Forestluv

Both modes of thinking are tools. Sometimes using a handsaw is best, sometimes using a chainsaw is best. My impression of the speaker is different. People restricted to one mode of thinking get upset, disgusted and d defensive when confronted with higher level thinking they don't understand. If he was capable of using both modes of thinking, I think he would have had a more meta view. Calmer, wiser and more inquisitive. For example, I'm uncertain of Leo's relative usage of the term "happiness". He could be using the term in the traditional / rational sense. I.e. happiness is a feeling people experience when good things happen for them. In this context, I can see how someone would get upset because if someone experienced happiness while their child was being raped, that would mean their child getting raped is "good". Within that scope, of course someone would get upset. Yet, Leo could also be using the term "happiness" in a deeper, more nuanced way. For example: "true happiness" is not about satisfying one's desire for self gratification. Perhaps "true happiness" is beyond the self. The human mind is so highly conditioned, that very few people could understand even the basics of the concept. Personally, I don't have a clear idea on how Leo was using the term "happiness", so I am unable to form an opinion about it.

Hmmm, perhaps millions of years of human evolution and a lifetime of social conditioning has something to do with it? Self actualization is paddling upstream.

Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. Yet no sympathies are needed. "I" did not make a choice. I don't think this is idea is helpful to awakening. I've never met anyone that believes in unlimited ego-based free will. Yep. There is a very strong subjective experience that there is a self making a choice. Those are *great* questions. From where did the thought originate? We don't know. It's mysterious. From one perspective, it simply arises. From another perspective, there could be an infinitely complex network of input underlying that thought. I agree with you that the ego would take ownership for thoughts / choices it had nothing to do with. I wouldn't use these examples to help someone awaken. The outcomes are irrelevant. I agree that the ego wants to stay relevant. I wouldn't a robot zombie example. To me, that suggests a separate finite existence. I'd prefer saying we are all within a higher order shared consciousness. Another analogy: someone could refer to one of my liver cells as a robot zombie. In a sense, that is true. Yet, I prefer thinking of each cell within the body as being within a larger whole. I agree with you. Your approach is just different than mine. I originally thought you were defending ego-based free will. My original post was directed to someone under the delusion of free will. I can now see that doesn't apply to you.

Great question. Imagine someone waking up briefly and drifting back to sleep. The dream character ego dissolves momentarily to the higher consciousness and then returns to the dream character consciousness. How would the dream character interpret this? Would he have a "true" understanding? Overall, I think the dream character would still be highly deluded, yet less so than his original deluded dream self. His interpretation of the experience is within the framework of a dream character. Similarly, with psychedelics - they can allow the deluded self to wake up briefly and return to the self. Yet any interpretation of the experience is within the framework of the self. He is still highly deluded, yet I would say less so than an unwoken self.

I agree. I just watched the whole video and thought JP did a good job explaining the benefits and potential of psychedelic therapy to a general audience. We need a lot more public talks like this one to overcome the fallacious stigma of psychedelics. I edited my original post to reflect this.

Relativism. In a nutshell, people's views on subjective matters (such as emotions) are relative to that person (based on their life history, social conditioning, genetics etc.). Absolutists and objectivists want their view to be considered absolutely true or objectively true. They hate relativism. Relative thinking can be used in both healthy and unhealthy ways. In a healthy way, relative thinking allows letting go of attachments to beliefs and allows for understanding someone else's perspective at a deeper level - and allows empathy to enter. For example, rather than demonizing a criminal - understanding that the criminal has a relative perspective that has been shaped by his life history (perhaps he suffered child abuse his whole life). This can allow empathy for BOTH the victim and the criminal (from one relative perspective, they are both "victims"). In an unhealthy way, a person could use relativism to absolve themselves of harm they are causing others. For example, imagine an alcoholic that totaled the family car, had an affair and got suspended at work. His wife may tell him that his behavior is unhealthy and is harming the family. The alcoholic could respond "That's just your relative perspective. Your idea of what "unhealthy" and "harm" means is is relative to your social conditioning. My perspective, relative to me, is that I am not causing any harm to the family. We both have our own relative truth. Neither of our perspectives is better". My impression of the video is that the speaker believes his perspective is normative (it is true for him and everyone else). In this case, there is only one meaning for "happiness". He uses pure rational thinking. In this situation, I think a higher conscious perspective would be a mix of both rational and relative thinking. At the very least, I think he should acknowledge retaliative perspectives. It would have made his argument much more convincing.

