Forestluv

I’m continually amazed by how obsessed the human mind is with meaning and purpose. Some minds will cling to the notions of meaning / purpose into the gates of insanity and depression. Every other organism on earth is living in harmony without meaning or purpose. Humans realize there is no meaning / purpose and go into an absurd mellow drama. It’s like a bad soap opera.

Congrats on making it so far. My postdoc in Biology was awesome. What are you planning on next?

@gilded_honour You write that as if you have a choice in the matter.

@bejapuskas Personally, I can tell I'm not centered in Yellow yet, because I'm still concerned whether I am centered in Yellow. I have periods where Yellow is flowing - expressing itself, but it isn't maintained. I drop back down to Tier 1.

By the way you are using "I" to describe the experience, it doesn't sound like you went through ego death. 30mg could very well take you there (if that's where you want to go). You now know that the 4-Aco powder is legit and your sensitivity to it. A legit 275ug of LSD, is significantly stronger than 20-30mg of 4-Aco. You could cut the blotter in half - or dissolve it in ethanol. If you want to do strong/heavy doses, I would recommend getting a benzo or etizolam in case you need to knock down the intensity of the trip. As a novice, knowing you can kill a trip if you need to can reduce anxiety and increase confidence.

In terms of SD, McGregor is full-on extreme Orange. Money, personal glory, attention, partier, fancy clothes etc. His personality is great for promoting UFC fights and selling PPV. When he is matched up against another Orange (like Floyd Mayweather), they promote the fight by insulting each other (knowing it is part of the promotional game). McGregor and Mayweather both knew the insults and personal attacks were just part of the hype. After the fight, they are hugging and laughing with each other (after pulling off 100+ million dollar personal paydays and making all their coaches / managers wealthy). When McGregor has faced Blue-level competition in the UFC, he was the dominant personality and fighter and the other fighter backed down. Khabib is the first Blue-level opponent he has faced that is superior in the Octagon. Khabib is centered at Red / Blue. His homeland near Chechyna is filled with red-level warlords. As well, it is deeply blue regarding family structure, religion, nationalism, respect and honor. Khabib's reality is very different than McGregor's. When McGregor insults his father as a coward that supports warlords, calls khabib's family member a terrorist rat, insults his religion and nation - it is deeply personal. It's very difficult for a person conditioned as Orange to understand this perspective. It's hard to give an example of how personally repulsive McGregor's comments are to a Red-Blue level person. Remember, Red-level people respond to these types of insults by killing their adversary and their family members. For an Orange level person to understand the rage of red/blue, one must make the situation much more extreme (Red level) to push an Orange to Red level rage. Imagine that McGregor raped your sister and beat up your Mom - then he started mocking you as a coward because you didn't protect your sister and mother from him. This is red-level behavior that could bring an Orange person down to red-level rage. Blood-thirsty desire for revenge. McGregor's behavior was more mild, yet Khabib is blue-centered and knows Red well - it takes far less to bring him down to red. Khabib's behavior was actually high red behavior. Just generic violence. If they used weapons, it would have been a full-on red response. Given Khabib's red-blue background, his behavior (and family) is actually quite mild. They were restrained from red-level violence by there Blue makeup that values self restraint and respect.

Oh good, I can let go of it now ?

Cultural relativism is so interesting- especially when it’s relative to me ?

Are you aware that you are criticizing a model of consciousness with a model of consciousness? Don’t get too attached your model. ?

The self will do anything to stay in the game. The self says "Ok. Ok. This attachment thing is getting pretty bad. I better get busy trying to figure out how to let go. I'll do some research online and discuss it on the forum. It's a good thing I stepped up to take action before it got out of hand" The self is so sneaky.

IME, on lower doses there, the context still has some dream component. It's like being rocketed up to high Yellow and Turquoise. I've tried to push the dose higher beyond that. My first two attempts I blacked out when I left all dream state. The third attempt I went to absolute nothing. A null void.

