Forestluv

If green = blue, then why does grass appear green and the sky appear blue? Ime, form = formless is one of the most challenging things to embody. Logical reasoning couldn't bring me there.

@Javfly33 We could have a relationship with life as if we are observing a pre-written movie. Yet there are also many other relationships we can create. For example, bring your attention to your breath. You've been breathing all day and night, yet it was automatic - you weren't observing and thinking about every breath. Now that your attention is drawn to it, you can be an observer of it if you like. You can simply allow a natural breath. Yet notice how difficult this is now because we are trying to breath naturally. When our attention was elsewhere, the breath was breathing itself. Yet now that we pay attention to it, we start thinking "Is this a natural breath? Should I be breathing deeper and slower? That breath didn't feel quite right. I have no control over the breath, whatever breath happens is natural without my control. I have no free will over the breath". And on and on and on. . . . In reality, we can simply be an observer of our breathing. Or we can make up all sorts of stories and analyze it. Or we can get in there and play. Breathing is both automatic and voluntary. It is the intersection of spontaneous appearance and intentional manifestation.

You answered your own question. If you get that there is no difference between something and nothing, you realize "stuff" is "no stuff". Within this construct: the question "why is there stuff?" is the same as "why isn't there stuff?" Yet there are also constructs in which there is stuff and the question "why is there stuff?" has different meaning. Here, we could look into how atoms assemble to form stuff.

Those were the main two complaints in the comments: that Leo was "Dodging questions" and spoke with "word salad". It can be challengeing for a big-picture abstract mind to give concrete examples. For example, "Is science bad?". That question cannot be answered "yes" or "no". If the audience is only at a binary level of cognition, they will only accept a "yes" or "no" answer. Yet I think this audience is capable of at least some nuance. For example, we could answer "It depends" and then give a concrete example of how science got something wrong and a concrete example of something science got right. Yet it goes much deeper than this. There is the relativity of good and bad, there are degrees of good and bad, there are aspects that are partially good and partially bad. If we discuss these nuances, we are criticized for "dodging the question" or using "word salad". If we don't discuss these nuances, we stay at a surface level that is only partially true. We don't make much progress. Yet in fairness to the audience, exploring these types of nuances can take years of contemplation to be able to discuss. Before discussing the relativity of weather science is good or bad, one needs to contemplate and study what relativity is. It's super hard to dumb things down without losing accuracy and the point. It's like playing the game "Taboo". Tennis is super easy to explain, yet if we can't use the words: Sport, ball, court, game, racket or player - it becomes super hard to describe.

Comments section is quite hostile

@Mannyb I was specifically referring to people that don’t believe germs exist. The people who deny the existence of microbes and that some microbes can contribute to adverse effects on human health.

Another dimension would be various forms of sexuality / intimacy. For example, about 5% of men have qualities I find attractive, yet not in a friend way. It is an intimate form of attraction that overlaps with sexuality, yet I don’t feel the desire to have sexual intercourse with him. Yet that changes if a certain quality of femininity is added in. Not a gay male form of feminine, more like a transgender form of feminine.

@RendHeaven Some next level exploration. It stimulated lots of ideas. Thanks.

Yea, it’s interesting to explore the similarities and differences of perception between different animal species. I think it would make a cool college course.

Not necessarily, humans could be drugged before they are killed. Or they could get ambushed or killed in their sleep. We could even have every human wear an electrical device and everyday there is a 1 in 5,000 chance it activates and kills the person. And then other humans it them. A system could be set up that a human has no idea when they are about to be killed for their meat.

I’m referring to humans eating humans. In your ethical construct, is it ethical for humans to kill and eat humans? Like raising babies to be eaten like lambs. Or hunting humans like deer to eat. We can’t create an ethical construct without any construction. What are you basing your “case by case discernment” on? How tasty the meat is? The color yellow? The smell of roasting marshmallows? You can’t use the term “ethical” as if it has underlying meaning and then when asked “what is your criteria for ethical?” respond “it’s relative and a case by case discernment”. Then your use of “ethical” has no meaning whatsoever. It can literally mean anything. It weakens your ethical argument to meaningless.