For someone with limited knowledge and experience with psychedelics, I thought he presented the data fairly - acknowledging both the strengths and limits of the studies. Overall, I think this is an accurate and reasonable presentation on psychedelic therapy. To me, he appears as a competent psychologist with general knowledge of psychedelic therapy. He isn't a specialist, yet he stayed within his knowledge and experience range and did not make statements/conclusions he isn't qualified to make. My only minor criticism is that I think he slightly over-stated the risks of psychedelics. Yet his overall message is that the benefits and potential of psychedelics outweigh the risks. I think this is pitched at the right level for a general audience. Based on this talk, I think JP is a good advocate for increasing awareness of psychedelic therapy benefits to the general population.

There are different lines of development. A person can be centered in Orange in some issues and centered in Blue on other issues. For rules and laws, I would question them all. Yet, not in an antagonistic way. In an open-minded curious way. As well, I would be mindful of how vocal I am. In many cultures, there is a backlash against those who evolve to higher consciousness. People can get ostracized. I work in science and I need to be mindful to tone down my Turquoise at work. I would likely get ostracized by my colleagues and if I took it too far I could lose my job. That might be my ultimate fate, yet I'm not willing to go there right now. I grew up in a fundamental Christian home and was conditioned with strong views on heaven and hell, God and the devil. Those views didn't feel right to me, yet it also didn't feel right to reject the ideas. So, I modified the views to what felt right. For example, I modified my concept of God to be more consistent with my nature.

From a logical perspective: If all concepts are within reality, no concept is all of reality. It's like a dream character trying to experience and understand ultimate truth. Not an easy task.

@outlandish That's similar to my experience. It's as if generic psychedelics allow me to experience various facets of a diamond and 5-meo-dmt allows me to experience multiple facets simultaneously (or even the whole diamond).

I'm not enlightened, yet I think I've have had some temporary experiences that could be considered enlightened experiences (based on how awakened teachers talk about it). When you say "Enlightenment is realizing the absolute truth, so it's kind of how you see reality." I don't have a full understanding, yet based on my glimpses - it seems like this is a piece of a higher truth. Like one facet of a diamond.

Great questions. I love this type of contemplation and conceptualizing. I think you have reached a depth of contemplation in which language starts to break down. In such cases, I've found it helpful to simply contemplate the concept. In this case "What is perspective". It sounds like you have done some of that, but you may still be making some assumptions. Essentially, you are exploring different perspectives of perspectives! Haha! As you explore your ideas of perspective, be mindful how other people are using the term "perspective". In what context and form are they using the term? Catch yourself if you make an assumption that your idea of perspective is normative and they are using the term the same as you. The nice thing about creating this thread is that you are asking for people's perspective on perspective. This shines a light directly on your target. Also consider this: is there one "true" perspective on perspective? You may read many different ideas on perspective - some will resonate with you - others will not. I think you are conflating nondual perspective and dual perspective. Creating a perfect illusion for oneself is duality - it involves separation. There is *my* perspective internally and *other* perspectives externally. The idea of a single consciousness is at a higher level than individual consciousness. An individual self is limited and it doesn't get to alter a higher order consciousness. To highlight this, imagine you are dreaming. Let's call your dream character Paul. Paul attends NYU in New York. One day in his philosophy of mind class, the professor raises the idea that everyone in the class, NYU and all of New York is within a dream. He says all of this dream reality is within a single shared consciousness. So, everyone in the class is within a higher order shared consciousness (that would be the *real* you that is sleeping and dreaming). Now, Paul comes up with and idea: "If I create a perfect illusion for myself, there would be no need for the other perspectives in this class to exist simultaneously. I would just shape consciousness in a way that it would seem like the professor had the same experiences as me for himself, somewhere else, not visible to this perspective". From a dualistic perspective, Paul and the professor are separate. How else could the *real you* experience a dream story? This question is: could Paul create an illusion for himself that alters the experience of the professor? From a nondual perspective, it is a weird question. It is possible, yet it isn't up to Paul - it is up to the higher shared consciousness (the real you that is sleeping). Paul is deluded because he thinks he is real and he thinks his classmates and professor are real. He was just taught that he is not real like he thinks he is. There is a higher consciousness that everyone in the dream share (the *real you* sleeping). Yet, when Paul asks if his consciousness can alter the consciousness of his professor it is obvious he still sees himself as an independent, real being. Paul still has the perspective that he has his own consciousness and the professor has his own consciousness. From Paul's view, this is correct. Yet, from the perspective of the *real you*, none of the dream characters have real consciousness. If you woke up from sleeping and realized Paul's bicycle was stolen in the dream, would you be upset? Would you be worried all day about how Paul will get to his classes the rest of the semester? Of course not, because the higher order consciousness is aware that none of the dream characters are real. That analogy is intended to contrast dual and nondual perspectives. We can shift gears now and address your question from a purely dualistic perspective. Let's leave the dream scene and return to normal duality. That both you and Leo exist and are real. I think it wold be possible for one independent consciousness to alter a separate independent consciousness through paranormal activity. It could be that human minds are currently unaware of this ability, that the ability has not yet evolved or the ability will never evolve. Yet, I'd say it's possible.

