Forestluv

This is all within the the perspective of the dream character. Nothing wrong with that. It can have practical use. Notice how you use the term “awoken”. The dream character is defining the term “awoken” and is assuming it’s the same for a more expansive level. Yet, a higher expansion transcends this character and the concept of “awoken” is also expanded. It cannot be understood within the contracted dream character. Imagine within your dream you are a guy named Paul that lives in New York. Within the dream, Paul is trying to figure out awakening. He goes to meditation groups, retreats and watches videos. He discusses awakening on online forums. Paul is very curious and wonders what god is like and wether god is awoke. . . Then, your alarm clock goes off and you wake up. You realize you were dreaming. This level of awakening is very different than Paul’s contracted view of awakening. Paul cannot imagine it or figure it out.

In your dreams, is your dream character separate from you? Does your dream character have free will within the dream? Or is it the will from a higher consciousness (your subconscious mind) ? Is there a distinction between your dream character and your subconscious mind? From one perspective, yes. From another perspective, no. Your dream character does not realize it is a dream character within your mind. It is incomprehensible to that dream character. As long as it is identified as itself, it will not awaken to a more expansive conscious state. It can do all the yoga, retreats and reading within the dream it can, yet will not figure out and realize the higher consciousness while still identified with the illusory dream and itself as real. Similarly, one won’t realize they are a dream character within a higher order mind that cannot be figured out and realized within a contracted state of consciousness.

Of course self empowerment is is a factor. Yet that is not what I am pointing at. The perspective quoted above is an element within a broader context, yet adding that element here obfuscates the point, which would then reduce the point’s relative weight in a broader integrative context. If one does not clearly see and understand the continuums of two limited perspectives, they will not be able to integrate the two into a more holistic perspective. In particular, consider this part: “If 1% of the population possessed 90% of the county’s wealth/resources/power, there is not opportunity to access as much of that wealth/resources as one desires.” I intentionally created a context to highlight a particular point to a particular perspective. Within this context I gave, the comment quoted above is quite silly. One would need to take it out of context for the above comment to be reasonable. I am not saying that wealth/resource/power distribution 100% determines one’s opportunity toward accumulating wealth/resource/power in every scenario. To re-contextualize the point into such a simple binary view is a distortion. Personal empowerment is also an element, yet not what I’m pointing out. I’m intentionally reducing the impact of personal empowerment to highlight the element of wealth distribution to those who cannot see it. Without seeing each element, one cannot see both elements within a larger context. And I don’t think referring to certain humans as an “infestation” is helpful. It has a de-humanizing impact.

I didn’t say it was the only concern nor did I advocate for any particular form of wealth distribution. You assumed and added those in. By doing so, the context is distorted. In a certain context, I would agree with your point as partially true. However, you missed the context here and what I am pointing at.

@Bodigger I’m trying to illustrate that concentration of wealth/power has an inherent danger for a society. The more concentrated the wealth/power becomes the more dangerous it can become and more people will be affected. Those that are accumulating and concentrating wealth/power will want to mask this process, so it won’t be obvious to the populace. For example, this quote: This is a fundamental belief by many Americans and it enables further concentration of wealth/resources/power and unequal access to that wealth and resources. This is an example of the masking I referred to above. It is what those concentrating that wealth/power would like the rest of the populace to believe. If 1% of the population possessed 90% of the county’s wealth/resources/power, there is not opportunity to access as much of that wealth/resources as one desires. For sure. There is conscious awareness at the personal level which involves introspection. There is also conscious awareness at the collective level.

@Bodigger I’m curious what your cutoff would be for wealth concentration. For example, I think we would likely agree that if one American possessed and hoarded 100% of the country’s wealth/resources/power and everyone else in American zero wealth, starving, homeless and dying - it would be too concentrated. Only one person would have needs met and everyone else would suffer and die. If the structure of America allowed 100% wealth/resources/power to be possessed and hoarded by one person, I think most people would agree that the structure is problematic and needs to be restructured. However, this would not be possible since one person has accumulated and hoarded 100% of the wealth/resources/power. I doubt either of us could come up with a scenario in which this is good for the American people. It would be horrific for everyone. Assuming that 100% wealth/resource concentration to one person is too concentrated, what would be our cutoff? At what point should we consider wealth/resource concentration starts to become too much? For example, let’s shift it a bit. Let’s say 100 people have 90% of the country’s wealth/power. Everyone except these 100 people live in shacks without running water and is trying to live on $100/ month while the 100 wealthy people are all trillionaires. Again, they would also have 90% of the power, so we would be essentially powerless to do anything about it.