Absolute Love is not restricted to any emotion, it is all emotions and all things. Emotional love is a subset of Absolute Love. I re-read the poll question and noticed it asks "How often do you feel love?", which indicates a relative emotion type love. Yet I wouldn't consider the frequency one feels emotional love to be a great metric for ranking conscious level. It's quite limited.

This construct gets tricky due to defining "suffering" and various ways to quantify it via a zoomed-in lens or zoomed-out lens. For example, if deer are overpopulating a small forest, they could over-consume the forest and cause lots of animal suffering as the forest dies. Going in a killing 20% of the deer may technically reduce overall suffering. And what would do you think of guns that nearly instantly kill an animal with a single shot to the head. It's so fast that there is very little suffering, under 1 second. If that animal was raised free range, would you consider it ethical since there is virtually no suffering?

How are you defining "love"? An emotional love? Such as: I love my gf, cat, playing tennis etc?

Is it absolutely possible to consume human animals in a way that is ethical? ("Consume" = kill to eat). If not, what is your ethical criteria for categorization? What qualities are needed to be in the "ethical to consume" category and "unethical to consume" category? Which species are acceptable to eat and why? What level of killing against one's will, pain and suffering is acceptable in your ethical construct?

There are spectrums of attraction along different dimensions. Having three categories of straight, gay or bi is way to simplistic. There is a plethora of attraction dynamics.

As an example: at 5:35 he says "The subtler we become, the more we understand without the need for conceptual or constructed knowledge". Is he aware that he himself is grounding his understanding by constructing hard conceptual knowledge constructs in this video? Cognitive understanding is distinct from embodiment and only a small portion of one's cognitive understanding can be embodied. To me, he seems immersed into his own constructs and hasn't transcended and embodied this into beingness. How can a being be the embodiment of constructionless understanding if they are immersed within their own constructs? However, creation of sturdy constructs is necessary for spoken articulation. If one goes to formless, it's much harder to articulate.

If someone believes a thing is a snake and then realizes it is actually a rope, has the person escaped the delusion of snakeness forever? What would need to happen to fall back into the delusion of snakeness? One would need to forget that it's actually a rope to fall back into believing it is a snake. Alternatively, one could trick themself back into believing it's a snake. I would also draw a distinction between the "you" that realizes and the realization itself. The realization that it's actually a rope is eternal. However, human awareness of that realization is not necessarily eternal. Imagine someone playing a character in a movie, yet the movie goes on 24/7 without any breaks. At first, the characters would fully realize this is just a movie they are acting in. Yet over time it could get more and more real. There are real risks in the movie and people actually die. The characters have children and try to explain "this is just a movie we are acting in", yet this wouldn't make sense to the children since the "movie" is the only reality they know.

My mind isn't forming a clear connection with perfectionism and a blue SD shadow. When I imagine shadows, I imagine opposites. An object blocks the path of light and creates a dark shadow. A clear example would be an Orange-level scientist that is highly rational and judgemental - their shadow would be what he perceives as irrational. Their blue shadow might be religious beliefs, which appear to be irrational (his shadow of rationality). So what would be the shadow of perfectionism? I would say going with the flow in which imperfections are not noticed or cared about. For example, if we were at a poetry slam and the poet got sloppy, yet didn't seem to care and the audience didn't care. A perfectionist would get triggered by the technical sloppiness, judgmental and upset that the poet has such a high platform. While everyone else is drinking, laughing and having fun, the perfectionist is thinking "The poet's cadence is off, his bars aren't coherent enough and he hasn't hit a double entendre. He is doing a disservice to poetry slams and shouldn't even be onstage". . . . To me, that wouldn't be a blue shadow, since core blue values include discipline and hardwork. A perfectionist would value that. I see perfectionism as more of a green shadow, since green is much looser and doesn't care so much about getting details perfect.

A simple experiment: remove the human construction and see what happens. For example, is there right and wrong from the perspective of a rock?

