Forestluv

Fundamentally/energetically is relative. How a particular mind-body fundamentally/energetically resonates with psychedelics is relative and involves many variables. For some mind-bodies in certain settings it can induce expansive liberation, in other mind-bodies it can induce trauma. @Shadowraix Same with me. Psychedelics resonated well with me and were an amazing growth tool. I assumed that’s just how it was. I now realize not everyone resonates like me. There are many forms of resonance and many variables. And it’s not because “they weren’t ready”, “not conscious enough” or “unwilling to surrender”. They just didn’t resonate with psyches like I did. . . I’m now more cautious how I discuss psyches with newbies. What I find equally fascinating is that the same mind-body can resonate differently at different times. I’ve had many different resonances with psyches ranging from pure live and bliss to a horror show. . . For a couple years, cannabis raised my conscious level allowing increased resonance and opening up dimensions in nature and yoga. Then the resonance suddenly changed and it started inducing contraction into personality, anxiety and paranoia. Life is so bizarre at times.

@pluto It’s relative to the person and involves many variables. I’ve met people who cured their neurosis and spiritually expanded with psychedelics. And yesterday, I took a walk in a park with a woman who ended up in a psychiatric hospital for an extended period after a bunch of trips. . .

Consider that enlightenment could be transcendent of a personality, such that the person does not become enlightened. Rather, the person appears within enlightenment. Could a human-mind body realize it is within enlightenment? Sure. After this realization, could impulses of anxiety, fear, frustration etc. arise within the mind body? Yep. Since the realization is trans-personal, it is often related to a dissolution of the personality, since awareness of the illusory/imaginative/dreamlike nature of the personality is revealed. There is often an energetic shift away from self-seeking. Yet impulses that humans like to categorize as “bad” can still arise in human mind-body (such as frustration and insecurity). The mind-body is highly conditioned and within a society that may reinforce and encourage that conditioning. Even after the awareness is revealed the mind-body still has potential for development at the personal level. Yet the “essence” of enlightenment can be a “game-changer” in which much of the divisive personality dynamics dissolve. Imo, this is the biggest misconception for a seeker. That the person gets a thing called “enlightenment”. They see others who they think have gotten this enlightenment thing and think it should look a certain way (peaceful, blissful etc.). Self-seeking for an imaginary thing called enlightenment can provide a person motivation, yet it’s also kinda a wild goose chase. Kinda like searching for your glasses and then realizing they were on your face the whole time. Yet most humans have a need for the search as this keeps awareness contracted within a personality and keeps the ego relevant and in the game. Enlightenment isn’t something an illusory person gets. The personality is a human construct composed of appearances. There is no stable thing called a person that catches enlightenment. Rather, there are personality appearances within enlightenment. I’ve experienced expansive consciousness beyond human form that was inexplicably beautiful. I’ve also experienced contracted consciousness of inexplicable anxiety and terror in which the mind-body desired to kill itself to make it stop. Enlightenment was equally present in both situations.

@QandC Who is observing the ego and creating a story about it?