Refutation of evidence is not necessary. The truth is prior to evidence. Claiming 100% certainty of evidence is to claim that evidence = truth. Truth comes prior to evidence, so the two are not equal. If a murder occurred, the truth of that murder is prior to, and not dependent upon, evidence/proof. Assuming that the above evidence you state was properly handled, I would agree that the evidence is extremely strong and sufficient to judge as guilty. I would say more than sufficient. As well, I would agree that society’s response should be proportional to strength of evidence and degree of harm caused. Although, I would say that the whether the death penalty is the “best” response would be a different question with many nuances. . . The problem I have is calling evidence 100% proof. This assumes that evidence/proof = truth. This creates all sorts of problems because it is an absolute objectivist framework. As such, constructs will be built upon this framework with underlying assumptions of absolute objectivism. For example, an underlying objective assumption within a binary model of “corrupt” vs “non-corrupt”. Such an absolute objectivist assumption will be the lens through which the world is perceived and interpreted.

The problems I see here are using a binary construct as well as assuming universally objective evidence/proof. I think it is much more nuanced than a binary view of corruption vs. non-corruption. As well, the standard of 100% certainty is a claim of absolute objective truth. For example, I would disagree of 100% certainty of evidence/profile, since truth comes prior to evidence/proof. Evidence/proof cannot be elated to equal truth. . . .That we disagree on this point itself shows the underlying relative nature of objectivism from one perspective.

While hiking yesterday, the story of the Sufi and “getting it” arose. This is just one view regarding time that I thought was interesting. It is by no means the right way of looking at it, just one way. Imagine the Sufi spoke the wise insight and the other person walked away “not getting it”. Five hours hours later the person is alone and a moment of clarity arises and they realize the truth in the Suf’s words. Now imagine the person originally didn’t get it and five years later has a moment of clarity and realizes the truth in the Sufi’s words. In the context of a story within a timeline, these time points make a difference. There are differences between realizing something now, in five hours and in five years. For example, if the person realized the wisdom within those five hours, the next five years of his life wold have been transformed. So there is meaning here within a horizontal axis of time. During my hike, I also consider things from the perspective of the vertical axis of Now (without a timeline). From this perspective, there is no difference between 5 hours and 5 years from Now. They are both Not Now. As well, the moment the Sufi spoke the words and the moment the person realized the truth within those words are both Now. All realizations happen Now. Time is a story happening now. The context of time is a bit of a tangent from the orientation of your original question. I just thought it was an interesting twist since most humans get immersed into stories within time.

“Q: I am asking about the immediate, the transitory, the appearance. Here is a picture of a child killed by soldiers. It is a fact - staring at you. You cannot deny it. Now, who is responsible for the death of the child? M: Nobody and everybody. The world is what it contains and each thing affects all others. We all kill the child and we all die with it. Every event has innumerable causes and produces numberless effects. It is useless to keep accounts, nothing is traceable.” Thanks for sharing this view. I think it is very insightful and few humans realize it. I recently brought this up with a friend regarding causation of an assault and she became quite upset because this view of ultimate untraceable harm seemed quite threatening to her relatively contracted view of proximal harm. I noticed myself becoming immersed within a nondual perspective of ultimate untraceable cause. I.e. inputs of a happening can become highly numerous and complex. Eventually, inputs of a happening become infinite and collapse into a nondual one in which causation is untraceable, since there are no separate thing to be traced or to trace to. Yet, I realized this too is a duality. It is a form of a nondual vs dual duality often spoken about on the forum (also phrased as absolute vs relative). In this case, the duality is proximal traceable cause vs ultimate untraceable cause. It’s not to say either side of the duality is “wrong” or lacks value. It’s to say that upon closer inspection, the inter-connections and nuances between the duality also have partial truth and value. To state it is useless to keep accounts is true from the partial truth of ultimate non-traceable cause, yet false from the partial truth of proximal traceable harm. The tendency for human minds is become immersed, attached and identified with one side of duality. Here, after realizing the falsity within proximal traceable truth, the mind naturally wants to accept the opposite - ultimate nontraceable cause - as being true. Human minds are conditioned to perceive in opposites. With this mindset, we lose the partial truth and partial falsity of each opposite and the inter-connectedness and nuances between the opposites. Eventually, the duality of opposition collapses.

@Truth Addict Do you think seeds can be planted? Perhaps that student used the master’s words to use “truth” as a tool for person gain. After many years of futile seeking, perhaps the Truth of master’s words were suddenly realized.

If a person assaulted another person, would you say God is both people and assaulted himself? And God is also the jurors and judge - and decided to imprison himself? Would you say there is a personal agency component? This seems to be an issue for creating constructs of responsibility and accountability.

