Forestluv

To me, the topic seems to be: "How can find what will make me happy?". I would say this is one of the most common fundamental human questions. The human may or may not be aware of this. For example, someone may be aware "I am seeking to be happy. How and where can I find this?". Another person may unconsciously seek - for example, by seeking sex, travel, a good job, learning a foreign language etc - yet they may be seeking without realizing they are seeking a relative form of happiness. The trap is that this is a relative form of happiness. To seek happiness means that happiness is not Here and Now. If happiness was Here and Now, there is nothing to seek - it's been found - it's Here and Now. So we need to create a construct that there is thing called happiness that is not present now, If it's not here now, it must be in some other place in the future. Then there is a desire to seek and find that happiness. This is a fundamental energetic orientation of humans. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it causes turmoil when a person conflates absolute happiness and relative happiness. Absolute happiness cannot be found in the timeline of past or future. It can only be found Now. This is an unconditional happiness and the deeper desire. At a deeper level, we want to come back Home, which is eternally Here and Now.

You may want to update your relationship with "understanding" and "contemplation". For example, I used to have an idea that "understanding" was mostly intellectual. Like I understand English, the rules of football and the plot of a movie. So for me, "contemplation" was about trying to figure it out - like how I would try to figure out the rules of Australian Rugby. . . If I contemplated "what is a thought?", my mind would try to figure it out and go into thinking "Well a thought occurs in the brain. There are neurotransmitters in the brain that cause thoughts. Yet this doesn't seem right. Maybe a thought is an energetic appearance like that Yogi said. But if someone has a brain injury, they may lose their ability to think straight, so the brain must be involved." . . To me, this type of figuring it out contemplation doesn't go very deep and it doesn't lead to a deep understanding of what a thought it. . . For me, trying to figure things out through the intellect is very very limited. What helped me was to relax, let go of that and allow space for insights to appear - which are not always thoughts. Then I recontextualized what "understanding" and "contemplation" is. We cannot solve a problem with the same thinking we used when we created them" - Albert Einstein

Just a few observations appearing in my mind. . . For me, context is a factor. For example, are we talking about people/teachers of car mechanics, learning Spanish or the nature of reality? If we are talking about an authority on learning Spanish, I would look at their experience teaching, their online reviews and would speak with the person to see if their teaching style resonates with me. Yet existential questions are different for me. Religious people, scientists, mystics and others all may express different expressions of truth and reality. It's much easier to distinguish a high quality Spanish teacher than it is a high conscious existential teacher. My level of discernment is proportional to my level of development and clarity. There are things have haven't been in tune with because I wasn't at that level of development yet. What you wrote about intuition and rationale is a key, ime. You can develop your intuition to which there is a knowing of itself with no knower. For me, rationale in the form of "figuring it out" is a deterrent. Yet rationale in the form of structural support is helpful. For example, a few years ago I traveled to the mountains of Peru to do an Ayahuasca retreat. One of the tribal members was an amazing musician. Yet there was something about him that was so attractive to me. Not in a sexual way. I didn't know what kind of way. I didn't know anything about intuition, frequencies, dimensions, LOA and that was probably a good thing because I didn't have a bunch of knowledge and filters. During the retreat, I wanted to be near him and I didn't know why. I sat near him at the ceremonies. I would see him sitting outside on a rock and would go and sit next to him. We didn't even speak to each other. I just sat in his presence. I have never met a person like this in my life. There was a resonance and a knowing that this is new and it is true. Yet I couldn't figure it out or make sense of it. I didn't want to. All that was needed was a little bit of rational framework so I didn't blow it off as "woo woo". . . Over the years, that essence kept re-appearing and pieces started coming together. I might be listening to a nonduality talk and something is said that re-activates that experience and there is a knowing of "yes, that's it". I would be sitting with someone and that essence would arise and there would be a "yes, this is it". It might be helpful to start getting in touch with this "knowing" of direct experience. For example, do you know when someone is speaking English? If someone told you, "No, that person is actually speaking Chinese". You would "know" this isn't true. You wouldn't need to seek evidence and proof. You know. . . Another example, think of a time in your life you reached "flow state". Perhaps you were playing a sport or a musical instrument. "You" and "time" dissolved and there was pure presence of the moment just happening - as if the musical instrument was playing itself. . . Now later, imagine someone describing what a "flow state" is and what happened to you. You can tell if he "knows". He may describe one of his flow states and there may be resonance. You might be like "Yes! That's it!". Another person might get into intellectual theory and tell you your "flow state" was not real - it was just a bunch of molecules in your brain. You might think "No, that's not quite it. I don't think this guy has ever experience a flow state". . . Last example: You have an innate knowing that Now is Now. You don't need any evidence that Now is Now. If you were listening to a nondual speaker trying to express the essence of "Nowness" in words, you might resonate and be like "yes". If someone else came to you and said "Actually, this isn't Now. You are not experiencing anything. You are a rock in a forest and you aren't perceiving anything right now". You "know" this isn't true due to a knowing that comes prior. You wouldn't need to seek evidence and proof that you are not a rock and nothing is happening. These are obvious examples, yet ime it's a somewhat similar sense of "knowing" as we evolve and direct experience is key. And the resonance gets stronger and stronger. Recently, someone on the forum posted an essay that Maslow wrote just before his death. He wrote about the essence of "full actualization". One of the things he wrote was that "full actualizers" can recognize other "full actualizers" immediately. It is as if truth recognizes itself and truth. It is direct. Interpretations and filters are extra steps. Ime, as I evolved "higher" into new stuff, there was a degree of groundless and uncertainty. There may have been questions like "Is this what the buddhists were referring to as no mind?" or "was that experience I just had a collective consciousness?". And then there is integration and resonance that goes deeper and broader. I might read articles from scientists, psychologists, shamans, mystics and people on forums about what collective consciousness is. For me, there is an intuitive form of intuition and essence of attraction/yes-ness. It might just be one sentence in a rambling post or it might be some high conscious post that I can "sorta get" yet seems true. In particular, that that person "knows". . . Then the direct experience can deepen, expand and clarify as it reveals itself. This is a collection of both "inside" inputs and "outside" inputs. . . For example, in one of Leo's videos he talked about consciousness being what you identify as. One can walk in the forest and identify as a human being walking through a forest. Or one can identify as a forest. I immediately knew this. There was no thinking "Wait a minute, how do I know this is true? Maybe he is just making this up. Other people say different things". The knowing came prior to all that figuring. It is the knowing of what IS as it IS. That part of Leo's video helped give me clarity and structural support. Now, consciousness can flow from being a human in a forest to consciousness being the forest. How do I know this is "true"? Because it is what it is. Now, new deeper insights are being revealed all around me that deepen and expand this. There may be appearances in my own mind, through a raccoon, a falling leaf, the Heart Sutra, Maslow, dreams etc. . . And eventually, discussions in my mind about "true" vs "false" started to dissolve. Everything I have written here is both "true" and "false" in a relative sense - for my mind to hold an image of "true" there is also an imagine of "not true" to provide contrast. At a meta level, both of these images are Truth. I'm much more interested in existential truth, than surface level truth. Last week I took my car to the mechanic and he told me I needed a new exhaust system. Asking if this is "true" is a very different energetic orientation for me. I don't really care. I don't want to get ripped off, so I might ask him to show me why or I may get a second opinion. Yet this type of "truth" is dry and uninteresting to me. He seems like a trustworthy guy that knew what he was talking about, so I told him to go ahead and repair it. The question of whether it was true or not never appeared again. There are much deeper levels to explore.

