Forestluv

He seems like a genuine fellow sharing his experience. He doesn't seem ideological, which can be a trap with psychedelic use. He acknowledges pros and cons and how the cons, for him, lead him to sobriety. A few points that jumped out to me: 1. Many of the dangers he cited are relevant to novices that hadn't done their research. For example, taking too high of a dose and "bad" trips. 2. Some dangers he cited are for novices that got in over-their-head. Psychedelics can take a person to a nondual reality that is so foreign it is terrifying. Yet it doesn't need to be this way. A person can start with baby doses, get some glimpses, and work their way up. As well, a person who has decades of meditation and personal development experience will likely have a different experience than a high school kid looking to have some fun. 3. He spoke how psychedelics didn't really help *me*. They didn't help improve *his* life. From my view, I have a personality WITHIN consciousness. I try to understand and have a more well balanced personality by learning about personality structures, seeking energy of the personality etc. This is all personality development. Psychedelics are beyond the personality. Nonduality doesn't care about my personality and all it's seeking and neurosis. I don't use them to create a better personality. They dissolve the personality and all it's beliefs and mental constructs. I don't understand someone using psychedelics for self-seeking motives. It's just not my experience. 4. He says trips go really well or really bad. This is so overly simplistic I wouldn't know where to begin. 5. He states that psychedelics are distractions. Yes, they can be. This is something I've tried to be aware of with myself. I'd say I've gotten "off track" with psychedelics at times. In particular, when I overly rely on psychedelics are I use them too much for fun. In my view psychedelics *can be* distracting to varying degrees. It's not so simple as psychedelics *are* distractions. 6. He states how he prefers other forms of spirituality like meditation. Again, it's not *all or nothing*. A person can have a daily practice of mediation, yoga and contemplative journal, attend a spiritual retreat once a month and have a spiritual psychedelic trip once every two months. I don't understand why so many people think psychedelics are all or nothing. They can be ONE component of a holistic spiritual life. Consider I spiritual program as a decathlon. The pole vault is just ONE event - there are other events like the long jump. Similarly, psychedelics are just ONE event in the spiritual decathlon. There are other events such as meditation and shamanic breathing. Imagine someone only training in the pole vault and complaining the pole vault sucks because their decathlon score was so low. Of course it was, they got zeros in all the other events! 7. He spoke about how much more empathetic he has become since quitting psychedelics. He suggests that psychedelics and empathy are exclusive. This is not my experience. I've experienced indescribable levels of empathy during trips. IME, empathy is a core feature of trips. Psychedelics dissolve the sense of a separate, finite self. That opens the door to a sense of oneness, unity and empathy for all.

@Jamie Universe Well, I also got a bit grumpy with him. I’m not all angel ? ?

Great news. A growing number of studies are revealing benefits of psychedelic therapy. In the U.S., MDMA treatment for PTSD was approved for stage 3 clinical trials.

@Fuku English is a difficult language to write. Your English is at a high level for a second language. It sounds like you’ve made a lot of positive changes in your life. I would prioritize consistency. Perhaps start committing to 1-2hrs a day of self improvement / spiritual work to start a healthy habit. I’ve participated in spiritual groups that emphasized becoming selfless by getting rid of possessions and refraining from personal desires. I went too far at one point denying myself personal pleasures. I became really serious about life. Completely denying yourself pleasure from the start is bold - yet I would consider having some fun time each day. Do sonething you enjoy and be good to yourself. Smile and laugh a bit. Perhaps see if you can do art in moderation. If you are too attached, perhaps try starting a new hobby that makes you feel good.

I appreciate the thought you’ve put in your post. I did an Ayahuasca retreat in Peru summer 2017. At the start of each ceremony, the shaman would speak about intention, Then there was a period of silence to contemplate intention. Then each participant shared their intention with the group. It was very genuine, intimate and solemn. We were also told that setting a sincere intention can serve as a space the trip can return to. My intention for the second ceremony was to be shown subconscious fears blocking me from self actualization. It was the most terrifying experience of my life. Be careful what you ask for. . .

Joseph is offering a nondual perspective. Nonduality is very diffucult to communicate with words. For those unfamiliar with nonduality it can appear ridiculous and absurd. I tried to say the same thing in traditional dualistic terminology. I think you made your point about Mooji and the thread has turned into a cyclic distraction from doing self-actualuzation work.

