Forestluv

This is due to fluidity of the mind. It’s like saying “Spiritual people use the idea of water Willy Billy and loosely. One moment they’re saying water is a vapor, the next moment they say water is ice”. Water can be both vapor and ice, depending on context. Yet this will be frustrating to a rigid mind that wants answers. It will think “for crissakes, is water a vapor, liquid or ice. Just tell me which one it is!”. Yet the problem is that answering with one of those options is partially true and partially false. If I say “water is liquid”, it is true in one context - yet also false since water is also vapor and ice. It’s a similar dynamic with free will. Whether free will exists depends on how we define ideas such as “self”, “me”, and “choice”. The vast majority of minds are immersed within a psychological self of “me”. My life history, my job, my likes and dislikes, my memories etc. Here, one of the biggest realizations a human mind can have is that there is no free will relative to this story of “me” and the subjective experience that I am making choices. There is an enormous price to pay to realize this illusion, yet the payoff can be enormous as well (for minds that like to expand and be free). This is a major breakthrough for 99.99% of minds and opens new doors. Yet this is still at a surface level. Once the illusion of self and free will is revealed, it opens up new explorations of “self”, “free” and “will”. Yet a mind must have the initial realization to see these domains. As well, minds that have had this realization often “pretend” that illusions are real to connect with minds that still perceive illusions as real. When I go to work, everyone believes their sense of “me” is real. They believe the character they are playing is real. Thus, for me to communicate with them, I need to pretend like the characters we play are real. Otherwise, they would see me as insane. You may see me talk to spiritual people as if the self is a dream character and then see me talk to normies as if the you and me are real. Yet in this domain, the character is real. Just as how water can either formless vapor or formed ice. If I started communicating with you as if this is a dream in which you and I are illusions, it would seem like gibberish to you because you believe there is an entity “me” and an entity “you”. Therefore, we need to pretend like “you” and “me” are real. Yet only one of us is aware of this.

Racism isn't binary as either 100% racist or 0% racist. There are all sorts of degrees of racism as well as how it is perceived. Some instances of racism are cut-and-dry, such as the Holocaust. Yet there are also much lesser degrees and nuances. For example, Harry and Meghan said members were "concerned" about the the likely tone of Archie's skin. This can have a wide variety of orientations from the giver and perceptions of the receiver. At one extreme, "concerned" is an euphemism for blatantly racist. Someone might have a racist orientation in which they don't want a dark skinned person to ever have the title of Prince. . . Yet in another domain, "concern" could be concern about the welfare of the child if it has relatively dark skin tone. If the media treated Meghan so harshly based on skin tone, we could be concerned that the media would treat Archie harshly due to his skin tone. . . . As well, "concerned" can also have a curiosity component. Skin tone is a multi-genic trait and from a physiological perspective, we could be curious about the distribution of melanin-producing genes between a very light-skinned person (Harry) and a moderately-toned person (Meghan). As well, these aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can be a mixture of having moderate racism (and using "concern" as a mask to hide their racism) and some genuine curiosity of Archie's welfare and some genuine curiosity. I'm not at all immersed in this story, so I have a detached view. Based on what I saw in the interview, previous behavior of the royal family and the statement from the royal family - my intuition tells me that they are conceding that there was at least some degree of insensitivity based on race. Part of this is likely due to public perception, yet my sense is that part of it is also due to some underlying truth of some racism. Yet this could be a mild degree of racism. A more extreme form of racism would have been if the royal family pressured Meghan to have an abortion because they didn't want to take the chance of having a relatively dark toned Prince in the royal family. People commonly use the term "racism" as a binary construct. It is much more nuanced than that.

