Forestluv

I love watching insects as well. Especially when there is a whole bunch of insects interacting with each other, because there is a higher collective mind. I encountered leaf cutter ants in Costa Rica. I was mesmerized by them. Yet after 5min, my girlfriend was like "OK, what's next? We aren't going to spend all day watching ants, are we?". I could have spent hours watching and investigating them.

It depends on one's relationship to the context. If my relationship with SD is that it is the only true theory and a new context is presented in which SD does not apply, then I will likely experience resistance and I may become argumentative to protect my theory. This is a mind that is too rigid. I might also become confused since there are two seemingly opposing views that both have truth. If there is a mind flexibility, I would become curious and excited. To the mind of a creative explorer, changing context is better than sex. I also see relative constructs as absolute. From another perspective, relative = absolute. It seems what you are asking would be something like this: I am hiking on a trail and see a snake. It is motionless. I'm able to slowly walk away from the snake. I go to Park Headquarters and tell them there is a dangerous snake on a trail. The Park rangers shut down the Park to visitors while they catch the snake. Yet it turns out it was a rope, not a snake. So my initial interpretation that it was a snake was wrong. . . This domain has truth to it, yet like all constructs - it has assumptions. Here, we are assuming there is an external objective reality that is true (a rope) and false (a snake). Yet there are many other ways to see the situation. For example, there are many images in the recontextualization thread of different ways to view the same image. It could be a nature landscape or a man's head, depending on how we look at it. Here, if I show people the nature landscape and someone points out the man's head, my initial interpretation was not wrong from it's own perspective. As a nature landscape, it is a nature landscape. Realizing it is also a man's head broadens my perspective to include two perspectives. This expands and deepens my understanding. And it opens new doors. I may start asking "Did the artist intend to do that?". From a human perspective, I would say problems arise when the mind becomes overly rigid or overly fluid. We are not confined to the term "value". We could also use the term "truth". We could say in some contexts SD has truth and in other contexts SD lacks truth. I used the term value because people are generally more open to considering a construct if they believe it holds value. Few humans are interested in exploring areas that lacks what they perceive to be of practical value. This is an interpretation through one lens. This seems to be a lens of "Leo believes the object is a snake. What if Leo changes his belief that the object is a rope?". Yet there are other lenses to view this, and all sorts of nuances about what is "truth", "belief", "meaning" and "projection". To me, a belief itself is not the problem. The problem is when the mind holds onto a belief tightly with attachment, the mind becomes rigid. Then the mind cannot see other facets of the diamond. In terms of teaching, it is very difficult to articulate without grounding. Students need structural grounding on which to stand. When I teach genetics, I mention that science is one way of perceiving the world through particular models. Models are limited and true from one perspective, yet false from another perspective. Yet when I'm actually teaching genetics concepts, I have to be grounded and present it as if it were objectively true. "This is how it is". If I was oscillating between grounded and groundless, it is a train wreck. I can't flow between physics and metaphysics, saying things like "This is how a protein binds DNA. Yet there actually isn't a protein, nor DNA from another perspective. Yet these perspectives are not mutually exclusive and there can simultaneously be both protein / DNA and no protein / DNA. And all of this is just an illusion we are creating in this Dreamscape of Here and Now". . . Each component of that has partial truth from a perspective, and we could spend hours exploring each component. Yet it is a terrible way to teach Genetics. The students wouldn't learn Genetics models.

The entire essay describes that you are attracted to her problems and seem to want to help her. Yet, she doesn’t seem too interested and you seem to be chasing her. My impression is that there may be a push-pull caretaker dynamic going on - in which you play the role of a caretaker. As a young man, I was attracted to women that had serious problems - like being abused as a child and now having drug addictions. I felt for her and wanted to give her good experiences in life she was never able to have. If she pulled away from me, the attraction would grow stronger. Ime, this doesn’t lead to healthy relationships - I would just get sucked into unhealthy situations and would end up taking too much responsibility and have to be the fixer. If I really care about her welfare, I would be a better helper as a friend, or just wishing her the best and moving on.

Domains without meaning are beautiful to explore. . . When I was a child, I loved to climb trees. I was super good at it and would spend hours climbing to the tops of tall trees. I would be in the zone climbing the tree and the views at the top were amazing. . . If an adult approached me and asked “Why do you climb trees? What meaning does it give you? What is your purpose in climbing the tree?”. . . I would think them insane. I literally wouldn’t have understood until I was older and got all this conditioned into me. Likewise, as an adult I often go into nature and observe. I may become fascinated with how all the different parts of nature interacts with itself to create a whole. I may imagine lots of abstractions. I may be inspired to write a poetry about it. If someone approached me and asked “What is the meaning of you observing nature? What is your purpose in sitting in nature?”, it would seem absurd to me. I understand that these are human constructs, yet it totally misses the point of Beingness.