Ime, this can be an entry into expanding one's consciousness/reality. It goes much deeper and broader. It's not just a physical object that can appear visually wavy and morph. Beingness, direct experience and ISness can become "wavy" and "morph". Imo, the appearance of morphing, fascination, silence and effortlessness are really good manifestations for exploration. Morphing visuals are just the beginning. Personally, I don't resonate with morphing visuals. I don't resonate with psychedelics that morph objects - like melting walls or wavy patterns. For me, that is a distraction. I'm much more attracted to other forms of morphing reality. However, mesmerization into an object can be a portal for me that leads to space in which "stuff" can appear. I may be staring at a tree, a painting or a flickering candle and my mind becomes mesmerized by it. Yet then it isn't about the distortion of the object. It's more like a new dimension or essence is revealed and the object merely allowed my mind to get relaxed and quiet for it to happen. An ISness in which real vs. imagined dissolves.

I would say there are different energetic orientations of the desire to "master". There is an orientation of wanting to "master" psychedelics for personal development and personal gain. Here psychedelics would be a personal tool to progress along a path toward a destination. It would be like having a magic wand and asking "Can I master this wand to get where I want to in life". Or "Can I master psychedelics to heal my past traumas?". Another orientation is using psychedelics existentially. This is transcendent to the person. Realizations of reality may be revealed that have nothing to do with my personal desires or gains. Or new abilities may be revealed that weren't asked for or desired. With this orientation, one may ask "Can I master psychedelics such that they become a higher order teacher of transformation in ways I cannot imagine?" These orientations are not mutually exclusive, yet ime it's important to the "mastery" process. There are things to keep in mind for someone wanting to use psychedelics for personal growth and skill development toward success. For example, if this person went into "ego death" zones in which trans-personal awakenings are revealed - there may be a lot of anxiety, resistance and inner turmoil. Not just during the trip - also afterwards for days, even months. The person wants to enter another realm to get some goodies for personal gain and they enter an ego death zone showing that "you" doesn't exist. This misalignment of energetic intention and desire can be quite disruptive to a mind and body. The person may contextualize the trip as a "bad trip" that screwed me up. Or that psychedelics don't work for them.

