Adrian colby

Oops. I’ve actually gone olive green since 😅. The rainbows are packed away in the attic till next June.

That’s probably my favourite 😁

Cosplay begins with an image outside yourself. There is a character, an aesthetic, a subculture or an archetype, and you select the clothes, hair, symbols and mannerisms that allow you to resemble it. For me, it works almost exactly the other way around despite people seeing a similarity with another character, that’s not how it came about and actually has nothing to do with that character. Ironically that characters look formed in the same way mine did. There was never a finished image of a person I was trying to become. What you see is an accumulation of individual preferences: things I am naturally drawn towards, things that feel comfortable on my body, colours and textures I enjoy, ways of wearing my hair, jewellery, clothes, objects and forms of expression that were tried, experienced and integrated into what feels like me. Each choice can stand on its own. Put enough of those choices together and, inevitably, they create a recognisable and distinct individual. That includes my name ( my name is not Adrian Colby). My name was self identified and very distinctive. ( it’s probably easy to find out but I’m not sharing it here) my appearance is probably better understood as emergent as is my identity and overall biology. together, accumulated over time through thousands of small acts of preference, they produce a coherent expression of a particular person as an ongoing becoming. I’ve understood that intimately in the last two years coming to terms with what authenticity actually feels like. What you see, then, isn’t me dressing up as something. It’s what happens when I stop dressing according to what I am supposed to look like when I stop conforming to culture or even counter culture and allow my preferences to come through, not by anyone else’s standards or pressures so I’m not even cosplaying a character, I am wearing the accumulated evidence of being myself ( the distinct human experience encompassed by the infinite awareness were all a part of) When you come across spiritual people, you do tend to find people with unique appearances. Existence expressing and experiencing itself in different ways.

🤣🤣🤣 I get that a lot.

Its AI. I just modelled the character off myself when I was wearing the costume, I sang in a club here during the festival. It’s pretty close

Meh…

Literally just had an argument with some (idiotic shaman) about this. the reductionist issue I liken to Leo’s “frog in a blender” analogy. Even if we get beyond the refraction limit we’re still isolating components that don’t have an independent existance and at that level we loose the very ‘emergent property’ we’re trying to understand. ( I think he actually said something similar in the video) but I use an example of a machine to get this to hit home. Say you have a machine. You take the machine apart because you want to understand the whole machine better, not because you think the individual components exist independently of the machine. You’re not deciding which pieces you like and throwing the others away. The machine is and works the way it does because of the relationship between everything that it is made up of. So you take it apart, examine the components and understand how they relate/work with one another. But then you put it back together. And now you understand the whole machine more comprehensively than you did when you were simply looking at from the level of appearance. What it looks like from the outside. Because the machine itself is an emergent property deriving from all those interacting aspects. The same goes for everything in spirituality. A lot of people deconstruct but they don’t reconstruct or reintegrate to understand the whole. I get sick of biological arguments using a single component to prove determination or definition. The component itself isn’t the emergent property or outcome. Sometimes the component isn’t even involved and it has to be a part of a relational and interactive system. the core understanding behind all of this is ‘relationship’

That’s fragmented love. That is the acceptance of one aspect of reality which is not unconditional. They have focused love down to such a limited point that it becomes self destructive. It’s part of the illusion of separation and why it falls out of harmony with everything else. It’s not an acceptance of culture but an identification with it for personal benefit or validation it’s perfectly understandable how people can become so deluded that they could get stuck in this trap and blow themselves up for it.

Using linguistics to go around in circles instead of realising what it’s pointing at. Well done trying to transcend conceptual thought by performing increasingly elaborate operations with conceptual thought: “Who knows the known that knows nothing about the knowing that is known…” At some point the finger pointing at the moon has become fascinated with the finger.

I found him amusing during the covid lockdowns ( 🫣😳 I used to leave ancient aliens on the tv to keep the dogs company when I was outside) but for someone who was advocating for the Ra materials ( law of one), when he said he didn’t believe in paradox I realised he hadn’t got a clue what the ‘one’ was, aka not awake and possibly delusional. His egotism grew worse until last year I think it was, he complained that he had a parasitic entity in his eye and the government or cabal were after him and his health began to deteriorate before he shot himself after claiming publicly he would never commit suicide he pushed the q anon conspiracy even after the creators of it admitted it was a hoax.

there’s another artist Dylan Louis Monroe who also creates similar mapped narratives.

