Forestluv

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".

The terms "sensations" and "suffering" can have practical value. It is tempting to try and figure out direct experience through thought constructs. Nothing wrong with that, yet it seems like you are dipping into something deeper, something purer. Something "prior" to the thought stories. When the sensation and suffering become one, the distinction between the two dissolves. The duality dissolves. When sensation and suffering is one, there is no longer sensation and suffering. There is simply ISness. Notice how after the direct experience of this ISness, we add in words to construct meanings and explanations to make sense of it. That may have practical value, yet that ISness is prior to the words, explanations and stories. We make stuff like "sensation" and "suffering" up. This is a great setup for a deep nondual realization through direct experience. . .

There are different attraction dynamics. I've gone through periods of attraction to narcissists that became a very unhealthy dynamic and I was unable to pull away. In one relationship, it took me three attempts to break free. Yet it isn't necessarily the case that a person is attracted to a narcissist due to their own repressed narcissistic tendencies. For me, my attraction to narcissists was not about my own internal narcissism. It was the opposite. It was about my own internal empathy. Narcissists and empaths are on the opposite sides of the spectrum and have an unhealthy attraction toward each other. Part of the problem was that I desired harmony and to help her - and she used this to gaslight and manipulate to her advantage. Part of the problem was that I am so far on the other side of the spectrum that I could not imagine how someone could use another's vulnerability, insecurity and kindness to manipulate, harm and take advantage of the person. It was beyond what I was capable of imagining. Eventually this was brought into clarity. I imagine there could be other dynamics as well - for example someone that wants to be dominated by another.

Perhaps we can award a certified Actualized.org medallion of bad-ass Wisdom to commemorate this. . .

Ime it is a combination. I bonded very close to a cat over a 9 year period. Then he got pleural effusion that kept getting worse. We had to force down meds which he hated and had to give him an IV daily - then twice daily. I wanted to help him so much. After a few months, I started to realize his quality of life was miserable and he was suffering throughout the day. I realized part of me desired him to be healthy and enjoy life again. Yet this wasn't going to happen. As well, part of me desired to keep him going because I couldn't bear losing him. There was an energetic shift in which love became compassion of the moment and I realized the greatest love I could express was to allow him to die and put him down. I would say the "masculine" love was the intellectual understanding of the dynamics and the courage it took to allow him to die - knowing that I would suffer afterwards and question my decision. I would say the "feminine" love was that empathy, compassion, tenderness and emotional bond.

@SoothedByRain Trump is not well. Biden is not well. Goodness gracious. . .

This is a great video of a jump higher in consciousness. The is a realization that the image in the mirror is "me". The cat is not literally thinking "Wow!!! That is me in the mirror!!". . . Yet, can you sense the realization of "me-ness" in that cat? I can. This is one of my favorite examples to use for the next jump up in consciousness. Most humans either think there current conscious level is the highest or try to jump up a conscious level while being attached to their current conscious level. It doesn't work that way. Image the experience of that cat before it ever saw that mirror. It is just going around being - eating, pooping, catching snakes etc. It is subconsciously aware of self vs. not-self, yet it doesn't have a concept of "me" and cannot imagine itself from another perspective. . . Now imagine the experience of the cat when I recognizes itself from another perspective ( a being observing an image that is "me"). That is a huge jump in consciousness. Humans can easily see this because we have a highly developed sense of self. Yet humans assume "this is it". But it's not. There is another jump up in consciousness for humans that is as dramatic as a cat recognizing "me" in a mirror. Now imagine a dog barking at itself in a mirror - because it thinks it is another dog. Could you explain or show that dog that the mirror image is actually itself? We could point to the ears showing that the ears in the mirror are your ears. "Look I am touching the ears in the mirror. I am also touching your ears? See me touching both ears." Yet the dog wouldn't get it. There has to be the direct experience. You could spend years trying to show a dog the mirror image is a reflection of self and the dog would never get it. In contrast, that cat got the first realization of a higher self awareness. That direct experience revelation is worth more that years trying to show it self. In consciousness work, we can use pointers and say "See it's you in the mirror!!". Yet it's not about the pointer. It's the direct experience of what is being pointed to. And they are very different. From the perspective of the dog, me pointing to the mirror is different than the realization of self. If the dog became obsessed with my arm pointing, he is not going to have the realization. The next level of realization / awakening for a human is just as dramatic as a dog realizing "Holy fuck!! That's me in the mirror!!". The human realizes "That's Me". The dog has no clue of this self awareness until it reveals itself and he cannot access it at his current conscious level. Similarly, the human has no clue of trans-human Me until it reveals itself. And the human cannot access it at the personal/human conscious level. This is one of the most common things I see in consciousness work. The human wants to use their current conscious level to transcend their current conscious level. They want to figure out Me from me. They want to figure out God from god. They want to figure out Love through love. It's not about figuring it out. It's about transcendence through direct experience. Just like that cat had a transcending experience.

