Trump Supporters in this Forum

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, DivineSoda said:

IF I was a voting person (which I'm not) AND I believed in voting for the lesser of two evils (which I don't).. THEN I would vote Trump. 

Why? Because at least Trump pisses people off and gets us to care again. We need to care again. I believe all our past President's have been shit. That's how we got to where we are today. The proof is in the pudding. 

I would take an obvious bafoon over a wolf in sheep's clothing any day. 

If you were personally being harmed by Trump’s actions, you would likely have a different perspective.

[DivineSoda]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

If you were personally being harmed by Trump’s actions, you would likely have a different perspective.

What perspective would that be? To vote for the one who doesn't directly/personally harm me, but continues to harm millions of others around the world? 

I'll say no to all the criminals, thank you. 

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, DivineSoda said:

What perspective would that be? To vote for the one who doesn't directly/personally harm me, but continues to harm millions of others around the world? 

I'll say no to all the criminals, thank you. 

I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. I’m saying by tightly holding the perspective you are, you cannot truly understand another perspective.

Go live within a poor black community in New York City. Ask black people how Trump’s actions have harmed them. Have lots of deep conversation for months. Observe how Trump’s behavior has harmed them. This would give you a better understanding of that perspective. It may even loosen the hold on the perspective that you are currently holding tightly. If you become a black person living in a poor black community in NYC, you would hold a new perspective.

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Dutch guy said:

Nevermind soda, he is the one holding his perspective so tight.

“No, you are the one holding the perspective tightly” is a mechanism of maintaining immersion within a “me vs you” dynamic. It will prevent you from taking a meta view. 

If a person can only see their left hand, it is best to point to their right hand so they can realize their right hand and have awareness and understanding of both hands. If someone can only see their right hand, it’s best to point to their left hand so they can realize their left hand and have awareness and understanding of both hands. . . The challenge is identification and attachment to one hand. Yet it is key to exploring and expanding consciousness. 

[Parththakkar12]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. I’m saying by holding the perspective, you cannot understand another perspective.

Go to the border of Texas and Mexico and ask Latino Texans how Trump’s actions have harmed them. This would give you a better understanding of that perspective. It may even loosen the hold on the perspective that you are currently holding tightly. If you become a Latino Texan living on the boarder you would then hold a new perspective.

There is a difference between 'perspective' and 'ideological position'. Perspective would mean someone's current life experience, while ideological position/mental worldview would be that person's interpretation of their perspective. A conscious person is someone who is able to contain other people's perspective within their perspective. This technically does not have a lot to do with their ideological positions.

You actually cannot prove how conscious someone is based on their ideological positions or mental worldviews. Maybe they have unconscious, biased reasons for supporting Trump, maybe they have reasons that are extremely conscious. More conscious than what you or I can perceive! You may be able to see whether the reasons are unconscious or conscious, but you will never be able to prove it either way.

There is every possibility that someone who is lesser conscious than you is more right on certain issues than yourself. Someone who is deep into their own limited perspective would know their own perspective better than you, because you haven't entered their perspective deep enough! They could have pretty strong reasons for supporting Trump. If you invalidate and negate their reasons, it won't make their reasons go away.

Also, it isn't necessarily healthy for everyone to have an expansive perspective. A lot of people are trying to get a handle on their own sense of reality, which is why 'loosening their hold on their perspective' could result in loss of sanity. You may not be doing them a service by telling them to let go of their perspective, that holding on to their perspective is somehow objectively wrong. It can take a long time before you are secure in your own perspective, after which you can move on to include other perspectives as part of your own. You don't have to let go of your perspective in order to understand another perspective, integration is possible.

