Forestluv

Ok. if someone refuses to be socially responsible, then their participation in society should be limited. People getting vaccinated are reducing the spread potential of the virus and anti-vaxxers are are allowing continued spread and new variants to arise. Anti-vaxxers shouldn't be allowed at social events like concerts, sporting events, airplanes, buses etc. These are all aspects of social systems. Society will soon get tired of anti-vaxxers filling up hospital beds, draining social systems and spreading variants. My local hospitals have hit capacity and are in triage due to unvaccinated covid patients. My work institution is looking at closing down. People will lose patience with anti-vaxxers. Especially when anti-vaxxers are spreading new variants that are resistant to the original vaccine. That is going to cause more social problems, drain systems and require responsible people to get another vaccination because of irresponsible anti-vaxxers. People aren't going to put up with that crap for long. If anti-vaxxers keep it up, there will be social restrictions on societal events in which only vaccinated people can attend. Vaccinated people are going to be pissed off with anti-vaxxers spreading new variants at concerts, sporting events, airline travel etc. Coronavirus denial is over the line for forum guidelines. You are walking in a grey area of covid-hoaxing.

For me, I don't know if that is true. I was did spiritual practices for 20+ years and barely moved the needle. This involved daily practice, retreats, a library full of books and a Sangha community. People would come into the Sangha and start having awakenings after 3-6 months and I had been there 10 years, like "wtf?". A month after my first trip, I returned to the Sangha and was sharing stuff that now seemed so obvious and ordinary. They were blown away and asked me what I had been doing. "Wtf happened to you?", "Did you do a month-long meditation retreat?", "Did you get a new spiritual teacher?", "Did you visit Sanghas in Japan or India?", "What happened?". . . Yet I normalized psychedelics as "the ultimate teacher". I didn't realize I suck spiritually, yet was psychedelically-gifted. I started noticing people taking psychedelics and it barely moved their needle. I got 20+ years worth of mediation with one trip, yet others seem to only get the equivalent of a weekend mediation retreat.

These are all constructs of a human mind. That these questions and constructs are arising is even more evidence that psychedelics are needed to transcend these questions and constructs. I think they are awesome questions within a domain and I don't see one domain as being better than another. To me, it would be like speaking various languages. If I get two grounded in one language, I won't realize I'm missing aspects of other languages. Someone who is a polyglot is very fluid with various languages and wouldn't see any one language as the "true" language as which to perceive. In this context, I don't give any more relevance to psychedelic-induced states and non-psychedelic states. Upon deeper inspection, those distinctions break down and the two are intimately integrated. Yet one thing I see people do over and over again is subconsciously assume their framework is the proper grounding upon which to evaluate other "things". That would be like someone telling me about a language spoken in Tasmania that I've never heard of. I could assume that English is the proper language and speculate about the Tasmanian dialect as a "thing" out there. Even asking "what do we think we are exploring when we travel to Tasmania to learn their culture and language" assumes my grounding *here* relative to some other thing being explored *over there*. That would be very odd to a Tasmanian since the "real" grounding is Tasmanian culture/language upon which to evaluate English. Yet for an English person to realize this, they would need to go to Tasmania. NOT to explore it as an English person, yet to dissolve all and become Tasmanian. Only then can they transcend both Tasmanian and English. Here, why would you give narrative control to your non-psychedelic mind as grounding? Why not flip the script? Why isn't a psychedelic mindset the grounding by which we communicate? Why not trip on psychedelics so much that the question "what are we exploring on psychedelics?" no longer makes sense? An entirely new set of appearances would manifest that make no sense to you now. Yet those would become normative. The constructs you are creating would no longer exist. I'm not saying one is "better" or "more real" than another. I would much rather be multi-lingual. Having a mindset of grounding can be a major barrier to becoming multi-lingual. It is helpful at first, yet then becomes a hindrance. When I lived in Central America learning Spanish, I realized grounding myself in English and translating into English was a major barrier to becoming fluent in Spanish. I had to fully surrender English and immerse myself into Spanish with no English grounding or safety net. Only then was I able to perceive the world through a Spanish lens, rather than evaluating Spanish through an English lens. With that said, you are much more spiritually gifted than I am. I spent 20+ years with meditation / Buddhism / nonduality and was only having surface level insights. The insights you share go waaay deeper than anything I was able to realize and many of the things you share I needed psychedelics to reveal. I was poorly-suited for spiritual practices, yet was very well-suited for psychedelics. I learned more in my first psychedelic trip than 20+ years of meditation / Buddhism / nonduality practice. And I'm telling you. . . I could have spent another 20+ years with spiritual practice and still would have been at a surface level. . . Because I've never met anyone that has reached the depths of psychedelics without psychedelics. In fact, I've rarely met anyone that has reached the depth of psychedelics that has used psychedelics. It's a combination of genetics and prior conditioning. You are much more spiritually-gifted than I was. I needed psychedelics to realize 90% of the insights your share. And I spent over 20 years practicing spirituality. Fortunately, I got lucky and I'm "psychedelically-gifted".

