Forestluv

Yes, that is what I am trying to say. It is both time and location. Time: What was progressive in the 1700s in America is now conservative. What is now progressive in America will be conservative in the year 2200. Location: What is currently centrist in the US is progressive in the middle east. What is currently progressive in the U.S. is centrist in Norway. The SD spiral stages are the grounded framework. Terms like "conservative", "centrist", "progressive" are fluid. Currently in the U.S. corporate democrats, like Joe Biden, are "centrist" because they are at the center of America's conscious level (orange). In Canada, Joe Biden would be considered relatively conservative, since he is below the average conscious level (low green). (For example, on the issue of M4A). . . Yet in Iraq, Biden would be considered progressive.

As stated in the thread, the thread was locked for spreading misinformation about awakening and God. Leo said in his latest video, the forum will have higher standards about the spread of misinformed opinions. If the opinions expressed are spreading misinformation, there is a good chance a thread will get locked. For example, if someone started threads about their "opinions" that the coronavirus is a hoax created by China, the thread will likely get locked. Similarly, the spread of misinformation about conspiracy theories, meditation, psychedelics, Reiki, genetics, awakening, nonduality, God etc. may get locked. . . One cannot use "It's just my opinion" as a shield while spreading misinformation. Be here to learn and grow.

Yes, one feature of Tier 1 is they are not aware that their own perspective is relative. For example, some at Blue stage might think that homosexuality is immoral and believe their opinion is right. Someone at Green stage might think that sexuality is relative and people should marry who they love. Yet Green will not be aware that their view that sexuality is relative is itself a relative view. "Centrist" is a relative term that is dependent on the era and location. For example, in the 1700s the "centrist" position was that slavery should be legal, yet slaveowners should not be allowed to beat their slaves to death. The "progressives" were stage orange back then . Some societies are "centered" in blue, some countries "centered" in orange etc. In the U.S., the democratic party "centrists", like Biden, would be considered orange - for example, they are heavily oriented toward corporate profits. However, in the future "centrist" can move. In 40 years, AOC and Green may be the "centrists" and the "progressives" will be Yellow. . . As well, there are places in the world, like the middle east, in which "centrist" is orange. It's context-dependent.

@jimwell I agree with you that there is wealth inequality and suffering. We just have different ideas on how to solve that. To me, it seems like you want rapid change are proposing to intentionally create a crisis that will increase suffering with the hope that it might spark changes that lead to a decrease in suffering. That is not my orientation. I would not intentionally give Alzheimers patients brain cancer. This would cause a deeper crisis and increase their suffering. Yes, there is a small chance the brain cancer would spark changes in his brain that might help him. Yet that is not how I would treat the condition. Imo, consent is important for an ethical framework. Bernie is being upfront and honest about how he wants to re-structure the government toward working people. If society elects Bernie, they have given him consent to re-structure the government. . . However, if a politician plans to start WWIII to spark changes in the world, yet does not tell society this, the people are not electing him with informed consent. Imo, this would be unethical.

I'm curious about this type of healing. This guide seems oriented as transmittance: the healer in some way transmits healing energy - perhaps directly, or as a channel from a "higher source". That is my impression of Reiki (of which I have little experience or ability). I know a few Reiki masters and they all seem to have the ability to transmit, intuit and transform energetics. . . I think this would be an awesome ability to have and I hope it continues to develop. I'm also curious if it's possible for a spiritual healer to have another orientation. As part of a buddhist group, I dabbled a bit in Tonglen meditation. Here, the person "absorbs" the unhealthy energy from another. Would this be a form of "spiritual healing?". . . . Another dynamic might be that the unhealthy energy is "shared", which could allow for it's dissolution. Or maybe my mind is just making stuff up. . .

This gets into degrees, inputs of causation and responsibility - which gets very nuanced. Ultimately, everything is interconnected as One and there is no thing causing another thing. Yet this isn't very practical in a relative world. In a relative context, I want to be mindful of the impact of my actions on other beings. In the context of harm causation, my mind can be very sneaky to avoid looking at certain things it doesn't want to look at.