Thank you for your words. It is nice to connect with others. Now I am contemplating about attention, awareness and creating our reality. I like integrating what others categorize. At times I like to drop the categories of "physical vs nonphysical", "science vs metaphysics", "reality vs imagination". This allows for loosely held ideas and fluidity in the mind. This allows exploration. What is attention? What is awareness? What is happening now? What is existence? Is the reality of Now limited to what we can sense, perceive and imagine? From a "physical" perspective, we have a brain that acquires information from our environment, processes that information, interprets the information and creates perception. For example, our eyes absorb environmental information - this is sent to the Thalamus which processes the information and sends it to the visual cortex of the occipital lobe. Consider how much is involved in visual perception. There are colors, motions, depths, shades, textures, sizes etc. There have been cases in which a blind person has their sight restored with stem cells. One might think "Presto! They can see again". Nope. Eyesight is only one component. That blind person never set up the neural circuitry to process visual information. They will need years of therapy to adjust to this new reality. Evidence for this model comes from stroke patients and brain scans. A stroke is caused by a temporary oxygen deficiency to part of the brain. Neurons die only in this part of the brain. Neurologists and psychologists can then examine what part of the brain died and what deficiencies the person has. As well, we can do brain scans on people in real time. When can observe what parts of the brain are active during different activities such as speaking, imagining drawing, fear responses etc. Together, this has given us a map of the structure and function of the brain. Higher resolution technology is allowing higher resolution maps. Let's assume someone's visual system is working properly. Eyes absorb external information. The thalamus and visual cortex are working fine and can process information. Can this person "see" their environment? In a sense, the person can "see", yet there is one more step. . . There is a region of the parietal lobe involved in attention and awareness. If the visual system is "seeing", but we don't pay attention to it (or are unaware of it) are we "seeing"? . . .Right now, your sensory systems are processing lots of visual, auditory and tactile information - yet your parietal lobe is not active and you are not paying attention to it and are unaware of it. . . We may ask "Does it exist if I have no attention or awareness of it?". Also, does the sensory information I don't pay attention to get incorporated in "me" subconsciously? Can I increase my level of attention and awareness? There is a condition called "Hemisegment neglect". These individuals have had a stroke in one side of their parietal lobe. Thus, they lack attention on one side of their sensory reality and lack perception. Their eyes and visual cortex are working fine, so they can "see" in that sense. However, they are unable to pay attention to it. What would the experience be like? In this sense, they are blind and deaf on half their perceptual field (e.g. they cannot see other hear anything on the left side). Their visual and auditory systems work fine, yet they cannot pay attention to it and are deaf and blind in this regard (for half of their perceptual field). If someone had this condition in both sides of their parietal lobes, it is a form of a coma. They would not pay attention to anything in their perceptual environment - which is a form of coma. Yet would this person still have any awareness? Could they be aware that there is existence that they can no longer sense and perceive? Could they create a new imaginary reality while lying in a bed in a coma? (And totally unaware they are lying in a bed). I'm not aware of anyone having this condition and that recovered and remembered it. My guess is that this person would be considered in a vegetative state and would not be considered conscious. Yet it would be extremely unlikely for a person to lose function in both hemispheres. Below is a video of two people with hemisegment neglect. A few things I find particularly interesting: -- There are two forms of hemisegment neglect. In one form, the person is aware they can no longer perceive one side and are missing something. This is easy to relate to in direct experience. Close your left eye. You are no longer perceiving the left side of your visual field and you are aware that there is something there. Now imagine you had a stroke and you permanently loss perception on your right side. You would be aware of this and could compensate to function in life. . . There is another form of hemisegment neglect in which the person has attention neglect and cannot perceive one side, yet they are unaware of this - they are unaware they cannot perceive something. Imagine having a stroke and being unaware that you are missing any perceptual ability. People tell you that you can no longer see to the left, yet this sounds strange to you. You can only perceive 50% of your potential visual field, yet that 50% is all you know. So in a sense, it is 100% of what your are perceiving. The old center point is now your new "left side". If someone said "you are missing seeing something on the left side" it would seem very strange - your subjective experience is that you can see the left side. However, your "left" is relative to you, relative to other people it is the center point. . . To experience this directly, cover your left eye, stretch out an arm and stick up a finger so it is aligned with your nose. Is your finger at the center point or the left point? This depends on awareness. If you are aware there is a left side you cannot see, the experience will be that your finger is the center point. You have been conditioned to perceive this way and even with your left eye shut, it may seem like your finger is the center point. Now imagine you perceive/believe/experience your finger as being the left side. From one perspective this is true. Can you imagine it as such? Now imagine people telling you that you can't see to the "left" and you think "I can see left, what is she talking about?". The two people are using two different meanings of the word "left" and it will cause confusion. In a sense, the normal person can perceive something that the hemisegment neglect person cannot. You might as well tell the person that they cannot perceive something in the "6th dimension" that they are unaware of. This dynamic is not limited to visual perception. It is much broader. To a person that is only aware of 50% of the visual field may be unaware and assume this is 100%. In a sense, that is true (it is 100% of what they can see). In other sense it is false (they can only see on one side). The mind often holds one piece of a greater whole, yet are unaware it is only on piece of a greater whole. If I hold one grain of sand in my hand, only pay attention to that one grain of sand and I'm unaware of the rest of the sandy beach - then that single grain becomes 100% of sand. That will be my experience and reality. Letting go and becoming aware of the greater whole can be extremely challenging for several reasons: 1) Who cares? The person may be more interested in survival needs and desires. They may be paying attention to seeking a girlfriend, to pay the bills and get a good job. Within that existential reality, the questions posed above don't "exist" because they are unaware. Becoming aware can be a huge hurdle to get over. Imo, curiosity is super important to get over this barrier - also having one's basic survival needs met. . . 2) Even if the person is informed of a greater expansion, there can still be a lot of attachment/identification to get over. If I am attached/identified to the grain of sand I hold, it becomes "me". Becoming aware of the sandy beach can seem like "I" am dying. -- In the video below, I also find it interesting that lack of attention in hemisegment neglect has degrees and preferences. As well, a person can improve to expand their perception. This is revealed in two places. 1) During the finger bending exercise, notice how the man can see the finger bending when it is at the "center point". Yet when both "center" and right fingers are bent, he can only perceive the right side finger. We know he can perceive the "center" finger, yet he is giving attention preference to the right side finger. . . How much of our potential do we miss. Things that we have potential to perceive, yet give attention preference to something else? Perhaps we may have an ability to perceive a paranormal essence, yet we give attention preference to logical theories?. . . 2) The man expanded his visual perception. Notice the line exercise. When he first did it, he drew a "center" dot waaay to the right. Look how narrow his perception is. It is a tiny fraction of the whole line. After doing exercises and practices over a long time, he expanded greatly. His "center" point is now much further to the left, indicating his attention / perception field has expanded. . . Now imagine the psychology needed for this improvement. If this many said "I can already see everything. I don't believe in this "left" side or "expanding stuff". How do I know you are right and I am missing something. Show me evidence with the type of evidence I want". This would have kept the man contracted in one side. The man had to admit he was missing something, get curious and willing to expand. He also needed "trust" that there is "something" others can see that he cannot see. To the ego, this can be very difficult to overcome (myself included). Also notice how important his direct experience is. He could read lots of theory about hemisegment neglect - that is one form of understanding. There is also is direct experience of expanding. I'm curious if this man is aware of his expansion. These are realizations. If the man is aware of his perceptual expansion, it will be a realization in direct experience. It would be like "whoa!!! I can see more now! I was unable to see something and now I can see it!". This is very different than the psychologist pointing to the line test and saying "look how much more you can perceive". The man may understand this in a symbolic sense, yet not realize it in a direct experience sense. For those that resonate with this type of model making. . . In terms of SD, I would consider this a yellow level. Some minds are more in tune with this type of thing than others. It can also be developed, yet some minds are naturally oriented this way. If so, I think it's important to realize this - it will greatly improve your quality of life and allow full potential to be actualized. In brains terms, multi-level integrative abstractions involves the most evolved portions of the frontal lobe - which develops up to about 23 years of age. So if you are younger than this, the good news is your brain will get better at doing it. . . Another point about SD development: for minds evolving from a scientific/logical/analytical orientation - one will first resonate with yellow,. They will be attracted to it. For example, years ago I was interested in Leonardo Da Vinci. I just liked the way his mind thought. The next stage for me recognizing it and making distinctions. For example, I could recognize Richard Dawkins and Da Vinci have different orientations. And not just in a analytical way of comparing traits from a list. There is also a "getting it" kinda way because you are embodying it. You can just tell. . . For a while, I resonated with this type of yellow beingness, yet I couldn't do it on my own,. I could see it in others, yet couldn't create it. When I tried to create it, I would default to other yellow level thinkers. I would read their stuff and try to put it together, yet my mind couldn't do it on its own. Over time, these appearances in my mind just started arising naturally. I would start seeing connections and new creations would arise. For someone that resonates with Yellow, this is one of the greatest joys in life. What I wrote above appeared in my mind last night while walking in nature. It's not anyone else's theory (although others have probably come up with pieces of it). These were all appearances that happened while in "zone". One other point: all of this is just one expression of Yellow. It does not define yellow. If you resonate with this and your mind is thinking of new ideas to expand this model - you are resonating with yellow. If your mind is inter-connecting what I wrote above with other points about sensation/perception/metaphysics/awareness - that is yellow. Notice how fluid your mind is with ideas - with the interplay of form and formless. What I wrote is an expression of Yellow, yet Yellow is much more expansive and includes many other expressions. So if this doesn't resonate with you, it does not mean you have no Yellow. Think of yellow like the essence of traveling. What I wrote here would be like describing my travels through Honduras. That is just one expression of travel. Just because you don't resonate with this Honduras expression, doesn't mean you don't have a love of travel - you just have a different form. What might be indicators of Orange resistance? One thing to look out for is rigidity to terms, desire for concrete grounding and defaults to authorities. For example, a mind might think "Wait a minute. He is saying there is a difference between attention and awareness. But Rupert Spira said that attention and awareness are the same. Who is right? I think Rupert is right because people say he is enlightened." Or "This guy thinks a brain actually exists! He is still contracted in the materialist paradigm! This can't be right.". This would be appearances of a rigid mind looking for objective truths in relative contexts - a thing that is right and a thing that is wrong. . . These are blocks to Yellow development,. It is better to hold ideas loosely and in context. I am not attached to defining the terms "attention" and "awareness" as a specific thing that applies to all situations. For example, I may be having a conversation with someone who says "Let's say attention and awareness are the same thing. It doesn't matter where I'd like to explore. I'd like to explore the different dimensions of attention/awareness the mind can enter while lucid dreaming. A fluid mind could go with that flow. If something arose in the conversation that could be referred to as "attention" the mind would be using another term like "recognition". Well, that's a lot for today. Below is the video on hemi-segment neglect.