[Parththakkar12]

I understand the good intention behind it. There are a few things about evolution along Tier-1 I'd like to share:

• The ability to create rationalizations to support your existing ideology comes to you when you move from Blue to Orange. That's when you discover your rational mind for the first time, you learn to defend your ideological position from outside attacks on it. You are able to do this by being selectively skeptical, i.e. being skeptical of the other side and not your own side. Now, this is like a new-found ability for you and you will want to use it to defend your ideological position.
• Then as you progress up Orange, you learn to use your rational mind better and better, you are able to find logical inconsistencies in the ideological positions of yourself and others. You really care about being the winner of the debate and proving yourself right. Intellectual honesty can become a value of yours at this stage. This will be the case as you want to prove yourself to be the 'fair winner' of the debate, so you will want to win it being as intellectually honest as possible.
• This carries on into Green. At Green, you start to shape your worldview to accommodate for the perspectives of specific groups of people. You still care about proving yourself right though because now being right becomes important for your ability to create the change you want. You are still identified with creating the change you want and you will still believe in battling the status-quo to do so.

Proving yourself right is a power-struggle. Here's the issue with using power-struggle to create the change you want - Social change is not about winning. It is about seeing that you are a part of the whole and acting such that the whole super-organism moves forward. It is incredibly vulnerable in that you are asking for the change you want, with no way of ensuring it will happen or no way of guaranteeing support. It is all about making relationships between collective egos work.

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, DivineSoda said:

Why? Because at least Trump pisses people off and gets us to care again. We need to care again. I believe all our past President's have been shit. That's how we got to where we are today. The proof is in the pudding. 

I would take an obvious bafoon over a wolf in sheep's clothing any day. 

Agreed....I often visualize what the world would look like if President Clinton was in the seat.  I think it would look very similar to Biden and it doesn't look good in my mind.  Soooo....Trump is the man until another party puts someone out there a lot better than what they have.

[Forestluv]

31 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

There is a difference between 'perspective' and 'ideological position'. Perspective would mean someone's current life experience, while ideological position/mental worldview would be that person's interpretation of their perspective. A conscious person is someone who is able to contain other people's perspective within their perspective. This technically does not have a lot to do with their ideological positions.

You are creating these meanings. Even within the meanings you create the two are intimately connected. As well, you are creating your own definition of a “conscious person” and I would consider your description to be a relatively low conscious level. It goes much deeper and broader.

33 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

You actually cannot prove how conscious someone is based on their ideological positions or mental worldviews. Maybe they have unconscious, biased reasons for supporting Trump, maybe they have reasons that are extremely conscious. More conscious than what you or I can perceive! You may be able to see whether the reasons are unconscious or conscious, but you will never be able to prove it either way.

You seem to be conflating different forms of “conscious”. For example, you seem to refer to unconscious biases, which is a lack of awareness. For example, I may be unconsciously biased about someone’s manner of speaking. I may judge a person based on how well they speak English, without being conscious that I am judging someone. This unconscious bias is also called a subconscious bias or an implicit bias. . . As well, we could create a hierarchy of consciousness and say some reasons for holding a view is more conscious than other reasons for holding another view., SD contains this type of hierarchy. Both contexts of “conscious” have value, yet to me you are conflating the two.

43 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

There is every possibility that someone who is lesser conscious than you is more right on certain issues than yourself. Someone who is deep into their own limited perspective would know their own perspective better than you, because you haven't entered their perspective deep enough! They could have pretty strong reasons for supporting Trump. If you invalidate and negate their reasons, it won't make their reasons go away.

You are getting into relativity of “right”, which is an interesting conversation - yet not the area I was engaged in. 

I am pointing to immersing into a perspective so deeply that it becomes your perspective that you identify with and are attached to. In doing so, understanding of the perspective would be revealed. It has nothing to do with being “right” or “wrong”, it is prior to being right or wrong. For example, one time during hiking in nature I went into a waking lucid dream state and started sensing dark spirit energies. I didn’t have any perspective on dark spirit energies. I’ve never really considered whether they exist or not. It’s not something that I’m interested in. Yet here I was, sensing and interacting with dark spirit energies. There was no “is this real? Or am I imagining it? Are dark spirit energies right?”. That was present, this was prior to that. I WAS a person sensing and interacting with dark spirit energies. I could sense them moving and knew how they move into living beings. I knew the fear associated with it. I was like a person that lived in a small S. American village. I knew what it was like to seek a Shaman to exorcise dark spirit energies. . . After a while, I regained a non-lucid state and the relations with the dark spirit energies dissolved. As I sit here right now, I don’t have any perspective or experiences on wether dark spirit energies are “right” or “better” or “real” than any other experiences. I am not living my life as if I need to protect myself from dark spirit energies. However, I know have a much deeper understanding of the essence of dark spirit energies and what it’s like to be a person that interacts with dark spirit energies.

