Forestluv

It doesn't answer it in a way that is satisfying to you. From one perspective you are asking "There are differences. How can there not be differences when there are differences?". You are assuming those differences are objective reality. You are assuming it is objective reality that there is an entity called a rock that has no machinery and an entity called a human that has complex machinery. Consciousness as Everthing comes prior to these "complex machinaries" your mind is creating. If Everything is Consciousness, there is no separate "they" to have complex machinery. You are adding in separation and distinctions. There is nothing wrong with that, yet that orientation will not help in realizing Everything is Consciousness, because there is an inherent assumption that everything is not consciousness. From a relative perspective, I think mechanisms of complexity is super interesting. I spend time everyday thinking about this. Yet, you seem to be conflating absolute and relative a bit here.

You didn't make any claims about it. That is why I said you are assuming it. You are unaware of it. We can create distinctions of complexity and examining underlying complexity. Some people are really interested in that.

You are essentially asking "If there are no differences, why are there differences"? You can construct distinctions. You can also deconstruct distinctions. What happens if you deconstruct all distinctions such that there are no longer any distinctions? How could you tell the difference between a rock and a human body without distinctions? You are assuming that distinctions are objective reality.

Yep. It's all fun and games until. . .

I think you underestimate the power corporations have. It's not that corporations should have zero power. It's a balance of power. Excessive corporate power threatens democracy. Look at the effect of corporate power on politicians. The conflict of interest is off the chart high. Accountability is low. Corporations buy off and control most politicians. This isn't about not buying corporate products. That train left the station in the 1980s. This goes much deeper and systemic than that. Personal empowerment is fine and dandy. Yet economic oppression is also a factor. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between well-being and income up to an average salary (about $60,000 family income). Who should fight for systemic change and when? Systemic change doesn't magically happen on it's own. It's fought for by people Now and it takes time to evolve. Currently, democracy is on the decline and authoritarian/totalitarian/corporatism is on the rise - domestically and globally. It will continue to worsen if there is no counter-effort. That effort comes from we the people, now.

Yep.

This is a good example of collective consciousness. The globe is a giant organism and one of it's lungs is burning up.

Sometimes the ego gently falls asleep, sometimes it goes down kicking and screaming.

There is a difference and there is no difference. This is the big leap for a rational mind because it doesn't make rational sense. The mind creates criteria of what is "real". Some may say "You create your own reality". This is one area psychedelics can be helpful, because they are nearly guaranteed to break down this duality and leave the person asking "what is real?". Yet, anything that disrupts one's sense of grounded, objective reality can be helpful. There are some neuroscientists open to the relativity of perception, dark room retreats, sensory deprivation tanks, lucidity during sleep and wake. Yet these can be minor disruptions of one's conditioned sense of reality. Psychedelics are like a bulldozer.

This is a dream vs real duality that can cause a lot of distress. Imagine having a coin in which all you have ever seen in your life is the Tails side. You get a glimpse of the Heads side and now question whether the Tails side is actually Tails. Maybe Tails is actually Heads. This sounds like no big deal in terms of a coin, yet can be a very big deal at the human level. Because, Tails represents people we love and care about. What you aren't seeing is that Heads and Tails are both the same coin. @Alex bliss Our brains are wired to see in opposites. If it is true that wakefullness is the same as a dream, then the mind will want to believe the opposite is false. I.e. it is false that wakefullness is different than a dream. The mind wants to work in binary "either / or" orientations. That is, a dream is either the same as wakefullness or different than wakefullness. Expanding beyond this orientation can be quite challenging and many paradoxes will arise. You can realize a truth without rejecting the opposite as being false.It's not an either/or decision. Just set aside the opposite for a bit and see truth.

I don't mean relating sleeping dreams to wakeful life. I'm referring to within the dream itself. Within the dream itself: do fear, self and emotion exist? (without considering waking life). Imagine a dream character named Oliver who is sad within the dream. Does Oliver and his sadness exist? Is it real or an illusion?

