Forestluv

You do. You just aren't aware of it. For those that have deconstructed this dynamic it's really obvious. Yet before then, it's not. It's actually not about "me" or "you". The personification of the dynamic makes it harder to see. It can be really difficult because it involves letting go of subconscious control over a narrative and entering groundlessness. One's understanding of relativism would deepen, yet it goes much deeper and broader than that. And it isn't just about the content in this thread. It's a common dynamic. It gets into some deep level stuff and opens new doors. Psychedelics can be very effective in this regard.

@Scholar It's not what you say, it is your relationship with what you say. That relationship will hinder deeper understanding and realizations. The content doesn't matter - it is the relationship to the content.

@Scholar I’ve spent over 25 years immersed in theoretical modeling. I am trying to convey a transcendence of that. Yet you keep trying to re-contract into your theoretical construct. There is nothing wrong with that. The reason I am not participating in that is because it is much more important to me to help you expand your consciousness than engage in your contracted theory (to which you are attached and identified with). I think you are really close to expanding here, which is why I’ve put so much effort. There is a bigger prize here that I wish I could show you. And it will deepen your understanding of relativism. Some beings don’t care if others realize it or not. I’m not one of those beings. Yet I also understand I cannot force it upon someone. You don’t seem interested and I respect that.

By “spectral” I mean a continuum. A basic binary example would be “people are either short or tall”. A continuum mode would see persons with in a continuum of extremely short to extremely tall - such as a bell curve.

To me, it’s clear we are not on the same frequency. That’s ok. What I’m trying to transmit is difficult. In this case, it feels like I’m trying to thread a needle underwater. You seem to be doing a lot of self actualization work and I wish you the best ? ♥️

Yea. You seem to have two things going on here, the mode and the value. Two different perspectives. For example, we could say a binary thinking mode is blue, a spectral thinking mode is Orange and relativistic is Yellow. These are developmental cognitive stages. We could also look at things from a values perspective, as you described. For example, imagine a person buys an electric car. They could do so because they want to look good to others - maybe an electric car would make them look modern and sexy - this would be Orange. Or a person could buy an electric car because they genuinely care about the environment - this would be Green.

Yes, I know that ☺️ I am not saying you are “wrong”. The immersion into a construct of “right” vs “wrong” is extremely limiting. Personalizing the construct causes further contraction/limitation. This is part of what I was trying to point to. What I’m trying to point to is very difficult to describe in words to those who are not aware of it - especially via text on a forum. The risk I take in trying to do so is that the receiver will perceive a person that misunderstands/dismisses their ideas. This is not a good dynamic for expansion ime.

There is a direct experience of absolute infinity in which this is revealed. Yes, at the human level we are limited and have inabilities. From a logical perspective: by definition, finite is limited. To be finite, there must be something not part of that which is finite. Regardless whether or not one can imagine infinity, all things (imaginable and unimaginable) are infinity. Here, one needn’t need to be able to imagine all things because there are no longer any things. Everything = Nothing.

A person may see a full cup and be unaware of the infinite empty cups. Your potential for expansion is way beyond what you are currently conscious of ? ♥️

@Scholar These are all theoretical constructs and I’m not pointing to that at all. I’m pointing at the transcendence of these theoretical constructs. You don’t seem to be aware of how deeply immersed you are within your theoretical constructs. It’s not the statements themselves. It is the relationship you have to those statements. Notice how with each post, you are getting more deeply immersed into theoretical constructs. That provides a sense of control and grounding. Yet at a deeper level, the subconscious attachment to objectivism can be revealed. It is quite profound and liberating, yet can also be extremely destabilizing and scary. This can be revealed by examining your relationship with the word “is”.

