Forestluv

I hear you. Blue and Orange levels have a different meaning for "God" than Green and higher. When I was Orange level and first heard Rupert Spira talk about God, I was totally turned off. I think a blue or orange person would get triggered by the statement. Yet, a high Orange ready to transition to Green would probably ask "What does he mean when he says "God"? That was the question I asked when I heard Spira talking about God. Can we really have a forum for all levels? I try to imagine myself teaching my genetics course with a range of levels. Imagine me teaching a genetics course with junior high students, high school students, college students and graduate students. It just wouldn't work. That's probably why nobody does it. . . Imagine if Adyashanti's audience was a mix of red, blue, orange, green and yellow. I don't think it would work well. From my perspective, when there is significant blue and orange in the mix, there is significant propagandizing, conflict and debate - which interferes with evolving. Do you think it is wrong to set a standard of upper-orange to lower-green? If a blue-orange person refuses to evolve to this level and wants to drag people down with propagandizing and debate - do you think it's wrong to give them the boot? There are plenty of forums centered at blue-orange.

I think you are using the term "sharing" ideas quite broadly. I would consider at least four subcategories of "sharing" ideas: propagandizing, conflicting, debating and exploring ideas. Propagandizing ideas is a major distraction from learning. These are people intent on spreading their ideas (often erroneous) with no interest of engaging in dialog. Conflicting ideas are people that ignorantly challenge others with the intent of conflict. For example, if I went to a forum for learning Chinese and told the teachers that they actually don't speak Chinese and posted up a bunch of Chinese text to prove my point. Then I go off telling the students what it is really like to live in China (I don't speak Chinese and I have never been to China). The Chinese teachers try to explain that I don't understand Chinese and to be open to learning. I tell them they are wrong and I cut and post some more Chinese images and text to prove my point. This is distracting and misleading to students on the forum that actually want to learn Chinese. This type of conflict instigation occurs on this forum with psychedelics and nonduality. People with no direct experience sometimes parrot what they've read online or stuff they just make up. Debating ideas: I think a lot of people think debating ideas is a great learning method. I see that mentality for some on the forum as well as in academia. IME, I don't think debate is an efficient learning method. It is a middle level Orange zone - I think it can be somewhat useful for high blue to elevate to Orange (Blue eventually sees they are irrational). The problem with debate is that both sides defend their views and want to "win" the debate. Instead of expanding one's mind - it contracts one's mind. Their ideas are often reinforced. Look at some debates between Richard Dawkins and religious zealots. Both sides defend their own position and very little comes out of it. Exploring ideas: This is the learning zone IMO. This is where people are doing self inquiry. Where they realize they don't know it all. Where they are introspective and are open to challenging their own beliefs. It is where "winning" is no longer about being right. "Winning" is about learning and expanding oneself. It is where truth becomes more important than being right and proving others wrong. It is where people say things like "Interesting, I've never thought about it like that". It is where people get curious about psychedelics, chakras, shamanic breathing etc. It is where they try the practices for themselves. It is where people get curious about what Leo means when he says "I am God". It is where they question their belief of what God is and are open to deepening their understanding of God. . .. On this forum, Emerald is a great example. On the national scene, Deepak Chopra is a great example. He explores ideas of science and spirituality. Discussions he has at green and higher levels are beautiful. Yet, when Richard Dawkins enters the picture - it gets ugly. Dawkins is a brilliant geneticist, yet doesn't know shit about spirituality. But he tries to debate and "beat" Chopra (who is much more spiritually advanced). It seems like the average consciousness on the board is upper-orange transitioning to green. This is the transition from debate to exploring. This will be uncomfortable for blue and orange level people. They will want to propagandize, conflict, debate and to pull others down into debate. They will complain that they don't have free speech. They will complain that they are being silenced. We saw this with the blue-orange JP crowd. And if an orange-level Richard Dawkins crowd entered the forum - we would see it with them as well. And it's not just about those that defend blue-orange ideology. Those of us at Green and higher need to be mindful not to drop down to mudslinging and low-level debates. It's easy to fall into that trap - it's happened to me. Personally, I want to continue increasing my level of consciousness and to develop better interpersonal skills so I can learn faster and better help others to evolve. There are countless forums on the internet centered at red, blue and orange. There are much fewer forums centered at Green or Yellow. It takes work to maintain that higher level. . . Consider spiritual Satsangs with Adyashanti or Rupert Spira. This is a high Green audience. The audience is not there to propagandize, initiate conflict or debate. The audience members want to learn, explore and evolve. Watch a two hour Satsang with Adyashanti and a two hour debate between Dawkins and a religious zealot. It's obvious which crowd is learning and evolving. They are worlds apart.

