Forestluv

@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?

Everyone has subconscious biases. At a physical level, neuroscientists are mapping neural networks involved in processing subconscious racism.

Such as religion

This is all within a personality dynamic. "Me", "situation", "stance". It's all imagined.

Yes, that is the point. It's also not the point. . . There is no escape. . .

Answering "yes" or "no" means that I would have to accept your underlying premise. This is just what flows through me, others may have a different vibe. . . I see a "point" as both a point and pointless. Therefore, I don't go through the same type of seeking and analysis as you are. Point = Pointless. You are creating distinctions. By asking for a "yes" or "no" answer, it seems like you are trying to create grounding in a reality you are creating. You seem to believe or desire that there is some grounded, objective truth out there. As if you are trying to ground yourself in shifting sand. It's groundless grounding. The deeper answer is both yes and no as well as neither yes nor no. It is both pointful and pointless and neither pointful nor pointless. This is unpalatable to the thinking mind and can cause inner turmoil. When I see someone speak about the "point of life", I know it is both a point and not the point. I don't have to take a side. I don't have to disagree or agree with anything, because ultimately there is nothing to disagree or agree with - it is both true and false. This is a deep form of liberation ime. I often engage with things that are meaningful. Discussions about meaningful things, living a meaningful life, what's the point of something. Yet there is no attachment or identification because there is also a knowing that is also meaningless and pointless. It is both meaningful and meaningless and everything in between. This is true freedom.

Yes. I think you've got plenty of "sense" understanding. Yet do you have the nonsensical understanding? Yes, from a cognitive perspective. Yet this goes way beyond cognition.

@IndigoGeminiWolf For me, visuals are distracting. I much prefer headspace without visuals. You may want to try another psychedelic with less visuals. For example, 5-meo has no visuals and is very nondual for most people. Shrooms and LSD can work to, yet they can have all sorts of extra storylines. Ime, 5-meo is the clearest. These thoughts are just based on my experience and observations: it seems humans (including me) are conditioned to perceive in duality and it takes work to decondition this into nonduality. Imagine only seeing one side of a coin your entire life and then learning there is another side of the coin. Glimpses of that other side is a huge awakening. Seeing and experience the other side of the coin (nonduality) can give contrast to the first side (duality). I think this is an important stage. Then, we can realize nonduality and duality are two sides of the same coin. I would de-emphasize ideas that nondual experiences should be dramatic - like flopping around like a fish in a jungle. They can certainly be dramatic, yet they can also seem simple and obvious. I would also balance the idea that nondual experiences are something to work toward with nondual experiences are Now. Ime, a balance between both are important. If someone becomes to future oriented, they will miss out on Now (in which all nondual experiences occur). You have likely already have had forms of nondual experiences. . . . Have you ever been in "the flow" while playing a sport, musical instrument or creating art? A "flow" in which time and "me" dissolved and there was simply pure presence of the moment? Have you ever had a moment of such love that there was no "me" and the "other"? There was simply love? Have you ever been awestruck by the beauty of nature that "you" and time stopped for a moment and there was simply awe and awareness of what is? . . . These are all forms on nondual experiences that most people have brief glimpses of, yet then quickly "snap out of it". They might be like "whoa, what was that?". Perhaps they dismiss it and get back into story mode. . . "Wow, I was in the flow! But I should have passed the ball". "Whoa, was that a moment of love? I wonder if she felt it too? What if only I felt it? What if I lose it?". "Wow, the Grand Canyon is amazing! I need to get a good picture to post on Instagram". . . Notice that each nondual glimpse is brief and the personal "character" quickly returns back to the conditioned dual state. . . A key is to recognize nondual glimpses you already have. Become aware of them (without intellectualizating about it). Over time, these nondual glimpses can extend. Ime at early stages, I would say thinking was the #1 block toward nondual experiences. Thoughts themselves appear Now just like everything else. Yet thoughts are alluring and they can mesmerize a person into a dualitstic illusion. Nearly all me early nondual experiences were nonverbal and there was not engagement with thinking. There may have been some stray thoughts, but they didn't have the power of engagement. A few thoughts, would pass by, similar to the sound of bird chirps passing by. . . Then I wold "snap back" into thinking mode. . .