Those seem like cool explorations to me. This is just one perspective. There seems to be an underlying thread of a linear chain of causal events. If we take a closer look, the linear chain of causal events will dissolve. This doesn’t fully answer your question. I think it is difficult to go deeper with an assumption of an objective, external chain of causal events. It is a simple mechanism. It can have practical value in certain contexts, yet can blur other contexts. If a chain of causal events is examined closely, it expands into infinite dimensions and inter-related complexity. Ultimately, this collapses into One. Nothing. I’m not saying this is the end, Yet imo this realization/embodiment is essential to learning deeper mechanisms. In terms of cause and effect, the concept of “random” is often used as a grounding placeholder for “we don’t know the underlying mechanism”. There have been many things that once were considered random that now have a mechanistic explanation. Contemporary things as well. For example, most scientists consider DNA mutations yo be random. Yet there is an enormously complex underlying mechanism that we don’t know about. So we just call it “random”. It’s convenient and allows us to put a black box placeholder down to provide grounding as we examine other mechanistic details.

Does fear, self and emotion exist in your dreams?

What is cause? It seems many of your conceptual explorations have a common thread involving causation.

@Schahin How are you using the term "random"?

Metaphysical candy

Not for me with san pedro. Ime and from others, it is generally gentle in this regard.

@Leo Gura So Kim Iverson is saying it's best to focus on economic populism as the top priority and in doing so, social inequalities will improve. This sounds like a good strategy to me. Based on the 2016 election, voters are split into three groups: 1) Economically liberal, socially conservative, 2) Economically liberal, socially liberal and 3) Economically conservative, socially conservative. There are virtually no economically conservative voters, socially liberal voters (which establishment/corporate democrats are chasing). 2/3 of voters are economically liberal - so it is best to have economic populism as top priority. In the chart below, Trump's base of white nationalism is hyper socially conservative, above the 0.5 line on the Y axis ("red meat" conservatives). Economically, he is on the right as he shifts money toward the wealthy, yet isn't afraid to go economically left to cover his ass (he supports subsidies for farmers getting screwed over the China trade war). It seems the best strategy is go solid economic populism (wealth tax, medicare for all, minimum wage increase) and social moderation - for example, reaffirming now socially moderate positions such as same-sex marriage, basic LGBTQ rights, gender equality. Yet, de-emphasizing socially liberal positions such as decriminalizing illegal immigration and reparations. From the billionaire/corporate perspective, it would be best to suppress authentic economic populism and amplify social division, so the election is decided only on the social X axis. Yet, Trump is way too high up the X axis into white nationalism - hence many Republicans, like Scarramucci and Joe Walsh, saying that Trump is too socially extreme. If Democrats can excite the bottom left quandrant primarily with economic populism and win half the upper left quandrant - they win in a landslide. It seems the DNC/corporate democrats are chasing moderates near 0/0 and the right quandrant - there aren't many votes there and it would suck the energy left of the Y axis.

@Leo Gura Gotcha - he is criticizing liberals from the left. How would you differentiate "liberal" and "progressive"? I did a bit of research and it looks like the main difference is in economics. I found the following definition for liberal: "Liberals believe the greatest economic value to the populace can be gained from an economy based around private entities owning the means of production (what we call a business) for the express purpose of profit. A key tenet of liberalism is that it endorses the capitalist notion that profit equals value creation" And a definition of progressive: "a progressive is essentially opposed to the central tenets of capitalism, and challenging the assertion that the best way to create maximum economic value is to maximize profits" So, a liberal would believe private industry should take the lead, while a progressive would believe government should take the lead. For example, Warren supports an idea to require workers to represent 40% of all boards: capitalism can work when worker power is written into the social contract, but at 40%, capital ultimately still runs the show. This would seem to be a classic liberal view, yet liberalism has shifted so far to the right that 40% social : 60% capital seems progressive. Yet Bernie seems to have a more New Deal style in which workers would have a lot more than 40% of boardrooms. It goes further than a capitalist-lead vision for the economy and that's what makes it progressive. Corporations could probably stomach Warren, yet would be repulsed by Bernie. Would you consider this a fair view in terms of economics?

I think he offered a nice view at the global level regarding international agreements/laws vs. fragmented global nationalism. I think he was off the mark regarding the type of commentary that resonates with the liberal left. He gave John Oliver as an example of how the liberal left enjoys mocking "ordinary people" through comedy lacking substance. I suppose this is true for a portion of the left and it depends on how one defines "liberal". We could make a distinction between liberal and progressive. Yet the strongest resonance with progressives is not late show comedy, although it may provide relief. I would put the "liberal" group Zizek refers to as more upper Orange / lower Green. I'd put progressives at solid Green and they would resonate much stronger with independent news sources like TYT, Rebel HQ, Majority Report etc. At times they may delve into surface level mockery - yet it is with a cutting edge. Someone like Emma Vigeland is a prototypical solid progressive and she is all gravitas. This is where the depth, energy and passion is within the democratic party driving the transformation Zizek mentioned. I'm not sure if he is unaware how strong this segment is or if his point was that there are too many democrats within the "liberal left" that need to shift over to the "progressive left". I can see clear distinctions between corporate democrats and liberal/progressive democrats - yet I don't see clear distinctions between so-called liberal and progressive playing out. Progressives call out and rally against corporate democrats. Regarding his Democratic transformation, we are seeing it play out right now: Biden vs. Sanders/Warren. . . And Biden will not be the nominee, even with the support of mainstream media.

