If a lion can become a vegan, so can humans.

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar I’ve spent over 25 years immersed in theoretical modeling. I am trying to convey a transcendence of that. Yet you keep trying to re-contract into your theoretical construct. There is nothing wrong with that. The reason I am not participating in that is because it is much more important to me to help you expand your consciousness than engage in your contracted theory (to which you are attached and identified with).  I think you are really close to expanding here, which is why I’ve put so much effort.

There is a bigger prize here that I wish I could show you. And it will deepen your understanding of relativism. Some beings don’t care if others realize it or not. I’m not one of those beings. Yet I also understand I cannot force it upon someone. You don’t seem interested and I respect that. 

What I talk about is not theory though, it's just being. The theory is just language I put on top to play the game. However, what I am pointing to isn't non-duality or enlightenment either. It just just Nessness.

How else will I communicate this to you but through words? All I essentially can say is Nessness. Good and Bad is Nessness. Now you just have to find out what Nessness is.

 

And I think your believe in relativism is actually the mental construction which I am trying to deconstruct. I don't see anything relative in my experience, I never infact met Relativism. How does he look?

How could Being be relative when Relativity is an aspect of Being? The only thing that is relative is Relativity. That' the entire point here. The only thing that is relative is Relativity. All other claims are delusion, including this very claim. That is the essence of delusion. But only delusion is delusion.

[remember]

@Scholar you can`t be a very tall person. because if you would be tall you would understand what relative means.

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, remember said:

@Scholar you can`t be a very tall person. because if you would be tall you would understand what relative means.

Relative is an idea, nothing more. Meaning, relativity does not actually exist as part of any aspect of consciousness, it is it's own aspect. Confusing something to be relative would be like confusing red to be blue.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

@Scholar It's not what you say, it is your relationship with what you say. That relationship will hinder deeper understanding and realizations. The content doesn't matter - it is the relationship to the content.

[Scholar]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar It's not what you say, it is your relationship with what you say. That relationship will hinder deeper understanding and realizations. The content doesn't matter - it is the relationship to the content.

I don't have any relationship to the content though other than enjoying creating it. Otherwise I would still stuck being a subjectivist/relativist.

[remember]

16 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Relative is an idea, nothing more. Meaning, relativity does not actually exist as part of any aspect of consciousness, it is it's own aspect. Confusing something to be relative would be like confusing red to be blue.

haha no i meant the doors.

but i might also understand what you are refering to, and why you are acting out blue in that case. are you aware when you act blue? or was it red acting blue?

Edited September 15, 2019 by remember

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't have any relationship to the content though other than enjoying creating it. 

You do. You just aren't aware of it. For those that have deconstructed this dynamic it's really obvious. Yet before then, it's not.

It's actually not about "me" or "you". The personification of the dynamic makes it harder to see. It can be really difficult because it involves letting go of subconscious control over a narrative and entering groundlessness. One's understanding of relativism would deepen, yet it goes much deeper and broader than that. 

And it isn't just about the content in this thread. It's a common dynamic. It gets into some deep level stuff and opens new doors. 

Psychedelics can be very effective in this regard.

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You do. You just aren't aware of it. For those that have deconstructed this dynamic it's really obvious. Yet before then, it's not.

It's actually not about "me" or "you". The personification of the dynamic makes it harder to see. 

I disagree Sero. I actually think you strongly identifying with being "evolved" and high up the spiral. Your thoughts are constructed very carefully because your identity depends on being someone who is conscious and aware of itself.

I don't take such a serious approach, I had one experience of the absurdity of realness and it was enough to kind of tickle that out of me. To me the dynamic here is enjoyable, it is a play. I think you would probably notice if you were to read multiple posts on this forum how much I can vary in personality. I use personality very much like a tool, right now I am a little bit of a trickster, as I think that is the most appropriate way to interact.

 

I don't care if I come off as ignorant, atleast not always. Infact sometimes I deliberately play ignorant to have a conversation play out in a way I would view as more enjoyable or insightful. However, the Nessness is something I find very useful, I think it could help many people. There is a sort of immersion that I am trying to get people out of.

 

What my ego is indeed attached to are the animals that are suffering though. It would be inauthentic for me to ignore that. This is after all why we are having this discussion.

