Forestluv

Member
  • Content count

    13,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Forestluv

  1. Along those lines, cities within a country seem to have aspects of unity as well as division. There are subculture identities at conflict within a country. For example, southern city subculture may identify with heritage and be attached to the confederate flag and civil war statues - while northern subculture sees this as appalling and promote boycotting some southern cities. As well, subculture identities are often in conflict for the more expansive country identity. We now see this with subculture competition for what is "America". A good example would be with the controversy of black athletes kneeling during the national anthem. One subculture identity was that "America" is about respect for the American flag and all the soldiers who died to protect that flag. Another subculture identity disagrees and says "America" is about protest and fighting for what is right, such as equality. I would say that some of the "glue" holding subcultures together within an American identity is an appreciation of American subcultures and multicultural mixing. Many northern Americans love to visit those southern cities for the subculture. The food, music, architecture of subcultures in New Orleans and Charleston, SC is amazing. And multicultural fusion of subculture music is beautiful. . . Some more glue connecting American subcultures as America is an over-arching American ego that we are the strongest and the best. Part of the American identity is relative to other country identities. For example, an American identity might be that America is more civilized than barbaric 3rd world countries or that America is wealthier, more successful and powerful than third world countries. If we expand into a global consciousness, I can see some glue holding subculture/countries together - such as emergence of new phenomena due to integration of subculture components. Perhaps a technological emergence that is greater than the sum of it's parts. Yet, wouldn't relative global identity glue be missing? What is the global identity relative to? What is the next higher level? There wouldn't be a global identity of Earthlings relative to Venus, Mars or Aliens. There wouldn't be an Earthling ego unified against those pesky Martians. The closest I can imagine is the threat of climate change destruction. Here, there can be a global human identity that forms relative to an existential threat like climate change.
  2. Nobody is getting arrested. I didn't make my point clearly. . . Another example: security checkpoints in airports aim to reduce the risk of murder on airplanes. People going through airport security are not getting arrested. They are getting screened to make sure they don't have bombs in their bags. I would not consider airport security screening to be authoritarian. You are seeing this from the perspective of a white person that has never suffered discrimination and abuse for being black. You don't seem to be aware of the deep significance and impact of blackface in history. Blackface is emblematic of some of the worst discrimination, abuse, oppression and suffering in human history. You are totally missing the impact of blackface at human and societal levels. It has caused and still causes extreme harm at both individual and societal levels. Part of not realizing this may be due to ignorance or selective dismissal. Yet a big part is a lack of empathy. You have no clue what the direct experience of being black is like. If you were a black person you would have a different perspective. Even as a white person, one can develop empathy. I'm a white male and was in a relationship with a dark-skinned black woman. As well, I live in a poor town that is predominately black. Although I'm not black myself, I see the impact of racial discrimination everyday in my community. And I directly experienced some intense racism while I was in an inter-racial relationship with a woman I loved. These included deeply painful experience and a couple that were very scary. And I just experienced the tip of the iceberg. Blackface is harmful to both individuals and societies. That is why Green takes it so seriously. Not because they want to be politically correct jackasses. Rather because Green "gets it". They understand and know at a deeper level the harm of something like blackface. One way to transition to a higher state of consciousness is to become aware of intention vs. impact. Orange is so hyper focused on themselves that they only look at their own intention and are oblivious to the greater impact. One may say "What's wrong with blackface? I don't intend to be racist. I'm not trying to harm anyone". This is hyper focused on intention with unawareness of impact. Understanding impact and developing empathy requires stepping outside of one's own self-centered contraction. It involves seeing other's perspectives, not just at an intellectual level - beyond that. This is one of the keys of development into Green. Some of the activities i found helpful: I lived in poor communities in Honduras and Guatemala. I volunteered helping psychiatric patients in a mental institution. I've been in inter-racial relationships. I lived with a tribe in the mountains of Peru. I volunteered with female victims of domestic violence. I've been a mentor for many recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. I've visited prisons and spent time with inmates. I didn't do all of this because I'm some kind of saint. There was some motivation to help others, yet the stronger motivation was that terminal orange is so fucking painful. I couldn't stand being miserable anymore and I was willing to surrender my self-centeredness to expand and grow. These activities were extremely uncomfortable at times, yet the expansion, depth and meaning is beyond description. You have no idea of what Green is about. Stop watching YT videos of SJWs that trigger you. That aint Green. Put yourself out there and immerse yourself if you want to discover the true essence of Green. It absolutely blows away Orange. It's like the difference between drinking polluted water and natural spring water. You have no idea what you are missing. . .
