Forestluv

@EternalForest ♥️ ?

Conspiracies between Rockefeller, Gates and Jeffrey Epstein toward worldwide population control has been too much fodder for conspiracy theories on the forum.

@Mystica45 Be mindful of how you interact with others on the forum. It is ok to disagree with others and give constructive criticism, yet trolling is against forum guidelines.

Those who hear not the music think the dancers mad.

O

Yes, one’s orientation influences interpretation. As well, there are pre-conditioned mind filters that affect interpretation. One thing I like about Bashar is how he presents ‘permission slips’. That’s been helpful for me to move beyond a few internal blocks.

Sacred Inner Space. Curiosity. Exploration. Trust. A theme for May has been creativity. I just engaged in contemplation / meditation on creating inner sacred space. As I sit looking over the backyard, a cat walks by. She is so curious and engaged. She has no agenda or expectations. She has Is not distracted by worrisome thoughts or figuring things out. She is free and at one with the moment and surroundings. She is a master explorer. All of her senses are in-tune with the environment. She is focused and attentive as she observes and interacts with her surroundings. She moves with exquisite balance and grace. She is a sage, a buddha, a master. . . She sees me observing her. She becomes startled and directs all her attention toward me. She seems to ask “Is he friend or foe?”. Can she not sense that I appreciate and love her? She mindfully backs away as if I am a potential threat. She seems uncertain. I wonder if she has friends. . . It seems that she too has self-protective mechanisms. Perhaps she has been conditioned to be cautious and wary. Perhaps the boys next door chase her. . . . She doesn’t trust me and this saddens me. Yet it is not personal. She is not in-tune with my intentions. As she walks away, she keeps one eye on me. I smile and send an intention of well-being today. . . How might we develop mutual trust? Perhaps I can offer her some food. Or maybe I’ll put my hand forward as a gesture to connect. Maybe I will open my patio door and invite her to enter. Yet I don’t want to have a self-centered orientation. She may not be interested in connecting. She may be more interested in her exploration. Or perhaps we will like each other, experience together and learn from one another. Either way, I want to have a pure intention. To simply love and appreciate her beingness.

I don’t disagree with your creations. I would hold such creations lightly so that they don’t restrict your creative potential.

“What you call "everything" or "the universe" is simply the sum total of what you've had an experience of up to this point of your life anything else is just a speculation of yours.” No. I’m pointing to Absolute Infinity. “ First of all nothing is just no thing it's a self contradictory concept.” This is not what I am pointing to with the term Nothing. Direct experience with the null void is important for understanding. “But let's just suppose this "everything is real". How does that mean that "nothing is real"??.” Because Everything = Nothing “Existence is this thing that's in front of you right now whatever it is.” Hehehe. I love the interplay of certainty and uncertainty here. Groundless grounding. So beautiful.

@Someone here I don’t disagree with what you are imagining to be real. My mind thrives in ambiguity, uncertainty, paradox, relativity, creativity and groundless exploration. Yet this usually doesn’t resonate with others.

Awww, thank you. I actually work as a science teacher and consider your comment a compliment ?

I love it when you bust out some Turquoise Sherlock. ?

@dimitri I love you too. ❤️ I’m going out for a hike now and I imagine I will have a greater appreciation for the flowers today ? We are all entangled together.

I love your avatar photo. The expression of that flower is so beautiful. It warms my heart.

Yes, I understand that’s what you expressed. You have a clear understanding of that dynamic and your metaphors hit that mark . . . Yet this is not the dynamic that I was referring to.