This brings to mind an idea about no timeline, which ironically involves a timeline. . . A long time ago. . . early humans didn't have a conscious idea of a timeline. Similar to apes, some of their behavior reflected events from the past (e.g. Bobo the ape acts aggressively to Fran the ape because Bobo saw Fran having sex with his lady ape. Yet this would be a very low resolution timeline. Bobo is not thinking "That jackass Fran put the moves on my gal yesterday. That is the third time he tried that this month. During tomorrow's hunt, I am going to blindside him and kick his ass". Adding in resolution to timelines was a slow process and it gave early humans an enormous evolutionary advantage. It started simple like two humans communicating about what their rivals had been doing in the past. This allows for greater planning, strategizing and learning. It was an enormous advantage. Yet then us humans seemed to take it so far that we are completely immersed within a timeline. In the beginning, it was likely only about 5% of mind space and communication. Today it's probably 95% of one's mind space and communication.

That is a great exploration and objective to have. Yet that's not what I was exploring nor an objective in what I was exploring. Again, that is awesome stuff to explore with tons of insights. Exploring oceans and forests are both awesome. This seems to add in another point of view to: There is One whole as well as components integrated together within that systemic whole. The way I interpret is an addition that there is no connection between components (screen and character) which is also true. Saying that the screen and character are intimately one has a distinction of separation (intimately one is distinct from non-intimately one). Yet I like using degrees as a paintbrush and this would be an artistic use of degrees. . . .I love the creation that there is a subtle, intimate degree of separation between screen and character and screen allows character to be. To me, that is beautiful and loving. For me, miscommunication seems to arise when one person is speaking of one facet of the diamond and another person is speaking of another facet of the diamond and they don't see each is a facet of the same diamond.

@Ook Imagine walking through a forest. Wouldn't it be odd to say "That tree over there is separate from the forest and not the forest"? Of course. It's all the forest. Yet that tree could identify as a separate entity and think "How can I as a tree be Forest? The Forest is out there somewhere. I'm just a measly tree. Look: one of my branches is dying. I'm not as tall as the other trees. I have some mold on my trunk". . . What would we say to such a tree?. . . "Wake up! You are as much forest as anything else in the Forest! You are within forest and are Forest!!!". For a Forest entity to believe it's not Forest, it would need to separate itself from Forest and say "I am separate from Forest. . . Forest is out there somewhere". The tree would need to trick itself into believing it is separate from Forest. For example, the tree may have been told it's whole life that Forest is some supernatural entity in outer space and it would be egocentric for a tree to think it's Forest. Similarly for a God entity to believe it's not God, it would need separate itself from God and say "I am separate from God. . . God is out there somewhere". The human would need to trick itself into believing it is separate from God. The term "God" can be loaded with prior conditioning and baggage. An intermediary step would be to first realize "I Am Reality (Forest)". And then realize that Reality = God.

Of course there is a 'domain' that lacks birth, bodies, categories of states, death etc. Within the domain I spoke, we could do a test: someone can deep sea dive with an O2 tank and then again without an O2 tank - and see if that influences state. My prediction is that it would have an influence. Unfortunately, the diver without the O2 tank would "die". As the "human body" undergoes asphyxia and cardiac arrest, we could say there is no human body or state dependent on that body without the belief there is a human body and state dependent on that body. A drowning dog wouldn't have those beliefs. A rock sitting on the ocean floor doesn't have those beliefs. Yet we could also say that state is influenced by environment and the human body. There is a domain in which there is a distinction between eating a tuna sandwich and drowning to death. As well, there is a domain in which there is no distinction between the state of eating a tuna sandwich and drowning to death. I simply spoke of the former. every thing 'within' One Everything is inter-connected. There is One whole as well as components integrated together within that systemic whole.

