Forestluv

I'm gonna go into a stream of consciousness and play with this prompt. . . Open-mindedness and Open-heartedness both open doors to exploration. Open-mindedness is more about allowing the cognitive thought mind to relax and become open to new ideas. For example, if someone traveled to a foreign country, they might have cognitive open-minded toward learning about some rituals of the culture. Experiential open-mindedness would be attending and participating within the ceremony. They might have good cognitive and experiential open-mindedness, yet lack open-heartedness. Lacking open-heartedness would be perceiving as a separate entity. "Aren't those natives over there interesting. I can't wait to post videos of the ceremony on IG. It's kinda weird, yet if that's what they want to do in life, good for them!". Open-heartedness has a different element. Open-mindedness would be needed to travel to the country and immerse oneself into the culture. Yet open-heartedness would be needed to make empathic, feeling, human, energetic connections - not just to other humans, yet also to the environment: animals, trees, huts, vibe, history, Mother Nature present. It's a different realm than an analytical/intellectual/reason realm. Some beings are more oriented toward entering open-hearted spaces, others not so much. I'd say the biggest block to entering open-hearted realms would be 1) The intellect trying to control the narrative, 2) fear of vulnerability, 3) fear of intimacy, 4) fear of rejection and 5) lack of body/beingness awareness. The blocks to open-mindedness are more about cognitive narrative control of a self identity. The blocks to open-heartedness are more about feelings. Just some free-flowing thoughts.

Psychedelics is the most powerful tool to help a scientist transcend science. Below is one of my favorite videos showing a scientist (medical doctor) get rocketed up conscious levels in an Ayahuasca retreat. We can watch his sensemaking and transition in real time. A few things of note: 1) Prior to the retreat, he had a vague sense that he was contracted within science and there was more he was missing. 2) He genuinely wanted to explore 3) He had a window of intuition and trusted that. As soon as he saw a video of the Temple of Way of Life, he intuitively knew "That's it". His intuition was able to sense transcendence even though he didn't know what it was. He knew immediately and never questioned it. Without hesitation, he registered for a 12 day Aya retreat in Peru. That knowing that "this is it" can provide grounding and stability. 4) After the ceremonies he is reflecting and sense-making in the video, he repeatedly says he was exposed to something true beyond his understanding, yet can't put it into words - yet there is something true he can't quite grasp. This is a very humble, fluid mindset. Also notice how comfortable he is with not knowing and curious to learn more. This indicates he is transcending his scientific paradigm. If he retracted to his scientific paradigm and contextualized within that paradigm he would be talking about how the Aya trips weren't 'real'. They were dreams, hallucinations, altered neurotransmitters in his brain etc. That has some truth to it, yet is contracted within a traditional paradigm of science, logic and reasoning which would not be transcendence for Seth.

You are correct that I don't have a heart-centered approach here. I'm aware of that. I'm intentionally creating conceptual constructs. Relativity, spectrums and integration is more advanced that binary views because relativity, spectrums and integration includes binary constructs. Any system that includes basic elements AND more elements is more advanced than the more basic system. For example, a map of Europe is more advanced than a map of France because the map of Europe contains the map of France and more. In terms of SD, stage yellow is more advanced than stage blue because stage yellow includes stage blue and more. If a mind can't see this is indicative of "over the head". If it wasn't going over the head, you would be getting it and not restrict yourself to binary constructs. You would be integrating in relativity, spectrums and multi-perspectival elements Yet from a growth perspective, this is good news. It opens up new dimensions of growth potential. When I listen to Harry Mack, I realize much of what he says is over my head, yet that is good news! Because it is a resource that allows expansion. Again, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. That is not why I lack patience in certain areas. It's going over the head. I lose patience when someone is using simple, contracted, personalized, competitive constructs with Dunning-Kruger mixed in. If someone says "Can we engage at the basics and work our way up? Can we start with binary constructs and then you gradually add in more elements of spectrums, relativity, multi-perspectives and integration?" - I would be like "sure, let's go for it. Check it out. We can start of by creating a simple binary construct that the pharmaceutical industry is unethical and manipulates the public for financial gain". Then we could advance by building upon that simple binary construct. . . We could start to add in new elements of spectrums and mosaics. I tried to reach out to you multiple times by stating unethical manipulative behavior of the pharmaceutical industry and build upon it. Yet you've shown no interest in doing so. A "normal" conversation for you is very different than a "normal" conversation for me. Yet this is an aspect of relativity you are not grasping. Over and over I keep saying that there is value in what you are saying. Over and over, I've stressed positive things in what you are saying and say let's build upon that. Yet you don't catch that and keep defaulting to "me vs you". How many times do I need to agree with elements of your view until you realize that I agree with elements of your view? Do I need to state 100 times that the pharmaceutical industry has elements of unethical and manipulative behavior? Do I need to list 100 forms of unethical behavior of the pharmaceutical industry for you to realize that I don't have the opposite view as you? After trying this 5-6 times and you don't see it, I lose patience. I don't see us getting beyond a simplistic construct of "my view vs your view" and "convince me that your view is right and my view is wrong". There is no "my view vs your view", The view I'm presenting includes elements of "your view"! From the perspective of an ego, yes. Yet it's not that simple. As a basic example, I dog can lose patience, yet has no ego. Loss of patience can arise without an ego, just like hunger, pain, curiosity etc. can arise without an ego. Adding in ego is an extra element added in. It's totally fine to add in that element, yet there are many dimensions to explore without that element.

