Forestluv

Don’t hijack this thread. It’s not a thread to vent personal frustrations. The below thread is appropriate for this.

You are only seeing things from your perspective. People are trying to show you other perspectives. If you want to stay locked in one view, that’s your choice.

For creativity enhancement, microdosing is 100X better than coffee. And it’s healthier.

@Einsteinonacid Your natural state of being is being. You don’t need to figure out a secret code to be.

You are seeing this from a male perspective and missing the point. It is culturally acceptable for a young male to engage in pick-up, practice having sex with women and gain experience. Consider the impact of this on women from the woman's perspective. . . It is an erroneous extrapolation to say "Men and women have one night stands all the time. They have fun and no one gets broken-hearted". This is an immature male perspective that avoids looking at the impact asymmetric gender/sex dynamics have on women.

Who are you referring to as "he"? And the grammar is hard to read without punctuation.

Nice inspection. . . I think this gets at the next layer. At first, one may realize "Thoughts just appear. I am not the author of my thoughts. However, I can choose between two thought options. I can choose to act toward one option or the other". To me, this is the next layer. Observe this choice. Is there a chooser? Is there simply the appearance of choice? Is there a subjective experience of choice? Is there a thought story of choice? I imagine driving in my car. Sometimes my driving is automatic. I don't think "I am now facing a choice between turning on my turn signal or not. . . I am now choosing to accelerate. I am now choosing to make a left turn". Sometimes it's just automatic. I just drive and listen to music. Sometimes I sing along or think about memories of the song. . . Along the drive, there are countless "choices" being made. What speed to go, whether to brake, whether to stop or turn left. Yet are these really "choices"? Sort of, but not really. We can imagine choices are being made, yet there wasn't the subjective experience of a chooser making a choice. . . So now let's say I realize my highway exit is near. I don't have the GPS on and I don't have time to input the destination. Shoot, the next exit is here. Should I exit here? Or is it the next one?. . . Now the story and subjective experience of "choice" and a "chooser" arises. I may think "Dang. I should have been using GPS. I made a bad choice. . . . I don't know whether to choose this exit or the next exit. If I make the wrong choice, I will be late for my Doctors appointment. I'm feeling stressed now. I don't want to make the wrong choice. Ok, I will choose the exit here. I hope I am right.". . . So. . . are these simply happenings with a story and experience of "choice" overlayed on top of the happenings? Is "choice" simply imagination? Or is "choice" real? . . It's tempting to get into a duality of choice vs. no choice. This is a form of a "real" vs "imagined" duality. And it's tempting to take one side or the other. Human minds are conditioned to think in opposition. There must either be choice or no choice. . . The challenge is that we put ourselves in a binary position. Most people are conditioned to believe in choice. There is a very strong subjective experience of choice. As well choice is tightly associated with survival. Here, it is insightful to realize the opposite side of the duality. . . There is no choice or chooser. . . Yet then the temptation is to grasp "no choice" and reject "choice". We may create a website and videos about how there is no choice/chooser. We may state personal and scientific evidence. We may get into arguments. . . The next layer is to let go of the opposite side of the duality and start to see the inter-connections between the duality. Eventually the duality collapses and there is knowing of both choice/chooser and no choice/chooser. A few things I think worth considering. . . The context of the thread is about free will and choice. In this context. . . When you state that the assumption is arrogant, was that a choice you made? . . . The human mind can get lulled into assuming objectivity. For some minds, this is hard wired and relative awareness is deeply subconscious. For other minds, awareness of relativity is just below the conscious level and a person just needs a little nudge. For example, we may ask the person "When you say the statement is arrogant, is that your personal interpretation or is that objectively and universally true?". . . When pressed, most people would realize that their statement is a personal interpretation - however their is an issue of underlying attachment and identification. . . Another person may get defensive and say "No, it really was arrogant. That's just how it is". Yet clearly this isn't an objective and universal truth. How could we objectively determine if a thing is "arrogant". Would we use a computer algorithm to determine if it was objectively "arrogant"? As well, this clearly isn't universal. Even within this thread, one user said the statements were "arrogant" and another user said the statements were "good points". So obviously neither statement is universally true. So back to the theme of the thread. When the mind thinks "that is arrogant". Is this a choice? We could say yes, because there were lots of options available to choose from. We could say the statement was: arrogant, humble, sweet, loving, condescending, kind, rude, insulting, insightful, delusional . . . and on and on. We could create a massive list to choose from. . . We could also say there was no choice. Did the mind actually consider various ways to interpret the statements? Did the mind consider the strengths and weaknesses of each option? Did the mind narrow the options down to either "arrogant or condescending" and then finally choose that the statement was arrogant?. . . Probably not. For most minds in this situation, the stimuli goes through a lens - a feeling and thought arises that this is "arrogant". Usually, this is accepted and not question. It just is arrogant. It's obviously arrogant. The mind doesn't even question the underlying psychological dynamics. . . Yet as mentioned, when this is revealed the person may get defensive and argue that the statements are arrogant. This would be a relatively low level of consciousness (stage orange and below on SD). Or when someone reveals this the person may shift and become aware "Well, of course it's just my personal interpretation. That is so obvious." This is a higher level. From here the mind may still stay attached/identified to "this is arrogant" or there can be a letting go. Perhaps the person starts to contemplate the patterns in the own mind. The next "stage" is when one starts realizing relativity on their own and there is little attachment/identification. This gets into stage Yellow on the spiral. Another point: conflation between absolute and relative is super common. As well, there is often conflation between objective and absolute. Here, I am expressing relative. Any expression is relative. There is realization of this and embodiment of this. This is easy to observe in one's mind body. . . When you point out "this is just your own experience and something you came up with. It's not absolute truth", I can observe my own level of development. What is my mind body response? Do I think defensively? Do I think "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He obviously hasn't had the direct experience". Or is the mind body in a place in which there is knowing of relativity and that any point is relative? Does the mind and body know that any contextualization of ISness is relative? . . . How does the body respond? Where their feelings of internal tension? This is a good example of how insightful simple observation of one's psychological dynamics can be. Early on in self actualization, it's super helpful to get feedback from others to help reveal underlying dynamics. Yet as we develop, the person becomes their own best teacher. Eventually there is an integration between introspection of the individual and extrospection within a collective. And all of this is relative and has an infinite number of interpretations. How will you choose to interpret it? Is it insightful? Is it New Age bs? Perhaps it's delusional word salad. You get to create your own reality. . . And whatever you imagine to be true is true. What is, IS.