Thank you. Relativism is liberating and opens so many doors. By acknowledging the deep connection and meaning in my non-committed relationship, the following statements now become true: Commitment in a relationship is not required for deep connection within the relationship. Commitment in a relationship is not required for deep meaning within the relationship. The next higher level is to integrate this with advanced Green egalitarianism. That would be: The deep connection and meaning in Serotoninluv's non-committed relationship is as true as the deep connection and meaning in Key Element's committed relationship.

My point is: for high level relativism, the details are irrelevant. You told me you experienced deep connection in a committed relationship. That is all the information I need. I don't need any details to judge if you actually did experience deep connection. I believe that is your experience. I told you I experienced deep connection in a non-committed relationship. You responded "I guess so" and "I don't have full details". My question is: What details do you need to judge that I actually did experience deep connection? What details would move you from "I guess so" to "I believe you"?

When you tell me that you have had a deep connection and meaning in a relationship with significant commitment, I believe you. It's hard for me to imagine how someone could have deep connection and meaning in a highly committed relationship. Yet, I don't deny your experience. I don't say "No, Key Elements you are mistaken: you have not had deep meaning and connection in a committed relationship". Nor do I challenge you and say "Well, I guess you might have experienced deep meaning and connection in a committed relationship, but I don't know what happened in the relationship, so I can't know for sure". If you tell me you had deep connection / meaning in a committed relationship, I trust that you did. What more information would I need to verify that you actually did experience deep connection and meaning? Would I try to quantify your depth of connection/meaning? Perhaps do some scientific studies on you to gather evidence that you are telling me the truth? If I question your experience I am questioning who you are, I am questioning whether your experience qualifies to what I believe is deep connection and meaning. And I would be putting the burden on you to prove to me that you actually experienced deep meaning and connection. I would want more information so I can judge whether you experienced "actual" deep connection and meaning. I told you that I had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment. Why would respond with "I guess so."? Why don't you trust that I am telling you the truth? What additional information from my relationship do you need to move from "I guess so" to "I believe you"? What additional information do you need to verify that my experience was actually deep connection and meaningful? This is subjectivism/relativism at a lower Green level. I have found it is the key to reach deeper levels of empathy. To take it one step higher on the Green scale toward Yellow. . . As hard as it is form me to imagine how you could have experience deep connection and meaning in a committed relationship, I trust that that was your experience. I am comfortable saying: Key Elements experience of deep connection and meaning within his/her committed relationship is as true as my experience of deep connection and meaning within my non-committed relationship. This level of consciousness was a huge jump for me and my breakthrough experience was only about six months ago. This has opened up indescribable depths of human connection and empathy. And not just with people that have a similar orientation to me. Everyone. IME this level of relativism is necessary to reach the broadest and deepest levels of empathy. This opens up a much deeper level of communication and bonding. Rather than debating about how to justify and verify that a personal experience qualifies as "actual", the discussion can move deeper into exploring both "actual" experiences. For me, I become curious and fascinated. Judgement and separation dissolves and there is a sense of oneness. A beautiful empathetic and loving interpersonal connection. A high stage Green experience. And for icing on the cake, I experience and learn about things I could never had imagined.

Ok. I took out the effort part. Can we now agree they are both true? 1. Serotoninluv has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment. 2. Key elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment. If not, which statement do you disagree with?

@MsNobody I love the last sentence!

@Key Elements It boils down to subjectivism / relativism for me. I think you and Jay are within an objectivism / absolutism mindset. Can we agree the following two statements are true? (I believe they are) Serotoninluv has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment or effort. Key Elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment and effort.

@Torkys All you need to watch is from 1:25 - 1:58. That sums it up.

Yes. I think he is locked into logical / scientific thinking and does not understand relativism. My favorite clip was a woman born with a penis, yet identifies more feminine and female. Ben spouted off studies about hormones and brain scans indicating that she is physiologically experiencing maleness. She responds "That's not my reality". Ben is like "yes, it is". . . Face palm.

@Emerald Thank you. It is sooo refreshing to read a highly conscious explanation of gender. Do you have a video appropriate for people transitioning upward into this level of understanding for gender?