@Spinoza You are essentially saying that 1 + 1 equals 2 is absolute and 1 + 1 does not equal 2 is not absolute. How can the absolute not include both? Imagine everything in reality is blue. Blue would no longer exist because there is no not-blue to contrast blue with. So everything is blue = nothing is blue.

@IndigoGeminiWolf Have you done psychedelics before? They are the most reliable way to have a nondual experience and can serve as a reference point.

Good one

C'mon Aakash. Own it and embrace it. I'd say "true being" includes both points and non-points. At the human level, a mind and body may be okay with pointlessness or may not be okay with pointlessness. It depends on the human and what is happening. Human okayness with pointlessness is okayness with pointlessness. Human not-okayness with pointlessness is not-okaynessness with pointlessness. Discomfort is discomfort. A duck is a duck. It's fine if you want to make a distinction between "true being" and "human being". I do that as well, yet refer to it as "levels". Yet be mindful that this is a creation we make up. You are creating "things" you call "pointlessness" and "pointful". That is a duality that upon further inspection will collapse. Just like all theories ultimately do. Theorizing can be fun and entertaining. It can have practical value. Yet at the end of the day, it has no more significance than bird chirps. I think you may intellectually think you understand that. Yet I don't think you have embodied that part yet.

There is nothing wrong with these types of inquiry and conceptualization. It has practical value in some contexts. To me, it seems like you are trying to figure out Truth. I think that is a worthy endeavor and that curiosity is wonderful. Yet be aware that you are playing with truth tools within Truth. To me, it seems like you are trying to figure things out through speculation, rather than trying to explain ineffible direct experience. Trying to explain Truth, nonduality, Now, pointlessness, Nowhere etc. is really awkward and even silly at times. Imagine trying to explain the experience of sight to a blind person. We would fumble around saying things like "seeing is kinda like this, but not really. Or maybe it's like this, but that isn't quite right either - and could be misinterpreted". It would be awkward and humbling trying to describe sight to a blind person with limited words. It could also be frustrating and heart-breaking because it's impossible to do. It's not a philosophical intellectual thing. The best way to understand sight is to see. Being a highly curious abstract thinker can be a great thing. Yet it can also be a hindrance when trying to understand the ineffable. Such a person builds constructs for all the pointers and they can no longer be blindsided toward an awakening. Common pointers such as "ISness, construction, deconstruction, Now, pointers, Truth, Absolute, Everything, Nothing, Mu, contextualization" have all been contextualized into concepts and lose their effectiveness as pointers. There is no longer any pointer I can give you. It seems like you have contextualized them all into theory. If I tried use "ISness" as a pointer, my prediction is that you would enter into a theoretical word of what "ISness" is - due to hours and hours of theorizing about "ISness". I don't know of any pointers that you haven't theorized away. Imagine trying to show someone that the image in the mirror is them. We point to the mirror and say "Look! That is you!" and the person responds "How can your arm be me?" and then starts theorizing about the essence of an arm. This person will not have a realization that is much deeper than the pointer/arm". When I say "The fineness within pointless being does not seek to create points." It would be like a person recognizing themself in the mirror. The pointer (arm) doesn't matter anymore. The person has realized this truth. The pointer (arm) has now become pointless. . . Do you want to know the ineffable essence of pointless truth, or do you want to create elaborate theories about what pointlessness, beingness, illusions etc. are? Back to your original point: notice how you are fine with the pointlessness of traglof fenglit hovjin. Now contrast this with the

Super Notice how you now assign points to pointlessness and being. If you are fine that being itself is pointless, why do you continue to add points about pointslessness and being? This would suggest you are not quite fine to say that being itself is pointless. And down the speculation rabbit hole we go. . . There is nothing wrong with this type of inquiry, yet be mindful of your mind activity and desire. The fineness within pointless being does not seek to create points. Notice the fineness within the pointlessness of "traglofs kagilat is hygrofort". Now contrast this with your statement "I am fine that being itself is pointless". Is your relationship with these two statements different? Not in a theoretical way, in an energetic way.