I think that is an interesting question that goes beyond language and images. Along those lines. . . I had a mystical experience in a sensory deprivation tank - back to the womb. So everything after birth dissolved: language, objects, images, concepts, the story of "me" etc. Yet, there was still a something there. An transcendental essence - yet any explanation would use tools I have gain after birth. So it's ineffable. . . I wouldn't describe it as experiencing someone else - because there was no "someone" and no "else" - those are learned after birth. Yet when I try to make sense of it, it is sorta like being something else - because it's so foreign compared to my usual sense of being. I've heard some people describe a type of "knowing" or "sensing" a past life or someone else. Yet then, is that someone else now "me"? The distinction between "me" and "them" starts to disintegrate. In general, I don't sense past lives - for example, as if I was a farmer in the 1800s. It's not linear like that. Yet, I've had some experience related to this. One is that I am hyper-sensitive to being on cliffs with sharp drops. If I get close to the edge of a cliff, it overpowers my body. I start losing balance and control of my mind and body. It is extremely uncomfortable. I may drop to the ground and hold onto the earth, unable to move, I may have an intense desire to either get away or jump off the cliff to stop the awful experience. To me, it seems like more than a simple fear of heights. . . Secondly, a low dose of psychedelics can increase my resonance in this area. I was doing a walking meditation while on San Pedro and a man from Asia was in my body looking through my eyes. I have no doubt there is a man in Asia that was meditating and had this mystical experience with me. The "knowing" isn't an intellectual thing and I can't prove it with evidence. Yet there is a "knowing" that is as certain as I am that I exist right now.. . . One could say this was just a haullicination/imagination and it wasn't real. Yet we are now entering an area in which imagination and reality starts to break down. I think your question also gets into advanced hyper-empathic zones in which a person experiences another and the difference between "their" experience and "my" experience breaks down. I've had experiences in which there didn't seem to be any difference. For example, one of my friends has an autistic child and was describing how he is unable to communicate through language, gets frustrated and acts out. She and the doctors can't quite figure out what is wrong. As she was describing this, an energy/frequency entered me and it seemed like I became this boy. I was trapped in my own mind unable to communicate. It was like being in a prison of partially incoherent thoughts I couldn't vocalize or express. There was intense desire to get out, yet there was no escape. I was trapped. . . forever. There was intense anxiety and then panic. I wanted to scream, throw my arms, throw something - anything. She stopped talking and I was able to pull myself together. Then I described what I was going through and she said "Yes! Yes! That's how it is! That's how he acts. What's wrong with him?". I don't know mechanistically what's wrong with him, yet there was a "knowing" of what it's like. These experiences don't quite get at the holistic message of the video that we are everyone. Yet to me, these are examples of how this "oneness" may be expressed. If we are all an inter-connected whole - is it surprising that I experienced crippling fear of cliffs for no apparent reason? Is it surprising that a man in Asia can experience my body? Is it surprising I experienced the autistic boy? Not at all. At first, this type of stuff was mindblowing and highly disorienting. Yet now it's somewhat normal. It's just how it is. For me, the theory blocks me from the direct experience - which is more important to me. So at times, I will try to describe the direct experience - yet I generally don't spend much time theorizing about it.

Gotcha. I would agree that most Rebublicans want to label Bernie and Warren as "socialists" in an "either / or" frame. That is, a person is either a socialist or a non-socialist. This is a very simple frame that eliminates all the nuances of socialism and capitalism. It is very easy to communicate to a populace. "Socialism is bad. Venezuela. Warren". It would resonate most strongly with those at a Blue stage that prefer to think in "either / or" terms. To amplify the effect, fear is used as leverage.

I wouldn't say "intuition to guess". It is deeper than that. And it's not just polls. For example, I am noticing things in Biden that I don't believe are getting picked up in the polls. Swing states have evolved, yet one needs to consider the time frame. At the population level, four years is often not a lot of time for social evolution. Yet, social evolution can be rapid at times as well. In terms of development, I would say that there has been greater awareness for many, yet there are also underlying dynamics that remain. Most polls have Trump underwater in swing states. It is not looking good at this point. Yet Trump can be good at manipulating narratives and emotions. He is essentially a bully and bullies don't go down easy. Imagine a bully in high school running for class president. He is unpopular, yet he is the biggest bully in school. Many students are afraid of him and many students believe the bully is protecting them. And the bully will bully the other candidate. There is a decent chance he wins.

Can you describe the sensation of suffering?

If I was to make a prediction, I would base it on a combination of statistics such as polling and bookies as my own analysis. And intuition would factor in. For example, Biden has been consistently leading the polls. I would place him in the top tier. However, I would not place him as the favorite. Biden's support is soft name recognition. Warren is putting a lot of effort into forming grassroots support and a broad coalition. Bernie has super strong support. Biden supporters are low knowledge and soft. Bernie supporters are among the most politically knowledgeable and are rock solid. Plus, Biden will likely lose the first two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) allowing another candidate to gain momentum. Obama was a big underdog to Clinton, yet he won Iowa and got a huge burst of momentum. Lastly, Biden's cognition is on the decline. Most people are not paying attention to the race this far out - once they do, I don't think they will like Biden. Even though he is currently ahead in the polls, I would put his chances at 30% of winning the nomination.

