Forestluv

From reading your posts, I think you are a pretty advanced conceptualizer. Yet what I’m getting at is more of a realization and awareness, than constructing a conceptual construct. I think some of your concepts are quite good and I’ve read a few that were novel to me and revealed a few things. Yet what I’m getting at is not something to conceptualize.

One fear I’ve noticed with some men is that if women gain more power women will oppress men as men had been repressing women. I think there are a minority of women that would want some “payback” and try to institute policies against men. Yet I think the vast majority of women are not out to oppress men - they just want to be treated decently and fairly. My academic institution is trending Green and there has been blue/orange resistance. Especially with white men. As women and minorities have been gaining influence and power, I think blue/orange has been relieved that the minorities don’t want to implement anti white male policies and treat hem poorly. That isn’t what Green is about. Red/Blue/orange minorities and women might try to behave like that, but not Green.

There is something prior to this you are not seeing. As I said, it’s a similar dynamic as a scientist asking for proof of mysticism, yet will only accept physical proof. There is an aspect of letting go here. For example, when I first joined the forum I got into a disagreement with Leo about what intelligence is. I thought I was open-minded about intelligence and wanted new insights. Yet I kept dismissing what Leo said because I would only accept logic intellectual constructs and Leo kept going in what I thought was airy fairy stuff. Yet I realized I was missing something and got curious. Yet to expand, I had to surrender my desire to stay within intellectual constructs. I had to change my orientation to “maybe I don’t know what intelligence is. Maybe intelligence is more expansive than I am currently aware of”. This orientation allowed space for realizations and all sorts of insights started being revealed. Even forms of intelligence I had and was unaware of. This allowed for development of new abilities. The reason I jumped in was because you said you were open to insights, so I shared a few things that might be insightful. Yet it’s not resonating with you, which is fine. To you it might be a bunch if unsubstantiated gibberish, which is fine. From a certain perspective, that is true.

What I’m pointing at is not about personalities. It’s not about “me” and “you” and what we may or may not have in common. That is a distraction. What I’m pointing at is a dynamic of narrative control in the mind and it can be very difficult to surrender and let go of. Notice how the mind wants to control the narrative. This is a contraction that will not allow for certain expansions. I know this psychological dynamic well. I’ve had to work through it in many different contexts.

@RevoCulture Whoosh!!

If you welcome insights. . .A couple observations: there has been the same dynamic with five different users on the forum. These users have been doing consciousness work for many years. Perhaps they are seeing something you are not. Do you want to see what they all are pointing to? If so you would need to change your orientation. Notice how you said you welcome insights and you are a work in progress and then you define how those insights should be delivered to you within an intellectual framework you are satisfied with. Humility and openness can be important to allow space for insights. If I wanted to learn Spanish, yet told the teacher how to speak Spanish, I will not learn and grow very much. I went through a similar dynamic as a trained scientist. I would question someone about metaphysics, yet I wanted evidence and I would only accept physical evidence and logic. I wanted to set the structure of the dialog. This is a form of narrative control in the mind that kept me contracted within a scientific paradigm. I had to realize that I was missing something and be open to learning with however those insights arose. When I joined the forum there were several users that were trying to point to my attachment to materialism and intellect. I realized I was mussing something and got really curious. One of the keys for me was letting go of my desire for a certain form of evidence. This was challenging to me because my mind is very conceptual.

@purerogue I’m not saying that you are wrong. I’m saying that you are missing something. Not missing a fact or thought. Rather missing something much more radical and beyond one’s current paradigm. Yet it's not resonating with you.

Have you tried synthetic mescaline? I’m curious about going a synthetic route.

To me, this seems to be conflating relative happiness and absolute happiness. Phrases like “lasting happiness” and “complete satisfaction with what you have” points toward unconditional happiness, yet when perceived through a relative filter seeking desire and suffering arises. One way to look at relative happiness is that it arises when seeking energy is relieved. Yet this is a temporary relative happiness. There was something I didn’t have that I was seeking, then I got it and now I’m happy. For example, imagine I have been seeking to get a new car. I save my money for years and buy a new car. Part of the happiness I feel is because the seeking energy is gone. There is relief. The same goes for seeking knowledge, sex, a home, a travel destination etc. When one attains the object sought, the seeking vanishes and there is a sense of happiness. This form of happiness is conditional - if I don’t get the thing I am seeking, I am not happy. The seeking of relative happiness is always for a thing that is not Here and Now. Now imagine that what you seek is whatever is Here and Now. That is the ultimate seeking. The seeking relief comes from “finding” Here and Now. This is unconditional happiness - the happiness is free of any conditions. In a relative context, there is no permanent happiness because it is relative to not happy. For one to hold relative happiness they must also hold relative unhappiness for contrast.

