Forestluv

Great prompt. This is my go-to analogy. Try to imagine everything possible to be known. Every single event in all of history. Every single molecular movement of the quadrillions of quadrillions molecular movements. Imagine every single happening in the universe right now. The quadrillions of quadrillions of events happening in a tiny Chinese village. Yes, there are that many. Many more. Even picking up a handful of dirt is beyond comprehension. You could spend your life studying a pencil and barely scratch the surface. An unimaginable amount of infinitesimal molecules, energetics and quantum mechanics. You could infinitely zoom into that pencil. Compare this vast amount of existence to the knowledge in a human mind. A human mind of knowledge would be like 0.00000000000000000000000000(add 1 million zeros)00000000000000000000(add another million zeros)000000000000000001% of universe knowledge. We would round that off to zero. . . Yet here's the funny thing about human minds: what a person knows is 100% of what they know. The human mind contracts into it's own mind and is under the delusion that is knows a lot. It would be like a person with a single grain of sand in their palm. Relative to all the sand grains in the world, that single grain of sand is trivial. However, if we hyper-focus on that single grain of sand - that grain of sand is 100% of the sand in that person's palm. . .

According to whose definition of cultural appropriation? Why do you get to set the terms of what cultural appropriation is? Why not ask Buddhists and Hindus that have been oppressed what cultural appropriation is? Why shouldn't the oppressed people have a say in what cultural appropriation is? One of the hallmarks of privilege is that the privileged get to define terms and set the narrative, without having to bear the burden. An extreme example would be white slave owners setting the narrative of the ethics of slavery.. . . Input from slaves is critical in creating an ethical construct of slavery. Similarly, the input of oppressed groups is critical in creating a construct of cultural appropriation. . . . In terms of SD, this is an element in evolving above Orange. Ask an oppressed buddhist community living in poverty that has gone through generations of oppression how they would feel if their oppressor took their hand-made Buddhist statues and prominently displayed the statues in their lavish living rooms. Context and perspective matters. In particular, cultural appropriation involves oppressors, the oppressed and unequal power dynamics. You keep filtering out those aspects. I am not saying that your behavior is cultural appropriation. I am saying that you have a view of cultural appropriation that is based on fringe examples. This will distract one from learning about and understanding cultural appropriation. . . I could define environmentalism as some fringe group that chain themselves to trees and blows up SUVs. If I am contracted within that view, it would close me off from learning about and understanding environmentalism.

You raised the issue of cultural appropriation. Part of understanding cultural appropriation is to understand one's own conditioning within a cultural group. Saying "There is no 'me' and I don't identify to any group" is a form of spiritual bypassing. It is bypassing to avoid looking at one's own conditioning and subconscious biases. Conditioning and programming shapes one's lens and the attachment/identification to this lens. A major part of this conditioning is the cultural group the human is within. If you were an oppressed Guatemalan that lived in poverty, you would have very different conditioning and lens. If you worked in the Peace Corps within oppressed communities, you would have a different lens. If you were a sociology scholar specializing in cultural appropriation, you would have a different lens. . . Simply saying "I am not part of any group and I have transcended all identity and lenses" is bypassing underlying subconscious conditioning and biases. A key part of transcendence is wearing and understanding other lenses. Right from the beginning, you defined the narrative in your terms. This narrative does not recognize fundamental aspects of cultural appropriation. It is a nuanced topic. Are there some instances in which people go overboard about racism? Yes, of course. Yet to consider fringe aspects as the essence filters out a lot of pertinent information. It would be like saying "The implication of the environmental conservation movement is to blow up SUVs". That is a distortion and does not consider underlying essence. Why do you get to define what cultural appropriation is? Have you studied it? Have you immersed yourself and lived within culturally oppressed communities? Are there people out there with deep knowledge of cultural appropriation that you could learn from?. . . And why do you get to define what cultural appropriation rather than an asian, Indian or African? Why don't they get to define what cultural appropriation is? And why aren't you interested in their input about cultural appropriation? Another orientation would be: What is cultural appropriation? Under what contexts would something be considered cultural appropriation?

