Forestluv

My mind and body still experiences anxiety/resistance. Yet there is another awakening in this dynamic. . . Last May, I did 5-meo daily for about three weeks and went through what you seem to be describing. There was the anxiety of "ego death" prior to, and during, each trip. After about 7 consecutive days, there was another form of "ego death" that arose while sober. I was losing my mind sober and I went through a sober ego death. I was at the interface of sanity and insanity while sober and was unable to regain my sanity while sober. This was a whole new level of anxiety and it got really intense. I realized that if I continued, I was surrendering all. Not just surrendering for a 4hr trip. I was surrendering my mind, sanity, career, family, friends - everything. I may go into a coma, a psychiatric ward, and have permanent brain damage. I continued. . . The next trip, I was gone. Permanently. Zero anxiety, fear, resistance. No personality. Not just during the trip. Sober as well. Absolute clarity. All day and night. No contextualizations or experiences. The "it". . . .After about 10 days, there was no longer any difference between 5-meo and no 5-meo. I would sit on my cushion and didn't even know if I had ingested the 5-meo yet. After 24 days, I stopped the 5-meo and this trans-human consciousness continued for another few days. . . .Then one day there was an odd thought/feeling that I didn't know what it was - yet it felt vaguely familiar - like a vague recollection of a past life. I was curious and tried to get in touch with it. . The vagueness started to come into focus and then the realization. . . I was perceiving another person that I saw as different than myself. I then remembered what this was, it was that thing called "self". Then more appearances of self. . . Then the anxiety and resistance. But now, the anxiety was not due to loss of self, it was due to the return of self. "I was like noooooo.. . . . ". And I realized the root of anxiety, resistance, suffering from the other side. . . Two days later, a ringing sound started in my head - as loud as a smoke detector. I couldn't make it stop and felt it would last forever. More intense anxiety into panic. Plus, I had lost my enlightened state which intensified it. The blaring in my head continued for days and I couldn't sleep or function. It was like a non-stop ego death of anxiety and panic. There came a point in which absolute peace revealed itself. My mind and body was in full-on anxiety and panic. . . and there was absolute peace as well. In that moment of panic and terror, there was peace. There was also realization that I was just as enlightened as that suffering terror-filled self as I was as that transcendent consciousness beyond self. Full circle. . . Since then, there have been times of mild mind and body anxiety. I don't like experiencing anxiety and I take action to relieve it. Yet that deeper underlying absolute peace is eternally present - even when anxiety is present. . .

The author gives beautiful nonduality pointers. Part of me wants to stop right here and just say they are beautiful nonduality pointers. Another part of me wants to take it a step further. Looks like this part wins out. . . Realizing the contrast between duality and nonduality is a profound awakening that few people realize. Yet it creates a new duality (dual vs. nondual) that also collapses. "In Truth, in the Absolute, in All That Is, there is no evolution, no progress, no becoming better, no becoming. All is as it is. The idea that the world is in bad shape and that the present point in history is pivotal and that something has to be done, is as old as the human mind; it has always seemed thus, at every point in 'human history.' In truth everything is in perfect balance; the world never gets better and never gets worse, although to the apparent individual instruments it may seem that it does." This is a great teaching toward deep and profound nondual realizations. This is a really important step and I can't see how someone can skip this step. Everything he says is true, yet it creates a new duality: If the Truth is All That Is, how can there be no evolution? How can there be no progress, no becoming better? The Truth is All That Is. The Truth is Everything - which includes evolution and no evolution. The above passage can knock someone off their conditioned grounding - a person may believe there is evolution, progress and becoming better. Orienting a person to see the opposite of that is a profound awakening: no evolution, no progress, no becoming better. The human mind is conditioned to perceive in opposites and will embrace this new opposite: no evolution, no progress, no becoming better. . . This is a deep awakening few humans realize. Yet there is more. . . This new duality of opposites also breaks down. . . There is evolution and no evolution, there is progress and no progress, there is becoming better and no becoming better. . . This is the deeper insight, yet people first need to see the contrast between duality and nonduality before realizing the collapse of duality vs. nonduality. Once someone realizes the contrast of duality and nonduality, that ladder is discarded and the deeper level is revealed. . .