I talk about subconscious biases with other races every week, it’s part of my job. At my institution, I work on a committee that includes several races - part of our work includes discussing subconscious biases at both the individual and institutional levels. As well, I interview job candidates of many races regarding diversity. One of the topics we discuss is subconscious biases. I also teach about subconscious biases in my courses and have discussions with students of a wide range of races. I’ve also been in relationships with women of other races and we discussed subconscious biases. And also my friends of other races, and psychologists of other races - the list goes on and on. It’s a topic I am curious about and desire to explore from different perspectives, including perspectives of other races. I’ve spent hundreds of hours looking at my own subconscious racial biases. I’ve taken various tests to identify my subconscious biases. I’ve attended professional workshops. I’ve lived immersed in communities of color in my own country and foreign countries. I’ve been in relationships with women of color and have had many conversations on this topic with a wide range of people, including poc, people living in poverty, people in the prison system, psychologists, neuroscientists and sociologists. I’ve found that there is a mental dynamic of “to be of blame for all of societies problems”. Blame and guilt are mechanisms that keep a person contracted. It prevents a person from going deeper. Blame is an external orientation and guilt is an internal orientation. Both are contractions that prevent space and openness for realizations and growth. This is a common defensive posture laced with sarcasm. This orientation allows a mind to protect and maintain a particular personal perception of their reality. Mindset is essential to allow space and openness for realizations that enlighten, deepen and expand. A mindset of “tell me about my privileges that I don’t have - privileges that you are just making up because you believe you are to blame for all of society’s problems” . . . is not a genuine, humble, open orientation that allows space. If you could transition into a black transgender woman, your personal relationship with reality would be altered. How you navigate through life would be very different. Your experience, perceptions and interpretations toward your wellbeing and survival would be very different. Your current white, straight are not relative through the lens of a white, straight male oriented toward it’s well-being and survival. Those privileges would be revealed if you could transition to being a black transgender woman. Yet white, straight, males don’t have to acknowledge their own privilege or work through it, because they don’t have to bear the burden of not having those privileges. This itself is a privilege.

“Everybody is. . . “, “They do it too” , “Both sides-ism” and “Why should I have to work on this issue if they don’t have to?” are common ways for a white person and people to avoid taking looking at their own subconscious biases and privilege. This also clouds seeing disproportionate biases at the population level. . . . Similar to “Reverse racism” mentality. It’s one of the challenges I face when trying to discuss the issue with white people. One thing to keep in mind is disproportionate impact. Black/brown people are impacted much more by white subconscious biases than white people are impacted by black/brown subconscious biases because white. has more power and leverage. This is just my pov, others have different povs

@RevoCulture It’s not something that can be figured out.

@RevoCulture I’m unable to connect with you. We have different orientations. It happens sometimes.

I can see something you don’t see and don’t want to see. We aren’t on the same frequency. Have a nice night.

As I see it, there is seeking that is fundamentally human. There are many different forms and some can be sneaky and subtle. Seeking happiness and seeking relief from suffering are the two most common dynamics on the forum - to various degrees, imo. There are other seeking orientations, yet less common. Be aware that there is a personal edge to your energetic orientation that can create personal conflicts.

Well said. I work at a University and think a required study abroad is a good idea. I would add an extra component: the study abroad environment must be significantly different than their counterparts conditioned environment. A white student that grew up in an affluent white community in the suburbs of Boston doesn’t get to study abroad in in an affluent white community in the suburbs of London. At institution, all language majors must study abroad one semester and must live in the “International House” on campus for one semester. I’d like to see this expanded to all students, yet it can be challenging with logistics and finances. It could be done, yet would take a coordinated effort by a lot of people. Hopefully, an academic institution does this as their “brand” and it attracts enrollment. Then other schools will follow to stay competitive in the market for students. There is also a business side to academic institutions.

@seeking_brilliance In a sense, I like the idea that bronze age people may have had awakenings and contemporary people are trying to see higher wisdom in ancient scripture. Yet this type of thing is way too indirect for me - there are too many interpretive steps and filters. It’s like driving hours in a storm on icy roads to reach a destination when the destination is across the street.

You are on to something juicy. . .