53 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Also, it isn't necessarily healthy for everyone to have an expansive perspective. A lot of people are trying to get a handle on their own sense of reality, which is why 'loosening their hold on their perspective' could result in loss of sanity. You may not be doing them a service by telling them to let go of their perspective, that holding on to their perspective is somehow objectively wrong. It can take a long time before you are secure in your own perspective, after which you can move on to include other perspectives as part of your own. You don't have to let go of your perspective in order to understand another perspective, integration is possible.

Yes, this is a good point and I often have to old back. Having an expansive consciousness is not necessarily good or healthy. It depends on the person. For my personality, I resonate with the interplay of expansion and contraction. I have a desire to explore consciousness. Yet this is not for everybody. Some people like to stay immersed within a character and that’s ok. It’s like being a character in a movie and they don’t want to stop playing that character. And yes, the process of this transcendence can be related to losing sanity. I’ve gone through periods of losing sanity and I have a sense of how it can trap a person. For example, I’ve been able to become so immersed cycling through multiple perspectives that it was like having multiple personalities. It was very unstable at times and I may have been diagnosed as having multiple personalities. I can see how someone gets trapped within this mindset. It took a lot of practice and work for me to gain grounding at a meta level to the appearances of multiple personalities. Yet I have a decent understanding of how a mind can get trapped within it and how insane that would be. 

[Parththakkar12]

15 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are creating these meanings. Even within the meanings you create the two are intimately connected. As well, you are creating your own definition of a “conscious person” and I would consider your description to be a relatively low conscious level. It goes much deeper and broader.

About 'perspective' and 'ideological position' - They are connected and there is no duality fundamentally between the two, so I wouldn't disagree with your interpretation. However, what I was pointing to was 2 different facets of the same thing.

For example, my lived experience, which is my present moment experience and the memories of past experiences I have, would be considered Parth's perspective. My ideological worldview, or the mental software that runs my mind, which gives rise to my ideological positions is my individual interpretation of those experiences. Now say you get deep into my perspective, such that you are able to attune to my lived experience. You still wouldn't have access to my ideological worldview without interacting with me, because we are physically different people. The rules of the 3D videogame say that different brains cannot access each other's beliefs. This is the difference between the facets I was talking about.

25 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

As well, we could create a hierarchy of consciousness and say some reasons for holding a view is more conscious than other reasons for holding another view., SD contains this type of hierarchy.

SD also holds room for Tier-2 to accommodate for any and all reasons! My point here is that it isn't actually possible to make absolute claims that one reason for holding a view is more conscious than another reason. Now SD gives us a model that has incredible accuracy. Having said that, it would be a mistake to conflate the map for the territory. SD does, in fact, have respect for this in the way it defines Tier-2.

I'm gonna take the risk of making a very fine-grained distinction here : There is a difference between levels of psychological development and level of consciousness. SD models the former, the latter cannot be modeled.

Does this mean that you cannot know whether someone else's perspective is conscious of something or not? No. You can attune to their perspective, get into it and understand their level of consciousness, i.e. what they see vs what they miss. My point is that it is slippery territory.