You didn’t use the word “loneliness”, but the original post explicitly invoked the psychological consequences associated with perceived aloneness: loss of belonging, loss of sanity and the possibility of going insane. If the Absolute cannot know itself until knower and known arise, then the Absolute cannot “recognise that it is alone” prior to that distinction either. Recognition is already an act of knowing. The one recognising itself as alone is therefore already a differentiated self, not the undifferentiated Absolute. All of what you’re saying would be from the perspective of a ‘self’. once identity reforms following an experience of dissolution, the self can interpret the absence of self/other as “I was alone”. But that’s the returned identity ‘I’ talking. It’s applying a relational concept retrospectively to an experience in which the conditions necessary for that concept were absent. To be “alone” requires the distinction of an “other” whose absence can then be recognised. people who get worse after dissolution or collapsing into the absolute, do so because they project a relative interpretation onto the absolute ( like anthropomorphising it) reacting as if relative identity and mentality applies to it. That’s effectively what a god delusion is ( spiritual ego/ Christ complex). ” I am God and I am utterly alone”, when god itself is prior to the distinction of ‘I’. its better to express it as “existence is god and existence is an undifferenciated/undivided, whole”. when Leo states “I am God” or “you are God” what is being pointed at is not the individual self. the use of language is irresponsible because it can induce a misunderstanding leading to nondual nihilism, not nondual understanding or integration. destabilising interpretation occurs when the returning identity projects relative properties back onto the Absolute. “ I was the Absolute, therefore I was the only one there, therefore I am fundamentally alone”. But “I am the only one” has already reconstructed the very self/other distinction that had dissolved. You see? That’s the point where the mistake is made. That interpretation can then be carried back into relative life stating other people are merely illusions, relationships are ultimately meaningless, ordinary life can be dismissed, and the person can become increasingly detached from the relational reality in which the self actually exists. The Absolute becomes something the identity appropriates rather than something whose recognition transforms its relationship with life. The person ultimately succumbs to psychosis. people who get 10 times better understand they/self are not the absolute. They hold a more integrated interpretation that recognises that the self is not the Absolute as an isolated identity. “I” is a differentiated appearance within it. The return of distinction does not mean a return to fundamental separation or rigid identity attachment. Self and other can be distinguished while simultaneously being recognised as relational expressions of the same underlying reality. A unified appearance of distinctions within the absolutes imaginings. Understanding that there is no true separation in the relative means you can never be alone because the self is intrinsically connected to everything else and cannot exist in isolation. The absolute itself cannot be alone because it is prior to the conditions needed for ‘alone’. So “there is only the Absolute” and “I alone am the Absolute” are not saying the same thing. The first removes the privileged position of the individual self. The second places the individual self at the centre of the Absolute before its even manifest. Not mixing those up is crucial. The Absolute is not a self experiencing aloneness. Aloneness is what a self can project onto the recognition of the Absolute when it tries to understand a non-relative state through relative concepts ( distinctions in the mind). one is not alone. One is one because it ‘is’. And again, be careful with the word “illusion”. The Absolute’s imaginings are what reality is: appearances of differentiated form within the undifferentiated Absolute. That does not mean they are not real. They are. that’s precisely what “reality” and “real” refer to: the imaginings of the Absolute appearing as form. They are appearances, not illusions. The illusion is taking those differentiated forms to be separate, isolated things. Treating ‘real’ as ‘illusion’ leads to the very nihilistic dismissal within the misunderstanding I described above.

It’s ’the Great awakening’ by champ parinya in 2018. when I question people who have it and point to it as ‘awakening’ or ‘spiritual truth’, they can’t even tell me who made it, their background or mindset.

