Forestluv

A beautiful butterfly that flutters away ?

Dang, things went from fun with Angelfish to serious fast. . . Think of the impact this will have on @cetus56 Angelfish on the collective conscious level. ? ?

@cetus56 A collective conscious buzzkill ?

@mandyjw I am both Angelfish and Devilfish ? ?

From one perspective, yes.

I guess that means it was not intended as humor ?? Post-rational can be fun and silly ?

Are you really this rational? Or is this humor I’m not picking up on?

@cetus56 Are you able to “connect” with the fish and “feel” them? Kinda like “feeling” their personality?

That is how it appears on the human conscious level of thought. If you want to find out about collective conscious you need to transcend humanness and go to that collective conscious state.

Yes, I understand. All of that “what thinks. . .? “ is “within” something more expansive that is post-intellectual / conceptual. You would need to walk through “the door” to see that. I am merely entering the human conscious level of thought to communicate that which lies beyond thought.

I came across him about a month ago and was like “this guy knows”. Yet I haven’t watched more of his videos. Perhaps I’m ready now. Do you happen to know of a good video of his in this area?

It’s post-intellectual.

@cetus56 That’s so awesome.

Inescapable ??

Yep ?? Yep. Humans are so. . . human-centric. My experience communicating with trees within the giant mind didn’t go over very well - so I thought I’d shoot for a three-pointer rather than going for another half-court shot. ?

@Jacko I would probably get some distance without a dramatic clean break. I’d also start building new healthier friendships - those that I aspire to.

Each human is like a neurotransmitter within the giant mind.

That’s a super interesting question I’ve been exploring. I had always considered thoughts and feelings to be connected, yet separate. The deeper I’ve gone, the more that distinction collapses. Thoughts and feelings start to appear as one. One mind-body

I was just contemplating this last night. I was feeling really discouraged and was contemplating why it is so difficult to transmit. I've spent a lot of time trying to convey it and looking back, most of that time seemed of little value and was even counter-productive. I often try to communicate things impersonally, yet quite often people take it personally, often get offended and defensive. At times it seems to cause more harm than good. These days, I try to limit it to people that seem genuinely curious and open. I tried teaching SD to freshman-level college students. Things went ok until we reached Yellow. Then it didn't go so well. I would say only three of 16 students were ready / open and started having real insights and mind expansion. The other students were either disinterested, resistant, frustrated, wanted to intellectually debate and fight, etc.

To me, it sounds like you are saying "Feelings are not absolutely bad or good". and then start talking about them as if they are absolutely bad or good. In a relative context, I agreed with the second part of what you wrote. For example, many people would consider anger as being a bad feeling because when they are angry they often behave in ways that most consider to be harmful to others. That view is useful in the relative world we live in.

To me, it sounds like you are adding in a value judgement, yet are not recognizing that addition. Feelings are not inherently "good" or "bad". That is an additional "something" added in. There is a "nothing" prior to that addition. It's not really "prior", yet that is the easiest way for the mind to comprehend it. Assigning particular feelings value can be helpful to the mind-body that at times, yet that is a distinction the mind adds in. The second part I would agree with. Condemnation, aversion or identification to the feeling can cause tension in the mind-body and keep it in a state of contraction.

I've found trying to convert post-rational back into rational for a rationalist is ineffective. I've found it more effective to bring forth their own direct experience as much as possible. Trying to intellectualize post-intellectual just doesn't seem to work for me. It seems to trigger their intellectual mode of being. And as you said, they want rational proof for the post-rational. Generally, intellectuals have a very strong desire to define what qualifies as "proof". For example, they will say that they want scientific evidence or that we must have critical thinking here. I fell for this trap so many times - trying to supply them rational proof for the post-rational. It's like trying to show them that there is a unique foreign language, yet they insist that you only speak in their native English language. I'm like "how am I supposed to demonstrate this foreign language if we can only use English?" I've been working on non-intellectual modes of being to transmit the post-rational. Empathic, intuitive, energetic modes etc. A vibe. Certain looks, eye contact facial expressions, at a certain time dropping an apple, clapping my hands, speaking in a way that throws their intellectual mode off balance. And using their own direct experience. It is very hard for people to rationalize away their own experience. As well, as I developed more and more post-rational experience, a deeper "knowing" and grounding developed. Intellectuals love debate and intellectuals are used to bullying those at irrational levels and going into combat with other intellectuals. Yet once I had this "knowing" I was no longer thrown off by this. It is like being fluent in the post-intellectual and I think it takes years to develop. Now, when I'm with intellectuals they can sense there is a "something". That there is something different present. I can do all the intellectualizing, yet there is something extra above that. And it often boils down to whether they want to expand. An intellectual that wants to debate and defend their views is not open to receiving. It's generally a waste of time in that scenario.

Imo, there is your key. I think this “ego” is having a hissy fit. Of course the ego allows the ego to exist. Why would love and enjoyment disappear if the ego dissolved? Love and enjoyment is beyond the ego. There is love and enjoyment all around. Beyond what the mind can imagine. Notice how the ego says “Yea, but what’s in it for me?” The ego can resist actualization by setting up terrible scenarios of what would happen if it gives up control. Why not BE love? Why not BE enjoyment?

You’ve got some strong persistence. I’d totally want you on my team for that trait.