One of my desires is to realize, create and show others bigger picture maps and higher resolution maps. One of my curiosities is defense mechanisms to maintain contracted and myopic mind states. This of course is relative. A relatively contracted / myopic mind will not perceive itself as contracted / myopic. It will perceive itself as being open, big picture and accurate. And within this mindset, it is true. If the mind is contracted within a low-resolution map of Paris, that is the limit of awareness for that mind. Relative to that mind, it's low-resolution map of Paris is a high resolution big picture map of the world. It seems like a mind would want to create and use the most accurate, highest resolution, integrative systems map possible. Yet this is a very rare mind because such a map will at times go counter to a person's prior conditioning, beliefs, identity, survival and lifetime investment. Yesterday I was reading a neuroscience textbook. I was impressed by how cleanly the authors could dissect the brain and describe individual components. Yet then the author explained how reductionism is the way to understand the whole. I wanted to scream. . . Reductionism gives one perspective of the whole and there are infinite levels of reduction and holism. It's not even accurate to call them "levels" since there is One continuum from infinitely reduced to infinitely whole - which comes full circle as One. . . Yet this neuroscientist has been highly conditioned within reductionism. He spent decades immersed in study, writing textbooks and teaching from a purely reductionist perspective. This perspective has truth and value, yet it is still contracted. Ironically, the neuroscientist is open-minded, intellectually curious and exploratory within his domain - yet doesn't realize the boundaries of his domain. And double-ironically, there is infinite exploration within this domain. A mind can spend a lifetime exploring this domain and would barely scratch the surface. It would be like a biologist exploring a forest. There is immense exploration available within the forest. One could spend a lifetime studying one leaf or a handful of dirt and barely scratch the surface of it. . . Is it "better" to spend a lifetime exploring infinity within one domain, two domains or more? I would say it doesn't much matter. Yet the problem arises when the mind extrapolates understanding within a contracted domain into domains it is unaware of or does not understand. . . For example, this neuroscientist extrapolated his understanding within a contracted reductionist domain into meta domains he is unaware of and lacks understanding. This creates distortion. . . A somewhat similar distortion can occur in the reciprocal direction. A meta-mind can distort by reducing down. . . Imagine a high resolution map of Paris. To zoom out to a high resolution map of France, we need to subtract details from the Paris map and add details of France. If we simply stretch out the Paris map, it will be distorted. Similarly, if we start with a map of France and zoom in to Paris, we must subtract details of France and add details of France. If we simply tried to re-orient the features of France to create a map of Paris, it would be distorted. . . This is easily realized with Google Maps. Zoom out of Google maps and notice the loss of details and the appearance of new details. Then Zoom into the map and notice the loss of details and appearance of new details. Generally, a mind contracted within a smaller map is unaware of larger maps. A mind contracted within Paris is unaware of a bigger France map. Here, distortion due to extrapolation is a common problem. The vast majority of people are contracted within relatively small contracted maps. On the flip side, a mind attached to a bigger map is generally aware of the existence of greater details within that big map. A mindset with the bigger France map is usually aware that Paris is within it's France map. And such a mind is usually aware that there are details of Paris it is unaware of. This mind can zoom in to Paris, yet meta-minds generally don't like to do this. Here, there can be a problem of "reverse-extrapolation", yet I don't like this term here, since extrapolation suggests zooming out, not in. It's is more clearly described as zooming in, without adding in new details. For example, a meta-mindset may be aware of how neuroscience, metaphysics and collective consciousness are all inter-related. This mind will be know that it is unaware of details of neuroscience, yet it can dismiss such details because it wants to stay at the level of meta-cognition. This can prevent the mind from forming a higher resolution systems map. It will limit it's understanding of how the parts within the whole are inter-related. This is the opposite of the reductionist mind. Imagine we are creating a map of France and we really like the big picture of France. In general, how the cities, mountains, weather patterns, lakes etc. are all inter-related. Yet this is still a crude map. Yea, yea, yea. . . we know that there are details in France, Lyon, Marseille etc., yet such details are boring and laborious - and they detract from our enjoyment of the bigger picture. Yet without those details, one's understanding of the bigger map is limited. And usually, meta-minds downplay this. . . How can we have a deep understanding of France, without knowing zoomed in details of components of France? Such as specific historical data points, detailed commerce routes, street maps, city-level ordinances etc. Without such details, a meta mind is vulnerable of making false conclusions and be under the false impression that reductionist minds are blind to such aspects. For example, from a big picture map, we may notice that Parisians congregate to certain areas of France. Without zoomed in details, we can make erroneous conclusions. Ironically, we make conclusions that lack detail and meaning that would allow for a bigger picture understanding. I often see this with meta thinkers regarding consciousness and reality. They may be aware of things like epigenetics and neurotransmitters at a level of detail sufficient for a crude big picture map. Yet the problem occurs when they make assumptions and subconsciously add in details. I've seen meta-thinkers often make assumptions of neuroscience and neuroscientists that lacks detailed understanding, yet don't see this as relevant in the bigger map. Sometimes the details don't really matter, yet other times they do. A poor understanding of the mechanics of epigenetics and neurotransmitters can lead to the creation of distorted big picture maps.

