Forestluv

My go-to passage when I have a broken heart:

Being skeptical of scientific claims can still be within the scientific paradigm. E.g. A person may be skeptical of the scientific claim that wine prevents breast cancer, because the sample size was too small and they didn't run the proper controls. That is still within a traditional scientific framework. I am pointing to something more radical here. I am not suggesting that one should believe something without evidence and proof. This gets to the heart of the pre-trans fallacy - the inability to differentiate between irrational and post-rational. If someone says that there is a dinosaur living in their backyard - this would be irrational from one perspective. From this perceptive, show me the evidence . Show me evidence there is a dinosaur in your backyard. . . A very important point: I am not telling you to let go of this perceptive or that this perspective is wrong. What I am saying is that over-use of this perspective in all contexts will be very limiting. A few points (again, I reiterate that this does not mean that certain perspectives are invalid or unuseful - this is about expansion). 1) What IS is prior to evidence and proof. 2) What qualifies as "proof" is contracted within the current paradigm. Over time, what qualifies as evidence evolves and expands as we make new discoveries. What we accept now would appear like magic 500 years ago. Likewise, what will be understood in 500 years will appear like magic to us now. In 500 years, people will look back at us and laugh. 3) Experimental design is often limited due to previous conditioning and assumptions. Overall, science has shown slight, yet significant, data in favor of "paranormal" phenomena. Yet I believe this is under-detecting the phenomena. For example, using traditional scientific methodology to test for extra-sensory perception could actually be limiting the extra-sensory perception - the very thing that we are testing for! I didn't make that claim. Yet I would explore how you conceptualize the terms "matter", "affect" and "our". In a certain context, I would agree with the statement that a mind cannot affect matter. In another context, I would disagree. This is much more nuanced than you are aware of. Reality isn't a binary system.

I understand how it is perceived that way. My career is in the sciences. I have spent 28 years of my life immersed in genetics, molecular, cellular biology and neuroscience - both scientific research and teaching. I have over a dozen publications in top level peer-reviewed scientific journals and I teach science at a University level. I don't dismiss science. This is not a question of science vs. non-science. It is about transcending the traditional scientific paradigm. This does not invalidate science. One becomes aware that traditional science is within something more expansive. Then the term "science" starts to break down and becomes inter-connected with all of reality. I can tell that you are contracted within a traditional scientific paradigm, because I lived that paradigm for over 20 years. The key to transcending it for me is to know that it isn't about invalidating, dismissing, refuting and rejecting science - it is about transcending science. This is a very different orientation. If you frame this as rational science vs. irrational non-science - you will not reach more expansive transcendent levels.

Science has clearly shown that a particle can simultaneously be everywhere and nowhere. That was seen as irrational magic years ago. Like believing in unicorns. Yet know it is accepted in the scientific community. We can. You are within a limited, contracted paradigm and cannot see this. You are asking for "proof" within a particular paradigm. You are free to stay within that paradigm, or you can expand beyond it. Expanding beyond the scientific paradigm does not invalidate it. It is not a science vs. non-science argument. Science is within something more expansive.

A beautiful example of the pre/trans fallacy. From a rationalist point of view, post-rational is indistinguishable from irrational. So post-rational will be interpreted as irrational (such as a belief in unicorns). The person interpreting will not be aware of this. Transcending this is a major expansion of consciousness. In terms of SD, the rationalist viewpoint would be stage Orange. Stage Orange will not be able to distinguish between Turquoise and Blue. Since Orange understands Blue, yet does not understand Turquoise, Orange will interpret post-rational Turquoise as irrational Blue. As well, Orange is oriented toward "evidence" and "proof", yet will demand that "evidence/proof" be at an Orange level (for example, physical scientific evidence). This served as a useful tool when evolving from Blue to Orange, yet it is a block to evolving above Orange. In particular, Turquoise is fully transcendent of this contraction. One key to understand is that language starts to break down in Tier 2. So at Turquoise, we often use words as "pointers". It is very common for Orange to focus on the words and take the words literally than to become aware of what is being pointed to. It is like someone pointing to the moon and the other person focuses on the arm and says "That's an arm!"

A key to a deeper understanding of the video: reincarnation is not shown as simply linear.

You already have the greatest source to answer these questions. You! Observe yourself manipulate situations. You do it everyday. Put it under a microscope. This will lead to deeper understanding. Why conceptualize and imagine manipulation when you can directly observe yourself in actual manipulation?

