Forestluv

I would say it depends. Sometimes I walk in nature and contemplate meaning. What is meaning? Is there relative meaning? . . . This is more of an exploration. Like. . . "What is beauty?" or "What is love?". Yet the orientation of "What is meaning? There is no meaning in life. My life sucks. Why even bother living if there is no meaning" - is a very different. It will cause inner turmoil. . . I went through a phase in which I had to work through this and it still pops up from time to time. I wouldn't avoid or repress it, yet I also wouldn't be attached/identified with it either.

Another frame of what others have said is to go "prior" to meaning / no meaning. For example, if I said there was an absence of traglot in life, it would have no impact on you. You have not been struggling between the meaning vs. no meaning of traglot because traglot has been absent in your life. It didn't exist until I created it. This is "prior" to meaning/no meaning. We need to create a duality of meaning vs. no meaning to struggle with meaning vs. no meaning. For direct experience, I've gone into nature to observe. Sitting by a brook and observing things as it IS. It just is. Then I watch the mind create "Life has no meaning. My life is meaningless. Why bother living a meaningless life". I try to observe the construction of meaning, the personalization (*my* life has no meaning) and the resulting feelings that arise. Observe how feelings of discomfort cause a negative feedback loop. The mind may think "my life has no meaning", there may be an uncomfortable feeling, the mind may then use the feeling to amplify "This feels bad. Life really is meaningless. This is worse than I thought", then the discomfort may increase, which intensifies the thought story. A nasty loop. . . Yet the underlying feeling is often related to something else. The body may be signaling to me that I am missing something.

@Pacific Sage To me, this looks like a Blue-level internal conflict. One underlying Blue value is that killing is immoral (Thou Shall Not Kill). This is in conflict with Blue-level values of authority and obedience. . . To reach Orange, the protagonist would need to transcend his appeals to two authorities: One authority is an external god which says killing is immoral. The other authority is the military leaders saying killing is justified in war. When the protagonist transitions into Orange, he will transcend the authorities of both the external god and the military leader and realize his personal truth. He will realize he can construct his own moral framework that transcends that of a religious god or military leader. Someone at green would have a different orientation. They would see underlying religious dogma and military structure as the problem and want to deconstruct that. @CreamCat It's a good message of acceptance. Unfortunately for each instance of this type of acceptance there are 100 instances of rejection and stigmatization. Yet messages such as this video are important to help evolve social consciousness. It is essentially saying "This is what a real soldier looks like. This is what a real father looks like. This is what a real man looks like" to those at Blue.

Yea, you touch upon systemic issues and degree of seriousness. There is systemic corruption involving unethical political privilege. Hunter Biden got a job on the Ukraine gas board because his last name was "Biden". China gave Ivanka Trump trademarks because her last name is Trump. Meghan McCain got a job on The View because her last name is McCain. These are widespread common unethical practices that occur in society in which we need systemic structural changes and an increase of consciousness to address. . . And I agree how you point to degree. There are more urgent and serious questions to address. A metaphor may be something like. . . someone commits the felony of arson. The co-conspirator of the arsonist points at the detective and says "What about the detective's son? He was caught stealing a candy bar. He should be the one investigated". The co-conspirator is clearly inauthentic - his intention is not to root out petty theft - especially since he himself has a long history of petty theft. As well, it fails to address degrees of seriousness.

I try to see the underlying orientation motivating the asking of the question. . . It's not just in politics. I work with scientists all day and hear the phrase "What about XYZ?". There are very different intentions when asking this question. To me, the reveal is mostly non-verbal - how/why are they asking the question. As well, there is a reveal in their response. I was at a talk last week about the mechanisms of how fish adapt to changing water temperatures. After the talk, a person in the audience asked "What about epigenetics?". . . What followed was an exchange of ideas and expansion. The speaker said, "Hmmm, that's a good question. Here is how I think epigenetics may or may not be involved". There was an atmosphere of openness and curiosity. The underlying motivation was to learn and expand. . . That would be different than an audience member who had their own mechanistic model they wanted to defend and saw the speaker as a competitor for funding. He could ask the same question "What about epigenetics", yet the underlying energetic dynamics would be very different. This creates a distorted lens through which one could not see clearly. To others, it is totally obvious. Yet the person observing through the lens is often unaware.

That is not "What-about-ism". There is an underlying energetic dynamic underlying "What-about-ism". If a scientist observes cellular division to awaken to the mechanisms of cancer, that is a very different orientation than a scientist observing cellular division with the desire to develop his pre-conceived model and develop an anti-cancer drug he will profit from. Both scientists are sitting in their lab watching cells divide under a microscope - yet they have a different orientation. The lens of the microscope is not the only lens. There is also a lens of perception. . . Below are 17th century drawings of sperm viewed under a microscope by the scientist Nicholaas Hartsoeker. He was a highly intelligent scientist. How accurate are his drawings? Why do you think his interpretations were so off?