@NorthNow If you are looking for empirical evidence, you may want to look into Dean Radin’s work. Yet if you are looking for direct experience work, you would likely need to do some self experimentation and exploration. I would also be mindful of what you count as “evidence”. This is the filter through which you will perceive. . . For example, we might want a scientific design to test for the paranormal. For example, a double-blind test for ESP in which the participants are separated from each other with a barrier. This can test for one dynamic, yet such restrictions will restrict detecting phenomena we are testing for!. . . For example, I’ve never thought I’ve had any type of ESP. Last year, one of my students walked into my office and said that she has paranormal abilities and there was something about me. I became very curious to explore this, so I printed off some Zenner Cards. There are five different cards, each with a unique shape. One person looks at a card and imagines the image. The other person tries to intuit the card via ESP. Random guessing would be correct 20% of the time. When I held the card, she could not imagine the cards significantly higher than random guessing. However, when she held the card I got 80% correct (16 of 20). And half of those I missed, where technically incorrect yet reflective of a phenomena. For example, for one card, images of her lying in nature arose, so I said the “water” card (as she was lying next to a stream). She showed the star card and told me that she was lying down outside staring at stars. Although I was technically wrong, there was still an essence I was resonating with. . . And this process was exhausting for me. I had to clear my mind and sit with empty observation (usually with my eyes closed). Then an image would appear. I would observe the image and a sense of feeling/intuition about it would arise. Yet the intuition was usually faint and ambiguous, almost like seeing something in the dark and not being able to make out it’s shape and color very well. It took a lot of concentration and focus to try and clarify it. Then another image would arise I would contrast the feeling/intuition with that image with the previous image. The odds of scoring 80% with a sample size of 20 is very statistically significant. The odds of random guessing are extremely low. So we got excited that I may have a paranormal ability. So I tried to do it with someone else and I couldn’t do it. There was no images appearing in my mind. There was no feeling/intuition. In terms of a scientific design, I don’t know if I could do it. It seems like our ESP resonance was just with her. Perhaps it was only in that environment on that day. Perhaps I have a very very rudimentary ability that can only surface under certain conditions.

@Dutch guy Seems like you are in-tune with this dynamic. . . I agree that egotism is a block to resonating in this area. I’m using the term ‘inability’ to include egotism. For example, if a mind is immersed in egotism it will be unable to observe/relate/perceive/experience aspects of non-egotism. I would add that humanism seems to be a factor as well. You bring up a interesting question for me regarding the degree of inability. For example, someone who is fully paralyzed in unable to walk and they won’t gain this ability. In another context, I am unable to speak Chinese yet I could become able to if I worked on it. . . In the case of animal cruelty, my initial guess is that it is a combination. It seems part of the inability is due to societal conditioning and perhaps some biological evolution. I imagine this could be de-conditioned, allowing space for realization. Yet my sense is that some minds are structured to not resonate. Perhaps similar to how some minds don’t seem structured for abstract thinking or resonating with paranormal phenomena.

@JayG84 It’s not something you figure out with thought constructs. It is something you become aware of happening now. Observe creation occurring now. Observe the continuous flow of creation. Observe what creation arises from and what it dissolves into. The words are symbolic representations of the underlying actuality. Realizing the actuality is realizing it itself. The words are just symbols of it.

You are missing a dynamic. It’s not an intellectual thing. Intellectualizing it with metaphors that miss the mark will maintain one’s current state and prevent it’s realization. There is an underlying inability to relate, resonate and imagine what it is.

This is the dilemma of a being in-tune with a dynamic/energetics that others are not in-tune with. Imo, it’s a complex issue that involves expanding awareness and development at both individual and societal levels. There are some people with expertise in this area and I would imagine there are online resources. Yet I don’t have expertise in this area. I’m much better at observing and resonating with various dynamics/energetics than I am at inducing change. Imagine the experience of abolitionists centuries ago. Evolution can be a long, messy process.

A slight modification: it is not sufficient that having a deeper sense of awareness would lead one to become more sensitive to animal suffering. Awareness is infinite so there are plenty of areas to expand and deepen that have nothing to do with animal suffering. For example, one could expand/deepen their awareness of intuition and energetics in areas that have nothing to do with animal suffering. You may inherently be in-tune with animal suffering. It might come easy to you and seem so obvious that it’s hard to understand how someone could not be in-tune with animal suffering. We each have certain abilities we are naturally gifted with. I would consider empathy an ability. Some people have a deep, broad and clear empathic ability, other people are have crude empathy that is selective, fragmented and cloudy. Other people, lack empathic ability. One of my neighbors keeps his dog outside with a heavy chain. The chain is a heavy weight to bear and it’s hot outside In the summer. To me, it’s so obvious that the dog is unhappy and uncomfortable. The poor thing is dehydrated on hot days and can barely walk. He also keeps his dog outside in the freezing days of winter. I’ve talked with the neighbor and he replies “It’s just a dog and he likes it”. To me, it’s so easy and obvious to see that the dog is very uncomfortable and it’s hard for me to imagine how my neighbor cannot see this. He isn’t in-tune with certain dynamics and lacks empathy in this area.

