Forestluv

Of course. I just slipped on ice outside and to say I was "dissatisfied" with the outcome is an understatement. A much stronger word would be appropriate. Yet what is is. Slipping on ice is slipping on ice. Feeling pain is feeling pain. Feeling dissatisfied is feeling dissatisfied. . . There is a tendency for the mind to think "Once I realize what is, I should be satisfied with what is". Yet this is still playing an egoic game. . . ISness is ISness. Any satisfaction of dissatisfaction is itself ISness!! There is no escape. . . Try to stop ISness from ISing. Try to change ISness. Try to exit ISness. . . You can't. You can be disatisfied or satisfied. You can hide in a closet. You can sing a song. Jump off a bridge. It all IS. You could call Leo for help and anything Leo says is ISness. Self criticism IS self criticism. Self acceptance IS self acceptance. The transcendence is not what is to the left and right of IS. The transcendence is IS itself.

These types of constructs can be insightful and beneficial. Some with depression may have a realization that "suffering is an illusion". This might be a paradigm shift that reduces mind-body distress. As well, I often like to contemplate about the inter-relationship between whats real and what is illusion. Yet there isn't there also a prior to this? In which suffering is suffering and an illusion is an illusion. How can one thing be another thing? We need to take out a knife and carve out a thing called "suffering" and carve out another thing called "an illusion" and we can say the are the same to each other, yet different from our other carvings. For example, our suffering carving is different than our tuna sandwich carving. . . Yet what is there prior to these carvings? What is the substance from which we carve? Regarding an enlightened person. . . who/what is this person that gets enlightened? Again, this can be a useful construct, yet what is prior to "I am enlightened"? . . What is prior to "I am XXX"? . . . I am a scientist. I am an athlete. I am intelligent. I am a belly dancer. I am enlightened. . Prior to this is simply "I AM" without any add-ons. And this "I AM" can be deconstructed to "AM". Simply AM-ness. See what is happening here. A statement was made that "Suffering is an illusion" and then a story is written titled "Suffering is an Illusion". We are now writing a story about how pain/suffering affects a person, how an enlightened person would interpret pain/suffering, whether we need to overcome pain/suffering for another thing called "intuition" to be revealed and this intuition reveals that suffering is an illusion. . . . There is a lot in there. This type of construction can be helpful, yet it can also be mesmerizing and distractive - especially when there is immersion into the content. . . What comes prior to all these ideas? That prior in which an idea is an idea? I like to walk through nature and simply observe. Sometimes I see a sunset and think "That sunset is so beautiful". I may see a group of dragonflies dancing together in the air and think "Those dancing dragonflies are so amazing!!!". This is part of the human experience and I wouldn't want to live without it. Yet I also wouldn't want to live with attachment either. . . A sunset is beautiful and a sunset is a sunset and beauty is beauty. Dragonflies are amazing and dragonflies are dragonflies. . . With this realization of "prior" there is a price to pay. There is a certain type of loss and sadness when the magic trick of "A is B" is revealed. Yet there is also a liberation and doors to magnificence open. Here, one doesn't need to convince themselves or anyone else that dragonflies are amazing or that a sunset is beautiful. Or that suffering is an illusion. One no longer needs to prove their worth and win debates by proving that dragonflies are amazing. A is A and B is B. And All carvings arise from Nothing and return to Nothing. To me, it's profoundly beautiful and profoundly sad.

And how would that go over with a blue-centered person that has resistance to Orange? A blue-centered person that sees Orange as immoral atheists that are arrogant sinners. . . . If it is a blue-centered society, how would that look? An Orange-level person could be seen as an evil apostate. They would likely be ostracized. They might even be beaten or killed. . . How did Aristotle go over in a blue environment? As well, Turquoise has awareness of Oneness. There isn't a strong dynamic of "I am at a higher level and I need to help these other people at lower levels to evolve". There is a transcendent awareness present - a type of collective consciousness.

@outlandish Sure, from a scientific perspective we will learn a lot more over the coming years. From initial studies looking at harm of drugs relative to individuals and society, psychedelics ranks low. Below things like caffeine, marijuana or benzos. In this context, psychedelics wouldn't be considered an unhealthy substance. Yet these studies were with regular psychedelic doses, were not fully comprehensive and did not include any cellular data. It's just based on a portion of the limited information we currently have. We will learn more as we go along.