@TrynaBeTurquoise I’ve had psychedelic-induced conscious states that I call “trans-human” because that is how it seems upon “return” to the human mind-body. The human mind-body has certain limits, yet it has much more potential than we are aware of. I think the question of how the different effects of psychedelics relate to the human psyche is an interesting one from a human perspective. I’ve done about a dozen different forms of psychedelics and know the different essences of spirits you describe. I don’t think it is “actual” by how the human mind perceives and contextualizes “actuality”. I think it is an “actuality” beyond human contextualization at this time of human evolution. Perhaps in 200 years, humans will have explored these realms and have a better understanding. The question of whether access to these dimensions are psychedelic-dependent is one have explored and contemplated and my sense is “no”, that they are not psychedelic-dependent - but it sure as heck helps. Ime, when the ego/person/human contextualization machine is consistently dissolved to such a degree that it isn’t appearing while sober, there is a greater chance of “accessing” these dimensions. I did 5-Meo 24 days straight, with only a few days off. One thing I noticed was that as consciousness contracted back into human form, there was a human contextualization into a human “experience”. This tendency of contextualization began to dissolve and after about 10 days disappeared and there was what I now contextualize as “trans-human” consciousness though out the day (even sober). In other words, the “god-consciousness” stuck. The last “regular” thoughts I had from a human person perspective was sitting down on my meditation cushion to vape as I did each day and there was a realization that “I” didn’t know if I had vaped already or not. The duality between “sober” and “5-Meo” perception and contextualization broke down. Concepts like “breakthrough” dissolved as there was no distinction between “pre” and “post” breakthrough. It was permanent “breakthrough”. Multi-dimensional phenomena occurred throughout the day, even when I was sober. For weeks straight. Yet I’m not sure how how to contextualize this relative to the human mind-body. From a human perspective, I would say there is a relationship with a particular mind-body and resonance. The experiences that Leo has recently described that seem extraordinary or unbelievable to many, seem completely normal and ordinary to me. In part because forms of extraordinary and unbelievable would manifest throughout the day for me. Yet these manifestations have been different than what others with a high baseline conscious level describe, so perhaps there are different “flavors” that human mind-bodies resonate with. This would relate to the relative nature of reality and I don’t think all beings would need to “access” the same dimensions to show “actual existence”. This idea is within a contracted human contextualization. For example, the physical land and culture we refer to as India “actually exists” and any of us can venture there. Yet that criteria of “actual existence” is within a human perceptual framework and there is a more expansive “actual existence” beyond these human constructed parameters. Should we assume a finite human mind can define “actual existence”? How will humans define “actual existence” in 200 years? With that said, psychedelics definitely alter my resonance dynamics. I don’t need much, yet there is also desire in my mind-body to do it “naturally”. I’ve been taking a break from psychedelics and working on developing abilities without psyches. At times it’s been difficult to be off “the juice” because my resonance level seems muted and I can’t just turn it on at will. At times, I feel like a wizard without my wand. Yet, I feel a desire to develop what has been revealed to me naturally, so I can access and fully embody it sober. . . I still drift into dimensions sober that I previously could only access with psychedelics. These appearances used to cause distress in the mind-body as it seemed like a “flashback” or I was losing my mind. Yet now, it seems pretty normal.The body no longer reacts as if it is an amazing occurrence. It’s more like being conscious of a lucid dream.

At the human level, this is a common question and has appeared in my mind many times. I think it boils down to the criteria you are using for the construct of “actual existence”.

This is an accurate general over-view of a neuroscience perspective. Yet I stress his points that we currently know very little. He describes our rudimentary understanding of a few components of a highly complex integrated system. Secondly, his point that un-coupling the dmn and inducing novel neural communication can be helpful for SOME individuals. It’s not as simple as “Hmmm, this neuroscientist says all I need to do is uncouple this thing called a dmn with some lsd and it will help my psychological issues”. Also, he described psychedelic effects of at the level of neural tissue. To expand this, I would add that psychedelics induce neural plasticity and neurite-genesis. This is the second major property of psychedelics and allows for “rewiring” of the brain. Yet from the perspective of the human, we can’t assume that this “rewiring” will always be “good”. It’s not as simple as taking some lsd, uncoupling the dmn, inducing neural growth and plasticity - and then presto! - the brain rewires itself into a form the human person is happy with.