40 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I am pointing to immersing into a perspective so deeply that it becomes your perspective that you identify with and are attached to. In doing so, understanding of the perspective would be revealed. It has nothing to do with being “right” or “wrong”, it is prior to being right or wrong. For example, one time during hiking in nature I went into a waking lucid dream state and started sensing dark spirit energies. I didn’t have any perspective on dark spirit energies. I’ve never really considered whether they exist or not. It’s not something that I’m interested in. Yet here I was, sensing and interacting with dark spirit energies. There was no “is this real? Or am I imagining it? Are dark spirit energies right?”. That was present, this was prior to that. I WAS a person sensing and interacting with dark spirit energies. I could sense them moving and knew how they move into living beings. I knew the fear associated with it. I was like a person that lived in a small S. American village. I knew what it was like to seek a Shaman to exorcise dark spirit energies. . . After a while, I regained a non-lucid state and the relations with the dark spirit energies dissolved. As I sit here right now, I don’t have any perspective or experiences on wether dark spirit energies are “right” or “better” or “real” than any other experiences. I am not living my life as if I need to protect myself from dark spirit energies. However, I know have a much deeper understanding of the essence of dark spirit energies and what it’s like to be a person that interacts with dark spirit energies.

We are on the same page relative to this. More power to you! If you are able to get into their perspective this deeply, you can in fact know what's right for them. Your advice could really be legit advice as it can directly speak to them.

42 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes, this is a good point and I often have to old back. Having an expansive consciousness is not necessarily good or healthy. It depends on the person. For my personality, I resonate with the interplay of expansion and contraction. I have a desire to explore consciousness. Yet this is not for everybody. Some people like to stay immersed within a character and that’s ok. It’s like being a character in a movie and they don’t want to stop playing that character. And yes, the process of this transcendence can be related to losing sanity. I’ve gone through periods of losing sanity and I have a sense of how it can trap a person. For example, I’ve been able to become so immersed cycling through multiple perspectives that it was like having multiple personalities. It was very unstable at times and I may have been diagnosed as having multiple personalities. I can see how someone gets trapped within this mindset. It took a lot of practice and work for me to gain grounding at a meta level to the appearances of multiple personalities. Yet I have a decent understanding of how a mind can get trapped within it and how insane that would be. 

I can relate with this. Happens to the best of us!

[DivineSoda]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. I’m saying by tightly holding the perspective you are, you cannot truly understand another perspective.

Go live within a poor black community in New York City. Ask black people how Trump’s actions have harmed them. Have lots of deep conversation for months. Observe how Trump’s behavior has harmed them. This would give you a better understanding of that perspective. It may even loosen the hold on the perspective that you are currently holding tightly. If you become a black person living in a poor black community in NYC, you would hold a new perspective.

All I'm saying is, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Either way, you still get "evil". It is definitely my perspective, and I'm definitely clinging to it until I come to some greater realization. 

So far, everyone who has explained why voting for the lesser of two evils is a good idea did not resonate with me. 

I guess that makes me close minded? 

[Consept]

14 minutes ago, DivineSoda said:

All I'm saying is, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Either way, you still get "evil". It is definitely my perspective, and I'm definitely clinging to it until I come to some greater realization. 

So far, everyone who has explained why voting for the lesser of two evils is a good idea did not resonate with me. 

I guess that makes me close minded? 

Well i mean would you vote to get beaten up badly or killed? 

[Forestluv]

47 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

For example, my lived experience, which is my present moment experience and the memories of past experiences I have, would be considered Parth's perspective. My ideological worldview, or the mental software that runs my mind, which gives rise to my ideological positions is my individual interpretation of those experiences. 

You are using the term “perspective” differently than I normally do, which is fine - I can be fluid with terms.

What we call “my present moment experience” and “memories of past experiences” has a lot of nuance to it. For example, if we are truly talking about “my present moment experience”, that is Now. There is no “my”. There is no “present”, since there is not past or future for contrast. I would consider this “direct experience”, yet not “my” direct experience. That gets contextualized into “my experience” within a timeline. There are an infinite number of contextualizations that are available. In terms of constructs, some people say that this contextualization of “my experience” is influence by pre-conceived filters due to conditioning from past experience (such as memories). Yet this assumes that those past experiences occurred in the past. That’s fine, yet they also did not occur in the past. They are occurring now. They are all appearances happening now and we create a back story of my memories of past experiences. Humans create all sorts of back stories. . . I usually don’t use the term “perspective” to describe this. 