My mind and body has gone through a similar dynamic of anxiety and resistance. It's uncomfortable, yet it is what it is. I suppose one can try to relax the mind and body. It can be resistance to what the mind and body perceives as an uncertain threat. Yet I've also found that at times I am desiring/seeking a conscious state. There is desire to attain something, somewhere. At times, there is mind and body resistance against seeking a conscious state. It could be that the mind/body needs to recover, integrate or have sober awakenings of Now. Part of psychedelic experience and wisdom is the intuition of knowing when to trip and what dosage. These days, I only trip when my mind, body and spirit are all aligned and say "yes, now is the time". It is spontaneous and I never know when it will surface. There was a period I was doing 5-meo daily because mind, body and spirit was aligned. Yet I haven't tripped for four months because mind, body and spirit haven't been aligned. All three components haven't felt right about it. I no longer try to convince one component it's right. That was part of my resistance and anxiety. For example, my mind and spirit feel a calling, yet my body doesn't quite feel right about it. So I don't do it. . . When will I trip next? Who knows - maybe tonight, maybe next week, maybe next year. . .

Because it is their own mind. . . My neighbor was recently diagnosed with early dementia and fears losing her mind. Why aren't you afraid right now? Because it is her mind, not your mind.

That is only about 35% of the population - not nearly enough to win an election. Trump won the last election through many factors: he created a choice between “the lesser of two evils”, he benefited from Russian interference and voter suppression. He lost the vote by a large margin, yet benefited from an archaic electoral college that gave Trump voters more weight than Clinton voters. About 35% of the population are already stupid enough to vote for Trump again, but it’s not enough. With voter suppression it goes up to about 38% and with electoral college leverage, it goes up to about 40%. He still needs another 10% of people to be stupid enough to vote for him. Possible, yet not easy to do. Trump recently pressured Ukraine for help in promoting his “lesser than two evils” message against Biden - yet got busted. This is a good sign, yet is not nearly enough to stop Trump.

@CreamCat How does one know what they speak is truth? Who/what decides what is truth?

The author creates a duality between Truth and Non-Truth. Between absolute and relative. We might consider this “enlightened duality”. It is a very profound realization and there are many beautiful expressions in this area. Yet this duality ultimately collapses, just like all dualities.

I don't feel any attraction to trans-women that are transitioning and have still have male features. Only the ones that are fully transitioned and very feminine. It's like they are so feminine that they are willing to go to any effort to express their femininity, including facial feminization surgery. Yet I don't see the surgeries - I just see the feminine desire, energy and expression. If she still has a penis, I don't really see it a penis anymore. It's more like a feminine woman with a large clitoris. . . As well, there is something attractive about men with a lot of feminine energy, including some gay men. Yet I don't want to have physical sex with them.

@Aaron p Have you ever been in a dream in which you didn't realize you were dreaming? You wake up and realize "Oh, I was just dreaming". To the dream character, did the dream seem real? Of course. If the dream didn't seem real, there would be a realization "This is just a dream". Yet your dream character doesn't recognize this - it thinks everything is real. So now you think you are awake and not dreaming. How can you tell you are not dreaming? Anything you say can be part of a dream. You might say "But I can touch things". Can you touch things in a dream? Of course. . . "But how can Leo be posting videos?". Can Leo be posting videos in a dream? Of course. "But I can feel my body". Could there be a dream in which the body is felt? Of course. "But scientists show physical reality". Can there be a dream in which scientists are showing physical reality? Of course. . . And on and on. Anything you come up with for why waking life is real, you could dream tonight. Name one thing that is impossible to dream. There isn't anything. . . At this point, the duality between "dream/imagine vs. real/exist" collapses. You are creating a duality between "existence" and "non-existence". This is not the best way to frame it. Within this duality, you are forcing yourself to make a choice between existence or non-existence. A duality you are creating. If you can lucid dream - one good way to collapse this duality is to explore the lucid interfaces of dream/real. There are places in which one cannot tell if it is a lucid dream or not. At this point, everything becomes lucid and the dream vs. reality duality dissolves.

And which of those do you see as a "greater evil" than Trump?

@cle103 There seems to be two desires. One desire is to attain a state you have created called "ego death" and another desire to avoid this "ego death" state. It's a dualistic control issue. There will be internal conflict and resistance as long as there is an "ego death" vs "non-ego death" duality. At the deeper level there is transcendence of this duality.

