Forestluv

Some nice probing ??

Sam Harris: a bizarre mix of orange, green and yellow. Ken Wiber: a bizarre mix of orange, yellow and turquoise.

You list some good examples. I would add that it isn’t just rational and intellectual. Other modes of being appear in Green such as empathy, intuition, emotion and connection. JP has major deficiencies in these areas. JP is a clinical psychologist. Another clinical psychologist with dramatic contrast to JP is Gabor Mate. Gabor is green/yellow without blue/orange anchors. He has deeply embodied green. To me, Gabor is the complete contrast to JP and makes his deficiencies totally obvious.

Some nice imagery ? ♥️

I would imagine it sends a message to asylum seekers in central america: Don't come to the U.S. I would also imagine it sends a message to Trump's base that tough action is being taken to protect his base from "scary" asylum seekers from Central America.

@DrewNows Cool video. It might actually be easier to let go and dissolve with a complete stranger than with a friend/partner.

Your message brought to mind the interplay between contraction and expansion - back and forth. Then the image of an accordion appeared. . .

@ROOBIO Sometimes I imagine the earth as a giant organism. . . if the earth was one giant organism, what would the Amazon forest be like? Perhaps a lung of the organism. What would humans be like? In a sense, humans as cancerous cells is apropros.

A nice exercise for this is eye gazing with someone, yet it's not easy to find someone willing to let go. There can be a dissolution of the person - both the internal person of "me" and the external person of "you". Yet it is a form of ego death and resistance may arise. I've only found one person in which I could go to that space. There was no distinction between "her" and "me". I wouldn't have been able to tell if I was perceiving her or myself. Or if I was her perceiving herself or me. There were no thoughts of this at the time though. It just was. It was intimately blissful, yet she could only enter for a moment. It became too intense for her. She pulled back and regained herself - then myself returned. She got up, walked away and wanted to do something else. She never wanted to try it again, which is too bad - I love the kind of stuff.

I think you might be referring to Trump's initiative to deport undocumented children that are dependent on medical assistance. This didn't go over very well and they quickly changed direction. Yet the child separation and cages continues, to my understanding. To be fair, Obama also did child separation and caging - he also had a very aggressive deportation program - in an effort to appease Republicans. Yet Obama kept in on the down-low and I think if it become a mainstream issue which angered progressives, he would have changed direction. In contrast, Trump is emphasizing his child separation and caging. He has had high-level cabinet members, including the vice-president - visit. They took lots of footage of the caging - highlighting caged men. My sense is that this plays well with his base.

That a really good question and it's something I contemplate often. What is *healthy* is relative and we all have our own biases. There are often times I question whether I am supporting something healthy for the individual and for the collective. Attachment, identification, bias and open-mindedness can be quite subtle and sneaky. It's so easy to become subtly attached/identified to "something". We all do this - it's human nature and there are many different dynamics. For example, in consciousness work we speak of a "spiritual ego". A person that has done a lot of spiritual work may think that their views hold more weight because they are "more conscious" than the person they engaged with. In one context, that may be true - yet it's sooo easy for the ego to sneak in and mask personal beliefs as "highly conscious" realizations and "experience" beyond scrutiny. . . For example, some people on the thread are pushing back the assumption that Green progressive values are better or higher than Blue/Orange conservative values. Here, I'm asking if there is something I am missing or forgot. For example, that there may be healthy structural aspects of Blue/Orange conservative values needed for a healthy balance. Or that Green progressives can have Blue/Orange shadows they haven't worked through. Any criteria I give as being "healthy" is relative and can be deconstructed away. Generally, I am more motivated to move toward greater inclusion, consciousness expansion and harmony. When I see the opposite of that: marginalization, consciousness contraction and conflict a desire arises to relieve it. That is how I've been wired since I was a kid. Yet what is "healthy" is relative and I've been trying to work on my intuition skills, because my intellect is insufficient. One thing I've noticed is that I have good intentions, yet intention implies I know what is healthy. Intention has a filter. For example, someone may come to me with an anxiety issue - this would trigger me to "help". I may think that the person needs to do such and such to reach a healthier state. Perhaps they need to do meditation or introspection work to resolve their anxiety issue. To me, this would be healthy. Yet is it? Maybe it's best to not have an idea of what is "healthy" for them. Maybe that is just my idea that I am projecting on to them. Perhaps sometimes it's healthier to just sit with the anxious person and accept them in that moment. Rather than trying to fix them and change them into a peaceful person, perhaps just letting them be and loving them for whoever they are in that moment. Regarding what are we trying to accomplish here, I would say to share insights, explore ideas/experiences and increase awareness. Yet again, it can get tricky with things like "awareness". Is the intention to help someone become aware of a personal dynamic? Or is the intention more toward debating and trying to get someone to think and perceive more like I do? Sometimes, I pause and ask "what is the source of my motivation here?". Sometimes that gives me clarity. I'm actually not that interested in debating the politics itself. I'm more interested in human perception dynamics.