For me, even calling others "low conscious" can contribute to my problem. And it's not just a mental narrative. There is subconscious meaning in the mind and emotional stamps. Things like the limbic system that don't have a rational component. For me, the most important thing was to change my response to the stimuli. For my most sensitive sound, it no longer drives me into "fight or flight". About 30% of the time I don't even notice it. About 40% of the time, I notice it but it doesn't bother me, there is not emotional response. It's just background noise, similar to the feeling of my pants. I usually don't notice it and it doesn't bother me. About 30% of the time, the sound is annoying yet not extremely annoying. Yet my condition is tinnitus, not misophonia. They might have different treatment approaches.

One needn't become a shaman. Paranormal/mystical abilities can be beneficial in many different careers. I was pointing more toward recognition and development of the abilities.

What would be the best use of $100? A bunch of seeds, several small cuts with roots or a large 24" cut? Or maybe several small potted cacti?

At an individual level my experience and observations is that stage green white people often have a lot of subconscious biases, subconscious privilege and subconscious guilt to work through. I grew up in a relatively affluent white community and it took a lot of work to get through subconscious conditioning. A lot of it was really uncomfortable and it took some serious work. Most helpful to me were diversity workshops, I've lived in poor minority communities in the U.S., Honduras, Guatemala, Peru and Colombia. I also was in a relationship with a black women who wasn't shy about calling out my subconscious biases. I've purified out a lot of it and aware of much more in myself and others. For example, I now notice how men in committee meetings often interrupt, talk over and correct women. I've also noticed some green white people change their demeanor in subtle ways when interacting with minorities. It's like a subtle form of of how adults change their demeanor when talking to children or someone with a disability. "Oh Tyrone, you make such a good point. Thank you for sharing it with us". There can be a frothy tone to it. Yet meanwhile the voices of white males are carrying the most weight. At an institutional level, there is a lot of underlying unfair structure that favor men and the majority. This also takes work to overcome and whites and men will be less motivated to change it. One thing I've noticed at my institution is that minority people want to implement more fair policies and have their voices and concerns heard. Yet there isn't as much energy to educate white people and help them decondition subconscious biases. At my work, that is one thing I try to do. As a white male at the top of my career ladder, it may carry more weight. If so, I might as well use that privilege to help progress. Yet I've found that most people are really uncomfortable talking about subconscious biases and subconscious privilege. It can trigger strong emotional responses and defenses - even with green white people (although the intensity is less). When it comes up, I have to be careful how I handle it. People have a "stretch zone" for growth and a "panic zone" that blocks them from growth.

I've never used fresh cactus and would like to get an idea of amount, cost and time. About how much fresh cactus would be needed to have a solid trip? And about how long would it take to grow this amount?

@d0ornokey If I offer suggestions to someone I try to do so from a place of love and empathy. I try to listen to them and imagine what the situation is like. I avoid saying things like "You need to do xyz or you should do abc". Rather, I would try to listen and connect. For example, if someone was telling me about a PTSD issue, I might try to connect by saying "I don't have PTSD, yet I have had severe anxiety that felt like xyz. . . Is it sorta like that?". Or I may ask about their experience and try to imagine what it's like, rather than simply judging and analyzing the situation. I also try to stay centered in my own experience, rather than opinions I have no experience. I may say "I had a similar situation and did xyz which was helpful. I also did abc which was a mistake". Or I may imagine "If it were me, I would probably try xyz". Or "Perhaps you could try abc.". The key for me is to come from a place of love and connection. I also try to get a sense of how much advice the person wants. One of the traps I get into is assuming that people with issues need to be fixed and I need to help fix them. For example, if someone was describing how hurt they feel that their gf cheated on them, my mind may go into "solution mode" and start thinking about what actions to be taken so we can feel better. Yet that is not always wanted or needed. Sometimes a person just wants to express feelings and connect with a supportive person. If so, I may say "yea, that happened to me too. I loved her so much and it hurt so bad". Then we may share about the experience without coming up with a 5 point action plan to deal with the situation. There are also situations in which someone wants to stay immersed in conflict and is hyper-blaming. They might want me to cosign theri BS and join in on the bashing. For example, someone may complain nonstop about how their gf nags him and how much of a bitch she is. He may want me to support his view and start bashing his gf with him. I try to dis-engage from that dynamic.

@MrDmitriiV The mind can give attention, meaning and emotional response to stimuli. There are certain sounds that my mind pays attention to, gives it meaning and triggers a stress response. One thing that has helped me is to stop engaging in stories that this is super important and a threat to my wellness. If the mind thinks this is important to is bad for my wellness, it will dedicate more attention to it. For me, it's not so much the sound as my response to it. If someone next to me is chewing and I don't notice it I'm good. As well, if I notice the person chewing and it doesn't bother me - I'm also good. It's not so much about the chewing, it's my response to it. My mind can get immersed in a narrative like "This jackass chewing is so rude. I want to make him stop". That puts all the attention and energy on wanting to make an external stimuli stop and I can't make progress on changing my emotional response to the stimuli. I've had hyper-sensitivity to certain sounds - one of which would send me into a panic. I even went through EMDR therapy, which helped. I've read that others have found TRT helpful, yet I haven't tried that.

Notice the energetic orientation here. The energy is to create a story that will relieve underlying fears and anxiety. This minds want to create grounding for a sense of safety and security. A lot is missed with this orientation. Ime, awakenings are more of an energetic shift than an intellectual shift. You ask a lot of interesting questions that are amazing to explore. Energetic orientation has a big impact on experience. It's like being at an Amusement Park and feeling excited to ride the roller coaster. As we board the roller coaster, my friend says to me "Are you aware that 43 people die in roller coaster accidents each year? And the operator looks like he should be working at Pizza Hut". This is a different energetic orientation that alters the experience. We could explore this question from a different orientation. Sometimes I contemplate if awareness can be transferred from one physical being to another. One day I realized "Wait a minute, if awareness can be transferred that means my awareness has been transferred to me. This awareness was in another physical body. Perhaps a century ago, someone with anxiety about there death questioned "I wonder if my awareness will go to a new physical body when I die? I hope I will be able to recognize the awareness transference". Then it hit me. . . If this is true, the person the awareness was transferred to is me. I should be able to connect to this. Then there was a flash of realization "It's ME. Oh my god!!! I'm back!! I remember now!! It's true!! I'm here and now again!!". It was an amazing experience. It was like I forgot and then remembered. It shifted my energetic relationship to reality. For example "what is memory?". I had an experience of "remembering", yet not like regular memories. These memories are more like body / energy memory. Sometimes I try to recall my awareness when it was in another person. At times, it feels like I am so close. I can almost remember something, yet can't quite get it clearly. I don't "know" if this is "real or imagined", yet this comes "prior" to that in a dimension in which real and imagined dissolve. It is unknowable reality, yet there is also a form of "knowing". It is a magnificent place to explore. Yet when my energetic orientation is "I'm feeling anxious about death and loss of my awareness. I wonder if my awareness will reappear in another". This orientation has a very different dynamic.