I lived in Oregon for years. The actual amount of rainfall isn’t very high. It is mostly persistent cloudy, drizzly, light rain for around 7 months a year. It doesn’t rain hard very much. I had a harder time with the constant low clouds and low light. I remember going a month without seeing the sun. It felt like living in s dome. I had full spectrum lights throughout my house and work place.

Yep. It’s common with minds that strongly value intellect/logic/reason and are attached and identified with these dynamics. For example, Richard Dawkins has a very high intellect, yet is still Orange. One indicator, as you mentioned, is a “stuck in their ways” attitude. A form of rigidity and defensiveness to their views and intellect. These are often constrained within logical frameworks. As well, they are still immersed within a strong personality, Orange will often personalize ideas as “mine” and “yours” and want to engage in debate utilizing Orange level tools such as logic, facts and evidence. Nothing wrong with that, yet Orange is constrained within it. Yellow minds have conversations that are much less about personalities and more about fluid exploration.

Be mindful of mistaking high level orange for yellow. A high intellect does not necessary mean yellow. There are many brilliant philosophers, scientists and economists that are at a very high intellectual level within Orange. Orange intellect can go quite high and be mistaken as yellow.

Once a critical mass is green-centered, the self greed dynamics change at the population level - and continue to do so as more individuals evolve into yellow and turquoise. Look at the difference regarding self-centered greed of Lyndsey Graham and Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez. Graham is red/blue/orange self centered and AOC is Green community centered (and beginning to enter yellow level integrative systems thinking).

@playdoh There are no green-centered states, there are greenish areas within each state. Some states have more greenish areas than others. Personally, I’d rather live in a city/county at a higher conscious level and have a workplace at a higher conscious level. Most people spend the majority of their time in a 50 mile radius of their home/work. . . State laws can have an impact, yet the town/city dynamics has a much larger impact imo. I’d much rather live in a greenish city like Ann Arbor, MI than a blue/orangish city like Fresno, CA - even though California would be considered higher on the SD scale than Michigan.

By cutting out the middleman and corporate profits.

@Key Elements I didn’t mean to suggest it could have been induced by methods. Thank you for sharing those experiences with us. @SunnyNewDay ♥️

@Key Elements I had a profound experience with my deceased sister. This was a sober experience, yet if I hadn’t had done psychedelics previously, I doubt I would have met her.

Is this identification to the story necessary? There is a lot of information in my head. Someone could ask me “where did you go to school?” and “where did your sister ho to school?”. The information to answer both questions is available, one needn’t identify with either story. Another way to look at is - humans interact through stories. We play characters through story telling. It’s part of human life. Yet we don’t need to be identified with my story. These days, I’m not that interested in telling “my story”. Sometimes sharing experiences is fun, other times it practical. Yet I see people go on and on about their personal stories. It can be fun in some contexts, yet can get tiresome and boring. I generally prefer discussions at an impersonal level and to just be engaged with what is actually happening now.

In this regard, it sounds like your friend is stage blue and you are operating at at least orange. It’s not just your area. I live in the U.S. and mentioning American corruption or shortcomings can trigger defensive blue level nationalism. For example “You are unpatriotic, You aren’t a real American, if you don’t love America, then leave!!”. I’ve found it nearly impossible to have a conversation about what the U.S. does well and what it doesn’t to well with blue-level nationalists. It takes at least Orange, preferably higher. Or someone who does not identify with the country. When I travel out of the states, most people seem open-minded about discussing “pros and cons” of the U.S. because they don’t identify as “I am an American”. Many people with nationalist / religious identity will protect and defend their identity - it is a form of survival.

@mmKay This is a really interesting view and I have never thought about it this way. I think it’s a great example of using the term self-conscious in a personal or “trans-personal” context. With some who is shy and insecure, there will be a form of awareness, a hyper awareness of certain things (such as how people are looking at them or reacted to them, whether their clothing sticks out, if they behaved awkwardly etc.) Yet this is all within the personality. This is immersed within the personal story. This would be a person having self consciousness within the personality. There is another “higher” level of self consciousness which is transcendent of the personality. It’s a consciousness that does not identify with the person and the personal story. It is transcendent of this personality construct. There is an awareness “outside” of the personality. Sorta like watching a movie character. There is awareness of the movie character in the story, yet the awareness does not identify as being the character in the story. It is a different perspective.

@theking00 Super! Be mindful if that non-existent “I” tries to take ownership of it.

@Knock When I first heard a yoga instructor say down-dog was a resting pose I was like “what?! Are you kidding me?”. It took me a few months of consistent yoga to get it. I don’t fully get it, yet enough so.