Technically, microdosing is below threshold so there would be no impairment of driving capability. On a microdose, someone isn't like "Wow, this microdosing is awesome! I'm so much more creative. I'm totally at Yellow now". . . It more like one doesn't even notice. They forget they even took the dose. At the end of the day, they might reflect "Today was a pretty good day. I had some nice creative moments. Oh, I microdosed. I forgot about that". It would be like taking a sip of beer and worrying about driving since drinking and driving is a No No. Yet we don’t currently have safety thresholds for psychedelics. We know the most people’s ability to drive starts to decline at a blood alcohol level of about .07. Yet we don’t have a safety level for psychedelics. As well, one needs to be mature and responsible. One needs to find their personal sub-threshold dose. As well, one needs to be mindful of effects. If someone is a Nervous Nellie and freaks out like "Oh my god, I took a microdose and now I'm mowing my lawn!! I could stick my hand under the mower and chop my hand off!! I shouldn't be using a lawn mower". Even though the dose is subthreshold and is not impacting the capacity to use a lawn mower, the person's anxiety and psychology is indirectly impairing their ability to use a lawnmower and it's best that they don't mow the lawn while MDing. For me, texting while driving is a much higher risk than microdosing and driving.

@Derrida Consider what knowing is. It seems like your construct of knowing is limited to knowing something like a fact. Or knowing a concept is true. For example, someone may speak of neuroscience as if they know what they are talking about. Yet also consider a different form of Knowing. . . How do you know now is now? . . . Do you wake up each morning skeptical that now is now. Do you spend your whole day trying to determine if now is now? Do you seek evidence and proof that now is now? Of course not. There is a Knowing of Now that is prior to all the thought stories and evidence. There is simply a Knowing of Now. . . Similarly, how do you know you exist?. . . Do you go to scientists seeking proof that you exist? Are you seeing a psychiatrist to help show you that you are alive and exist? . . . Of course not. There is a Knowing of "I AM" prior to facts and evidence. As well, the Knowing that ISness is ISness comes prior to evidence and facts.

All maps have relative value. If I am looking for a restaurant in Paris, a map of Paris will have high relative value and a map of Los Angeles will have low relative value. . . And it's easy to conflate the map and territory. The map of Paris is useful, yet the image of the restaurant on the map is not the actual restaurant.

To have a "system", a system must be created. The system will be limited to that system. For example, a construct of science is limited to that construct of science. Same goes for any system. For example, how should we score "glifjic"? . . . Huh? What the heck is glifjic? . . . Glifjic starts of as being very expansive since it is undefined. It could be anything or nothing at all. Yet even creating the term glifjic imposes limits. The term is a series of letters. The word has a type of sound. The letters may remind someone of a similar word they have meaning. There is an expectation that glifjic must mean something. So it is relatively expansive, yet nowhere near as expansive as infinity. As soon as we create an essence of glifjic, we have entered a human realm, which is also a limitation. We can give glifjic meaning and score it, yet this is in a human context - again a limitation to humans. . . We could say glifjic is a type of enlightenment that appears at a score of 1250. Yet it is an extra special form of enlightenment - not just a generic type of enlightenment found at 1000. No, this is a form of groking enlightenment, yet it is beyond linguistic expression because linguistic expression was transcended at a score of 1100. . . This also brings into question relativity and objectivity. Who/what determines whether a being has officially reached the glifjic stage? Do we need a glifjic-awakened being with a score of 1350 to determine whether a being deserves an official glifjic stamp of embodiment?. . . All of this construction is limited. . . . One can create an elegant sand castle beyond imagination. Yet it is still made of sand. . . These types of systems can have value, yet they can also be a huge distraction.

Not now. A solid green like Bernie is the highest for the current state of consciousness evolution. Perhaps the first Yellow-centered leader will appear three generations. . . Of course a turquoise person could run. They just won't be taken seriously. They will be perceived as a "quack", "woo woo" or irrational. For example, Marianne Williamson has aspects of turquoise and she was ridiculed and not taken seriously. Based on historical trends of social conscious evolution, a turquoise president is many years in the future. And it's not just politics. A work at a University and I often need to back away from Turquoise. Mainstream academia just isn't ready for it. If I go Deepak Chopra, I will lose credibility and be dismissed. If I took it far enough, it could even threaten my job. Look how societies have treated Turquoise-level leaders throughout history. The treatment is often very ugly.

One of the limits of a scoring system is there must be a "thing" to score.

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.