Forestluv

Yes, I think he contributes value. JP has a rational view on psychedelics, understands how they can be used for therapy, is open to mystical experiences and is grounded. That is good to show people some benefits of psychedelics and responsible use of psychedelics. That is much better than someone with a large platform who is ungrounded, takes psychedelics and does batshit crazy antics for attention. JP has a decent level of contemplation and seriousness. Yet that not what I’m pointing at. If I point at a gap in someone, it doesn’t mean that I think they are 100% bad loser. I’m talking about transcendence of personal constructs. There is a balance between being ungrounded and grounded. If someone goes all in exploring God, they may have God-like realizations and experience. This can get into insanity zones and can be difficult integrate and ground. An ungrounded person may loose it and start acting batshit crazy because they are God. Such a person could cause harm to others because everything is Absolute God and there is no grounding in relativity. Such a person is too daring and lacks caution. JP is on the flip side. He is overly cautious and not daring enough. This is good to stay grounded and be a responsible advocate for responsible use of psychedelics. Yet this also limits the potential of fully deconstructing one’s reality and going all-in. JP has t fully deconstructed his mind. This is evident since he is still immersed within his constructs, such as male gender issues, patriarchy, religion, feminism, science, materialism etc. I’m not saying these constructs are wrong or lack value. I’m saying JP has not fully deconstructed them to the point that they no longer exist and there is no longer a “JP” that holds those views. This is not the case. JP holds his constructed views tightly and is identified with being a male, psychologist, father, speaker etc.

JP is interested in psychedelics to a certain extent. For example, using psychedelics to heal from trauma. Yet he wants to be in control of the narrative. How he talks about psychedelics oozes with narrative control. He isn't interested in using psychedelics to fully deconstruct and transcend his reality to the point it can no longer be reconstructed back to the way it was. He is super attached and identified to his mental constructs.

Thank you for explaining how you are interpreting my words. I am unable to articulate my constructs in a way that conveys it's meaning. My mind is structured differently than yours. Thank you for sharing your thoughts - it added a few points to a holism I'm creating. Thanks, you too!

@TheDao You don't seem interested in exploring what I have to offer. I wish you the best along your journey.

Yes, I do think it's a fair evaluation. I'm not saying JP can't perceive clearly through his lens. I think JP can perceive very clearly through is lens. Watching more JP videos and understanding JP more, would simply verify how clearly he sees through his lens. Imagine someone only speaks an aboriginal language. It's clear they cannot wear an English lens, understand English and communicate in English. What you are saying is "you don't understand how well the person speaks their aboriginal language". Yes I do. I'm very aware how fluent they are in their aboriginal language. Spending time learning the nunaces of the language will only verify how fluent the person speaks that language. . . I'm not saying the person can't speak their language. I'm saying is they are contracted within that aboriginal language (which they speak very well). You have made the same evaluation: Yes, JP speaks that language well. I'm not denying that. I'm saying he is contracted within that realm.

This isn't about "me" vs "you". That type of personalization is a block. Here on the forum, we have an opportunity to expand. For example, those contracted within science has the opportunity to expand beyond science. Those contracted within a religion can expand beyond religion. Those contracted within JP can expand beyond JP. Imagine expanding beyond the teacher itself. Imagine learning guitar and expanding to a level higher than your guitar teacher. Imagine learning a foreign language and expanding to a level higher than your language teacher. . .

One cannot see a green shadow until they integrate green. The most challenging part about Green is being introduced to relativity and multiple perspectives. For example, it would be extremely difficult for a straight male to understand what it's like to be transgender. Personally, I had to have many conversations with transgender people. Not just at a surface level. At a deeper level about what it's like. I immersed myself in LGBTQ and polyamory groups to get a feel for what it's like. I participated in a polyamorous relationship and community. I explored my own sexuality, gender and femininity. Although I can fully understand the experience of a transgender person, I'm pretty good at imagining it. I'm able to take out my lens and put in an "LGBTQ lens". From this lens, it's clear that JP is not inclusive toward the LGBTQ community. Again, we are not viewing this from JPs view, we are viewing it from the view of a transgender person. As a transgender person, I would not feel inclusion, empathy, emotional connection with JP. That is why JP's audience has very few transgender people. Rather, JP can see through the lens of certain males that struggle with male gender issues. Those are real issues. Yet JP can only wear that lens. Being able to relate and wear different lenses is a high level metacognitive skill and JP doesn't have it. Yet I'm not saying the lens JP is wearing is 100% wrong. I'm saying it is limited. If a mind can only view through one lens it will be a myopic view and if the person tries to create a big picture, there will be distortion. Imagine we are creating a musical event for a community. We can only speak English and we only allow English to be spoken. As well, only western style clothing can be worn. Only women can wear make-up. We would be qualified to create an English-speaking event with traditional western culture. That is fine if everyone in the that community shares that. . . Yet notice how this is actually a subset of a larger community. . . . Imagine a few Spanish people enter as well as a transgender woman wearing make-up. Under the rules of our community event, the two Spanish people are not allowed to speak a word of Spanish and the transgender woman must remove all her make-up. Imagine what this would feel like from the perspective of the transgender person. They would not feel included, since they are being excluded. I'm not saying this is inherently wrong. I'm pointing out that there are different ranges of community expansion. Green is more expansive than blue. A green-level community event would not simply tolerate LGBTQ - they would want some LGBTQ people there, expressing their LGBTQ-ness, because that adds to diversity and inclusion to the community event - which green values. JP has some inclusivity and empathy, yet JP does not have a high level of inclusivity and empathy. His inclusivity and empathy is contracted to those he relates with -> a subset of men going through certain struggles. Notice how JP can feel empathy and cry for a subset of men that are struggling, yet he doesn't show empathy and cry for transgender women that are struggling. His understanding, inclusivity and empathy is contracted.