Of course there are similarities between left and right. It's not called a "false similarity", it's called a "false equivalency". If the mind focuses on aspects of sameness, it will blind itself to aspects of difference. If we focus solely on the similarities between a pear and an apple, the two become the same - creating a false equivalency. Yet if we focus solely on the differences, we blind ourselves to the similarities. This is the nature of contraction within aspects of truth. If one perceives their self survival as depending on maintaining the contraction, there is identification and attachment. If I perceive my self survival as depending on a pear and an apple as being equivalent, I will become contracted within the aspects of sameness, argue for their sameness and dismiss any difference. I will wear a lens that allows wavelengths of sameness to pass, distort wavelengths into sameness and filter out wavelengths of difference. Minds with metacognition naturally function to perceive reality this way, yet such minds are the minority and they often receive backlash for pointing it out. In terms of persuasion, this awareness is useful in disarming the defenses of a contracted mind (if the intention of the meta-mind is to expand the contracted mind). Yet this takes patience and skill. And ime, the contracted mind must have some degree of openness, curiosity and desire to expand.

It’s an interesting case because it tests the current limits of someone in power. If this was just some guy that loaded trucks for Amazon, nobody would give his advances a second thought. He is just another lonely middle-aged man looking for some attention. Like Steve Martin in “The Lonely Guy”. It has all to do with power dynamics in the workplace and where to draw the line. Women don’t like working in an environment in which the boss leverages his power to get away with quasi sexual harassment.

You are bringing up the idea of distance. Yet distance is also influenced by someone's natural empathic abilities. For example, there is a lot of distance between thinking about animal suffering in factory farming. Most people know it occurs, yet aren't bothered by it. A step closer would be watching videos of animals suffering in factory farms. Most people would find this more bothersome than simply the thought that it occurs. Even closer would be visiting a factory farm and watching the animals suffer right in front of you. Even closer would be to watching your beloved pet get tortured. Even closer would be getting forced to torture the animals yourself. Yet those distances are also influenced by the person's empathic orientation. For a normal person, watching a video of animal suffering might register as a 4/10 on the discomfort scale and watching in person may be a 6/10. Yet for an empath, watching the video may be a 6/10 and seeing it in person might be an 8/10.

@soos_mite_ah It depends on the orientation of the person. Someone who is oriented toward logic, conceptualization, intuition, creativity etc. may be negatively impacted by watching another be traumatized, yet will unlikely be traumatized themselves. However, it's very different for a person that is primarily empathic. I've witnessed other's trauma and was traumatized by it. Not the same type of trauma tho. I've witnessed and indirectly experienced stuff that f--- me up. Like I couldn't sleep well for weeks / months, had chronic anxiety and psychosomatic pains such as chest pain. Even thinking about it right now is creating anxiety and pain in my body. Most people have some distance between their own experience and that of another. Yet for the 10-20% of people that are highly empathic, there can be little to no distance.

Overall: tone down the personal spats and crude language.

Leo did a great video on the interplay between unity and diversity, yet I forget the name of it.

Assertiveness is like an artist's paintbrush - it can be used to create beautiful paintings or ugly paintings.

@Emerald I appreciate your patience. Most of your insights are unfortunately lost / missed by men in this subforum.

To the males on the thread: tone down the derailment, immaturity and quasi objectification / misogyny. Step up your maturity or the thread will get locked.

God, self, other, source is all the same. But yea, there is a price to pay for this realization. Imagine you realize you were dreaming. From the perspective of the dream character, this sucks since he is no longer real. That’s a huge price to pay. Yet it’s also super cool to play the dreamer in a lucid dream. And it can be fun to forget one is the dreamer and to identify as a character. It feels much more real.