Again, this is only looking at one component of a system. Individual freedom is only one component. There are many other components including risk and harm to both individual and society. The health threat of the vaccine is much lower than the health threat of covid. It isn't even close. Those who refuse to get vaccinated just because they don't want to are negatively impacting society. The virus is spreading through unvaccinated people. People who are unvaccinated are putting stress onto the healthcare system. 99% of people hospitalized for covid are unvaccinated. Restrictions and shutdowns are due to unvaccinated people. This puts a burden on society. The institution I work at is on the verge of closing due to high infection rates and hospitalizations of unvaccinated people. If someone wants to be hyper-individualistic and refuse to consider their impacts on society - then their participation in that society should be restricted to minimize negative impacts. Unvaccinated people pose a greater risk to society. Thus, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in societal events in which they increase the risk: for example, unvaccinated people don't get to go to sporting events, concerts, travel on airplanes, buses, restaurants etc. If they will only consider their individual desires, then they can live life as an individual isolated away from society. Vaccination standards are not unique. There have been many vaccination requirements for decades. For example, one must get certain vaccines to travel to some countries because unvaccinated people would pose a stress on their health care system and risks to both the individual and society. If one refuses to get that vaccination, they are not be allowed to travel to that country and participate in that society. As well, there should be exemptions, for example people with immune disfunction. We could protect our community members that are at risk to the vaccine due to immune system problems. 10% of people would easily cover that. If 90% of us normies all got the vaccine, it would massively limit the spread of covid and the 10% of autoimmune vulnerable people are protected. Anti-vaxxers refusing to get vaccinated put society at risk, yet they want to take all the benefits from others getting vaccinated. That is a form of societal leeching. The individual perspective is also relevant, yet you are not balancing this with risk, harm and benefit at both individual and society level. If the vaccine posed significant harm to individual/society and the virus posed trivial harm to individual/society, we would place more emphasis on individual freedom. Yet this is not the case. Covid is much more harmful than the vaccine.

A natural internal DMT boost would be like snorkeling and a substance DMT boost would be like scuba diving. One can explore some amazing places while snorkeling, yet it isn't the same as deep ocean scuba diving. The human body cannot reach those depths without an oxygen tank.

Holding pharmaceuticals at fault gets tricky. It's impossible to design a vaccine for 100s of millions of people that will have zero side effects. If 100s of millions of people at a banana, a few will have adverse reactions. If the bar is a 100% safe vaccine for 100s of millions of people, there will be no vaccine. As well, people will be quick to blame any health issues they have on the vaccine even if it's unrelated. The courts would be full of people trying to sue pharmaceuticals for whatever health issue arises in their life. For many cases, it would be very difficult to determine whether the health issue was a direct result of the vaccine. More immediate adverse reactions are more obvious, yet we already know these are very rare. I think it's more of a regulatory issue of what standards we expect from the pharmaceuticals. If it is gross negligence or lack of integrity, then they should be held accountable. For example, if they are caught omitting some data from the public. Yet there will be a small percentage of people that got the vaccine in good faith and get serious side effects. There may be someone that was in a grey area of autoimmune disorder and the vaccine bumped them into a health issue. For these cases, I think there should be a government fund that provides the additional health care for free. And depending on the situation, they might be compensated with some disability funding.

Individual freedom is only one factor. Individual and social harms are also factors. Could we say that people should be free to choose and express themselves by drunk driving? The vast majority of people would say "no" because driving drunk significantly increases the risk of harm to both the individual and to society. Does refusing to get vaccinated increase the risk of individual and societal harm? I would say yes. For example, Michigan is a state with a lot of anti-vaxxers going through a covid spike. Our local city hospital is at capacity and in triage due to an influx of covid patients. 99%+ of them are unvaccinated. Unvaccinated people are putting a stress on the health care system. As well, we are looking at more restrictions - which has a negative impact on the economy and human psychology.

I got my second Moderna shot last Tuesday. The day after I had mild aches and two days after I feel fine.