I acknowledge the question you are posing. So sitting here, I am imagining it, and I think that’s actually where my distinction between love and attachment becomes clearer. I can love my immediate culture, but I can also love ‘culture’ and the richness of cultures that aren’t the immediate culture from which I emerged . I can love traditions, creativity, rituals, stories, music, customs and ways of relating that emerge through them. I do truly ‘feel’ the ecstasy of that running through me. I can want to preserve aspects of my own culture because they are beautiful, meaningful or simply things I prefer and enjoy participating in ( authentically, not by conditioning). None of that requires me to identify with the culture as a whole or require other people to conform to it. I can deconstruct and see through it and still profoundly accept its richness without dismissing it altogether. That’s where I think the distinction between love and attachment really becomes clear to me. Culture isn’t something separate from the individuals and relationships that constitute it. Those individuals contain an enormous diversity of preferences, experiences and ways of being, so no single cultural template can represent all of them. Nor has any culture, including conservative culture, ever actually been fixed or static. Culture is a living system in continuous process. What we now call traditional culture is itself the accumulated outcome of previous cultural transformations. Christianisation transformed pagan Europe. The Reformation transformed Christianity. The Enlightenment transformed our relationship with religious and political authority. Industrialisation transformed family, work and community etc. Each generation inherits something that has already changed and changes it again. And each generation prior complains. The continuity of a culture therefore doesn’t depend upon preserving all of its contents unchanged. It depends upon maintaining enough coherence through change that the pattern remains recognisable over time. In that sense it’s much like a biological system. my body remains recognisably me despite continually replacing cells, reorganising itself, responding to its environment and changing throughout my life. If a living system literally prevented change in order to preserve its present state, it wouldn’t preserve itself. It would eventually cease functioning. Which brings me back to Preservation and adaptation are therefore not opposites to me. They are complementary processes through which a culture remains alive. So yes, I can imagine loving my culture. But if I imagine loving it in the way you seem to be suggesting, honestly I imagine myself becoming highly stressed, emotionally reactive, controlling, selfish and ultimately self-destructive. If my identity became so attached to my cultural preferences that other people not having those preferences felt like a threat to me, I would no longer maintain the boundary between myself and others. I would start pushing my preferences outward and trying to make other people conform to them. If everyone becomes more like me, I don’t have to confront the discomfort of accepting them as they actually are. I don’t have to adapt myself to reality or find harmony with difference. that’s where I would call it attachment rather than love. I would be mistaking my beliefs and preferences for reality itself and becoming possessive of something that was never mine to possess. For me, profound love is a radical form of acceptance. That doesn’t mean being passive, no preferences, or never trying to preserve something I value, It means I can love something without requiring it to become or remain what ‘i’ need it to be. I can imagine loving my culture “till death do us part.” I just can’t imagine needing everyone else to marry it too. in that sense what you are describing as conservative love isn’t love at all but a lack of acceptance of reality. i understand what you are saying about typical liberal deconstruction of cultural constructs.I’ve been through that myself but I didn’t result in nihilism or nothing to love, it progressed into the profound acceptance of the richness of diversity, culturally and individually. Loving my own preferences within my immediate culture ( returning to those that were authentic to me and not those simply conditioned after I had deconstructed them) but also recognising and accepting the preferences of others as part of that richness. It was a holistic integrative process. I can love and participate in Christian music without identifying as a Christian and I can also be dismissive of Christian music whose lyrics are harmful and destructive. If I attach my identity to the culture of ‘Christianity’ and expect conformity to it… serious problems start to occur within my own discernment ( cognitive dissonance) I live in Ireland and the country is predominantly liberal/progressive/green. I can’t say I see a demonstration of not loving their individual culture. Quite the opposite actually. A contemporary Irish person’s culture can simultaneously contain Celtic inheritance, Christianity, pre-Christian mythology, Enlightenment values, liberal democracy, British influences, American media, European identity, local traditions, global music, internet culture, family customs and individual subcultures. the traditional Irish Celtic culture including its language are still very much celebrated and preserved lovingly by most of its people because it is seen as a valued and enjoyed preference worth passing onto future generations but it doesn’t mean obliterating all the rest or forcing the rest to conform to only it to preserve it… that doesn’t logically follow. I can love Irish culture in that I can also nuture its continued development. In that sense it is not a case that preserving it means love and developing it means it is not loved or visa versa rather recognising those two mechanisms interact as a part of the whole.