We can create all sorts of ideas and models about insights and thoughts. Some can be quite helpful in navigating through life. Yet there is no one objectively true thing called an "insight" and another objectively true thing called a "thought". There are many different constructs we could build. We could do this intellectually, through feeling, intuition, experience etc. Yet all of these terms also are fluid. In self inquiry, we might inquire "what is an insight?" or "what is a thought?" - without thinking about it and trying to figure it out. For me, sometimes something arises in the moment and sometimes it comes later. For example, prior to yin yoga I may ask "what are thoughts". Then I go blank into the yoga. Maybe something on the thought theme will arise, maybe not. As well, I try to be an aware observer. During one yoga session, I observed how feelings, thoughts, sensations and environmental stimuli are all interconnected and I lost ability to differentiate between them. I could tell the difference between a thought and feeling or sensation. And then I sorta could, then I couldn't. Drifting in and out of different states. Yet for hard distinctions, my rational mind would need to be activated. I would need to create a narrative. "That is a thought, that is a separate feeling. The difference between them is XYZ". That is fine and can have practical purpose in life. For example, we define terms to converse meaning to others. This limits confusion. If I say I had an insight this morning and was referring to a bowl of cereal I ate - it would be confusing to others (and myself). Yet to me the true potential is going prior to any construct and seeing the infinite numbers of construct that can be formed. This cannot be found in any textbook or video - because those are expressions. There is another essence that is more fundamental and direct than outward expressions. Notice how indirect constructs are. I can create a construct of what an "insight" is and what a "thought" is. Yet that is one or two steps away from direct ISness. If I say "this is what an insight is", that is a step away from the actual ISness. It is going through a filter in my mind interpreting and defining the ISness. And if I say "this is what an insight is" and you read it - there is another filter in your mind that is interpreting the statement. That is two steps away from the actual ISness. For me, this can cause inner turmoil and amazing connection. The inner turmoil often comes from trying to form a sense of grounding. My mind may think "What is an insight? Just tell me what it is without all this mumbo jumbo". Sometimes my mind and body does not like to be uncertain, fluid and groundless. It's taken my mind and body a lot of time to be at peace with this. . . For amazing connection. . . I cannot capture all of a realization. Any image or construct cannot capture it all. There is a loss. As well, any explanation I give cannot capture it and there is further loss. This is one of the saddest aspects of spiritual communication for me. Yet the other side of sadness is joy. No image, idea or construct can capture it all, yet some capture more than others. Sometimes ineffible-ness arises and then a representation of that arises - and it feels like the representation is fairly close to the ISness. This is one of the most wonderful experiences for me. That sense that "I got it". . . As well, sometimes I listen to another sharing a representation of an ISness. For example, we may be watching Rupert Spira giving a representation of an ineffable. Notice how Rupert Spira rarely gives definitions. He generally does so simply for clarity toward that which is ineffible. He usually says things like "It is sorta like. . . xyz". And he offers some type of analogy. Occasionally, the ineffible is transmitted / appears and there is a "getting it", yet not in intellectual terms. More like the ineffible ISness appears and there is a "knowing" - yet not an intellectual knowing. More like ISness knowing ISness. . . Yet the mind often jumps in and may think "Well how do I know that is true? How do I know if I understand correctly? How do I know I just experienced what Rupert Spira was pointing to?". This is all second order contextualization. The magnificence for me is direct first order. I think having a basic foundation of theory and knowledge is helpful. Without that there would be no grounding. There is a balance of groundlessness and grounding. My mind had been generally oriented too much toward grounding and would get off-balance. My mind wanted to figure things out, make sense of things and define things. My mind would over-think. This can be unsettling because it is like trying to build stable concrete in shifting sand. As well, to much grounding can demystify the mystical and contract a human from greater expansion and potential. People can tell you various ideas about insights and thoughts. Observe how you resonate with this. There is intuitive and empathic resonance. A sense of "getting it" without being to explain it. For me, the "getting it" is prior to being able to "express it". I often "get something", yet have no idea how to put it into words. I don't even know where to begin. Then a day or two later, an image of it may arise and I smile. Notice how some minds are very rigid and say "This is how it is. Period.". These minds take positions and want to ground themselves in positions. There is "my" position and "your position". There is a desire to be right and defend one's own position. . . Also notice other minds that are flexible and can flow with form and formless.

