Forestluv

I don't understand "still subtle registration". Could you explain it a different way?

@Aakash One of the biggest surprises to me has been the diversity of mystical experiences. There are so many flavors and I know I have only scratched the surface. It's like an infinite Baskin Robbins.

@Aakash Yes! There is also dissolution of the spatial construct. It sounds like you double-dipped into a timeless-spaceless combo.

Yet, I must admit it sure does feel like an experience to my mind-body. It's sooo conditioned.

@Leo Gura I hadn't thought about how a collective ego can thrive in an atmosphere of anonymity. You mentioned in one of your videos how a collective ego has a survival aspect, as does an individual ego. From a survival perspective, I can see how an anonymous environment would be attractive to a collective ego.

I agree, I used the word "experience" as a concession to language.

Some men have a strong sexual foot fetish.

Just like a grasshopper's mind cannot understand human intelligence, a human mind can't understand universal intelligence. Just be it.

@zambize We decided to go the friend route, yet I still picked up on emotional attachment and subtle suggestions that maybe sometime soon we can start a romantic relationship. For some reason I've been super in tune with it. She is a psychologist and a buddhist at a mature "observer + object" stage and she asked me to mirror back to her my intuitions. I decided it would be best to have some distance to allow the emotions and romance story to die down. We went three weeks without contact over the holiday and we have recently texted a couple times. I'd like to spend some time with her again, she is super cool. She has some paranormal stuff going on and we explore wild states of consciousness. Hopefully, the emotional attachment has died down. . . Yet, I also have an inner dynamic going on. I'm attracted various aspects of her. For me, sexual attraction is integrated with intellectual, emotional, creative, emphatic and physical realms. A lot of these are firing on all cylinders. I'm attracted to her and she is willing. It takes awareness and effort for me guide the dynamics away from the sexual energy that is present between us.

Ooooh, I like that. I had a nondual experience in which the egoic story and the timeline dissolved. There was only now. Not in theory, in being. Afterwards, there was a profound essence to it, until the ego contextualized and ruined it. The ego stepped in and said "Yes, this is the direct experience of the teachings about about the nondual present moment. This is what it feels like to be free of the story and the timeline and to be in the present moment". Then, it seemed so obvious.

Along these lines, I recently went on several dates with a woman that had chemistry. We went into these deep explorations of psychology and spirituality. We would go dancing and be spontaneous and free. We fooled around a bit and had strong physical chemistry. Buuuuut, I sensed energy of clutchiness and that I was "the one" that could heal previous wounds. I knew that she would not find what she was hoping to find in me and that if I continued with a physical relationship with her the emotional attachment would get stronger and she would get hurt. In a cafe, I told her this and that I really like her and don't want to hurt her. I said that although I was physically attracted to her, I can't go that route because I think she would get hurt. I also said I loved spending time with her and think we could develop a meaningful friendship. There was a moment of silence and then tears. As she cried, I felt bad yet knew it would only be worse if I continued in a sexual relationship with her. Then, she said something that revealed what I couldn't grasp. She said "Thank you, that is such a loving gesture. A man has never told me that before". She then told me all the men in her life saw her as a sexual object and I was the first man to put her welfare above personal sexual desires. As well, that I saw value in her and wanted to continue a relationship without sex. To me, the gesture was nothing special. Yet to her, it was a really big deal.

Thanks. That thought reminds me of how Leo once said something to the effect that each teacher has their own style and essence. It's easy for me to see in people like Rupert Spira, Adyashanti, Leo etc. I originally thought "Of course, that's obvious". Yet lately I've been seeing the deeper meaning. It's about being genuine and allowing flow.

@Aakash Sometimes I am amazed at how well some forum users explain certain topics. Many users seem to be really good in certain areas such as life purpose, relationships, integrating mystical experiences, self inquiry, awakening etc. Sometimes it's about stuff I don't know much about. For example, @Emerald will write a deeply integrative essay on gender dynamics in social systems. Other times, it's stuff I have direct experience with, yet I can't put it into words and I stumble around trying to explain it. Then I'll read a one-liner from @winterknight and I'm like "Yes, that's it! How did that dude explain it in five words!". Other times, it's stuff I've never considered. I'll be watching a video of @Mu_ strolling through an exploration of thought dynamics in closed and open minds and I think "Dang, I've never thought about it like that before. Brilliant".

Well said. I like your "x vs not x" symbolism. I'd like to build on that with how people also like to assume "x is y". Examples: "That flower is beautiful", "He is rude", "That dog is cute", "She is intelligent", "My idea is better". From one perspective, doesn't this boil down to saying "x is y"? How can x be y? . . . Human minds seem to assume and be attached to "x is y". A little while ago, I became aware of how often my mind does this throughout the day. Thousands of times. One exercise I did was to walk in nature and anytime a thought of "x is y" arose, I would replace it with "x is x" and "y is y". This neutralized meaning. For example "That flower is beautiful" becomes "That flower IS a flower" and "beauty IS beauty". "My idea is better" becomes "The thought that my idea is better IS a thought my idea is better". The ego did NOT like this exercise at all.

Yes, in limited context. For example, Green is more open-minded with issues regarding moral relativism. For example, something considered morally wrong in the U.S. might be considered morally acceptable in another country. In general, Blue would be more closed-minded and desire objective universal morality. Green would generally be more comfortable and accepting of moral relativity among cultures. However, Green has not gone the Full Monty on open-mindedness. Green is not open to the concept that their own perspective on moral relativity is relative. For example, Green may understand that gender identification is relative to one's own experience. Green is accepting of a person that has a penis and identifies as female, since that is their relative experience. Yet, Green believes this view is right and other views are wrong. Green will go to battle with Blue and demonize Blue over their opposing view. Green is not yet open-minded enough to see that their own perspective on this is relative. This level of open-mindedness and awareness comes at Yellow. I'd say it is somewhat difficult to understand cognitively, yet very difficult to embody. Once embodied, a whole new mode of being and experiencing reality opens.

