Forestluv

Because more Greens trip than Blues ?

@Brittany Mr. Rogers was a green pioneer for inclusion, empathy and love ❤️

Nice! 4-Aco-DMT is good stuff. 10mg is a light dose. It's in the ballpark of 60ug 1P-LSD. I would take it on a somewhat empty stomach to get the full effect and limit nausea. 10mg will take you into a zone that reveals insights without shit getting bizarre. I've never heard of 4-Aco-DMT allergies. Unless you have a legit reason to believe so, that's the type of nonsense a nervous mind makes up. Just let it go. During the come-up (from around 40-70min in), you may feel some anxiety about what may happen. Keep in mind that 10mg is NOT a strong dose. It's not going to keep getting weirder and weirder. You will have presence of mind and be able to recognize what is altered and what is real. You will not get over-powered on 10mg. So, just let go and enjoy it. A light dose of 4-Aco-DMT is so beautiful. At 10mg, you and 4-Aco-DMT are friends. Have fun together. A peaceful meditation space is great. I would also have a few other options available. I like to have a noteboook handy for journaling. You may get the desire to write down insights . Have some music you like handy (music is awesome on shrooms) and perhaps a little Rick and Morty in case the spiritual stuff isn't working for you. I would put my phone away. Sometimes on solo trips, I get all empathetic and want to connect with old friends, family or an online forum. I would discourage that. You don't need a trip sitter on 10mg.

I’d say any theoretical model is over-simplified. The complexity of consciousness is immense. A million books would still be incomplete. To condense consciousness into a theory that fits into a single book requires simplification. When a person dives really deep into any theory, limitations are revealed. We need to keep adding in more and more nuances. Perhaps one could ask “Is SD so oversimplified that it is useless?” Or another question: “Based on the level of over-simplification, what is an appropriate amount of investment?” IMO, SD is a useful model for personal growth and consciousness work - in a certain context. It can give a person a rough idea where they are at and what lies ahead. It can increase a person’s awareness. For example, a highly intelligent rational/logical person may have assumed rational/logical thinking is the most advanced mode. Afterall, that’s the thinking mode the top scientists and philisophers use. Such a person may be surprised to discover there are at least two more advanced modes of thinking available (relative and systems). This could pique a person’s interest and open their mind to expand and explore new modes of thinking. I think some problems arise when people over-simplify a simplified theory. For example, assuming that each person can be categorized as blue, orange or green. SD has much greater complexity than that, but people often assume they can categorize a person as simply blue, orange or green. Another problem I see are SD arguments over how to categorize a person and assumptions that higher levels are better than lower levels. Also, I think people can use SD to reinforce self delusions. In the forum poll, nearly 30% of forum members believe they are centered at solid yellow or turquoise and only about 5% of members believe they are solid blue to solid orange. I’ve seen people place themselves above Turquoise into a fictitious coral stage that doesn’t even exist yet. IMO there is a lot of self delusion going on - people overestimate their actual stage of development. This can be counter-productive and prevent them from working through their current stage of development. It’s like a freshman student believing they know more than their professors. Lastly, people can become ideological with SD and enter a contracted state of mind. Ideally, SD is just one of many theories and methods they are exposed to. I like talking SD, yet I want to stay open and balanced with a variety of perspectives and methods.

That gets into a trap of judging which relative truth is “better”. Do you consider it ethical to force someone to live a lie?

@Mu_ That’s also a great perspective ??

It is an aquired taste. If it doesn’t appeal to you, don’t pursue it. You are right where you should be right now. Be aware of the present moment. Be you. Experience being wherever you are.

Yep. Intellectualizing is all fun and games for the ego. It's still in the driver's seat. Facing it directly through direct experience is very different - because the ego no longer gets to call the shots.

Yes, you are missing the part about direct experience. For example, it is one thing to conceptualize how the self is an illusion. It is very different to directly experience that the self is an illusion. It's all fun and games for the ego until it crosses over into ego death. Because, what is actually at stake for the ego becomes very real. Imagine a macho guy talking about how he could go cliff diving with no fear. He has never cliff dived, yet he puffs out his chest and brags to all the women about how manly he is and he wouldn't even flinch at jumping off a 100 ft. cliff. . . What happens when this fellow is actually standing on a 100 ft. cliff looking down? What is his direct experience? Is his direct experience different than bragging to the ladies? Some people are content chatting about cliff diving. Some people also want to experience the truth directly.