Absolutism/objectivism is hardcore orange. It is the strongest grounding of Orange and, imo, the hardest thing for an Orange intellectual to surrender. It is the the number one way an intellectual can control a narrative - both in internal dialog and inter-personal dialog. Blue is binary thinking. Absolutism is also very prominent at Blue. Orange develops beyond binary thinking - for example into spectral thinking. Yet Orange does not transcend absolutism. It is veiled with intellectual constructs, yet once we deconstruct - absolutism is prevalent. In particular, Orange absolutism is highly related to objectivism. So much so, that I think it is splitting hairs, which is why I combined them as absolutism/objective. For example, the statement “which fails to observe realness for what it is” is based on an absolutist/objectivist/universal foundation. . . We can add in lots of sophisticated concepts and logic that may obfuscate this, yet if we deconstruct down to the fundamental, an absolutist/objectivist/universal foundation is revealed. Stage green begins to understand moral relativism. Relativism is not until Yellow. It is not yellow due to the cognitive demands of understanding of relativism. Orange can intellectually understand relativism. The key component is transcendence of the personality construct as one enters Tier2. Without that embodiment, one will not be able to fully understand relativism. They will be anchored within Orange level constructs of relativism with a foundation of subconscious objectivism. It is common for intellectuals to believe they are at Yellow and be unaware of their Orange level attachment to absolutism/objectivism (and unwillingness to surrender it). . . For example, the statement “. . . which fails to observe realness for what it is” is based on an assumption that “what is” is objective and universal. It is saying we can determine that one view fails to see “what is” and another view succeeds in seeing “what is”. There is a subconscious immersion into this construct and a belief it is true. There is nothing wrong with that. Yet it is an Orange level contraction. Yellow transcends this dynamic. Orange level intellectual philosophers and psychologists spend their lives conceptualizing within this realm. It’s not necessarily Yellow. A key component of Tier2 is transcending the intellect. There is a difference between theorizing about Yellow and actually being Yellow.

All notions of morality and relativism are within Absolute That construct is an absolutist/objectivist framework/perspective. Adding in the parts about Absolute and relative is a veil - at it’s core absolutism/objectivism is stage Orange. It does not incorporate yellow level understanding of relativism or Turquoise level embodiment of Absolute.

@capriciousduck By saying the Universe is finite, one says the Universe is limited and does not include something. Finite means there is something not within that which is finite. So to say the Universe is finite, something would need to exist outside the Universe. Yet that something is now part of the Universe. . . Another way to say it: There is nothing outside of Everything. Thus Everything is infinite.

It is not that which is seen. It is that which is unseen. Pointing at something and stating “that fails to observe realness for what it is” can see something, yet is unaware of underlying Nothing. It is being somewhere and unaware of nowhere. This is a higher level of post-rational, post-logical. One cannot intellectualize their way through it.

That’s a contraction. There is a deeper level.

Imo, that is an elementary level of post-rational, post-logical. Yet emotion/intuitive can be quite advanced when liberated from intellectual constructs.

Notice how you state there “is only what is” and then you defined what “is” is as if it was objectively true. The isness of suffering is the isness of suffering.

@Scholar I wouldn’t put Putin as yellow on the cognitive line. He seems restricted to rational/logical cognition and I haven’t seen him express the ability for post-rational/logical.

I think he makes some cogent points - especially about U.S. dynamics. Yet I’m not seeing much yellow - more like Orange. . . . Orange can be intellectually sophisticated.

@Rasheed Depersonalize

5-meo generally doesn’t have visuals. It's one thing I like about it. For me, there isn’t alot of razzle dazzle. It’s pure and clear. I’d bump it up to 30mg

I hear you/me. Beautiful. ? ❤️

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The Aya ceremonies I went to had amazing ethereal music which enhanced the trip. I would bring two separate bottles of water. During my first ceremony, I took a couple gulps of water after purging and ruined the bottle with backwash,

This boils down to the construct of "you". Exactly who/what is this "you"? Who/what would be taking responsibility? The above construct assumes a real "you" and an illusory responsibility. The common denominator in many of your questions boils down to "you". Once the nature of "you" is revealed, there will be greater clarity. If there are no Christmas presents under the tree, should we assign responsibility to Santa Claus? Why or why not?