@Raze I would make distinctions on clarity and identity politics. Those that have embodied Green know Bernie does not believe a woman can't be president. He has had a completely different orientation his entire life. It would be like someone saying that in a private conversation Trump said that Mexicans and middle-eastern Muslims are superior to white Americans. We would all know that this could not be true because it is not consistent with Trump's orientation. Those that are upset are conflating principles and personalities. They are upset with misogyny and sexism. They are upset with the notion that a woman cannot become president. This is the emotional trigger for green. A green person without embodiment may not be able to distinguish between the principle of gender equality and the energetic orientation of Bernie Sanders. This conflation will cloudy their view. Orange have even less understanding. They will not be triggered by the notion that a woman cannot become president, because their higher value is self-centered gains. They have an aversion to Bernie and will gladly use this situation as a way to harm the Green values he embodies. There motivation is Green resistance, not to promote gender equality.

The energy of the movement spreading and getting stronger. People are taking notice and not everyone is happy about it.

Below is a recent political video. It is one of my favorite political ads. It is tripping with healthy substantive Green. The video was not produced by the Sanders campaign. The video was created by people that have been moved and inspired by Bernie. It has a high level of creativity, human connection, egalitarianism, multi-cultural, empathy and love. For me, the video is very moving. I really hope Bernie wins and this essence permeates through the consciousness of humanity.

When you are dreaming, why do you create a dream character that you identify as?

@Sizeable Oof This isn't about a character called "Leo" you are creating. That is a distraction. A slight rephrase of the question: "If *I* am 'literally god' when *I* take 5-meo, why am *I* still limited in power?" A transcendence of the personal *I* is needed here. A personal *I* is a limited construct. Your question cannot be understood at the level of a personal *I*. If we expand a limitation, we have an expanded limitation. As soon as the personal *I* is introduced, a limitation is introduced. It's like asking "If I am a human, why can't I fly like a bird?". Because you just limited yourself as a human. We could ask "If I am the dream character in this dream, why can't I create the dream?". This is a perspective contracted into a dream character. One would actually need to wake up for a transcendent view of the dream and dream character to be revealed. When you wake up, the dream character goes "bye-bye". Likewise, transcendence of the personal *I* is needed to see the limited contraction within the personal *I*. Realizing this will unlock a lot - even at the personal level. You don't understand how limited your construct of "limited" is. You have potential power waaay beyond what you can currently imagine. Most people might think "Yea, yea. I want this extra power". Yet they are still within the construct of a person. I would recommend tapping into potential slowly and allow the mind and body time to acclimate. If an ant suddenly jumped up to the conscious level of a human for an hour and then dropped back down to an ant, it would be overwhelming. That poor little ant would likely go insane. Or it may explode. For the vast majority of humans, suddenly realizing God consciousness would be so overwhelming to the mind and body they would go insane.