Again, you just aren't seeing your filter. You have a narrative that you want to control and defend. I am pointing toward transcending one's own personal attachments/identification to deepen/broaden understanding. Your entire thread is based upon "Cultural Appropriation is a non-issue" through a personal lens. You are giving examples of "reverse-racism" and asking personal situation questions you already have the answer to. Your position has an Orange "color blind" foundation. You can't skip Green and Yellow and go straight to a Turquoise "beyond ego". There are Orange level anchors and Green shadows to work through here. In practical terms - go live within an oppressed, marginalized community. No conceptualization. Direct experience. If you spent a year living within an oppressed, marginalized community you will likely see how your mind is contracted. I've done it and it was a major key for depth and expansion. Yet you don't understand that pain or those painful dynamics. One cannot transcend something they are unaware of. Said from the perspective of someone in a dominant culture group. Notice how you are trying to define the terms of debate and control the narrative. You have that privilege being within a dominant culture group. You couldn't care less about understanding cultural appropriation. You have pre-conceived personal opinions on cultural appropriation and want to control the narrative. Once that Orange narrative of cultural appropriation was challenged from a yellow perspective, you reached for Turquoise and tried to switch to a "beyond ego" framework. This is a form of spiritual bypassing.

Notice how contracted this is. You are filtering out context to hyper focus on one situation that you already have a pre-conceived personal answer to. Your question to me was disingenious. You did not ask it with an open, curious mind that wants to learn and grow. You asked it already having a pre-conceived answer and you are prepared to defend that answer. This will keep you trapped within a contracted view. Your view is Orange on the SD scale. It lacks understanding of green and yellow. A holistic yellow perspective with integrated green would be very different than yours. As well, yellow-centered is exploration without attachment/identification, which is different than your orientation. Yellow is a master at understanding multiple aspects, dynamics and perspectives. Leo explains this in his SD yellow video. You asked about cultural appropriation, yet it seems like you are hyper focused on your personal story. If you want to learn about the dynamics of cultural appropriation, step outside your own personal story of a self-centered view. Context and power dynamics are important. I included a link above that is a primer to see other perspectives on cultural appropriation, yet it seems like you didn't read it, dismissed it or did not integrate it into your view. Change your lens and try to see things from the perspective of the marginalized, oppressed group. A higher awareness would understand multiple individual/social dynamics at play, rather than one personal dynamic. In this case, perhaps read articles written by Native Americans on cultural appropriation. Or reach out to Native Americans and ask them about cultural appropriation. Perhaps their are TedTalks on cultural appropriation that you can learn from. Yet the key is to be teachable to what you are unaware of and open to other perspectives and the direct experience of others. For example, your contracted view does not even consider previous and current forms of systemic oppression and its impact on social dynamics. To me it seems like you are locked in a contracted personal perspective and want to defend that perspective. It doesn't seem like you genuinely want to learn and grow regarding cultural appropriation and . It seems like you want to debate. Which is fine, you just won't expand that way. It takes curiosity, desire and open-ness. And you won't expand to higher conscious levels defending a pre-conceived opinion on an internet forum.

No. You are seeing this from a dominant culture perspective. You are not considering impact. As well, you are not considering various contexts. I gave a link that offered a different perspective. Rather than limiting your focus on how this impacts you, consider how cultural appropriation affects others. If you want to understand better, try to see it through a different perspective - such as the perspective of an oppressed group. You are not limited to how you act. Yet actions have impact on others. This is context-dependent. If I wore blackface this Halloween, it would have an impact on my predominately black community. Being unable to step outside of one's own self perspective often sets up a "reverse racism" interpretation that fails to see degree and impact on others. You are contracted within a limited perspective of only seeing the impact on yourself and only seeing your own intent. As well, cultural appropriation includes both individual and systemic societal dynamics - you are only focusing on individual (you). To expand your perspective, let go of attachment to your personal intent and how this impacts you personally. See that there are many contexts. See the societal dynamics of dominant groups and oppressed groups. See the perspective within oppressed groups. Have conversations with people within marginalized groups. If you want to develop and deeper broader understanding, volunteer with marginalized groups as an advocate. Live within a marginalized group. Your MLK quote is distorted. MLK was speaking for an oppressed group. You are speaking for a dominant group. This is the same dynamic as black people saying "Black Lives Matters" while some white people say "All Lives Matter". This creates an equivalency that masks the underlying inequality. This is advantageous to the dominant culture group to maintain the status quo and their privilege. This is seen over and over in social dynamics. A personal view that "I am color blind" is a relatively low conscious level in terms of race and culture. It is a contracted view that filters out a lot of social dynamics. If you grew up as a member within an oppressed group and had a lifetime of discrimination and marginalization - you would have direct experience and insights into different dynamics and would have a different perspective.