Notice how there is an orientation of opposites here. Either “a” or the opposite of “a” must be true. As well, there is usage of “facts” to provide grounding for a universal truth. Facts that can be recontextualized. Again, I did not say that “race doesn’t exist”, yet you keep assuming you understand what I’m saying and interpret it with a pre-conceived filter. I am saying that from a relative perspective the statement “race does not exist” has truth to it at a genetic level. From another relative perspective, the statement “race does exist” also has truth to it at a genetic level. It’s as if I am saying “depending on perspective, there is truth that a coin is a head and there is truth that a coin is a tail”. Yet you are so fixated that the coin must be heads that you keep posting links showing the heads side of coins and ask me to prove that the heads side is actually tails. That is not what I am saying at all. I will briefly describe the “partial truth” that “race does not exist”. Yet I am NOT saying that the opposite statement that “race does exist” is false. It depends on context. What genetic criteria would you use to define a race? For example, which allelic variations of DNA sequences will you choose as criteria of who qualifies as “Chinese”, “Japanese”, “Black”, “White” etc. In more common terminology, what genes would you choose as criteria to determine race? (This is not technically accurate because humans share the same genes, variation comes different allelic sequences of those genes, as well as sequence variations in non-geneic chromosomal regions). ANY criteria you come up with will have inherent problems with it. There will be MANY different combinations of multiple genes. There will be issues in gray areas along continuums, necessity and sufficiency issues, where to draw threshold allelic frequency limits, relevancy of allelic variation if they don’t contribute to phenotype etc. At this level of analysis, it is highly complex. You are looking at this at an organismal/social level. “That dude obviously looks Chinese and that dude obviously looks Norwegian”. Yet if you look under the hood of the underlying genetics you will find it Is NOT that simple. It gets complicated and messy. This is a highly simplified example, yet may get the point across. Suppose 60% of humans within the geographic region we call China have a particular gene sequence and only 27% of humans in Norway have that gene sequence (At a conventional social level these two groups of people would be referred to as “Chinese” and “Norwegian” people). Is a 60% allelic frequency sufficient for “Chinese-ness”? What specific percentage in a population is necessary to call it a “Chinese” sequence? 50%, 70%, 90%? And what percentage difference is necessary to differentiate two different populations? And does this sequence have anything to do with what appears as differences to us perceptually? Does it need to? What if an individual lacks a gene sequence that is associated with a group of people, yet contains other sequences associated with that same group? No group of people will have the exact same gene sequences, because there are no groups of identical twin populations, so there will NOT be an objectively definitive set of gene sequences that define an entire group. Any group you assemble will have an immense amount of sequence variation WITHIN the group. MORE variation than your criteria to distinguish between groups (although one could make an argument of what are “relevant differences”). One can set up a reference group of sequences, yet there will be degrees to which individuals match that reference set and aspects that are arbitrary. And who decides what criteria is used to define genetic boundaries to construct categories called race? Upon closer inspection the genetic constructs of “Chinese-ness” vs “Japanese-ness” vs “Indian-ness” vs “Caucasian-ness” etc, breaks down. Just like ALL dualistic categories collapse under intense scrutiny. In this context, the statement “race does not exist” has truth from a genetics perspectives. Yet it does NOT mean that the opposite statement that “race exists” is absolutely false. It’s dependent on context. If someone was arguing that “race does not exist”, I could make an equally strong argument that race does exist. As well, I am not saying constructs of race lack value. You can send me scientific articles all day long about the genetic basis of race and I will not disagree with it. Yet I also understand the underlying problems that constructs of race based on genetics have.

This gets at the flexible nature of a yellow mind. What you are pointing at is that yellow does not have attachments to ideas and can “go with the flow” like the fluidity of a river. Yet, it’s not like one intentionally changes their mind to become more flexible. That suggests there is an owner that is giving up attachment for one idea for attachment to another idea. Yet, I think it can be a helpful exercise to transition. I don’t think trying to change my mind from an idea I hold as important to another idea would have worked well for me. I don’t think my ego would have fallen for it. What works better for me is getting into a mindset in which I’m curious about how idea and how/why people become attached to particular ideas. Why is idea “x” important to me and idea “y” important to her? What happened for me to believe “x” and her to believe “y”. If I had the same conditioning as her, would I also believe “y”? This helped me to let go of my own beliefs and really consider someone else’s beliefs and the underlying dynamics of why we believe what we do. Yet, I would also be selective with what I am engaging with. I wouldn’t recommend doing this on toxic websites. Rather, in areas in which ideas are floating around that can lead expansion. For example, years ago I blew off talk of so-called paranormal abilities as “woo woo” nonsense. Then, I became curious and started resonating with people that seemed spiritually mature talking about stuff like intuitive abilities. This open a whole new area of curiosity and exploration. I would also focus on the second part of your post. That is, to let go of attachment to thought stories because “they don’t matter much”. Rather than changing to another thought story to replace it, just allow whatever arises. Maybe awareness of bird chirps or a felling in the body may arise. Let it appear and disappear. Perhaps another thought story will arise. Allow it to appear and disappear. Maybe the two thought stories will merge and create a higher level thought story. Then maybe desire for food or drink may appear. . . After a while, that “person” that is attached and takes ownership of thought will begin to dissolve. There is an energetic shift away from the person to a transcendent energy that is super cool. . . . This is upper green transitioning into yellow. Yet you are in striking distance. A mind-body first becomes aware of it in others and a curiosity and energy toward it arises. One notices yellow in others before it is embodied and naturally arises within themself. It is much easier for one to be “pulled up” to yellow when they are with a yellow-centered person they resonate with.