He has some good coherence skills. This can come from practice and preparation. And he is also very measured here. I'm curious about his level of embodiment. From what I've seen of him off the top, he isn't highly embodied imo. I'd like to freestyle with him.

Because I already tried it and it didn't work. Keep in mind if someone wants to expand and develop new skills, they will need to move into their stretch zone and make mistakes. As I mentioned, 98% of what I'm writing is going over your head and you are not my target audience. You've already clearly indicated you don't see any value in what I'm writing and have no interest in it. My target audience are other forum members that do have interest. For those following along. . . notice the usage of "give me a reason good enough". This shows a lack of desire and interest, which isn't a bad thing. Someone might be freestyle rapping and another might not see any value or interest in it. Importantly, be mindful of the source of "the reason good enough". No one can convince you of a reason good enough that will motivate someone to stretch into higher levels of expertise. Extrinsic rewards are insufficient. There must be genuine intrinsic reward as fuel to reach higher levels. One must have a passion for it. If I see a freestyle rapper and think "He's got nothing. Mariah Carey is such a better singer. Convince me that I should learn freestyle rap from someone who sucks at freestyle rap". That mindset will not allow someone to advance. There is no way to convince that person. In contrast, I recently discovered Harry Mack and I'm sooo impressed. He has such a wide variety of skills with improvisation, human connection, wordplay, cadence, flow and body language. Not only is it entertaining, yet I'm learning so much about fluidity of words, new mental skills and spontaneous communication. I also want to start integrating some elements into teaching skills. I'm now watching HMack videos in which he explains the process and mental dynamics. I'm totally open, curious and engaged to learn because I have intrinsic desire and rewards. A mentality of "give me a good reason why I should learn freestyle rap and not listen to Beyonce" is not a growth mindset. @Consept You are good at cracking open dams and allowing trickles of water to flow. That is a skill I'm not very good at. I just don't have that patience.