@Ampresus You may not realize it, but you are transitioning from Blue to Orange right now. You are asking questions and taking actions of someone transitioning. Being aware of one's own stage and wanting to evolve is 50% of the process. A few suggestions: Stage Blue involves "either / or" thinking (aka "black or white" thinking). This thinking mode can come in handy at times, yet it is very limited. Think about it: if you can only define something as "good" or "bad", there is no space to consider greater complexities. You only have two options. If something is not All Good, your only option is it is All Bad. One aspect of the Blue to Orange transition is seeing shades of grey. Think of a few things you have been conditioned to believe is "good" or "bad". For example, is any religion ALL good or bad? Can you find aspects of Christianity that are good? Aspects that are bad? How about people? Is anyone ALL good or bad? If we look very closely could we not find something we would consider good and something we would consider bad in any person? Stage Blue also involves obedience to rules and laws. Are all rules and laws fair and just? Are there any laws that don't make much sense? If someone broke a nonsensical law, is it justified to punish them? Can you think of a stupid rule or law that is not worthy of being obeyed? Stage Blue also involves self sacrifice for a community or an afterlife. As people transition to orange, they may feel guilt or self judgement as they focus on themself. Ask yourself: "why is personal development important to me?". To go further. . . what do *you* value? Not what you were told you should value. Look within, what do *you* value? Read Leo's synopsis of stage Orange values on the Orange megathread. Which of those do *you* value. Watch Orange videos. Which videos resonate with you? Remember, there are both healthy and unhealthy expressions of Orange. In the videos, which ones feels healthy to you? What forms of Orange expression are you attracted to? What characteristics do you admire? What type of person do you want to become? Be aware. You can create a healthy Orange mindset for yourself.

All logic is within reality. Concepts of opposites and no opposites are with reality. We could construct highly sophisticated models of opposite / no opposite. The entire world could come together and spend 100 years constructing a highly advanced model of opposites. Entire societies could emerge from this model. And all of it would still be *within* reality. There is no way to figure it out since all figuring is within reality. There is a place beyond logic. And it is a wondrous, beautiful place.

The nothingness of MU is a null void. Nothing. Once I had direct experience with the absolute nothingness of MU it blew away any concepts I had about nothingness.