The mindfuckless mindfuck.

What you describe is not cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation involves a power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group. From the perspective of the dominant culture, there is nothing wrong with it. From the perspective of the oppressed group, there is something wrong. You are not seeing the power dynamics and oppression involved as well as various perspectives. Context and impact matters. Below is a straightforward explanation. https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/

Then don't imagine it. . . Taking a break at times can be good for the mind and body.

It depends on the construct of "free will". It's relative. We can create all sorts of different constructs. You ask as if there is an objective answer. . . I would be surprised in different answers didn't come up. I can create constructs in which free will exists and constructs in which free will doesn't exist. Thought stories are like sandcastles - build 'em up and bust 'em down.

During my upbringing, we had a major hurricane about once every three years. So it was a big, exciting event for us kids. During the initial hurricane surge, we would be inside creating boats out of paper, cardboard, plastic, wood scraps, glue, staples etc. Then during the eye of the hurricane our parents would let us play outside. We would run to the gutters, which were rapidly flowing with water - like a thin river with rapids. We would have boat races. It was an incredible dream world. . . After a while parents could be heard screaming for the kids to come home, because the eye of the storm had ended and the back half of the hurricane was entering. It was like our parents were trying to wake us up from and dream and we didn't want to wake up. Fun times.

@remember Of course nonduality should be taught differently to children and adults. The question of love being twisted is seen through the lens of a conditioned adult. An adult that sees "good" vs "bad" and "love" vs. "hate". Of course deconstructing that will be uncomfortable to adults. Yet children are prior to the creation/attachment/identification to that construct. . . If I told you fligfod = tuglin, it would not be a problem for you because you have not created, and become attached/identified, with a construct of fligfod vs. tuglin. If I told you there was a planet in which aliens believed fligfod was good and tuglin was evil, yet ultimately they are the same - you would have no problem with that because you have no attachment/identification with fligfod and tuglin. As well, you do not base your survival and well-being on fligfod and tuglin. . . Similarly, children have not yet become attached/identified to adult constructs - constructs that adults portray onto children. . . This is very difficult to see for adults because we are identified and immersed within these constructs and are unable to deconstruct back prior to our immersion into the construct.

ordinary, casual, dull, boring finale = extraordinary, intriguing, fascinating beginning. The journey itself is home. Welcome to rarefied air. . . Some great exploration is available.

@rememberIn some ways, introducing nonduality to kids is completely natural. If one introduces a child prior/during the construct of the self it is no biggie. For example, if a five year old is conditioned to realize that we create the construct of a self and it isn't real - it's no big deal. Similar to when a child has a nightmare and we tell the child that it's ok, it's just a dream. The child can also see that waking life is also a dream. To us adults, it's a radical idea - yet so was the internet. And know kids accept it as obvious. Recently, quantum mechanics is showing that two entities at a distance can be in immediate communication with each other and that material and immaterial can have simultaneously be everywhere and nowhere. This is radical to adults, yet when children are taught this - it will be like OK. It won't be any more radical than the internet to them. My 9 y.o. niece is an expert lucid dreamer. She has created a highly sophisticated dreamworld that is very real. She is having difficulty differentiating between her dreamworld and waking world. All the adults around her are telling her that there is something wrong with her. That she needs to let go of the dreamworld and fully accept her waking life as the real world. This may have practical value in being able to function in a waking world in which 99.9999% of the humans think is real. However it has also caused her immense anxiety and panic. I'm the only one she can talk to in which dream = real and real = dream. If all children were taught that there was one continuous dream, it wouldn't be a big deal. Kids would be like "OK, when do we get ice cream"? . . . It's an existential threat to adults because we have a lifetime of conditioning in which we created a personal story and an external reality of waking life.