Nice. I found that to be an indicator of expansion. For a long time, I was trying to figure things out and explaining intellectually. For example, "What is ISness?". One may get into philosophical conceptualization creating constructs of what "ISness" is. This is a very different orientation than a post-intellectual direct experience of actual "ISness". I remember hiking through the woods and ISness revealing itself through direct experience. Afterwards I was like "How the fuck do I even begin to try to explain this"? I wanted ISness to explain itself through words, yet I kept fumbling around for words. I'd say "well it's sorta like this. Well, not quite. Kinda like this, but no that doesn't quite capture it either".

Yet the reality is that marriage has aspects of religion, government and social construct. By trying to insulate marriage into religion, it ignores the government and social aspects. A centrist view of allowing "domestic partnerships" does not address these three areas and essentially creates a two-tier system of "traditional marriage" and "domestic partnerships" - with domestic partnerships being a second-rate type of union. This is the dilemma being discussed in the thread. Conservatives will always want to use adherence of tradition to block and obstruct evolution. The argument that a traditional has been around for thousands of years and we need to make slow incremental changes would be a centrist position. If the centrist is actually open to change. Incrementalism can also be used as a tactic by inauthentic conservatives to block/inhibit evolution. To conservatives all change will appear as being "radical". Sometimes societal evolution is slow, sometimes it is rapid. It did take years to evolve. Decades of evolution actually. I remember signs of the LGBTQ movement in the early 1980s. That is 40 years of evolution. The LGBTQ community wants inclusion and equal rights. Marriage is a fundamental aspect of the human experience and social structure. From the perspective of those privileged that already have rights - an outside group asking for equal rights will be perceived as demanding extra rights. Same-sex marriage is not restricted to a religious issue. It is much much broader than that. There are extensive issues regarding the human experience, inclusion, equal rights and social interactions. You are seeing this from the perspective outside of LGBTQ - looking at them as an out-group. You are not seeing this from the perspective of within LGBTQ - looking at it from the in-group. I'm not saying your perspective is wrong - it is true as an out-group perspective wanting to maintain group boundaries. However, this is a contracted view. This isn't empathy. Empathy is understanding the in-group perspective. Not just intellectually. If you were an LGBTQ person, you would have a much higher level of empathy. If you had a child that was LGBTQ, you would have higher empathy. Or if you were a psychologist working with LGBTQ issues such as stigmatization and abuse or someone that volunteered working with victims of LGBTQ discrimination. Or dating an LGBTQ person. These types of direct experience would help someone gain empathy and "get it" at a deeper level than intellectual arguments. The perspective you offer does not show empathetic understanding of LGBTQ. Trump and a few of his loyalists have been over-classifying material of wrongdoing into the highest secure coded server in which only a few people have access. This is an abuse of the system. There are other confidential servers to use. The highest secure coded server is designated for the most extremely sensitive material of national security - such as covert operations. . . He is hiding other incriminating information on that server - that is my biggest concern - because it is a fundamental breakdown of democratic society. Of course. It is always in the context of time. During transitions of evolution, progress will also seem radical and extreme to conservatives. After the transition, it is no longer the conservative position - it becomes the moderate position. This is a foundational dynamic of conservativism and has shown itself over and over. For example, inter-racial marriage was a radical idea to conservatives at the time. It is no the consensus position. Yesterdays progressives are today's moderates and today's progressives are tomorrow's conservatives. For example, today's conservatives say "marriage is between a man and a woman" and today's progressives say "marriage is between two humans regardless of sex/gender". Yet this is becoming the moderate position. My gen z students are totally fine with same-sex marriage - that might still considered progressive. Yet when I ask them "How do you feel about future marriage between an android and human?". . . Then they get uncomfortable. Generations from now, todays youthful progressives will be conservatives. They will be protesting to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage - there will be marching with signs such as "Marriage is between two humans". Trans-human / android marriage will seem radical to todays progressives in the future and they will adopt the new conservative position of "marriage is between two humans", yet it will not seem radical to the future progressives.

Slavery abolitionists were extremely radical in the context of that time. Among the most extreme radicals in world history. https://aeon.co/essays/the-abolitionist-benjamin-lay-was-a-hero-ahead-of-his-time

I've found shamanic breathing to help reveal muscle awareness and memory. For me, thinking awareness/memory often masks muscle awareness/memory. Shamanic breathing can shift awareness/memory from thoughts to body.

