Forestluv

Member
  • Content count

    13,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Forestluv

  1. Yea, this gets into territory in which "you" gets slippery and it's very hard to convey. Yet when trying to describe something like omniscience, I think we need to be careful with the term "you". I would consider omniscience a transcendence of this "you". I don't like the term here because of underlying assumptions of personification. If you say "you" has dissolved, then who is the "you" in "all you need to know"? If this points to a transcendent "You", I think the statement is misleading. If it does refer to a transcendent "You" it is a very very different contextualization. What does this transcendent You need? Ime, "you" and "need" aren't very good terms to communicate omniscience. My preference would be to try to communicate it without highly personal terms. The essence of omniscience without the "me" and "needs". Then why not say "Omniscience is the experience/knowledge/belief beyond which there is nothing more to know". Why add in an entity that is an "experiencer" or a "knower"? Why add in an entity that has "needs". That is adding in a contraction. I realize you are saying that there really isn't a "you" or "needs" - then why add that in there? It seems like you are trying to use a transcendent form of "You", but to me it doesn't seem like you are using it transcendently. In a nondual sense, there is no "You" because there is no "Not You" to contrast it with. Yes, language is dualistic. We can try to point to nondual with dual pointers. Yet to me, it seems like you are using a pointer to point back on itself. Like @Truth Addict suggested, we can imagine multiple "levels" of omniscience. To me, you seem to be in a transitional zone that is overlapping two levels. This is just my impression: it seems like you are cutting associations between Omniscience and ego, yet I think there are still some associations that can be cut. To me, this seems like a human trying to contextualize what Omniscience might be like, rather than Omniscience trying to contextualize itself in a way humans would understand. These are very different perspectives. Imagine being a child trying to describe what being an Astronaut in outer space would be like. Now imagine being an Astronaut trying to explain what being in outer space is like to a child. These are very different orientations. This is a good reflection of what I am pointing to. Notice there is no identification to the ant, yet there is identification to "me". What you are saying is that "I" am not the ant, "I am me". This is *within* something larger. This is right on the edge of a major consciousness expansion. . . This is one of the most common contractions in spirituality - including highly developed sprititualists. It is common for humans to get grounded in concepts such as "enlightenment", "suffering" and "bliss" etc. This can have practical usage as a framework, yet to transcend that, that grounding needs to be let go of. Notice how you have made a distinction between the ant and "enlightenment" and the "cessation of suffering". If enlightenment and cessation of suffering is not related to the ant then *who/what* is enlightenment and the cessation of suffering related to? If you add in "me" or "humans", that is a contraction. Categories have now been created. There is nothing wrong with that, yet there is further expansion. It is like someone saying "I am in Paris". There is nothing wrong with that. Yet within that contraction, there will not be awareness of beingness in France and Europe. As well, notice the association between enlightenment/spirituality with peace/blissfulness. Again, there are "levels" here. Associating enlightenment/spirituality with peace/blissfulness is super common with people on the spiritual path. Many spiritual teachers focus on this - peace/bliss resonates very strongly with seekers. Seekers are strongly attracted toward peace/bliss and this will create many spiritual teachers that fill this *need* of seekers. Spiritual retreats generally have the theme of peace and bliss. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it goes deeper. For example, would you agree that suffering is peace? That frustration, insecurity and fear is blissfulness? If not, there are still conditions and greater depths to go. There is an unconditional peace that is eternally present Now under all conditions. Absolute peace during meditation, absolute peace laying on a beach, absolute peace during sex, absolute peace while being stabbed with a knife, absolute peace during a panic attack. At a more surface level, spirituality is about attaining peace/bliss. Yet if one goes deep enough they will be have to come face-to-face with their construct of peace/bliss. To walk through the next gate, one must surrender that construct. I understand that. To me, it looks like you have broken through more surface levels and are scratching at deeper levels. Like I said earlier, it seems like you are at a transition between two levels and there are components of each. When you write "need = the desire/wish to eliminate all forms of suffering". . . from who/what does that desire arise and to who/what is that desire directed to? I think you still have some associations between omniscience/god with person/human. Notice how you are contextualization this like a human would - based on human wants and desires. You can conceptualize that "omniscience/god is beyond ego and human", yet you are within a human mindset. Notice how you earlier made a distinction between an ant and human and contextualized relative to human needs - at a deeper transcendent level there is no difference since omniscience/god is both ant and human. As well, notice how you are grounded in the "cessation of suffering". This is a very strong desire for the person/human. It is very important for humans to end suffering - first to the self, then to humans, then to all beings. Yet this doesn't necessarily mean that this is important at a trans-personal/human level like a human wold want. For example, what if there was a transcendent desire for unconditional peace. This is a greater peace. Yet humans desire relief from what they find uncomfortable. Which do you consider more transcendent: peace under certain conditions or peace under all conditions? (including pain and suffering). I understand the 2 "you's". At times, you are conflating the two "you's". In the larger context, you are contextualizing from a personal/human (you) perspective, rather than an omniscient/god (You) perspective.