Ime, there is a love connection of Now that transcends personality and life practicalities. A shared beingnessness together that is a type of magical Now. It cannot be created or denied. There is also a form of love connection that develops over time. This is within the personality dynamic and within a timeline. This development includes things like having shared experiences, being vulnerable and supportive to each other, developing trust, mutual support, getting to know each other, the five love languages etc. Both are important, yet there is a distinction. I've noticed a lot of people conflating the two. The love connection of Now may be present and confused for the developmental love connection that takes time. For example, after a first date in which a love connection of Now is present, someone may think afterwards "Wow, we had great chemistry. I think we are really compatible. It's like she knows me. I think she may be the one. I can see us in a long-term relationship". This is a contextualization of direct experience of Now. Similar to how the human mind will contextualize an awakening experience of Now "Wow, that seemed like a nondual experience. I think that is what the nondualists are talking about. I think I am awakening". . . There is awakening of Now and personal development within a timeline - yet these often get conflated. Human minds love to contextualize Now - it's just what we do and it has value - yet very few human minds are aware that this is occurring.

@Emerald You suggest attraction along a spectrum. For example, someone identifying as bi-sexual may roughly say they are 60% along the spectrum toward attraction to men. Do you think we can also create some type of spectrum for "attraction"? For example, sometimes I feel an attraction toward transgender women. It has a sexual attraction component involving a form of femininity, yet I don't desire to have physical sex with them. Yet it's not like a friend attraction either. Maybe like an energetic form of sex. It's hard to explain.

To me, it seems like a change from an individual perspective to a collective perspective. I can totally see a farmer who has invested into reducing emissions and taking a loss thinking "Is this climate change stuff even real? I'm losing money on this". What do you think is the resistance to Greta? That she is overly emotional and dramatic? That she is demanding people make big sacrifices?

I think you open up a good point about openmindedness, skepticism and authority. It can be hard to balance. For example, how do I know if I have healthy skepticism or if I am being closed-minded? Scientific theories evolve over time. Scientists have a limited amount of information at any given time and do their best with the current state of knowledge. There are cases in which scientific models are incorrect, cases in which they are partially correct and many cases in which it gets updated. Yet over time, a stronger and stronger case is built due to validation through reproducible experiments and more sophisticated techniques. You say that you learned a certain set of science and now it is different than what you were taught. I'm curious about what these differences are. I teach biology and I can think of only a few examples that have been overturned over the last 30 years - the vast majority of the progress has been digging deeper and adding details to existing models. This may appear as "different", yet it is more detailed. For example, 30 years ago scientists thought genes code for proteins. This was accepted by all scientists. We now know that genes code for proteins, yet also for various forms of RNA. This doesn't mean the original model was wrong. It means we have added more nuances and details. Foundational scientific models like climate change, gravity and the genetic basis of inheritance are very unlikely to be overturned as bogus. Yet, the models will become more sophisticated over time. Do you really think this is a bogus conspiracy? Scientific models have been accurately predicting this.

The democratic nominee will be Biden, Warren or Sanders. Which of those do you see as a greater evil than Trump?

@Zizzero I'm trying to convey a different perspective. It's not simply intellectual, so it can be difficult to describe. It can be difficult to show a person their position when they are immersed within that position. It would involve stepping out of that position to view it. In terms of SD, it would be like Orange asking to be shown their position from a Green/Yellow perspective using Orange logic. It's hard to do and I'm still learning how to do it - and at times I am unable to (such as in this case). The most effective way would be for the person to let go of attachment/identification and view the dynamics from an unattached/unidentified lens. Regarding the term "intellectual honesty": in hindsight my usage of that term was counter-productive. From one's own relative perspective, they are intellectually honest. It wasn't the best way to phrase it.

This is blue/orange undercutting green: issues such as inclusion, equality, environment and on and on. A lot of us are working hard to evolve and help each other evolve. It’s like a group learning to play the piano and someone coming in and setting off firecrackers. Resistance expressed as distraction and obstruction is part of the evolution process, yet it gets tiresome. . . Blue/Orange criticizes Green from a very different orientation than Yellow criticizes Green. Blue/orange has resistance to green and is oriented to pull green down. Integrated Yellow has embodied green and is oriented to pull green up. Your perspective is looking up at green from blue/orange, this lacks awareness of the dynamic from a yellow perspective with green embodiment.