In this area, the trickiness for me is observing egoic dynamics from a non-egoic space. When what we refer to as ego appears, an egoic dynamic often appears in my mind. This egoic dynamic can be very subtle and sneaky. It appeared within the thread in my mind. A sense that here is an “I” that is more developed and conscious than another person’s “I”. It’s much easier for me to be aware of this dynamic in nature because components of nature don’t have egos that mask an internal ego in my own mind-body. It’s very obvious when ego arises in nature, much more subtle within human interaction. It might be fun to have a “spiral wizardry” thread. The topics wouldn’t really matter, it’s more about the underlying communication dynamics. Sorta like toastmaster’s - the topic isn’t that important, it’s about learning the underlying skill set of public speaking.

Main things I notice: 1. A sense of attachment and identification to a particular view. I’ve gone through this dynamic sooo many times internally (including within this thread), that I can sense it quickly in a conversation. 2. A lack of curiosity. Yellow loves exploring ideas and integrating components of various views to form more holistic views. A yellow mind is like a curious kid at the creek exploring nature. Orange is not interested in expanding, rather is interested in debating and reinforcing a preconceived idea. 3. Relativism and contextualization is a key component of yellow. Orange sees their view as objectively true. They will often use terms like “logic, evidence, facts and proof” to get a sense of grounding of inherently groundless objectivism. 4. Reflection. Contraction for orange gives a sense of stability and comfort. Contraction to yellow is restrictive and uncomfortable. Notice how I became contracted within the thread in my effort to engage at Orange. When @Scholar pointed this out, there was a sense of contracted discomfort in my mind-body. Yet rather than an orange desire to reinforce the contraction, there was a desire to expand. Within my mind-body, reflective and expansive thoughts to expand arose. There was awareness of how personal components entered, how I didn’t handle the situation smoothly and how I could improve in the future. At an orange level, I may have beaten myself at a personal level with thoughts like “ I am not good enough at this”” or “what do other users think of me now”. Or there might be a defensiveness to protect the person with thoughts like “scholar doesn’t know anything about genetics. Who is he to criticize me?”. Yellow has transcended these types of personal dynamics. What appeared in my mind after I grasped scholar’s input was a sense of curiosity of the thought dynamics that arose in my mind and how these thought dynamics are inter-related with Angelo and scholar at a collective conscious level. There is a transcendent awareness and curiosity that is unattached and dis-identified that “wants” to explore this inter-personal communication. Somewhat similar to an dis-identified desire to explore human and plant communication when I am out in nature. Angelo could be a tree, scholar a river and me a chipmunk interacting together.

Thanks for your impressions. I can now see the dynamics with better clarity. In particular, I used way too much personification. Statements like “your statement of ‘abc’ shows you have a deficiency in ’xyz’” creates personality dynamics. Impersonal statements such as “the statement ‘abc’ does not include the relative nature of ’xyz’” are much better. Not only does it reduce personifying the other person, it reduces the personification of a “me”. As soon as someone says “you”, that immediately creates a “me” (since there is no “you” without a “me” relative to “you”). Stating “you have a deficiency” is inherently also saying “I don’t have this deficiency and I am able to judge that you have the deficiency”. This adds in all sorts of underlying personality dynamics that alter the energetics and are a distraction. A core component of yellow is that these types of personality dynamics are transcended and ideas are appearing without personal ownership and identification. . . One of the most challenging aspects is not drifting into a “I am right, you are wrong dynamic” or that in someway I am better/more developed than you. I also like your point about self reflection - it’s much better than self defense posture. Also, I went into a weird orange/yellow hybrid state in which I tried to establish orange level credibility and grounding, yet used yellow level abstraction that would appear highly ambiguous, irrational and irrelevant from an orange perspective. . . I like your comment that the specific topic of race was as relevant as saturns moons. . .

It was both. Yet if this was a one-on-one conversation, I would not have invested time into it. The risk I take doing this within a thread is coming across as condescending and arrogant. That is one of the hardest parts of being a so-called “spiral wizard”. At the human level, one of “my” weaknesses is engaging at blue/orange levels with people that want to debate. There is an inherent dynamic at these levels that there is an “I” that is right and a “you” that is wrong. I rarely engage like this these days, yet genetics is kinda my baby and I get triggered when I see people throwing it around like a rag doll.