It doesn't make sense because you only have one lens in which it doesn't make sense. Through the lens you are wearing, you are 100% correct that the example doesn't make sense. However, notice how the example does make sense to others on the thread. They are wearing a different lens. Which lens is "better" depends on context. The lens you are wearing has truth and value, yet if it is the only lens you can wear it will be very limiting. As an example, notice how I keep saying that your perspective has some truth and value. That is because I can see through that lens. As I mentioned, I teach a class about unethical aspects of the pharmaceutical industry. I actually teach this. You are trying to categorize me as either a "good apple" or "bad apple". Yet I can see both good apples and bad apples. How can you categorize me as a 100% bad apple if I teach pre-med students how corrupt and unethical the pharmaceutical industry is? I speak that language. I've spent over 20 years involved in scientific research and I've seen both the good and bad in it. I think this is a great metaphor. It is pointing at something different than I did, yet still a great metaphor. Let's break it down. . . The most important thing regarding introspection is having a curious exploratory mind. Almost like a childlike mind. This type of mind is fluid and is more interested in extracting insights from multiple perspectives. Let's go for it. . . Consider each of your components: (1) An experimental plane with a (2) new type of engine that is (3) still in testing, (4) has never been flown and (5) every time they tried it in the past it crashed. Taking those five elements together, I would not fly in that plane. There is high risk and no reward. So here comes next level: there is some aspects in this metaphor that can be extended to covid, yet it also has distortion. That distortion is the mind manipulating two forms to be compatible. Again, I am NOT saying the metaphor is 100% wrong and lacks value. As I said above, this lens DOES have value, yet restricting oneself to this lens will create distortion in a larger view. To get this what I'm writing, one would need to realize that I am not taking the opposite position as you. Imagine someone that is bilingual and can speak both English and Spanish. They are not English vs. Spanish. They can identify positives and limitations of both English and Spanish. This is a difficult mindstate to enter. It's almost like a flow state of consciousness. Like a musician improvising, it can be difficult to get into this "zone". The next level we enter requires that we are more interested in expanding a view than protecting our view. In one conscious state, this is super exciting, in another conscious state it is super threatening. . . Back to your metaphor. . . Notice how we will explore both strengths and weaknesses of the metaphor. To see this, one needs to have loose handles. As well, my exploration itself has limits. There are many more angles we could examine. . . Parts 1-2 has metaphorical crossover accuracy, yet is also incomplete. The metaphorical strength is that decades of R&D has gone into airplanes and decades of R&D has gone into vaccine design. As well, an engine is a key component of a larger airplane system that drives propulsion of the plane. Similarly mRNA is the engine that drives propulsion of the plane. I think this is a very strong foundation to start with. (Notice how strongly I am highlighting value within your metaphor). To make strengthen the metaphor more, we need to add more elements (you might not like this part). In general, airplanes have value to humans and are relatively safe. On rare occasions, there are plane crashes and people get seriously injured and die. Yet this is infrequent. Similarly, vaccines have value to humans and are relatively safe. On rare occasions, people getting vaccinated can get seriously injured and die. Yet this is infrequent. Now, the metaphor is even stronger. If you only accept the first part and reject the second part, you are not looking at things objectively. Parts 3-4 also have some metaphorical strength, yet are not nearly as strong as parts 1-2. Both the new engine technology and mRNA vaccine technology are "new" and "still in testing". Here, the distortion is by ommission. The way it is framed suggests that the engine / mRNA is *brand* new and testing has just begun. However, the mRNA technology has been in development for many many years. The company "Moderna" stands fuses "modern" and "rna". Scientists have been doing R&D on mRNA-based vaccines and therapies for many years. This is super important to add in. Omitting this part creates distortion. Part 5 is the weakest part and has no metaphorical value. In fact, it blows up ALL the metaphorical value in parts 1-4. The mRNA technology is been very successful. It is highly effective with extremely low risks so far. Crashes have been very infrequent. It is true that the risk is greater than 0%, yet a gross distortion to say that it has "crashed every time". It would be more fair to say that the plane engine has been tested hundreds of millions of times and is as safe as previous plane engines. As well, the metaphor omits the risks of not employing the engine / vaccine. That is super important as well. From a meta-view, notice how the above exploration does not dismiss your metaphor. The exploration includes both strengths and weaknesses of the metaphor and offers ways to improve it. Again, this framing has both value and distortion. The value of above is that introspecting one's own mind is very difficult. Every mind has biases and holds handles tightly at times. Every meta level has issues of introspection, biases, handle holding and defenses. If I said I was above these dynamics, my conscious level would actually drop down a level as awareness is lost. As I mentioned above, entering higher meta levels is not easy. I'd go so as to say that one cannot think there way into it. It's more about letting go and entering into a flow state of form and formless. I 100% agree with you it's super important to have awareness of one's blocks to reach a higher level of cognition. Yet there is also some distortion in this point. I spend an inordinate amount of time observing my own mind. Hours everyday. Part of developing metacognition skills is practice, practice, practice. One of the key elements is to observe one's own mind and to be open to feedback from others that reflect one's mind. For example, you have reflected back to me components I can improve upon. This is good news, if I want to reach for a higher level of cognition. As well, you also make a good point about how academia can create a sense of "being above others". This is something I've noticed in academia and something I've introspected in myself. Arrogance is a huge block to reaching higher levels. If I want to continue to develop to higher levels I have to devote part of my awareness RAM to being aware of the block of arrogance. Yet there is also some distortion in this point. Expertise and confidence is a real thing, Things can get super tricky between expertise/confidence and arrogance. Expressing one's skill with expertly and with confidence is not arrogance. Kobe Bryant practiced his craft intensely for years and had expertise and confidence. He knew his skills and limitations. When he did an amazing fade-away off-balance