This gets into semantics about how we define the term "allowed". If there is a sign that says "Smoking Not Allowed". It doesn't mean that it's physically impossible to smoke there. That is not the agreed-upon meaning of the term "allowed". The colloquial use would be that a person or group of people decided that they want to prohibit smoking in the area. It doesn't mean that it's physically impossible to smoke there.

Self inquiry is an advanced practice. It’s more about deconstruction and transcending intellect than figuring things out through reason. If you have momentum with self inquiry and your intuition says to dive in deeper, go for it and see how it goes.

Beck and Cowan’s book entitled Spiral Dynamics. As well as learning through the direct experience of evolving up the spiral. Focusing on specific terms is often a distraction. A fundamental feature of Tier1 to Tier2 is transcendence of the personality structure. The term “unattached awareness” is just an expression of that. I wouldn’t get too caught up on the term, the underlying meaning/essence is the key. And the Taliban is not stage Yellow. That’s a misunderstanding of the spiral. There are various ways to contextualize “hippie”. In the standard usage of the term “hippie”, their traits are stage green.

Sweet dreams ? ?

What do you *need*? What is the underlying desire seeking?

Be careful handling universal objective reality. ?

I wouldn’t say *completely* impractical. The finding has allows for some practical benefits to the mind and body.

To me this boils down to thought authorship and a chooser. I did quite a bit of meditation with thought. I would observe thought - in particular "Where do thoughts arise from? Who is the author of thoughts". My mind would go blank and I would sit waiting for the next thought to arise. Like a cat waiting for a mouse to come out of a cupboard. . . Eventually there was a realization that thoughts are just appearing from an unknown mysterious place. I'm not the author of my thoughts. . . It's not an intellectual thing that can be figured out. It is awareness prior to thoughts. Or one could say awareness above thoughts. I did similar meditations on the lookout for a "chooser". I would sit, meditate and observe. My mind would go blank and I would wait for choice to appear. I was determined to observe the appearance of choice and discover the chooser. . . . Attention would be on a candle and then attention was on breathing. Whoa. . . was that shift of attention a choice? Did I choose that or did it just happened? How do I know what qualifies as a choice? Do I need to be thinking about options for a choice to be made?. . . One time I started getting bored and tired. I wondered how much time was left on the timer and I wanted to check the timer. . . Yet should I check the timer or not? Ah Ha! A potential choice. A choice between looking at the timer or not looking at the timer. . . This is it!!! Yes!!! This is what it boils down to. Buckle up. This is it. I kept observing. Observing. Observing. All sorts of desires and thoughts arose. At times my body was about to reach for the timer yet didn't. A couple times my body reached for the timer then pulled back. Observing these dynamics and appearances where fascinating. With enough practice, it was revealed. . . Yet it's not intellectual. For me, no intellectual explanation is satisfying because I was looking for something prior/above explanation. It is the direct experience. . . My biggest hindrance was the belief that I could figure it out. That kept me chasing my tail for years.