I don’t disagree that the Absolute cannot know anything prior to distinction, because there is nothing “other” to be known. There is no knower and known yet. But I think you’re conflating the distinction necessary for knowing with the illusion of separation. The moment the One makes a distinction between knower and known, you don’t get two isolated things. You get relationship ( a unity or ‘oneness’) Knower only exists as knower relative to what is known, and known only exists as known relative to a knower. They arise together. That is duality as distinction, but it is not separation. This is why I prefer the word ‘appearance’ to ‘illusion’ when talking about manifestation/reality. Illusion can imply that what appears should be dismissed as unreal( which goes against the point of a reality at all). The forms appear, distinctions appear and relationships appear. The illusion of separation occurs when the mind takes one of those distinctions out of its relational context and conceptualises it as an independently existing object. It stops seeing oneness or unity and falls into the illusion that there is a separation. Again, dot on a page. The dot cannot appear as a dot in isolation. It only becomes distinct relative to the field surrounding it. Dot and background arise as distinctions together. Remove every possible contrast, boundary and relationship and “dot” ceases to mean anything. Dot collapses. the Absolute cannot ‘know’ itself without distinction. It is otherwise ‘being’ not a thing. I would describe distinction as an outward movement ( while we are limited by language to describe an intangible mechanism). it projects itself into its appearances, creating distinction, relationship and therefore something that can be known. And known at increasingly complex degrees inevitably getting lost in an illusion that the knower is exclusively separate. But there is also the inverse movement. When mind turns back inward and begins deconstructing what appeared to be independently existing “things”, it finds relationships within relationships. The more completely the apparent multiplicity is deconstructed, the harder it becomes to locate anything that exists entirely by itself. The illusion wasn’t the appearance of multiplicity; it was taking those appearances to be exclusively separate. Eventually you arrive back at that which cannot itself be made into another isolated object, not another “thing” among things, but the undifferentiated Absolute from which all the distinctions arose. So there is an outward movement from one into distinction and an inward movement from distinction back into recognition of unity. Symbolically I represent this as toroidal movement (outward projection and inward reflection.) The movement between what is projected and what is reflected gives rise to knowing-with, consciousness ( from the Latin con-scius … which means ‘with knowing’) And this is why I disagreed with your original example of the Absolute becoming lonely. Loneliness can only arise after distinction. “Alone” requires self, other, and then the perceived absence of other. A person waking up to discover everyone else has disappeared is already a subject within a differentiated reality. That isn’t the Absolute experiencing Oneness, it is a differentiated self experiencing the absence of other differentiated selves. The Absolute prior to distinction isn’t alone. “Alone” has no meaning there. So I agree that knowing requires duality in the sense of distinction. Where I disagree is treating distinction as separation. Distinction produces relationship. The illusion of separation begins when we perceive the distinctions but lose consciousness of the relationship through which those distinctions exist. We loose sight of unity

If it’s one thing that boils my blood it’s this. I walk into plantmedicine ceremony or communities claiming to be spiritual and this poster is on the wall, I want to knock the facilitator unconscious. replacing one narrative for another is not spirituality. It’s more self deception or distraction from turning inwards. Top down and black and white thinking to make sense of highly complex topics. Religious concepts turned into spiritual warfare and taken to be awakening because spiritual sounding language is used. Preying on susceptible people with no integrity. Going to ceremony for personal development or trauma resolution and coming away from it with delusional beliefs. Spirituality is deconstructing reality to get a glimpse at what remains when all else has collapsed and gone. Reintegrating it and understanding it. Looking at psychological mechanisms that prevent discernment. What the mind and consciousness itself is doing not what content is occurring within it.