Baby menu

Threads merged. Up to 8 eggs now. . .

I think that's a good way to to put it. The "looking for it" may seem arduous in the beginning. For many years, I traveled all over the country and world looking for it. Now the "looking for it" is much closer and accessible. It's more like a "checking in on it" or "remembering it". It can be found quicker than my misplaced keys.

@Scholar I think JP has made some contributions in theoretical clinical psychology, psychedelic therapy and personal responsibility. However, he also plants poison pills in areas such as LGBTQ, gender roles and equality, and climate change. I think he would be fine if he stuck to his strengths. Yet he won’t and I don’t think, overall, he is a strong teacher for consciousness evolution into Orange. With his platform come responsibilities and I would hold him at a higher standard. In the big picture, I think he has too much harm baggage. I’d probably put Tony Robbins above JP since Tony doesn’t plant poison pills. However, I would put JP on a level higher than a Ben Shapiro.

Up to five eggs now. Let’s not break a half dozen. Below was the first egg laid.

Theory is one component. This is why stage green is so important to embody, because it ventures into non-theoretical modes. A pure theorist is contracted and limited. This is my biggest concern about orange intellectuals trying to theorize their way past green into yellow. They would be highly limited in yellow. People that simply theorize from some elevated academic mindset and environment have value - yet that don’t fully “get it”. One needs to get in there and actually experience, embody and be it. This is important because we need well-balanced individuals in yellow. In this context, AOC and Gabor Mate are at a higher level than Wilber since they have embodied green through direct experience. They “get it” in a sense that Wilber does not. In terms of ways to solve the problem, one solution might address the point you brought up about the deconstruction of blue community such as religion with no replacement. Well, in a lot of communities there is replacement, yet at a small scale. Many towns and cities offer plenty of multicultural events with an expanded sense of community. It’s natural and people from many different ethnicities, religions and sexual orientations are co-existing in harmony. We just don’t hear much about these thousands of events that occur each week in the U.S. It doesn’t make the news as it’s not nonconflict and bad for ratings. As well, we can do better at reaching out to people that feel like they are being left behind as culture evolves. . . You had mentioned that Orange is overly de-constructing blue and demonizing blue. Perhaps we can highlight the value of dignity, responsibility and the rule of law. Perhaps we can get Orange atheists to stop mocking blue as irrational idiots. Perhaps we can get Orange intellectuals to stop mocking blue as irrational idiots. Perhaps we can show that intellect is just one aspect of intelligence. In the U.S. one of the biggest insecurities of men is intelligence. It doesn’t help when politicians, media, academics and elitists are looking down on blue as lesser.

Multiple times you have recontextualized what I’ve said into an absolute binary either / or framework. This is not my perspective. You are having a discussion with someone else that you are imagining. You have imagined someone who thinks we should have no blue teachings and the problems are purely reactionary against Green. I’m sure that person exists, yet that isn’t me. I don’t see this through a binary lens. I see it as nuanced with binary, spectral and relativist components. For example, I see some Blue aspects as helpful for forming developmental foundations and that a portion of the problem is reaction toward green. If one is to explore systemically and integratively, one cannot be restricted to a simple binary framework. I don’t see it as one of us is right and the other is wrong. And I don’t see the solution as coming from either reasoning or intuition. I see things much more nuanced, integrative and holistic. For example, I see value in integrating reason and intuition for higher-order problem solving.

I never said that and that is not my view. That itself would be a blue level binary “all or nothing” frame. What I said was there are structural components of blue that I see as being helpful in building a foundation for development and components of blue that are not helpful because they need to get unlearned. For example, teaching a novice skier to snow plow down the mountain is not helpful in the long run because the person will have to unlearn snow plow before learning how to parallel ski. Unlearning the snow plow technique is a major neuromuscular retiring process and can take a person years to break out of. Imo, it’s much better to teach someone parallel skiing from the beginning. Progress will be slower in the begging, yet will be much more efficient in the long run. Of course, this is all dependent on the particular value or teaching. I’m not making a back or white blanket statement. There are many blue values that I think are good to build a foundation for development - as long as their is understanding that it is a foundation to build upon and is not the end. For example, I think it’s helpful to establish some people as authorities to children - such as a parent, teacher and police officer. Yet this is just a transient stage since young children don’t have the capacity for higher level cognition yet. After about 8 y.o., a child can start learning that parents and teachers are human too and that we all make mistakes from time to time. I agree that Orange has been the driving force in deconstructing Blue. Orange rationalists deconstructing and rationalizing Blue. Orange will demonize blue to a greater extent than green, yet to a lesser extent than blue. For example, Orange may call a blue religious zealot as being an irrational idiot. Yet most Orange would be cool if religious blue just kept their irrationality to themselves - Orange gets most upset when blue tries to push religion into secular culture - such as teaching creation in science courses. In contrast, blue demonization would be more intense. Blue would see an Orange atheist as lacking morals and even a demon. Ultimately, much of blue values will be better taught through green. For example, loyalty would be better taught through a green lens than a blue lens. It isn’t necessary to create a blue level foundation on loyalty. Perhaps just a tiny bit to get started since green level loyalty is more nuanced. Yet it’s not like we need a whole stage of one’s life dedicated to learning blue level loyalty. Teaching blue level absolute respect and loyalty for authority makes it a lot harder to evolve to Orange and green down the road.