I think most people have had a glimpse of this. . . Have you ever been awe-struck by something beautiful? Perhaps the grandeur of the night sky or the elegant beauty of music - in which "you" temporarily dissolve. Time also dissolves. There is simply the beauty of Now. . . What happens next? The person often "snaps out of it" and returns to being the person. One might think "Whoa, what just happened? It's like I lost myself for a moment. That was weird". How might the experience be perceived by the person? At the personal level, one may find it fascinating and liberating. Such a person might desire to return to such a state. Another person may find it scary. They may perceive it as a loss of myself - that they temporarily lost control. . . Yet, what was the essence of the actual direct experience? What is the essence of that glimpse itself in which me and time temporarily dissolved and there was simply the ISness? . . . Notice how the "scary" part is not the glimpse of the ISness itself - it is the return of the self in which the scary part arises. One might think that the loss of self is scary, yet try going a couple weeks in a consciousness absent of self and then the self returns. That's no picnic either. From a personal perspective, the perceived loss of self may seem scary. From a trans-personal perspective, the perceived return of self may seem scary. When this duality becomes balanced, it sort of cancels each other out and a deep unconditional freedom is revealed - freedom from resisting loss of self and return of self.

Very nice. Awakening to spectrum dynamics is a major expansion of consciousness.

"What-about-ism" is becoming more and more prevalent in Trumpian reality.

Magic tricks are known by the magician, yet so elusive for others.

Dualities are collapsing: Real or Satire. . . . FoxNews or The Onion

The problem is that beings centered in Yellow are extremely rare. There are very few integrated Yellows to teach and lead.

@VeganAwake Beautiful imagery

@Matt8800 What’s a good resource for turning it up?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.good.is/articles/obamas-achievements-in-office/amp

I would consider Schiff as a corporate dem that is part of a systemic problem. I would put Schiff's purity above Trump's, yet below Bernie's. This is just my view. . . I think the problem with focusing on one person is that it creates a contracted tunnel vision perspective. It's just really hard to get a meta view. I don't see Schiff as completely dishonest or completely honest. He has aspects of both. Yet if I focus on the impure aspects of Schiff, I won't be able to see the bigger picture. I would consider Schiff a mixed-bag politician who is part of a much larger system problem. If we impeach this guy, put that guy on trial, him to. . this is just "whack-a-mole" and doesn't get at the system problem. . . When I step back and look at the big picture, I would say that all of Trump's behavior is worthy of impeachment. If I zoom into misleading statements from a congressperson and become immersed in those statements, I can lose the big picture. The second tendency is to create personalities. think in opposites and categorized as "them". For example, if we focus on Schiff, it is tempting to create categories, take the opposite position and become contracted. For example, "Schiff is a liar. He misrepresented Trump's phone call. What a manipulative liar. He deserves to be on trial. He is dishonest and trying to impeach.". There are two traps here. One is to create an "us vs. them" dynamic: I am against Schiff and impeachment. The other trap is interpreting evidence through a filter which discredits Schiff - this will also discredit evidence". . .. It's easy to get into a contracted mindset. However, this isn't about Schiff. There is a bigger systemic problem going on and we won't be able to see that by focusing on Schiff. In the bigger picture, I see impeachment as an important step in remedying a much larger problem. Impeachment is only the beginning. Would I choose a different team to conduct the impeachment inquiry? Absolutely. Do I think corporate dems should be stripped of power and be held accountable for transgressions? Yes. As should Republicans. . . Yet when we look at the big picture, I think the strategy changes. In the big picture, I want to resolve systemic problems. On the systemic level, I would place impeaching Trump and getting him out of office as a much higher priority than going after corrupt congresspeople. There are hundreds of corrupt politicians in congress. At the systemic level, I don't think it is wise to invest in targeting specific politicians at this time because they are within widespread corruption. It would be a losing battle trying to get them to investigate themselves. To resolve systemic problems my priorities would be to first make a change in the executive branch. The executive branch has the most power and has the most influence on narrative. My top priority would be to remove Trump from office via impeachment/conviction or the 2020 election. Even a republican like Sanford or a centrist dem like Biden would stop the Trump bleeding, temporarily. My second priority is to get a structural change candidate in charge of the electorate. This will change the orientation and narrative. My top choice is Bernie. He is by far the purest candidate. He is has been rock solid for the people his entire life. He is a very special person and I doubt we will see another like Bernie for many years to come. He would be able to change the orientation. . . . My next priority would be to cutoff corporate-political corruption. I see political corruption like a cancer. If we kill off a few cancer cells, what happens? It grows back. Usually stronger. Rather, we need to cutoff the blood supply feeding the cancer. In politics, that blood supply is corporate/industrial/mega wealthy. An enormous amount of political corruption is through corporate/mega wealthy funding and lobbying. If we can neutralize it or cut it off, we would remove an ton of corruption - and that is more important to me than prosecuting individual persons. . . If there is progress in this area, I would next attempt to hold individual corrupt politicians accountable, through fines, shame, primaries, stripping them off committees etc.

