Forestluv

@Raptorsin7 Follow your intuition and let the flow state flow. Love being in the present moment. You got this ? ?

This is an old thread and the OP hasn't visited the forum for months.

Fun stuff. ? Links to commercial stores selling video games are discouraged. Here is the trailer for the game.

@Fede83 There is something special about an innocent, pure desire to share romantic love with another. ♥️

That’s a nice description. I think I’ve had similar. It’s not like a new point of attention/perception. It’s more like the dissolution of awareness in a localized body. And then a general non-localized awareness. Like being everything in the cafe I’m with it observing itself. I call it a “collective consciousness”. I was also freaked out at first and had a few panic episodes. Yet now when I feel it coming on, I’m like “Ooohhh yea, here it comes. . . “ ?

@Scholar You are free to interact with others as you see best. ?

@Scholar If someone asks a question in Esperanto, I've found it best to respond in Esperanto.

@Leo Kaminski Any interpretation is a judgement. Any assignment of meaning is a judgement. If I am walking in nature and think "That flower is beautiful", that is a judgement. If I say my favorite movie is "Inception" it is a judgement. If I think "That is a pencil", it is a judgement. "I need to pee" is a judgement. The mind is constantly judging it's environment, it is a judgement machine. That's pretty much all it does all day long. You seem to be trying to create a category of judgments that cause inner turmoil and interfere with inter-personal relations. For example, my mind may interpret reality like "My boss is such a jackass. He isn't even qualified for the job. He only got it because his uncle owns the company". Or, "people that eat insects are gross. They are like animals". These types of judgments may interfere with inner peace and exploration in life. We may never notice our boss actually has some talents we could learn from. We may never realize that our boss acts overbearing because of his fear of not being good enough. . . We may never travel to places because they eat insects there. We may miss out on a lot. Who knows, maybe we would love chocolate-covered crickets!! Yet there are also grey areas. Imagine someone is highly active. She runs marathons and hikes to mountaintops. She goes on a date with a guy that has muscular dystrophy. He seems like a nice guy, yet she wants to find a long-term partner to run with and climb mountains. She makes a judgement that she doesn't want to date him. Is she being "judgmental"? Yes. But she was also being "judgmental" when she judged the menu as something to be read than to be eaten. You could create categories of "healthy", "neutral" and "unhealthy" judgments. How you categorize them is relative to you. It depends on your definition of "valid". If your definition of "valid" is something that is objectively, universally true - then no. One person judges eating insects as gross. Another person judges eating insects as a delicacy. Is the judgment "valid" relative to the person? Sure. If someone judges eating insects as delicious - that is valid to them. Is the judgment objectively, universally true? No. Any interpretation has some degree of bias. At an obvious bias would be "eating insects is gross". This person may have grew up in a family and culture in which the idea of eating insects is barbaric. This is a personal bias Many personal biases are subconcious. An average person is unaware of the vast majority of their personal biases because they are immersed and identified to that personality. . . A much more subtle bias would be the judgment that this is a paper clip that is useful to hold paper together. This would be a subconscious human bias. The human is perceiving and judging a thing called a paper clip as being useful. A non-human organism, like a bird, would not perceive/judge the object like this.

3-5 beers per month is trivial. Since it is part of healthy socializing and bonding for you - it probably has a net positive effect. I would be more concerned about toxins on unwashed fruits and vegetables I eat. That would have more negative impact than a few beers per month.