@Scholar To me, it looks like you are expanding beyond an intellectual/logical space. I'm curious. . . have you had some insights via direct experience that is hard to put into words?

@Scholar It appears you've had some deep realizations and breakthroughs recently. It's great to see. Nice work.

My bigger concern is the extent that Trump is concealing his wrongdoings. Every presidency has wrongdoings and attempts to conceal it. Yet Trump is at a more dangerous level of wrongdoing and concealment. I think this hyper-concealment is just as important as the wrongdoings. I would say the concealment issue may be even more important because it destroys the fundamental foundation of democracy. Democratic elections are a fundamental expression of consent. The public gives their consent for a person to lead the country. Yet consent is based on information. If wrongdoings and nefarious intentions are concealed, the public cannot give consent. . . This is a fundamental issue of ethics. For example, clinical trials in medicine ethically requires consent of volunteers, yet if researchers conceal information, such life-threatening risks of the drug, the volunteers cannot consent. The pharmaceutical company may claim consent and say "look!! They signed on the dotted line!!". Yet it would not be considered consent in ethical and legal contexts.

I like the discussion regarding balance, centrist and mid-point. In particular, I've been contemplating the concept of high conscious balance. Below are some of my explorations. . . The U.S. recently went through 20 years of debating same-sex marriage. The conservative position was to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and to prohibit same-sex marriage within the "defense of marriage act". The progressive position was "Love is love" and same-sex marriage should be legal. The centrist/mid-point position was that marriage should remain exclusively heterosexual, yet homosexuals can have "domestic partnerships" in which they are given many of the rights marriage grants - such as being able to visit a severely ill partner in a hospital. This centrist position seems to have the illusion of "balance" since it is the midpoint. Similar to how a scale is balanced by a midpoint and each side has equal weight. This is the traditional sense of "balance" and I like how the concept is being explored and recontextualized on the forum. . . So what might a conscious balance look like in this situation? As I create this construct, I would say that balance would include looking at various perspectives as well as various modes of being. We could consider perspectives of conservatives, progressives, straight, gay, psychologists, religious, scientists from different modes of being including intellectual/logical, empathetic, relativity etc. For example, from a relative experience homosexuality might seem unnatural to conservative, yet completely natural to a homosexual. From a logical perspective homosexuality naturally occurs in all animal species examined. So we could say that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena and the relative experience is natural to those that are homosexual - this would shift the *balance* toward legalizing same-sex marriage. Another argument presented by conservatives was that children in LGBTQ families are raised in an unhealthy environment and will have developmental problems, while progressives argued that their is no difference regarding child welfare between traditional and LGBTQ homes. Many social science studies supported the progressive claim. A centrist may find the mid-point and say "There is not an extreme difference between the childrearing, there is only a moderate difference and only a moderate negative impact on children in LGBTQ homes". Yet the midpoint between the two arguments is not accurate. So once again *balance* shifts toward allowing same-sex marriage. Once it's fully explored, the balanced position would be legalizing same-sex marriage. Yet I think a balanced position would also have empathy and understanding for conservatives that feel very uncomfortable with homosexuality. There are some extreme conservatives that are highly motivated to portray homosexuality as evil and allow discrimination. However, there are also a lot of conservatives that were conditioned that way, perhaps through church and social groups. Homosexuality may feel weird to them. They may have never met or gotten to know a person in the LGBTQ community. Rather than stigmatizing all conservatives as stupid homophobes, a balanced position would allow space for someone to explore their own biases. I realize not everyone would be open and willing in this regard, yet many are and a balanced position recognizes this. Someone might be open enough to say "I think homosexuality is wrong. It feels weird and unnatural to me. Yet I'm not sure why." Rather than stigmatize the person as a "homophobe", a balanced position would allow exploration and growth. It would have a more empathetic understanding of the person. Rather than pointedly calling out them as homophobic devils and shaming, we might discuss conditioning within cultures as well as our own personal experience (I was raised in a traditional catholic environment and know this conditioning). We might introduce the person to someone in the LGBTQ community. A person may open a door by saying that they are straight, yet are occasionally attracted to the same-sex. This all allows space. . . Yet a balanced position would still be balanced - it would understand that not all conservatives would be open to exploring this and growing. Some will consciously try to resist personal and social growth: they will deflect, obstruct and oppress. From a balanced view, this would be a different context and response. For example, it may be best to call out their homophobic devilry and at times shame them for it. They might not be willing to introspect it, yet by calling out their homophobic devilry it can increase collective awareness and reduce the social impact of their deflection, obstruction and oppression. I think this may be a "higher" level of balance, we may evolve toward. An actual example of the balance between the two categories would be Trump's relationship with Mexicans and Warren's relationship with Native Americans. I would place Warren in the first category. Warren identified as Native American and described herself as Native American for many years - this may have benefited her during her academic and political careers. She also took a DNA test and reduced Native American heritage to DNA sequences. We find out she is not Native American. Warren seemed open to learning and growing. Rather than labeling such people as an immoral opportunist, I think she should be given a space to learn/grow. I saw a recent talk of hers and she said that after the DNA test, she went in to Native American tribes to learn and understand their perspectives. She said she now knows that what she did was wrong, why it was wrong and why it caused harm. This is growth. And she is now educating people about her new insights. She was raised in an environment in which she was told she had Native American heritage and she assumed she did. Yet she now knows she is not a person of color. Importantly, she goes one step further and educates why DNA tests to not determine heritage and identity. I think this can help a lot of people. I was also raised in a family in which we thought my great-grandfather was Native American. For a while, I identified as being part Native American. About 10 years ago, my mom got a DNA test and it showed I had about 1 drop of Native American blood . I also looked into constructs of cultural identity and spoke to several Native Americans. I realized I'm not Native American. . . at all. . . . I think offering safe spaces for this growth is important. If I faced social stigmatization and shaming as a liar and immoral opportunist, I don't think I would avoided exploring this and I wouldn't have expanded in this area. . . In contrast, I would say Trump's portrayal of Mexicans has dangerous murderers and rapists is a different category and a balanced position is aware of this and balances the position. Trump is not open to see how is rhetoric is racist and damaging toward his targets and to society. He has conscious intention and is aware of impact. Trump is not open to introspection, learning as growing as Warren of myself was. So a balanced approach would be to take a strong position and call out the behavior as racist devilry. This won't help Trump at a personal growth level, yet it can reduce the social harm and increase social awareness for those that are open.