There ya go. Imagine you are dreaming that you are in a forest. Is not space in this dream an illusion. Is the distance between the tree and dog in the tree really 10 meters? As you create a dream, in what space is this dreamworld being created? Are two things within the dream in separate space? Or is that dream space an illusion? Ultimately, imagination = real. And illusions are both illusory and non-illusory. Most people can easily see the non-illusory nature of reality. They can easily see that the cup in my hand is in a different space than the computer on the other side of the room. So there is no need to articulate the non-illusory nature of space. For them, their realization is the illusory nature of space. Yet realizing the illusory nature of space, does not nullify the non-illusory nature. The hurdle to get over is the belief that one must reject the non-illusory nature of space to accept the illusory nature of space. If a mind was locked into the illusory nature of space, it would be locked in the opposite orientation. Here, we would need to point to the actuality of space. Then, we can explore domains intersecting space and no-space.

Feeling sorry for someone is sympathy, not empathy. They are different domains. Empathic understanding/knowing is a super power, not a weakness. Imagine being able to read someone’s mind. That is a super power, similar to empathy.

If a substance brings enjoyment, there is is risk of being dependent on the substance to enjoy life. There is no physical dependence with psychedelics, yet with some people there can be a psychological dependence. For someone new with psychedelics, I would say it is sustainable to have one strong trip per month or two moderate trips per month or four mild Mini-dose trips per month. Yet this also depends on the person, If someone is already well-adjusted to life, psychedelics would add some adventure to their already good life. Yet if someone is using psychedelics to escape dealing with life sober, it is a different dynamic. Dosages differ depending on the person. For most people, a moderate dosage would be 75-100ug LSD or about 1.5g shrooms. This can get one into the fun zone, without a lot of strain on the mind and body. Twice a month at this dosage could be sustainable. I would recommend taking the lowest dosage that puts you into the fun zone. I consider it a “museum dose”. The dosage that can turn a boring museum into a fascinating adventure. For me, that is about 50ug of LSD.

I just threw a couple names out. The question I'm curious about is how Cenk would respond if he was immersed with yellow-level thinkers for an extended period.

What do you predict would happen if Cenk took a six month sabbatical with some yellow-level thinkers like Daniel Schmachtenberger & Bret Weinstein? If given some distance from TYT and space to explore and grow with yellows, do you think Cenk would thrive? Is Cenk leashed to TYT? Would he roam free if given the space?

Analysis, intellectualization and construct control is masculine. One cannot deeply understand feminine through masculine analysis and control. Deeper understanding comes from surrendering masculine control and entering realms of feminine. Being in a masculine realm and trying to define what feminine realms are is very different than actually experiencing and knowing feminine realms and then trying to articulate it. Masculine and feminine realms are very different ways of relating to reality. Ultimately, the two are inter-connected as one, yet one will not realize this without venturing outside their baseline realm.

A couple ideas come to mind. . . To me, your construct of balance between good and bad is overly simplistic. It assumes that balance is equal proportions and does not include the concept of contrast. . . Consider that for a thing to exist, it needs contrast against "not-that-thing". For relative love to exist, it needs relative hate as contrast. Yet this does not mean that relative love and hate must be in equal proportions. Imagine spending 24/7 in a completely white room. Everything in your reality is white. . . After a while, you will forget colors. Your entire reality is white and that too will disappear. It would be a colorless reality. . . . What you are saying is that for there to be color contrast, the room must be 50% white and 50% black. Yet this is not the case. All we need is 1% black. If we had one black dot that was 1% of the space, it would be sufficient. We can now look at the black dot and realize everything surrounding the black dot is not black, it is white. Similarly, relative love and relative hate do not need to be 50% each to be "balanced". 1% hate is more than enough to contrast love. We could continually reference that tiny fragment of hate as contrast for the 99% love. I also get the sense of "why bother" from your post. Why bother working toward a good life and feelings of love if it will one day be gone? Sometimes, I have this dilemma with yoga. I work hard on my flexibility, strength and balance and feel great - yet then I realize I can't keep this up forever. At some point, I'm going to slack up on my yoga and stop doing it. Then I will get out-of-shape and feel like crap. And remembering how I used to be in shape will make being out-of-shape feel even worse. So why bother getting in shape in the first place, if it won't last forever? The answer that comes back to me is: what do I want to do Now? For now, do I want to engage with things that inspire me? Things that give me wonder, awe and joy? Or right now, do I want to engage with things that make me feel crappy? Once a purely deterministic construct is created, it's full stop. Everything you are asking is irrelevant in a deterministic construct. It would be like jumping off a cliff and asking "what incentive is there for me to start flying like a bird if it is determined I will continue to fall and I will hit the ground?". It makes no sense.