@Scholar I just realized your templates were not your true positions. I’m also interested in pedagogy and I’m aware I have room for growth. Personally, I don’t have much patience for those with attachments to contracted, incomplete views in certain areas. In particular, people using science in distorted ways to support and promote a view that is unhealthy at a population level. I’m more concerned of impact at the collective consciousness level than at the individual conscious level. For example, the statement that “drinking wine prevents cancer” is partial and highly misleading. If someone is attached to this view and unwilling to learn about the nuances of this from an actual cancer researcher, that’s one thing. Yet such statements can have unhealthy impact at the collective level, it can perpetuate misunderstandings. Especially if the person seems to have some knowledge and is pasting science articles. Science is often used in partially inaccurate and misleading ways to further an agenda. This can have toxic effects effects at the population level. For example, using partially inaccurate and misleading statements to advance misconceptions about genetics, race and intelligence. This has real world effects. I teach plenty of students that have been conditioned with such misconceptions. I spend a lot of time deconditioning it.Time that could have spent with actual learning and skill building. As well, it is used as rational to perpetuate misconceptions at the population level - driving racial divisions. I think it’s important for scientists to step in and say “wait a minute, that’s not quite the science of it”. I’m much more interested in the collective impact than individual impact. I am aware Angelo is not receptive, yet there are people reading this thread that are receptive and transitioning to a higher conscious level. Everytime I write one of these types of threads, I get PMs from users asking about genetics as well as transiting into yellow.

@Scholar I would be happy to teach fundamentals of genetics to open minds (it’s my job after all). Yet rather than an openness to learn, what I sense here is people with incomplete and poor understandings of genetics attached to their own views that want to debate and defend their views unaware of underlying assumptions. If a beginning student of English came to me to help, I would be happy to help. Yet if a beginning student came to me with an assumption that they speak English fluently, want me to prove I’m fluent in English and want to debate in English when they don’t even speak the language. I understand there are different pedagogical strategies. Yet I’m into a direct approach and there is a minimal amount of awareness required. If a student came to my office insisting an allele is a pink potato, it is most important to clear the delusion of the pink potato. Engaging with that assumption, is a waste of time (for me anyway). If someone insists on defending their pink potato idea and gets defensive, that brings up new issues of attachment and assumptions. The discussion about what an allele is cannot begin until we get through the pink potato attachment.

That is a great imagine that I love ? A few thoughts this imagery brings up for me: I’ve been learning Spanish and at times it has been challenging and humbling for me. There have been times I’m with a native spanish speaker and I can sense they are at a fluent 4D position and can see things I cannot in my 3D position. Stuff I don’t even know exists. Yet that doesn’t mean I can’t help other students with their Spanish. I just have a more limited range than a Spanish teacher. Another example: humans have thee types of photo-receptor cones to create colors. The mantis shrimp has 12 types of cones. That means the mantis shrimp can create hundreds of colors we humans don’t know exist. Not new combinations of our colors: entirely new colors humans can’t even imagine. In this case, the mantis shrimp is in the 4D position and humans are in the 3D position!

I occasionally get requests to describe yellow level thinking. I haven’t engaged in this realm much the last couple months, since I have time off from academics. Yet thus situation is an excellent example for those wanting to transition from tier1 to tier2 yellow and are curious what yellow is like. Before I post more thoughts, I want to stress that this is not personal. A core component of tier2 is impersonal dialog of ideas in which there is no “owner” of the ideas. This allows for a beautiful fluidity, merging and evolution as well as curiosity, awe and excitement. Yellow level explorations are much more enjoyable, rewarding and enriching than blue/orange level debates. As a teacher and researcher in genetics, I can say with certainty that you have gaps in your understanding of genetics. I have tried to reach out from a yellow level. It is clear there is disinterest, unwillingness and inability to recognize and utilize yellow level modes. As well, there are attachments to preconceived ideas and personal identification to such ideas. Being confined to blue/orange modes significantly restricts what I can convey to you. For example, I have said over and over that I am not saying what you write is 100% false. Rather, there are partial truths relative to context in what you write, yet due to extrapolation and your contextualization have become distorted. A yellow level thinker does not have personal attachments and is not defensive of an idea that is “mine”. As well, yellow understands “partial truths” and can see how statements can be relatively true or false depending on context. Also, yellow has an unattached openness and curiosity to view things from multiple levels and form integrated holistic views. Your responses to me indicate a strong contraction within blue/orange modes of thinking. This could be a great opportunity to evolve consciousness, yet there is strong resistance. For example, you believe that your ideas are “true or false” and insist that I show you how your ideas are false. I’ve said several times that the main block to learning here is a binary true vs false mentality. A deeper level of understanding would involve nuances and an ability to see relative contexts. When I stated that from a genetics perspective, the statement “race doesn’t exist” is partially true depending on context, you responded in a strongly defensive posture in which you posted articles to support a personal contextualization that you are unconsciously attached to as being universally true based on objective facts (hallmarks of blue/orange thinking). If there one thing I would encourage to open, is the true vs false mentality. This is a blue level mode of thinking which I think is a primary chain restricting expansion in this situation.

