Carl-Richard

Anxiety has different components depending on your definition. It has a mind component and a body component, and they normally tend to interact with oneanother. You might think of something and then feel something in the body, or you might feel something in the body and interpret that as something the mind associates with a certain feeling, effectively creating a self-fulfilling profecy, a feedback loop of sorts. When you see through the workings of the mind, obviously the relationship you have to the mind component will change drastically, in the sense that it will not pester you with repetitive cycles of stories, fears, do's and don'ts. Still, the nature of the body component is more or less the same, but it can be recontexualized based on the accompaniment of thoughts or lack thereof. By that, I mean that the increase in heart rate, rush of energy, and tingling sensations doesn't necessarily have to be associated with something scary or negative.

I have this weird intuition about how to frame it: that you're either born with enlightenment as a baseline, or you're not. Then as you grow up, you'll either run into things that obscure or unveil it. That is why some people awaken in an instant and why some people never awaken. Growing up always involves a certain degree of entanglement, so if you have a baseline of enlightenment, it will try to express itself through different avenues, like a deep longing for being or truth, through things like music, art, knowledge seeking. Any glimpses that will occur naturally, or through the experience of these different things at their peek, will invoke a feeling of a deep nostalgia, because it's where you come from: it's your baseline. The reason I see this connection is because the more I enter awareness, the more these things (music, art, knowledge) open up to me, and the more they make sense to me. It makes me see directly how the artist, musician or wise man is interacting with it. So, if these things are present, it's all up to the process of untangling (which can either be very problematic or just a knot away).

Last week, Kurt Willy Oddekalv, one of Norway's leading environmentalists, fell through the ice while trying to rescue his daughter's dog and died 63 years old. Back in the 90s, he was a regional leader of our largest environmental organization, The Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature (Naturvernforbundet), but he left due to conflict with the leadership and established his own organization, Green Warriors of Norway (Norges Miljøvernforbund). My dad has worked with him for almost 20 years and was interviewed in the local newspapers to talk about his life. I used to work in the restaurant below the headquarters of Green Warriors. I also worked with him alone one summer helping to renovate one of his rental houses (he suffered two strokes in 2016 which caused him to have reduced mobility and only being able to work 60%). He was known for having a strong personality, clear vision, fierce determination, controversial methods, and a deep love for nature. https://www.newsinenglish.no/2021/01/14/thin-ice-killed-an-environmental-activist/ (English) https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/kR8oBv/minnes-oddekalv-oppvekst-som-innflytter-og-minstemann-skapte-miljoekrigeren (Norwegian newspaper tribute) https://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/i/Ln6Rdx/kurt-oddekalvs-liv-i-bilder (Local newspaper tribute)

This is it.

There is this book I'm reading, that when describing the way that the pre-socratic philosophers were thinking, stresses how different it was from "our" current way of thinking, using words like "concrete", "simplistic", "childlike", "direct" etc.. This reminds me of Piaget's "concrete operational cognition", which is analogous to Blue, but not quite Orange (that would be "formal operational"). In this stage, logical operations are possible, but hypothetical and abstract thinking is limited. It gives the impression that the ability to think rationally wasn't simply an untapped resource in the human that was ready to be expressed given the correct circumstances (social and economic security -> increased freetime). It was rather a result of a complex, incremental, and transactional process of individual geniuses impacting culture and culture impacting other individual geniuses, and over time establishing a theoretical base that allowed others to be better inclined to evolve in that direction. A stage of cognitive development that virtually all children in modern societies will reach by age 11 is only possible because the culture is fully established in formal operational cognition. The first Greek philosophers, who were fully grown adults 2500 years ago, had to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while pushing the edge of the culture to barely even touch that. They didn't have the luxury of piggybacking on thousands of years of development. Imagine how incredibly inconvenient and slow your progress would be if you had no previously established theoretical frameworks to work with. On top of that, imagine yourself as essentially an 11 year old trying to figure out how the pieces are supposed to fit. Imagine the genius it takes to make any progress under those conditions. This truly demonstrates the influence that time has on culture and culture has on individuals. In this sense, regarding the fear that most people are will never be able to reach Tier 2 cognition, I believe the future looks way more promising than we could ever imagine.

What is the difference between a high consciousness person and a low consciousness person?

Many terrorists are capable of nuanced thinking, just like many geniuses are capable of terrorism. Thinking can only happen on top of beliefs.

It's obviously important to him as he is from the middle east. Things you hate are always touching on the things that are of fundamental importance to yourself in some way. For example, I've noticed in myself a strong compulsion of wanting to expose and denegrate people I perceive to be narcissists on this forum, because I fundamentally value being authentic to myself (Fi), and that is analogous to a form of narcisissm.

Terrorists do think, and they think they're right. What is really the difference between a soldier going to war and the suicide bomber blowing himself up?

All of it.

I'm going to critique your use of the word "absolute". Both Blue and Orange share having a belief in transcendent/absolute principles: For Blue, it's the sanctity of the divine (purpose that transcends the individual): truth is decided by a collective historical tradition. For Orange, it would be the sanctity of the individual itself: rationality and empiricism (truth is decided by the reasoning of individual minds); freedom and liberty (society is guided by the voices of individuals, on the merit of their reasoning/rhetoric, through democratic means). In that sense, they're both absolutistic worldviews. On a system level, they're both rife with dogmatism and self-serving biases. Orange might claim it's being self-aware, but so might Blue to its own extent. Orange can get stuck on one model just as much as Blue. More systemically self-aware, perspectivally diverse and relativistic worldviews start arising at late-Green/early-Yellow.

You're not stating anything of meaning right now.

LMAO ok dude. So your concept of karma is not a concept?

Hamilton Morris is another great dude who shines light on the misconceptions around drugs. This is a funny interview with Eric Andre:

Your concept of karma is incomplete. Ever heard of the concept of prarabdha karma? Karma isn't some frivolous thing. It's the very basis of your physical existence. You still exist as a physical being after enlightenment, unless your concept of enlightenment is complete annihilation or mahasamadhi.

I think topics like these is a better example of the problems with this forum in general, which is complaining, fingerpointing and posturing (yes, I'm doing that right now.) If you're not providing a constructive solution to the problems you're addressing, then it only detracts from any potential high consciousness activity that is already here. I may say this, but I'm not going to expect that it will lead to anything. This too is just useless in the end. You may aspire to be better yourself, but at the end of the day, you gotta work with what you've got.

Judging by, well - everything, I don't think Trump would like that either

Don't debate in this thread.

It is interesting though that Protagoras (pre-socratic philosopher) basically established relativistic philosophy (atleast in the West), which is the building block of post-Green thought. Still, the interplay between the individual and the environment is an important factor for judging SD. The environment 2500 years ago could not have produced mature post-Green people.

Sources?

Your mind will sometimes throw you excuses for not letting go. Try to identify those and work to fix them.

You can't really force people to be more conscious

@Leo Gura Hahaha how did I not see that one coming

https://www.facebook.com/thenotoriousmma/photos/a.1723387767729515/3911297282271875