As I mentioned, it is a detail irrelevant to the larger context. As well, one could spend hours debating the subtle nuances of whether the example is more appropriately categorized as purple or blue. Yet, that would be a waste of time. . . Much of what I've learned about SD nuances and applications have come through wonderful and genuine explorations with Leo and other members of the forum. I'd consider myself well-versed in certain aspects of SD, yet I am not an expert - I am still learning. Other members on the forum continually provide insights and my understanding becomes more and more integrative and holistic. I would be happy to discuss and explore genuine questions and ideas about the model with you. However, debating an irrelevant detail for one-upmanship is a distraction and not conducive to a vibrant learning atmosphere. Yet with that said, I also acknowledge the importance of minimizing detail errors and misspeaking. I make hundreds of points daily and do my best to be as precise as possible. I tell my students at the start of every semester that I do not speak with 100% accuracy and humbly ask them not to have that expectation of me. My precision is more like 99.5% and that has taken 10 years of experience to achieve. I'd say I misspeak a keyword once per day and I encourage my students to let me know when it happens. In this case, I acknowledge your point, appreciate that you brought it to my attention, and that your point has value - particularly in other SD contexts. Then, it's time to move on.

I've noticed this idea that natural psychedelics are better than synthetic. Usually, in people with little to no psychedelic experience. I had a girlfriend who was ok if I took a small amount of psilocin on occasion when we went out. She drank alcohol and I don't, so this was a way we could both get buzzed. This went along fine until one day I wanted to take a small amount of LSD (25ug). To me, it's essentially the same. Yet, she freaked out because LSD is synthetic. She goes off on how she knew someone how went insane after an LSD trip and if I don't go insane I'll get addicted to it. Social science has shown a similar effect. Surveys show significantly higher support for exploring medicinal psilocin over LSD because psilocin is "all natural". To me, it's just another misconception to clarify. Naturally-occurring compounds are often more harmful than synthetic compounds. Yet, I also understand the *earthy* appeal of natural mushrooms over LSD synthesized in a scary laboratory.

That sentence can be interpreted in different ways. To me, it suggest intentionality inaccurately. I used a strong example to highlight a larger point. Upon closer inspection, I would probably classify the example more as Purple. Yet, that is irrelevant in the larger context. In the larger context, it doesn't matter if we classify it as purple or blue. It's like making a point that children need to learn algebra in the 9th grade as a foundation to prepare themselves for learning calculus in college. Then someone saying "You are wrong! Kids learn algebra in the 7th grade. You don't understand this stuff!". In the larger context of the statement, it is totally irrelevant if kids learn algebra in the 7th or 9th grade. The relevant point is simply that children learn algebra before calculus. . . In another context, the grade would be very important (for example, if we were discussing curriculum design in a middle school). Debating on whether it is purple or blue in the context I used is like nitpicking about a typo.

Yes. I used a strong example for effect. It would be strong enough for purple. Blue still has a primarily irrational mode of being, yet the examples would be milder than purple. It is still consisistent with my point. Rather than getting every detail perfect, I’m more interested in the big picture. The big picture point is that humans go through developmental stages from childhood to adults. Similar to how a child goes from elementary to middle to high school, a child develops through core components of lower spiral stages. For example, a young child learns the basic concept of good or bad as a foundation before learning about spectrums of good and bad and relativity of good and bad. A child does not have the brain software to understand advanced modes of cognition of higher stages. As society evolves, less adults will be stuck on lower stage modes. For example, less adults will be stuck in a bimodal good or bad mentality. More adults will see good/bad spectrums and relativity. Yet, they stll went through the bimodal stage as children. This model has many examples, such as passing through egocentric, world-centric and integrative views. As a child develops they pass through an egocentric stage, their brain is incapable of holistic views that integrate a diversity of global perspectives. The necessary brain architecture for multi-layed rational and abstract thought is not present in a child. In theory, it may be possible to bypass lower stages through altering the structure of young brains - for example through genetic engineering.

@Cortex It depends on the context. For example, along a cognitive line our brains first develop a basic ability to make distinctions and two categories. For example, a person is male or female. A cat is big or small. Something is good or bad. Right or wrong. This type of bimodal thinking is a hallmark of blue and we all develop through it. Young children think irrationally and may believe mythical and magical fantasy as real. For example, Harry Potter magic is literally true. As the frontal lobe in children develop, they gain the ability to think in rational and logical modes, which is a hallmark of Orange. So, in this respect core components of blue stages will remain. Yet, the tendency for blue adults to limit oneself to bimodal thinking and continue to believe in myths and magic will lessen. For example, less adults will view people as simply good or bad. More and more adults will understand that people can be mixtures of good and bad and that there are degrees of goodness and badness (Orange level thinking). As well, less and less adults will believe in myths and magic - for example that everything in the bible is literally true - things like Noah's Arc.

Thank you for sharing a public journal. Positive energy. You got this.

The trips that teach us about deep love and connection are wonderful. ♥️ ?

Duplicate thread on Mike Tyson / Joe Rogan. Rather than locking one, I merged them together.

Not supernatural.

@Emanyalpsid Maya games yield no winners