the personality, yellow would not make personal value judgements within Tier1 stages, yet Yellow would not consider all perspectives to have equal value.

It seems like you have strong opinions that you are attached/identified with and would like to debate. Ime, these types of debates are inefficient because a person argues and defends a perspective they are attached/identified to. Such debates tend to contract a person further into the perspective, rather than expand. For me to debate you, I would need to hold the opposite opinion as yours. I'm just not into that type of conversation.

I understand and agree with that. That is a foundational component of SD. I was getting at something different. I may be off on another tangent though. When I teach genetics, I often have to over-simplify the concepts because the students are not at a developmental stage to comprehend greater nuances and complexity. For example, I first teach freshman students that there are two types of alleles: recessive or dominant. I don't tell them that gene alleles aren't technically just recessive or dominant. This would be confusing. I tell them in binary terms appropriate for their level. This is not completely accurate, yet it is necessary for their developmental progress. Once they have mastered this, their sophomore year I tell them "Remember how I told you that gene alleles are recessive and dominant? Well that isn't quite true and you will need to expand beyond that construct to understand what I am about to teach you next". I then teach them about codominance, incomplete dominance, alleleic hierarchies etc. I'm not saying the previous stage didn't have value. Knowing the binary construct of recessive and dominant has value. A student must learn this before moving forward. If a student is struggling with codominance and incomplete dominance - we go back to the previous level of teaching and I make sure they understand the foundational teaching. In this context, one teaching isn't more valuable than another teaching. They are both valuable - one builds on the other. Yet, I'm also clear about how one builds on the other. Simple recessive and dominant is a binary construct that has value and is necessary as framework to build upon. When we are expanding into gradients and multifactorial teachings, I may go back to the binary modes, yet I don't re-contextualize them to advance higher. This would cause confusion, imo. Yet I can see how others would disagree. Sometimes it's important to revisit simpler concepts to learn more advanced concepts, yet sometimes revisiting simpler concepts can be a hindrance to evolving higher. It is context dependent. While evolving, I prefer to keep earlier material in their prior context as structural support, rather than recontextualize it. Imo, doing so can lead to short term progress, yet will hinder longer term progress. I'm not really disagreeing with you. If you are exploring from a meta yellow perpective, it's fun stuff to explore. Yet, in practical terms, I don't think it's the clearest and most efficient approach. That's just my preference though.

@Bodigger There have been over 250 mass shootings in the U.S this year. 346 in 2017 and 340 in 2018. Hundreds of people die each year in mass shootings, yet it's not just the number of deaths. That is only one measure of impact on a society. If there were 300+ drunken brawls at football games each year claiming hundreds, we would take serious action to reduce the deaths. People wouldn't say "well it's only a few hundred people dying at the games, more people die each year driving to the games". In the case of mass shootings, there are simple common sense measures to reduce the number of deaths that the vast majority of Americans support. Yet American gun culture goes deep and there are powerful lobbyists that are a hindrance. Reducing the number of pick-up trucks in Europe would be simple, since it is not part of their history and culture. Getting Japanese people to reduce their fish intake would be very difficult because it is deeply immersed in their culture. Restricting hand grenades and rocket-launchers in the U.S. is much easier, since they are not part of the culture. This is one concern about allowing ARs and guns to be more accessible and widespread. By this logic, everyone carries firearms and we live in a wild west environment / Mad Max world.

Green is not the most expansive. Don't drop down to Blue in an effort to expand further. Trying to better understand Blue and integrate Blue into Green - may help to develop a healthier Green - yet it will not evolve one into Tier2 and Turquoise. It is more radical than that. Blue is more contracted than Green. For a deeper and more expansive community/inclusiveness, evolve further up Green and on into Tier2 and Turquoise for a more expansive community and inclusiveness. Trying to integrate within Tier1 has some value, yet it is very limiting and ends up being a hindrance to further expansion. You are trying to stretch Blue beyond it's developmental stage. It's like saying "Wait a minute healthy 6th graders may actually be more developed than healthy 8th graders if they include aspects of the 8th grade". That may have some value in certain contexts, yet it is stretching the 6th graders beyond their developmental level. And it aint gonna help someone get to the 12th grade.