[remember]

@Scholar are we playing now: guess the colour? mhhh orange? with a little mix of red? and some well meant green in the bottom line?

Edited September 15, 2019 by remember

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, remember said:

@Scholar are we playing now: guess the colour? mhhh orange? with a little mix of red?

Not a game, a play. Like a theatre play.

[remember]

@Scholar i still play i spy with my little eye and that is...

[Forestluv]

37 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I disagree Sero. I actually think you strongly identifying with being "evolved" and high up the spiral. Your thoughts are constructed very carefully because your identity depends on being someone who is conscious and aware of itself.

I understand how it appears that way. There is also a transcendence of this. In terms of SD, as one enters Tier2, there is an energetic shift from personal to trans-personal. It is not an intellectual thing. It is energetic. For a being that has not undergone this shift, they will interpret the intentions of others within the personality dynamic because they are still within that dynamic (even if they intellectually deny this). Imo and ime, this is one of the most important aspects of evolving into Tier2. Before a person transcends a dynamic, they will not be able to recognize or understand the dynamic. They will contextualize it at their current conscious level. This is a cousin to Wilber's pre/trans fallacy.

For those of you interested in this transcendence, here is a simple example you might relate with. 

Imagine dating a narcissist who is hyper-contracted into their own personality. So much so that they don't even realize it. Now imagine doing something kind for this person. Maybe you clean their kitchen while they are at work. How would this be interpreted through a narcissistic filter? It would be interpreted through a cynical and transnational filter. The narcissist would think "Why did you clean my kitchen? What do you want? Are you trying to manipulate me? Now I owe you something". The narcissist is incapable of seeing the genuine nature in another because they lack that same genuineness - they can't imagine it. . . We can take this up a level. . . a being that has not transcended the personality will not be able to recognize the trans-personal. It will go through a personal lens. This is a common dynamic for Orange looking at Tier2. Orange will not be able to recognize the trans-personal in Tier2 beings and will contextualize it at there baseline Orange conscious level. For example, "that person just wants to look good. That person wants to be more popular and protect their power. He is just protecting his personal identity".

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I understand how it appears that way. There is also a transcendence of this. In terms of SD, as one enters Tier2, there is an energetic shift from personal to trans-personal. It is not an intellectual thing. It is energetic. For a being that has not undergone this shift, they will interpret the intentions of others within the personality dynamic because they are still within that dynamic (even if they intellectually deny this). Imo and ime, this is one of the most important aspects of evolving into Tier2. Before a person transcends a dynamic, they will not be able to recognize or understand the dynamic. They will contextualize it at their current conscious level. This is a cousin to Wilber's pre/trans fallacy.

For those of you interested in this transcendence, here is a simple example you might relate with. 

Imagine dating a narcissist who is hyper-contracted into their own personality. So much so that they don't even realize it. Now imagine doing something kind for this person. Maybe you clean their kitchen while they are at work. How would this be interpreted through a narcissistic filter? It would be interpreted through a cynical and transnational filter. The narcissist would think "Why did you clean my kitchen? What do you want? Are you trying to manipulate me? Now I owe you something". The narcissist is incapable of seeing the genuine nature in another because they lack that same genuineness - they can't imagine it. . . We can take this up a level. . . a being that has not transcended the personality will not be able to recognize the trans-personal. It will go through a personal lens. This is a common dynamic for Orange looking at Tier2. Orange will not be able to recognize the trans-personal in Tier2 beings and will contextualize it at there baseline Orange conscious level. For example, "that person just wants to look good. That person wants to be more popular and protect their power. He is just protecting his personal identity".

So you think I am projecting when I am accusing you of being attached to your teacher position? How do you know it is not a genuine way of looking at your behaviour?

I honestly do think you have an attachment to being "the teacher", and I think you often do not recognize that the "teaching" might not have a good effect because you are too attached to it. Sometimes it is better to adopt a position of being level with the one you want to teach, not always is it good to view them from above. Especially when you are trying to understand them.

 

Whether you understand my perspective or not, I do not think you did a good job to make me feel like you are understanding me. Rather it feels like I am misunderstood and that you are talking passed me to be in your teacher role.

[remember]

@Serotoninluv actually thanks for this one, as well. i`ll research that.