Here I will write about "seeing" other perspectives, loss of self, multi-self, hyper-empathy and other paranormal abilities. Seeing other perspectives has become one of my natural abilities that has developed over time. I now can go into groundless states in which there is no perspective to hold and noone to hold it. This can lead to an amazing dynamic in one's own mind and the relationship with others. When my mind is not holding a perspective, it is open and free. The filters dissolve. There is empty looking and empty listening. With empty looking and listening, there is no judgement, there is no interpretive filter, there is no conflict, there is no "my' position and "your" position. There is no desire to be right or to be understood. It is an extraordinary state of consciousness. There is a shared energy. At more advanced levels, it is as if one can almost become the other person. It is extraordinarily beautiful. Sometimes I contemplate abilities, such as "paranormal" abilities. Are we born with them? Can they be developed? Can they be learned? Over the last several years, I've met several people with paranormal abilities. I seem to attract them know. There are lots of abilities I seem to completely lack. For example, astral projection and seeing auras. I can't do it at all. Zero. Nothing. And there are abilities I have just a hint of ability - such as Reiki. Yet it is barely perceivable. Abilities I'm moderate at - such as lucid dreaming. I only have one ability that I am a natural at: empathic abilities. I'm not just talking about having compassion for another or feeling bad for another. High level empathic abilities go into paranormal zones and it can get bizarre. Back to seeing various perspectives and developing this ability. I would say there are various components that come together: integral thinking/imagery, curiosity and empathy. Earlier in my life, I was often attached/identified to "my" perspective and I often got into debates. I wanted to be right and I wanted to be understood. These were often emotionally charged debates in which noone changed their opinion. Yet a higher desire would often appear. An energy of wondering. As well, there was often a sense that I was only partially right yet I was trying to be completely right. This was very unsettling to me. For example, I used to be highly contracted into science and logic. I got into debates about the existence of god, ghosts, the paranormal etc. I would always take a hard logical. rational position and expose their irrational beliefs. Quite often, I had a sincere desire to help them. They were believing in irrational things. Yet later that night I would be lying in bed unable to fall asleep. It just didn't feel right. The energy of our conversation and me being right. There was a sense I was missing something. Then the desire to discover that arose. I would think about how someone could believe those irrational beliefs. I wondered about their upbringing in life. The purpose it serves them. How they feel inside. I'd wonder what I would be like if I had had a similar upbringing. Over time, the wondering turned to imagining. I imagined what it would be like to be a woman, a transexual, gay, insane, a Chinese person, schizophrenia. I started asking people "what's it like?". What's it like to be able to play the piano? What's it like to have autism? Yet I didn't want to know theoretically. I wanted to know what actually holding the perspective and experience is like. Sometimes this led to uncomfortable situations. One time I was with a woman who had a combination of bipolar and schizophrenia issues. I really wanted to enter her world. I kept asking "Is it like this? I've experienced this before, is it like that? I would also try to feel it and enter her mind. I felt really close, like I was actually getting it and experiencing it. Like I was becoming her. Then she freaked out. I felt really bad I put her in distress and I realized I needed to tone it down and have better awareness of the stability of the "other". However, this would not be the last time things got so intense the other person couldn't handle it. I would also watch documentaries like criminal minds and multiple personalities. One time I was watching a documentary on serial killers. I don't resonate with the details of crime solving. I resonate with minds and conscious states. There was one show in which the killer talked about his experience of desiring to chase a victim, capture them and kill them. He was describing "what it was like" and I got so immersed. There was no "me". There was no filter that said "Killing is bad and this guy is demented". There was no filter saying "You are messed up for watching this" or "You better stop watching. You could become like him". Nothing like that. Just intense curiosity and wonderment of his experience and perspective. What it is like. As he described his experience during one of his sprees, I went deeper and deeper into it and started connecting empathically to him - as if I was him. Then he reached described the experience of when the victim took their last breath and the life force left their body. And I "got it". There was a "knowing" of what it's like. A knowing of his perspective and experience. That moment freaked me out. For a moment, I could not tell if I had killed someone or not. I didn't know if I was a murderer. . . When I returned to "me", I was really shaken up, yet I also realized I had some ability to do something I didn't know existed and had never seen in another. . . And it's not just with serial killers. I've gone into that space with multiple personalities, autism, forced feedings, insanity and solitary confinement. I tend to resonate stronger with darker dynamics for some reason. I probably wouldn't enter that hyper-empathic space watching someone describe the joy and freedom of being weightless in outer-space. Yet maybe I could if I work on it. The next big jump in deepening this ability was with psychedelics and cannabis edibles. This amplifies my empathic ability big time. I actually have to be careful because it's real and there are spaces that can traumatize my mind and body. Same as if I was "actually" going through it. After a lot of hyper-empathic trips, my baseline ability increased and new variations of it appeared. The thing with psychedelics is that the other person is no longer needed and I started to be able to do it on my own. For example, one trip went to a space that was so genius that it met insanity and I could no longer differentiate the two. I became that and I know what it's like. I know there are people in the world with this dynamic and I know them, their perspective and their experience. Over time, I started to be able to do it to an extent on my own. For example, I take long walks in nature and all sorts of perspectives, realities and experiences appear and disappear. There is no "me" present to hold onto "my" perspective, "my" experience or "my story". For example, I may be walking in the woods and various characters I've met in my life would arise in my consciousness. Not memories like a memory of someone I dated and how she would get angry. More like an appearance of a person I met and they were actually appearing, yet not in physical form. Or that I become that person. For example, I watched a documentary of a woman who developed multiple personalities as a child to cope with abuse from her father. She wasn't faking, it was real. As I hiked, she entered and I explored the different regions of her mind. Yet it was no longer "her" mind "I" was looking at. Perhaps psychedelics have led to my ability to do this. . . . I started to see how the mind is partitioned and multiple personalities started appearing. Lots of different people, perspectives and experiences started appearing. They were as much "me" as "my real story" is me. At first, this type of stuff would send me into full-on fight or flight panic. Yet now I'm cool with it. I can flow with it and I even immerse into it. For those that may have hints of an ability they want to develop deeper, I think one of the keys is letting go of skeptical questioning and analysis. Also, not trying to make it happen. It never works for me in that direction. For example, I cannot go into an ancient building and "turn it on". I can't think "I want to turn on my empathic abilities and detect if there is some energy lingering from a bad event that took place here". Or "I want to empathically communicate with this tree". Perhaps that will come at higher levels, yet that's not how it works now. I can only go blank and whatever appears, appears. . . When something appears, there can be mind chatter of resistance. For example "Is this real or am I just imagining it?". or "Is this occurrence like the one I heard about on YT?". Thinking that tries to demystify it, kills the energy. It is a different mode and dimension in which there is no difference between real and imagined. Also, if you have an ability you will be able to recognize others with that ability. Below, Ananta describes "empty looking and listening". This is a pretty good description of the emptiness that allows for appearance of paranormal.

