Corpus

Libya, I think, is an interesting case. We need to put it into (at least) a couple of contexts to perhaps expand our understanding. The longer-standing context should include the USA's memory of its humiliation (subjectively felt) over the downing of the Pan Am flight late in 1988; the lust for revenge lingered and was not satiated by the subsequent bombs it dropped on Libya not too soon after the event. The more immediate context (relative to the time of Obamas enthusiasm for hitting Libya) was the wishful hopefulness that existed at the time in terms of the Arab Spring. Gadaffi was apparently going to send his troops into the town of Benghazi, which he claimed was full of Al Qaida-affiliated militants, to take back control and suppress this de-stabilizing force who were promoting insurrection/rebellion in the nation. To really understand how Gadaffi felt about Islamism (as its termed now) and his own political beliefs one should perhaps read "The Green Book" which he wrote outlining his politics. He was no lover of marked religious adherence, regarded it as threatening and had little qualms about keeping a close eye (and occasionally a tight fist) on those with a more religious outlook than his own. Relative to his position, Benghazi was militant but note- only relative to his own views. Ironically Benghazi did attract proper Jihadists from places such as Tunisia and Morocco, and this led in the ensuing years to the rise of ISIS affiliates and the bombings in these countries. Obama, Cameron and the French leader at the time believed that deposing the guy would lead to a democratic successful nation emerging, with the leaders instilled there, as a debt of gratitude, looking favourably on oil contracts being granted to concerned parties, and this gullible idea that its good to have democracy and it also pays well (potentially) prevented clear thinking and a more accurate assessment which would have considered the geography and tribal culture more carefully. Such thinking also played a part in the adventures in Iraq and the same poor analysis led to immanent effects for anyone minded to look. Politics is a dirty business, and it takes people with appropriately dirty characteristics to even want to ascend to political power. Obama achieved this power suggesting he has enough dirty characteristics, and focus of intent. Situations always unfold in unknown ways and these dirty characteristics may not be as successfully deployed in the presence of this unfolding.

There is a lot of wisdom in this post. There is a massive web of causality at work here, extending geographically and temporally, and a valid beginning point is impossible to identify. Kind of turtles all the way down ie Why drone strikes? Because Al Qaeda. Why Al Qaeda? Because Iraq sanctions/ Israel/ US bases in the Arabian Peninsula/ Russian-Afghan War. Why each of these? Infinite regress. Blaming Obama misses this point. The only part of Leos post I would highlight which merits some further thought is "When you are put in charge...".(4th paragraph). Obama devoted years and much effort to securing this position ie sought it out and he would have been largely aware of what it entails. Altruism, narcissism, lofty idealism and a blindness to real-politik? Who can say. Those who aspire to lead powerful nations will have a mix of both positive and less positive attributes, and it is the balance of these which can have a big impact on how high they rise, along with how well they reveal/misrepresent these to a populace who tend to be emotionally and selfishly driven.

There is no one anatomical site which would explain this, and a metabolic/electrolyte issue would not give two hoots about your state of focus. In the absence of other symptoms and no regular medication use (I assume-correct me if I am wrong) it doesn't sound like a neurological issue on the basis of the information you have provided thus far.

Does it ever occur when not meditating/doing spiritual stuff irrespective of eyes being open or closed? How do the hands feel? How hard are you concentrating?

@Moksha Is it your upper eyelids or also the lower, and is it unilateral or bilateral?

Do these quotes, the first of which has been edited, not demonstrate how defining stuff causes vertigo by its circularity? Language at work.... "Using a thorn to remove a thorn" seems like an apt bit of language to add.

Obstacles, and ignorance, are still the Absolute "doing what it does".

I'm not sure it is quite so simple. In the 3rd world, where child mortality has historically been (and to some degree, remains) high, having a large number of children with the knowing that a significant proportion are not going to make it through to adulthood with the knock-on consequences to the parents' own well-being, remains a key factor in explaining this issue. If its always been the case that this wastage is to be expected, it can take some time to alter ones thinking to align with the more current situation.

But isn't conceptual understanding a part of reality? Does reality have an opposite? Isn't conceptual understanding, for most, a pre-requisite to even becoming aware that it might not be complete, akin to a preliminary method of approach?

Understanding, under-standing ie what's it standing on; the underpinning or the ground of whatever is approached, without which there is no standing.

There is more association going on with ayahuasca than dissociation. A challenging/"bad" trip will confirm this experientially.

Good point that is not emphasised enough. Words such as fantasy, imaginary, dream and illusion carry a lot of baggage. It is not established that that was intentional, or the reason for leaving a princely lifestyle plus wife and kid behind. But all we have to go on are a load of stories. He offered enough of value to ensure sufficient provision to meet his essential survival requirements which when you think about it are pretty few especially if one lives in a climate present in much of India.

How reliable is the memory (thought) of the past event? Wasn't the past event, when present, a self-serving evaluation? Can the memory of the past be edited/modified to serve a purpose? If so, then what actual relevance can the presumed memory have to the event it purports to re-member? Also mumbling aloud.