Duplicate thread

The "Killer-Virus" is your projection. I would not describe the coronavirus as the "Killer-Virus". Each virus needs to be evaluated within a system. Lethality is only one component within that system. For example, the major hospital in my local city in Michigan recently hit 100% capacity and are in triage. Guess why the hospital recently hit capacity: A) People who got vaccinated need hospital care B) People who got covid need hospital care C) People who believe that the coronavirus hoax is real need hospital care Of course, it is covid cases. And lethality isn't the only metric. Even if the vast majority of those covid patients survive, they still got seriously ill and can long term issues. And a hospital at capacity and triage is an extreme stress on a community. They cannot provide health care to everyone. And triage is an extreme stressor to doctors and nurses. It seriously fucks with them psychologically. It's one of the worst things to put doctors / nurses through. Getting covid is more dangerous than getting the vaccine. If we give 100 million people the coronavirus and 100 million people the vaccine, the coronavirus group will have worse outcomes. It's not even close. We already know this from existing data: the coronavirus has a MUCH worse effect than the vaccine. There are hundreds of millions of hospitalizations, serious illness and death from covid, yet only hundreds (perhaps thousands) for the vaccine. Being injected with the vaccine is MUCH safer than being injected with coronavirus. That this has to be said is mindboggling and highlights how media can shape minds into distorted realities. And we also don't know the odds of long-term negative outcomes from the coronavirus. Emerging data is showing that the virus may cause relatively common long term impacts on respiratory, cardiovascular and central nervous systems. Yet there is no evidence that there will be common long-term consequences from the vaccine. And of course there won't be 10 year studies on a vaccine to combat a pandemic. . . because that would take 10 years! Imagine a country being raided by a foreign army and the president says "Let's do a 10 year study to develop the safest long-term strategy to combat this army". . . That would be too late. . . Timing is critical in fighting a pandemic. That is one reason there is such a strong push to get as many people vaccinated asap - so we can get ahead of emerging variants.

Yep. I’ve never understood why someone would invest so much of their life into raising kids. To each their own. My sister is a stay at home mom. She has a side gig of having an Etsy shop. So she gets to do rework for a few hours a day. Her husband is an engineer. It seems to work for them.

Sounds like rationalization and desire for mental control. If you want to pursue your desires, be genuine and go for it. Why add in an extra story about some god wanting you to be anti spiritual and build your ego?

Two parents with careers can see the value and importance of raising kids and work together. It happens a lot. Most of my colleagues ‘ spouses have careers. You keep putting her in a specific homemaker role. That’s fine if she is into that.

Success does not always mean powerful. I have a friend that is a successful psychologist and she is super submissive.

That sounds like a traditional orientation. There are plenty of traditional homes in which the woman is a homemaker of a family and things are healthy. Yet it’s just not true that both people can’t have successful careers. A couple can work together and make it happen. Lots of people won’t find it fulfilling to simply be a homemaker. They will want to reach their potential in some area and express themself. Cooking, doing laundry and changing diapers everyday won’t cut it.

@Fishmonk Please don’t spread stuff like becoming vegan will eradicate the coronavirus. That the virus is punishment for eating meat. That type of thing is against forum guidelines.

@Fishmonk I’m not denying that there can be serious side effects. I’m saying they are RARE. You haven’t shown any data that serious side effects are common. Show me data that more than 1 in 10,000 people have serious side effects. Even then, that would mean the vaccine is 99.99% safe. How safe do you want it? Nothing in life is 100% safe.

It was a PR disaster. 1 in a million people got blood clots, they pull it and the public freaks out it was dangerous.

There is something to be said for being genuine and dancing one’s dance. I wasted a lot of time in temples pretending to be spiritual. Yet this mindset can also be used by the ego to maintain narrative control and avoid surrendering.

Rough estimate. For example in the U.S., over 6 million doses of J and J vaccine was given and 6 people had serious side effects. 6 million people is a huge sample size. Yet it’s true that vaccines alter immune system activity and there a small percentage of people in grey areas of immune disorders that have a bad reaction. Someone could be on the edge of a autoimmune disorder and not even know it. The vaccine could push them over the edge and cause problems. Yet it’s important to note that these are rare occurrences.

As well, she could be entering an asymmetric power dynamic in which she is financially dependent on the guy. Relationships seem wonderful around marriage time. Before marriage, no one is like “This is a toxic relationship. I will marry him, suffer abuse for five years, get screwed over in divorce court and live in poverty. Even though things seem rosy during marriage time, the reality is things often turn sour. And if a woman is financially dependent on her husband, lacks education and skills - she lacks options. This allows him to be more controlling and abusive. It’s super hard for her to leave the relationship and he knows it. I think this is one of the subconscious resistances some men have against gender equality, equal education, pay etc. It empowers women and some men don’t like losing power they e had over women.