IMO and IME, psychedelics are the strongest tool for consciousness work and they are useful at every stage of development. Trust your direct experience and intuition. IMO, direct experience is more powerful than intellectual theory. If psychedelics are unlocking insights for you - I would trust that. That is a truth relative to you and I would put a lot of trust into your direct experience. As a funny example: Years ago I was training for the Paris marathon. During that stage of my life, I was really busy as a graduate student and I only ran once a week. (20 miles one week, then 13 miles the next week - back and forth each week). I ran about 12 marathons with this training. I never stopped to walk during the race and I finished each one with a respectable time (under 4hrs). Well, to enter the Paris Marathon a person needs to undergo a physical with a physician to verify they are fit enough to run a marathon. This was an odd thing for my physician. He just checked my vitals and wrote a short letter saying I was fit. So, the interesting part. After he printed the letter, he casually asked me about my training - how often I run and how many weekly miles. I told him I run once a week and I average about 16 miles per week. . . Now, the doctor gets concerned. His whole demeanor changes and he gets serious. He goes into Dr. mode and tells me with authority that "You cannot finish a marathon only running once a week, averaging 16 miles per week. Physiologically, that is insufficient to prepare a body to finish a marathon." He is looks at the letter and I can tell he is reconsidering whether to sign it. He tells me I should bump up my running to three times a week a double my weekly mileage as the minimum to ensure my body is prepared to run a marathon. I agreed and he signed the letter. Things got casual again. He was so confident about how I should train that I assumed he was a marathon runner himself. I casually asked him how many marathons he had run. His response: zero. This Doctor had so much authority and confidence in what he said. He was an expert in physiology. I actually believed I could not finish a marathon on my training method. On my way home, I was trying to figure out how I could fit in more running into my busy schedule. This was a demanding time for me in Grad. school. I was in the lab, taking classes and working as a teaching assistant. I was working about 12 hrs a day. I couldn't see how I could fit in three days of running and doubling my weekly mileage - which I now believed was necessary to finish the marathon. I was torn. I really wanted to run the marathon, but I also knew I couldn't increase my training. I was about to cancel my Paris marathon when I had the an obvious revelation: "What The Fuck, Dude!!! You've run twelve marathons running once a week. TWELVE!!!. Why am I putting more trust into some Dr.'s theory who has never even run ONE over MY OWN direct experience??!!" It was so obvious that I was embarrassed. . . So, I only ran once a week and arrived to Paris with confidence in my direct experience. I ran a PR of 3:18 - crushing my previous PR by over 20 minutes. Moral of the story: trust your direct experience!!! It is the most powerful teacher you have!

You are looking at this from the perspective of individual finite minds. Imagine a future in which 100 minds can function independently or the 100 minds can be linked into a single super mind. This would expand our potential beyond what we can imagine now. One key to expanding consciousness is becoming aware that phenomena that we can't imagine will appear.

I agree. Going beyond "either / or" thinking is a big challenge - especially for those raised in Blue environments. My parents are still locked into either / or thinking.

Less than 1% of the world's population is yellow-centered. I'd say less than 2% of the active forum members are Yellow-centered. Yet, a fair amount a green-centered with substantial yellow. (I consider myself green-centered and learning yellow). I'd say most active forum members are Orange-centered and there is substantial Blue. A lot of members live in Blue-centered countries. Those centered in Tier 1 still see SD as a hierarchy of levels. The traditional views of hierarchies is that higher is better. This can lead to competition, debates and views of superiority and inferiority. I'm still Tier 1 centered and I need to be mindful that the mission of the forum is not to win debates against other SD levels. Rather, the mission is that the average conscious level of the forum is raised. Because there are so few Yellow-centered people, yellow-level videos are much rarer than Tier 1 level videos. And it's much easier for the forum to identify Blue, Orange and Green level videos. Notice how in those mega-threads there is generally a forum consensus on the consciousness level of Tier 1 videos. Yet, yellow is more difficult for us to identify because it is a stretch for us. That's why there is confusion on the mega-thread and discussion about whether the video is really at a yellow level.

Tier 2 is not very attractive to the ego or sense of self. Turquoise is particularly unpalatable to the ego - it will resist at all costs. Think of spirituality as two areas. First there is the personal development area of spirituality. Relaxation, community, peace of mind, insights about your personality, personal growth etc. Many people come to spirituality because they are suffering terribly. Using spirituality for personal growth can help balance the personality and promote a healthier personal life. Yet spirituality for personal growth can only take a person so far. The next area is spirituality for truth. Most people do not cross into this area because it is too uncomfortable and involves dissolution of the personality. A person's desire for truth would need to be greater than a person's desire for security and comfort - because the lessons at the next stage involve lots of insecurity is discomfort for the personality. The reason you are experiencing resistance to Tier 2 evolution is that your ego caught on that Tier 2 means it is no longer the Top Dog. At Tier 2, the ego is no longer the Main Act of The Show.