No moderation, no discord chat.

The "your ego's perspective" is an add-in. You are creating that. Notice the framing of "your ego's perspective", rather than "the creation I'm creating that I call 'your ego's perspective'". (And yes, I am aware I am doing the same thing within this construct). You seem to be interested in assumptions, here there is an assumption that there is an external thing of "your ego's perspective". Notice the construct of "argument". Imagine we are hiking together in the forest and I say "look how that hummingbird flies!!! It flies like an alien!". Wouldn't it be odd to say "Your argument that the hummingbird flies like an alien is predicated upon assumptions". That framing is very debate oriented and very restrictive. It is not exploratory. Yet in terms of argumentative structures, EVERY argumentative structure is predicated upon assumptions. In fact, any thing is predicated on the assumption that it is not another thing. This is what I'm referring to as a simplistic construct. Within the construct of an objective, external reality - this is correct. Yet within a relative construct, this is only partially true. The phrase "there is no normal for you or normal for me" indicates a conscious state contracted within objective, external reality that cannot see relativity. It literally say there is no relativity and reveals lack of this awareness. Within the relative construct of "normal" you are creating, that is true. Yet it is not true in other relative constructs of "normal". For example, we could say that deconstructing terms is "normal" - this is true within that relative construct of "normal". Notice how you are saying that your perception is normal and my perception is abnormal. I am saying that your perception is both normal and abnormal. As well, my perception is both normal and abnormal. This is relativity. What is normal and abnormal is relative to the perception of what is normal and abnormal. For that to be true, you would need to be playing like you don't understand things like spectrums, mosaics and relativity. That would be like someone fluent in Spanish pretending they are a begginner in Spanish. That would be playing a game. I'm straight-up adding elements of relativity to what I write. It doesn't get any more direct. If you can't see the relativity elements I'm spitting out, you don't understand relativity. It would be like me saying "Como estas?" and you replying "Say something to me in Spanish". If you could speak Spanish, you would be playing games that you don't speak Spanish. As I've said, I can't give you a personalized reason for you to get the vaccine. A personalized reason comes from within. Imagine me asking "tell me a reason why it should learn freestyle rap". If I'm not internally interested in freestyle rap, there is no reason you can give me. Anything you say, I would dismiss as having no value for me. You could say "Freestyle rap would improve your vocabulary" and I could respond "I don't need to improve my vocabulary". I'm able to give both positive and negative elements of the vaccine. Yet I cannot give a reason for you, because that is relative to you. You create your personal values.

Very nice insights! I was not aware of that. Thank you!

I'm gonna go into a stream of consciousness and play with this prompt. . . Open-mindedness and Open-heartedness both open doors to exploration. Open-mindedness is more about allowing the cognitive thought mind to relax and become open to new ideas. For example, if someone traveled to a foreign country, they might have cognitive open-minded toward learning about some rituals of the culture. Experiential open-mindedness would be attending and participating within the ceremony. They might have good cognitive and experiential open-mindedness, yet lack open-heartedness. Lacking open-heartedness would be perceiving as a separate entity. "Aren't those natives over there interesting. I can't wait to post videos of the ceremony on IG. It's kinda weird, yet if that's what they want to do in life, good for them!". Open-heartedness has a different element. Open-mindedness would be needed to travel to the country and immerse oneself into the culture. Yet open-heartedness would be needed to make empathic, feeling, human, energetic connections - not just to other humans, yet also to the environment: animals, trees, huts, vibe, history, Mother Nature present. It's a different realm than an analytical/intellectual/reason realm. Some beings are more oriented toward entering open-hearted spaces, others not so much. I'd say the biggest block to entering open-hearted realms would be 1) The intellect trying to control the narrative, 2) fear of vulnerability, 3) fear of intimacy, 4) fear of rejection and 5) lack of body/beingness awareness. The blocks to open-mindedness are more about cognitive narrative control of a self identity. The blocks to open-heartedness are more about feelings. Just some free-flowing thoughts.