In September 2019, Warren is at 4:1 to win the 2020 election. In September 2015, Trump was at 18:1 to win the 2016 election. The odds are based on public perception of gamblers. I think this is an interesting metric, yet I would not say the public perception of gamblers is the best metric. As well, it is waaaaay to far out from the election. I doubt much money has been placed, thus the sample size is small. Personally, I would put Trump's chances of winning at about 45%. Yet I would not be surprised if Trump gets blownout. He could lose big, lose small or win small - yet Trump won't win big. The best he can do is match his 2016 performance (in which he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes). I also think there is about a 10% chance Trump doesn't even make it to the election.

I'm not sure if you are kidding, trying to be tricky or missed something here. . . That bookie you linked has the odds of Trump winning at -110. That is essentially even-odds. The reason each democratic candidate is shown as +450 and higher is because we don't know who the democratic nominee is yet.

Depends on the person. They resonate. I also took a small amount of cannabis edible, which nudges up my resonance. It was a deep mystical state.

That is a binary category which will get called out on the conscious politics subforum. A binary construct such as "socialist vs. non-socialist" is hyper dualistic and simple. One step up in complexity is a continuum of degree from socialist to non-socialist. As well, "socialist vs. capitalist" is also hyper dualistic. There are many different forms of integration between socialism and capitalism. The U.S. is a hybrid of socialist components as well as capitalist components. The conversation is not about "socialist vs. capitalist". It is about the relative balance between socialism and capitalism. No one in the U.S. is advocating for pure socialism or pure capitalism. Also, there are evolutionary levels of socialism. Old school dictatorial socialism is at a blue level. Bernie is two full conscious levels higher into Green democratic socialism.

Is that true in your direct experience? One day I was floating in a sensory-deprivation tank and went to a "place" before I was born. Everything after birth was absent. No images, words, objects, thoughts etc. All that stuff came after birth. One would think there would be nothing. Yet that wasn't quite true. There was a something. "Remembering" is a tricky thing. I used to think remembering was memories in the form of thoughts and images. Then other forms of remembering/memories were revealed. Muscle memories. Intuitive memories. Empathic memories. All non-verbal, non-image. Post-intellectual.

To me this doesn't resonate non-dual perspectives. Lots of dualities in there. Direct experience is king.

Reminds me of JP:

To me, Warren comes across as a University professor. She is very good at explaining complexities in simple terms. She is a great teacher. I personally love that about her (I'm also a University professor). Teaching has it's place, yet it doesn't bring forth emotion. When Warren goes for the emotion angle, she often talks about her poor upbringing and her fearful mother mustering up the courage to take a minimum wage job to save their house and family. It's a touching story and inspiring from one perspective, yet it doesn't seem to get the emotions going. Sometimes she seems a bit out of touch and old fashioned. I think as she does more big rally's she will get better in this area. I suppose this is important for an election, yet it can also be fluff. Obama was very good at rhetorical inspiration, yet ended up capitulating on issue after issue. Bernie doesn't have the same rhetorical skills, yet he is such a grounded progressive and has so much courage. He was the first top tier politician to speak out against Israel's maltreatment of the Palestinians and brought into question the U.S.'s unconditional financial support of Israel. This was a huge risk and it took a lot of courage. He took the conservative backlash like a champ and then the other candidates followed his lead and voiced their concerns about Israel and our financial relationship with them. To me, that is a leader. . . He also held a rally in kentucky - McConnell's home state to shame McConnell. He is fearless and will stand up for his principles. He is on another level. . . . He might not have the best rhetorical skills, yet his barking against powerful oppressors can ignite a lot of emotion. Even something like "I wrote the damn bill!!!" ignited a lot of emotion in his supporters because he knocked down a corporate dem trying to control the narrative.

What are your impressions of Bernie and Biden relative to Trump?

I think something is inevitable. Over the last 40 years in the U.S. capitalism has grown in power - in particular political power. And wealth has been hyper concentrated into the top 1%. To me, this seems unsustainable. The main advantage I see with UBI is that at a surface level, it is very simple and easily presented to the public. Yet I don't think it is the best use of resources because it doesn't address deeper issues. I'd rather see money directed toward lower/middle income America in a way the addresses inequality in an integrated manner. For example, the GND uses money in a way that addresses several underlying issues. As well, my understanding is that everyone would get a fixed amount like $1,000, yet if someone is already receiving aid their UBI income would decrease. Like if someone was on food stamps that would factor into UBI. In my view, this would create an imbalance. From people's current level, lower income might be essentially receiving $500/month, while middle and upper income receive $1,000 per month. I think this will be a good way to "sell" it to the public because those under the poverty line are desperate for any help and those in the middle/upper class understand lower class won't be receiving as much. To me, this isn't the most effective distribution.