  3. The same imagination applies to both dream states and wakeful states. . .
  4. Welcome to the forum Itp! You ask a wonderfully inquisitive question. Your question is at the interface between objectivism and relativeism. It is a major jump up in consciousness. In SD terms it is going from Orange to Green/Yellow. I can explain it logically, yet keep in mind that there is logical understanding as well as embodiment. Embodiment often comes through direct experience in which the person just "gets it", deeper than thinking. You question combines duality and nonduality, which can cause confusion. You start off with nonduality, then switch to dualistic relativity. Let's consider the four different constructs we can create: 1) Pure Dualistic: The vast majority of people are in a pure dualistic mindset and will subconsciously have the following construct: There is a difference between dreaming experience and awake experience. As well, there is a difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior. Such a person will subconsciously believe that dreams are illusions and awake is real. They will also subconsciously assume that things like violence is unethical and things like honesty is ethical. The problem with this construct is that the person assumes there is an objective reality of dream vs. awake and ethical vs. unethical. They are not conscious that these are relative constructs they are creating (and society creates). I would estimate 85% of the world's population is locked into this orientation. About 13% of the population has rudimentary awareness of relativity and about 2% have a fairly solid understanding. 2) Pure Nondual: There is no difference between dreaming experience and awake experience. As well, there is no difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior. It's all just ISness. Here there is no difference between sleeping and awake or between violence and peace. This is an advanced conscious state. I would estimate that only about 1% of the population has a solid theoretical understanding of this and has had some nondual direct experience that they recognized and integrated. Yet I would estimate that only about 0.0001% of the population has deeply embodied this. The challenge with this orientation is that is runs counter to the pure dualistic perspective described above. Humans will strongly resist this pure nondualistic perspective because it involves the dissolution of all dualities including right vs wrong, sense of self, personal survival etc. A subjective nondual experience can be blissful and liberating - yet it can also be very scary and threatening. . . A second complication is that humans live in a relative world and 99.9% of the world's people are spending the vast majority of their time within subconscious dualistic constructs. It would be very difficult to function and survival while always being in a nondual state of consciousness. Imagine trying to function in society with no sense of ethical vs. unethical. No sense of up vs. down. No sense of dream vs. awake. It would be very difficult to function. Those at more advanced stages often talk about "flipping" between nondual and dual conscious states. (Yet this itself is also a dualistic construct). 3) Dual/Nondual Hybrid: There is a difference between dream and awake (dual), yet no difference between ethical and nonethical (nondual). Such a person would distinguish between when they are dreaming and when they are awake, yet would not distinguish between things dishonesty/honesty, violence/peace etc. I think this would be more of a thought experiment and not relevant to your question. 4) Dual/Nondual Hybrid: There is no difference between dream and awake (nondual), yet a difference between ethical and nonethical (dual). This is the framework of your question. Notice how you start off saying "what if there is no distinction between dreaming experience and awake experience". That is a nondual construct. . . Here comes the big jump in consciousness, fasten your seatbelt. . . Notice how you subconsciously assumed that there is a difference between ethical and unethical (violence). There is an underlying assumption that this difference is objective. The big jump in consciousness is to realize that this difference is not objective, it is relative. You are creating it. Societies create it. This underlying question led to your question "Is he *supposed to*. . . ". . . *Supposed to* is reflective of a mind that is assuming there is objective ethics and is unaware of relativity. This is a very very common assumption. This first step is to consciously realize this intellectually, yet the much deeper realization is the post-intellectual embodiment, which is much more difficult to obtain. . . Many people may say "Yea, yea, I know it's all relative. . . but what about. . .". They may intellectually recognize relativity, yet their underlying orientation is objectivism. So there highest conscious answer to your question is there is no answer. You can create any of the above constructs you want. You create your own reality. . . However, we live as a person in a relative world and some constructs are more practical in life. If I were to build a practical construct regarding your question it would look something like this: If someone is dreaming about suffering and violence that is reflective of underlying psychological issues at the human level. The mind and body may become distressed by such dreams. This could interfere with there waking life. It may cause problems in their relationships and at work. It could be a signal that the person has psychological issues they need to work through for personal development toward a healthier life. However, I wouldn't judge the violent dreams as ethical or unethical and I would not judge or sham the person for having them. If they asked me for help, I would try to empathize and help them.
  5. Discrimination based on race = racism No discrimination based on race = no racism. That is a literal definition of racism. It’s quit a stretch to say that trying to prevent racism is authoritarian. That is like saying police officers that try to prevent murder are authoritarian. Green isn’t as bad as blue/orange fears. Green is actually quite lovely. ♥️
  6. The counter weight to free rider is that when people have their basic needs met they tend to want to grow and develop themselves as per Maslow’s hierarchy. They want to get education, do personal development, set goals, start projects etc. Of course not all people, yet many people. So the productivity decrease due to free rider is offset by the productivity increase due to greater opportunity, empowerment, accessibility, higher potential.