This is just what is appearing in me right now. There are many views. I'm trained as a cellular biologist. From 22y.o. to 45y.o., my life was dedicated to learning, researching and teaching cellular biology and genetics. So, to me "knowledge" was about how genes, proteins etc. work. There are many different models I studied, learned and created. This is the common understanding of "knowledge". We could extend this to include knowledge about societies, psychology, literature, history, philosophy etc. This type of knowledge has value. If you want to evolve the consciousness of mankind, you will need to have a certain amount of this form of knowledge. In terms of SD theory, this is stage Orange - and it can be very healthy and important. As we evolve our consciousness, new forms of "knowing" arise. For example, I'm unable to create the video you did. I know how to use a video camera and how to edit, yet I don't have the form of creative "knowing" that you do. Someone did not show you how to do every second of that video. There were times when you "just knew". We can call it creative knowing or intuitive knowing. For example, the part with the golden moon in the background with people walking around produced an emotion in me. How did you "know" to create that? Where did you read that at 4min.13sec. in the video you should put that segment in? How did you "know" to use your facial expressions? How did you "know" not to say a single word? . . . For some of these questions you might think "I don't know. I just knew". . . That is an important type of "knowing" for one's own development and communicating that to others. Learning about other people's knowing is great. I love to learn about what others have created. Yet you also have an "internal" form of knowing. Yet it's not like "I know what I'm talking about. I am right and you are wrong". It's not that type of knowledge. You get to create "knowledge" from within, just like all the geniuses that have ever lived. Just as you are learning about knowledge others have created, there will come a day when others are learning about knowledge you created. At first, it seems like "knowledge" is all external to you. As you evolve, go deeper and expand - more "knowledge" will be revealed internally. However, ime if I want to explore this, I don't get to take ownership of it. It is something beyond "me". For example, I will walk in nature and create all sorts of models that integrate personal, social and collective consciousness. Sometimes people will ask "Where did you read that? Who wrote that?". I'll pause. . . From nobody. It just appeared. Yet if I try to take ownership of it and think "I created that myself. I am highly evolved." - it blocks future insights, creativity and spontaneous knowledge from arising. If you want to raise consciousness of mankind. I would consider how you might express this. I would trust my intuition. I would observe: "What is my natural abilities of conceptualizing, creating, learning, expressing etc.". For me, I thought knowing and being intelligent was about knowing lots of things - lots of facts. Yet I later learned that I suck at that. It's not how my mind and spirit work. My mind is naturally oriented toward abstract thinking and I wasted thousands of hours trying to memorize facts and force my mind to function in a way that it doesn't naturally function, Some people help raise consciousness by writing books, others by speaking in videos, others by having one-one-one discussions, others by making film. If you desire, you can express consciousness through film (or other methods). Many films implicitly raise someone's subconscious to conscious awareness. This can be deeper than explicitly telling someone. For example, the film "Crash" had a big impact on me. As I watched the movie, I wanted to categorize the characters as the "good guys" and "bad guys". Yet each character had both an ugly and beautiful side. There would be a "bad guy" that abused another that I hated, yet later the same person would be so beautiful he brought me to tears and I loved him. Each character was so complex with aspects of both "good" and "bad". This raised my consciousness and my relationships with people changed. I never saw people the same after that movie.. . . I had read a lot about how people are a mix of good and bad. I analyzed and theorized it. I had a certain knowledge. . . Yet this knowledge was incomplete. The movie Crash never explicitly said "Each person is both ugly and beautiful". The movie did so implicitly and never said so. It brought out emotion in me. I connected with the characters. I felt anger, disgust, empathy, sorrow and love for each of the characters. This is a different form of knowledge and it can go very deep. . . This is one reason I liked your video so much. You didn't say one single word. You never told us anything. You showed us. You didn't communicate through theory and analysis, you communicated through beingness. . . You could have created a 9min. video in which you sat in front of the camera, told your story and explained to us who you are. There would be a certain form of knowing who you are from that. . . Instead, you showed us who you are nonverbally. To me, there was a feeling of vulnerability and genuineness. There was an essence that was undisturbed by any thoughts or words from you. Here, there is also a form of knowing who you are. In a way, it feels like I know something about your essence. Another thought, I get the sense that you have a sense of curiosity. I've found curiosity to be one of the most important traits for the evolution of consciousness. Curiosity and exploration.