I don’t see any relative construct as being 100% absolutely true or 100% absolutely false. I don’t see teachers as transmitters of absolutely true facts. I see teachers as artists that observe, discover and create. In this context, it would be odd to ask “How do we know that the artist’s painting is true? What if in 20 years, the painter says his earlier paintings were false?”. In some contexts, SD has value. In other contexts, it lacks value. In some contexts, psychedelics have value - in other contexts they can be counter-productive to one’s goal. I’d also consider that the process of creation is an evolutionary process. If I visit with an Aborigine tribe for a week, I may return home and describe aspects of their culture. If I return and live with the tribe for 10 years, my understanding will deepen and broaden - yet this doesn’t necessary invalidate my earlier surface-level observations. This is why experience and expertise is important to consider. Someone who has tripped 5 times on 100ug of LSD and tries to describe the essence of psychedelics is different than someone who has never tripped, yet is also different than someone who has tripped 100+ times on various psychedelics and dosages. In terms of objective analysis, I would say to verify claims oneself. Darwin proposed that babies are formed by pieces of the mother’s body traveling to her womb. He claimed that pieces of the mother’s heart, lungs, brain, kidney etc. travel to her womb to form the baby. With development of microscopes, we were able to test this hypothesis and show it is false. . . Similarly, if someone claims that psychedelics provide insights more powerful than meditation, we can test this by tripping and meditating. If we want to verify a claim that tripping 100+ times on a variety of psychedelics gives deeper understanding of psychedelics, we can test it by directly tripping 100+ times. Or we could test it indirectly by conversing with people that have tripped less than 5 times and people that have tripped 100+ times.

“Why have I created a reality in which animals kill and eat other animals?” Why did you create a reality in which your human cells kill and eat other cells? Cells in your immune system kill and eat bacterial cells everyday. Your immune cells also kill and eat your own cells.

Body analysis can give some insight, yet using it myopically and autistically creates distortion. Empathic and intuitive skills are also important. Being open and clear is also important. To me, the woman analyzing body language has preconceived ideas and, to some extent, is using body language to support the narrative she is attached to. If I believe some is deceptive, I can play a nanosecond micro expression in slow motion so it stretches out into five seconds and tell a story about how it means they are being deceptive. One flag for me is she projects a lot of personal flair onto the subject she is analyzing. It’s like she has some jealousy, resentment or triggering going on. As if AOC reminds her of the cute girl in high school that got all the attention from the boys and she wants to undercut her and expose how she is a fraud.

Yes, I acknowledged that. If we delete part of the statement, the part we hold gets recontextualized. The two parts together is distinct from either isolated part.

This assumes there is at least a low level of openness, curiosity and desire for growth. This is not always the case in debates. There are many different debate dynamics and not all are conducive to growth. Some dynamics are counter-productive to growth and some are regressive. And some debaters can be super sneaky and come across as if they are above debate / argument. That they are open-minded, want to have a “discussion” and intend to help others, yet they have an underlying orientation of defending their views and projecting onto others. This orientation infuriates people that want to debate/argue ideas directly since they see the other person as passive aggressive. For some people, intense debate is like an intellectual contact sport. Like entering an mma octagon. If two deabaters are both in it for the sport, there can be mutual respect. Yet when they meet someone who won’t debate bare knuckles, they lose respect. . . . I knew a brilliant scientist at a prestigious University and this guy debated with knives. If you engaged with him, you better be prepared for a brawl or you will get it bad. One time, I saw hm engage with a pit bull that was at his level. It was like watching two talented boxers trying to knock each other out. They were both totally into the match and had mutual respect of each other. It was fascinating to watch.

Then I would find a new doctor. Studies have shown asymptomatic shedding occurs on about 10% of days. So even if there are no lesions, there is about a 10% chance of viral shedding. Even if a couple only has sex during asymptomatic days and condoms knock the risk down by 95%, there might be a 0.5% chance of transmittance per sexual encounter. That sounds super low, yet it means that a couple having sex 1-2x per week will likely transmit within a couple years. That’s why internet people are saying it’s a matter of time. Also keep in mind that hsv2 can be transmitted from genital to oral during oral sex. hsv2 prefers genital (hsv1 prefers oral). People with oral hsv2 are generally asymptomatic through life, or have infrequent oral sores. You also mentioned that you tested negative for hsv2. Did they also test for hsv1? About 50% of people are hsv1+ and would have partial immunity to hsv2. So that would reduce the risk as well.