three-pointer, it was not arrogance. Arrogance is an additional element expertise/confidence. Notice how your call out of arrogance is related to my statements of being in academia. Yet I did not volunteer that information. Normally, I would not express that since it is usually irrelevant. A piano player doesn't go around boasting about their training and status. The only reason I stated my training and credentials as a scientist / researcher is because you demanded it. You set the standard as being a scientist / researcher. Therefore, it is completely relevant for me to state my training / credentials as a scientist / researcher since that is the standard you set. That is not arrogance. Again, it is what it is. I also think it's important to illustrate that the conscious states I'm referring to aren't really "me". There is no ownership to them. That type of personalization and ownership is a block to higher cognitive states because it takes up mental RAM and is contracted. It is more accurate to say that there are realms in which expansive insights arise. Yet there is no "me" taking ownership of it. If I say something brilliant, I'm the most surprised person. I'm like "where tf did that come from?". The reason I say "I" is for convenience of conversation. Without pronouns like "I", "me", and "you", communication can become difficult and awkward. Especially when a mind in contracted within a personal realm. Imagine a musician in a flow state of consciousness. It's like the trumpet is playing itself. Let's say it is a masterful level of improvisation. There is no "I" there. There is no "me" thinking things like "I'm so great. I'm the best musician. I'm nailing it. All the women will love me". That stuff actually prevents a mind from entering higher states of cognition. If my mind was in a space of "I'm so transcendent of all perspectives" it would interfere with entering transcendence of perspectives. That type of shit needs to be let go of before crossing over. This is an area in which you are reflecting something I can approve upon. You are interpreting me as being very condescending to you. Regardless of whether it's true or not, your perception that what I communicate is condescending is an issue if the intention is to open up a lane of communication. If you perceive me as condescending, then that lane will be closed. If my goal was to have effective communication with you, I would need to adapt so you are not interpreting me as condescending. Yet creating a lane of communication between us is not my primary goal here. You've asked me to tell you straight, so I will tell you straight without anticipation of your reaction. 98% of what I'm saying is going over your head and you are unaware of it. Your conscious state lacks the metacognition, openness and interest to catch it. You would need years of practice - just like a musician would need years of practice. The reason I'm aware of this is because I've practiced this for 30 years. It's now become like walking to me. . . The reason I'm engaging with you is not for you, it is for other people reading this on the forum. At an intermediate stage, it is much easier to "spy" on others and have awakenings. This bypasses personalization. There are other forum members reading this that are not personalizing it, because it's not directed at them. Therefore, their mind doesn't need to invest RAM into protecting personal beliefs. This liberates the mind to use that RAM for other things, such as catching new insights. Now for the anticipation: based on your responses, I predict you will interpret this as arrogant and condescending. No, I cannot answer you directed because of the lens you are wearing - yet the only way you will be able to realize that is removing the lens - which you are unwilling to do. And if you want to develop expertise, you will need to put in time and effort practicing. And that means reading, contemplation, introspection. One-liners are not going to bring a person expertise. That is a strategy I considered, yet it won't work. The pre-requisite for this to work is that the mind has desire / interest to expand and sees the other person as a resource to expand. You haven't shown either of this. Right out of the gate, you've created simplistic binary constructs of "my view vs your view" and dismissed my words as "ridiculous", "condescending" and "arrogant". I know what it's like when someone is talking over my head. It can suck, yet it is also an amazing opportunity. There are several people in my life right now that are teachers to me. They have expertise I lack. That can be uncomfortable, yet it can also be exciting. They are a great resource for growth!! It's like having a free teacher to learn a new skill!! Then I get super curious and ask things like "What did you mean by abc? Is is kinda like xyz?". For example, tonight I will work with an female shaman that is highly advanced in metaphysics and Divine Feminine. I don't go into it thinking she is my competition over whether who is right or wrong. She is at a higher level which is good news!!! She can help me grow into her area of expertise!!! She points things out to me. Similarly, when I speak with fluent Spanish speakers, I want them to point things out to me so I can better learn Spanish. Yet the key is that I recognize their skill and I want to learn it. That is a very different mindset than seeing them as a competitor or arrogant. For example, since I have a desire to learn, I can tell my guitarist friend that I learn better if I can try on my own and he points out my mistakes. They are like "sure, let's go for it". Yet my mindset of recognizing their guitar skill and wanting to learn it is absolutely critical. If my mindset is "Where did you learn guitar? Are you a certified guitar professional? Why don't you look at yourself and your own issues with the guitar. You are so arrogant when you play the guitar. You don't even speak guitar well. I know others that play guitar better". This mindset will not allow for me to tell them how I learn best because I don't see anything I can learn from them. If I say "We both play guitar equally, let's play guitar on my terms" it won't work. He will be playing high level guitar and I'm not even aware of what I don't know about guitar playing like bars, scales etc. I will sit there playing crude guitar under the delusion that I can play guitar. He is not going to be able to say "what you did there was really creative, it's what we call 'abc', yet you need to be careful because it can be a block to more advanced levels". I'd be like "You are so condescending and arrogant!!". And that's totally cool. Yet someone will not learn to play the guitar with that mindset. Imagine I'm Jimi Hendrix and convince me I can't play the guitar. That is not a mindset for exploration and expansion. The content doesn't matter if the mindset is poor. We could be talking about rock climbing, neuroscience, cooking, ballroom dancing etc. To advance, a mind needs to be aware of it's level of expertise and master basic levels. If a beginner Spanish learner thinks they are fluent, they will not be able to improve their skills. You keep trying to elevate your level by associating yourself with others such as "me and Elon Musk", "me and doctors", "me and scientists" etc. You are not a doctor and you are actually communicating with a doctorate scientist!