I agree. This all seems like a major distraction. The ego loves to manufacture personal drama to stay relevant and keep the focus off itself.

@zunnyman I had similiar questions before my first Ayahuasca ceremony. It’s just the ego trying to maintain control. For me, that type of mind chatter would most likely increase anxiety during the trip. One ceremony was so intense, I literally thought I was going to permanently lose my mind. I was in full-on panic. Then I was like “if going mentally insane is what it takes to learn the truth, so be it.”

The peace of mind comes from the freedom from orange materialism. There is an energetic motivation from individual pursuits toward promoting social equality and inclusion of marginalized groups. Holistic wellness becomes more rewarding than individual gains. As you evolve upward on the spiral you build off lower stages of the spiral and can use each stage as a tool. For example, I am now comfortable using "either / or" thinking (Blue stage), rationale/logical thinking (Orange stage) and relative thinking (Green Stage). I try to use whatever is appropriate for a given situation. . . If you want to cut something in two, sometimes scissors are best, other times a saw is best and other times a chainsaw. Once you get centered in a higher stage and familiar with the tools, you get a sense for where others are at. For example: one day you notice someone trying to cut down a tree with a hand saw and realize he doesn't know how to use a chainsaw. You suggest to him it may be better to use a chainsaw in this situation. He gets defensive and goes into logical reasons why using a handsaw is better than those idiots that use scissors to cut down trees. Yet, I am not yet proficient at using Yellow tools. It would be totally obvious to a yellow centered person that I was using relative thinking (green) in a situation that calls for systems thinking (yellow). For example, if I was cutting down a forest with a chainsaw, it would be clear to a Yellow that I don't know how to use a bulldozer. Once you are comfortable at a green stage, you start to see how people are stuck in blue or orange stages. Sometimes it is ridiculously obvious. It's like someone saying people are either skinny or fat - and fat people should have to buy two seats on an airplane because they take up so much room. You ask them: "how fat does a person have to be to require them to buy two tickets?" The other person is confused and says "Fat people should have to buy two tickets. Not the skinny people". You respond: "Yes, but to set a "two seat policy", airlines would need to establish a threshold for size. Perhaps anyone over 280 pounds. What do you consider too fat for one seat?". Your friend replies: "DUDE, why are you complicating this??!! People are either skinny or fat!!! Let me spell this out for you. . . F . A . T. = two seats, S . K . I. N . N . Y = one seat. Do you freaking understand now??!!" It's literally THAT obvious at times. . .

Yep. My mind has gone into harm anxiety as well. . . What if I run outside yelling slurs??!! What will my neighbors think??!! What if they call the cops??!! What if I text my colleagues porn images??!! I could lose my job!! What if I jump out the window??!! . . . We can't be having this surrender business, right??!! Anything to maintain control. . .

For me, moderate to high doses are not about "me". The "me" dissolves. It becomes nondual and nonduality doesn't care about *my* life purpose. You may want to try microdoses or light doses. I've found that I still have presence of self, yet with a different viewpoint. My mind has a more holistic view and is better able to "connect the dots" of seemingly unrelated things.

I've experience anxiety and resistance entering that place of emptiness. For me, it's about losing control. Control of my thoughts and interpretations. As well, losing control of steering the experience and losing control of being able to stop the experience. Compared to psychedelics, the emptiness of meditation is child's play - deep down I know I have control over the experience and I can stop meditating anytime I want to. Not so with psychedelics.

@Leona I've had similar experiences. 5-meo-dmt takes me from a grounded Green/yellow to groundless Turquoise. The direct experience is so beyond that of my Green center. I can't integrate it or make sense of it from a Green-centered perspective. The experience fades and the conditioned mind returns. Yet, there is something that remains. The experience cannot fully be unexperienced. The Turquoise pops up here and there during my day. Other times, I feel a deep yearning to let go of all the bullshit in my mind and a yearning to return to Turquoise. To return home. To that which IS. I'm curious what it would be like to do it on consecutive days.

