Forestluv

@Scholar I would be happy to teach fundamentals of genetics to open minds (it’s my job after all). Yet rather than an openness to learn, what I sense here is people with incomplete and poor understandings of genetics attached to their own views that want to debate and defend their views unaware of underlying assumptions. If a beginning student of English came to me to help, I would be happy to help. Yet if a beginning student came to me with an assumption that they speak English fluently, want me to prove I’m fluent in English and want to debate in English when they don’t even speak the language. I understand there are different pedagogical strategies. Yet I’m into a direct approach and there is a minimal amount of awareness required. If a student came to my office insisting an allele is a pink potato, it is most important to clear the delusion of the pink potato. Engaging with that assumption, is a waste of time (for me anyway). If someone insists on defending their pink potato idea and gets defensive, that brings up new issues of attachment and assumptions. The discussion about what an allele is cannot begin until we get through the pink potato attachment.

That is a great imagine that I love ? A few thoughts this imagery brings up for me: I’ve been learning Spanish and at times it has been challenging and humbling for me. There have been times I’m with a native spanish speaker and I can sense they are at a fluent 4D position and can see things I cannot in my 3D position. Stuff I don’t even know exists. Yet that doesn’t mean I can’t help other students with their Spanish. I just have a more limited range than a Spanish teacher. Another example: humans have thee types of photo-receptor cones to create colors. The mantis shrimp has 12 types of cones. That means the mantis shrimp can create hundreds of colors we humans don’t know exist. Not new combinations of our colors: entirely new colors humans can’t even imagine. In this case, the mantis shrimp is in the 4D position and humans are in the 3D position!

I occasionally get requests to describe yellow level thinking. I haven’t engaged in this realm much the last couple months, since I have time off from academics. Yet thus situation is an excellent example for those wanting to transition from tier1 to tier2 yellow and are curious what yellow is like. Before I post more thoughts, I want to stress that this is not personal. A core component of tier2 is impersonal dialog of ideas in which there is no “owner” of the ideas. This allows for a beautiful fluidity, merging and evolution as well as curiosity, awe and excitement. Yellow level explorations are much more enjoyable, rewarding and enriching than blue/orange level debates. As a teacher and researcher in genetics, I can say with certainty that you have gaps in your understanding of genetics. I have tried to reach out from a yellow level. It is clear there is disinterest, unwillingness and inability to recognize and utilize yellow level modes. As well, there are attachments to preconceived ideas and personal identification to such ideas. Being confined to blue/orange modes significantly restricts what I can convey to you. For example, I have said over and over that I am not saying what you write is 100% false. Rather, there are partial truths relative to context in what you write, yet due to extrapolation and your contextualization have become distorted. A yellow level thinker does not have personal attachments and is not defensive of an idea that is “mine”. As well, yellow understands “partial truths” and can see how statements can be relatively true or false depending on context. Also, yellow has an unattached openness and curiosity to view things from multiple levels and form integrated holistic views. Your responses to me indicate a strong contraction within blue/orange modes of thinking. This could be a great opportunity to evolve consciousness, yet there is strong resistance. For example, you believe that your ideas are “true or false” and insist that I show you how your ideas are false. I’ve said several times that the main block to learning here is a binary true vs false mentality. A deeper level of understanding would involve nuances and an ability to see relative contexts. When I stated that from a genetics perspective, the statement “race doesn’t exist” is partially true depending on context, you responded in a strongly defensive posture in which you posted articles to support a personal contextualization that you are unconsciously attached to as being universally true based on objective facts (hallmarks of blue/orange thinking). If there one thing I would encourage to open, is the true vs false mentality. This is a blue level mode of thinking which I think is a primary chain restricting expansion in this situation.