@Scholar just stop it now it`s not a battle. if you name yourself scholar what do you expect?

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, remember said:

@Serotoninluv actually thanks for this one, as well. i`ll research that.

@Scholar just stop it now it`s not a battle. if you name yourself scholar what do you expect?

Stop with what? There is no hostility here

[CreamCat]

9 hours ago, Mezanti said:

@CreamCat u are a low quality member.

Keep that to yourself. That's an unnecessary negative criticism that's ultimately a projection of your own personal development and a message to yourself. You can say whatever you want to everyone else after you get your own shit together.

Edited September 16, 2019 by CreamCat

[remember]

@Scholar see

[DrewNows]

If lions can become a vegan then how come vegans can’t become a lion ? ? 

 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

So you think I am projecting when I am accusing you of being attached to your teacher position? How do you know it is not a genuine way of looking at your behaviour?

That's not my point at all. Rather, it is reflective of a lens. The genuinessness is not the question. It is the lens. One can see a particular image and genuinely express their impression. Yet they cannot view from another lens that they are unaware of. A being with a personal lens will not recognize trans-personal. 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I honestly do think you have an attachment to being "the teacher", and I think you often do not recognize that the "teaching" might not have a good effect because you are too attached to it. Sometimes it is better to adopt a position of being level with the one you want to teach, not always is it good to view them from above. Especially when you are trying to understand them.

From the construct of a teacher-student relationship, I think you make great points. In particular, to be at similar developmental level as students especially when trying to understand them. When I play the role of a formal teacher in a classroom, this is one of the major challenges. When one has fluency and clear understanding, it can be very difficult to teach that to those that are novices. 

I think using the term "levels" can be useful because the human mind is naturally oriented toward understanding levels. It's a great structural framework even if it isn't 100% accurate and we need to deconstruct some of the "levels" later on.  Eventually, they collapse. . . However, I often see value personalization of the term "level" - which I think is a major hindrance. For example "I am at Turquoise. He is only at Orange. Thus, I am at a higher level". In terms of SD, a major part of entering Yellow is the awareness and dis-identification to such personalizations. This applies to both transmitter and receiver. This dynamic can be portrayed, with reception. Not portrayed with reception. Or portrayed without reception. In this case, I may claim that I didn't portray superiority and you may claim that I did portray superiority. They are two sides of the coin. Regardless of my intention, I cannot claim superiority was not portrayed. This gets into the dynamics of intention and impact - which I think is also an important dynamic. 

 In terms of being attached to being a teacher, I wouldn't use the term "attached". There is de-attachment and dis-identification at the personal level. Yet this does not suggest that the personality does not re-appear. It is the attachment and identification to that appearance that dissolves or is much less intense. Rather than "attachment", I think it is more fair to say conditioning of the mind and body. As we awaken, the attachment/identification dissolves, yet the conditioning remains. Awakened guitarists play the guitar. Awakened comedians tell funny jokes. Awakened teachers teach. There is a distinction between attachment/identification and conditioning/abilities. Importantly, there is also an energetic shift. There is a shift in the source of energy that propels the awakened guitarist, comedian and teacher. 

If I was to describe my abilities, I would say there are things I do very well and seem to have value for others. There are some areas it seems I've gone pretty deep (relative to what I see in others). Yet in other areas, I'm a novice and lack skills. For example, I never had children. I have no experience in that area. And essentially no real knowledge. I also don't have experience in creative arts such as drawing and writing poetry. 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Whether you understand my perspective or not, I do not think you did a good job to make me feel like you are understanding me. Rather it feels like I am misunderstood and that you are talking passed me to be in your teacher role.

 Thank you for your perspective. I was unable to connect in this situation and your feedback is helpful for me to reflect upon.

You make a good point in terms of inter-personal communication. Yet also be mindful that it isn't just about you and me. Hundreds of people may read this thread. Some may have an insight regarding something I am trying to convey. Some may have an insight in something you are trying to convey.

[flowboy]

On 9/14/2019 at 10:32 AM, CreamCat said:

Veganism could have involved incredible amount of Godly will power for this lion.

Quote

Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk.

@CreamCat Either you don't know what veganism is, or you didn't even read the article you linked.