Hmmm, how different is manipulation than interpretation? Don’t our minds interpret information to suit the self? Isn’t the delusional self a form of manipulated information? Isn’t the story of your life a grand manipulation? Think of all the interpretations and meanings you have added to create a life story. Think of all the memories that have been added, deleted and edited within your life story. All to create an illusionary self. A finite self that believes it exists through a timeline. Is this not manipulation of information to suit the agenda of the self? But oh how the self dislikes being called out on it’s mischievous behavour! Like a big brother that gets annoyed that his little brother tattled on him ?

What a party pooper ?

That’s nice to hear from someone at a high consciousness level. I think psychedelics rocketed me up to Turqoise, but I still have a prominent Green shadow I’m working through. It’s like I’m an unstable Turquoise that keeps falling into Green. It’s still hard for me to work my way back up to Turquoise without psychedelics.

@Leo Gura Were some of those trips moderate doses? Or all break-throughs? I’m considering alternating a break-through (30+mg) once a month and a moderate trip (20mg) once a month.

Welcome to the forum! It sounds like you’ve done quite a bit of introspective work. To me, your essay looks like high Orange resisting the transition into Green. It is common for high Orange to want to identify with Yellow and skip Green. You know you have embodied Green when you desire Turqouise and resist Yellow. Remember SD is just a map - it’s not the territory. I would recomnend using multiple methods. Spiritual teachers, contemplative journaling, self inquiry, meditation and yoga are all great compliments to SD. Even one teacher that you resonate with can help put things into perspective.

@Source_Mystic Be wary of becoming attached to a teacher or repulsed by a teacher.

@Shin Think about baseball.

Where on earth did you get these ideas? Masturbation is common in the animal world and humans have been masturbating for thousands of years.

Or perhaps not. The deepest I’ve dug is groundless. I doubt there is any grounding deeper down.

Yep. I believe he is genuine when he says he doesn't understand why this is such a big deal. He doesn’t fully understand Orange-level capitalists. Similarly, Orange-level capitalists were “shocked” by his behavior. They don’t understand red-blue mentality. Khabib returned to his small hometown in Russia. Tens of thousands of adoring fans filled a local stadium to welcome home their hero. Crowds surrounded him hoping for the chance to touch him. He is larger than life. Why might he be worshipped in this red-blue area? Because of his success and wealth? I doubt it. Nevada is withholding hus 2 million dollar payout and hus hometown diesn’t seem bothered by that. Do they worship his fame? Perhaps somewhat. Yet based on the SD model of red-blue values, Kgabib is a hero because he beat the shit out of the bastard that dishonored their families, religion and nation. Then Khabib blew past security to kick the ass of the bastard’s manager who also dishonored their families, religion and nation. That doubled their admiration. Khabib is a hero for restoring honor to them. Khabib’s father said he was really upset that his son wasn’t respectful. Yet deep down, I bet he is also prideful that his son didn’t hold back in restoring honor to their tribe.

I know. I was just saying to be careful with the relativism tool. The below statements could be used to neutralize someone else's views about morality and harm. In this case about pedophilia. Person A believes children are too young to make their own sexual decisions and that it is harmful for an adult to have sex with the child. Person B believes children can be mature enough to make their own sexual decisions and it is not harmful for an adult to have sex with them. Person B can use moral relativism to neutralize Person A's claim by saying "People interpret children's naivety in one way or another. There are an infinite number of ways to interpret data and none of them is true". I'm not saying this is your intention - yet in a discussion, that statement could be seen as discrediting someone's view. What if the data showed that 99% of children that have sex with an adult commit suicide and the other 1% suffer depression the rest of their lives? A person interprets that data to mean that pedophilia harms children. Would you still stand by your statement that the data can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and none of them is true? I don't intend to mean that what you wrote is wrong. I'm just saying be aware of a slippery slope with relativism. It can shut down discussion and digging to deeper levels. Consider another viewpoint that combines relativism and reason: "There are many ways to interpret the same set of data. Perhaps several interpretations hold some value. How can we connect the dots from various perspectives to create a more holistic view?". This acknowledges that their are relative views, that various views may have value and that it is possible to develop an integrated holistic view with even higher value. This isn't easy to do because one must be open to considering other views that make them uncomfortable. It is something I am working to get better at.