It’s the same as trying to figure if what happens during psychedelics, dreams, meditation are real. psychedelics we know switch off or subdue the default mode network of the brain which is where the sense of self/ego/identity emerges. When it’s not active we experience consciousness with ‘no self’ or a unified field of awareness where the mind is no longer bounded by identity. an NDE is similar when there is a neurological suppression but not complete cessation. The person is not clinically dead and always comes back. Making somewhat similar claims. the only case I’ve come across that could possibly validate a conscious out of body experience while the body is actually dead was of a woman who had to have a serious surgery of replacement organ like the heart. She had an auditory signal played in her ears with a neurological monitor reporting the resulting activity. Her body was cooled for preservation and her heart was stopped. Her neural activity was monitored so they knew there was no activity. Clinically dead. they managed to resuscitate her and when she came around she was able to describe the nurses, assistants and surgeons appearance, position and conversation from a point in the room away from her body. She also described a passage of time in another dimension that felt like a dream with the typical recounting of the ‘life review’. It’s the only technically dead account of an NDE with clinical confirmation of death during the procedure. with dreams it’s similar in that you can go into disembodied states of consciousness from anything in v from a typical narritive dream to a full blown psychedelic type journey or even as far as a mystical experience like the white light or 5MeO. if you lie motionless at night but maintain your awareness, your brain and body goes into sleep and you experience a dissolution of reality. Everything bug awareness fades away and you end up in the ‘void’ state or source of undifferentiated awareness. But the mind is a reality creator so it is inevitable that distinctions will start to form another reality including. A body. This reality is less finite so you can step into it like a regular waking reality but you have hhe ability to maintain your focus and change the appearance of things including your persona and the laws of physics. If you meditate further within this ‘lucid dream’ you can go into psychedelic like realms or full blown white light ocean of consciousness. ive done the dream thing a few times which has given me a greater understanding of what consciousness is than any psychedelic. The psychedelic simply forces the suppression of the self to allow the opening of the mind but doesn’t garuntee a mystical experience. With the dream, you have the continuity of awareness through the shutting down and sleeping process but you do it with the power and discipline of your own mind. Fearless Tranquility is vital to opening where psychedelics force it. and just like a dream, your state of mind or whatever has left an intention or impression on you will carry through into the dream, the psychedelic trip or the NDE ( even speculating the next life)

The one is absolute, not relative. The duality that is required to acknowledge aloneness which must first imply ‘other’ and then absence of ‘other’ has not yet occurred. saying that the absolute would be unbearably lonely is projecting a dualistic psychological state onto a condition in which the distinction for loneliness hasn't yet occurred. the absolute is not a ‘thing’. It is infinite. It has no form, no boundary, no distinction and would not recognise itself as anything or alone , only pure existence existing, no thought process. It is one, complete, perfection before it creates ‘alone’ by making distinctions relative to self and other. when it makes distinctions, you get the ‘appearance’ of a form relative to another form. There are always two or more distinctions in relationship (reality/relativity/relational). the continued consciousness of the relationship is vital to maintaining perception of unity or the whole. take the simplest example of a ‘dot’. You can’t actually perceive a dot in isolation. It is always relative to something else, in this case the surrounding field ( like the white page or background in which the dot occurs) In a relative space there is no such thing as an isolated object. The object is always in relationship to something else, even the space in which it is situated. There are always two or more distinctions in a reality. The dot and the background unfold out of each other from an undifferentiated absolute but they are not separate isolated objects. They only exist in relationship to one another and cannot be separate. Like waves in an ocean. They appear like distinct and separate objects unless you maintain the awareness they are ocean through the unified relationship between them The illusion of separation occurs when you take something in reality to be an isolated object while not being conscious of the other distinctions against which the object is contrast. the same happens in polarisation. When you take two aspects of your own mind, form an attachment identity with one and push the other down into your unconscious shadow which you project as an adversary or oppositional status that belongs to what you consider to be ‘not you’. the same with sexual dimorphism. Everything on a sexual spectrum within the same species diverges from the same undifferentiated initial structure or shared blueprint. All are both male and female in potential within the same body. Which is why there is the possibility of hermaphrodite lions. Differentiation happens along an infinite sliding spectrum. The polarity or appeaeance of one sex is due to the arbitrary ranges we assign while ignoring the aspects of the opposite polarity within the same body. What we call male or female are simply bodies containing different male:female ratios, not mutually exclusive sexes ( which is not biologically possible otherwise they would not be the same species). the dimorphism of a sexed body mirrors the same emergent mechanism of the universe. when the two collapse into being one in the same as the self( two intrinsic aspects of the self), that is when you become conscious of unity and transcend polarity distinctions reveals relationship, whereas separation occurs when the mind abstracts a distinction from its relationships and treats it as self-existing.