This is a recontextualization. It is another room worthy of exploration, yet not the room I am pointing to. To enter this room, you would need to set down this interpretive filter. Of course this is true within this context. Yet if you limit yourself to this context, you will not be able to see, appreciate and utilize other contexts. Notice how you are creating reality right now. You have created a thing that is not OK with being human. In this story, the thing not OK with being human probably had religious brainwashing. This thing wants to transcend the laws of the universe and become a superhuman God. Yet this is just what the thing wants, the thing is fine the way it is. . . This is a very creative character you have created. This could make a good character in a book or a movie. Yet relative to my personal story and experience, it’s way off. Notice how the mind creates a story that is consistent with the view it is attached to. Notice how you are imagining this, yet perceive it as real. You are literally making it up. I never said everything was an illusion. Again, you imagined that. You created that. What I said was we can create constructs of imaginary and real. We can create distinctions and inter-connections. We can explore the imaginary in real and the realness in imagination. As well, we can deconstruct all the way down to imagination = real. For you to have this debate within your mind, you must create an opposite side to debate. Notice the mind creating opposition. You literally created a character that has the opposite view of yours that you are debating. I am not that character. As well, if a mind is contracted within realness it is helpful to point it to see illusion in realness. If a mind is contracted within illusion, it is helpful to point it to see the realness in illusion. Yet they are two sides of the same coin. Ultimately, illusion is real and real is illusion. We create distinctions. I gave an impersonal description of mind structure. You’ve added in the personal part. At a personal level, mechanisms of narrative control have various energetics which include defensiveness, blaming, avoidance, righteousness and others. You have created an idea you call “true enlightenment” and have defined this idea. This then becomes a filter of perception. for example, if we define enlightenment as “the desire to know is extinguished”, then anyone we perceive as having a desire to know will appear unenlightened and delusional. Within this context, this is true and has value. There is a contracted dynamic of seeking knowledge as “it”. However, this is only one dynamic and if this is the mind’s only filter, it will mis-interpret other dynamics through this filter. It would be like having a red filter. Red is perceived as red, which is fine. Yet blue, yellow, green will also be perceived through the red filter and mis-interpreted as red. The key is that this filter you have is not “wrong”. You don’t need to prove it right or wrong. It is right in certain contexts. The problem is that this is the only filter your are processing through and you are missing a lot. To see this, you would need to set down this filter of perception, get curious and explore. Yet you seem too attached to this filter to do so at this time. If you continue to grow and expand, you will one day look back and see how you are currently contracted.