I hear you. Moral relativism is a great tool, yet it can be overused. Each SD stage provides a valuable tool: Blue provides rules and laws, Orange provides rational thought to guide the formation of rules and laws, Green provides relative thought to give insight into various perspectives and is a check against dogmatic views. All three tools are valuable - at least during this point in human history. Even your statements above are subject to relativism. You say "the father "believes" he is a good father which is yet another delusion.". Yet one could say "that is an interpretation relative to you. I believe the father is not delusional. There are an infinite number of interpretations for the alcoholic father. None of them is true." You say "The family directly experienced physical damages.". Again, this is a relative interpretation. Who gets to decide what "damage" is? What you consider to be "damage", the father considers to be "a good thing". For example "I beat my child to teach him to have respect for his father. That is not damage. It is a good thing". We could go on and on down this rabbit hole. Relativism can be great. As you said, it is a great tool so we are not too sure or dogmatic about certain beliefs. Yet, one can take relativism to unhealthy extremes. A society based on unhealthy relativism would be anarchy. Lots of people would use it too justify unhealthy Orange or Red behaviors.

To me, this is a broad form of moral relativism - not nonduality. You are saying that how people interpret data is relative to them and there are an infinite number of interpretations of pedophilia and none of them is truth. That is moral relativism. One can take it one level higher and claim that there are an infinite number of interpretations of moral relativism and each of those is relative to the person and none of them is truth. That would be relativism. I think relativism is at a higher level than rationalism - not due to complexity. Rather, because relativism is so much more unpalatable than rationalism (for most people). Orange stage rational thinkers hate relativism. I have found that relativism can be a huge trigger for Orange and relativists can be incredibly annoying to have discussions with. All they need to do is keep saying "Well, that view is just relative to you - it's not true". It's green/yellow level thinking that can get unhealthy. A person can go around causing harm and keep saying "Your interpretation is just relative to you. That is just one interpretation of an infinite number of interpretations". For example: An alcoholic loses his job and beats his children - she confronts him saying "Your drinking is harming the family, you need to get help". He responds "Your interpretation is relative to you. My interpretation is that I am a wonderful father. There are an infinite number of interpretations - none are true". Relativism is a powerful tool of thinking - but it can be used in unhealthy ways. That's why objectivists hate it so much.

@Galyna The issue CreamCat raised for me is: what is the healthiest way to view/treat adults that have unwanted sexual desires for children? There is a huge stigma against this. Many of these adults were abused as children and many do not want to experience these impulses. I imagine most repress their urges and fear being judged or ostracized. The movie "Little Children" dug deep into the suffering of a pedophile that didn't want to feel the urges he was. It was heart-breaking. . . Here, I'm just considering adults that have unwelcomed sexual desires for children. Those that don't want to feel that way, but cannot change it. I bet it's more common than most think. They repress it and fear others finding out. I suppose they could go to a psychologist, yet there would be fear that the psychologist would report them as an imminent threat. Aren't these cases within the broader "harm impulse" disorders? This would include postpartum depression. I've known mothers with strong harm desires to kill their own children. They didn't want to feel this way and couldn't change it. They thought they were a monster and terrified that someone would find out - so they repressed it. I have a friend who had it so bad she thought she would be overcome by the urge and actually kill her child - she almost killed herself so she wouldn't kill her child. There has been a lot of awareness of postpartum depression and less stigma. I'm wondering if many pedophiles experience a similar form of suffering. I haven't had postpartum or pedophile urges - but I have had a harm impulse episode and it was absolutely awful. There was an impulse to harm someone I loved and I could not turn it off. I couldn't share the experience with anyone or ask for help. I believed there was an evil monster within me. I questioned my sanity and it was perhaps the worst suffering I have endured in my life. I think about this experience regarding people that have unwanted harm impulses they can't stop. I've seen it brought up several times on the forum. In the cases of unwanted impulses, I think there should be less stigma and more help available for them. I don't know what that help would be. Would 2D child porn help alleviate the symptoms or intensify the symptoms? I don't know.