@SoonHei It says 15.5 ug / ml. You can use the dosages I listed above as a general guide of intensity. 15ug may be below threshold for most people. You might not feel anything on 1ml. That really is a microdose. If I trusted them and saw some good online reviews, I would take 2-3ml the first trip for a test drive. Based on their dosage, that is 31-46 ug. That is above threshold for 98% of people and you should feel something. Strong enough that you wouldn't feel comfortable driving, yet mild enough that you are in control and could converse normally with people if needed. That is the dose I would go to a museum on. It's enough to make a boring museum super interesting, yet I am still in control and comfortable interacting with people. Then based on how intense it is will determine the dosage of my next trip. After a mild trip I would give at least 7 days. If the dosage is accurate, 7ml would be roughly 2g of shrooms.

-- Whenever I have a new batch, the first time with it is to do a scouting report to test my sensitivity to it. So, tonight would be a mild test drive (which can still be fun) and next weekend would be the real trip. -- They didn't give you the concentration? In that case, I would go very low. If they suggest 0.5ml to 1.75ml, I would not go over 0.5ml the first time. -- Sensitivity varies among people. In general, 5-15ug is a microdose. 20-50ug is a mindose. 50-75ug is a light dose. 75-125ug is a standard dose. Yet this varies among people. -- It makes no difference whether you swallow liquid acid or swallow a tab. It's the same ROA and the LSD gets absorbed through the stomach / small intestine. -- It doesn't matter how you swallow it. I would put the drops into a small glass of water and drink it. -- Some people get nausea with body load, so it's best to take it on a stomach that is less than half full (yet not completely empty).

It's context dependent. If I was on a first date with someone and she left after I told her I had HSV-2, I would feel disappointed, rejected and perhaps frustrated about how hard it is to date. Yet there is no relationship loss since it is a first date and I would not feel animosity toward her. I would understand her position and wish her the best. It's not her responsibility to give me a sexual relationship and take care of my feelings. Even if my feeling were hurt, I would much rather her tell me early on, rather than string me along for months or years. If I was married to someone for 20 years and had three kids and a home together, it's a totally different context. If I noticed a blister, got tested and was shocked to find out I had been asymptomatically carrying HSV-2 and then the woman I love and created a life with left me over it, I would be devastated. To me, the question is how deeply entangled you two are and your level of commitment. As well, I would also consider how I first found out. If I had been sleeping with someone and then they told me they had HSV-2, that would be a major character flaw in my book. That would be a deal-breaker - and not just for the STD. Withholding that information reflects a deep character flaw that will reappear over and over again in a long-term relationship. It would be worse than someone not telling me they were married with children.. . . And if they told me they had HSV-2 before our first sexual contact, that would also be a deal-breaker. . . If I said "OK, let's use a condom and only have sex when you are asymptomatic", I would need to be 100% clear that I am only interested in short-term dating. Yet this still opens the possibility of becoming entangled, which makes it much harder to dis-entangle. . . If they told me they were HSV-2+ before our first sexual contact and I gave them the impression that I can live with it and I'm open to a long-term relationship, then I am opening a deeper level of commitment and I now carry more responsibility. Problems occur when people are not clear within themself and with their partner. I'm not saying to leave or stay. Yet I would give serious contemplation to whether I want to be in a long-term committed relationship with the person and an honest look at how likely that is to happen. For me, the over/under for someone with HSV-2 would be 10 years. If my honest answer is that I don't know or it's unlikely, then I would not engage in a short-term relationship. It wouldn't be fair to either of us. The reason I can be clear about this is because I am not entangled in the relationship. If I was immersed in the relationship, it would alter my perception. I've gotten emotionally involved with women to the point it became unhealthy. Yet I wasn't able to see this until I was able to disengage and see it from a detached view. That is why it's super valuable to have good friends that can tell us things that is hard to look at.

Specifically: a dry herb, electric vape. No concentrates, liquids etc. My guess is that 428F is an inefficient vaping temperature and slows the process down. I generally get 3-6 inhales, with each becoming progressively weaker. In contrast, a glass vape likely vaporizes 100% of the 5meo and sends it all to the lungs on the first inhale - making it extremely intense. A dry herb electric vape is so inefficient and slow, it give the person the control of intensity. Yet I'm not a chemist or an expert in the area, so take what I say about underlying mechanics with a grain of salt.

