Forestluv

@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.

From my pov, Biden is centered at mid/upper Orange with a sprinkling of green. Even though Biden may tacitly support some green issues, he is not an advocate for green issues. He is much more oriented toward the orange status quo and perhaps appeasing green with some incremental crumbs. Compare a solid green like AOC to Biden. AOC is an advocate for green, trying to pull Biden up. Biden has orange anchors and would resist. . . . Although Biden is not green, he is evolved enough that he is not actively fighting against green. For example, Biden would not try and remove LGBTQ rights - yet he is not an advocate for LGBTQ rights. A green would need to pull Biden up. As long as orange wasn't being negatively impacted, I think Biden would be open to it. I would consider Obama a mix of orange, green and yellow. In hindsight, it seems Obama is more orange than originally thought. At times, he shows understanding of green issues (such as racial discrimination) and yellow level thinking (such as integrated systems), yet he also has some major orange anchors which I think are being revealed now that there is greater contrast. For example, I think AOC provides great contrast. AOC is strong green with a bit of yellow. Someone like AOC is great contrast to show how much Orange Obama has. As well, look at Obama's relationship to green Bernie.

The original intent of the thread was to stimulate a discussion about rape in India, yet the focus has been derailed and the thread is locked by request.

This is a wonderful video. I love the simplicity. And it's so genuine. It captures human experience. And you expressed yourself without speaking a single word. You've got skills in creating short film stories. I got the sense that you could create some scenes within a larger movie - like independent sundance type of stuff. I'm curious where you could go if you decide to develop your skills in this area. It's like 20 years from now being a film producer and releasing this video to show everyone your first documentary project and people are like "omigosh, look at his early talent".

It depends on the usage of "nondual". In the strictest sense, nondual is "not two". If there is "not two" how can there be a difference? There aren't two different things to compare. In this context, there is no difference between eyes open and eyes closed - they are the same. Looser usages of the term "nondual" might include an experience of a "collective consciousness". For example, someone might be out in the forest and there sense of self dissolves and consciousnesses is experienced as the entire forest (rather than "me" walking through a forest). Or a person could stare with a deer such that separation between me and the deer dissolve and there is only one. Seer and seen is the same. These contextualized examples are a looser description of nonduality. In this context, nonduality would be contextualized as a different experience between eyes closed and eyes open. I would do whatever you prefer. I've had what I consider nondual experiences with 5-meo with both eyes closed and eyes open. Both are good. For me, the experience would depend more on which psychedelic is used. I don't get CEVs with 5-meo, yet I get very strong CEVs on 4-ho-met - it's like being in the most amazing virtual reality imaginable.

With vaping, the precise amount is not critical because you have control over the number of breaths and how long each breath is held. For me, a moderate trip is about 4 breaths held about 5 seconds each. If I don't want to go more intense, I just stop after 2 or 3 breaths. It's not rocket science. I experience slight nausea when plugging 5-meo on an empty stomach. It's just a bit distracting, yet something I don't have a problem letting go of. For me, the body load of shrooms or lsd is much more intense.

Below is that frame Bernie should have been using all along. That he is NOT the radical candidate, that he is the MODERATE candidate. His policies are actually moderate relative to other developed countries. Bernie is perceived as the risky revolutionary candidate and lost a lot of support. Yet Bernie is actually the safer candidate. Unfortunately, I think it is too late. Yet is message of prioritizing the working class transcends political party identity. Bernie would not get support from corporate America, the media, democratic establishment, pharma, health insurance, fossil fuels, billionaires etc. Yet I think he would have gotten a lot of cross-over votes. He definitely would have reclaimed all the Obama to Trump voters. I bet he would have gotten 10-20% of Trump voters. Not shown in the video: the crowd loudly booed the FoxNews hosts when they spoke against M4A.

@SoonHei Sorry, I couldn't resist. . .

Something like Biden pausing mid sentence totally lost - looking around bewildered asking "Where am I? Jane, are you here? No, Jane is President Bert's wife. No, not Ber. . . I mean Barnie's wife or his sister". I don't mean to poke fun. Losing one's cognitive function has been described as a living nightmare. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Which is one reason I don't want Biden to be the nominee - out of compassion. Trump will be merciless as he attacks a man losing his mind. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Bernie is old and his body is breaking down, yet Bernie is mentally strong and he wants this fight with Trump. He has been training his whole life for it. Bernie and Trump are political equivalents of heavyweight UFC fighters.

Another variable is the stock market. If the stock market continues to slide into the summer and fall - Trump is toast.

It's been a weird day on the forum. There must be a full moon somewhere. . . .