Yep. I should qualify the statement by saying "mature" Green. There is an immature/unhealthy form of Green that is not helpful. At stage Blue, people helping people can be work in a limited context. For example, people within a Catholic community helping each other out. Blue is community centered. The problem with Blue is that "community" is contracted - this sets up "my" community and "their" community and a desire to keep my community segregated from their community. This has an inherent conflict and is vulnerable to devolving in red - blue is just one level higher than red. There is a tendency to devolve into tribalism. At stage Orange, a person/society is individual centered. "What's in it for me?" is the attitude. This causes an obvious problem for "people helping people" because Orange is focused on helping themselves. They see life as transactional. They want more wealth, security, knowledge, rewards, fame etc. for themself. They may help others so they themself look good or out of guilt - yet there natural orientation is not to help others. We can't rely on Orange to help others. A second problem is that Orange level government becomes corrupt. Our current government is becoming more toxic Orange. Most politicians are Orange and are in it to benefit - to gain personal power, fame and wealth. Orange-centered government is ineffective at helping people because the politicians are oriented toward helping themselves. At Green, there is a shift back toward community - similar to Blue. Yet Green community is expanded from Blue. Blue sense of community may be their religious group. A green community is much more diverse and it is not forced diversity. Green has transcended barriers and actually likes and appreciates inclusion and diversity. It is not something they tolerate or think they "should" do. An example may be a community that is "spiritual but not religious" in which they are open and interested in insights from various religions and spiritualities. Various ethnicities and life experiences would be welcomed. Another example is many concerts. I've been to concerts in which everyone was loving each other and in harmony. It didn't matter if I wore rags or a button down shirt. I was loved. It didn't matter if I could dance or if I smoked weed. People are really loving to each other (not tolerating each other). . . A problem with Green is that they often look down on Orange and Blue and mock them. Or they may be condescending or stigmatize Blue and Orange. Also, Green can be impatient for progress and often wants big leaps. If they get too aggressive for progress, it comes across as trying to "force" others to bend to their will. In terms of sexuality: Strong Blue would stigmatize and moralize the "other". For example, homosexuals and transgenders are unnatural and immoral. God made men and women to be heterosexual. Moderate Blue: "Hate the sin, love the sinner". A step up from above, yet not by much. Also, tolerating homosexuals and transgenders. This level support segregation, "separate but equal", "the sanctity of marriage" and religious exemption laws. They often don't want to be perceived as bigots in Orange-centered society so veil their values and feelings. Orange: Individual centered. Believe people should do what they personally want. The religious judgement has dissolved. Orange is cool with people partying, having lots of sex, straight sex, gay sex, making big money as a lobbyist. Intellectually, they know that homosexuality is biologically natural and occurs in every species of animal. Orange would basically be indifferent to homosexuality or nonbinary gender (as long as it doesn't impose on themself individually). Orange are genuinely indifferent. They really don't care. Blue may try and come across as being indifferent or accepting, yet they are still judging. . . For example, my mom tries to come across as an accepting person and says people should be allowed to love whoever they want. Love is love. Yet one day I mentioned that it would be nice if my (gay) cousin and his husband could fly out to New Jersey and visit the family. At first my mom was like "that would be nice". And then she tensed up and firmly said "yet they wouldn't be allowed to stay in this house". My mom is still blue on this issue. Green is another level higher. Even if a green person is oriented toward heterosexuality, they like inclusion and diversity. This is the first stage that transcends categories of heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or transgender. Blue moralizes, yet Green understands moral relativism. A green community includes ALL of these sexual orientations. Green is not tolerant or indifferent to different sexual orientations. They all love each other. Yet this love is transcendent and more expansive to Blue level love of "Love the sinner, hate the sin". At Orange, the "sinner" and "sin" dissolves and at Green, love reappears. At Green, love is much less conditional than at Orange or Blue.

How did that go over for slavery?. . . . It won't work unless the average conscious level of a society is Green. At that point people helping people and government helping people are both effective.

21:00-23:00 is a great example of delusional blue. He says "I'm liberal on this. . . " and tries to look at orange/green from blue. He doesn't want to use a traditional blue frame in which homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal. My hunch is that he wants to come across as being at a "higher level". An intellectual that is credible and relevant. That is in the mainstream cutting-edge game and a counter-point to someone like AOC. Yet it's so obvious that he is Blue trying to rationalize low conscious blue values by trying to appear Orange or Green. Blue will eat this stuff up because it gives them cover as they marginalize and ostracize "the other".