Forestluv

That’s part of the adventure. Once the mind is aware of the nature of stories, there is a massive expansion of what a story is and the potential for story creation. For example, we could say there are “thought stories” like “I’m a 32 y.o. man that lives in England. I’m an electrician with two kids. I’m very upset with covid lockdowns because my business has suffered.”. We could go on and on adding to the details of this thought story. Yet aren’t there other forms of stories? I was so immersed in the movie Inception that I didn’t have any thoughts. Wasn’t that experience a form of story? Last night I spent two hours staring at a fire in my fireplace. I was mesmerized. All sorts of images, intuitions, feelings arose. Time dissolved and the eternal nature of fire arose. The relationship of humans to fire throughout history arose. Tribal fires, community campfires, forest fires, the desire of arsonists to set buildings on fire. The salvation, destruction, live, hate, art, science of fire all appearing. At the time, I wasn’t creating this thought story. It was more like images, timelessness, intuition, empathy, knowing, feeling etc. There were probably some “thoughts” that arose, yet in this context, such “thoughts” aren’t traditional “thoughts” because it isn’t a traditional thought-dominated story. The “thoughts” get blended in with all the other images, feelings, intuitions etc. It’s not like thoughts stick out like a sore thumb. They are integrated into the experience. Like a guitar gets integrated into a song. But yea, it’s great to become aware of traditional thought stories and transcend them, such that the mind is not immersed and identified with them. Yet it’s also fun to immerse oneself into a story and forget it’s a story. Sometimes I go into nature and enter a magical story. I get so immersed, I forget it’s a story and become that character. If during this adventure I encountered another human and he told me “You realize this is just a story and none of it’s real, right?”. I’d be like “Thanks a lot, jackass. You just ruined the movie”. It’s a nice ability to be able to zoom in and out of stories. Yet most minds are locked into a story. So there is a lot of emphasis on the spiritual path to transcend stories and realize “no story”. When this is realized and embodied, it’s a whole new ballgame. Even what counts as a “story” melts and becomes fluid. Ime, early in the process this was unstable. At times it was insane. Other times, it was a peaceful sense of Now - simply revealing itself. Other times there were desires to figure it out and create a new stable story. Regarding thought stories: my mind tends to be thought-dominated. I spent many years trying to reduce the frequency of thoughts and my tendency to get immersed and trapped in thoughts. I’ve found that reducing thought frequency and intense attachment to thoughts opens up new ways to experience reality. Some people, like artists, seem naturally good at it. Yet it took me a lot of work and mind re-conditioning. One of my highest desires is to have the ability to let go of thought stories and dissolve them, when I want to. During the first week of my 5-meo retreat, I was able to observe full deconstruction of thought stories, it’s transcendence and the re-construction of thought stories. During the process of re-immersion into thought stories, I would ask “How can I do this own my own?”. It’s one of my deepest desires as this is a key to liberation and transcendence to a ‘higher’, more expansive consciousness. At one point, a door was opened and there was a realization of “Ahhh, so that’s how you do it!!!”. Then my mind was like “Wait, wait, wait!!! Don’t go!! Exactly how do I do it!? I want to write it down!”. Yet it wasn’t like a mechanical thing. It was more like “Q: How do I transcend thoughts? A: Like this (thoughts transcended)”. Or in another context: “Q: How do I speak?. . . A: Like this (speaking begins)”. And of course, all this is a story.

@RichnNL Personality and ego development seem inter-related to me. Yet concepts of “personality”, “ego” and “development” can each become highly complex in their own regard. In a simple construct: one of the Big 5 personality categories is about open-mindedness to new experience. Imagine someone who scores super low here. They always want to do the same familiar things, they never want to experience something new. Now consider someone who scores super high. They are constantly seeking new experiences: traveling to foreign countries, living in tribal cultures, eating new food, sky diving, hypnosis, sensory deprivation tanks, psychedelics, ayahuasca ceremonies, polyamorous communities, gender fluidity, scuba diving, past life regressions, trying improv comedy, playing a musical instrument. They are constantly thinking “I wonder what it’s like to experience XYZ. I’m gonna find out!”. Would this personality trait have an impact on ego development? To me, clearly it would. The personality trait of experience seeking would create a much larger experiential range. The ego would be much more expansive.

Stories gonna story. Another way to look at is the relationship to storytelling in the mind has transformed.

