Forestluv

Imagine we find out there is some truth behind a door. I would get super curious. The rest if the day, I’d be wondering about that truth. What’s behind the door? Is it an object? A saying? An experience? A portal to another realm? . . . The rest of life would be a distraction. A cute gal might be flirting with me and my mind would be wondering whats the truth on the other side of that darn door. . . And I wouldn’t care much whether that truth benefitted me or not.

@Matt23 I started off with about average sensitivity, then became more sensitive. These days, 75ug of LSD would likely send me into a nondual reality like 150ug used to.

@Bno As I said, it is not the questions. It is the orientation underlying the questions. To me, you are not asking questions with a genuine curiosity to mutually explore, learn and expand. These questions have a certain type of openness and flow in which there is no ownership of ideas. Constructs get deconstructed, explored and reconstructed. It’s a certain type of energetics. Yet to me, that’s not what’s happening here. You seem to be oriented toward a particular view and keep returning to that view to maintain that construct. There is a right vs. wrong framework. For me, this isn’t an environment for fruitful conversations. These are just my impressions, other people are oriented differently.

If you aren’t on ssris, it sounds like you may have a naturally high tolerance. A 0.1g MD the day before would generally have a slight tolerance effect. Perhaps 20% (3g is effectively 2.5g). I’m super sensitive too psychedelics now. I can’t imagine investing these amounts with no effect.

@Bno I already fell for that once tonight. Have a good night ??

@Bno You don’t seem oriented toward genuinely asking questions to explore and expand. You seem oriented toward debating and protecting a pre-conceived perspective. Notice your desire to engage in the content and debate that content. Imo, none of the questions you’ve asked me have been asked with genuine curiosity to explore, learn and expand. It seems like you already have the answer to your questions and respond by going into debate mode to defend your position. This is the biased perspective that was pointed to earlier.

I didn’t see that acknowledgment, yet it would be a crack to open the door. Rather than seek expressions of the leverage, I would focus on the source of the leverage. For example, I think we would both agree that Trump is more compromised by Putin/Russia than Bernie Sanders. Why might Trump be more compromised than Sanders? . . . That would be a start to break the binary construct of 100% compromised vs 0% compromised.

@Bno You seem to like your narrative. This is what I wrote earlier about filters. I wrote that I had previously mentioned criminal minds and how you were not open to it and dismissed it to protect a pre-conceived narrative. You then said you were open and interested. Yet look at your response here. It’s exactly as I said earlier. You are immersed in a narrative that you see as being objectively true and you protect that narrative. There is nothing wrong with that, yet it is contracted and prevents growth and expansion.

Have you done 3g before? With this strain? Do you have a natural high tolerance? Microdosing can certainly have a tolerance effect. Many people are actually minidosing and thinking they are microdosing. What is your micro dose?

If you can’t see there is Putin/Russian leverage on Trump, we can’t have a conversation about the leverage. Which is fine. I’ve got other things to do tonight. I think the best contrast is looking at the relationship Trump and Bernie Sanders have to Putin/Russia. One of them is compromised, the other is not. As well, having leverage does NOT mean 100% submissive servitude as a puppet. It is not a 100% binary thing. It is more nuanced than that. It’s just a different pov that I think could help expand. Yet it doesn’t seem to resonate with you, which is fine.

No. You missed the whole point of the analogy ?

I would recontextualize “evidence” and game theory. Imagine a mafia leader has video of the mayor of Medellin Colombia molesting a child. The mafia leader is the only one with the video and the mayor knows the mafia guy has it. The mafia leader has leverage over the mayor. Now imagine the mafia leader’s nephew gets arrested. Since the mafia leader has leverage over the mayor he can manipulate the mayor without obvious “evidence”. The mafia leader probably won’t need to do anything. The mayor knows the kid is related to the mafia leader and will instinctively try to release the nephew from arrest, without anyone knowing why. Zero evidence. There wasn’t even any communication. Or if the mayor needs nudging, all the mafia leader has to do is have one of his goons refer to the nephew with something like “we all make mistakes in our life”. This appears totally benign to the average person, yet the mayor will know EXACTLY what is meant and he will try to release the nephew from jail. Again, zero evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the mafia leader. He doesn’t need to call the mayor and say “Hey, remember that I have video of you molesting a child. If you don’t release my nephew from jail, I will release the video to the authorities”. That’s not how it works. The mafia leader doesn’t need to incriminate himself. There are different degrees of leverage and how far it can utilized. The mafia leader won’t get everything he wants out of the mayor and the mafia leader won’t push his leverage so far that the mayor becomes exposed and loses power - because the mafia leader would lose his pawn and an aspect of his power. For example, if the mayor had already released the mafia leader’s son from prison and given the mafia leader control over laundromats in the city - trying to also release the nephew may be too much too soon. The nephew may have to sit in prison for a little while. If the Mayor gets busted and loses his power, it is a loss for the mafia leader, especially if the mafia leader doesn’t have leverage over the new major. As well, if the mafia leader pushes it too far, it will draw too much attention toward himself. If there are authorities that can damage the mafia leader, the mafia leader will not want to draw their attention. You are looking for post-leverage evidence from a rational mindset. Look prior to that. Ask yourself if Putin has leverage Trump. That is the game changer. Putin has personal leverage on Trump. Putin has no personal leverage on Bernie Sanders. If you can’t see this, I’m not sure how to reveal it. . . . As well, there is plenty of evidence of Putin/Russia utilizing their leverage, yet it doesn’t count as “evidence” to the filter you are using. Every US intelligence agency, US security official and US diplomat to Russia have concluded there is overwhelming evidence of Russian interference and manipulation. There is 100% consensus. Even Mueller said the Russian interference is continuing today. Yet you keep assuming and insisting there no evidence - which you need to do to maintain a particular narrative. Nearly every point you make has an underlying assumption that there is no evidence. Notice how you assumed above that Russia must “have hidden evidence”. You would need to put that narrative aside for a bit to explore and expand.