@Melissa46 I would suggest starting with a low dose. You could also try microdosing. For some people it has a positive boost. Also, one should be cautious about taking psychedelics if on psychoactive medication, like SSRIs. Higher doses can have more impact, yet it is leveraged and becomes less predictable. There are many different experiences possible on higher doses of psychedelics.

I assume you are talking about a single tab, rather than a sheet. If you have one tab and don't know the amount, I would take his advice and take 1/4. If it is 300ug, 1/4 would be 75ug and the vast majority of people would feel something at 75ug, yet the intensity would vary. For most people, 75ug is enough to have an altered state of consciousness, yet the person would still be in touch with reality enough to think themselves stable if things got weird and uncomfortable. For most people, 75ug would not be enough for a breakthrough. However, it will give you a decent idea of the next dose. For example, if you hardly felt anything at 75ug, then take the rest of the tab. If 75ug felt strong and you want a little bit stronger, take 1/2 what's left. You can cut 1/4 of it. To be more precise, you can dissolve it in liquid and drink 1/4 of it. For most beginners that don't have anxiety issues, 50-100ug is a good starting dose to get a baseline feel. A breakthrough dose depends on the person. Some people are more sensitive than others. For 99% of people, 300ug would be an extremely high first dose. Another school of thought is to take a high dose the first time and breakthrough. Yet this is using leverage, it could work out great, yet it could also get messy. I would recommend against using a high dose the first time, unless the person is very mature and/or with highly experienced facilitators, such as an Ayahuasca ceremony. You can read trip reports to get an idea, yet it really needs to be directly experienced. A breakthrough is essentially "ego death". The sense of self and rational thinking dissolves. Yet this can lead to a wide variety of experiences. A low/moderate dose would be more like a lucid dream. Reality is distorted, yet you are still there for it. A low/moderate dose can provide deep insights in some people. It depends on the person. Smoking weed can lead to personal insights, yet it is unlikely to have a big impact on someone who doesn't have a lot of spiritual experience. The person would likely have an altered trip and bounce back to their old self. Edible weed is more potent and can lead to quasi-psychedelic experiences. In terms of deeply profound insights, psychedelics is probably the best shot - yet again, it depends on the person. For me, my first trip shattered my foundation of reality and sense of self and I was never able to get grounded like I had been,. Yet I've also seen lots of people that trip a few times and snap right back to the person they were. If you are serious about using psychedelics for personal growth, I would recommend plan at least 5-6 trips. For some people, it can be really important to integrate with other spiritual practices and working with someone who has a lot of experience with psychedelics and/or personal development. If a person is highly conditioned and maladjusted to life, it's unlikely that one trip alone will magically turn them into a new person. This can happen, yet it's rare. To go to the deepest transpersonal levels, I would integrate psychedelics, meditation, yoga, breathwork. contemplation and integrative discussions.

I’d say it’s a mixture. Each exploration is satisfying and joyful in a way, yet there are also disappointments, sadness and discomfort. It’s all part of the movie. Yet I would be miserable if I felt like I was caged. For me, exploring is not only traveling to new places and doing new activities. I’ve gone places laying on my living room floor that were as exploratory as traveling through jungles of Belize. I like a mind like water

@Hanna Luna Your curiosity and desire to find answers is refreshing. It is Aliveness. It is exploration and participating in one's life. With it comes both joy of discovery and frustration of missing. I know the intuitive sense that there is something I'm missing and desire to find it. That energy propelled me to spend thousands of hours reading, writing, conducting research in laboratories, traveling the world, living within different cultures and having deep conversations with hundreds of people with very different life experiences and relationships to reality. Without the curiosity and desire to know, I would not have been motivated to expand, learn new things and participate in a wide variety of experiences. For many years, my orientation was toward being grounded and knowing. I did not like ambiguity, paradox, contradictions and not knowing. Ime, to continue expanding there comes a time when one needs to become comfortable with those aspects. They can even become beautiful and exciting. A dance between grounded and groundless, between form and formless.

The average consciousness in America is too low for that. Nearly half the country thinks that Trump and his ilk are saviors against the communist monsters. And they would rather have a strong-armed authoritarian than democracy. If something drastic was done against Trump and his ilk, there would be a massive violent MAGA revolt. I think a better approach is slowly bleeding them to death.