  2. This is one of the best reactions I've seen regarding Joe Biden's comments on slavery during the democratic debate. The woman articulates her perspective so clearly and with energy. She reveals how out of step Biden's views are. Biden's strongest support is with black democrats - probably due to name recognition and his association with Obama. Yet, I can't see how Biden survives through the primary process. He is really really bad on race. Blue/Orange
  3. My favorite video on Falling in Love. It captures the depth of one of my romances. . .
  4. Threads merged to include the last post on the topic. The thread was locked by the OP's request. Please don't start new threads directed at the OP.
  5. Distinction vs non-distinction is itself a distinction. From a dualistic perspective, enlightenment seems like nonduality. Some type of One no-self state. This can be an extremely profound awakening, yet the nondual vs. dual duality breaks down as well as we go full circle. It's whatever the case may be. For a time, the subjective experience may seem like flipping back and forth between dual and nondual, yet this breaks down. There is something transcendent to that.
  6. Locked by OP request. @DoTheWork There is a "hide" feature under options. We ask that users use the hide option sparingly.
  7. I would support gun registration and licensing to own - similar to registering a car and a drivers licence. This would reduce irresponsible gun use. I would think most responsible gun owners want to reduce the number of irresponsible idiots with guns. They are the ones that give gun ownership a bad name. I can understand fear of the government regarding guns, yet from my perspective this is way overblown. I would put the concern at a level of 2/10 - yet most gun owners seem to have an intensity of 9/10. It is one of the weirdest mentalities I see with gun advocates. It reminds me of the irrational fear that medicare for all will create government "death panels". Is that a fear of most people? Or most gun advocates? I don't fear the government regarding gun legislation. I don't know anyone who fears the government on gun regulation. In polls, the majority of Americans support the government to impose gun registration. I think it would be more accurate to say that gun advocates don't trust and fear the government. I wouldn't be surprised if most gunowners support registration. There is extremely strong support for gun registration - as high as 90% for some measures. What legal form of gun has a higher lethality potential than ARs? The upper limit of an AR is about 100 rpm. Is there another type of gun that can kill up to 100 people in a minute? I think the "slippery slope" is overplayed. ARs were banned in the 90s and there wasn't a big effort to ban rifles or handguns. I don't think it's a dog whistle. I think there is very strong support to ban ARs and much less support to ban rifles and handguns. Most Dems are not pushing to ban rifles/handguns. There are like 10 issues more important to them. And I don't agree with trying to protect legal status of war weapons as a buffer to protect rifles and handguns. Ban ARs and if measures down the line seek to ban rifles and handguns, then fight that fight. Don't use ARs and people's lives as a firewall to protect rifles and handguns. I think this is a good point about fear. What is the best way for someone to address their inner fear? You have written a lot about how people should work on themselves. How they should work hard, develop skills and empower themselves. Why shouldn't this apply here? Why shouldn't fearful people do similar work - in this case work hard through introspection to examine their insecurities and fears? This is a more effective way to help a person through fear, than to give them a weapon. . . Holding a gun may give a fearful person a temporary sense of security, yet it doesn't address the deeper fear issue. As well, the reason it allows a temporary sense of security is because the majority of other people don't have guns. That sense of security comes off the backs of people that are dealing with their insecurities without guns. Imagine if we gave every insecure, fearful person an AR15. That is pretty much everyone. So everyone could open carry an AR15 wherever they go. On college campuses, in movie theatres, in parks, at concerts - everywhere - everyone is afraid and wants to protect themselves and their family with guns. Do you really think this would lower violence? Of course not, violence would skyrocket. And it's not the type of world I want to live in. I can see a vulnerable person owning a gun at home. Yet we need to draw the line. I've never heard of anyone say planes did 911. Certainly not "many people". Because nobody is arguing that objects on their own kill people. I mean c'mon, this is really straightforward. If you gave easy access to hand grenades, there will be more hand grenade deaths. If everyone owned a rocket launcher, there will be more rocket launcher deaths. If everyone owned and carried an AR, there will be more AR deaths. This is super straightforward. Now if we reduce the accessibility of hand grenades, rocket launchers and ARs, there will be less deaths via those weapons. Then someone may say "Well people will still kill people". To that: yes, but there is a big difference with a murderer with an AR and a murderer with a knife or handgun. We just reduced potential lethatlity. Secondly, there should be more resources for men with issues. Especially men with insecurity, masculinity, anger and resentment issues. Provide resources to help those men, so they spiral down into extremes to kill groups of people. Could Jeffrey Dahmer have killed 17 people without in a minute without a gun? Of course not. Anyone can kill 17 people in a minute with an AR15. Very very few people can kill 17 people without a gun. And it will take much much longer than a minute. It is much easier to kill groups of people with an AR than without an AR. The U.S. is the only country in the world with an AR mass shooting epidemic. Every country has violent video games and mental health issues, yet don't have mass shooting problems. The U.S. has more guns than other countries. Reduce the number of guns, reduce deaths. And I find the argument that objects other than guns cause death to be really weak. Imagine a microchip that killed the person you placed it on. Arguing that the killer chip should not be banned because knives and cars can also be used to kill is ludicrous. As well, saying that the killer chip only kills 289 people per year is also a ludicrous argument. Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to own and use an AR. These guns and ammunition were designed for warfare to brutally kill the maximum number of opposing soldiers as efficiently as possible. Simply based on principle, these ARs should be outlawed. If a gun advocate fears a slippery slope, that is another issue. We should not allow civilians to own and use weapons of war because some gun advocates are afraid of a slippery slope.
  8. That is one frame. Notice how that assumption is the basis for the rest of the argument. That frame is a binary mode in which there is "gun bans" or "no gun bans". This overly simplistic model does not include degree and allows all guns to be lumped together. For example, machine guns are currently banned. I don't see many people arguing about this, because machine guns are the highest lethal form of gun. During the democratic debate, the discussion was about banning the next most lethal form of gun on the continuum - sem-automatic guns. To frame this as "gun bans" is misleading because it doesn't include the part about the lethal severity of the gun type proposed for the ban. I don't think the true fear is a ban of semi-automatic weapons. I think there is a deeper fear going on. . . This is another hyper dualistic frame. People, not guns kill people. It does not include degree. If people kill people, not the object - then why stop at guns? . . People kill people, not nuclear weapons. Why not legalize nuclear weapons? . . . Likewise, a person with a semi-automatic weapon can kill injure and kill dozens of people in less than a minute. How many people can someone injure/kill with a knife in less than a minute? How many people can someone injure/kill with a nuclear bomb?. . . Degrees along continuums are important to consider.
  9. I like that point. I would add in it doesn't mean knowing every fact, like knowing the winning numbers of every lottery that has over occurred or will occur. I think there is too much emphasis on "you" and "need". With omniscience, the "you" dissolves. The illusion of "you" has no more relevance than a crayon that got flushed down the toilet on the other side of the world. So, I think it's misleading to associate omniscience with an illusory personality construct. Similarly, "need" doesn't quite fit for me either. For example, one may know the essence of being of an ant. This has nothing to do with "my" "needs". . . This is unpalatable to the ego, which is always focused on "what's in it for me? Omnicience will grant *me* the ability to know *my needs*? Sign me up!" Yet ime, the ego is the biggest loser here - the ego gets nothing. Assigning a definition, based on direct experience, is really difficult. I would say "knowing prior to knowledge" captures a portion of the truth. Yet I cannot capture it all. I agree with this.