There are several reasons psychedelics are non-addictive and non-habit-forming. 1) They don't activate the dopamine reward pathway. 2) There is a long onset until effects manifest (about 1 hr). 3) The trip has a very long duration 5+ hours, 4) There is a rapid onset of tolerance for a long period (a tolerance spike within 1hr that requires 12 days for a reset), 5) There are often uncomfortable associations with the trip (e.g. anxiety, nausea). Taken together. there is a low risk for addiction or habit formation. 5-meo is not a standard psychedelic with all of these features. In particular, 5-meo has a rapid onset of effects (within minutes), the trip duration is short (under an hour) and there is a very short tolerance window (under 1 day). Taken together, 5-meo is still relatively non-addictive/non-habit forming, yet it does not have the extreme non-addictive/non-habit profile of a standard psychedelic like LSD. In a general population, I would place the risk of 5-meo addiction / habit formation above LSD and below cannabis. The majority of people can moderate their 5-meo usage effortlessly or with little effort. Yet there occasionally are individuals that have difficulty moderating their 5-meo usage. For example, the may use 5-meo as an escape or recreationally.

Could this be a toxic form of criticism? Is there also healthy criticism? I’ve had some friends that have given me some constructive criticism about shortcomings I should work on. It was hard to hear at the time. My boundaries and defenses were too strong and I needed to open up. I’ve also experienced the type you describe. I had an ex that was hyper critical in a manipulative way. In this situation, my boundaries and defenses were too weak.

I like it. I hadn’t thought of it quite like that before. And the quote is kinda poetic.

@Lento Thats an interesting way of looking at things. You’ve got me thinking in a different way. Supposed I asked you “How do you know it’s Now?”. Well, you just know it’s Now. . . Would that come “prior” to your contemplations?

I think you make a good point here. For me, attachment/identification with experience went deep. It was really hard to realize and accept that my experience never happened. My experience is actually contextualizations occurring now and there are an infinite number of contextualizations possible. Yet with this realization came a freedom and opened a door to the magic of Now. I have found it helpful to make a distinction between direct experience happening Now and contextualized experience. Yet this gets nuanced and the ego likes to sneak in. . .

I like these types of models, yet I’m unclear on something. What does the vertical Y axis represent?

I’ve found it really hard to break up with gf that I still have feelings for and then pivot into some type of supportive friend. Especially if she is exploring other guys. It’s just heart-wrenching for me. I’ve found it better to get space and distance - to experience the sorrow, grow, do self love and reach out to others. Once I’m grounded again and the feelings have faded (perhaps after a month or so) I’ve reestablished contact and stayed friends. It’s hard because I don’t want to let go. Yet I’ve found it harder to try and halfway hold on.

Yep. And it gives cover to backtrack. In reference to Mexico and Central America, Trump said “We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals." Again, he uses a non-discriminatory word "people" and even de-humanizes these "people". His supporters know he is referring to Mexicans and Central Americans. When pressed, Trump supporters can say "He didn't say all Mexicans and Central Americans are bad animals". . . The derogatory message is harmful, yet I think what is omitted is equally as harmful. Trump omits the part that crime rates for immigrants are no higher than U.S. citizens. Trump omits the part that the vast majority of people at the border are desperate asylum seekers from horrific conditions. These are people that are willing to work hard and want to give their children a good life. Rather, Trump portrays the 5% of violent immigrants to be representive 95% of immigrants. He needs to do this to stoke up fear and tribalism in his supporters. Trump could easily set the record straight. He could clearly state that only a small percentage of immigrants have bad intentions and the majority are desperate asylum seekers. Yet he doesn't because it would blow up his whole narrative.

These are all bricks and framework of the same building. There may be some nice views on the rooftop. Yet be careful about becoming Quasimodo.

@Scholar You say: "Nobody disagrees on what is Good and Bad because in each individual mind Goodness and Badness emerges at different kind of mind-states. It works exactly the same as Anger does. Some people get angry at some things and others get angry at other things" I don't think you are seeing how this is a relative construct. You have constructed a things called: Good, Bad, disagreement, individual, mind, mind-states, anger, people, things, other things. There is an enormous amount of relativity here. When you say "some people get angry at some things. . . ". Anger relative to what? (not anger). People relative to what? (other people). Some things relative to what? (not other things). If you remove the relativity, you lose the distinctions and there are no longer things called "wrong, right, anger" etc. These are relative constructs that are being created, yet you seem to promoting them as universally true.