For me, that threshold was about 5 seconds of thoughtless gaps. That was long enough to realize that it's actually possible to perceive without thoughts. Then the thoughtless gaps between thoughts turned into their own realms. I've also noticed, it's not so much the thoughts themselves - it is the mind's relationship with thoughts. Many minds are immersed into thinking - like a person swimming in an ocean. It's not so much the ocean water, it's one's relationship to the ocean water. I know enter conscious states in which thoughts may appear, yet they aren't thought-ish. Technically, it is a thought - yet in essence it's not a thought. It just becomes part of the experience. A thought may appear, yet it's part of the dance with emotions, sensations, images, intuition, creativity etc. During the experience, the mind isn't even judging what counts as a "thought, there is experience of being prior to that.

Ime, the gentlest ROA is vaping with a dry herb electric vape at 428F (not a standard glass vape).

Spiritual phrenology

Within a timeline of past, present and future. . . the future will happen. Within Here and Now, there is no timeline. The future will not happen (since there is no future to happen). It would be like asking "Could I eat an airplane in this tuna sandwich?". Of course not, since there is no airplane in a tuna sandwich. Most minds are conditioned to think in opposites. That is, either the future will happen or the future will not happen. The first step of expansion is to realize the opposite to which the mind is immersed. Since most minds are immersed within a timeline (in which the future will happen), the realization is the opposite - that there is no timeline and there is no future. . . Since the mind operates in opposites, it will flip to the opposite side and think "Ah ha! The future will never happen, the future does not exist!". . . The next step of expansion is to realize both sides of the duality as One. That there is both a timeline and no timeline. The next step of expansion is to explore beyond that construct. . . I would rank metacognition of opposing constructs as one of the most important features of consciousness expansion. There are degrees of this ability, yet very few minds are good at it. The ability will save a mind years of work, confusion and frustration.

Yes, yet it depends on how one uses self criticism. Imagine you travel to a village in Guatemala to learn Spanish language and culture. Once there, you realize this is going to be harder than you originally thought. There is no hot water, no air conditioning, you can't speak the language well, wifi keeps going down and you miss people at home. We can beat ourself up and say we were stupid to come here, it sucks, we're not as good as the other Spanish students, we don't fit in etc. . . Yet we can also recognize these aspects from a detached observer. In one respect, this inner turmoil is arising because the person wants to fit into community. It put all the effort to come to Guatemala to become part of a new culture - to make new human connections, to learn new history, food, music and art. Yet it's not feeling that way. At a deeper level, it's a desire to feel connected, part of one's community, desire for curiosity, engagement, fascination. Yet it goes through a conditioned filter and ends up being experienced as yucky self criticism like "I've made bad decisions. I wish I never came here. I don't fit in. I'm not good enough. Other students are learning faster than me". We can value this as part of the human experience and desire to live a good life. And we can also see that there are some appearances interfering with our progress. We are both Perfect exactly as we are Here and Now as well as an imperfect work in progress within a timeline. What would healthy self criticism for improvement look like? I would first see that I'm taking things waaay too seriously and I need to loosen up and start enjoying some of the process. Perhaps I can make Spanish fun. When I was in a Spanish-speaking country, I beat myself up because I couldn't speak the language well. So, I decided to flip the script. Rather than be afraid to make mistakes and avoid them, my goal was to make 100+ language mistakes everyday. To do this, I had to engage in speaking the language. It takes a lot of speaking to make 100+ mistakes. . . Then I started observing how the other students were learning. Why were they learning faster than me?. . . I noticed one student would laugh whenever she had a hard time pronouncing a difficult word. She would try to say it, stumble and laugh at how ridiculous it sounded. She had a light heart and was enjoying the process. So I decided I would start laughing when I had difficulty pronouncing a difficult word. It worked! It started to become fun. . . . And sometimes I would ask the native Spanish speaker to say "hippopotamus". They sounded ridiculous! Now we both sounded ridiculous and we were laughing together at ourselves. . . This led to improvement in how I related to others, how much I was engaged and enjoying the process and how fast I started to learn the language. Part of the process was observing myself, yet not under a hyper self critical microscope. Yet, there is also a 'being' component. It's important to have simply 'being' experience time in which there is no self evaluation. "Self worth" doesn't even make sense. It's a balance. To learn Spanish, I there were times I needed to evaluate myself. What aspects of the language do I have the hardest time with? What methods do I learn best with? . . . Yet there was also times I needed to just speak the language and enter Beingness zones without self evaluation. One day I told my teacher "No textbooks or lessons today. We are going to show each other photos on our phones and tell each other stories in Spanish". It was the best "class" ever. That is the balance. I would first realize that you will never know all the answers. That time will never come. Learning and growth is infinite. . . I'm a native English speaker and out of curiosity, I took a "C2" level exam for foreign speakers. C2 is the highest level to test one's English abilities. Some of the questions were hard! Some questions, I wasn't quite sure, yet I had a feeling of how best to say it. Yet I didn't know technically why, it was more intuition. I realized I still have room for improvement in speaking English! Being overly insecure inhibits learning and growth. I teach biology and I see this in some students. They are overly insecure, timid and second guess themselves. They aren't able to tap into their potential. At extremes, it can be paralyzing. Yet at the other extreme, I've had students that are overly confident and grossly overestimate their current knowledge and skill set. Last year there was a student that often challenged me on genetics concepts. I thought he knew more than I did, that he knew it all. Yet he wasn't coming to me for discussion, an exchange of ideas and clarity. He was coming to me looking for a fight to prove himself and establish himself at being at a higher level than he was. I've also seen students that are so confident, they are oblivious to the mistakes they are making. They don't have the awareness or intuition sensor that they are missing something. This semester, there is a student in lab that zooms through the lab exercise without any awareness in how things are going. He is overly confident and it doesn't even occur to him he might not know how to do something or that he is doing something wrong. By the end of the lab, his experiment is a mess. He makes major boneheaded mistakes and I'm thinking "My god, when the spectrophotometer was giving you a zero reading for every sample, didn't it occur to you that something was going wrong?". . . On the flip side, there are students so insecure in lab that they lack confidence to make any decision. They continuously think something is going wrong and it's their fault. I have to constantly tell them they are doing each step correctly. Or they just check out and let other students do the work. This is also counter-productive for learning and developing skills.