  7. Those authoritarian hippies are so ruthless. . .
  8. Peru was my favorite.
  9. I think we need to be careful conflating absolute and relative. In an absolute sense, all perspectives are equal - there is a singularity. Yet we live in a relative world. The danger of conflating absolute with relative is that it spawns "Both Sides-ism" and false equivalencies. The underlying energy is often desire to maintain status quo and resistance to evolution. A mature holistic view is highly integrative: it will consider and integrate multiple perspectives from intellectual, empathic, spiritual modes. It will integrate both individual and collective. Importantly, such integrative views will not value every input equally. There are aspects of relativity. This gets into what was discussed earlier with centrism and balance. A high conscious balanced view is not the centrist view. A dramatic example would be with slavery. In a dualistic framework we could create pro-slavery and anti-slavery categories. From an absolute perspective, slavery is neither right nor wrong - right/wrong is a relative construct. Yet in a relative context, slavery is clearly wrong. The problem with conflating absolute and relative is that absolute is used in a relative nature to cancel out the opposing view. This is a false equivalency. One may say "We are only kidding ourselves if we don't see it from the slaveholders side as well as the slave side. We need to consider both sides". There is value in considering both sides and there are nuggets of truth in all perspectives, yet an integrated holistic view will not weigh all perspectives equally. A centrist view during that time would be the mid-point. A centrist might say "Slaves should be allowed to have two days of freedom per week, in which they don't work and can leave the plantation". . . A more modern example is with same-sex marriage. Fifteen years ago, the centrist position was that homosexuals should be allowed domestic partnerships, yet not marriage. However, this is not the conscious balanced position - which would integrate multiple perspectives from religion, politics, social science, physical science, LGBTQ etc. The conscious balanced position would be in favor of same-sex marriage. The conscious balanced position is not restricted to Both-sidesism and false equivalencies motivated through personal identity, deflection and desire to maintain status quo. The balanced position is much more integrative meta than that. In our current context, the conscious balanced position is not that the scale is even, everyone has their own equal perspective and Trump just expresses himself differently. There are a lot of selective filters needed to maintain that position.
  10. 100% physical vs. 100% nonphysical is a hyper-duality. Saying that reality is *partially* physical is a big breakthrough. Going from 100% to 99% is a much bigger jump than going from 99% to 1%. 5-meo is both physical and nonphysical. We can create a pure physical reality with a physical brain, physical neurons and physical neurotransmitters. Nothing wrong with that. It's not a war between two sides. . . Yet staying within a physical vs. nonphysical construct, we will be limited to an all physical construct. . . For example, if one creates a duality of beautiful or ugly and believes that everything is ugly, it is a limiting contraction. They will be missing the beauty. And they will be missing an infinite number of inter-connections between beauty and ugliness.
  11. You are making a distinction between real and unreal - which is fine. That distinction can have practical value. It's easy to conceptualize the inter-relatedness between real and unreal in the comfort of one's own living room. As you say, it's a lot more difficult to conceptualize when one has fallen off a cliff - then things get real fast. Yet intensifying the story through subjective experiences related to personal survival does not increase the truth of the story. What *is* regarding real / unreal *is* regardless of interpretive filters. . . I had a nightmare in which I fell of a cliff and it was very real. . . It just so happens one of my greatest fears is falling off a cliff. . . For me, lucid dreaming is one of the best ways to explore real and unreal. There are many facets and integrations of lucidity and wakefulness. Do you think in the next 200 years, we could create virtual reality in which people cannot distinguish between real and unreal?
  12. I've been thinking about the psychology of deflection lately. It is a common defense mechanism to protect an underlying vulnerability and a way to control a narrative. We all do it to some extent. For example, a person may feel uncomfortable looking at their own selfish intentions and may deflect to avoid the issue. This dynamic can cause all sorts of problems in interpersonal relationships. For example, a guy might arrive 20min. late to dinner and his gf gets upset and tells him "You were very inconsiderate. You showed up 20min. late and didn't even text me". He might defensively respond "What about the time you forgot my birthday? That was inconsiderate". It's really hard to resolve underlying issues with this type of deflection. All politicians do it to some extent. For example, during a debate a candidate may be asked about racial comments he made ten years ago. He may avoid the issue by talking about M4A or say "What about my opponent? He said worse racist things". It doesn't take a high level of consciousness to see this dynamic. I would say KellyAnne Conway has a high skill for deflection. She uses key words within the question as grounding to deflect upon, so it sounds like she is sorta answering the question, yet not really. In the below video, an expert debater analyzes KellyAnne's tactic, why it is effective and her backup deflection tactics when her primary tactic fails.