@traveler The gateless gate = mayaless maya.

@SoonHei You have created a distinction/duality between "waking state" and "dream state". Within your construct: "Waking state" = awareness of "true state". You've now added in a second and third dualities (awareness vs. unawareness and true state vs. false state). Further dualities are added with "true self vs. false self" and "knowing vs. unknowing". There are lots of inter-related dualities to deconstruct. For example, your "aware vs. unaware" duality overlaps with the "knowing vs. unknowing" duality. To me, there are a lot of tangles that can be deconstructed to aware vs. unaware. Imo, the waking vs. dream part is a distraction. Someone can be in a waking state daydreaming and unaware. Someone can be in a waking state and drunk and unaware. It boils down to aware vs unaware. I would take a closer inspection of this duality. Who/What is aware/not knowing? Who is aware/knowing. What thing is being awared? What thing is known? . . . From the OP, it looks like you might say awareness of the "true self", yet this sets up another duality. What is the "true self" vs. the "false self". These dualities have practical purpose. A human won't survive without making distinctions between things like waking life and dreaming life. As well, there are realizations of self vs. Self that few humans realize. . . You are asking some advanced questions which boil down to this: What is "True Knowing" vs. "False Knowing"? This gets into ineffable zones. As well, remains aware adds in a timeline. "Remains" requires a construct of past, present and future. This is one of the things humans commonly construct and chase. They create a construct of "awareness/enlightenment/awakening", believe that state/ISness can become permanent and desire/chase that permanence. This has practical purpose at the human level, yet it opens up another can of worms, because there is another dual construct to deconstruct. For example, many people see Eckhart Tolle as permanently enlightened. Yet what does that mean? This can vary. One might say he has transcended the personality and no longer has egoic impulses. Yet what if a single self-centered thought appeared in his mind? Would that invalidate his "permanent awareness of knowing"? Would he need to start the clock over? . . . Others may say that enlightenment is the permanent transcendence that is aware of all happenings. Yet what if there is a nano-second in which Eckhart doesn't have transcendent awareness of all happenings? Would we restart the clock on Eckhart's enlightenment streak? What about when he is asleep? . . . Others may say that at the human level, there is a process of "forgetting" and "remembering", yet the transcendent awareness is eternally present and accessible, even when the human "forgets". Yet at the human level, what is an acceptable amount of "forgetting"? To me, it looks like you are digging into some deep trans-human zones transcendent of human experience, perception and construction. In the context of human stages, one generally transcends the personality construct first and recognizes that the entire personal story is simply appearances, Now. Identification/attachment to personality dissolves. Yet even after transcending the personality construct, there is still the human construct. A being can have trans-personal awareness, yet still be identified/attached to being an impersonal human. Transcending humanness goes beyond theory, because all theory is a human construct. . . Trans-human essence trying to describe itself through human words often sounds wacky and nonsensical. For example: "There is nothing you can see that is not a flower; there is nothing you can think that is not the moon" - Matsuo Basho