I find it insightful to let go of all the thinking and trying to figure it out. . . and spend some time in nature - simply observing nature and being. Simply observe how plants, insects, animals and all of nature interacts with itself. Just observation, without trying to figure it out. . . There is a form of "knowing" available that is beyond thought. There is a form of "getting it" available. . . "Ah Ha! That's it, I get it! Oh my gosh, this is amazing!!. . . Wait a minute, what do I get? This makes no sense.". . . .Lol.

One word is too many, a million words not enough. Any definition or interpretation is a second order contextualization. "Prior" to definitions is no definition and all definitions. Another expression may be the deconstruction of all distinctions. . . Direct experience is key to transcend definitions and theory. Yet direct experience is often contextualized as an "experience". I think the heart sutra is a pretty good expression of Mu.

No, zen mu.

It's a nuanced point. It might be better to say that attachment/identification decreases with each stage such that is much less pronounced at Yellow than at Blue. . . As well, one could say that relatively unattached observation appears. . . I think skepticism is natural until it reveals itself. . . Some environments are easier/purer than others. . . For example, while walking through a forest an awareness may reveal itself. An awareness of the environment - yet there is no ownership of the awareness. . . . It's trickier when interacting with other humans and personality dynamics. . . As an example: last week I had a conversation with a woman who specializes in sports psychology and peak performance. She is a coach and a teacher. This is a fascinating area for me and my curiosity was off the chart. I mentioned a few things about neuroscience and flow states of consciousness. Now she got super curious. We explored so many areas of sports psychology, performance, flow states and neuroscience. There was no "my perpective" vs "her perspective". There were no owners. As well, there was no "I want to impress her with my good ideas" or "I hope she didn't think my idea was stupid". . . Rather there was a free-flowing exploration of ideas and experiences without personalities claiming ownership. These are yellow-level conversations and they are absolutely beautiful. it is like exploring music. No one owns the music in the atmosphere. If we are at a concert, we don't say "the sound of the drum is mine and the sound of the guitar is yours". Rather, there is a flow of sound without ownership. Similarly, there is a flow of ideas and concepts without ownership. It is shared at a collective level of consciousness. . . This is one of the key elements of transitioning from Tier 1 to Tier 2 and it is magnificently beautiful. I think that's a good question and also nuanced. From one perspective, there is transcendence of content. A meta view of structure. For example, a blue level person that is immersed in Christian content may go to a University and be in a totally different environment. They may take a science course and a religious studies course and transcend their immersion in religious christian content. They may realize "Wait a minute. Parts of my religion are irrational. And all religions have similarities. They have different content, yet similar structure. If I was born in the middle east, I would have probably become muslim". This can lead to a transcendence of the content and a meta view of the structure. The structure of the identity can be totally transformed. With this awakening, the identification with religion may quickly dissolve. It's like realizing you've been playing a character in a move and that you no longer need to play that character. This would be transcending blue to orange. Can new content and structure arise? Yes, the new content (movie) is that I am now an atheist. I am a rational person that believes in science, logic and evidence. This is a new identification with new content and structure. A new movie. And this can be transcended as well when we enter Green and Yellow.

Talent and ability does not mean development and higher consciousness. For example, a narcissist can be very good at manipulating people for their own selfish gain. Yet this doesn't mean they are some Tier2 level genuis. Most narcissists at are at a very low development and conscious level. They are acting on impulse, instinct and underlying conditioning - yet do not have unattached awareness of inter-personal dynamics like a stage yellow person is. I was in a relationship with a very skilled narcissist. She was sooo good at manipulating situations and gaslighting. Yet she was also at a very low level of developmental psychology and consciousness. . .. In a sense, it is a paradox. Occasionally I see people say that someone like Trump of Jordan Peterson is actually at a Tier 2 level of consciousness. I think not.

A sign that says "smoking not allowed", means smoking is not allowed. If someone smokes in the area, they will be asked to stop or leave. They might even get fined.