These questions involve a lot of relativity. For each question, I could answer "it depends". There is no one expression of "highly developed". Even the term is relative. In a way, have an image to work and move toward can be helpful. Yet also be careful in being too rigid and creating one imagine of what "highly developed" looks like. Your expression of highly developed may be different than mine. I suppose there are some generalities: In general, I would say that "low conscious" relationships are predominately transnational and each person is motivated toward fulfilling self needs and desires. "I did this for you, so you should do this for me", "I've done so much for her and now she treats me like this". "She takes me for granted". "This isn't my fault, if you hadn't done xyz then none of this would have happened", "I need you to respond to all my texts within 12 hrs". "We haven't had sex in two weeks. I need to have sex more often or I may seek it elsewhere" .. . This type of stuff is centered in Tier 1. . . Tier 2 involves the transcendence of self to a degree. There is an energetic shift in which the source of motivation is not dominated by self needs - there is more of a desire to explore, experience and grow. There is a sense of "us". There is a shared unity. We can see each other in each other,. There is a sense of mutual support and a deeper sense of unconditional love. . . This may sound wonderful, yet it comes at a cost most people are not willing to pay. In terms of levels, Tier 2 can see a vertical hierarchy of levels, horizontal hierarchies within a level and singularity without levels. As well, yellow can see multiple lines of development that can be nonlinear. Yellow also sees a mixture of colors in each person. Yellow is able to perceive the word through multiple lenses. When you ask "Are there people in your life that are on your level?", you are using a lens of vertical levels, which is not the only lens. It would be like saying: If someone is wearing yellow-tinted lenses how could they tell the difference between a tomato and an orange? This question assumes there is only one lens. . . . I recently spent a week with my blue-level parents. I could perceive them as being on a "lower level" than me. This lens will portray certain images. For example, if politics come up "my" views are at a "higher" level than there views. This can create disconnection and turmoil. Yet there are other lenses to wear. . . For example, I teach science courses and my 9 year old niece just started learning science. Am I at a "higher" level than she is? Well, I guess so - yet that would be a weird orientation to have. Rather, we just explored science topics together as we explored science topics. . . With that said, some people want to debate and argue. Some are very attached/identified to a position. In these cases, I tend to avoid engagement. For example, my parents are extremely opinionated in their views and they are highly attached/identified. If I offered another perspective to look at things, they would get very emotional and defensive. For example, they strongly believe that US killing the Iranian general was justified and a good thing. If I asked "What would this look like from an Iranian perspective?" - they would have gotten very upset and defensive. They would accuse me of taking the Iranian side, question my patriotism, go on and on about how many US soldiers the Iranian general killed and how much courage our US soldiers have. They might also say that they will not allow disrespect for our soldiers in the household. So I just don't engage in that topic if it comes up. Yet I don't think "I have a higher conscious view and I will not engage with such low conscious people". Rather they are perfect for who they are. . . Just like my 10 year old niece is perfect - even though she doesn't understand University level genetics. In terms of feeling lonely. . . for me there is an aspect of loneliness, yet it isn't like a "poor me, I'm so highly conscious and now I'm all alone". That is a self-centered orientation that begins to dissolve into the Tier 2 transition. A new energy of curiosity and magnificence that is revealed - whether I am alone or with others. I would describe it more in terms of resonance. There aren't many people I have a strong resonance with - yet I don't need many. . . Sometimes there is a sadness that arises, yet I wouldn't call it loneliness. For example, sometimes I walk in the woods and my mind goes into yellow-level contemplation. It can be very joyful, yet there is also a sadness that I can't really share it with another. Yet, when I cross paths with another and we have high resonance, it is very very special.

What comes to mind for me is effort and conditioning. To me, this seems like a form of discipline that requires effort. For example, I will eat vegetarian every day, whether I want to or not. Some days, I want to eat meat, yet I will be disciplined and only eat vegetarian. This seems like an effortless habit. I wouldn't consider this "discipline" since no effort is involved. I have been vegetarian for over 20 years. I don't even think about it. It doesn't even cross my mind to eat meat. There is nothing for me to be "disciplined" about. Sometimes I am out for dinner with a meat-eater and they ask me "How long have you been vegetarian?". When I say "About 20 years" they often reply "Oh my! You are so disciplined!". From their perspective, being vegetarian would require effort and discipline. To me, it's effortless and needs no discipline. I also don't eat car batteries or bird poop. There is no effort or discipline involved. . . I could also ask someone "When was the last time you at liquid baby food?". They may reply "Not since I was about two years old". It would be silly to respond "Wow!! You are so disciplined!" I wouldn't call it a shift in discipline, I would call it a shift against prior conditioning which can cause a sense of disruption. For example, I lived with local families in small villages in Central and South America. Here, "vegetarian" wasn't a thing. There were so few tourists that the locals didn't try to accommodate tourists with vegetarian options. They didn't really get exposed to it. Their culture was very meat-centric. Many families had their own animals they consumed or the animals were in the local neighborhoods. I saw locals killing various animals, such as hogs. . . Meat was part of every dish. At first, I would say that I'm vegetarian and I would politely refrain from eating meat. Yet they didn't "get it" and sometimes they would need to prepare a separate meal. For example, they might be preparing a meat stew and to ask them to prepare a vegetarian option became really awkward. I tried to explain it, yet my Spanish wasn't the best and it was an odd concept to them. They often asked me "why would you eat like that". Speaking about health, ethical or environmental reasons didn't resonate with them. I even tried to say I was allergic to meat, yet that just made things weirder. . . And I noticed this altered the energetics of our meals. There was an odd vibe. . . So I decided when I travel to remote areas in which vegetarianism isn't well-understood and causes tension, I will eat like the locals - which includes meat. This completely changed the collective energy. The weirdness was completely removed when I started eating what was served. . . Yet a new internal weirdness arose. My mind and body had 20 years of vegetarian conditioning. Eating meat with these families "felt" like I was out of flow because it was counter to over 7,000 consecutive days of not eating meat. . . In terms of "prior conditioning flow" it felt out of flow. Yet in terms of "what's happening now flow", there was no disruption. I was aware of both dynamics. . . Yet discipline was a non-factor. It was all about mind-body conditioning.