I'm pointing to something different. I think you have created a well-thought-out construct. The other dynamics I'm pointing to aren't so much an intellectual thing. If you were a different person with vastly different life experience, you would see things differently. You seem to be categorizing SD categories in a theoretical construct. There is nothing wrong with that, it has a lot of value. Yet ime, there is more. There is a non-theoretical understanding via direct experience. You seem to be looking at others from the outside, which is important for a meta-view. Yet another component of understanding is going inside and becoming that other person. I think you are seeing a hierarchy of perspectives along a vertical axis, which has a lot of value. Yet there is also perspectives along a horizontal axis without a hierarchy. Imo, integrating both axis leads to the most holistic perspective. For example, you have twice used the term "jealousy" which is an outside view and portrayal. Seeing through a lens which interprets some as "jealous" and others as "compassionate" will miss underlying human dynamics. It is dividing groups into a vertical hierarchy and missing the horizontal axis. The families I lived with in poor third world countries were way beyond "jealous" and they had aspects of Green you seem to be missing. Within days of living in such villages, compassion transform to empathy. There is a "getting it" at a post-intellectual human level. They had an understanding of certain forms of human dynamics, human connection, community and empathy. They had a lot of viewpoints that I would consider as valid as yours. A construct using "jealousy" and "compassion" regarding the poor and non-poor is a privileged viewpoint trying to control the narrative. Your perspective isn't simply relative to the current U.S. situation - they are also relative to you - based on your life history and the lens you are wearing. It is not objective. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your perspective and you probably know a lot more about financial theory than I do. I'm saying there is more going on. . . When I wrote of direct human experience of living in a poor Honduran village, you responded "Hondurans however live in a third world country, they haven't even fully entered stage orange". To me, this sounds like an outsider making judgments without direct experience. My guess is that you've never actually lived in a third world community. This type of direct experience expands minds beyond a particular intellectual theory. There are lots of realizations and awakenings in this area out there. It's just a different mode of being and seeing. I've lived in both advantaged and disadvantaged environments. When I see an advantaged perspective not incorporating a disadvantaged perspective it can be upsetting to me because the advantaged get to write the narrative and the disadvantage get marginalized - they don't get a seat at the table. The advantaged have power and influence. They are the ones that get to define terms like "value", "success" and "just". That is actually an injustice, which your definition did not include. . . When I see this power dynamic, sometimes I want to jump in and inject some disadvantaged perspective. . . We don't seem to be on the same frequency here, which is fine. All I have is a perspective as well.

I've used a standard dry herb vape at 428F. They are designed for cannabis yet work for 5-meo. It's probably inefficient since 428F is under the optimal 5-meo vaping temp. Yet if I lose 1mg worth per session, it's not a big deal to me. One thing I like is that it allows one to control the intensity. It doesn't have the wave-like breakthough force like plugging - which is cool too, just a different experience.

Going from 100% to 99% is a big step, yet just a step. Next is to explore between 99% and 1%. The final step is to go from 1% to 0%. Then you have gone from 100% to 0% and will see that Real= Imagination and Imagination = Real. One can now create constructs of differences between Real and Imagine - as well as deconstruct back to Real = Imagine. The deepest insights are beyond intellect and may appear nonsensical to the intellect. You can only go so far with things making sense cognitively. A helpful thing is to enter spaces in which you cannot tell the difference between reality and imagination - for example through psychedelics or lucid dreaming. Yet it can get really intense and scary for some minds.

One of my favorite parts was when the were reading the same script to a person, testing for “fidelity”. When I finally realized what was happening, I went into a psychedelic-like mindfuck. Fun stuff.

I’ve found micro and mini doses to be helpful fir integration and bridging the “two worlds”. Including low dose 5-meo. You might also consider vaping - it gives you much mire control over intensity and hitting a moderate “sweet spot”. There is only so much the mind can handle in one shot. . . You referenced “altered states”. With enough experience, “altered” vs “unaltered” breaks down - the two gradually get closer and closer together.

@OBEler The mind is conditioned to think/perceive in dualistic opposites such as: Real vs Imagined Literal vs Non-literal A simple example would be the “heads” and “tails” sides of coin. They appear as opposites. Yet they are inter-related and One coin. Someone may say “Heads = Tails”. This helps to reveal that the opposite sides are One. We create the difference between heads and tails. We create the difference between real and imagined. Asking “Are you literally saying that heads = tails?” will put a person into the weeds. In the context of a human construct of heads vs tails, there is a difference. Yet in the context of One coin, there is no difference. Adding in the term literal creates an extra dualistic variable to work through. Regarding real vs imagined, a good way to break the duality is to see the inter-connectedness of the two. Have you ever been in a grey area of real and imagined? Perhaps daydreaming or waking up from a dream? Or memories that you weren’t quite sure if you were imagining it or not? How about optical illusions? See if you can see a little bit of imagination in reality and a little bit of reality in imagination. . . Going from 100% to 99% is a bigger jump than 99% to 1%. Just putting a crack into a duality can allow floodgates to open.