This model has some truth, yet is also a "left" / "right" binary model that is waaay too simplistic. At higher levels of cognition, the "left" vs "right" becomes intimately inter-connected and at higher levels breaks down. Here, the creativity of logic is revealed, the imagination of spoken language is revealed. . . At a basic level, imagine someone that is right-brain oriented. They are an artist with high level abilities of creativity and intuition. A mind contracted within this may interpret Leo as being very left-brain oriented with logic an analysis. Now imagine that "right-brain" mind transcends left vs right. This is a very different conscious state. Here, the person could be amazed by how Leo uses intuition and creativity to synthesize imagination, logic and spoken language. This person may have to pause the videos as they fall back in their chair shouting "Omg!!! He just did that!! That just happened!! He is genius!!". Yet it would take a mind of transcendence to observe and appreciate the magnificent interplay between form and formless. Yet minds still have their natural skills. Harry Mack is at a transcendent level of awareness, yet he still has particular strengths: he is a magician at spoken freestyle rap, yet not very good at writing linguistically. He is aware of both, yet much better at evaluating from spoken freestyle. Similarly, a transcendent mind with particular skills in right-brain dynamics of emotion and empathy will be particularly able to see limitations in this area, yet they would be impressed by someone that can artistically synthesize emotion and empathy, with analysis and reasoning. Especially since they lack those skills. They would still be able to see the gaps in the "artwork", yet that's ok because that's not the purpose of the painting. This is a form of meta-awareness and can be very difficult to introspect. For example, someone could be synthesizing imagination of empathy (right brain), yet doing so with a "left brain" processor of analysis, reasoning and spoken language. There would be awareness that the processor is not empathic understanding. That is next level awareness. A sub-meta level below would be that the mind is under the impression it is communicating via empathic understanding. A highly skilled empath may come along and be amazed "Omg, I've never seen someone mold empathy like that!!!". It's ok that it's not an empathic processor. The snag is when the original content creator is unaware that they lack a form of empathic skill and think they fully understand empathy and are explaining the full spectrum/dimensions of empathy. They are unaware the are missing something. Meta-awareness of one's skill and ability levels goes super high. There are continuous meta-levels, yet one must master more basic levels before advancing higher. And some minds don't have interest or awareness of gaps. To me, the very high levels of cognitive transcendence is like theivery. The mind devotes some of it's RAM as awareness for high-level insights it can "steal" to further expand it's mind. As a personal example, I've been modeling neuronal plasticity and I've devoted part of my mind RAM for anything that can add to a more comprehensive understanding. Yet at a certain level, quality insights in one's external environment becomes rare. Yet I recently came across a neuroscientist who has high level integrative understanding (mostly "left brain"), as well I came across a breathwork facilitator that is at an extremely high metaphysical level. She is a master at inducing neuronal plasticity, yet has no idea what neuronal plasticity is and how she is mechanistically inducing neuronal plasticity at a cellular level. Which makes it more amazing to me. In a way, I am like a "transcendent thief". Every Wednesday night, I enter her realm and "steal" insights from that realm as my consciousness expands.