@Bno Mafia leaders, mobsters and serial killers et al. have a different mindset than “normal” people and they communicate differently. I don’t think you are considering this with your “Russia-gate” narrative. You are looking for a particular type of evidence from a rational non-criminal mindset and will miss a lot. For example, Putin has leverage on Trump. When a powerful mafia leader / dictator has leverage on a weaker person, they can manipulate that person without incriminating themselves. This is part of what you are missing, imo. You are looking for incriminating evidence, without considering how a dictator with leverage operates to protect themself from incriminating evidence. These guys are not low level crooks that walk into a liquor store with a gun and get caught on video saying “Gimme all your money”. It’s more like a kidnapper who has mentally manipulated his victim such that they can go out in public together and she will obey. After 10 years of abuse, she is finally discovered and the general public is dumbfounded as they ask “why didn’t she just ask for help or run away? They were out in public with police officers nearby. Maybe she wanted to be with him.”. . . They don’t understand how twisted, demented minds work. Putin has one of those minds. Yet you are expecting a criminal to behave in a certain way based on a rational, non-criminal mindset . . . I wouldn’t go so far to say Putin is Trump’s puppet master, yet he has leverage and knows how to pull a few string here and there, without incriminating himself.

@Bno It’s not just about being right or wrong. It’s being open to explore without judging everything as right or wrong. . . For example, I think you could explore and grow a lot regarding how criminal minds work. I’ve spent a lot of time exploring this area and you are missing a lot, imo. Yet when I mentioned something about the dynamics of criminal minds, you weren’t open to exploring it because it didn’t fit with your pre-conceived view. My sense is that you saw this view as a threat to the Russia-gate narrative and you went into debate mode to protect a pre-conceived view. This is a biased filter. A lot of insights and nuances will be missed. Personally, I want to be curious and have the freedom to explore without the restriction of a particular lens.

@Bno The point isn’t about the content of your view, it is the structure. If I say “My perspective is objectively true”, I will perceive all other views as being objectively false and reject them. This is biased perception through a personal filter. It is extremely contracted and limited. It allows no curiosity, space and openness to explore, grow and expand. One will miss out on a lot with such a mindset.

The belief that a one’s perspective is objectively true is itself a self bias. These are chains that contract into a perspective and limit exploration, growth and expansion. . . Yet it can be transcended.

I’ve reviewed your posts and it seems like you haven’t had direct experience with psychedelics, yet you claim you do. You’ve previously made the claim you have experience while giving advice to another about how to use psychedelics. You were asked directly about whether you have psychedelic experience and evaded answering. Claiming psychedelic experience, without any, is misleading to others on the forum.

I thought you previously wrote that you haven’t done psychedelics and are considering trying it out. If you want to understand psychedelics better, the best way is to actually trip and get direct experience. Imo, you seem immersed in intellectual analysis and thought stories. There is transcendence of that. Yet it doesn’t come from more analysis and more sophisticated thought stories. One of the powers of psychedelics is that they transcend intellect and the storytelling the mind is attached to and identified with. Mental theorizing is a way for the mind to control the narrative and stay in control.

@Nak Khid You are essentially asking for evidence. The direct experience is more profound than the evidence you are seeking. In regard to evidence, have you watched Leo’s videos over the last two years? Do you really think all of Leo’s insights he expresses arise solely from meditation and theory from others? I would put less effort into analyzing others and more effort into having your own mystical experiences.

You seem to really like the narrative in your mind. There is a transcendence of that. Yet it would go off-topic.

Lol. You are trying to control the narrative.

Kinda like becoming aware of how a magic trick works.

No, it is not. You are viewing gender through a lens that benefits you and your survival. There is a meta view to that. Yet you would need to let go of the view you are attached to and identified with to transcend it - which you aren’t willing to do.

It’s so worth it.

No (I cannot answer with a simple yes or no answer. The issue is much too nuanced for that).