I've been hoping that mainstream media and politicians would develop Green level understanding and empathy for both the people Trump is harming AND Trump himself. Of course Gabor Mate, one of the highest Green-level empathic clinical psychologists alive, recognized this years ago. In the video below, Mate describes Trump's trauma and how he is acting out as a traumatized person. Mate does not condone Trump's behavior, yet understands it from a compassionate and empathetic perspective. Mate spent many years of his life immersed with traumatized individuals and has both cognitive and embodied understanding. I've noticed that many liberals and progressives are upset over the harm Trump is causing others (e.g. children isolated in cages along the border). They have a compassionate and/or empathetic connection with those that are being harmed and want that harm to stop. They see Trump as a villain. In one context this is true and I support stopping Trump's harmful behavior. From another perspective, Trump is a traumatized person that is suffering. It is very difficult to see this due to the harm he is causing others. I think this is a good example of how a person can expand their capacity to love. I see Trump both as a villain that is harming others and also a person that is suffering within a traumatized hellish reality. I can feel both distaste and compassion for Trump. As well, I can feel some empathy - I've experienced trauma, insecurity, anxiety and panic - I know what that's like. If U.S. society is evolving into Green, I would expect to see more people start to recognize this empathetic perspective. One form of resistance to this empathetic embodiment is the belief that it means we are condoning Trump's behavior. This is not true. We can have empathy and compassion for a traumatized mentally ill person while also taking vigorous action to point out and stop the harmful behavior. I'm starting to see more "mainstream" people recognize this. Below is an article written by a Republican who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations. His article is a common perspective that Trump is a narcissist, has disordered personality, gaslights, creates chaos etc. and that he is unfit to be president. Yet, he almost touches green here: " Trump is profoundly compromised, acting just as you would imagine a person with a disordered personality would. Many Americans haven’t yet come to terms with the fact that we elected as president a man who is deeply damaged, an emotional misfit." The author does not have the empathetic awareness of Gabor Mate, yet I think it is a step in the right direction and an indication of what a transition to Green might look like. The author recognizes that Trump is mentally ill, damaged and emotionally 'misfit'. Yet he doesn't yet have the awareness of the underlying trauma suffering within Trump. In contrast, Mate is empathically oriented and would not call Trump an 'emotional misfit'. Contemplations that might help the author to develop Green might be: "What did the person go through to become 'damaged'?". "What is the experience like to be damaged, mentally ill and emotionally unfit?". . . This is still at a surface empathic level - most people are not empaths and would need some more "umpf". This might involve volunteering in a clinic with individuals that are 'damaged', mentally ill and are emotionally suffering. A deeper level might be to use psychedelics. Psychedelics can amplify one's empathy. They can also put a person into that state of mind. A psychedelic trip can enter mental realms that are 'damaged', insane and emotionally unfit. One might experience a form of trauma during a trip. Both of these features of psychedelics can lead to a deeper empathetic understanding and an expansion of one's capacity to understand and love others. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/

@Progress You describe reasonable, logical definitions of “just”, “success”, “ethical” and “value”. . . I’ve also heard reasonable perspectives that are somewhat different than yours. For example, I lived in a poor village of Honduras for a while and they had a different perspective than yours. I think your perspective is grounded and makes some good points. Yet there are also other ways of looking at it that also make some good points. For example, you suggest a vendetta against the super rich based on jealousy. There are other dynamics occurring as well. . .

@Beginner Mind If you act as a non-dick by your standards, you can still have plenty of personality that can attract. Dick-ishness is just one personality trait. Another would be a personality of humor. Many women are attracted to a guy with a great sense of humor that can make them laugh. Imagine you were learning to play guitar and you were out on a first date in a bar. There is a jazz jam on stage. You want to play guitar for a bit. You are nervous yet rwant to push yourself out of your comfort zone. You take a deep breath, walk upstage and play two songs well. At the end of the set, a couple musicians sit down and chat with you and your date. . . You made a very bold move that most women would be very impressed with and attracted to. And your bold move had a Dick Factor of zero.