@Zizzero Those are nuanced questions you offer that do not seem aligned to your original statements. Be intellectually honest. There is no serious debate about the premise of climate change, no more than there is about whether the earth is round. As well, there is a general consensus on degree. The questions you raise are nuances that stand upon grounded premises. There will always be more nuances. For example, it is accepted that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Yet, I could create dozens of nuanced questions about the mechanistic details of how smoking causes cancer, which specific chemicals in cigarettes have what specific effects, the differences between filtered and non-filtered cigarettes, how genetics relate to tobacco-induced lung cancer, secondary risks factors etc. All of these questions stand upon a grounded foundation that smoking tobacco causes cancer. These questions do not put doubt into the premise. Your original questions seemed to undercut the premise of climate change and the general consensus of degree. That is a very different context. Orange looking up at Green and pulling down. . .

Good point! @Bodigger!! When you say "the warmest August on record" - do you mean in your hometown, in Wisconsin, in the U.S. or world-wide. This is really important context. If by "warmest August" refers to U.S. or world-wide - that would totally recontextualize your ideas.

You are conflating a personal subjective experience with scientific evidence. There is value in personal subjective experience, yet here you are conflating it to a larger objective context. This would be like saying "I am 6'0' tall and most of the men in my town are over 6'0' tall. I read a scientific study that the average height of men in the U.S. is 5'9'. This doesn't seem right to me. I think the scientists are skewing data and manipulating us to make profits". This is dismissing a wide range scientific study of empirical data due to personal anectodal evidence. In this context, "thinking for myself" is a personal subjective experience that is a contracted view. The more expanded view is to look at larger studies. Here, "thinking for myself" would be to read and critically evaluate the scientific studies and determine if the scientists' conclusions are supported by the data. Does science have 100% integrity? Of course not. There are pockets of corruption in science. Yet your frame is binary in that one must either accept all the science or none of the science. If we analyzed thousands of climate studies with a fine tooth comb, could we find data that was misrepresented? Of course. Yet as a large body of peer-reviewed data, the science is very solid. In terms of SD, this would be a Blue perspective dismissing Orange science, data, evidence. Science can be transcended, yet the perspective you give is looking at Orange from below, not above.

I don't think this is the best way to frame it. This frame starts off with a personal anectdote "In my home state, it felt relatively cool to me - yet it was reported as the second hottest August on record. Maybe the science is skewed. Science is often skewed". This uses a personal anecdotal experience (August felt warm to me) to plant a seed of doubt in a news report. This is then extrapolated to plant a seed of doubt in the integrity of overall climate science. This is then extrapolated to include intention - the climate science data is fraudulent in an effort to make money. So we go from "August in my hometown felt cool to me" to climate science is skewed and used manipulatively to make money. It's a weak argument. A stronger argument would to read and critique the actual science and to show that the data does not support the conclusions. Then, to show that the data was manipulated for nefarious purposes. This is a much much higher bar than "August felt cool to me". . . Many people have spent a lot of time critiquing the climate science data - even organizations trying to prove it wrong. Nobody has. It's solid. . . Your argument is a mild form of a conspiracy theory. From here, a poorly grounded assumption is used partially to undercut efforts of climate advocates. (If the science is skewed and used manipulatively, this would diminish the significance of climate advocates). A further frame is added: "I don't think it is good that we use children in such ways and let them out of school in protest. . . This assumes that children are being used immorally to promote a bullshit cause perpetrated by crooked scientists and people looking to profit off of others through their lies. If the underlying assumptions are true - then of course this would be wrong. It would be wrong to make up a bullshit story, manipulate people, and put children through trauma as we use them as pawns to make money. . . The problem with the frame is that it has very little grounding and is easily deconstructed with some critical thinking.

@7thLetter From the perspective of a human subjective experience of consciousness - sure. Personal consciousness and cognitive ability decline. Yet deep insights that stick can stick for a really long time. Imagine living in a cave your whole life and finding an exit hole. You exit the cave and explore the forest for two days. Then you get scared and return to the cave. . . You can't unsee that type of thing. It would take a long time to fade away. From an absolute perspective of Consciousness, no.

Notice how you just made that up. All of your questions are based on that assumption. Without that assumption, all of your following questions collapse. . .

I would consider this a very low level of cognitive processing - like you say, some people do not have this basic cognitive ability. Yet, I think most people do. I think most people are denying it, either consciously or subconsciously. And some people, like those in the fossil fuel industry, will try to mislead low conscious people through various strategies - just like the tobacco industry did. And more recently, just like the pharmaceutical industry during the opiod crisis. One thing I like about Greta is how she speaks truth to power and says "You know the harm you are doing and you continue to do so for power and profit at the expense of my generation. My generation will never forget or forgive you". I hope some day, gen z will hold egregious climate change offenders accountable for their actions. Similar to how the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries were held accountable.