I'm trying to get clear on your ideas here. It doesn't seem like you may be putting a twist onto relativity. It seems like you are essentially saying that to call "A" as "B" is deception. For example, a chair is blue. Or, killing is wrong. . . . Rather, "A is A" and "B is B": blue is blue, a chair is a chair, killing is killing and wrong is wrong. If so, this is one exercise I do when I walk through nature. I notice myself saying things like "that flower is beautiful". There are two aspects of relativity here. There is a flower relative to non-flowers and beautiful relative to non-beautiful. It seems like you are saying that this is conflating two relativistic dimensions of existence, which I would agree with. We can remove a dimension of relativity by saying: the flower is a flower. I would agree that is is "purer" in the sense that it is only one dimension of relativity, yet there is still relativity. A flower is a flower relative to what? There is still labeling a flower as a "thing" relative to non-flowers. If we say "wrong is wrong" , wrong relative to what? Without any contrast, there is no blue, chair, killing, wrong, flower or beauty. Without contrast, there are no dimensions of distinction and we can go one step further. "wrong is wrong" is now "IS is IS" - and we don't need the extra IS's. It becomes One IS. . . . Thus, there is no right or wrong at an absolute level (with no dimensions of relativity). You seem to have removed one dimension of distinction, yet still have a dimension of distinction. Saying "blue is blue" is still a distinction from what is not blue. If Everything was blue, there would be no blue to say "blue is blue"'.

It looks like you are looking at a big picture of a happy, good life. One in which there a good times and rough times, yet holistically its a good life. It reminds me of long distance running. There were times that were blissful and exciting. . . and there were times that I was uncomfortable and didn't want to be running. Yet overall, it was a great activity that added to my life. Even when my body was throbbing, I could still be silly and make fun of myself. There were times after marathons that I could barely walk for days. I struggled to get up off the toilet. At times I would laugh at the absurdity of it - it was like I was an old man in a young body. . . I've also known people that seem to have positive attitudes even during hardships. Some people can "make lemonade out of lemons". . . I also think there is another form of happiness that is unconditional, yet perhaps it is more elusive because it doesn't fit the standard idea of an emotional happiness.

For me, the dosage of 5-meo stimulates different flavors of trips. I'm comparing a relatively low 5-meo dose to dilaudid below. My trips with dilaudid was when I was in a hospital with a kidney stone. The first was the most profound. The nurse didn't drip through an IV - she shot it into me all at once. There was a wave that overtook me and I was like "Whoa. . . what was that?". . . I immediately loved it. And not just for the cessation of physical pain. Everything was ok. No problems, no worries. No nothing. There was pure bliss in the moment. There was no place in the world I would have rather been than that hospital room. It was like taking a trip to Bora Bora and being on the beach getting a massage. Yet even better. The energy was peace, bliss and love. Time stopped. It was deeper than a simple feel-good pleasure. There was an essence of bliss, peace, love and Now. A few years later, I tried 5-meo for the first time - a low/moderate dose. After reading reports online, I had some anxiety about the impending ego death. Yet it wasn't like that at all. There was a little bit of resistance and letting go. Then there was a surreal peace, bliss, love and connection,. It was very different than any psychedelic trip I've had. It reminded me more of the dilaudid trip years ago. I thought "That's what heroin is like" (even though I've never done heroin). Then I got online and started reading about people's experience with 5-meo and heroin. There are actually forums with people talking about 5-meo and heroin trips that were using 5-meo in the same context of heroin. I understood. . . . Later, I watched a documentary on Janis Joplin and all her turmoils. There was a part about her addiction to heroin and how it was the only thing that could get her to "that place". I felt like I knew that place Janis went to. I would say there are similarities at low/moderate 5-meo doses. There is a presence of being absolutely ok in the present moment that is a form of bliss. Its hard for me to describe this essence of Now-ness. . . Differences: there was zero resistance, anxiety or discomfort with dilaudid. It was pure wonderful. As well, there were cravings afterward for more. Even after one exposure, my body wanted more and my mind was scheming to get more. My mind thought maybe I could convince them to give me a dilaudid prescription. And I was willing to pretend my symptoms were worse to get a script (I didn't get one). I think there is very high risk of dependency and addiction with dilaudid. With 5-meo, there was also a mind-body craving that I never experienced with psychedelics. This gave me concern. Yet the craving wasn't as intense as with dilaudid. I think because 5-meo wasn't quite the same type of bliss. 5-meo also a bit of physical and mental discomfort with it during the comeup.