There are many tools. Some people have more experience with certain tools and see that value of certain tools. Are reading books a valuable tool to gain insight? Sure. Reading about various perspectives expands one's mind. Yet one can also expose themself to new perspectives through travel and cultural immersion. Imagine someone spends a year reading dozens of well-written books about South American tribes, mysticism and ceremonies. Imagine another person spends a year living in South America. He immerses hiimself within tribes - with natives, shamans and mystics. He participates in ceremonies. Does each person have a sense of knowing about South American tribes and ceremonies? Of course. They BOTH do. Now imagine you go to a public presentation of each person. Both presentations are AMAZING!!! The avid book reader talks a lot about what he learned from all the books. Fascinating amazing perspectives! He explains to the audience about the value of reading books and encourages the audience to read more. Does he discourage travel? Of course not. . . The traveler gives a presentation about living within South American tribes. Fascinating amazing perspectives! He tells the audience about the value of cultural immersion and encourages the audience to travel more. Does he discourage reading? Of course not. The two presentations TOGETHER provide a much more holistic view. Each presentations has aspects of truth and together reveal a more holistic view of truth. . . What happens after the presentations? Do the presenters argue with each other whether reading or travel is the *real* truth? No. Does the audience form a "reading team" and "travel team" and start fighting with each other over who is right and who is wrong? No. . . The speakers sit down and have a Q and A. The knowledge of the two speakers synergize and new ideas and feelings emerge. You couldn't imagine how it could get any better and now new ideas beyond each individual speaker are emerging. This is so fucking mind-blowing amazing!!!! Read books, travel to foreign countries, listen to a variety of teachers, meditate, do yoga, go on retreats, have discussions from others and learn from each other, try shamanic breathing, psychedelics. . . EXPLORE. Let go of attachments and identification that contract you. Explore like a child. Expand beyond your wildest dreams.

Nice observation! My intention is not to convince Thanatos of anything. You are correct about his mindset. However, there are other forum members that have a similar block as Thanatos. There are forum members that are genuinely trying to move past this block. There are a lot of members that read threads without posting. For them, I am revealing the nature of this trap and showing what a higher conscious view looks like. It will resonate and help some members. As well, I will use this thread to help individuals I advise in real life. In particular, individuals trying to evolve from Orange to Green. I spent about 20 years as a strong Orange. I know it well . . . I've got bigger fish to fry than Thanatos.

I'm not saying theoretical concepts have NO value. I'm saying theoretical concepts AND direct experience BOTH have value. Perhaps this may be a bit more straight-forward. Imagine you are a psychologist that specializes in helping alcoholics to recover from alcoholism. You know A LOT of theoretical concepts such as alcohol metabolism in alcoholics, cirrhosis of the liver, different concepts on the psychology of denial, etc. You *know* the theoretical concepts of craving and withdrawl. Yet, you have never had a drink of alcohol in your life. Does the psychologist's conceptual knowledge have value? Can the psychologist help the alcoholic recover? YES and YES. . . Now consider a person who drank alcoholically for 15 years. He injured himself and others, multiple DUIs, etc. And then he joined a support group, quit drinking and got his life back together. He has been living a healthy sober life for 10 years. He has very little conceptual knowledge, yet he has A LOT of direct experience of being an alcoholic and the direct experience of quitting alcohol. He *knows* the experience of cravings and withdrawl. . . Does the recovering alcoholic's direct experience have value? Can the recovering alcohol help a fellow alcoholic recover? YES and YES. Both the theoretical conceptual knowledge of the psychologist AND the direct experience of the alcoholic have value in different ways. BOTH are a component of the truth. You are taking the position of a psychologist that argues the direct experience of the recovering alcoholic is delusional - without having any direct experience. As well, alcoholics are trying to tell you "Dr. XYZ, the direct experience of recovering alcoholics is really helpful to me. It sheds new insight". And you respond "No, that direct experience is delusional, it's not true. Humans are easy to fool and you don't know if those feelings your new friend describes are true ". The patient responds "Gee, it *really* seems like my alcoholic mentor knows what the experience of craving is like". To which you respond "No, that is just a feeling - we don't know if it is true or not. Forget that direct experience. Let me tell you the theoretical concepts of what alcohol craving *really* is". The patient responds "What you say about craving makes sense in a way, yet the direct experience of craving is not quite the same. My fellow recovering alcoholics with direct experience of craving seem to have a different type of knowing than you. Taken together, I think and feel like I have a deeper and broader understanding of the phenomena of craving. By the way, have you ever even had a drink before". You respond "No, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't limit my perspective at all.". . . Both concepts AND direct experience have value. They go hand in hand.