Notice what is happening everytime we use the word "is". It is a claim of existence. That is what I am pointing to, yet you seem more interested immersing your mind in theory than transcending it - which is fine. "Is" = "exists". The mind will not want to enter a groundless space to explore the nature of existence. Assumptions about what "is" and what "exists" = secure grounding. (My mind does it to, yet I am aware of it). Notice the mind grounding itself in "which is" and "is". I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I am not saying what "is" or "is not". I am not saying what "exists" or "doesn't exist". I'm pointing to a transcendence of that. It's totally fine if you aren't interested in that. If you want to stay immersed within the content of a thought story, that's fine. I often visit that space. However, it is a contracted space. There is expansion and freedom beyond the attachment/identification/contraction of a thought story.

This is still within the thought construct I am pointing to. Asking "do you believe in God" is the same as asking "do you believe God exists". What I am pointing to is not within the "God exists vs God doesn't exist" duality. What I am pointing to is a meta view of that. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the existence of God, thoughts, beliefs, tuna sandwiches, pencils, machine elfs or coffee. The self inquiry question is "what is existence" what is non-existence". Engaging in thought stories about whether God exists and the nature of God is a distraction. I am pointing to examining the nature of existence and non-existence itself. To know if "God exists", one needs to first understand what "existence" is. . . If I asked you "Does a car jwitfiz"? You would first need to understand what "jwitfiz" means to answer the question. To me, you seem to be assuming that you already know what "existence" means. I don't get the sense that you have deeply contemplated this. The answer is not something that is quickly thought up. The answer comes from an immense amount of contemplation, practice and direct experience. Yet the vast amount of minds would prefer making assumptions because the contemplation, practice and direct experience takes effort and can get very uncomfortable. The benefit of assumptions is that they provide a sense of grounding, security and safety. The downside is that assumptions are at a very surface level and there will be deeper underlying inner turmoil.

I've found trying to figure it out through more thought stories is inefficient. Observation and direct experience is much deeper for me. For example, observe the mind process. Observe the nuances of "what is a thought". . . Last week I was out to dinner with a friend and after about 30min. of conversation the topic of thinking came up. I mentioned that I hadn't had a single thought so far in our discussion. She said "Whaaat??!! How can you have a conversation without thinking??!!". . . It was just happening. She would say something while I was listening. And then I would say something while she was listening. There was no processing filter. While she spoke, I wasn't thinking about what I would say next. I wasn't thinking about what she thought about me. . . There was simply speaking and listening. There was simply appearances of words without thought processors. This might be hard to imagine. How can there be a discussion without thinking? Yet everyone has already experienced a form of this. . . When we learn a new language the mind translates into our native language. When I was learning Spanish, my mind translated from Spanish to English when I spoke to a Spanish person. I would think as I tried to figure out what the words meant. Yet then after years of practice, my mind started to do it directly without translation. Notice how when someone speaks to you in English, you don't need to translate. Translating from English to English is unnecessary. Your mind does it automatically - no translation thinking is necessary. . . When we have a conversation with someone in English, the mind is doing a different type of "translation" - it is tanslating into meaning "what did she mean by that. I wonder what she thinks of me. What can I say to impress her", This thinking is a form of "translating" and it is unnecessary. . . This goes beyond just conversation. Much of thinking is translating - similar to translating Spanish to English. Yet this translation is not necessary.

There is something "prior" to that. The belief of existence provides the mind and body with a sense of grounding. A mind would need to let go of that grounding to "transcend" it. Yet this groundlessness may be very uncomfortable to the mind and body - there is often resistance. If there is willingness, one way to "transcend" these thought contructs that provide grounding is to inquire "what is existence?". The key is not to engage in thought stories for a sense of grounding. If one allows openness and space, the duality between "existence vs. nonexistence" will be revealed. The absence of existence vs nonexistence may arise. Inter-connections between existence vs non-existence will arise. Nuances of "sorta existence, sorta nonexistence" will arise. The creation of existence vs non-existence will arise. . . Yet this involves an interplay between grounding and groundlessness that can be very uncomfortable to the mind and body. At first, it can feel like insanity. It can feel very threatening. The mind resists by creating thought stories about the existence of god, machines, biological computers etc. for a sense of grounding and stability. Engaging within the thought stories will not allow for the transcendence of the thought stories.