Nice. I saw this coming . . . . An expansion beyond intellectual concepts The concepts have value, yet are the tip of the iceberg. This goes so far beyond the concepts. There an energetic shift and a transcendence of theory. The concepts can be useful, yet like you say - the concepts themselves become stale. When we get direct experience of "ISness", there is a magical energetic shift. Then the theory can become unattractive. This new energy of attraction is for more of the direct experience of "ISness" and there is a whole world to explore. I went through a stage in which all the seeking energy was oriented toward direct experience of magical ISness. I spent a lot of time in nature. There was no seeking energy to find truth through theory. . . The cool thing is when ISness wants to reveal itself through the mind-body via art, poetry, concepts. And how the resonance changes. I lost resonance with many types of spiritual expressions and new resonance appeared. For example, I resonated with the poet Matsuo Basho all of a sudden. I was like: this dude gets it. He knows. No theory. ISness expressing itself through Matsuo's poems. We experience the same eternal ISness of Now. Me and a 17th century Japanese poet. . . Sometimes there is an aspect of loneliness as it can be hard to connect with others. Yet when a transcendent connection arises it is super cool. A big steaming bowlful of YES There are different orientations. From an intellectual egoic orientation, one may say "All there is ISness. All this theory bullshit. It doesn't matter what I do. I might as well sit around all day and play games". This is a very different than a post-intellectual trans-egoic orientation that says "Everything is ISness. All this theory is bullshit. Let's directly experience the magic of ISness." Yepper. The empty nothingness is one facet within an infinite Truth. The next expansion is that you transcend authority to YOU. . . The transcendent YOU is the greatest teacher. And it gets even better. . . The direction I think you are heading. . . You realize YOU are all teachers and spiritual beings. You are buddha, You are Jesus, You are Alan Watts, You are every enlightened being that has ever lived. The groundlessness you desire is the source. It's the same source that all sages tapped into. Then things get really interesting. You become both creator and creation. Walk through the woods and BE the magical creation of Now. Notice how a babbling brook is an enlightened teacher. Watch one of Leo's videos and notice how You are teaching Yourself

There are two tiers of the Dem party: Orange Corporate establishment Dems (Neal, Pelosi, Schiff, Biden etc.) and Green progressive dems (Bernie Sanders, AOC). Green progressive Dems are highly critical of corporate Dems - ideally Green progressives want to break free of Orange establishment corporate dems. Green progressive dems want to impeach Trump, yet not as an isolated incident. Green progressive dems want to fundamentally restructure the government. For example, to shift power from the corporations to the people. This includes removal of Trump, yet that is just the beginning. They also seek to remove corporate corruption in politics and return the power to the people. I would say this is the core structural change for progressives because without neutralizing corporate corruption, none of their other major aims are possible. Progressives do not like Pelosi or Biden. They want to knock Biden out and elevate Bernie. Progressives view Biden more like an old school republican. They would also like to knock out corporate dems, such as Richard Neal and Pelosi - progressives are supporting primary opponents to corporate dems. . . Bernie is the purist example of a progressive dem. He is in a class by himself. A distant second is Elizabeth Warren. She has some legit progressive cred. - such as fighting against corporate corruption - yet she is not nearly as pure a progressive as Bernie.

I think SD is a stronger model at the social level than personal level

This is still using a binary construct. My answer is yes and no. It is more nuanced than "Schiff is either honest or dishonest". As well, personality dynamics are only one component. I explain different levels of conscious awareness from red to green above. Trump is red/blue and Schiff is orange.