@Feel Good Perhaps the term "fake" is too strong. I just can't think of a better word offhand. As an example: Watch how JP talks about "inclusion" in the below video. A healthy green sees inclusion in terms of wellness for all. A healthy green would want to bring a marginalized group into the mainstream and also be mindful of the wellness of other groups within the mainstream. Deep down a healthy green is motivated to include marginalized groups even if they are not a member of the marginalized group. A good example is with gender equality. One issue on University campuses is the use of pronouns for non-binary individuals. Some individuals that don't identify as either male or female don't like being addressed with male or female pronouns (e.g. he or she). A healthy green can see their point and can empathize with them. My gender identity is male and if someone kept calling me "she" it would irritate me. Although I am not a non-binary individual I can empathize with them and I support their inclusion. . . Non-binary students are asking for new pronouns that are neither male or female. On some University campuses, LGBT has called for many new pronouns (I think a couple dozen in some Universities). As well, some people are calling for new laws that mandate people use non-binary pronouns. Let's consider the mindset for Green, Orange and Blue on these issues: Healthy Green: the underlying motivation and worldview is about equality, inclusion and wellness for all. This is what it boils down to for Greens. So. . . Greens are aware that there is a marginalized group (non-binary gender individuals). The fundamental question for Greens is: how can our community include non-binary individuals while promoting wellness for everyone? This question is their lens as issues arise. . . One issue is that some community members will be upset about a law requiring them to use new non-binary pronouns. Some people will argue for their individual right of free speech (Orange). A Green will recognize that a law mandating the use of non-binary pronouns will raise an individual free speech issue for Orange WITHIN the larger, holistic context of creating an environment for the wellness of all (including upset Orange individuals). We go back to Green's fundamental question: How can we best include non-binary individuals with this individual speech issue present? A Green would ask: are there options other than a law mandate to reach the end goal of inclusion? A Green may propose that the University create an atmosphere of inclusion by stating that the new standard policy is the use of pronouns. They could require syllabi include non-binary pronouns. They could require student and faculty diversity training that highlights the importance of using non-binary pronouns. This may have much less backlash from Orange. . . . On the issue of the number of pronouns: imagine LGBT asks for 30 new non-binary pronouns to cover all non-binary identities. A Green can see this might not be practical - it could make communication really awkward and many Orange/Blue people will get annoyed. So, a green may propose to LGBT that they find a consensus among themselves to narrow the non-binary pronouns down to six pronouns. . . Again, for a Green it keeps coming back to inclusion of the marginalized group within holistic wellness for all. Greens keep asking "How can we resolve this issue so that non-binary individuals are no longer marginalized?". They keep brainstorming ideas of inclusion. They are willing to work with various groups for inclusion. The Orange stage prioritizes individual freedom and rational/logical thinking. An Orange person may say that they value inclusion and they don't discriminate, yet they will have a very different fundamental question than Greens. The Green fundamental question is "how can our community include binary individuals within holistic wellness for everyone?" In contrast the Orange fundamental question is "How will new policies affect individual rights and freedoms?" (with a focus on MY individual rights and freedoms). Deep down, an Orange will be motivated to protect individual rights and freedoms, not for inclusion of a marginalized group they don't belong to. Regarding a law mandating non-binary pronouns, an Orange will focus on individual free speech and 2nd Amendment rights. Rather than seeking other solutions for inclusion, an Orange will by hyper-focused on how they shouldn't be told what to say. Over and over, they will argue for their individual freedom of speech. Regarding 30 new non-binary pronouns, an Orange will complain that using 30 new pronouns is ridiculous. "How will this affect ME?", "What an inconvenience for ME". They will be stuck on the individual. They will not be motivated to brainstorms new ideas for inclusion because they are individual-centered, not community-centered. They will likely argue against any new ideas that limit what they perceive is their individual freedom. They will use rationale and logic to defend their individual-first perspective. The Blue stage uses "either / or" thinking. Rather than the "individual-first" mindset of Orange, Blues have a "group-first" mentality. Healthy greens have a more holistic view of "group-first" than blues - Greens seek equality and inclusion for all in one holistic multicultural community. Blue seeks to compartmentalize groups into "us and them". We are straight, they are gay. We are Christians, they are Muslims. An ideological blue sees their way of life as normal, for themselves and others. "Men should act masculine and women should act feminine". Not just for me, but for everyone. These Blues will see non-binary individuals as being weird and perhaps immoral. They will not want inclusion of non-binary individuals - yet for a different reason than Orange. Orange wants to exclude non-binary to protect what they see as a threat to individual freedom. Blue wants to exclude non-binary to protect their group (binary male or female). They can't even imagine a person being non-binary. "How can someone not identify as being a man or woman?" They lack the capacity to see outside of their Either man Or woman thinking. They will see non-binary inclusion as a threat to their group (man and woman). To a solid, healthy Green, these dynamics are TOTALLY obvious. They can clearly see why Greens, Oranges and Blues are arguing they way they are. Yet Oranges and Blues cannot understand the Green perspective. They may use some Green lingo, yet deep down they are motivated by Orange or Blue urges. Are you ready to see if you have advanced to a solid, healthy green? Ready to test your level of consciousness? The below video is an interview with JP and a non-binary individual, debating over the use of non-binary pronouns at the University of Toronto (where JP is a professor). Notice how JP has Orange and Blue motivations (as described above). He is clearly not motivated to work through issues together for the ultimate goal of inclusion and wellness for all. He is not brainstorming for new ideas for inclusion. He is clearly motivated by individual rights and personal freedom (Orange). He has no Green motivation to seek inclusion for non-binary individuals. He keeps coming back to second amendment individual free speech and the personal inconvenience of using 30 new nonbinary pronouns (Orange). Greens see individual rights as an issue WITHIN the larger context of inclusion. Orange sees individual rights as THE issue. Also notice how JP relies on rationale/logical thinking (Orange) and is unable to use a relative mode of thinking (Green). His Orange is completely obvious. His Blue is a bit more subtle, yet apparent to an observant Green. Notice how JP is focused on protecting individual rights for HIS group (men and women). Is he equally concerned about what the individual freedom for non-binary individuals might be? I'd say clearly not. Non-binary are the "other" group. His disdain for "them" is palatable. He is motivated by a combination of personal individual rights (Orange) and protecting his group (Blue). Notice how the moderator opens Green doors for JP. Every time, JP retreats back to an Orange mindset.