You are making assumptions and are unaware of it. If you studied this area extensively with an open mind, you would become aware of your assumptions , could learn and gain a clearer and deeper understanding. From a genetics perspective, the statement “race does not exist” has as much partial truth as the statements you are making. Yet you cannot see this due to assumptions of what race is and the relationship between genetics and race. You are seeing this as a binary issue. In that you are right or wrong and what you say must be true or false. Searching for information online to support your view will only re-enforce a mindset of opposition. Thus will prevent a mind from seeing nuances and developing a deeper understanding. I am not saying what you write is 100% false or the articles you are posting are 100% false. This would be a blue/orange mindset. I am saying that there is a narrow interpretation causing a distorted view. In terms of SD, I am trying to communicate to you at a Yellow level that includes binary thinking as well as various levels of observations (e.g. molecular, organismal and social) and partial truths of perspectives dependent on contextualuzation. A contracted mind will not be open or able to see nuances or integration between various modes of analysis m.

This is a distraction. I’m a geneticist and teach genetics at a University level. I’ve spent a large portion of my life studying and researching genetics and have taught classes on bioethics. I would not consider myself naive in this area. A better way to say it is that the information we have of mechanistic genetics does not support your conclusions (yet I’m not saying the opposite is true). Your comment mocking the statement “race doesn't exist” is reflective of a narrow interpretation filter you have. Similar to your statements, this statement is also has partial underlying truth, yet has been misleading into a misleading statement. You cannot see the underlying truthful aspects of the statement due to your own i interpretation filter if assumptions that further distorts the interpretation. This is exactly what you did with your interpretations. The statement “race does not exist” is equally distorted and misleading as your own statements on genetics and IQ. Yet you are unable to see this due to a lack of understanding if mechanistic genetics and the nuances of establishing criteria to construct a multi-factorial phenotype and developing/interpreting statistics. Your assumptions and attachments to pre-conceived beliefs prevent me from getting through to you. And appealing to authority is a weak position. I don’t need to appeal to an authority in genetics - because I’ve spent thousands of hours studying, researching and teaching it. A key is to mastery is to identify and drop assumptions - and open one’s mind.

You are not aware of what you are unaware of and that “but” is a block and resistance to expansion. You are interpreting and extrapolating pieces of information through a lens that is causing distortion. There is some underlying truth, yet there are underlying assumptions and you are extrapolating it to the point that your conclusions are no longer accurate. Your conclusions would not be accepted in the science of mainstream genetics.

@Angelo John Gage I am not saying you are 100% wrong. From a scientific perspective, what you say has some truth, yet you are over-simplifying it such that your conclusions are inaccurate and highly misleading. As well, the fundamental incomplete and misunderstood is being extrapolated and mixed with other beliefs - which creates a distorted view. IQ is a highly nuanced complex issue. It would take me at least a week of genetics classes to cover the basics and it’s not limited to genetics. I would also need to cover the human construct of IQ at social and biological levels. As well statistical analyses within a highly complex set of variables. I could easily spend a full semester on this. Yet the prep would be enormous.

That is a gross over-simplification. IQ is a multi-factorial trait that involves an extremely complex set of many variables (including genetics). I teach genetics at a University level. To say science supports that statement is highly misleading and inaccurate because it over-simplifies underlying complexity - creating a distortion.

This cuts to a core aspect of self-actualization. There are countless books, videos and workshops on this. There is a lot of great personal development material that has practical value at the human level. . . Yet ultimately, it’s self realization. The Self realizing the nature of self.

@seeking_brilliance Nice insight. Ime, I’ve found it helpful to spend extended time immersed in nature to provide experiential contrast in embodying how humans are both natural and un-natural.

@Leo Gura Perhaps it’s possible to create a locked sticky that links to the active thread - to get the best of both worlds?