I agree that Blue has an immense amount of infrastructure that has been built over hundreds of years. Green is relatively new and has no where near the infrastructure of blue. For example, for hundreds of years people based their community on their religion. They go to church each week and are involved in church community events. It had been the foundation of most people’s social foundation and identity. Over the past 20 years, church attendance has plummeted rearing a void. There is no green level infrastructure to accommodate the exodus. Even if there was, Blue would need to jump Orange to reach green. Foe many people, “Spiritual, not religious” is a big jump. And there are many many more churches than spiritual centers. The question of how to efficiently evolve upward is nuanced, imo. One strategy might be to utilize Blue infrastructure to transition to Green. For example, to keep the social fabric of community gatherings each Sunday, yet more toward Green spirituality. To evolve churches into spiritual centers. Of course there would be resistance to this. I think the idea of building on previous stages is helpful in certain contexts and unhelpful in other contexts. In particular, teaching someone something they will later have to unlearn and re-learn is not helpful. For example, if we wanted to learn how to pronounce Spanish, we would start with simple mono-syllable words and then build on that for more complex words. Yet the key is, we would teach proper pronunciation for the simple words. We wouldn’t teach them improper pronunciation in the beginning, yet will cause problems later on. That would be inefficient. To me, saying we should use Blue as a foundation is only wise for what is useful as a foundation. For example, learning the difference between good and bad during childhood is a useful framework for future frameworks of continuums of good/bad and relativism of good/bad. Unfortunately, Blue wants to stay contracted within blue, so we would need a center of adult collective consciousness higher than blue to allow development beyond blue. There are also rotted foundational components that would actually interfere with future develop. For example, teaching children that of thinks homosexuality is immoral or that a women’s place is within the home. These are not good foundational aspects and would need to be de-conditioned and unlearned. There is a lot of this going on and it makes the process highly inefficient. Regarding demonization: I think the Jew of Green demonizing Blue is grossly exaggerated, in part due to dramatic exaggerated YT videos and media portrayals of unhealthy green as being the norm. There are several problems with this. First, it misses the whole point of development. Blue demonization of Green is more common and intense than Green demonization of Blue. Green is further developed. Similarly, 12th grade students are more mature than 6th grade students. To say they are all immature is a false equivalency within an important context. The majority of Green are good decent people that value and are embodying Green values of human connection, empathy and love. That is what they want more of. Yes, Green will blame blue and orange for many societal problems and will demonize, yet at a lower frequency and intensity than blue. If one goes to a Bernie Sanders rally and a Trump rally the difference in frequency and intensity is palpable. In 2016, Trump crowds wore “Trump that bitch!” t-shirts, while Bernie crowds wore “Free Hugs” T-shirts. Blue is a stage currently worthy of consideration in the short term. Yet over the long term, most of blue will evolve away - just like purple has mostly evolved away. And. . . there is a lot more going on in the spiral than intellect. Intellectual abstraction, modeling and an analysis is one component - yet I think a lot of people are missing non-intellectual information.

It seems like he had an Orange-centered crisis. His experience at 6:40 seems to be direct nondual experience that he contextualized at blue, rather than at Turquoise. Notice how much of his blue level religious conditioning enters to contextualize his non-dual experience. At Turquoise, he would have realized that he is Jesus. When he described the essence of his experience as Jesus, the wind, rustling leaves and crickets - he was super close to transcending Green toward Turquoise and awakening that he is Jesus, the wind, leaves and crickets through direct experience. It looks like he jumped up a conscious level to glimpse Turquoise. This creates groundlessness and the human will want to establish grounding. This can be done by staying in the discomfort of groundlessness and gradually form new higher grounding through integration. Or one can re-establish a sense of grounding from a place of previous grounding. Notice how after his nondual experience he contextualized it at his previous blue grounding. That he met Jesus, we are sinful and should stop watching porn, quit personal indulgences like drinking etc. I don’t think it will last to long though. I don’t think he will be satisfied with Blue very long. I predict he will come across some Turquoise level teachers and resonate with them.