@Wekz I think psychedelics can be useful at any stage - yet keep in mind the experience will likely have a different impact - depending on the stage of the user. Imagine a green-centered person who has meditated for 20 years, has had awakenings and has had glimpses into Turquoise. Now imagine someone who is blue-centered. Psychedelics fast forward a person into Turquoise. A green-centered person and blue-centered person will interpret the experience very differently. For example, how might Adyashanti and Jordan Peterson interpret a psychedelic experience? Very differently. The psychedelic experience is nondual for both people, yet how it is interpreted and integrated into one's life is influenced on their current level of development.

@Misagh From the perspective of social evolution, lower SD levels get phased out and new higher levels appear. For example, there are very few purple-centered people in the world. Eventually, purple will become extinct. And then red will become extinct. And then blue becomes extinct etc. As more people reach the higher levels, new distinctions will appear. When 20% of the population is centered in Yellow, new modes of thinking will emerge. Yellow could get divided into four distinct levels. Similarly, entirely new levels will emerge. Yet, there needs to be a critical mass of people at high conscious levels for even higher conscious levels to emerge. Consider the rise of civilizations such as the Roman Empire. Before civilizations, purple and red dominated. Orange, Green and Yellow didn't exist. With the rise of civilizations, Blue dominated and a little Orange appeared. Green and Yellow didn't exist. When enough people reached Orange, green emerged. Currently less than 1% of the world's population are Yellow-centered. Some people touch Turquoise and have transient Turquoise experiences. Yet, people centered in Turquoise are extremely rare. Perhaps 1 in 10 million people? There are too few people centered in Turquoise for a higher level to emerge. The few Turquoise-centered people in the world seem more concerned about helping people to evolve than developing a level higher than Turquoise. And the rare Turquoise-awakened beings don't communicate at a Turquoise level. 99.99% of the population are well below Turquoise and wouldn't know what the hell the teacher was talking about. Turquoise level teachers often attract higher conscious people to their satsangs and retreats. Yet, the vast majority are Green-centered with a few glimpses of Turquoise experiences. Turquoise-level teachers describe Turquoise in terms Green can understand. Once a person starts having Turquoise experiences they will notice how Turquoise teachers are holding back and have more Turquoise to explore. For example, I now understand better about how the Turquoise teacher Adyashanti communicates with a Green audience. At times, I get a sense that there is more Turquoise for him to explore. Turquoise-centered people are not developing and teaching about Coral. IMO, Coral is just speculation from people that haven't advanced far enough to even comprehend the basics of Turquoise. It's human nature to make shit up about stuff we don't understand. People have been making shit up for thousands of years about gods. And now people are making shit up about Coral . There just aren't enough Turquoise people for a true Coral to emerge. I predict new higher levels will emerge when about 10% of the population is Yellow and 1% Turquoise - we are a loooong way off from that. I've only met one Turquoise-centered person who was being in Turquoise - he didn't drop down to yellow or green to communicate with me. He was a fellow I met in a relatively isolated tribe in the mountains of Peru. He was unlike anyone I have ever met. He was unlike Turquoise teachers on youtube. He didn't communicate through reason/logic or relative modes of thinking. There was an amazing presence about him and there was an energy just being around him. No words or language necessary. I spent as much time as I could around him. We only exchanged a few words. Yet, the communication was beyond words. It was really bizarre to me. An analogy might be meeting a highly-evolved AI from the year 2400. It was a unique energy and experience. . . Society is nowhere near this guy's level. And society is nowhere near whatever Coral turns out to be.

Ever since Stormy's book was released, mushrooms just don't look the same. . .