When I transitioned out of Blue, my type of prayer evolved. I no longer prayed to a specific entity (like Jesus or Buddha). Rather, meditation and sutras became my "prayer". I also prayed in general that suffering in the world be reduced. Also, I've always like the prayer of St. Francis. You can do it without praying to a god. Sometimes, I sit with a word without thinking and just let stuff arise. Something like "What is genuine". It kinda feels like prayer.

I watched a couple videos of Jay and I liked them. I think he can be nuanced and has depth. In this particular video. I think he oversimplifies and overgeneralizes. I think he is transitioning into Green or upper Green. I hope he continues to grow. He can be very insightful and inspirational. Jay goes much further than meaningful conversations. Jay could have simply said "meaningful conversation can promote deep connections within a relationship". Yet, he didn't. He went one step further and created two tiers: actual relationships and illusion relationships. And he starts making judgement about what an "actual" relationship is. It's not limited to petty conversation. According to Jay, you are not in an "actual" relationship if: 1. You chase love without falling in love. 2. You commit a little, but not a lot 3. You are at a shallow level without deep connections 4. You haven't achieved a "real" connection. 5. Your relationship is based on social media 6. You and your partner don't want to label your relationship 7. You and your partner just want to go with the flow and see where things lead 8. You want to stand independently 9. You want to take things slow 10. You don't want to unpack your baggage 11. You don't want to help someone else unpack their baggage 12. You choose to watch Netflix over having a "real" conversation 13. You want a warm body rather than a partner 14. ****The things YOU really want, the things that YOU really find meaningful, the things YOU find genuinely fulfilling ALL require patience, work, and effort. No, the things that Jay thinks people *should* want, *should* find meaningful, *should* find genuinely fulfilling all require patience, work and effort. That would be a big steaming pot of NO.. One of my most meaningful connections was a woman I met in Colombia that I spent two days with. It was one of the most genuinely fulfilling connections in my life. We went DEEP fast, effortlessly. It just flowed. Just because Jay can't imagine this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What people want, find meaningful and genuinely fulfilling is relative to them. Jay doesn't get to tell me or anyone else what I *really* want, find meaningful or fulfilling. Jay hasn't even met me. Some of these apply to some people in some relationships. Some don't. It depends on the couple and the relationship. Each person gets to decide what they want in their relationship. Each couple can decide what works best for them.

Ok. So you think Jay would consider a woman with a primary partner, two secondary partners and a comet partner as having four "actual relationships" as long as the conversations were not petty? If Jay was at a swinger's party would he evaluate whether the conversations at the party were petty to determine if they qualify as "actual"? Would a couple that live in different countries that base their relationship on social media be an actual relationship as long as their communication isn't petty? IMO, relationship structures are much more nuanced and complicated than Jay acknowledges.

How can one exclude polyamory? That's like discussing a nature center and excluding the trees. Jay goes MUCH further than simply saying relationships take work. Jay consistently uses the term "actual relationship" as the ideal. How do you think Jay would define "actual relationship"? How would you? This is a highly subjective term, yet Jay uses it absolutely/objectively without ever defining it. At what point does an illusionary relationship become an actual relationship? Can an actual relationship be whatever a couple or group mutually decide is an actual relationship for them?

Well said. I would agree that this is partially right for some people. I would say this speaker is a mix of blue, orange and lower green. Blue - he sets up a bimodal framework of "illusion relationship" or "actual relationship". Either / Or thinking is stage blue Orange - He speaks mentions plenty Orange key words such as "acheiving" and "winning". As well . . . personal hardwork to reach a goal. Lower Green - He is critical of certain dynamics common at Orange stages. For example, Orange often acts in their self interest and their relationships are often shallow - e.g. more about sex than forming human bonds. As well, he speaks of real human connection. Yet doesn't go further into green - he doesn't stress the value of equality and empathy as being core components of relationships. I'd say he places the highest value on commitment - I think this is the most common value he uses. Upper Green - Upper green has mastered cultural relativism and has a basic understanding of holistic relativism. The speaker does not use either mode of thinking. Overall, I would say he is transitioning into Green, yet is burdened with Blue and Orange level views.