The title of the article claims consciousness can be modulated with chemicals. The first sentence reads “Many readers are likely familiar with the theories of Roger Penrose on the topics of consciousness and how it relates to physics and even cosmology.” Notice how this model portrays consciousness as a thing. That is, consciousness is a thing that can be modulated by chemicals. Consciousness is a thing that is separate from physics and cosmology that can be related to physics and cosmology. The term consciousness is used in different contexts, which has practical value. For example, people often speak of personal consciousness in the sense of personal awareness, sensation and perception. This can be useful in personal development and raising one’s consciousness so that they become conscious of what is subconscious. Similarly, exploring the mechanisms of reality through quantum mechanics, chemicals, physics and cosmology can be fascinating, insightful and practical. The problem comes when relative and absolute is conflated. When one believes that personal consciousness is absolute Consciousness. Or a belief that chemicals are separate from consciousness and can modulate consciousness.

Below is a link to chapter 1 excerpt from the book. I think Wilber is placing far too much emphasis on toxic postmodernism as being the leading edge and failure of green. That is, the belief that everything is relative and social constructs, which leads to nihilism and narcissism. Since there is no truth there is no truth to lead toward. This has been Wilber’s bread and butter for years. To me, he seems to be immersed within a academic philosophy and perceives through that lens. Perhaps Wilber would take issue with this as I am suggesting his view is relative, based on his own conditioning in intellectual and academic theory. I don’t think Wilber has embodied essential essences of green and I don’t think he fully “gets” green. Green is not simply an intellectual model of the shortcomings of post-modernism. My actual direct experience immersed within green contrasts with an intellectual model such as Wilber’s. Emotion, feeling, intuition, empathy, love. Wilber writes about “inclusion” like an academic conceptualizing in his office. A key to fully understanding inclusion is not purely through intellectual modeling - it must also include the direct experience of being marginalized and ostracized. My experience within green communities is not the nihilism and narcissism Wilber suggests. The essence is not a hyper-relativistic mindset in which there is no common truth or meaning - an anything goes nihilistic/narcissistic hybrid. Yet I can see that perspective from an academic observing world events and intellectualizing at home or in their office. The leaders of green are not postmodern academics promoting a truthless, meaningless free for all. The Green leaders are Bernie Sanders and AOC - that is who Green resonates with and who speaks the collective voice of leading edge Green. They are promoting a common truth/meaning that incorporates relativism yet not to a toxic degree as Wilber suggests. For example, they see the relative experience of gender identity and support inclusion, equality and fair treatment for the LGBTQ community. Yet it’s a long stretch to label this as nihilistic/narcissistic. That is not how I would describe Green leaders like Bernie and AOC. To me, Wilber seems to heavy on intellectual modeling and hasn’t actually embodied green. And I don’t think he will fully “get it” until he does. https://www.shambhala.com/trump-and-a-post-truth-world/

There are for duplicate threads on this video

Orange will seek to capitalize on Green. Notice how Orange motivational speakers use Green values to sell and profit.

Imagine you are dreaming. You are a dream character called Paul with his friends Jack and Samantha. You are all at a concert. . . . Isn’t this all a dream within one mind? Isn’t Paul’s experience a dream? Yet it seems very real to Paul until you wake up (not Paul) Now go one level higher. Like Paul, you are a dream character within a larger mind. Yet it seems very real until You wake up (not you).

One point I found interesting: The internet tends to hinder development during stages 1-4 and the internet can enhance development at stages 4-5.

All conventional terms can be used unconventionally. That is not the issue. You portrayed an unconventional usage of a key term as if it was conventional. This is intellectually dishonest - and in this case moderately inflammatory and borderline trolling.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you would like to debate on this issue, be intellectually honest. Yes. Would you consider the death penalty for a 20 y.o. murderer to be "abortion"? You are presenting an unconventional use of a term as a if it was conventional. This manipulates a narrative and is intellectually dishonest. Use terms in their proper context.