I would consider this a red/blue hybrid issue. It's red because of the knee-jerk reaction of primal emotions. It's blue because of the "either / or" thinking. I was in a relationship with someone locked into this "either / or" thinking. She would tend to blame me and others for any problem in her life. When I pressed her to look at how she is contributing to the problem she would flip to the other extreme and shout "Well then, I guess it's all my fault. I'm a terrible person and a rotten girlfriend. You should just find someone new". This made it impossible to work through conflict. It was either 100% my fault or 100% her fault. Over and over I tried to explain to her that we are both contributing to the problem. Perhaps 50% her and 50% me. I would tell her what I thought my part in the problem was and how I needed to grow and change to resolve the conflict. Then I asked her how she was contributing. She only had black and white thinking and was unable to think along these lines. She could not share the responsibility. She could only think in terms of how everything was EITHER my fault (and lock down) OR everything was her fault and she was a terrible person (and lock down). Either / Or thinking is characteristic of Blue Stage. Thinking in terms of continuums and shades of grey is Orange level thinking. So I tried another approach. I accepted 95% of the responsibility for the conflict and asked her to take 5% responsibility. I would explain 10 ways my behavior contributed to the problem, how what I did contributed to the problem and what I needed to do to help resolve the conflict. I then asked her to name just ONE thing she did that contributed to the conflict. She was unable to. She could only think in terms of 100% my fault or 100% her fault. I've found that I can't communicate well with a person that is 100% blaming others or 100% self critical. Both extremes put up walls and prevent discussion. To me, the underlying issue is more at the Orange level. She needs to develop rational thinking. Either / Or thinking in the context you described is irrational. As a starting point, I would acknowledge that other people are contributing to the problem. Then, I would see if I could crack the door open and see if she is willing to take a small step and accept ANY responsibility. Even accepting a tiny bit of responsibility is a big deal. For someone limited to either / or thinking, going from taking 0% responsibility to taking 1% responsibility is the hardest and biggest step. Once they really accept 1% responsibility - you have broken the "either / or" mindset. She is now in the continuum of responsibility and you can work with her. This either / or thinking doesn't just apply to personal responsibility and blaming others. For example, I know gun rights enthusiasts locked into either / or thinking. From their perspective the gun law issue comes down: EITHER all guns are legal OR all guns are illegal. It is an irrational position, yet most rational thinkers on the issue do not understand the other person is locked into Either / Or thinking. Another approach for an either / or thinker is to push their 100% position and make it even more extreme. For example, one might tell ask them if military machine guns should be legal. One could ask them if hand grenades and rocket launchers should be legal. If it should be legal for children to use machine guns. If you can get the person to accept ANY gun law restriction - e.g. military machine guns should be illegal - you have knocked the person off of taking a 100% either / or position. Then, I get excited and say "Great! We agree that some weapons should be illegal!! We both agree a line should be drawn between the two extremes. We just disagree where that line should be drawn". Then it is possible to have a rational discussion. The entire tone of the conversation can change and the two people may discuss where the line should be drawn.

@xbcc Great question. Be very aware of context. People can use the term "free will" in different ways. Depending on how the term is being used, one could say there is free will and another could say there is no free will. The people could be using the term in different ways and they both can be correct. This is a topic I see people debating over a lot. Debating for hours upon hours. Quite often the two people are using the term differently. Yet, they both assume their definition of the term is normative and everyone else is using the term like they are. They may argue for hours without realizing that they actually agree with each other. Be mindful of context for words/terms such as free will, God, truth, respect, relationship etc. Observe how the person is using the term. For example, Sadhguru would use the word "God" very differently to how Richard Dawkins uses the word "God".

I would be careful in assigning all causation to environment. Consider the perspective that behavior is an interplay between an individual and his/her environment. From this perspective, a toxic environment would not prevent a person from making healthy choices and actions. Rather, a toxic environment would make it more challenging for a person to make healthy choices and actions. If you place 100% causation on environment - you render yourself powerless. If however, you think 50% personal and 50% environment - then you empower yourself. If you believe you have little control over your environment, then put the focus on yourself. This will empower you. It seems like you have had an awakening that you are undergoing toxic conditioning from your environment. The people in your environment are "trying" to condition you with limiting, unhealthy beliefs. The recognition of social conditioning is a HUGE awakening. You are now aware of the unhealthy conditioning and you don't have to blindly accept it like most people do. You have already thought about how you can change your environment. Now ask: What can I do now about my personal attitude and perspective? How can I empower myself in an unhealthy environment? If you don't work on personal perspective, you will still have blocks in a healthy environment. Many people try to change their environment geographically, thinking that is the solution. Yet, you bring yourself with you to the new location. An unhealthy attitude in a healthy environment is only half-way there. This person would still face blocks until they work through their personality issues. This is just one scenario. It's also possible that the person's attitude would naturally change and thrive in the new environment. Yet, I think it's more common that people fantasize about an ideal environment and upon entering this new environment discover they still have problems due to personal issues.

@Setty Thanks for adding in your perspective. For some reason, JP seems to bring out strong opinions - in both his supporters and critics. It’s easy to fall into the trap of getting attached to just one perspective. I think it can be good to have various perspectives in the mix.

That is so awesome!!! And very romantic too!!

If you have netfix, the first episode of Abstract - was really good. An artist described his creative process.

@Key Elements I like how he presents awakening as empowering and liberating. ♥️