When unwelcomed intrusive thoughts appear in the mind, there can be a desire to repress them or seek relief from them . I've found trying to push away or avoid intrusive thoughts often makes it worse. This sets up an internal conflict of "I can't stop obsessing about the past. I'm always living in the past. I want it to stop". . . This creates two polar oppsosites: We are trapped 100% in OCD past and seek 100% relief from it. Yet ime, that dynamic is a trap. It creates an unnecessary conflict. It's not so much the engagement with the past, it is the frequency and intensity of the engagement. A couple years ago, I asked myself "What proportion of my time do I spend engaged in the past?". It was a really high number. Like 80% of my day. This was too much. I wanted to spend more time living in the present moment. Yet I also don't want 0% of my time engaging in the past. How could I possibly survive if I never considered the past? As well, I want to spend some time in personal reflection. Part of personal growth is to reflect upon our past and grow. So rather than trying to push away any thoughts of the past, I had a goal of reducing my time spent living in the past from 80% of my life down to 60%. Then if I could do that, then perhaps I could reduce it down further into a healthy zone of 40% or so. . . One thing I found was that I had a lot of mental conditioning of living in the past. One thing I found helpful was to designate a certain amount of time to "now". I dedicated 30min. a day to Now. Sorta like going to the gym each day. I had a "Now" workout. I would do something that helped relax the mind and put me in now. For example, yoga, art, gardening or walking in nature. Something in which I was engaged in the moment. When intrusive thoughts arose I would acknowledge it and gently tell my mind "This is *now time*. You will have plenty of time later to obsess about the past. Yet for this 30min. is *now time*". This helped relaxed my mind. . . I started off having very short glimpses of being now. Perhaps a 10 second gap. Yet with more and more practice, those gaps started stretching into minutes. I remember walking through nature one time appreciating the beauty of nature. I listened to the bird calls and wondered how the birds communicate with each other. Do birds have language? I noticed dragonflies dancing in the air with each other. So beautiful. Then I realized I didn't have an intrusive thought of the past for 5 min.!! It was so amazing and gave me hope that I could actually have a portion of my life living in the present moment. I just did for 5 min.!!. . . I would do my 30min. *now* workout daily. After a few weeks, I started getting better and noticed that brief moments of now started appearing in my regular day. I'd be doing something at work and realize I was Now for 30min. straight without even trying. Not only did I look at the quantity of time spent engaged in the past, I looked at the quality. I wanted my time reflecting about the past to be healthy. One thing I noticed is that I was hyper-critical of myself. I was conditioned to be hyper self-critical by my parents since I was a kid. I had a pattern of "beating myself up" over the past. I wanted to change this from unhealthy hyper self-critical to healthy reflection. Rather than beating myself up, I began to get curious. Rather than think "I shouldn't have said that to my gf yesterday. I bet I hurt her feelings. I'm such a bad person". . . I would think "Isn't it interesting how I responded to my gf yesterday. What was the underlying energy? Was I insecure? I wonder how my response impacted her. Perhaps she wasn't hurt. Perhaps I can ask her. This would be a good way for us to connect. Then I can learn how to respond in a healthier way in the future". . . I would spend some time journaling. Yet the energetics are important. Rather than beat myself up, I was more of an observer that is curious about myself. Here I didn't make harsh self judgments or harsh self-criticism. This growth didn't happen overnight. It took time to re-condition my mind. Yet the time and effort is sooo worth it. I now have a healthy amount of time engaged in the past and rarely enter hyper-self critical spaces of beating myself up. I'd say only about 10min. each day are in this space. As well, I am much better at recognizing it and learned how to diffuse the intensity. You might also want to consider therapy to help release patterns. For me it did not help to see a therapist that engaged in the OCD story. I found a psychologist specialized in releasing the pattern of intrusive thoughts. For me, EMDR therapy was helpful because it does not engage in the mental story. It goes prior to the mental stories in a effort to diffuse the triggers of the story.

There have been several Mike Tyson and DMT threads. For example:

In human societies, the term "god" often has a transcendental connotation - a type of supernatural entity, beyond "me". So when someone reaches a "beyond me" realm - such as during sex - it seems natural for some to say "oh my god" during the experience. Saying "oh my pencil" doesn't have the same type of transcendental essence and energy. People at stage blue tend to call out "Oh my god!!" during sex. Those at stage orange tend to call out "Oh my Big Bang". Those at Green call out "Oh my sacral chakra". Yellow calls out "Oh my integrated systems!!". Turquoise calls out "Oh God!!". For Turquoise, there is no separation between "me" and "God", so they wouldn't say "my god". As well, God is capitalized for Turquoise.

There are different aspects of "lower vs. higher" in relative contexts. For example, a 12th grade student is at a higher level relative to a 6th grade student. The 12th grade student will have more advanced cognitive skills - for example their pre-frontal cortex is much more developed allowing them some abstract thinking. The 12th student will be at a higher level of math and a higher level of maturity. . . Yet we wouldn't create a hierarchy of human worth. We wouldn't say the 12th grade student has higher human worth than a 6th grade student. They are simply at different developmental stages.