“If it's all goodness, then why should I even worry about being good?” Consider an absolute perspective and a personal level. At an absolute level, whatever is happening right now is ISness. There is a happening, is it happening? Of course it is. Yet at a personal level, ISness goes through a personal filter. That is the personal “I” that worries. A fire in my kitchen and me stepping on an ant are both happenings, yet they affect me differently at a personal level. So why would a personal “I” worry about being good. To me , the term “worry” suggest underlying fear and anxiety. In this context, I would say the personal worry would be about consequences of not being good. For example, if I’m not good, I may be unloved, rejected by others, lose my job etc. We could also consider it in terms of desire. Why do I desire to do good? When I was learning Spanish, I had a strong desire to trill the Rs properly. Most gringos can’t trill Rs and it’s an ugly sounding accent. Part of me wanted to trill them well so I didn’t sound like a dumb gringo. I learned how to trill “good enough”, yet then I wanted to be able to trill so well that even native speakers would notice and be surprised a gringo can do it so well. So I practiced hundreds of times asking my teacher “Is this sound better? Or does this sound better?”. She would give me long tongue twisters filled with Rs and RRs. It was like learning how to play a guitar and I wanted to do it really well. I was t really “worried” about it, I just had a desire to do it really well for some reason. The context depends on whether it is a transpersonal or personal view. On one level, however the Rs are pronounced is ‘Good’, on another level, there is a bad way to pronounce and a good way to pronounce.

Looks like you found the magic. You would have tolerance from yesterday. The rule of thumb is about double dosage. There can also be a psychological tolerance if I trip too often. The magic starts to decline. In terms of your schedule, I see it as manageable since there aren’t any heavy trips, just micro to moderate. Plus, you seem pretty grounded in spirituality and nonduality. And the trips have been smooth. I had a similar stretch for about 3 months.

JP can be sneaky and manipulate. Those that can see his tactics find it annoying because he is sowing toxic beliefs and resistance to progress. If he was straight-up about it, it would be different. He can be sneaky and manipulate vulnerable people that don’t realize they are being manipulated. A mind needs to be at a relatively advanced developmental level to be aware of his game. Yet it’s relative. On an SD scale, we are talking a mixed bag of blue/orange. It’s not like he’s a red level mobster organizing terrorists groups.

For blackpillers, ugly ('genetically inferior') men have no chance of getting laid without more or less tying women down to individual men. That vibe isn’t going to attract many women.

I wouldn’t consider this type of thing a “rejection”. She has a boyfriend. I wouldn’t expect someone to breakup with their boyfriend to start dating a guy they just met. And you had no idea she had a boyfriend. It’s not dumb at all. I approached a gal that turned out to be lesbian. I found it humorous that I was trying to flirt with a lesbian. I didn’t take it as a rejection.

Based on the current pace of human evolution, about 500 years or so. Yet it’s hard to predict due to technology. Evolution could accelerate upward or take some bad turns.

A great example of manipulation through recontextualization. It’s also reflective of capitalism (cost / benefit analysis). Green loves nature documentaries and Orange loves to profit off of it. Notice the difference of how Orange can profit off of nature (fake documentaries) vs how red profits off of nature (cut down the Amazon Rainforest to feel a sense of power by dominating the forest and personal gain). And as natural habitats are continuously destroyed, there will be an increase in staged, fake and virtual nature.

@Jordan A Imagine an expert guitar player. One can be a badass during a show without being an a-hole. When the guitar solo arises, they can give an epic solo without being a narcissistic egomaniac that puts others down. And one can teach others how to play the guitar by saying “this is how you play the guitar” and do it. It can be done without negative, toxic behavior.

Within the righteousness of an assumption there is no wrong. By asking “what assumption of mine is wrong?”, you’ve indicated you can see it’s righteousness, yet cannot see it wrongness? The mind can have a realization and expand. This can take a second, many years or never in one’s lifetime - depending on several factors including? For example, genuineness is a key component. Is the mind genuinely asking this question to expand it’s view and understanding, or is the mind asking more rhetorically? At a subconscious level, is the mind oriented as “I know my view is right, let’s see what he says when I ask what’s wrong with it.”. This is a very different orientation than a mind that recognizes that it is missing something and gets curious to discover what it’s missing.

I see each of their views as having both value and problems. Zooming in and zooming out can each have value, yet using the wrong resolution for a given situation can be lead to incorrect conclusions. It’s like different resolution of maps - each map resolution has both value and traps. If someone only has a map of Detroit and are making conclusions about U.S. - Central American relations, that is problematic. Yet if someone is making conclusions about traffic in Detroit based on maps of the North American continent, that is also problematic. Most minds tend to get contracted and stuck within a small map. That is why nearly every model of cognitive development has meta cognition at a higher stage. Minds contracted within small maps cannot go metacog and see the bigger map. Minds with big map awareness, can zoom into small maps, yet sometimes they can do it very well - yet they can do it to some extent.

Very true. So much is missed when we are limited to text. Facial expressions, body language, tone of voice and energetics has a lot of information. I’ve read only about 15% of communication is the actual words.

I haven’t followed Dawkins for years. He may have evolved to green on the social line of development. Yet I haven’t seen anything to suggest so. I’m referring more to his foundation of Orange materialism, logic and rationality. He can create very sophisticated, detailed, complex models within that realm - such as with genetics and evolution. That’s great and has value in some contexts. Yet Dawkins and Deepak Chopra will not be on the same wavelength. Dawkins would see Deepak as woo woo pseudo science. That’s not “wrong”, there are just in two different movies. Dawkins movie is much more zoomed in and contacted, Deepak’s movie is much more zoomed out and expansive. Each has value and each has problems.

