Forestluv

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.

@Scholar This is unnecessary. Pyschedelic experiences can be absolutely terrifying and insane. Even sitting in one's room or nature. I can't even begin to describe some of mine. This can expand one's mind, yet I think it is a bad idea to manipulate an environment to try and induce trauma. If the mind-body was not experienced with psychedelics and highly developed this could cause serious damage, perhaps long term. I think it's much better to just allow the psychedelic to reveal what it reveals. Perhaps have an intention that suffering be revealed during the trip. Yet I wouldn't go further than that. Psychedelics can take a mind to a place of terror all on it's own. And it is as real as reality itself. Yet, I also agree with the flip side, that one should not chase or expect feel good candy during trips either.

Similar here. I did over 20 years of mediation without any substances. More was revealed in a 6 hr. trip than the previous 20+ years. Yet, I think it helped to have had that prior grounding.

This is a conditional, personal, human construct of awakening. It is not Ablsolute Awakening. A personal human construct of awakening as practical value in being human, yet it is still a relative human construct. When you say "because he is suffering as a separate ego entity", you have created the same separate ego entity as you are pointing to. You have created an entity called "Martin Ball" that is separate from you and that there are appearances in this separate entity that disqualifies it from being awakened. Within a personal/human construct, that has value and I often use that construct in my life. Yet that aint IT. As well, when you say "psychedelics show you how much manual work is still necessary for deep and permanent awakening" I would agree with that for awakening. Yet not for Awakening, which is not dependent on human conditions. From a relative, personal human perspective - I agree. If we create a construct of what spiritual development and progress is to a human - there would be many different constructs and no one would agree on all components - not even the most spiritually "advanced" practioners. This is inherent to be human in a relative world. First, you are creating a distinction in which there is a "psychedelic state" and a "sober state". You are giving value to the "sober state" as being the default state of reality and a "psychedelic state" is an altered state of reality. From this mindset, one will see psychedelics as an altered state in which one temporarily steps out of the default sober state to gain insights. Then once returning to the sober state, the sober mind will ask "what did we get from the psychedelic state that applies and benefits the sober state? Is this application/benefit permanent"? This is a construct you have created. This is the most common perspective because the mind has been conditioned to create a reality that it can make sense of and gives it grounding and practicality for survival. As well, it is reinforced in society. You could also see the psychedelic state as being equivalent to the sober state - yet this is very difficult for a mind to do. This isn't just relevant to psychedelics - it is relevant to all different mind states. One will be contracted within a value dynamic until this is realized. Yes, and it also transcends your entire personal/human construct of what awakening is. You are speaking of awakening, not Awakening. Yes, at the human level I would agree. I'm am a strong advocate for research in psychedelics and training practioners who use psychedelics for spiritual and therapeutic purposes. For example, I would like to see new infrastructure built for psychedelic-therapy - in which health care practitioners go through extensive training. 100 years from now, I think humans will cringe about how psychedelics were used. For example, desperate people suffering with mental conditions such as PTSD ordering psychedelics online and trying to self-medicate without knowledge and experience of psychedelics. I think in the future, we will be much more advanced. Someone with PTSD will be able to walk into a clinic for free and receive quality psychedelic therapy from a highly trained practitioner. I agree. Psychedelic revelations will be contextualized at the baseline conscious level of the user. I think having a basic foundation of maturity, development and stability is helpful. I think that would be interesting as well.

You are within a mindset of an external material objective reality. Consciousness is described without words and immaterially all the time. Look around you and observe. That is consciousness from the perspective of a personal human. Consciousness is commonly referred to in that context and I have no problem using that context. However, Consciousness also has a more expansiveness that you don’t seem to be aware of. Yes, from the perspective of a separate finite self. What is a brain? How does the brain function? What are neurotransmitters? Do you realize that people around you act as neutransmitters and alter your brain activity, similar to how neurotransmitters “inside” your brain alter your brain activity? You are seeing this from a separate individual physical consciousness and are not aware of a more expanded collective conscious. “Inside” and “Outside” of your brain is a construct. If you inspect very closely, this inside vs. outside duality will collapse. A simpler example is that the microbiome In your gut directly communicate and alter brain activity in your brain. Are the bacteria in your gut part of your brain? We can take this further and further and your concept of a separate individual brain will eventually collapse. It’s as if you are saying Paris is in France and I’m trying to tell you that Paris and France are within Europe. And you keep responding that Paris cannot be in Europe because Paris is in France. . .

You’ve already done Aya, so know what that is like. San Pedro was much more gentle. It was not possessive. I was allowed to leave and return. No anxiety. Deeply mystical.

What you are referring to as the “nature of time” is human concepts, abstractions - past, present, future and mechanisms of time. Sean Carroll speaks in concepts, abstractions.

@Schahin I’ve done both multiple times. San Pedro is very gentle, yet also very deep. It’s very different than Aya. They both “transcend the ego” and I’m not sure what you mean by “enlightenment”.

I like Yang’s future thinking and the principal of BI, yet I think the potential of BI will be greatly diminished by the the ultra wealthy and corporatism - they specialize in transferring money toward themselves. If we give BI, most of it will get stolen back by the ultra wealthy through various schemes - loans, tax schemes etc. I think it’s critical to change the infrastructure and power dynamics. In this area, I think Bernie and Warren are are strongest. Yet I think Yang is strong on future thing of AI. I think further development in AI will cause a lot of issues we are not preparing for. And of course that is the perfect environment for opportunistic power brokers to take advantage.

This misses the part about wealth inequality. I want programs, laws and regulations that promote fairness and equality. Consider the big picture. Here is one example: Public pays taxes -> National Institutes of Health -> Drug research and design at Universities -> Pharmaceutical companies sell drugs and keep all the profits. What’s wrong with this flow of money? The pharmaceutical companies are getting free labor and we are paying for it. Think about that. . . Your tax dollars are essentially paying the salaries of pharmaceutical employees. The pharmaceutical company then sells the drugs we already paid to create back to us at outrageous prices - and keeps all the profits!. Pharmaceutical CEOs are making hundreds of millions dollars off this scam. It’s like the teenagers pickpocketing the tourists, taking all the money and then charging the tourist to get their wallet back. It is unethical and we are getting screwed over. This is but one of many scams going on screwing over the lower and middle class. The lower class is already poor, so most of the wealth theft comes from the middle class. I am not on the scammers side. I am on your side. A pharmaceutical CEO is having a cocktail on his yacht laughing at how he ripped off Boddigger and she doesn’t even know it. He is laughing because billionaires have convinced thousandaires that the penniless are the problem. So no, I would not take your money. I’d go up to the pharmaceutical CEO, take the money he stole from you and give it back to you. Most people don’t see this dynamic because billionaires, politicians and the media create a smokescreen to keep the scam going. Yet people are starting to wake up and some politicians, like Bernie Sanders, are well aware of these scams and have the courage to speak up for us.

Yep. @Phoenixx There are things you can learn and experience that you are unaware of and hadn’t considered yet.

I would start by cutting back on the weed and to start building spiritual grounding through practices like meditation, yoga, journaling, shamanic breathing, spiritual videos etc. There are a lot of low hanging profound truths within your grasp, without psychedelics. If someone is stoned everyday with no spiritual foundation or grounding, it is less likely a psychedelic trip will be fruitful because the person will contextualize the trip in their baseline consciousness. Plus, you wouldn’t have spiritual grounding to integrate the deep truths. What good are deep truths if you don’t understand them and they make you anxious and confused? Adding ssris into the mix adds another variable and risk. Yet it’s possible. I would be cautious and prepare prior to tripping.