To me, your description of “mental software that runs mind, which gives rise to my ideological positions is my individual interpretation of those experiences”. To me, the phrase “mental software that runs my mind” is vague., . . . As well, I would be careful with “my”. To me, you are getting into an area in which “my” starts to break down. In this area, we could also say that there are ideological thoughts that appear, yet with no owner. We could add in a transcendent “I”, yet that’s not the sense I get from you here. My sense is that you are using a personal “I”. If so, another way of looking at it is without a “my” owner, without identification and attachment. Here, there is no internal system separate from an external system. There is an inter-connected system. In this context, everything around me feeds into interpretation.

I’m not saying the construct you are creating is wrong or has no value, yet it doesn’t resonate with me much so far.

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Now say you get deep into my perspective, such that you are able to attune to my lived experience. You still wouldn't have access to my ideological worldview without interacting with me, because we are physically different people. The rules of the 3D videogame say that different brains cannot access each other's beliefs. This is the difference between the facets I was talking about.

Here-in comes the dilemma I have. How can I get deep into your lived experience if your lived experience never occurred? Your lived experience is a contextualization occurring Now. So to me, what you are saying is imagine I can get attune to what is happening now in “you”. These happenings could be thought memories, body memories, energetics etc. I would consider this a high level of attunement. It is a master level of ESP/empathy/intuition/knowing. 

The way you are using the term “life experience” assumes you actually experienced things in the past. This would be a 4D dimension, yet it’s very difficult to me to limit myself to a 4D dimension here. It would be like trying to have a conversation without the letters “E, T, H and R. Plus, every third word needs to rhyme with “shark”. It would be difficult for me to have that conversation. 

My impression is that you are saying that there is a thing called “life experience” that happened to you in the past that I can attune with. Attunement to me means I have no cleared ALL of my “life experiences” and I am now ALL of your “life experiences”. I have literally experienced everything in your life. In terms of “life experience” we know share the exact same life experience. There is no longer a “you” and “me”. There is one set of “life experiences”. Yet you know go on to say that there is something else, some additional “mental software” that you have but I don’t. We are the exact same person in terms of “life experience” yet we are two different people in terms of “mental software”. The problem I have with that is keeping the mental software separate from life experience. I don’t see how we can have the exact same life experience with different mental software. To me, the mental software is involved in creating the appearances of “life experience” Now. I would need to temporarily disable my mental software to fully embody your life experience in both contexts of it happening in the past as well as being created Now. Yet then I would be surrendering my mental software and using yours. 

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

My point here is that it isn't actually possible to make absolute claims that one reason for holding a view is more conscious than another reason.

In an absolute sense, I agree. Yet in this absolute sense, it’s game over for relative. There is one singularity. There is no “one reason” and “another reason”. 

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

There is a difference between levels of psychological development and level of consciousness. SD models the former, the latter cannot be modeled.

Sure. I’ve seen others create similar constructs. That’s fine. I would just be careful with your use of the term “consciousness” there are many different contexts that people create. 

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Does this mean that you cannot know whether someone else's perspective is conscious of something or not? No. You can attune to their perspective, get into it and understand their level of consciousness, i.e. what they see vs what they miss. My point is that it is slippery territory.

To me, you seem to be using the term “conscious” in different contexts. Here you seem to use it as meaning “aware”.

If you create “someone else’s perspective”, you have just created separation. If you create separation, you cannot know to things. If I am a human I am not a rabbit. If that is a rock, it is not a ham sandwich. If that is someone else’s perspective, it is not my perspective. In this context, you don’t know because you just created separation of not knowing. 

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, DivineSoda said:

All I'm saying is, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Either way, you still get "evil". It is definitely my perspective, and I'm definitely clinging to it until I come to some greater realization. 

So far, everyone who has explained why voting for the lesser of two evils is a good idea did not resonate with me. 

I guess that makes me close minded? 