You are making assumptions and are unaware of it. If you studied this area extensively with an open mind, you would become aware of your assumptions , could learn and gain a clearer and deeper understanding. From a genetics perspective, the statement “race does not exist” has as much partial truth as the statements you are making. Yet you cannot see this due to assumptions of what race is and the relationship between genetics and race. You are seeing this as a binary issue. In that you are right or wrong and what you say must be true or false. Searching for information online to support your view will only re-enforce a mindset of opposition. Thus will prevent a mind from seeing nuances and developing a deeper understanding. I am not saying what you write is 100% false or the articles you are posting are 100% false. This would be a blue/orange mindset. I am saying that there is a narrow interpretation causing a distorted view. In terms of SD, I am trying to communicate to you at a Yellow level that includes binary thinking as well as various levels of observations (e.g. molecular, organismal and social) and partial truths of perspectives dependent on contextualuzation. A contracted mind will not be open or able to see nuances or integration between various modes of analysis m.

This is a distraction. I’m a geneticist and teach genetics at a University level. I’ve spent a large portion of my life studying and researching genetics and have taught classes on bioethics. I would not consider myself naive in this area. A better way to say it is that the information we have of mechanistic genetics does not support your conclusions (yet I’m not saying the opposite is true). Your comment mocking the statement “race doesn't exist” is reflective of a narrow interpretation filter you have. Similar to your statements, this statement is also has partial underlying truth, yet has been misleading into a misleading statement. You cannot see the underlying truthful aspects of the statement due to your own i interpretation filter if assumptions that further distorts the interpretation. This is exactly what you did with your interpretations. The statement “race does not exist” is equally distorted and misleading as your own statements on genetics and IQ. Yet you are unable to see this due to a lack of understanding if mechanistic genetics and the nuances of establishing criteria to construct a multi-factorial phenotype and developing/interpreting statistics. Your assumptions and attachments to pre-conceived beliefs prevent me from getting through to you. And appealing to authority is a weak position. I don’t need to appeal to an authority in genetics - because I’ve spent thousands of hours studying, researching and teaching it. A key is to mastery is to identify and drop assumptions - and open one’s mind.

You are not aware of what you are unaware of and that “but” is a block and resistance to expansion. You are interpreting and extrapolating pieces of information through a lens that is causing distortion. There is some underlying truth, yet there are underlying assumptions and you are extrapolating it to the point that your conclusions are no longer accurate. Your conclusions would not be accepted in the science of mainstream genetics.

@Angelo John Gage I am not saying you are 100% wrong. From a scientific perspective, what you say has some truth, yet you are over-simplifying it such that your conclusions are inaccurate and highly misleading. As well, the fundamental incomplete and misunderstood is being extrapolated and mixed with other beliefs - which creates a distorted view. IQ is a highly nuanced complex issue. It would take me at least a week of genetics classes to cover the basics and it’s not limited to genetics. I would also need to cover the human construct of IQ at social and biological levels. As well statistical analyses within a highly complex set of variables. I could easily spend a full semester on this. Yet the prep would be enormous.

That is a gross over-simplification. IQ is a multi-factorial trait that involves an extremely complex set of many variables (including genetics). I teach genetics at a University level. To say science supports that statement is highly misleading and inaccurate because it over-simplifies underlying complexity - creating a distortion.

This cuts to a core aspect of self-actualization. There are countless books, videos and workshops on this. There is a lot of great personal development material that has practical value at the human level. . . Yet ultimately, it’s self realization. The Self realizing the nature of self.

@seeking_brilliance Nice insight. Ime, I’ve found it helpful to spend extended time immersed in nature to provide experiential contrast in embodying how humans are both natural and un-natural.

@Leo Gura Perhaps it’s possible to create a locked sticky that links to the active thread - to get the best of both worlds?