To me, this sounds like a perspective of the self. I would say this usage of free will is an illusion. It's very simple to recognize this, yet difficult since the ego will resist at any cost. There is nothing more dear to the ego than free will. If a person has reached the "observer-object" stage of meditation, it's fairly obvious that ego-based free will is an illusion. After reaching the "observer + object" space during meditation, observe thoughts. Focus on where they arise from. It's totally obvious that the self is not the author of one's thoughts. This awakening is devastating to the self, since it is obsessed with maintaining the illusion that it is in control of the narrative and is making choices. The next stage is to look for the "chooser". Exactly who/what is the "chooser"? If my self is not the author of my thoughts, how can it be a chooser? I spent about 3 months of meditation searching for a "chooser" and couldn't find one. The only thing I found was a subjective experience that there was a self making choices. For me, this was one of the most important awakenings I've had. It opened the door to a whole new world of spirituality. Living under the delusion of ego-based free will is a *major* block. It is a brick door preventing spiritual advancement. As well, so much suffering is caused by this ego-based delusion that it is a "chooser". Individuals and societies put so much emphasis and pressure about making the "right choices" - it causes so much stress, anxiety, regret and remorse. A person under the delusion that they are a self making choices will believe that they need to make choices which will lead to happiness in the future. As well, they will believe that they could have made different (better) choices in the past. Furthermore, this delusion will not be limited to the personal self - it is extended to others. The personality will believe that other people have a self that is making choices. IME, the biggest trap to self-actualization is the attachment and identification with self-based free will / choice. The VAST majority of people never escape this trap. For me, it was extremely painful for me to release myself from this trap. It was the only time in my life I considered suicide. Yet, it was also the most liberating process of my life.

I love to conceptualize and figure things out. The problem is, I can get attached to concepts. One thing that helps me: even if I spent a lifetime learning and conceptualizing I will have only explored less than 0.000000000000000000001% of what's out there. Yet, I can focus on that minuscule 0.000000000000000000001% as if it is nearly 100%! It's like finding a really cool pebble on the beach. It's great to admire it and appreciate it - yet I can get so fixated on it that it becomes my world and I lose awareness that the pebble is such a tiny part of what's out there on the beach and in the ocean. When I realize this, I can drop the pebble and move on (or put the pebble in my pocket and move on). For me, a mindset of wonder and not knowing is different than a mindset of trying to figure it out and knowing. Each has there time and place, yet it's much easier for me to default to figure-it-out mode.

From my POV, this seems like a mind creating a story that itself is incomplete and believes becoming complete is found outside of itself (e.g. from a girlfriend or a successful career). This can lead to seeking energy toward things like acceptance, validation and people pleasing. Or a mind can become contracted and disengage. Neither work and both lead to suffering.

I wouldn't assume that. Women can be very intuitive. Some women with more developed intuition may be aware. Some of those women may subconsciously or consciously act on that intuition. Others may consciously distrust the intuition and dismiss/repress it.

Good question. I'm still trying to solve it. I'd say The Game is similar to how Leo describes The Maze in his video. I'd consider SD to be within The Maze and The Maze to be within enlightenment.

Gotcha. I like SD as a framework, yet I can see how it can add unnecessary complexity. The idea of Orange-level thinking was unnecessary for my point and it would be more efficient to leave it out. Going one step further, my point would be clearer if I focused on the thinking rather than the person. The person actually has nothing to do with it and adding in personal critiques can give a scent of arrogance or superiority on my part. My original statement might have an underlying tone that I am a higher level conscious being looking down upon the lower Orange level guy. It would be better to rephrase my statement as: "This is a good example of pure rational thinking that does not integrate relative thinking. There is a limited rational definition of "happiness" and an assumption that the rational idea of happiness is normative. (It applies to the person and everyone else). Everything heard goes through a rational lens of what happiness means. Without relative thinking, one becomes rigid. It is no surprise that in this situation a limited rational view is associated with feelings of disgust."

I would agree that thoughts and concepts are closely-tied to distinctions and dominant our perception. Yet, I'm not so sure they are limited to thoughts and concepts. I've been to absolute nothingness of Mu. No distinctions, absolute nothing. The first "something" that appeared was not associated with thoughts, concepts or vision (I was blind to the external world). An observer appeared with the first something. This was the first distinction. Then there where more distinctions that arose. No thoughts or concepts. Many more distinctions arose before the first thoughts/concept distinctions arose. Based on this experience, I would consider thoughts/concepts to be a relatively advanced form of distinction. There were plenty of distinctions prior to thoughts and concepts. Although, I suppose one could say there where subconscious concepts present which allowed the observation of the early distinctions.

@Robert You post stimulated a couple ideas: All theory (including SD) is *within* enlightenment. All theory (including SD) is part of The Game.

A couple things I consider: Act from Love, not from Fear Which path can lead you to expansion, rather than contraction?

@7thLetter Perhaps there are better ways to revisit a child-like mindset than video games. I'm in my 40s and I climb trees