@Someone here I’m not offering an alternative opposing view, I’m offering a meta view. There is transcendent observation. This is not something that is figured out, it is something that is revealed. It is detached, unidentified observation. From a personal perspective, it can be very difficult to ‘access’ because of prior conditioning of the mind and body. Some people spend their entire lives purifying their prior conditioning to clarify this form of observation. We can create a place in which disidentifying with one’s POV is a method to escape from the real world to an imaginary world. I’ve experienced many forms of this myself. Again, I’m not saying that this is wrong or doesn’t exist. I’m saying that this is one room in a Grand Hotel. The question isn’t whether this room “correct” or if this room exists. The question is wether one dwells within this room or explores throughout the Grand Hotel. . . Awareness contracted within one room will perceive in opposites: “this room or not this room“. If we add in identification it becomes “my room or not my room”. If we add in attachment, all sorts of contractory mechanisms arise to maintain the state of immersion within that room. This is a key. A key that will unlock a door from one room and allow passage into another room. This greatly expands the space and potential for exploration and discovery. In terms of SD it is one of the keys to transitioning into Tier2 and understanding relativity and creation. Within Tier1, the above statement is pretty much “that’s just your opinion”. We could then debate the merits of two opposing opinions. This is where things like ‘evidence’ come into play to support one’s opinion. There is nothing wrong with this, it is very useful in navigating life. However, it is a contracted state of awareness. Within Tier2, there is an energetic shift and a new relationship with various perspectives arises. Ideas are now held loosely and there is no ownership of ideas. This allows space and fluidity. . . The above statement is a meta perspective. It itself is a perspective observing two other perspectives. Therefore, it is meta to the two underlying perspectives it observes. Notice how the mind tends to ground itself by identifying and owning a perspective. Here you say “I’m actually by his side at this point in my journey”. This is reflective of a mind identifying and taking ownership of a perspective. This gives the sense of personal identity and grounding, however that comes at the cost of contraction. Life is a balance of contraction and expansion, yet identification and ownership cause an imbalance toward too much contraction. This allows for a sense of sturdy grounding, yet prevents exploration and expansion. Tier2 Beingness is comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty and paradox - Tier1 is not. If we identify with and take ownership of a perspective, that perspective becomes true. We have just created real(ity). How can we explore reality if we have just contracted ourself within a subset of reality? Truly exploring all of reality is threatening to a mind wanting to maintain identification and ownership of a perspective because true exploration involves letting go and allowing modulations that can feel groundless and uncomfortable. In extreme cases, it can feel like dying, and in a sense it is. From an unidentified, detached meta view of the perspectives, we can observed each perspective with a fresh new view. To an explorer of consciousness, this is not threatening. It is a sense of curiosity, wonder, fascination and freedom. . . For example, from a disidentified meta view we can freely explore both perspectives you offer without the pressure that one must be more right than the other. We are free to observe partial truths in each perspective. There are now multiple viewpoints of each perspective available. There is no pressure that I need to be on the right side. It would be like visiting and exploring London and Paris. I am neither London nor Paris and I don’t take ownership of neither. I am beholden to no view of either city. I can freely explore each city. . . In this context, ‘disidentification’ is not an escape from reality, it allows the exploration of reality. Yet in another context, we could consider disidentification as escapism. For example, if someone is so immersed into exploring ‘imagination’ that they neglect to go to work, pay their bills or maintain their house. One of the perspectives you offered has an interesting meaning of “disidentification” in the sense of escaping reality into the imaginary. This is an interesting construct we could explore. Or we could take another path and explore other meanings of disidentification. For example, we could create rational constructs of “disidentification” as well as meta-rational constructs. Such meta-rational constructs include rationality, yet are not limited to rationality. This is not available to all minds - just as certain yoga postures are not available to all bodies. A mind unable to access meta-rational will conflate meta-rational with irrational. For example, meta-rational views on love will appear to be irrational. As well, a mind contracted within rationality will conflate escapist forms of disidentification with meta-rational forms of disidentification. Since the mind doesn’t have access to meta-rational, it will perceive through the filters it does have access to: irrational and rational. Since meta-rational doesn’t fit it the rational category, such a mind will place meta-rational into an irrational category. In terms of SD, this is super common in Tier1 and is related to what Ken Wilbur describes as the “pre/trans fallacy”. A further exploration of the above quote could involve the creation of imaginary and real. Notice how the above quote acknowledges the relativity of imaginary and real, depending on perspective. And notice how the mind then wants to get grounded by saying “What you call imaginary is real from his perspective. And vice versa. I agree with his perspective”. Let’s drop the ‘you’ and ‘him’ identities and ownerships for a moment. In doing so, we can observe that each perspective is both imaginary and real. We can explore the realness in imagination and the imagination in realness. We can see infinite inter-connections between imaginary and real. We can construct distinctions between imaginary and real. We can deconstruct and then reconstruct. We can deconstruct all the way down to imaginary = real. This is ‘prior’ to the first distinction and opens up a whole new realm in which the imaginary vs. real duality doesn’t even exist. For example, flow states often appear here. . . . None of these creations are ‘wrong’, they are all within Infinite Creativity. However, some creations may be more useful in certain contexts.

Use of terms are fluid, be aware of how you and others are using terms. To me, you seem to be using the term “consciousness” as personal consciousness or awareness. This awareness includes various components. For example, there is intellectual awareness as well as feeling awareness. Imagine a robot observing a factory farm. It could compute activities, yet would be unable to fully understand the underlying feelings and experience since it is the unable to feel and experience. Expansion of awareness can lead a person to veganism, yet awareness of activities alone is generally insufficient to change perspective and behavior. This is due, in part, to prior conditioning and biological makeup. In addition to awareness of activities, people that are vegan often have a particular awareness and sensitivity to certain dynamics within meat eating and factory farming. Becoming more conscious may or may not reveal this, it depends on the person. As they become more conscious, some people embody forms of compassion and empathy that others lack. Consciousness expansion is expressed in many forms.

@Mystica45 What you are expressing is true within the construct you have created. You can dwell within that construct or expand beyond it. It’s like being so immersed in the content of a movie that the observer forgets they are observing a movie scene. A transcendent view would reveal the structure of movie making, yet this would involve letting go of personal attachment and identification to movie content. Here, you seem very attached / identified to the content of the movie you yourself are creating. In this context, it’s quite paradoxical that you claim the ability to distinguish real from imagination while you are unable to see how you are imagining what you believe to be real.