That’s fine, you can create any story you want.

To me it’s very straightforward at a personal level: If I had the choice between getting hit by a stick or getting hit by a bus, I would choose the stick. 

Similarly at a community level. If I had the choice between my community losing 30 people due to the corona virus or my community losing 30,000 people to the bubonic plague, I would choose the corona virus. 

[Parththakkar12]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

What we call “my present moment experience” and “memories of past experiences” has a lot of nuance to it. For example, if we are truly talking about “my present moment experience”, that is Now. There is no “my”. There is no “present”, since there is not past or future for contrast.

When I say 'I' or 'my', it is the human being Parth. So I use those terms in the 3D sense. When I say 'present' and 'past', I mean those in the way we commonly know present or past, according to the 3D materialist construct.

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

My impression is that you are saying that there is a thing called “life experience” that happened to you in the past that I can attune with. Attunement to me means I have no cleared ALL of my “life experiences” and I am now ALL of your “life experiences”. I have literally experienced everything in your life.

My bad! I didn't really explain 'attunement' to you. Alright.

Attunement is the same as empathy. It happens on a felt level, it's like I can feel your emotions. Here's my claim - We are all one on an emotional level, which is the energetic level. You can consciously decide to 'tune in' to my perspective, or my felt experience. This can also be seen as waking up to the fact that my perspective is a part of You, intuitively feeling it and tapping into it. I can see that you, of all people, would be able to do this.

Now the emotional level is a 5D level, which is higher than 3D or 4D (time). On this level, we are all one, there is no separation. But, on the level of 3D, we are separate human beings living different lives. Our physical bodies are different, our brains are different, our memories are different, our belief systems are different. You cannot access these things using your human body because it's physically separate from mine. You will have to interact with me and ask me about these things if you want to know about them. However, on an emotional level, you can feel into not just me, any being in the Universe. You can feel into the energy of Adolf Hitler, Elon Musk, Angelina Jolie, anyone. That is attunement.

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In terms of “life experience” we know share the exact same life experience. There is no longer a “you” and “me”. There is one set of “life experiences”.

That is true from an Absolute perspective. However, from the 3D materialist perspective, we are different human beings. The life experience/sensory experienced through the instrument 'Parth' is different from the experience experienced through the instrument @Serotoninluv. This is how I meant it. My claim here is that the rules of the 3D world say that one instrument cannot access the memories, beliefs and sensory experience of another instrument unless science makes that possible. By attunement though, you can access the felt perception of another perspective without having to break the rules of the 3D game!

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

We are the exact same person in terms of “life experience” yet we are two different people in terms of “mental software”. The problem I have with that is keeping the mental software separate from life experience. I don’t see how we can have the exact same life experience with different mental software. To me, the mental software is involved in creating the appearances of “life experience” Now. I would need to temporarily disable my mental software to fully embody your life experience in both contexts of it happening in the past as well as being created Now. Yet then I would be surrendering my mental software and using yours. 

Again, I use the term 'mental software' in the 3D materialist sense.

We're having a bunch of conversations here : About the 3D materialist physical time-space reality, the 5D emotional reality where attunement/Oneness happens and the Absolute level where all dualities collapse. All of these realities have different rules which shouldn't be conflated and applied wrongly. The 3D time-space reality is a part of the higher-level realities, sort of like you have building blocks of the higher-level realities building the 3D reality.

40 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In an absolute sense, I agree. Yet in this absolute sense, it’s game over for relative. There is one singularity. There is no “one reason” and “another reason”.

Oh man! Now you're blurring the lines of cause and effect. Cause and effect is a thing in 5D reality, where you can see the mechanism of how the 3D world gets created. That we can call Infinite Mind, which creates our 3D time-space reality by a chain of cause and effect. Mind thinks in terms of cause and effect, so that necessarily means that cause and effect exist on this level. Now of course, as we all know, this duality collapses on an Absolute level.

I may not have been fully clear here. Language also tends to break down in these conversations, I did my best. You can ask me to clarify points that aren't clear to you.