I don’t know if I would conflate love with attachment identity. I know this is aimed at those who are liberally polarised but in here would it not be better point to preservation and adaptation as complementary check and balance as facets of ourselves individually as a holistic system that become fragmented and separate when we attach identity to one and consign the other to our unconscious shadow as though it is not a part of us? I would presume that the issue is the inability to understand the two as a unity to be integrated back into the self.

I know about this and appreciate the reintroduction to the sentiment. But as I’ve integrated everything I’ve come across during my learning, I have come to a conclusion about ‘relational responsibility’ in a shared space( reality) . If there is no pushback then the balance falls out. If I just sit on my hands and do nothing, the oppositional opinion becomes dominant, takes over, corrupts, homogenises and eventually causes a collapse of the minor culture or community because it’s not recognising unity but fighting against itself. He is always asking why the people in the group descent into argument and it’s obvious there’s no integrity only personal benefit present in the participants. it does cause serious distress to me and a diversion of my energy. If I do nothing or say nothing I would be complaisant in my own demise…. Would I not? I spend about ten years fighting for my rights so I could exist in ‘the system’. It was peaceful and successful for a while but now with all these conspiracy theories floating about implying conscious agendas, I can see what I fought for being erased. For no reason other than unfounded fear. im sure if I ignore it and just concentrate on creating in my own immediate sphere, it will be grand… but only for a while. Eventually with no pushback there will be an increasing corruption that spreads into spirituality. I think Leo has been trying to create a bit of clarity from spiritual origins free of any belief system and I’ve been trying to do the same by differentiating between actual spirituality ( dissolution of reality to get a glimpse of the source) and belief systems ( anything from religion to narratives that take place within reality but are not descriptive of it)

What do you mean by authority? I had an issue with a ‘shaman’ recently who claimed we ‘compartmentalised’ differently… but I tried explaining that I don’t do that. It wasn’t until several iterations of responses and comments later that I realised he was viewing the situation through the lense of the very thing I was critiquing and so I realised I couldn’t get him to understand because he couldn’t step outside his own context… not even when I pointed ‘that’ out too. it started by trying to bring his awareness to his own lack of discernment and… well not knowing what epistemology is. it wasn’t until several iterations of comments and responses later that it became clear he was fragmenting and separating (compartmentalising) everything and putting himself in a box and automatically assuming I was doing thd opposite of what was in that box. Boxing me instead of what I was telling him, using all of the above as an interconnected and integrated system. he was using black and white thinking while I was system thinking. i do think it’s possible to know the mind of another but only when you pass a certain threshold of integration. People who are not aware of their unconscious patterns tend to continue a trajectory without changing making that pattern obvious. You can tell where they will end up and usually where it came from. the hard part is teaching it without coming across as arrogant or having a superiority complex ( what I think you mean by the appearance of authority?)