@Cosmin_Visan I hear what you say, and can sympathise. The problem (forgive me for assuming the right to speak for you) with a forum such as this is that it is limited in being able to "teach" in a way that is universally effective, and the phrases which this place is replete with only make any kind of sense beyond ones instinctual rejection/perplexity once some work has been done. It kind of "gives the answers" without showing the proofs, and there is a good reason for this which only becomes clear when some of the work is done. If you are interested (and it is incredibly worthwhile an endeavour IMO), a good place to make some preliminary enquiries would be to look into the philosophy of language and its limitations. Remember, all of your inner chatter is composed of language so getting a handle on this would be very useful.

Absoulutely. For example, in the quote I "see" the word "Tier", not Pier, and Leos choice of décor could be an arty "bbb", or even "ggg" and he had chosen to place it upside down.

The problem could be the "baggage" which comes with the word imaginary. "Imagine", if you will that the relative reality is perspectival, and that the appearance of the brain (which is never in the first person perspective) is how "consciousness" appears in the relative domain. It looks like matter, right? Matter is the appearance of That/Consciousness/The Absolute, and "the appearance" we call "life" eg all the metabolic processes which animate this particular chunk of matter/appearance is the "appearance" of That/Consciousness/The Absolute "personalized". The Absolute imagines, and a "real" world appears- to itself, as a person with a brain. Different forms with one essence.

A beautiful demonstration of self-interest, which is always calculated. It makes one wonder if the other diseases for which vaccines have been tardily developed could have come to fruition quicker if selflessness was actually the case, instead of just opined.

These 2 quotes ^^ sum it up IMO. The luxury of time is not forthcoming; the decisions made are akin to "war-gaming strategy" and is the position we find ourselves in. Will there be unforeseen consequences? Almost certainly. Just consider the ramifications which will emerge as nations jockey for positions of access to the vaccine, and the political consequences and shifts in power this could precipitate. Any longer-term health consequences of the vaccine itself will be revealed should any occur.

The OP should also clarify if its a salt or freebase they possess, as this has implications re dosage to try, and ROA. Trying to smoke a salt and getting a crap effect may mislead you as to what you actually have (assuming its 5 MeO DMT in either form). Synthetic vs natural is a false distinction if talking about the same compound.

Isn't a "shape" an imposed concept on the imagined colour which makes it distinct from what is not the imagined colour?

And I don't claim to get it fully myself. I know I would have reached that point when @Nahm 's posts always make sense. I think....

Its a real mind-bender. Take your first line above- the "I" which has no problems identifying itself as fictional/imaginary IS fictional/imaginary. Its all part of the fiction, self-referencing activity that constructs an illusion of solidity. Imagine standing around a bonfire at night frantically waving a glowstick around; the visual effect is of solid lines of light zapping around which are illusory when you know its a point of light moving to create an entirely different impression. Non-dual lingo can be a hindrance for many, but obvious to those who get it.

If the dose is legitimately 200mcg then the best advice I can give you is- have a non-intoxicated sitter with you. Also be in a safe known environment free of unexpected intrusions, and if you are weighed down with anything disconcerting on your mind, postpone the trip. Lastly, be aware that there is a lot of bullshit and frankly dangerous advice here on psychedelics. The most recent example is of a member allegedly smoking 150mg of DMT in a bong and absolutely nobody questioning the veracity/wisdom of such a dosage. Rather, the member was roundly congratulated on their venture.

Of course you don't understand because you don't get visuals with DMT, so how could you? Just be open to the possibility that the experiences you have had cannot inform you of the DMT breakthroughs' visual component and salience because it is inconceivable. Being meditative when confronted with this is a different scenario to being meditative under the more commonly used psychedelics, or 5 MeO DMT. Concluding its due to over-thinking, and worrying about visuals seems a little premature. We appear to be communicating at cross-purposes and will continue to do so because we do not share the experience in common to discuss. No worries.

The profoundness of DMT is not in question- but the clarity and other-worldliness of the visual effects (which would require massive doses of other agents like LSD to achieve, upwards of 1mg) IS intrinsic to the profundity. This is consciousness expansion with/as objects, and this form you have not experienced. "Seem to be stuck on visuals"- a nice Leo-ism, accusatory and unfalsifiable, yet the point remains- you cannot state how DMT with breakthrough visuals affect the trip until you have been there. "Lots of visuals" may or may not be sufficiently akin to DMT visuals for you to know, and the "obscuring" I mentioned (in quotations) could also be referred to as a modulation. In retrospect, this would have been a better turn of phrase. @KingEnergy But have you really lost your entire reality to visuals? Try vaporizing a breakthrough dose with headphones on/music playing. You may find that your notion of "entire reality" is limited. I dunno if I am making my points clearly enough- profound visuals provided by DMT are intrinsic to the experience and by their captivating nature allow subtleties to be overlooked.