  10. That's not my point at all. Rather, it is reflective of a lens. The genuinessness is not the question. It is the lens. One can see a particular image and genuinely express their impression. Yet they cannot view from another lens that they are unaware of. A being with a personal lens will not recognize trans-personal. From the construct of a teacher-student relationship, I think you make great points. In particular, to be at similar developmental level as students especially when trying to understand them. When I play the role of a formal teacher in a classroom, this is one of the major challenges. When one has fluency and clear understanding, it can be very difficult to teach that to those that are novices. I think using the term "levels" can be useful because the human mind is naturally oriented toward understanding levels. It's a great structural framework even if it isn't 100% accurate and we need to deconstruct some of the "levels" later on. Eventually, they collapse. . . However, I often see value personalization of the term "level" - which I think is a major hindrance. For example "I am at Turquoise. He is only at Orange. Thus, I am at a higher level". In terms of SD, a major part of entering Yellow is the awareness and dis-identification to such personalizations. This applies to both transmitter and receiver. This dynamic can be portrayed, with reception. Not portrayed with reception. Or portrayed without reception. In this case, I may claim that I didn't portray superiority and you may claim that I did portray superiority. They are two sides of the coin. Regardless of my intention, I cannot claim superiority was not portrayed. This gets into the dynamics of intention and impact - which I think is also an important dynamic. In terms of being attached to being a teacher, I wouldn't use the term "attached". There is de-attachment and dis-identification at the personal level. Yet this does not suggest that the personality does not re-appear. It is the attachment and identification to that appearance that dissolves or is much less intense. Rather than "attachment", I think it is more fair to say conditioning of the mind and body. As we awaken, the attachment/identification dissolves, yet the conditioning remains. Awakened guitarists play the guitar. Awakened comedians tell funny jokes. Awakened teachers teach. There is a distinction between attachment/identification and conditioning/abilities. Importantly, there is also an energetic shift. There is a shift in the source of energy that propels the awakened guitarist, comedian and teacher. If I was to describe my abilities, I would say there are things I do very well and seem to have value for others. There are some areas it seems I've gone pretty deep (relative to what I see in others). Yet in other areas, I'm a novice and lack skills. For example, I never had children. I have no experience in that area. And essentially no real knowledge. I also don't have experience in creative arts such as drawing and writing poetry. Thank you for your perspective. I was unable to connect in this situation and your feedback is helpful for me to reflect upon. You make a good point in terms of inter-personal communication. Yet also be mindful that it isn't just about you and me. Hundreds of people may read this thread. Some may have an insight regarding something I am trying to convey. Some may have an insight in something you are trying to convey.
  11. I understand how it appears that way. There is also a transcendence of this. In terms of SD, as one enters Tier2, there is an energetic shift from personal to trans-personal. It is not an intellectual thing. It is energetic. For a being that has not undergone this shift, they will interpret the intentions of others within the personality dynamic because they are still within that dynamic (even if they intellectually deny this). Imo and ime, this is one of the most important aspects of evolving into Tier2. Before a person transcends a dynamic, they will not be able to recognize or understand the dynamic. They will contextualize it at their current conscious level. This is a cousin to Wilber's pre/trans fallacy. For those of you interested in this transcendence, here is a simple example you might relate with. Imagine dating a narcissist who is hyper-contracted into their own personality. So much so that they don't even realize it. Now imagine doing something kind for this person. Maybe you clean their kitchen while they are at work. How would this be interpreted through a narcissistic filter? It would be interpreted through a cynical and transnational filter. The narcissist would think "Why did you clean my kitchen? What do you want? Are you trying to manipulate me? Now I owe you something". The narcissist is incapable of seeing the genuine nature in another because they lack that same genuineness - they can't imagine it. . . We can take this up a level. . . a being that has not transcended the personality will not be able to recognize the trans-personal. It will go through a personal lens. This is a common dynamic for Orange looking at Tier2. Orange will not be able to recognize the trans-personal in Tier2 beings and will contextualize it at there baseline Orange conscious level. For example, "that person just wants to look good. That person wants to be more popular and protect their power. He is just protecting his personal identity".
  12. 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.
  13. @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.
  14. @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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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 ? ♥️
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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 ? ♥️
  21. @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”.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. @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.