I think this may be entering an area of relative and absolute happiness. For me, relative happiness is a pleasurable state of being. That type of relative happiness appears and disappears. I can do some things activities to invite it's appearance, yet it's not something I can turn on or off at will. All sorts of feeling appear and disappear: feelings of fatigue, hunger, grouchiness, joy, curiosity, confusion, love, attraction, annoyance etc. They come and go. Yet through the practice and process of letting go, healing, realizations, my mind-body is much more relaxed, present and content with Now that it used to be. Yet I would say that there is also a deeper form of happiness that is always present and can be accessed. Yet it's not limited to a giggling feel good kind of happiness. I remember about a year ago, I was listening to some sad music. Sad songs just kept coming up on my Pandora station. Each song was about loss and sorrow. Like the loss of a loved one. Outside it was raining. It's like I felt the sorrow of so many human beings. Yet not like a suffering sorrow. The other side of true sorrow is true joy. They are two sides of the same coin. The reason the singers could experience so much sorrow is because they experienced so much joy. It was so beautiful. I spent hours in beautiful sadness and I had no reason to be sad. It had nothing to due with me. And I didn't want to be anywhere else in the world. I wanted to be Now with this music and rain - with this human experience. . . . Later that night, I told my gf about it and she immediately said "Oh no! That's too bad. Let's do something to change the way you feel and make you better". She didn't get it. This sadness was transcendent to my own personal suffering. There was an underlying peace, beauty, love and connection to humanity about it. In a way, it was "happy", yet not in a relative giggling happy way. . . This type of happiness of presence seems to be always present. It's like being Now and wanting to be Now. During the sadness, there is no place I would have rather been than Here and Now experiencing what I was experiencing. That is a deep form of happiness to me.

That's beautiful. It reminds me of a time I was out in nature feeling happy. Then I thought "why am I happy?". I didn't have a reason. Like you said, I realized how much of my happiness was dependent on external events. "As soon as I get a gf, I will be happy.", "I soon as I finish this semester of classes I can be happy", "If I was on a beach in Costa Rica, I could be happy". It's like I had "rules" for my happiness. . . . So here I was just sitting in nature with no reason to be happy, yet there was happiness. And it just wasn't my happiness. I was also sitting within happiness around me. It felt free to me. It was beautiful.

I think Anand speaks eloquently on this theme of billionaire altruism. In particular, billionaires that launder themselves through donation for their greater benefit. I like how Anand makes clear that it's not about the donation itself. The donation itself is fine. It is using the donation to cloak oneself that can be a problem. For example, a billionaire CEO at JP Morgan may donate 10 million dollars to a charity, which is wonderful. Yet that 10 million dollars is a trivial expense to the billionaire and he may get a lot of mileage out of it. The billionaire could promote an image of himself that is altruistic as he his manipulating poor people with toxic loans. The shady behavior of the billionaire may inhibit his access to politicians and tax policy. The politician is just too uncomfortable to meet with such a shady billionaire. Yet, a 10 million dollar donation to an orphanage provides enough cover that could give the billionaire access to the politician and allow him to alter tax policy in his favor. Anand speaks about this early in the interview. He doesn't hold back at all. It's awesome.