Forestluv

@CreamCat @SFRL You guys are seeing things from an Orange lens. There are different lines of development in the SD model - intellectual, emotional, relationships etc. You are saying "What those green women *really* like is an alpha male that can take charge, be decisive, etc". That would make the woman blue or orange. Another way of saying it is: In my personal experience, birds live underwater. I see tons of birds living underwater. Those aren't birds, those are fish. Similarly, women attracted to alpha males are blue/orange, not green. By definition, the highest values for a green woman are: empathy, intuition, caring, human connection, intimacy, egalitarian, vulnerability, talking things out, expressing emotion etc. Those are the highest Green values. If those aren't her highest values in a relationship, then she is NOT green. Just because you don't know green level women, do not mean they don't exist.

@The Blind Sage Different people have different experienes. Some people experience strong visuals, others a strong headspace. You may want to create a mediitative space and trip solo. Personally, I prefer psilocybin for introspective work. Lsd is more extrospective - it’s great for being at one with nature or everyone at a music festival. If you get more interested down the road, there are lots of different psychedelics- more than one of which will resonate with you. I agree with you that level of development influenes trip experience.

Yes. I know plenty of green women. If they have embodied green they would be turned off. I know green women repulsed by even a hint of alpha male. A manly guy holding a gun would make them nauseous

Not to a stage Orange woman. A stage Green woman would be. Their highest values are empathy, love, connection, intuition, community etc. If a tall sexy man had thise attributes, a green woman would be turned on. If it was a tall sexy player, she would be turned off.

Are you sure it was dosed properly?

Those dosages take most people well beyond what you describe. Your lsd may have been underdosed or you may have naturally low sensitivity.

Look at Leo’s stage green list. . . Yoga classes, meditation groups, volunteer work, music festivals, art exhibits. . . The idea is that you are naturally doing these things because you are stage green. If you go to something like a yoga class with the intention of meeting a gal, a stage green woman would pick up on that in an instant and be turned off (healthy green stage women are empathetic and intuitive - they don’t fall for Orange level BS).

@Elysian I would put effort into integrating the experience, rather than trying to categorize it. There are many flavors of mystical/awakening/enlightening experiences. You got a double scoop of a flavor. There are more out there. Once you have more direct experience, they will mature and you will begin to see nuances and subtleties. I’d also be aware of awakened teachers that describe a portion of your experience. Sometimes I find myself saying “Yes! They’ve been there and knows what it’s like!”.

@supremeyingyang Another thought: you likely have some direct post-rational experience. Have you ever met a gal where the two of you had "chemistry"? It just came naturally. The two of you didn't have to figure out how to create the chemistry. You just hit it off. Do you get all logical / rational and analyze the chemistry? Do you try to quantify the chemistry? If one can let go of rational thinking, things get *really* interesting with chemistry on post-rational being.

It’s a great sign that you watched the whole video and didn’t rationalize it away and that you want to learn more. That right there is half the battle. You are further along than 99% of people. I’ve heard several people describe the “can’t turn back” phenomena. It’s like once you get a glimpse of the truth a new energy arises. The truth is an acquired taste. Haha

I’ve had enlightened experiences, but I am not enlightened. The enlightened state is transient and not maintained. However, it has altered my perspective in my unenlightened state. One becomes skeptical to the point everything gets deconstructed and you die. I recommend watching Leo’s recent blog video on skepticism and Nonduality, He explains the process better than I can. To my self, the process is at times beautiful, terrifying, liberating, loving, sad, lonely, connected. There came a point of no return. I can no longer say “Ya know what, I tried this spiritual thing for a while now and it’s just not working for me. I think I’ll try something else”. There was a time I could have turned away, yet I no longer can. I’ve tried several times and can’t. I guess I have to take this to the end. It’s both exciting and scary.

5-meo is like an alarm clock ?

Currently, I don’t feel a strong enough pull to pursue that. Yet, I sense I am evolving in that direction. Well, this is a post-rational thread and you seem to be asking the questions within a rational framework (by assuming only yes/no answers and using a materialist paradigm). If you reached a place of stillness and awakened to a post-rational answer, would you accept it? What if the answer that arose involved the integration of concepts such as purple and discipline? Would you rationalize that answer away as being irrational? Your questions also assumes an observer and object. What if you became aware of a place in which there was no observer or object? Would you let go of the materialist paradigm and explore that area? One can spend a lifetime in rationality. Don’t let spiritual rationality fool you. I estimate I spent over 100,000 hours in a rational thought trap before escaping. . .

