Carl-Richard

Kinda disanalogous when he is also telling the monkey not to shoot himself or other people. Despite all the information out there, some people are reckless and only learn it the hard way. I mean Destiny the twitch streamer dropped 10g of shrooms on his first trip ever thinking he could handle it, and he struggled with the repercussions of that decision for months. So even relatively smart people can run into this trap. No matter how much information is out there, the only thing that saves you in the end is humility and generally being careful.

He has had mystical experiences both with and without psychedelics, but he gets stuck with the framing. It all gets clouded by intellect and fear.

I think that Green can serve as a ramp that leads you to non-duality. He is reluctant to go up that ramp. Green's more feminine and proto-holistic qualities unlocks key mystical aspects involved with emotional embodiment and opens up that deep intuitional longing towards unity. There is a reason why New Age spirituality is a Green phenomena.

But muh western values

You say that but at the same time you're falling into the trap of framing and inferences.

You just did though : Subject vs. object, you vs. other.

I think it doesn't matter as long as you treat them like you want to be treated yourself (as a person who is experiencing). Besides, the feeling you get from interacting with other people is deeply meaningful and is in itself a proof that something is being shared. At the end of the day, it really boils down to framing. Do you want to frame the truth of the absolute oneness of experience as a singularity of complete isolation or as a singularity of complete unity? The trick is to see the perfection in both of them.

I think it helps to use the absolute/relative distinction (You/you): Only You have access to "absolute experience", because there is only You. However, from a relative perspective, there does seem to exist other relative experiences other than your own relative experience (your experience of being a separate self; "you"), but it also seems like you don't have access to some aspects of these experiences. This is of course based on different degrees of inference rather than direct experience, but everything in the relative domain is anyway based on inferences. After all, the absolute is nothing else than direct experience, so where does that leave the relative? (rhetorical question). In other words, the way you're infering the existence of external/separate objects (as an example) is fundamentally the same as the way you're infering the existence of external/separate experiences. You could argue that the "degrees" of inference are different, but both of them are nevertheless "not true" in an absolute sense.

You integrate it by living it

To use tricks and techniques during the day as a hot-fix/band-aid might be better than doing nothing, but unfortunately in the long run, it will most likely not lead anywhere, or infact be detrimental. Techniques that you can just do on a whim whenever you feel like it will inevitably create more compulsive thinking patterns. It's truly unfortunate, but in my experience, long-term results are gained from sitting down and focusing all your attention on one practice at the peak of your daily energy levels, and then simply going about your day while not using up any of your attention on spiritual techniques to "train your awareness". Awareness is a seed that grows. Growth requires rest. You can't really beat a plant into growing faster.

Etymology is hard

Step 1: Smoke weed 3-4 times everyday for a month straight. Step 2: Stop cold turkey. Step 3: Enjoy your dreams.

@Husseinisdoingfine Look around you: science builds great stuff. It can build better stuff. It still has room for improvement. That is the main critique.

YES

The hilarious irony here is that you can also use that point to boost your ego. Infact, every argument or action in general can be used that way. I know you're new to it, but if there is one job Leo has excelled at is teaching people on this forum about the limits of SD. The vast majority of people here have heard this point a hundred times over, therefore you mentioning it just makes my ears bleed. To beat this ghost of a horse completely out of existence: every statement ever is based on concepts and constructs that are limited in their applicability, so mentioning that fact ad nauseum, especially in a place like this, especially when it's not a central part of the discussion, has in virtually all cases zero benefit. About consciousness and infinity, absolute infinity must contain all possible limitations per definition. "Levels of consciousness" is therefore not a contradiction to infinity. Contradictions are also not a problem for infinity, because it must also contain all contradictions. A contradiction is just one perspective clashing with another. Infinity contains all that.

Don't overthink stuff.

Awakening is more about seeing the true nature of the ego and survival. The ego still exists in a sense. Survival is still going on to various degrees. The difference is now you have the freedom to choose.

Physical survival is also egoic survival. You choose to identify with your physical body.

Of course he didn't go all the way. He dipped his toes in and flinched

I believe that most musicians are atleast subconsciously tapping into these mystical realms of experience, and some will inevitably find ways to conceptualize it through language and not just through their music.

Things start to become a bit complex when you start talking about hypothetical Yellow societies. Could they even exist? What would they look like? The expression of Blue (conservatism) of course depends on the cultural context: conservatism of today is not equal to conservatism of the past; Blue people living in majority Orange societies will show different beliefs than in majority Blue or Yellow societies. So you have rigidity of beliefs, but the specific beliefs in question are somewhat flexible (for example views on slavery). When society gets to Yellow, the expression of Blue obviously shifts, both demographically and ideologically, so you'll see much fewer Blue people and a much "milder" version of it. You could say the core elements of rigidity and ethnocentrism will remain while it gradually gets stripped of its contents. What that ultimately will look like is hard to say. If we assume in this hypothetical society that Blue's cultural influence is peripheral to the core functioning of societal systems, it will be limited to the level of individuals and turn into a local social problem instead of a global problem. Just like how very few people have strong enough dark triad traits to be limited to Red for life, there will be something like that relating to Blue, but again, the scale and impact of the problem will be minimized.

This is like straight out of Actualized.org :

Do you ever doubt yourself and think you're just a filthy little orange man who is deluding himself?

How do you know this? What if he is just basic?