Example: having an adverse orientation toward religions. Higher-level embodiment can see both value and limitations within religion. A shadow would have an adverse reaction to any blue-level feature. A transcendent view can see both value and limitations. The breadth, depth and clarity of understanding is related to one's level of cognitive development and embodiment.

Higher resolution views can provide clarity. I'm not using "low resolution, crude" in that context. Imagine an alien comes to earth and is learning the concept of "intimacy". As examples of intimacy, the alien is shown two people gazing into each other's eyes as they make love and the alien is shown two people gazing into each others eyes as one is being strangled to death. Both are extremely intimate moments. Yet this is a crude view because it lacks the relative nature of "light" and "dark" as perceived through the eyes of the beholder. The alien may want to share intimacy and go out strangling people to death. People then point out the relative nature of "light" and "dark". This brings in another dimension into higher resolution, yet the event is not inherently "light" or "dark", it is both light and dark as well as neither light nor dark. The alien's view will be molded by it's angle of perception. If the alien hangs out with serial killers, it will come to understand the wonderful beauty in strangulation intimacy. If the alien could enter the mind of a serial killer, it would directly experience the wonderful beauty of strangulation intimacy. . . Yet if someone points out that strangulation intimacy is also dark, it will reject that view. Since strangulation intimacy is "light", it cannot also be "dark". It will disagree with anyone pointing out the dark nature because any such conclusion is founded on faulty assumptions. From the understanding that strangulation intimacy is "light", it is true that any conclusions that strangulation intimacy is "dark" is founded upon faulty assumptions. However, this is a contracted view. Imagine that the alien gets to experience strangulation intimacy from the perspective of being strangled. This is also an extremely intimate experience, yet know it would be perceived as a "dark" intimacy. The alien would realize "Ooohhhh, so this is what people were talking about the dark nature of strangulation". The alien would then understand that strangulation is 1) intimate, 2) wonderfully intimate and 3) darkly intimate. However, whenever the alien spoke of the "dark" aspect, those that only understand the "light" aspect would say "you believe that strangulation intimacy is 'dark'. Such conclusions are based on faulty assumptions". . . Within the contraction that strangulation intimacy is light, it is true that all conclusions that strangulation intimacy is dark is faulty. As well, recognizing the relativity of "light" and "dark" nature is still a surface-level view, in particular the *other side* that has been labeled as faulty. For example, we could say "Yea, yea, yea. What someone sees as 'light' or 'dark' is relative", yet the embodiment is much stronger on one side. For example, your understanding and embodiment is much stronger on the "light" side. Even if such a mind recognizes conceptually that what we perceive as "light" and "dark" is relative, the understanding and fluency is much stronger on one side. If one wanted to deepen understanding and fluency on another side, a lot of work and effort would be needed.