I wouldn’t want to do it alone. I would want to be at a Turquoise-level institution with awakened beings where we integrate science, metaphysics and nonduality. This area is just starting to emerge, yet is still considered fringe pseudo-science. If I evolve high enough, I may become a pioneer in this field - yet right now it looks unattainable and too risky to me. Personally, I would like to investigate if mutations are nonrandom and some paranormal phenomena. Yet, my institution wouldn’t be open to that. Yet, if I develop more confidence, I might try to pull it off. Yet stage Yelow stuff is lots of fun to and my institution is very supportive at that level. They just don’t like any whoo whoo stuff.

I’m mindful of how far I can step outside the scientific paradigm and the reactions of my collegues. I can develop my stage yellow without problem at my academic institution. Yet, if I venture too far into Turquoise. I will be labeled a pseudo-scientist or a quack. I’m trying to figure a way to do it without being threatening to my colleagues.

One method is self inquiry. Contemplate something like “what is a thought?”. Do not get rational like “A thought is an impulse in the brain stimulted by neurotransmitters at synapses”. Rather, relax the mind and enter an empty stillness. Observe what arises. Imagine you are observing cells divide under a microscope. Observe your own consciousness. Record “data”. Then allow for integration of data points to create a more holistic view. Be mindful if you start analyzing things rationally. Once you get the hang of it, it’s hella fun,. Rational thought and linear logic bores the hell out of me these days.

Bingo! I think most scientists enter their education in search of what’s true. Then, they get conditioned and cynical. They lose that chil-like curiosity and fascination to discover what IS, just for the sake of discovering what is. IMO, that mindest can help fuel the evolution of science. Many scientists are dogmatic and trapped within the scientific paradigm. You get grants, publications and tenure for following the status quo. Yet, that’s not how you get famous. You get famous in science by overturning dogma and status quo. It’s getting harder and harder to do, but it’s still there. For example, quantuum biology may discover how observation alters the reality of biology at the molecular level. A pioneering scientist may develop new methods to account for this - opening up a whole new generation of biological research. Such a scientist would eventually be seen on a much higher level than your Richard Dawkins type scientists. Yet, our pioneering scientist would likely have to go against the grain and face risks. Personally, I hold back at my work because I’m not yet ready to lose my job.

And what comes prior to sight and illusion? One can dig deeper: all senses, perception, insights are also bullshit. (Again, “bullshit” does not have a positive or negative value).

I hear ya. . . . So I’m out to dinner on a first date with this gal. We go into some deep existential discussion. I’m in my comfort zone. Then there was a long period of silence and energy, intuition, empathy bubbled up. That “whoo whoo” airy fairy stuff. I wanted to avoid it and start talking again or go to the restroom. But then I tried to surrender to it. The thought arose “Hang on. Shit just got real. You made it through that Ayahuasca ceremony, you can make it through this”. ??

I’m just beginning to explore intuition. I recently met a gal who is highly intuitive and has experienced paranormal states - it’s eerie. Yet, she has never experienced psychedelics before. There is a fascinating attraction between us.

These are great spritutual discussions for evolution. Perhaps intuition and insight is the same, or perhaps they are similar. Kinda like chocolate and fudge are similar.

Isn’t it super cool? Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were two of my heroes. Their rational IQ was so high that I thought any confusion I had must mean I’m not yet intelligent enough to understand. Then I began realizing they lack the ability to use higher modes of being. It was like they are super skilled at using a saw, then you wonder “why aren’t they using a chainsaw here?”. Then comes the realization that they are unable to use a chainsaw and might not even know a chainsaw exists. It’s kinda trippy- I didn’t know if I was going insane. Regarding terms, I consider pre-rational and irrational to be pretty much the same. Post-rational is different to me. I make distinctions because I see many people group multiple levels as being “irrational”. Language is super cool. Take “intuition” for example. Why is there only one word for intuition? If everyone spent two hours a day contemplating, discussing and developing their intuition, there would be dozens of words to describe all the nuances and subtleties of intuition. Leo is the first person I’ve seen use a new term for intuition - “hyper-intuition”. So we know have two flavors of intuition. How many more will arise?

That is post-rational. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant rationalist, yet he cannot see the limits of rational thought. Deepak Chopra can use rational thought, understands the limits of rational thought and can communicate post-rationally. Deepak would not view Dawkins as irrational like he would view a child that believes in Santa Claus is irrational.

Rationality is not irrational. Rationality is post- irrational. A child that realizes Santa Clause isn’t real and understands why the belief is irrational is becoming rational.

What makes a child scared of a monster hiding under his bed irrational?