So. . . you have no direct experience? You are like someone theorizing about an apple, coming up with ideas and concepts about the essence of eating an apple. You are telling people that have actually eaten an apple what it means to eat an apple. Yet, you have no direct experience of actually eating an apple.

I would consider JP an example. To me, he sometimes tries to present himself as green - yet he is centered/motivated at Orange/Blue. It's most obvious when he gets triggered by a solid green. He is not comfortable operating within Green.

@Thanatos13 Neither of us owns truth. We are both speaking relative truths based on our genetics, conditioning and life experience. You are speaking truth relative to the reality you have created. Some work with a variety of psychedelics could do some good. They will blow away this reality you cling so tightly to.

@SgtPepper College science prof. Perfect fit for me. I’ve heard that private psychology practice can be intense. I dated a gal that needed to mix in some academics and mentoring time to keep her sanity. Good luck on the doctoral programs. I think it is a great field. Especially with those with a high consciousness level. Do you have any interests in training/teaching a new generation of psychologists someday?

Oh. I suppose various forms of relationships can have an intention of being permanent, it just depends on the couple. I imagine many poly people hope for permanence between one or more of their connections. There are so many possibilities in poly. It is much more flexible and fluid than monogamy. Most couples and networks seemed to make up some of their own rules that worked for them. Communication and agreement of all involved seemed really important.

I’d say it’s similiar to mongamy in that respect. Sometimes it turns out to be a relatively long-term relationship, other times a relatively short term relationship. I’m not sure what you mean by permanent. I’ve never heard that term used in relationships before.

@Key Elements Once someone steps outside of monogamy, there are so many possible forms of poly. I was amazed by the diversity of poly styles. And I was only exposed to a handful. There were different combinations. It’s another language / world. Primaries, secondaries, exogamy, closed swinging, free agents, solo poly, monamory, monogamish, open networks, parallel poly, polycule, relationship anarchy, relationship orientation. . . and on and on.

One cool thing about hanging with the poly crowd was that they used terms I had no reference for: primary, secondary, connection, comet, hierarchical and egalitarian modes of relationships. I had no preconceived notions and I couldn’t assume anything. I was like “hang on, what does that term mean for you?”.