Not quite. But that’s fine ?

What you wrote is within something “more advanced”. You would need to realize it yourself. Being immersed within a narrative hinders that realization. Any narrative.

There is further advancement than that.

What does “earning” mean? Imagine a business owner that makes millions of dollars. From one perspective, he worked hard to organize his employees and clients and steer the company toward profits. Yet he also profited off of others’ work. The business-owner profited off publically-funded education of his employees. The business owner is utilizing publicly-funded infrastructure, such as highways, to deliver his product. From this perspective, he is not earning it. He should not keep all the profits, since he didn’t earn a portion of it - it should go back to the public that earned it. Similarly, drug companies profit off of publically-funded research conducted in academic institutions. Have the drug companies “earned” these profits? Similarly, consider a CEO from a bank that works his ass off 80 hours a week. Yet most of his work is spent trying to convince middle-class homeowners to carry more credit cards and refinance their homes into bad mortgages. The CEO and stockholders will profit by taking advantage of the vulnerable. Is this “earning it”? From one perspective, yes. But it’s not as simple as he worked hard and earned it. I was traveling abroad in Europe and noticed that small groups of teenagers would play with a soccer ball near a tourist and distract the tourist, so another teenager could sneak behind them and pickpocket them. These teenagers were highly skilled at this. They obviously worked very hard to build skills and work together as a team. Would you say they are “earning” their income? From one perspective they are earning it. Yet we could also start to add qualifiers to what “earn” means. The point is that there is no object “earning”. It is a relative term and there are lots of nuances.

@Meditationdude Do you desire to awaken to Reality or to explore amazing things within Reality?

@ardacigin Your questions seem to be through the lens of a human person. That there is an orientation toward what the person desires through goals and attainment. At the personal / human level, psychedelics certainly have practical value and can be a tool to assist one toward human interests and desires - including intellectual, emotional, spiritual desires - such as a desire/seeking to deepen one’s meditation or to improve attention. I’ve been to all sorts of realms and dimensions with psychedelics. Many aspects of imagination, time, attention, personality dynamics, intuition, beingness, the paranormal etc. have been revealed. Yet at a deeper level, it is much more fundamental. Eventually, it all gets transcended: you, meditation, sds, culadasa, Leo, actualized, TMI, humanness, psychedelics, psychedelic states, sober states . . Within the framework of “Psychedelic investigation toward the Truth”, there is an investigator that is investigating something with intention to move toward some destination called “Truth”. There’s nothing wrong with that, that’s the kinda stuff humans do and we’ve got to do something. Humans aren’t birds flying around the sky and building nests in trees. . . Yet there is a deeper/transcendent wokeness that psychedelics can help reveal. It is transcendent of the investigator. You aren’t investigating. “It” is investigating. There is transcendence of “toward”. The journey becomes the destination. Now. The idea of “Truth” is transcended. There is no Truth to investigate because the investigator and the investigations is itself Truth. From a personal perspective, psychedelic-related realizations and transformations begin to “stick”.

@Mezanti Threads merged. Please don’t start multiple threads in the same topic.

@Vignesh Pagadala That’s not what I was referring to. Carry on.

@Truth Addict I’ll let you have the last word on this. Let it go. @Aakash Don’t hijack the thread into a side conversation.

This thread has been derailed too far onto a side topic. Let’s stop the side conversation.

When something is unclear to you, it doesn’t necessarily mean the other person is being dishonest. There can be another reason it is unclear to you. Be mindful of assuming intentionality. Let’s not derail winterknight’s thread with this side topic. If you would like to discuss this topic more, please PM me.

Yes

@NagmaThe topic of Truth and proof has been discussed in many threads on the forum. As well, Leo released a video on this topic today that you may find helpful.

If a woman texted you and you didn’t respond, what would be going on in your mind? You wouldn’t be very interested in her if you don’t feel like responding. If she kept texting you, how would you see it? This isn’t some mysterious puzzle about women we need to figure out. If someone doesn’t respond for days, they have low interest.