I agree that Trump would destroy Biden in a debate and Trump sucks at debating. I could see Trump mocking Biden's mental decline in real time in the debate. I think one of the reasons Joe rose to the top undetected was that he was able to hide behind 9 other candidates. His best debates are the ones he didn't speak much. He just had to hold it together for a few 1 minute stretches and then hide behind the other candidates. The only time he was confronted was in the first debate when he was the frontrunner and Joe looked awful. He was able to slip into the background unscathed as the other candidates took out the knives against each other. Unfortunately, I think it's too late now. His record should have been exposed months ago. . . I know lot's of people that think Joe is a "good guy" and a "decent democrat", yet have no idea of his record.

The good news is Trump has pretty much wiped out stage Blue. The bad news is Trump is regressed back to stage red.

Plugged. I've also vaped 5-meo with a standard dry herb vape. Here, I just sprinkle in a little bit perhaps 3mg. Vaping doesn't have the "wave-like" effect with plugging. Vaping allows more control, like an intensity dial. There are pros and cons to each roa.

It's not the question itself. It is the orientation. A question can be asked with an open orientation or a closed orientation. When a question is asked with an open orientation, the person is curious, explores and grows. When the same question is asked with a closed orientation, the person debates/argues to protect and maintain a position they are attached to. From my POV, you have a closed orientation toward debating/arguing a pre-conceived position. That's just my perception. Others might consider you to have an open orientation.

Yea, there are risks with this path as well. One of my big concerns is scotus. RBG will probably not make it another 4 years. Trump will likely get 1-2 supreme court picks that are his "yes" men. It will be at least 6-3 conservative and the "swing vote" will be a partisan conservative judge. As well, Trump is stacking the lower courts with conservative judges that are getting rammed through the republican senate. Another 4 years of Trump would have rippling effects for 20+ years. That alone is enough for me to vote for Biden.

@SOUL I think you have some nice insights and ideas. Thanks for sharing them on the forum.

I just voted in today's biggest prize: the Michigan primary. Some observations: I live in a predominately black town. A common dynamic I observe is that Biden is the "safe choice". There is a sense of comfort that Biden was Obama's VP (if Obama chose him as VP, he must be ok). Also that Biden is a "real democrat". And Biden is seen as a "good guy", which is re-enforced by Bernie. Ironically, Biden is not a "real democrat" by many measures. He could just as easily be considered a moderate republican based on his record. My biggest concern about Biden is that he is a moderate republican in many ways and will not give a reason for people to vote. There are millions of disenfranchised voters in America that would need to find transportation to a prescinct (since the local ones have been closed by republicans). They may also need to get time off of work and be willing to wait hours in line. That is a lot to ask. Is Biden offering anything that makes it worth going through these extraordinary efforts to cast one vote?. . . As well, Trump doesn't need to excite his base - a better strategy is to depress the democratic base. This is easy pickins with Biden. A few of Biden's positions that will depress the base: -- Biden is a war hawk and supports endless wars --Biden has strong connections to banks (he is from Deleware and the credit card industry owns him) --Biden has sought to cut Social Security and Medicare - the most popular programs with democrats --Biden has voted for every bad trade deal for the midwest (such as TPP and nafta). Many people in the midwest blame these trade deals for the outsourcing of millions of midwest jobs. --Biden has conceded that if he is not mentally fit for a second term, he will not run (isn't that a great confidence booster?). I predict Biden will not be willing to have a standard 2 hr debate with Bernie and Biden's team will try to reduce the time to 1 hr. with lots of commercial breaks, to reduce the chance of Biden having "senior moments". Biden's positions are contrary to the heart and soul of the democratic base. There is a very strong anti-Trump sentiment and I hope it's strong enough for Biden to prevail. Personally, I am hoping for either of two extremes: 1) Biden loses his mental faculties during the debate and is so lost and incoherent that no one can deny he has cognitive decline and Bernie makes a massive comeback. . . or. . . the other extreme 2) Biden's mental state looks decent and Biden's team + the media are able to cover up Biden's mental decline. For example: "It's just a stutter. Everyone gets forgetful at times. People are being ageist. It's good ole Uncle Joe" - and so on - such that Biden squeeks through the general election before he is placed in a nursing home and his VP becomes president.

Rupert is awesome. He has helped me with a few breakthroughs. This made me giggle.

You just answered “no” to my question, which is fine. Each of us is where we are at. (and I never said you need to go vegan to be open and expand. You are adding stuff in. I’m not even vegan for goodness sake.)

Engaging in these thoughts stories, debates and demanding “proof” against one’s view is a distraction. It protects one’s attachment and identity. The question you need to ask is if you want to expand your capacity for empathy and love. If you answer “yes”, you will need to surrender and let go of some beliefs to allow this expansion. This will be uncomfortable at times. If you answer “no” then you will stay within a contraction and continue to debate and argue with others to protect and maintain that contracted belief construct. If I enter your contracted realm of debate, it will only serve to re-enforce that contraction. This would be counter-productive to the evolution of consciousness. You are showing no signs of curiosity, openness or willingness to expand.