Yes genetics plays a huge role but that’s the body and its emergent identity that is also influenced by the environment in which it develops. Genetics are information packets that instruct the body to form in various different ways and there are so many developmental factors at play, no one gene can be used as a determining factor for the specific outcome of a human for or trait so by themselves, genes are not definitive or deterministic. Think of a seed. A seed is not a tree. It contains a pile of information we see as the potential for a tree but so many factors outside the seed influence and interact with it as it develops. the information in the seed is potential only and not actualisation. Any biological organism is an ongoing ‘process’ not a fixed and immutable object ( even though for the sake of coherence and continuity, it maintains a recogniseable and closely repeatable form. The stager I g jumbees oc factors involved and their varying degrees of interactions means there’s an infinity of variation and you never get an identical instance repeating) consciiusness creates forms and interacting forms creates patterns. Patterns interact with other patterns and end up creating increasing complexity. At some stage a complex pattern will hold itself together in a state of coherence long enough that a sense of self or identity will emerge from that point of view. Consciousness is then able to experience and express through that point. The identity or self is a mechanism that distinguishes a boundary and holds itself together in a coherent autonomous pattern. That’s what we call life and it emerges out of distinctions made by consciousness or the organising principle known as mind ( like a baby with no thoughts, language etc it is like pure existence simply engrossed in its own experience in the present moment) as time goes on it becomes conditioned by everything around it. Some of that conditioning is vital to its survival ( the continuation of the pattern over time) and some of the conditioning comes out of a conceptual map derived from its ability to use complex language, distracting it away from its direct experience and trapping it in a conceptual matrix or socially constructed environment. That’s what we environment creates adversity from which it can struggle and grow. while everything is consciousness dreaming up all these scenarios, the body and the appearance of its material forms and mechanisms have an inherently emergent identity or sense of self. Consciousness experiencing from this point of view can become lost in this sense of self so much that it can create levels and depths of self deception so convincing, it gets stuck and apathetical. as a species evolves so too does its ability to transcend immediate survival and with it starts to spend time self reflecting to the point it’s able to reference and analyse itself from a first, second , third, fourth person perspective etc. developing higher levels of individual and cultural cognitive development. a person who has genetic variations that differ drastically from a mainstream probability curve or give it other abilities are more likely to notice its culture as a conditioned construct and start to step outside of it and begin a deconstructive process of returning to direct experience with reality which may or may not end up as a dissolution of reality altogether and an awakening of consciousness from its dream of a human experience. we know identity is based in the brains default mode network as that is what is suppressed during psychedelic journeys and why we experience ‘no self’ in these altered states so it’s not too much of a leap to understand that self and identity ard inherently emergent of the bodies neurological development where consciousness which is not a thing and has no ‘self’ simply experiences and expresses through it. we recognise this in states of meditation when we attempt to suppress the senses so nothing is left but ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’. going through the process of untangling identities conditioning can allow consciousness to express through it more authentically. genes maybe the symbolic representation of the universal minds organising principle for creating nuanced distinctions. All are finite, some changeable, some not so much but in a world of vastly numberous interactive systems, they are not primarily deterministic

I would have said it was conspiracy theories through the lens of spiritual warfare being used to mobilise voter bases. ( spiritual or ‘supossed’ spiritual people getting dragged into it because of the use of spiritual language but don’t have enough discernment to see through it) basic myth and dogma are easy enough to recognise in most orthodox religions and has been around for millennia but the other esoteric traditions where spirituality has held more rigour for maintaining clarity… it has spread through and corrupted the new age, plant medicine and spiritual communities in the last decade so badly I’m struggling to keep it out of my own communities. ive actually reached a level of exhaustion constantly repeating myself against this onslaught of idiocy. It’s got so bad I’m about to loose two friends over it simply for asking that they take a moment to investigate their epistemology. Despite holding my ability to deconstruct and explain spiritual concepts with great respects, it seems to have gone in one ear and out the other, just to uphold their prior beliefs. the conspiracy of the great awakening which has nothing to do with actual awakening in a group of people who have been repeatedly told but still answer ‘epistemology’? What’s with the big words. constantly looking for answers but not willing to do the work or god forbid some self reflection! I find myself in a sea of epistemic loneliness with only infinity and some of its finite deluded parts for company. when your consciousness expands, you hold more of infinities complexity and end up with complex language to talk about it and that’s too much for them. unfortunately some of those narritives demonise the type of person/human that I am and so with hhe spread of that corruption my own community turns on me too. 🙁