@Scholar Thanks for your feedback. I agree with you that my mind generally enters cognitive deconstruction and analysis - and can miss dynamics of the heart and emotions. It’s an area I need to explore more and develop. Thank you for pointing it out ♥️

Get curious about the mystery of the mind. . . It’s not personal. I’m pointing to something impersonal. At one cognitive level, it’s perceived as “a flaw in the individual”. At another cognitive level, it is seen as a mind dynamic, integrated between individual and collective. An interesting development. . . ? This is within the perspective of a mind identified and attached to “the social issue”. Notice the repetitive assumption of the social issue. That is a major assumption and the key to expansion. If that assumption is deconstructed, the mind can expand another cognitive level. Yet the assumption serves as the grounding for which the whole story is based. There are many ways to look at this “social issue”, yet doing so destablizies the story that “there is a serious problem and social issue here that needs to be addressed”. Story vs anti-story is a block to story transcendence. When there is a block from transcendent views, engaging within the block re-enforces the block. It increases construction. It makes it feel even more real and problematic.

In observing structure of mind, I find blocks very interesting. When one works through their own block, it becomes obvious and simple. I imagine hiking and encountering a gate. It’s not really a “block” until we recognize it as a block. And it can be so simple to just pass through the gate. Yet it can also be highly complex. The gate may have a lock, the gate may be deeply rooted in the earth. It may seem tho high to climb. And then all sorts of stories about one’s past history with gates, what could be on the other side, anxiety. From the perspective of the gate-resistor their movie is their movie. Yet from another perspective it’s like “Dude, it’s just a gate. Let’s cross it and continue to explore”. When I see someone like JP, it’s like seeing someone sitting on the trail beside a gate ruminating in all their stories and trying to get confirmation from others.

That is from the perspective of a mind that wants to create and maintain the problem creation. That mindset doesn’t like light being shined on the process. I’m not saying that there isn’t some truth within the content. Yet that is a distraction from observing the structure of mind. To understand thyself and the mind, one needs to observe framing construction. And it can be very subtle and sneaky. For example, notice the framing of me as a “teacher unwilling to helpfully analyze a fellow teacher”. That is true within the context of the story, yet is also a distraction from observing at a meta level, since it protects the story keeps and keeps the mind engaged and immersed within the story. The thread you created declares importance of curiosity in spiritual development. Get curious and observe the mind from a higher meta view. You could be example Here and Now about how curiosity of one’s own mind promotes awakening and spiritual development. You could demonstrate curiosity, not knowing and mystery within this story you create. Be the change you want to see. And that starts with our own mind. Regarding the content of the story in terms of teaching styles, there are very different ways you could present it. You are choosing a particular framing that has strong personal elements and is partial. Yet there is some truth within it.

Word substitution is a common technique to re-package old conservative views and grievances. As their arguments fail and become outdated, some of the old terms become stale and toxic. So they create new terms for the same concepts or they co-op progressive terms to obscure. This gives the illusion of freshness for a new generation of minds and obscures progressive ideas.

It’s fascinating to observe the structure of problem creation at the individual level and the extrapolation of problem creation to the collective level. Key components for grounding include assumptions, dismissal of relativity, normalization, steering and sowing seeds. Students regularly do this in my college courses for a variety of reasons. It’s interesting to see similar dynamics in spiritual communities.

@Intraplanetary What is your experience with LSD and fasts? Do you have a lot of experience with a range of doses and in a range of settings? To me, you propose a highly advanced dose and setting.

Stage Orange intellect can be very advanced in stage Orange. For example, scientists like Richard Dawkins can go into highly complex, detailed intellectual models. In Dawkin’s case intellectual models of genetics and evolution. To an untrained eye, it may appear as yellow since it seems so complex and detailed. Yet it is still stage Orange. If you asked Dawkin’s to integrate this physical model with immaterial models of collective entanglement within epigenetics - his head would explode. Imo, JP has some flashes of yellow yet contextualized it in Orange. His extremely strong resistance to green prevents development and embodimentt of yellow. For example, deepening levels of relativism is needed to pass through green into yellow and JP has intense resistance against relativism. He wants to analyze it from an Orange level and protect his blue foundation.

@73809 Look at your relationship with the thoughts and see if you can detach from that relationship. For example. meditate with some bird chirps in the background. Notice how bird chirps and thoughts both arise. Notice how 'external' and 'internal' are constructs of the mind and both bird chirps and thoughts are co-appearing as impulses. Here, one can observe different relationships the mind has with bird chirp impulses and thought impulses. Yet this can break down such that they are both chirps or thoughts. . . One can also observe how an extra layer of "belief" is added on. Yet this exercise isn't very "sexy" to a mind that wants to create narratives and do some figuring.