@RestWithinTheHeart That's an interesting question. For me, psychedelics don't give me external visualizations. They do enhance colors, yet they don't create new stuff. Rather, they raise my awareness and appreciation of beauty. For example, I may notice a bee interacting with a flower and it's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. It can bring me to my hands and knees with tears. Yet it's not like the bee or flower is visually distorted - it's more like my appreciation is enhanced. In terms of CEVs, 4-ho-met is by far the most visually stunning. I close my eyes and may enter a virtual reality that blows away anything I've ever seen. Last year, I went to a Pink Floyd show in a planetarium filled with high tech animations. We needed to get there about 5 hours before doors opened. Afterwards, people were talking about how amazing it was. A friend of mine asked what I thought and I said "I feel bad that that's the best normies will ever see". Compared to 4-ho-met CEVs, it was like watching a 1980s Atari game through fog.

@jimwell You may be right. Yet I always vote for the highest conscious candidate that has a chance to win. The idea of “regress to progress” doesn’t resonate with me. To me, it’s like saying “lets traumatized and kill the children in the community to cause a crisis that sparks an orange to green transition”. I understand that theory, yet in actual practice I can’t go down that path. This isn’t hyperbole. Trump is literally putting children in cages, traumatizing them and some have died. Your proposal is high risk and would cause massive suffering. Are YOU willing to be caged, tortured and die for your endeavor? Or would you prefer children do it?

@jimwell Thank you for clarifying your points. I think you make some good points. According to spiral dynamics theory a major crisis can induce induce a spark to evolve up a level. You did frame it this way (can spark a change) and I agree with that. My comments below are some thoughts about how a crisis doesn't necessary spark a change that leads to upward evolution of cognitive development. In some cases, a crisis would have the opposite effect - it could cause toxic immersion deeper into one's stage and block upward development. So, I'm not disagreeing with your point, I am just adding more nuances to it. A portion of people will respond by evolving higher, yet not all. When faced with an imminent mortal threat, it is more common for humans to become even more self-centered to survive. For example, if the coronavirus pandemic gets very serious, it's likely that stage red get paranoid, start blaming gay people, other ethnicities etc. and start killing them. Look at how people have responded to serious pandemics in the past. I'm not talking about minor pandemics like the current coronavirus. I'm talking about massive pandemics that wipe out entire civilizations - millions of people - like the black plague. Those were red and blue societies. How did they respond to the black plague and imminent threats of death? Did red evolve to blue? Did blue evolve to orange? . . . How did red respond? They blamed the Jews and tried to kill the Jews. How did religious blue respond? Did religious blue pause and think "wait a minute. Let's think about this rationally. Let's gather some facts and evidence. Let's figure out the cause of this illness and develop treatment". Heck no. They thought god was angry at humans because of immoral homosexuals, apostates, jews etc. "Let's kill them, to please God!!". . . How have purple/red/blue responded to what they perceived as imminent threats to their lives? They are witches!! Burn them at the stake!! A crisis and threat of death does not always promote upward evolution, it can also promote regression. If it was that easy, all we would need to do is create a crisis to spark a change from Orange to Green. My neighbor is at an orange level. Perhaps we should burn down his house. This would certainly create a crisis in his life. It could spark a change from Orange to Green. . . I live in an Orange level community. Perhaps we should start murdering some of the children in the neighborhood. This would certainly cause a crisis in the neighborhood. It could spark a change from Orange to Green. I don't see the mechanics of cognitive development like this. It's not just any generic crisis. I see lots of people saying "It's better to re-elect Trump than elect Biden. This will cause a crisis and allow orange to evolve to green". Well. . . how has that been working so far? Many people in the U.S. are traumatized by Trump. That is a crisis. Is orange evolving up to green? Nope. Orange is getting stronger and green is getting weaker. Green level Bernie Sanders has lost support since 2016. As well, Trump is appointing red/blue level conservative judges that will make it much harder for decades to progress into green. Personally, I don't think re-electing Trump to trigger a massive life-threatening crisis so we get to stage green is best. That's too much 3D chess. I'd say let's elect the highest conscious person possible and keep progressing.

I've noticed the same in myself. Engaging online removes a lot of the energetics, body language, facial expressions, feelings, tone of voice, empathy etc. I've found myself engaging online as if I am debating a bot - losing touch of the human essence. I've caught myself interacting online in ways that I would not interact with people IRL. I heard of studies that show GenZ/Millennials are much more open-minded and aware than GenX/Boomers. Yet one exception is with empathy. GenZ/Millennials score lower on empathy - perhaps so much time online de-humanizes interactions and doesn't promote the development of empathy. The only social interactions before the internet were face-to-face and telephone calls.