I like your point about how arising and passing away is a mental construct. You also say that there is a realization that "there is only process". You seem to be pointing to the process of mentally constructing arising and falling. This is a deep realization and it goes deeper. The realization and awareness of the process is also a mental construction. "Process" requires a timeline. Without that timeline, there is no process. There is no change. There is no permanence or impermanence. There is no experience. Nothing is happening. All of these require a timeline (albeit a very short timeline). Without time, there is no occurrence. There is no instant. These require a timeline. In that timelessness, there is no arising and passing away to see. There are no mental constructs occurring. There are no mental formations. There is nothing happening to be seen as a mental formation. There is no process. I think you are pointing to a deep realization, yet it seems like you still think there are occurrences, such as mental constructions occurring. You seem to be suggesting that there is a timeless state of consciousness aware of time-dependent occurrences. This is one frame, yet this dissolves as well. There is a frame in which there is no timeline - so no occurrences. What you are pointing to reminds me of the movements through Now that @Faceless spoke of.

@VeganAwake Welcome to the forum and thanks for your contributions. You have an interesting life story. I especially like that part about you vision of awakening. There are so many different entrances. Sometimes I read someone explain it and I'm like "Yea, it's like that. I've never thought about it like that before". Great stuff.

Yes, adults too. In crowded unsanitary conditions. It is especially traumatic to children that are separated from their parents and kept in cages. It is child abuse.