It only seems ridiculous if one believes the parallel is non-ridiculous. You mentioned that the only person you know to get coronavirus is fine now as an example of how the virus isn't that big a deal. That seems reasonable to you based on the lens you are wearing. If a mind has already decided it is reasonable and attached to that belief, the mind will not be open to anyone pointing to the ridiculous nature of it from another view. Structurally, it is very similar to say that since my neighbor who smokes cigarettes is fine, then smoking cigarettes is no big deal. Using these types of metaphors can unlock a mind to realize "Oh, I haven't thought about it like that before". However, if the mind is tightly locked in, it will reject the metaphor for some type of reason - such as "that is a ridiculous example. Good enough for yourself, not for me. I'd rather just stick to the topic at hand. This is a super dense avoidance scheme that has three elements: 1) stating the example is "ridiculous" dismisses the pointer. Since it's "ridiculous" it's not even worth considering. 2) By saying "it's good enough for you, but not for me", regrounds the mind within their belief. By saying "your example is ridculous and good enough for you", dismisses both the example AND the person giving the example. A clever two-fer. And by stating "yet not good enough for me", it raises the merit of one's own belief - "I am above ridiculous examples". 3) "I'd rather stick to the topic at hand" completes the avoidance. The mind can now turn away. The mind has dismissed the pointer, the person using the pointer, has self-validated it's own belief as being better and has turned it's attention away from the pointer. Overall, a very tight, clean and efficient defense mechanism. . . Such a mind will also dismiss this pointer since it recoils from light being shone on it. The mind will dismiss this pointer as "off-topic", "long-winded", "psycho-babble", "psycho-analysis", "projection" etc. Since you seem to perceive me as accepting "ridiculous" examples as good enough, my words won't carry much weight when perceived through that lens. So the below breakdown is more for other minds on the thread that are open and curious. Critical thinking is an important filter, yet critical thinking is distinct from defense mechanisms. The tricky part is that the mind can trick itself that it's defense mechanisms are critical thinking. A mind would need to meet another mind at a higher level of critical thinking to point this out. Yet then defense mechanisms kick in. Notice the orientation of your questions. They are building a wall. "Better listen to you? Don't think so". You then create a high standard onto which you can dismiss me: "unless you are a scientist/researcher or health practitioner I can trust.". . . Now check it out. I actually am a scientist and researcher. I've studied cell biology for over 30 years. I'm a tenured biology professor that teaches molecular, cellular, developmental biology + genetics and neuroscience at a University. I teach viral life cycles and conduct biological research with about a dozen peer-reviewed papers. I only mention this because you set that standard of being a scientist/researcher and I meet that bar. . . Yet notice how the mind will now dismiss that with a clever add in ""unless you are a scientist/researcher or health practitioner I can trust." Although I meet the standard of scientist/researcher, you can still dismiss me as not meeting your standard of "I can trust". And it seems like anything I say that does not confirm your preconceived narrative will label me as someone "I cannot trust". There are all sorts of mechanisms the mind can employ to deal with this cognitive dissonance. Examples: "This guy is lying, he isn't really a scientist", "He may be a scientist, yet he is corrupted by academia", "He is probably being paid by the corrupt pharmaceutical industry", "The scientists I listen to are better than this guy". and on and on. A mind of critical thinking is very different. Here the mind would open and be like "Ok, this guy might have something to say that can help me advance my view". The mind doesn't necessarily accept 100%, yet it wants to extract nuggets of truth. In a way, a high level cognitive mind is like a thief as it grabs ideas/information that it can use to create more sophisticated models. For example, I recently came across the free-style rapper Harry Mack. He is a genius in wordplay, awareness, processing and communication. If my mind thought "I am a professor, he is just a youtube rapper. He can't teach me anything" - then my mind would be closed to his genius and would prevent me from growing. Rather, my mind is like "He has some good stuff - I can use some of his expertise to become a better teacher in the classroom". I am now watching his videos that teach elements of freestyle rap. For example, what he says about coherence and flow can be used when presenting to an audience - not just for rap. However, I would not be learning this if I dismissed him as "ridiculous". I had to recognize that he had skills and insights that I lacked. Yet for a growth mindset, this is good news!!! Imagine being curious to expand one's linguistic abilities. Then you meet someone who speaks 10 languages. You just hit the jackpot because they are at such a higher level. This isn't a growth mindset. The more important question is whether you want your mind to grow into a wisdom and expertise or whether you want your mind to stay contracted. This question can be answered in how you respond toward introspecting your own mind. Do you want to discover locks that restrict you? If so, check it out. . . Notice how you framed the above question: it has created two categories of people: 1) people that have a "good" track record and 2) people at big institutions who come out with shitty "research" and harmful meds for decades. This is a hyper-simplistic binary mindset set for confirmation bias and dismissal. Well guess what, you just met someone that transcends both of those categories and can see many nuances from a meta view. I can see the value in your position, yet I am not contracted within your position. I can also see the limitations within your position. As well, I can see both value and limitations in what you perceive as the counter-position. For example, I teach a college class on bioethics. Within this class, we take a meta view and look at both unethical and contributions of big institutions related to pharmacology. I have hours of presentations outlining unethical behavior and pseudo-science of the pharmaceutical industry. If I presented this to you, you would be like "yes! yes! That's what I'm talking about!". You would be very open to unethical tricks the pharmaceutical industry uses to manipulate data and the public. For example, using bad science pharmaceutical industries have used funnel plots in which a subset of data is omitted to improve the efficacy of their drug. This is extremely dishonest and manipulative. I could go on and on talking about conflicts of financial interest, lobbyists, lack of consent etc. - literally for hours. Yet this would simply re-enforce the contraction within your mind. You already know this part. Expanding your mind would be to see the larger picture. Imagine an apple orchard that is a mix of rotten apples, partially rotten apples and fresh apples. You can only see the rotten apples. Expansion for you is to see the fresh apples. Yet others have the opposite mindset. Many of my students want to be doctors. Their parents are doctors and they were raised to only see the good in pharmaceutical industries. They can only see the fresh apples. For them, I need to show them the rotten apples in big pharma. And just like you, they have defense mechanisms. They dismiss anything that is not a good apple. This is the opposite to your mindset, yet both mindset are contracted and highly limited. One of the keys to expanding and becoming an meta expert is recognizing that the apple orchard contains a range of apples from rotten to fresh. The next key is recognizing there is value in inspecting both rotten and fresh apples. Yet your mindset is not to discern between rotten and fresh apples within the orchard of pharmacology. Your mindset is to maintain a view that the orchard of pharmacology only contains bad apples and everything coming out of that orchard is bad. I'm not an expert in every area, yet I have expertise in some areas. Your question about trust requires personal introspection. Ask yourself "What is my criteria to trust this guy?". What would it take for you to trust me? You said I would need to be a scientist, expert and researcher. I have those qualifications. Yet you've added on a qualifier of "providing helpful information". That is the key. What qualifies as "helpful information" to you? I could provide information that expands your understanding of cell biology, physiology and virology. Yet would you consider that "helpful" information? Based on your responses, my sense is that you only consider information to be "helpful" if it is aligned with your mindset. For example, I could give you information about unethical tricks the pharmaceutical industry to side-step scrutiny and manipulate the public for financial profits. Since that is aligned with your worldview, you would likely consider that "helpful". I could speak about risks of vaccines, which you would likely perceive as "helpful", yet as soon as I give any information that is not aligned with your worldview, it is judged as "non-helpful". For example, I could also give positive information about pharmacology, yet this would not be considered "helpful". If the mindset is only open to seeing rotten apples in the orchard, pointing out fresh apples is not helpful. As well, labeling anything outside one's worldview as "untrustworthy mainstream" information is a major block. Open your eyes, clear your lens and see that I'm speaking from a meta view. Look up, climb up the mountain and take an overall view.