  13. I think Bill Clinton and Warren are very articulate speakers. Warren has worked as a teacher most of her life and I think she has strong communication skills. Warren is not my overall #1, yet I would rank her the best at being able to clearly explain complex, nuanced topics to a general audience. She is outstanding in this area - she has natural skills and extensive experience explaining complexities through her teaching. I saw Bill Clinton speak in a small venue around 2003 and he was outstanding. It wasn't a campaign event. He was speaking about his work in Africa to help with tropical diseases and HIV. He was very knowledgeable and he integrated several dynamics, such as political, social, medical and philosophical issues. Hilary Clinton had too many personal filters for me and I didn't resonate with her. Biden is losing his cognitive abilities. Bernie is much more stable and coherent than Trump. In general, I think he does a good job at communicating his ideas, such as M4A. For example, I thought he spoke clearly during his FoxNews townhall. @Mason Riggle I would be curious about how Trump would be diagnosed after a thorough psychological evaluation by trained professionals. Yet on the other hand, we already know something is amiss in Trump's mind. It's like when someone's car breaks down it's pretty obvious. We don't need a car mechanic to tell us our car has broken down and isn't working. @Scholar Ooohhh!! The egoic psychology of advanced criminal minds and interrogators is so fascinating. Thank you for that juicy link. I can't watch it at work now, yet I will later tonight. . . One skill the best interrogators and investigators have is nonverbal communication. There is part of our brain that is aware of, and interprets, nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, voice tone, voice cadence and body language. There can be hundreds of very subtle nonverbal cues to integrate. People can get trained to due this - for example to detect when someone is trustworthy or untrustworthy. Yet the best investigators also have a natural skill at this, couple with intuition. Yet on the flip side, the stakes are high for criminals and they also have developed skills of masking nonverbal cues to cloak their dishonesty and nefarious intentions from detection. It's a really interesting dynamic. . .
  14. There is already sufficient evidence. It is against the law for a president to solicit a foreign country to investigate a political opponent in an election. Trump himself has admitted committing this crime. He then again committed the crime in public view. We already have the direct evidence. An impeachment trial can reveal the mechanisms have how extensive the crime was. As well, a trial can help educate the portion of the public that cannot yet see clearly. . . It is as if a person admitted he committed the crime of murder and tried to hide it and then committed a second murder in plain view for everyone to see. Yet his friends and family cannot admit that he committed a crime or that murder isn't really a crime. A trial can help such people see clearly. For example, there may be lawyers that testify that murder is indeed a crime. There may be witnesses of the murder. Yet this is secondary evidence since the person has already admitted committing the crime and did it again in plain view. It is against the law for a president to solicit a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent in an election. Trump is shown in the phone call committing this crime. Trump admitted to committing this crime. It doesn't get more direct than this. The part about Biden is the crime. All the other stuff is a distraction. It's like a man getting into an argument and murdering his wife, then saying "the evening was not just about the murder. He prepared his wife dinner and took out the trash. And they also talked about scheduling their son's summer soccer camp before he murdered her. And the neighbors didn't like this guy and wanted him to move out of the neighborhood. Oh, and what about the other guy across town that murdered his whole family?". . . All of this is distraction from the direct evidence of the crime and that the person admitted committing the crime.
  15. It’s impersonal. I’m pointing to something prior to self constructs. At a personal level, I'm impressed with their abilities and development at such a young age. It’s great to see young people exploring consciousness like they are. Yet, it can all get deconstructed to Nothing and re-constructed to Everything.
  16. @Leo Gura Hmmm, so that means if I observe my own psychological dynamics then subtle forms of Trumpism will be revealed in my own mind. That’s a tough pill to swallow. It’s much more comfortable to observe Trump. Relative to Trump devilry, I’m an angel ?
  17. @Focus Shift I’m not familiar with contemporary Orange personal development speakers. The only reason I’m familiar with JP is because he appears a lot on the forum. I’d imagine some of Leo’s videos from a few years ago would be good. If I were to create a healthy Orange coach to help blue people transition to Orange - I’d just leave out the Green stuff and the coach would focus on personal growth, goal setting, how to achieve personal goals, self motivation etc. - yet in a healthy way, without harming others.
  18. @Focus Shift Nice recontextualization for an Orange/Green.There is a different resonance when combined with imagery. There is an extra boost of inspiration and emotion with the imagery.
  19. @Emerald I see a lot of guys that want to use JP as a pull up to orange - yet that comes at the price of a green poison pill. Do you know of any good male orange role models without the green poison? Tony Robbins comes to mind, yet he is getting old and I’m not sure if younger men would resonate with him.
  20. I like that perspective. I hadn’t thought of it like that. I’m not so interested in how enlightened sages would experience/interpret psychedelic bells and whistles such as different realms, spirit guides, fractals, aliens etc. I’d want them to see/experience deconstruction to Nothing and re-construction to Everything. Then I’d ask “Wudda ya think?”