These are just my impressions. If they allow insight, great. If not, that's fine too. My impression is that you are in a form of limbo - there is dissatisfaction with the surface-level self seeking stuff - like sex, money, job etc. If you genuinely don't have the energetic desire and motivation for such things, you are really far ahead. I spent 20 years of my adult life seeking knowledge, relationships, career success, financial security until I had an existential crisis. None of that stuff was working anymore and the was a void I could not fill. In this regard, you may be advanced. However. . . My impression is that your energetic orientation has not shifted to "transpersonal" seeking of Truth. I think it is good that you acknowledge this and are being honest with yourself about it. Going through the motions without the energetic desire is unsatisfying, frustrating and counter-productive. I don't think one can fake it. From my observations, the most common traits I see in the deeper awakenings are: 1. Their suffering becomes so intense that they are desperate and on the edge of life or death (E.g. Eckhart Tolle). Intense suffering can lead to surrender that allows space for awakening to arise, yet to me it seems rare that this alone is sufficient. I think Eckhart is an exception). One of the problems with this dynamic is that the person is still highly attached/identified to the personal construct. They want relief from their personal suffering. They are not oriented toward transcending the personal construct. So this route is very indirect. Everytime the person faces discomfort and pain along the spiritual path, they will recoil. Thus, this is a conditional orientation. They just want the relieving aspects of spirituality. 2. A predisposition to spirituality. Some people seem to have spiritual gifts and things come easy to them. For example, I meditated for over 20 years without a single strong mystical experience. I noticed fellow meditators in the sangha having mystical experiences and realizations in far less time and effort than me. I've even met a couple people that suddenly had deep realizations with little effort. It just appeared and they didn't think it was that big a deal. 3. Karma, past lives, place of birth/upbringing, genetics. To me, it seems like if someone is not carrying a lot of previous karma, conditioning and are in a relatively high conscious environment - there is a higher chance of awakenings. Someone born into poverty in Africa that is getting abused daily, is malnourished and has a family history of violence and trauma is less likely to have space to awaken. I'm sure it can happen, yet that is a lot to overcome. 4. Desire of Truth for Truth's sake. I would say this is the most important orientation. With this orientation, the person will constantly be drawn to Truth. I've seen a range of desire intensity. When it gets strong, the desire can be overwhelming. This can lead to intense curiosity, openness and willingness. If Truth is the highest desire the person will be willing to let go of there most treasured beliefs to reach a deeper level of Truth. They will be willing to sacrifice themselves and experience Truth. They will be willing to lose everything for Truth. They are even willing to die for it. . . I would say this is the most important energetic orientation since the person it open to all forms of Truth. They don't care whether it will make them happy. They don't care "what's in it for me?". The highest desire is to find Truth whatever it might be. If discovering Truth means experiences of insanity, terror and sorrow, that's just how it is and they are willing to walk through it. This orientation is not conditional on what flavors of Truth are revealed. Yet very few people have this orientation because it involves dynamics that threaten the survival of the self and the wellbeing of the self. I would say Adyashanti, Leo and Nemo have (or have had) this energetic orientation. For example, Adyashanti had an insatiable desire to awaken. He wasn't seeking relief or seeking to be happy. He was seeking Truth. He meditated long hours and put all his effort into it. Before his major awakening during a meditation session he realized he may die right now - yet he kept going because he knew he would realize Truth prior to his death. Similarly, Nemo was handed a pill that guaranteed him realization of Truth. Nemo didn't know what was behind the door. It could be an eternity of pain and suffering. Yet he had a higher desire to know Truth. . . Many people love this moment and often try to identify as someone who would take that red pill of Truth. Yet I think very few people would actually do it. . . The closest we have to this in life is psychedelic "ego-death" experiences. In terms of awakening - it doesn't sound like you have any of these orientations (other than perhaps #3). You may not have a heavy load of karma and conditioning). Yet I don't think that is sufficient - I think it just allows space and opportunity - yet other factors also need to be present. You've clearly stated that you do not desire realizing Truth for Truth's sake. That is fine, yet it means you will be very unlikely to realize Truth. I can say that Truth is an acquired taste that can develop over time. Since you are not desiring material things, it could be that a genuine desire and appreciation for Truth may develop over time. However, if that isn't resonating with you now, I wouldn't force it. I would follow my genuine desire. Perhaps there is a desire for something like experiencing new things. If so, I would do something like travel to foreign countries and immerse myself into different cultures. Or perhaps learn to master a new skill of expression and creativity - like learning a musical instrument. If you are simply experiencing blissful experiences, I might look into using recreational drugs responsibly. After a while, one may realize that chasing blissful experiences doesn't do it either. They could then let go of that orientation and perhaps go deeper.

There is a self-centered relative love and a transcendent love. The self is oriented toward protecting itself for its own survival. As well, the self is oriented toward seeking self gratification and pleasure. From the perspective of the self, there may be no reason to cultivate love in situations that the self interprets as harmful to itself. In terms of the self, an orientation that I will avoid engaging in harmful behavior to myself and others seems pretty healthy to me. There are unhealthier self orientations. For example, a self might ask "Why should I practice non-hatred if someone harms me. Why can't I seek revenge by putting is cat in a pot of boiling water?". As well, we could create healthier self orientations. For example, we may think "When someone harms me, I don't necessary want to engage with them, yet I'd like to understand their perspective and why they are behaving the way they are". For example, imagine you go on a few dates with a gal that we kinda like. Then we find out she is married with a child and the husband tracks you down and tells you "stay away from my wife or I will harm you". In a sense, the woman's lie and the husbands threat have harmed you. From a self perspective, it seems reasonable to say "I don't want to get involved and be harmed in this unhealthy situation. And I don't want to cause any harm to their family". Do you need to get involved and try to infuse love into this unhealthy family dynamic? Do you need to play some type of psychologist to help the family heal with love? I would say "no" in this context. It seems best to step away and disengage. Yet we can still have love. We may notice that this woman and family have gone through trauma and are suffering. We can see how they are acting out their trauma for relief. We may feel a sense of understanding, empathy and love for them. Yet this doesn't mean we need to intervene in the family and try to inject love. Showing up to their house with a basket full of fruit and love would be very inappropriate in this context. So let's imagine the we disengage. We can disengage with neutrality and think "She has issues. I'm outta here". Or we can disengage with a sense of understanding what they are going through on a human level. We can have empathy, compassion and love for them. We can wish them the best. Perhaps we do a tonglen meditation one night and send healing energy to their family. And then we move on. . . Is there a "benefit" to this orientation. To me that is an odd question because it is so self-centered. Thinking "If I feel a sense of empathy for the family, how will I benefit? What's in it for me?". I don't know how to answer that. I think it is more of a personal orientation. When I see people harming others, I get a sense of their inner insecurities and pain. People who harm others also harm themselves and they are suffering on the inside. This doesn't mean I should go camping with them, yet I can still have a sense of caring and empathy for them. I guess for me, the "benefit" of this is that my human experience is much deeper and meaningful. Transactional interactions are very shallow too me and I don't like them.

To me he seems like a hybrid of personal development and nonduality. I don’t resonate with him, yet I can see how others would. It’s nice to see a diversity of people exploring spirituality.

This is both the trap and the key. A fundamental essence of the human experience is a sense that something is missing. How to proceed depends on your energetic orientation. I would pay attention to what you resonate with. That will reveal your orientation and path. Below are some statements that may or may not resonate with someone based on the energetic orientation: — you are missing god in your life. Perhaps get involved with a church and find Jesus. — you are missing personal purpose in your life. Perhaps find a career path and pursue it, —- you are missing challenge and adventure. Perhaps set a goal of hiking Mt. Kilimanjaro in the next year. — you are missing true love in your life. Perhaps create a relationship with someone that is more meaningful and loving than you can imagine. — you are missing a sense of human connection and community in your life. Perhaps get involved with a meditation or yoga community. — you are missing a sense of mysticism and magnificence. Perhaps take a psychedelic and unlock a door to another dimension and discover your special abilities. —you are missing something deep within that can be found through introspection. Perhaps spend a week solo in the woods to discover your true nature. —you are missing something deep within that you have been unable to access through your own efforts. Perhaps travel to Peru and do an Ayahuasca retreat. —you are not missing anything. Perhaps transcend the personal self and realize the unconditional wholeness that is Here and Now. Each of these pointers could resonate with someone based on their energetic orientation. Personally, I would avoid pursuing something I “should” do or that may help me get out of a rut. Rather, I would pay attention to something I am drawn to - something I feel “called” to do.