Best to put it to bed. Like a beanie, it goes over the head.

Like a child who learned the word “apparently” and uses it in every sentence. It’s adorable at first, yet gets old fast.

I don’t assume that killing animals is dark or distorted. I am pointing out distinctions of intimacy and how conflation can cause cloudiness. Gazing into a woman’s eyes as she orgasms while making love is a form of intimacy. Gazing into a woman’s eyes as she takes her last breath during strangulation is a form of intimacy. Grouping them both together as “intimacy” is correct, yet is a very crude, low resolution view.

Hmmm, let’s try another one. . . My neighbor has smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years and is fine. Therefore, smoking cigarettes is not harmful. At a societal level, there is a threshold percentage needed for a vaccine to be highly effective. For coronavirus it’s about 70%. The virus can infect, replicate, mutate and spread through healthy people. The virus spreads through human contact. Social distancing, masks and vaccines reduce viral spread. There are nuggets of truth in there, yet the lens you are wearing is creating distortion. I would drop the bits about “many doctors question”, “health practitioners I trust” “me and many doctors agree” etc. Those are appeals to authority which can stabilize a distorted image and preventing introspection. A mind holding a hammer will see lots of nails.

By this logic, indigenous folks also had an intimate relationship with humans they sacrificed during sacred ceremonies - precisely because they hunted and sacrificed humans. In one context, it's true that there was a form of intimate relationship between the hunters and those they sacrificed. It's true that there was a form of sacredness during ceremonies. Yet in another context, it's a gross distortion. Along these lines, killing someone by strangulation is one of the most intensely intimate moments possible. Yet it's also an extremely dark form of intimacy. It's a special kind of special.

Because in the covid context, natural immunity would involve mass illness, disease, overwhelmed healthcare system, economic turmoil and death. There may be some benefits to going the 'natural' route, yet there is also a big price to pay. An unhealthy occurrence does not make an associated occurrence unhealthy. I've run road races in which free beer was given out at the finish. It is unhealthy to drink beer after a road race, yet that unhealthy occurrence does not make running unhealthy. It wouldn't make sense to say that running is unhealthy because alcohol was served at the finish line. Rather, running is healthy so let's serve something healthy at the finish line like orange juice, rather than beer. And the only person I know who got rabies is now fine. . .

Leo hammers out words upfront, smokin' the mic like a blunt.

Survival can be approached in many ways. The framing above assumes that survival is enhanced by having children. Yet is it? Raising children comes at a huge cost. It requires a huge amount of time, effort and financial investment. Parents don't always get return on that investment. From an survival perspective, having children is a huge gamble. For a farmer, it's probably worth the gamble to have kids. After investing in the kids, they will likely contribute by working on the farm - thereby enhancing the survival of their parents. Yet what about a wall street broker in New York? Raising kids could drag him down from success in his career. Having kids could decrease his chances of surviving in Manhattan.

@tatsumaru It deepens on degree. Feeling down at times is normal, yet if it’s in the dumps everyday for months straight with no moments of good feelings - its a more serious condition.

Is anti-Natalism restricted to personal choice or does it extend to all of humanity? If so, it is advocating for the extinction of the human species. Or does anti-natalism extend to all procreation? If so, that would advocate for the extinction of nearly all life forms on earth. But Heine guy don’t care. He didn’t want to be born in the first place.

Bro, you’re over-thinking it. Look around your space right now. Notice you are aware. You ain’t asleep, you ain’t in China and you ain’t dunk af. You are aware of your surroundings. Now notice that you are aware of this awareness. You are aware that you are not sleeping, in China or drunk af. There is awareness that you are aware of what’s happening right now. There ya go.

@spiritualryan Psychedelics are easy in the U.S. . . . Be low-key about it and don’t do stupid shit while tripping. You’ll be fine. . . If you want to see hard, check out Japan.

That is part of it, yes. Yet that is just more of what I wrote. It’s not that a nice-ness itself is unattractive. Its the underlying vibe the niceness is grounded in. I was just food shopping and one of the cashiers was gushing about how much she loves this new guy she is dating. “He is so sweet and so genuine!!!”. She had such joy speaking about him. She could barely contain her giddyness. She was essentially orgasming over his sweetness and genuineness. You might say “well, his sweetness and genuineness illustrates how he will treat her in bed and makes him high value”. I suppose that is one component, yet there is more going on.

@integral My impression is that its more about the underlying vibe of nice-ities, rather than the nice-ity itself. For example, a guy can be having a conversation with a potential mate and notices she mentions that she loves Thai food, yet hasn’t been to a Thai restaurant in ages. The next day he makes a reservation at the best Thai restaurant in town and texts her “I’ve got our next date all planned. I’ll pick you up Saturday at 6pm.”. He then surprises her as they approach the restaurant. The hostess knows him by name and a table for two awaits them. That is a nice thoughtful thing to do. His underlying energy is a confident man that takes initiative to create meaningful time together. Most healthy women would find that type of nice attractive. That is different than an insecure guy trying to be nice because he needs her approval and is desperate. On their date he tries to say nice things like “You gave nice eyes. You have great taste in music. You are so fit, you must work out everyday”. Here the vibe is insecurity as he puts her on a pedastool. Most healthy women will find that unattractive.

You are projecting this. The man above is a gay model ? ? .