I’m not saying this construct is wrong. I’m saying that this construct is a component within a larger holism. One would need to let go of this component to see other components in the greater whole. One cannot show a doer within a construct that lacks a doer. One cannot show the illusory nature of cause and effect within a construct of reality with cause and effect. I’m not saying any of these constructs are wrong. I’m saying they are each facets on a more expansive diamond.

Of course there is no thinker or doer . . .and thoughts / actions just happen by themselves. This is a major realization and expansion for most minds. Yet if we contract ourselves within an opposite domain, we will limit ourselves within one side of a duality and cut ourselves off from exploring the thinker, doer and that thoughts / actions don’t happen by themselves. If we limit ourselves to one of two opposing facets of a diamond, we will be unaware that both facets exist and that there are hundreds of other facets of the diamond.

Yet many people are this stupid and it harms these people and society. Millions of people in America believe that the government is overrun by satan-worshipping pedophiles that eat babies. These people have become so distressed in fear that they are harming themselves, their family and society. Blanket statements like “one sided information and suppressing the alternative side” gives legitimacy to both sides. Context is super important. There is no legitimate “alternative side” to contexts like whether politicians and media are satan-worshippers cannibalizing babies, whether Jews are using space lasers to create massive forest fires, whether Bill Gates created a bogus vaccine for mind control etc. Be mindful about making distinctions between legitimate alternative perspectives and batshit crazyness that is harmful to society. Most people do not have critical thinking skills and are vulnerable to being manipulated. And direct lines can be drawn from “information” some people receive that leads them to commit crimes against others. For example, online white supremacy groups and mass murders. Those that have fallen prey have clearly indicated in their manifestos that toxic “information” and the “alternative side” about how ethnic minorities are evil and threatening led them to murder ethnic minorities. You seem to be taking a hard libertarian position and are dismissing social aspects.

Experiencing thoughtless domains for over 30s is attainable after some practice. Much longer periods are possible. Ime, it’s an important area of consciousness work.

This is a great question. . . at Tier2. This question is loaded with relativity, which Tier 1 minds don’t understand. A yellow level thinker will waste his time trying to communicate relativity to Blue and Orange libertarians that use free speech disingenuously as a shield toward their own selfish desires. They don’t genuinely want to explore the nuances of this question. They use this question rhetorically as “no one could decide, so we should have unrestrained speech and my tribe and I can speak whatever I want” For those that come in good faith, this is a worthy question of exploration. I would start off by saying there is no one decider that 100% of people agree to be the decider. Look at how religious gods as the one decider have failed. I would say a better solution would have speech court systems - similar to courts that enforce other societal infractions. The online speech courts could be composed from a mixture of sociologists, social media experts, cyber security, academics, traditional judges etc.