[Forestluv]

45 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Attunement is the same as empathy. It happens on a felt level, it's like I can feel your emotions. Here's my claim - We are all one on an emotional level, which is the energetic level. You can consciously decide to 'tune in' to my perspective, or my felt experience. This can also be seen as waking up to the fact that my perspective is a part of You, intuitively feeling it and tapping into it. I can see that you, of all people, would be able to do this.

I don’t think what you are saying is incorrect,, yet I need to be careful creating constructs that I hold and own. I start to lose the ability of what those constructs were originally trying to point to. For example, the other day I saw a rabbit and just started staring at it. I went blank and the attunement/empathy/connection/oneness knowing etc. begin to arise. Yet as soon as I started questioning, thinking, defining, explaining etc. it dissolved away. For me, the blank clarity is a major key.

Yet I can see how it could be helpful to create descriptions for grounding or to help others access it. I think that is a worthy endeavor and the world could certainly use more understanding of shared experience and empathy. 

I don’t have the ability to turn on hyper empathy at will. I can turn on meta views of images and thought constructs at will, yet that is limited and not nearly as holistic as what you are describing. For example, I can see two people debating and easily take a meta view and see both arguments, how they arise, attachment and identification. Yet this is a very shallow level. Levels of knowing and being go much much deeper. Like the example I gave of knowing of being a person that senses and interacts with dark energy spirits.

45 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Now the emotional level is a 5D level, which is higher than 3D or 4D (time). On this level, we are all one, there is no separation.

That’s not my relationship with 5D. When there is all One, there is Nothing. In 5D, there are all sorts of things. I’m would describe it as transcending linear time (4D) into Now. Yet other people may describe 5D differently. Again, it’s not a theoretical thing for me. It’s an ISness that I would stumble around searching for words trying to explain it.

45 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Our physical bodies are different, our brains are different, our memories are different, our belief systems are different. You cannot access these things using your human body because it's physically separate from mine. You will have to interact with me and ask me about these things if you want to know about them. However, on an emotional level, you can feel into not just me, any being in the Universe. You can feel into the energy of Adolf Hitler, Elon Musk, Angelina Jolie, anyone. That is attunement.

I think you are exploring some cool areas here. 

45 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

That is true from an Absolute perspective. However, from the 3D materialist perspective, we are different human beings. The life experience/sensory experienced through the instrument 'Parth' is different from the experience experienced through the instrument @Serotoninluv. This is how I meant it. My claim here is that the rules of the 3D world say that one instrument cannot access the memories, beliefs and sensory experience of another instrument unless science makes that possible. By attunement though, you can access the felt perception of another perspective without having to break the rules of the 3D game!

We're having a bunch of conversations here : About the 3D materialist physical time-space reality, the 5D emotional reality where attunement/Oneness happens and the Absolute level where all dualities collapse. All of these realities have different rules which shouldn't be conflated and applied wrongly. The 3D time-space reality is a part of the higher-level realities, sort of like you have building blocks of the higher-level realities building the 3D reality.

Cause and effect is a thing in 5D reality, where you can see the mechanism of how the 3D world gets created. That we can call Infinite Mind, which creates our 3D time-space reality by a chain of cause and effect. Mind thinks in terms of cause and effect, so that necessarily means that cause and effect exist on this level. Now of course, as we all know, this duality collapses on an Absolute level.

You seem to be entering new realms that I hadn’t notice you explore before. In the past, you seemed to be more engaged with “normie” stuff. It’s cool to see you enter this area. It’s an area in which what imagination creates isn’t “right or wrong”.  To me, what you describe is a description of a cool area of exploration and discovery. I would just be careful with the tendency of the mind to get to grounded and say “this is how it is”. That can become limiting. Yet again, there is a ‘space’ of ‘this is how it is’.

I’m not sure if you have done psychedelics, yet ime the area you are describing goes very well with psychedelics. One can actually enter and be the realm and their ability can get magnified by 10X. It’s like jumping up multiple levels or getting a magic wand.