This sounds like an opportunity to experience and expand, yet not really a “retreat”. When I’ve traveled, the most important thing in terms of consciousness expansion is to dissolve the story of “me” and the character I play in life. Most importantly, to distance myself from all the subconscious reinforcements of my story, beliefs and assumptions (which are mostly subconscious). Getting off social media and technology is a top priority. As well, avoiding communication with others that involve talking about “me” and my story. The whole story of where I’m from, what I do, things I need to do, what I want or need in life etc. I’ve found extended time in nature to be helpful. It’s trickier to do around other humans, yet I’ve found it possible with the right mindset. Once identification and immersion of the personal story dissolves, a form of liberation arises. A Beingness without the chains and restrictions of “normal life”. An ineffable freedom arises. Once this place is “reached”, interactions with life is transformed into a purity and there a form of magic that arises. At this point, I can engage with other humans and who/what arises is magnificent. It becomes dream-like, yet also more real than the story I had assumed was real. This is what keeps calling me back to solo travel. Ime, when done with intention, effort and mindfulness, solo trips can be highly effective in consciousness expansion and awakening.

I’ve found immersion in nature to be helpful in understanding the human mechanics of suffering. Within nature there is what humans would perceive and categorize as life/death, growth/decay, pretty/ugly, pleasure/pain etc. Yet nature has no such categories as these are human constructs. Nature simply IS, ISing along. This is a “blank canvas” that provides contrast as we paint our human constructs onto it. Observing this takes a form of effort and concentration, to relax and let go of mental conditioning and human stories.

@possibilities yea, you’re right. ?

Self righteousness belongs to narrow-minded. — Toba Beta

@Gili Trawangan “Is deep sleep the absolute?” Absolutely

Godspeed ? ♥️

Rose nebula

This seems to assert that there is an ego and there is a God - and that they are two different things.

Last month I was meditating on the rim of the Grand Canyon and noticed a heart in the center. . .

What you write makes sense from a human contextualization. However, there is no objective external reality. Saying it is “an alteration in consciousness” is a human contextualization. You are within a human contextualization of reality and believe it to be objectively true. This provides grounding and stability to the human mind-body and has practical value. Yet, this is a drop in the ocean. As well, ANY state of consciousness is “an altered state of consciousness”. You are in an “altered” state of consciousness right now, yet assume it is the unaltered default state.

@Kushu2000 Everything you write makes sense from a human perspective. I cannot comment on the fetus contextualization, yet I am aware of “stuff” that is impossible to contextualize and communicate in human form. Another way to think about it. Imagine going back a million years in time and trying to communicate to Neanderthals what human existence is like today. It would be impossible. Similarly, if a human from one million years in the future tried to explain to you what human existence is, you would not be able to comprehend it. At all. He would make what Leo is saying look tame and you wold have a similar reaction to future man. You are unaware how limited standard human consciousness is. Rather than calling this type of thing “misleading”, I think a better phrase would be “unhelpful from the perspective of one’s person”. . .

I have considered and replied to each of your speculations in the context of conscious evolution. As I sit here, I cannot think of a fundamental aspect/value of conservatives that is at a more expansive conscious level than liberals. Yet I am not a political expert. There may be an example. I don’t know of one. I don’t think “equal” is the best term. I think developmental stages is more accurate. Like the developmental stages during grade school. An 8th grader is not better than a 4th grader. They are just at different developmental stages.

@Kushu2000 You are unable to grasp what I am trying to communicate because you don’t have this trans-human experience. Thus, you don’t realize you are contextualizing through a human mind because that is all you know. Like I said, it’s like going from the consciousness of an ant to a human. An ant will be incapable of contextualizing it. This goes waaay beyond what you are currently aware of. And from a human perspective, everything you wrote makes sense.

For a mind-body without direct experience of trans-human consciousness, it would appear as insane. The potential and power available is unfathomable to 99.99999% of humans. At the human level, the deeper fears are not of our limitations, but of our potential. The few humans that have tapped into these realms will resonate with some humans and will be ridiculed by others. Imagine being an ant and expanding to the conscious level of a human - and then trying to explain what its like. Your fellow ants will think you cray cray when you try to explain solar systems, algebra, countries, oceans, expansiveness of earth etc. Kinda like that.