@Emerald Thank you for your comments. Good stuff. Conservatives generally have a binary mode of thinking, such as left vs. right. Us vs. them. Saving the life of an unborn vs. killing an unborn. Guns legal vs. Guns illegal. . . This are all very simple binary constructs. In general, conservatives are not into nuances. When I communicate with conservatives in this frame of mind, this is their mode of operandi - so I need to speak this language. My conversations with progressives are very different, because they are very comfortable using spectrums and relativity. And this is a great example of what I am referring to. Framing it such that change is always better is a binary construct. Of course change is not always better. It depends on the change. Changing laws to pollute air and water would not be better for most people. As well, the term "better" is relative. Of course change will not be better to conservatives. Freeing slaves was not better for slave owners. In general, progressive ideas are relatively better - yet they won't be perceived as better by everyone. For example, progressive believe in inclusion and equality for LGBTQ. Many conservatives don't like this and don't see it as better. They see LGBTQ as immoral, weird or against god's will. They are correct from their relative perspective. However this is a limited perspective. When a person expands to understand other people's relative perspective and experience, they understand how LGBTQ inclusion and equality is relatively better. Yet this isn't something that a conservative will be able to see. They would need to develop things like rational thinking and empathy. The key to understand various perspectives - intellectually, emotionally and through direct experience. For example if you asked me "How do you know that LGBTQ acceptance is the right direction?". I could give a logical explanation, yet it is much deeper than that. There are aspects of direct experience, empathy and intuition that are involved. Conservatives want no change, moderates want incremental change and progressives want rapid change. Yet there could come a point in which highly rapid change becomes counter-productive. However, the problem is when this argument is used to obstruct and try to maintain "traditions" and "hierarchies". Ahhh looksie, just like you do next. . . This argument of "preserving traditions" has been used by conservatives through history against any social change. For example, "preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage". This argument was used to obstruct inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage. If we allow blacks and whites to marry and *gasp* have children there will be social instability. If we allows gay people to raise children there will be social instability!!! If we allow women to leave the kitchen and enter the workforce, there will be social instability!! The list goes on and on and on. . . Conservatives are on the wrong side of history time and time again. Don't let that inhibit your personal development and growth. You are painting liberals with a broad stroke. I think you make a good point in that Orange and Green can be condescending to Blue. However, sometimes this seems unavoidable. For example, I've had conversations with conservatives that see gender as being either male or female. . . masculine or feminine. When I try to explain gender and sexual orientation spectrums, I've been accused of being a "know-it-all" and showing them no respect for their views. . . It's like someone believing men or either tall or short and explaining that their is a spectrum of height that ranges from short to tall and then getting accused of being a "know-it-all" that doesn't respect their view. Sometimes conservatives are such snowflakes. . . It is the general orientation for conservatives to perceive in binary constructs. If you compare Trump rallies/FoxNews to TYT/Majority report, it is completely obvious that conservatives are more oriented toward black and white thinking. Progressives are much more nuanced. I think there is a good point in here. Progressives can at times stigmatize right-wing people and I think they could do a better job at allowing space for growth. For example, right-wing nationalists or men with masculinity issues. At times, I don't think it's best to shame them as racists or toxic masculinity. There are underlying issues of concerns. For example, gender roles have changed a lot over the last generation and a lot of men are confused about what it means to be a man these days - this can bring up a lot of insecurity and a sense of not belonging. This can be amplified if they are called "toxic men". As well, some white men see a decline in their place in society with diversity and immigration. It can be feel like they are losing their culture, causing a sense of powerlessness and fear. In some contexts, I don't think it's best label them as bad people destroying society. At times, we need to allow safe space for such men to explore their underlying issues and grow. For example, Obama had social programs for white nationalists - these were safe spaces for white nationalists to work through their issues with people that understood (former white nationalists and people trained in this area).

The logic of math uses symbols. There is no need to imagine someone constructing that logic or symbols. Logic can be completely impersonal, just like listening to music or admiring a flower.

According to consciousness models, that would be very rare. For example, bimodal thinking would be considered a lower level than continuum thinking. Once a person understands continuum thinking, they don't reject that and regress back to pure bimodal thinking. For example, someone might believe that all people are either good or bad. This is bimodal. They may evolve and realize that a person can have good aspects and bad aspects. Once a person realizes this, they very rarely regress. Similarly, liberal/progressive would be at a higher conscious level than conservative. I think by liberal, you might be referring to a high Orange form of liberalism, rather than a Green progressive level. . . Is it possible for a person to evolve to Orange politically and then regress back down to Blue? I would say yes, but with caveats. There are several different lines of development and a person is a mixture of various levels - we say they are "centered" at one level. So a person can have aspects of Orange along one line of development, such as cognitive - yet be Blue centered emotionally and have Blue shadow issues. As well, it is possible to regress if one did not fully transcend/embody a level and is inundated in a lower level. For example, someone might have developed aspects of Orange at a surface level, yet regress because there were actually underlying Blue values and they live in a Blue-centered environment and watch blue-level FoxNews. For example, someone might buy an electric car. This may seem like a progressive thing to do. Yet it depends on the underlying value. If someone buys an electric car because it was marked down 40% or to be popular with their peers, that is Orange. If someone buys an electric car because it is a natural expression of their connection and concern for the environment - that is Green. Progressives were very critical of Obama during the Edward Snowden whistle-blowing. Much more so than Trump supporters are critical of Trump. Green has a higher level of critical thinking than Blue. As well, Green will have a lower level of identification than Blue to a political person. Yet this doesn't mean there is no identification. It is just less. For example, Trump supporters tolerate lies and corruption from their candidates than Green. For the current standing of Blue, it is more about identity, bimodal culture constructs and "owning the libs". Green gets much more upset when their candidates lie and show corruption.