You could see being monogamous and non manogamous as an orientation. Polyamory is a subset of non monogamy and there are many different types within it. being conditioned to monogamy from the get go, every decision I made regarding relationships turned out to be conditioned and forced against my authenticity. The way I had relationships was to fit a stereotype and conform like it was something I was supposed to or expected to do. after my awakenings, I’d describe it as my heart opening and becoming more unconditional towards people. A letting go of the need to be validated by a relationship, that my sense of self worth, confidence and happiness doesn’t come from a partner and above all that I do not possess or have rights over another person or what they do with their body or someone else. this doesn’t mean that I loose control and go out seeking casual sex or try to fulfill myself with pleasure. It takes a great deal of maturity and consideration to interact intimately with another person without taking advantage of a situation. If the other person is not complete within themselves, the interaction can end in a great deal of emotional hurt so in that sense it’s actually quite difficult to come across people who are ok with it so there are few. i have a small group of very close friends ( the love between us is quite profound because we have opened up to each other in vulnerable states and the level of acceptance there recognises and understands each of our struggles, problems and journeys as simply being a difference. The love is an acceptance of the persons being as they are instead of them having to be something to satisfy. We don’t have romantic relationships. It is a friendship that if in a moment where the connection deepens, intimacy is allowed. we always use the saying “I’ll apologise for hating but I’ll never apologise for loving”. There are plenty of moments of intimacy that don’t involve sex either. The experience is never reduced to shame or embarrassment but instead taken with gratitude. It’s never regretted and that can also be doesn’t to conversations of consent and clear expectations beforehand. our lives are all separate so none of us live in parallel like a polycule and so this is not polyamory and they are not romantic relationships. it wouldn’t have been possible if I had not first gone through my own isolation and deconstruction ( to work on myself and understanding of reality). A lot of people in new age and spiritual communities do it because it’s almost part of a new identity but hasn’t been arrived at authenyically and as someone already suggested is a way of bypassing and deflecting from personal work ( the mentality of the sovereign libertarian who just does whatever they want without acknowledging consequences or the fact that ‘spiritually’ it’s not about dissolving reality and the ego to get a glimpse of the absolute and then delude yourself into thinking you are constantly there in that state… but rather that you reintegrate everything that you dissolved, understanding it and that you hold a place as one amongst a multitude within a relational space with a shared responsibility to maintain harmony and balance within your reality. ) you don’t choose polyamory out of a sense of moral superiority but rather as an authentic extention of your own preferences derived from who you are as love at your core. What is right for you may not be right for someone else and monogamy can be a catalyst for developing better maturity through relationship. i married before I realised I was non monogamous but I love my wife too so it’s been a challenge to be simultaneously in both a monogamous and non monogamous situation … or rather having a monogamous and non monogamous person in a marriage together. My wife understand but admits she is not able to deal with the emotion of it but as long as she is more important ( the fear of me finding something ‘better’ and leaving is what plagues her mind but I see people as different not better). She’s the one I’ve chosen to live in parallel with and I’m not ‘seeking’ other partners. I’m just open to my friendships deepening in a moment and my wife’s self worth shouldn’t be tied to that. Polyamory calls that hierarchy and is frowned upon but that is the life I have. If my wife were to go to an event, holiday, festival and meet someone she got on well with and the night ended in a beautiful experience… why on earth, if I claim to love her, would I be annoyed that she had a wonderful experience? It doesn’t affect me or her relationship with me. Her interaction with another person is private and between them and nothing to do with me but genuinely as a friend to her I’d love her to feel safe and open enough to be able to share her story and excitement with me. It’s called comperssion and a sign I’ve moved beyond her as another human, being any kind of possession of mine. I think the question is whether you feel genuinely drawn to monogamy or non monogamy and whether you feel confident, mature and comfortable enough in yourself to interact and be intimate with another person without possessing them. Non monogamy expands you to more different experiences not tying you to just one but the underlying principle of maturity still stands in either situation. I feel more open, alive and accepting… more at peace with myself if I acknowledge non monogamy as my own authentic state. When I sit in monogamy I slowly but surely start to shut down, wilt and become miserable. When I accepted non monogamous as my relationship style, I never felt more alive. It was a battle at first because living in a society and culture that frowned upon it and didn’t understand it ( framing it as nothing more than cheating or promiscuity) but I still come back to love/acknowledgment, acceptance, allowance as the core of my being and resisting it just to conform to a monogamous culture goes against everything I stand for. I'm not promiscuous and it doesn’t happen often at all but it is a part of who I am.

I got fed up with the constant dismissive and down right nasty onslaught on human diversity after I had an autism masking collapse ( suicide attempt followed by diagnosis), I recovered honouring my nervous system and being authentic to who I am and my preferences. I was never identified with the lgbt culture but in light of the last 6 years I’ve recognised there’s more love there. Who you love and how you love is still love. Absolute love is beyond acknowledging accepting and allowing… it’s simply ‘being’. i wrote a song about being love and love coming from within each of us but as soon as I put down the baseline, it turned into a Gay anthem. It’s also my best production so far for a non pro music producer/sound engineer. thought I would share.