Ime, it is not ego enhancing

I’m not disagreeing with you. You are arguing with yourself. It is like you keep insisting that Paris is in France and every time I say Paris is also in Europe, you pull out a map of France and say “Look! Paris is in France!”

Yes. I think what you are suggesting may have value in certain contexts, yet I think we need to be aware of how much leverage psychedelics can have. It can increase ones empathy capacity 1000x, I already have a high baseline for empathy, so what you are saying is going through and empathetic filter. Upon further contemplation, I’m trying to imagine creating a psychedelic trauma setting for someone who lacks empathy. It’s really hard for me to imagine, since I have a high empathy baseline. Yet, I think it could have some benefit for certain people if done in moderation. For example, determining a baseline empathy score and adjusting dose and setting intensity to that score. I know what you are suggesting could be like for people with the capacity for empathy. Yet I don’t know what it would be like for people that lack the capacity for empathy, such as narcissists. I think it could be an interesting treatment strategy. As well, mico/mini dosing plus prompts may have benefit. Yet for people with a decent capacity for empathy or who have had past trauma, I don’t think a strong trip in a trauma setting is a good idea, because the psychedelic can amplify empathy to the point that the person themself is being traumatized. It is tortuous to the person. Psychedelic experiences are Real and can have a serious impact. It’s not like watching a movie. I think for people with the capacity for empathy, what you are suggesting could create scenarios akin to putting someone in a dark cell solitary confinement for 40 days, dropping an 8 y.o. child in the center of Mumbai India by themself or forcing a parent to watch their child get tortured. This is how Real it can get. It can get so extreme, it becomes tortuous. I don’t think that is what you are getting at: to torture and traumatize someone so they know what torture and traumatization feels like. For most people, I think a better method would be to have an intention and orientation to learn about human suffering and allowing the psychedelics to reveal. Or going on a mini dose trip and speaking to someone about their trauma. As well, I don’t know what the impact would be on people that lack the capacity for empathy, such as narcissists. In the future, guided psychedelic therapy to induce empathy may be useful in treating this condition, yet I think willingness, guidance and expertise would be necessary. Yet narcissists are oriented to deny, avoid, defend and block against any such treatment. Imagine giving Trump 200ug of LSD while he is in a detention facility with caged children. What impact might that have on him? I think that would be an interesting case. Could psychedelics + a trauma setting allow a person devoid of empathy to gain the capacity for empathy? Would he have an empathetic awakening of the heart? Or would he blow it off and recontextualuze it in his baseline narcissist mindset? That would be interesting to me. I dated a narcissist and often wondered if psychedelics could help her realize empathy. Yet I would never intentionally traumatize her to do so. I’m too empathetic to do that ?‍♂️

You do, yet haven’t realized it yet (see below) Voila! That is a personal separate consciousness. You see yourself as separate from your surroundings and that you have a personal consciousness that will die. I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying there is a more transcendent consciousness you are unaware of. If you were aware of it, you would not be contracted within a personal consciousness.

You said earlier that you want to keep your gun to protect yourself from thugs. Why on earth would you give your gun to the thugs in this situation? Some billionaires and corporate CEOs/lobbyists are thugs. They bully and ripoff the public. The pharmaceutical industry leeches off public funding and charges outrageous prices. The health care industry drive families with a medical condition into bankruptcy. The banking industry drove tens of thousands of people into homelessness through toxic loans to squeeze out more profits. The military industry pushes us into perpetual wars around the globe. The oil and gas industry is leading the charge to destroy the planet. This is major thuggery. The last thing we need to do is roll over and give corporations more power. They have waaay too much power. We need to shift power toward people to evolve upward from Orange to Green. And that means electing officials not owned by corporate money, overturning citizens united, increasing corporate transparency and accountability, and supporting systems that give the public negotiating leverage. There are some good candidates running for office now that can help.