Yes. A nugget of truth is used as grounding to frame deflection and obfuscation. Green also does this, yet to a much lesser degree of intensity than red/blue. For example, notice the reaction red/blue, orange and green has to trump. Red/blue binary: Trump's base of support. FoxNews and Briebert. Strong tribal identity. This is a witch-hunt. Trump did nothing wrong. Biden is corrupt and should be the one being investigated for his criminality. red/blue will not use much rational thinking and are not primarily interested in evidence. red/blue is immersed into a cultural identity dynamic of "us vs. them". Tribal identity and subconscious emotions drive behavior. A lack of critical thinking. Orange. Corporate dems. CNN, MSNBC. Evidence-based. Self-centered motivation for personal power and financial success. Desire to maintain status quo. . . Capacity for critical thinking. Trump has behaved wrongly based on this evidence. However, underlying motivation for personal gain and maintain status quo clouds judgement. . . Joe Biden has done nothing wrong (evidence is suspended by desire to maintain corporate status quo). Aspects of dishonesty motivated by desire to maintain power and status quo. Yet to a lesser degree than red/blue. Some motivation to do the right thing - mostly to uphold underlying blue values - such as governmental traditions, rule of law, hierarchies, checks and balances. Green. Progressives. TYT, Majority Report, Rebel HQ, Krystal Ball. . . Desire to maintain status quo is absent - this allows a clearer critical analysis of both republicans and corporate democrats. Better able to see degrees of wrongdoing and more conscious of how underlying emotions drive behavior. Can more clearly see wrong doings of both Trump and Biden and is critical of both - yet can see various degrees of wrong doing.

@Bodigger An aspect of Adam Schiff is a nugget of truth used as grounding for broader deflection and obfuscation. Part of this framing is to create a binary construct of honesty. Schiff is either honest or dishonest. If Schiff is dishonest, then one can extrapolate that the charges against Trump are dishonest. As well, if Schiff is dishonest then one can create a deflection in which Schiff should be the one undergoing a criminal investigation, not Trump. This is a simple blue-level binary message Trump is using and it resonates with a certain percentage of people. . . At Orange, we would add in nuances - like a continuum of honesty, degrees of honesty, a mosaic of honesty. As well, critical thinking enters at orange and orange is able to see how dots are connected. Yet not nearly at the Yellow level, yellow is a master at connecting dots. Green becomes aware of underlying emotional energies driving behavior as well as cultural relativity. Green also has new abilities of empathy and intuition. The combination of logical reasoning (orange) and empathy/intuition (green) allows green to see more clearly than blue - such as being able to detect underlying intent. As well, Green has a more expansive meta view relative to blue and orange, since green has evolved through blue and orange. It is a fascinating interplay between red/blue, center orange and upper orange/green.

Notice how thick the Blue is here: Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, God-given rights, Citizen of the U.S. . . Trump is using Blue value messaging to resonate with Blue. . . Another thing about this dynamic. . . Notice how Trump has a lot of red. Red is much more self-centered than Blue. Red is so self-centered that it has very little sense of community. The transition into Blue involves a sense of community - a Blue community is more expansive than purple community, yet more contracted than green community. Trump is a mixture of red and blue. As such, he is very good at resonating with red/blue. A common dynamic of SD is that a person becomes aware of higher level values and uses that to manipulate others in an attempt to satisfy lower level desires. . . Here Trump's underlying red is fear, raw survival, aggression, desire to seriously harm opponents etc. He is aware of Blue values and is using those values manipulatively for self-centered reasons. There may be some authentic Blue energy, yet the underlying primary energy is red. This dynamic is not limited to red and blue. . . It occurs between various stages. For example, imagine an Orange level motivational speaker such as Tony Robbins. An Orange motivational speaker will be centered in personal empowerment, personal development, goal setting, personal achievement, success, recognition, fame, financial success etc. . . How could an Orange-centered motivational speaker like Robbins use Green to advance his Orange desires for more fame and financial success?. . . The Orange motivational speaker could become aware of what is occurring at Green - things like a broad sense of community, spirituality, yoga, empathy etc. Here we are looking at green from an Orange lens. . . How can we use green things to increase our personal popularity and financial income? Perhaps during seminars and workshops we can sprinkle in some Green. We could say things like "If you tap into spirituality, you can increase your personal power. A little meditation can increase your ability to focus allowing you to have greater personal success". Part of Robbin's personal empowerment programs involve a short period of meditation each day - yet the meditation is a visualization of personal achievement". . . So each stage can use higher stage values to advance their lower stage values. . . One other point. . . As we evolve up the spiral, the degree of unhealthy behavior decreases. In the example above, Trump's usage of blue values to satisfy his red desires is more intensely unhealthy than Robbins usage of green to satisfy his orange desires.

@SoonHei A nice frame for enlightenment.

This is an important transition from red to blue. If you want to develop above blue in Orange and Green, you will need to expand and add in some nuances and complexity. I wrote a bit about this in the post above. Re-framing using the "What about XYZ?" is a defense of deflection from this development process. It is a form of resistance found in every stage of consciousness development. @tentaYes, that is part of the dynamic. Notice how there are nuggets of truth within their narrative. It's a key part of the game they are playing. Those nuggets of truth provide grounding for the devilry. Without those nuggets of truth, grounding would be lost and the whole thing collapses. Many Trump opponents think Trump is 100% lying and delusional. He isn't. He needs a small percentage of truth as grounding for deflection and obfuscation.