@remember We are using the terms in different contexts and won’t be able to have a comprehensible discussion. We aren’t on the same frequency, which is fine.

@remember That’s not how I’m using the terms relative authority and absolute authority. You are assigning different meaning, which is fine - you are free to do so. In the context of how I’m using the terms a mechanic is a relative authority on cars. For example, a mechanic is an authority on cars relative to a blind circus clown. According to my term usage, Absolute authority is a direct experience that is not constrained by thoughts or personality constructs. It is realized through direct experience - as all absolutes. This thread discussion is about relative authorities among people. Some may not resonate with how I am using these terms and thats totally fine.

This is not what I'm saying. This is still within the dynamic of positions - a pro-life position or pro-choice position. I am pointing a meta view of both positions. The term "okay" is a relative term. What is "okay" is relative to a perspective. From the perspective of an ardent pro-life position, it is not okay to end life in our own bodies. A pro-life position would place the life of a human biological organism over allowing the woman to choose. From a pro-life position, it is not "okay" for a woman to end the life of the human organism inside her. However, this pro-life position is limited to human life. Pro-lifers are not marching to protect mouse life or fly larvae life. It is conditional to human life. . . In contrast, an ardent pro-choice position would be to prioritize allowing the mother to choose over protecting the life of the biological organism inside her. From this position it is "okay" for a woman to choose to end the life of a human organism inside her. . . Whether or not it is "okay" is relative to the perspective. There is no external, objective, universal "okay" - it is relative. From a pro-choice perspective, a woman has a right to choose whether to carry a human biological organism inside her or to end it. Choice is a higher priority than "life". To understand this position, one needs to understand that choice is the higher priority in this example. If we shift to the life of a biological organism outside of the body, it is a completely different context. Now the highest priority of choice is no longer relevant. It is a new context. Now that "choice is irrelevant" the person is no longer considered "pro-choice"because from this perspective there is no "choice" (whether to terminate a pregnancy in their body). Whether to protect the lives of non-human biological organisms would be a new question. A pro-life perspective would be very different. From this perspective protecting the life of a human biological organism is higher than allowing a woman to choose whether to carry it. From this perspective, the pro-choice position seems hypocritical. A pro-choicer may say it is "okay" to end the life of a human embryo, yet not the life of a sea turtle embryo. This seems hypocritical to a pro-lifer because they do not understand a pro-choice position due to their attachment/identification to their pro-life position. However, from a pro-choice position, it is not hypocritical - it is consistent to their position. This would be considered a high green or yellow view because it includes relativism. If a person held this meta view and believed it was the right view, that is high green. If a person was aware that this relativistic meta view itself is relative, that is stage yellow. Blue, Orange and Green tend to hold different views on abortion due to their underlying value system.

Of course. An extreme pro-lifer has a position. Their position is timepoint 0 (conception). If we set a timepoint of 20 weeks, of course they will perceive it as losing ground. It is losing ground relative to their position of timepoint 0. An extreme pro-lifer will interpret this as pro-choicers "winning". On the flip side, an extreme pro-choicer may want the timepoint to be 40 weeks (birth). From this position they will see a 20 week cutoff as losing ground. It is losing ground relative to timepoint 40. An extreme pro-choicer will interpret this as pro-lifers "winning". The point of compromise is not to appease either extreme. Neither extreme will be happy with compromise. Both extreme pro-lifers and extreme pro-choicers will see any intermediate timepoint as losing ground and that the other side is "winning". . . The goal of compromise is not to appease either extreme. The goal of compromise is to find maximum consensus. By definition, the two polar extremes will be unhappy with compromise. . . Compromise must be between 0 and 40 weeks. The greatest level of consensus is most likely between the first and third trimesters. Somewhere between week 12 and week 25. It might not be exactly at week 20, yet that misses the point. Focusing and debating about the specific week is a strategy used by both extreme pro-lifers and extreme pro-choicers because they don't want to "lose ground" from their relative position. Yet from the perspective of consensus, the specific week is a secondary concern. The primary concern is reaching maximum consensus. If maximum consensus is week 15, go with week 15. If maximum consensus is week 23, go with week 23. . . Overtime, the point of maximum consensus may change considerably and need to be adjusted. You are missing the point of what motivates ardent pro-lifers and ardent pro-choicers. Most ardent pro-lifers are motivated to protect human life. They see human life to be more sacred than other forms of life,. Of course they won't care about protecting deer life and are fine with killing deer. An ardent pro-choicer is motivated primarily by personal choice. They are motivated to protect a women's right of choice. They place choice higher than the protection of a biological organism in their body. I'm not surprised at all if a pro-choicer gets angry over someone stepping on a sea turtle egg, because the sea turtle egg is not in their womb and they are not being forced to carry a sea turtle to its birth against their own wishes. . . If sea turtles developed in human wombs, ardent pro-choicers would support the choice to abort the sea turtle pregnancy because they place personal choice and autonomy over their own body over the life of the biological organism.

Some of the discussion here is assuming there is a psychiatric "problem". If one assumes there is a psychiatric problem, then we could have a discussion on the pros and cons of seeing a psychiatrist or shaman for help with this problem. That is one frame, there is also a very different frame. A person could have paranormal abilities that are considered psychotic by the community and psychiatrists. A psychiatrist may misdiagnose the paranormal ability and associated distress as "psychosis" and prescribe medication to relieve the "psychotic" episodes. A shaman could see this person and rather than seeing a "psychotic problem" the shaman may recognize the paranormal and mystical abilities. Rather than trying to "treat" or "cure" this person, the shaman would support this person and try to help this person reach their mystical potential. This is a very different frame. . . As well, there could be a combination of both frames. On the flip side, imagine an aboriginal tribe in which a person has an extraordinary memory. They can remember details of every single day of their life. They can remember a string of thousands of numbers. To the aboriginal community, this is highly abnormal - they have never seen anything like this and think the person is possessed by a demon. Shamans and witch doctors come to try and "cure" the person of this psychosis. This person could come to America and be seen as gifted. The person would go on talk shows and could become a celebrity. Mathematicians and psychologists may try and help this gifted person reach their highest potential. For example, could this person expand their abilities toward a photographic memory?