What counts as "inflammatory" is relative. At times, there are obvious cases. Yet there are also grey areas and nuances that are context dependent. So it can be hard to say "yes" or "no". In regard to the cartoons that are trying to make a point, one way to reduce the personalization may be to post it without directing it at a specific @user. Also, I found it helpful to be mindful if I myself and being genuine in trying to help the person and the impact it is having on them. If there is an area I feel like I've had insight and that I am more "developed" than another user, I introspect whether I'm genuinely trying to reveal this realization to the other user. On the other side, I try to gauge whether the other person even has any interest in realizing the insight I think is so insightful. Quite often, the answer is "no" and I find myself trying to "help" someone when they don't think they need any "help" and don't want any "help". As well, I try to notice if the other person is getting defensive and retaliatory within a "me vs you" dynamic. It can be tempting to enter into debates. I can't tell you how many times I started off engaging with a genuine intention of trying to reveal an insight and 20min. later find myself immersed in an argument debate trying to show them how right I am. The ego can be super sneaky. Regarding the vegan cartoons, I think they are ok in the right context. In that thread, I think it was more about the volume of them. There were so many so fast that I think it may have over-intensified the point. One thing I've observed is that people (including myself) have a "stretch zone" that is uncomfortable, yet that is were the growth is. Yet if it gets pushed to far, it goes into a "panic zone" in which defenses such as anger and retaliation arise to protect the self.

I've read through a couple of the questionable threads and did see a few instances of what I consider name calling and trolling. As a general reminder: it is fine to disagree with others on the forum, yet please do so in a respectful manner. Personalizing attacks and inflammatory posts to incite emotional responses are a form of trolling, against forum guidelines and may receive warnings. Common excuses include: "I was just joking" , "I was just telling him/her the truth", "S/he is too sensitive", "S/he started it". . . Please consider both your intention and the impact on the other user as well as the forum community. Behave in a mature, respectful manner to your fellow forum members. As well, there may be areas in which you have had deep realizations that may now seem obvious to you - yet someone else on the forum may not have had this realization and doesn't "get it". Please don't be judgmental and condescending in these situations. Saying something like "You don't want to see the truth. You are trapped in your self-centered theory and close-minded". From the perspective of someone who has had a deep realization in this area saying this might seem factual and benign. Yet from another perspective, it can be a personalized confrontation and patronizing. If there are areas that you have had a deep realization, please try to imagine how you were before you had that realization and treat others respectfully. Sometimes when we are not on the same frequency with someone it's best to amicably let it go, rather than starting a kerfuffle about how low their conscious level is.

As a general reminder: it is fine to disagree with others on the forum, yet please do so in a respectful manner. Personalizing attacks and inflammatory posts to incite emotional responses are a form of trolling, against forum guidelines and may receive warnings. Common excuses include: "I was just joking" , "I was just telling him/her the truth", "S/he is too sensitive", "S/he started it". . . Please consider both your intention and the impact on other and the forum community. Behave in a mature, respectful manner to your fellow forum members. As well, there may be areas in which you have had deep realizations that may now seem obvious to you - yet someone else on the forum may not have had this realization and doesn't "get it". Please don't be judgmental and condescending in these situations. Imagine what you were like before your realization.

One thing I've noticed is that these silly theories can be super creative. Stories about god, devil, me, cosmic epic battles and on and on. . . .Unfortunately, these stories are within a perpetuating cycle of internal turmoil for the mind and body. . . Imagine if these creative stories were put to good use. These silly theories could be used to create an amazing Netflix series that would put Black Mirror to shame.