For me there is a balance between experiential beingness and explanation. For logical things like science or politics I’m much more tilted toward explanation. For ‘paranormal’ things, I’m tilted more toward experiential/beingness. 

45 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Language also tends to break down in these conversations, I did my best. 

Yes, language does seem to break down in this area. I think you did great and have dug deeper than I have previously seen. Very nice work. 

[Parththakkar12]

49 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I don’t think what you are saying is necessarily incorrect,, yet for me I need to be careful creating constructs that I hold and own. I start to lose the ability of what those constructs were originally trying to point to. For example, the other day I saw a rabbit and just started staring at it. I went blank and the attunement/empathy/connection/oneness knowing etc. begin to arise. Yet as soon as I started questioning, thinking, defining, explaining etc. it dissolved away. For me, the blank clarity is a major key. Yet I can see how it could be helpful to create descriptions for grounding or to help others access it. I think that is a worthy endeavor and the world could certainly use more understanding of shared experience and empathy. It’s probably better than my usual effort of trying to break someone out of perspective lock by playing devils advocate of the other perspective. However, I’ve found I need to be careful in defining the phenomena itself. It’s like if I try to control the narrative, I lose the imaginative potential.

I might just have the answer to this. I have found this to be the product of attachment to my mind in my case. I used to struggle with this. But then, as I had some ego-death experiences or enlightenment experiences, I dis-identified from my mind. Then, the naturally in-alignment choice was made for me - I was able to use my mind differently. Rather than identify with my worldview and use my mind that way, since this part of me had found the Truth, I then started using my mind to 'point to' or 'talk about' my perceived experience in the Now.

This is what happened with me. I intuitively felt guided to share this.

49 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I can turn on meta views of images and thought constructs at will, yet that is limited and not nearly as holistic as what you are describing. For example, I can see two people debating and easily take a meta view and see both arguments, how they arise, attachment and identification.

Useful skill.

49 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That’s not my relationship with 5D. When there is all One, there is Nothing. In 5D, there are all sorts of things. I’m would describe it as transcending linear time (4D) into Now. Yet other people may describe 5D differently. Again, it’s not a theoretical thing for me. It’s an ISness that I would stumble around searching for words trying to explain it.

I did happen to stumble upon it without particularly looking for it! I happened to find the right teachers, be in the right area of the world to learn about the 5D. I didn't go looking for it as an escape from my 3D normal life, my 'normal life' happened to include it!

There are a lot of people who get into channelling, past-lives, etc. to escape the problems of their 3D life. I'd suggest that you don't worry too much about it if it doesn't naturally come to you.

49 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You seem to be entering new realms that I hadn’t notice you explore before. In the past, you seemed to be more engaged with “normie” stuff. It’s cool to see you enter this area. It’s an area in which what imagination creates isn’t “right or wrong”.  To me, what you describe is a description of a cool area of exploration and discovery. I would just be careful with the tendency of the mind to get to grounded and say “this is how it is”. That can become limiting. Yet again, there is a ‘space’ of ‘this is how it is’.

Actually, I've been involved with this stuff even before I came across Leo, even before I joined the forum! Now why didn't I bring it up earlier, you might ask. Here's why : the problem of communication is a really difficult one. I have been focusing on integrating everything I see, while having normal communication on 'normie topics' and integrating all of that!

Normal human communication is a very complex process. Human beings today don't know how to communicate while being on the same page. Projection tends to get in the way of achieving clarity of communication even on day-to-day topics. This has been the way in my experience : first you intuit what the other person is open to hearing, then you intuit a way of getting past their projections (which involves getting conscious of them), then you take their mind/belief-system/ideology as a part of your mind (You can do this if you're at Yellow), then you directly interact with their mind. This has been my practice for the past 4-5 months. This debate-intensive forum has been great practice!

I'd never thought I'd get the opportunity to tell someone about my spiritual worldview this early on. I'll consider this a W in communication!

Edited June 9, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Forestluv]

@Parththakkar12 Nice work. ?