I still have some Tier 1 issues to work through. I can get into the frame of mind that if more people would just evolve up to Green and see things "our" way - we would have more peace, love and harmony in the world. I like how you shifted the focus inward and work through deeper inquiries. I know Leo did a video on Yellow stage, I'll re-watch it. I think it would be cool to workbook for high Green transitioning to Yellow. There aren't that many Yellow-level teachers out there. The Turquoise-level teachers teach to a Green audience. Yet, no one seems to be teaching Green to Yellow.

A woman coming to a man, crying on his shoulder and sinking in to him is MUCH different than simply generic crying. The level of intimacy is much higher and I can see how that can transcend into sexuality and turn a guy on. In general, I imagine that there are multiple dynamics going on leading to the erection - it's not just the crying. If a woman was crying at a funeral, I doubt many men there would get an erection. It depends on context. Crying itself is insufficient for most men.

That's a good point. I'd say I'm still Green-centered and working on transitioning to Yellow. It's much harder for me to see suffering within the majority group with power. In Blue and Orange stages a sense of isolation can lead to suffering. In Blue, there is an "Us vs Them" mentality. For my parents, Us = white Christians and Them = everyone else. Their world keeps getting smaller and smaller. It's caused strain with their friendships and connection with family members. In Orange, there can be an over-emphasis on personal freedom, personal desires and achievements. Overly focused on the self a desire to complete oneself from external gains (money, women, power, knowledge etc). This can lead to a lack of human connection and isolation. The SD model states that these are the type of crises that motivate people to evolve higher.

@TomDashingPornstar @Emerald I'm a guy in my 40s and this is the first time I've ever heard of a correlation between male erections and women crying. I'm sure it happens, yet this sounds like a niche fetish to me. In contrast, I've heard a lot of people talk about getting turned on after arguing and how awesome "make-up" sex is. For both men and women. I'd say this is more common.

@Emerald I appreciate your views on gender, roles and power. One of the problems I see with inequality issues, in general, is that the majority with power get so upset that "reverse-inequality" is not acknowledged. They get so contracted into this they can't see the bigger picture that inequality is disproportionate. For example, my mother is obsessed with the idea of "reverse-racism". She gets so upset that reverse-racism is not acknowledged and talked about. Whenever the racism topic comes up, she always goes back to a minority woman she hired 25 years ago. The woman was a bad worker and my parents claim they had difficulty firing her because she was a minority. I acknowledge to my mother that reverse-racism exists and racism is wrong whether it happens to a minority person or white person. *However*, racism is disproportionately directly toward minorities. It's such a simple concept, yet my mother's white privilege is so strong that she can't see it. And she gets the luxury of not having to see it or deal with it on a daily basis because she is white. So, when she sees "Black Lives Matter" she gets upset and says "All Lives Matter". She just can't see the disparity. I think the same dynamic is going on with how most men view gender inequality. They are obsessed with "reverse gender inequality" toward men and are unable to see that gender inequality is dis-proportionately against women. And since men have the majority of power, they get the luxury of not having to see it. So when this man sees "Women Gender Equality Matters" they get upset and say "All Gender Equality Matters". They just can't see the disparity. I'm at a loss how to reveal social inequalities to help people advance upward on the scale. Sometimes it seems my efforts are counter-productive. It can be really discouraging at times. I appreciate your efforts - it gives me hope and motivates me to get better at this.

Yes, there are nuances as to what qualifies as a "injustice" and who gets to decide. Putting that aside, I think their are two levels of perspective. On a case-by-case basis, an injustice is an injustice regardless if it is directed toward a male or female. One could say an injustice to a female is equivalent to the same injustice to a male. Yet at a population level, there are a disproportionate amount of injustices toward women. I see two hurdles to get past to reach gender equality. 1. A consensus that gender inequality exists for males and at the individual level should be taken as seriously as gender inequality for females. 2. A consensus that gender inequality dis-proportionally affects women (most gender inequality issues disfavor females). And at the population level the majority of emphasis should be directly at gender equality for females.

That sounds awesome. I've been told so many times I should be a Montesorri teacher - yet I'm just not skilled at teaching kids. I'm so impressed by teachers that can effectively teach kids.

It just appears. I don't know from where.

I'm referring to conducting science, not the scientific method. They are related, but not the same thing. Removing empathy and intuition from conducting science limits the potential of a scientist. Of course, intellect is very important as well. IMO, there is an overemphasis on intellect (Perhaps 99% emphasis). If we shifted the balance to 90% intellect and 10% empathy/intuition - we would be much more efficient and productive. Better yet, let's integrate the two