@jimwell It’s dependent on the developmental stage of the culture. An red level crisis in a red centered society will promote evolution to blue, not green or yellow. The society has not reached that stage. Liberia is going through a red level crisis, they are transitioning to blue - they are not ready to evolve to green. If you want a crisis to induce a rapid change, then increase the intensity of the crisis at the appropriate stage. Fir the US, this would be an intense orange level crisis. For example, the majority of Americans are immersed in orange capitalism. An intense crisis might open their minds and help evolve to green. For example, if there was a massive implosion of toxic capitalism such that there was massive poverty, suffering and death. Here, the orange level people would become more open to green. They may think “wait a minute, perhaps capitalism has downsides. Maybe a mixture of capitalism and democratic socialism is best. Perhaps its not a good idea that four trillionaires in own 98% of the wealth. Maybe we should consider how Scandinavia does it”. A red level crisis will not be as efficient. For example, if America tried to re-inteoduce slavery and there was a massive crisis and war. People may think “wait a minute, maybe white people shouldn’t own black people as slaves”. This would help people evolve up to blue and orange, yet would not help an orange society evolve up to green. A Trump crisis is great for helping those at red/blue evolve up to orange. Not orange to green. The current Trump crisis is promoting some red/blue Americans to evolve up to orange. A lot of red/blue republicans evolved ng to orange will vote for Biden. Yet Trump is not triggering a massive orange to green transition. This is why Bernie has actually lost popularity compared to the Orange centered obama administration. The US is not ready for it. A better crisis to promote a transition from orange to green would be if Biden was elected and went toxic corporate/capitalist/plutocratic orange that triggered widespread poverty,loss is f healthcare etc - and lots if billionaires buying their fifth mansion and third yacht they don't even use.THEN people would start thinking “I’ve been a capitalist my whole life, yet this hyper capitalism thing isnt working. Whats that stuff about democratic socialism Bernie talked about?”. What is “needed” is relative to the developmental level of the country. There is no universal global need because countries are at different stages. Some middle east countries “need” a change from blue to Orange. The US needs a change from orange to green. Scandinavian countries need a change from green to yellow. One cannot impose a green level political system onto a red level country. They would not tolerate it.

@jimwell Yes, both Trump and Bernie shake up the status quo. Trump does from below, Bernie does from above. Hitler would have also shaken up the current status quo as would re-introducing slavery. This would be a regressive shake up. Martin Luther King also shook up the status quo, yet he did from above. He was a progressive shakeup. SD theory is based on a relative hierarchy along both vertical axes (e.g. purple to turquoise) and horizontal axes (weak vs strong orange, healthy vs toxic orange etc). As well, there are various developmental lines such as cognitive, emotional, spiritual etc. As you stated in your essay, there are often crisis points, yet the crisis point is relative to the stage if development. For example, red tribal villages reached a crisis point while evolving into more complex cities like the roman empire. A red level social structure was insufficient for more complex societies - it would have been anarchy. This was a crisis that led to blue religious-based authority hierarchies to maintain order. This is a red to blue crisis. Similarly, the US is orange centered and an orange level crisis may be needed to evolve to green. For example, the implosion of toxic orange capitalism. A red or blue level crisis, such as a civil war over slavery, would not be optimal. This was progressive back in the year 1820, yet is now regressive in the year 2020.

@Spiral_Wizardry_Fan Appealing to a higher stage is not the same as having embodied that stage. For example, you state: Green - Bernie would have been the best choice but I'm okay to settle with Biden because he's still better than Trump. People will vote at for the person closer to there highest conscious level. Turquoise, Yellow and Green will vote for Bernie since Green Bernie is closer to their conscious level than orange Biden. If Biden is the nominee, Turqouise, Yellow and Green will vote for Orange Biden, since Orange Biden is now closer to their conscious level than Red Trump. It’s very common to conflate orange level rational, logical thinking with yellow. There are many highly intelligent orange level scientists, philosophers and politicians. One indicator that Biden is centered below Yellow and Green is that he is not conscious of toxic orange capitalism ad plutocracy. Compare green/yellow level Anand Giridharadas to orange Biden. From a yellow perspective, its very important obvious they are at different conscious levels. Anand is a good person to watch for a an hour integrated yellow level perspective of social/economic/power dynamics.

Multiple threads on this have already been started. Please stop. Rationalwiki is a hyper rational delusional religion. Leo has requested that it not be cited on the forum. Yet it is ok to post it in the Orange mega thread for people to laugh at.

Biden has had a lifetime of orange level conditioning - at 77 y.o. that is hard to overcome. I don't see him climbing up to green, yet I also don't see him as anti-green. He will favor orange policies and would need to get dragged up to sign policies with some green. Yet it's not just Biden. The US senate and House of Reps is also Orange centered.