To have conflict, one must have a position they are defending against another position. There must be two people with opposing views. Yet I don't have the opposing view as you. The view I offer includes the below components. Please tell me if this is the opposite view as yours: -- JP is genuine in his tears -- JP is showing genuine empathy --JP shows aspects of Green including vulnerability while expressing emotional tears -- There are genuine reasons that JP cares about male issues. -- JP points to important issues that men struggle with and that society overlooks. -- We should consider gender-based struggles men go through -- Some progressives have contributed to conflict that has intensified struggles some men go through

I said JP creates constructs of conflict. I didn't say he is the only entity that creates or participates in conflict. Notice how you just asserted JP's position that creates conflict. You wrote that JP doesn't create conflict it is the feminists he is in conflict with!! Look to see how this is conflict (against 'the feminists' that cause the conflict). As well, notice how you are assuming that I have a position on feminism and are projecting that onto me. Have I even mentioned feminism once prior to this (no?). Do you have any idea of what my views on feminism are (no). Are you aware that I agree with aspects of what you say regarding feminism? The 'theory' that you speak of is not my theory. I was speaking of a different theory called Spiral Dynamics theory, which is not mine. It was developed by other people. As well, SD goes beyond simple theory. Deeper understandings come from actual beingness of it. Direct experience is really important. If you want to expand, then you will need to engage in activities that lead to expansion.

Did you even read the view I wrote? I offered a view in which we assume Jordan was 100% genuine with his tears. I even gave reasons why Jordan was 100% genuine with his tears!! As well, I said it was genuine empathy and vulnerability with aspects of Green. And, I said JP has a lot of value to offer. One of the traps of blue/orange is it can only see "my view" vs. "your opposite view". What I wrote includes aspects that you agree with! You are arguing with someone else that has a different view. If you would like to discuss what I wrote, please read what I wrote and consider it. Otherwise, you are arguing against someone else's view. The point you are missing is that I see value in what you and Jordan are writing. I am a man that had struggles with gender identity and my role in society. Many of my male student's have gender issues and I try to help them. I think Jordan can make contributions in certain areas. However, he does it in a way that creates exclusion, victimization, demons and conflict toward stage green.

Of everything I wrote, you simply quote the first line and dismiss what I wrote? Did you even read and consider what I wrote? Rather than dismissing Jordan's view, I am including it in a larger view that includes his view. The view I offered of Jordan and SD is more inclusive than Jordan's view because it includes Jordan's view and more. That is a key feature of Spiral Dynamics - it includes previous stages and more. It's not that Jordan's views are inherently 'wrong'. Rather, they are contracted and limited. It would be like you telling me that a map of Europe is less inclusive than a map of France. A map of Europe is more expansive because it includes France and more. A map of France dismisses Europe, yet a map of Europe does not dismiss France. As well, a meta view does not have "my version of feminism" because it includes all versions of feminism. It's like saying "a library's version of a book". This doesn't make sense since a library doesn't have a version of a book - it includes many types of books. Moving up inclusion stages of the spiral (purple, blue, green, turquoise) involves greater inclusion.

If you think JP is very Green, you don't understand Spiral Dynamics. JP may have a smidgeon of Green, yet this is overwhelmed by his blue/orange anchors and massive Green shadow. The stages of purple, blue and green are community-based stages and each level has greater inclusion, egalitarianism, empathy and equity for a more expansive community. Blue is more expansive than Purple and Green is more expansive than both Purple and Blue. Purple and Blue contain a level of inclusion, empathy and equity - it is just at a lower level than Green. So saying JP displays empathy means nothing without context. A purple-level tribesman could show empathy for a fellow tribesman that was injured during a hunt. As well, people are mixtures of stages. No one is 100% one stage. Each individual is within a social system that is a mixture of stages and each individual will be a influenced by that social system. It's more accurate to say someone is "centered" in a stage. For example, JP could be 40% blue, 50% Orange, 10% Green and 5% yellow, yet his small portion of Green could be overwhelmed by his Blue/Orange anchors and massive Green shadow. As well, his small portion of green and yellow would be used for a blue/orange agenda. Let's assume that JP was completely genuine while shedding tears for men that are struggling. Let's say that as a clinical psychologist, JP met with hundreds of men that were suffering and genuinely feels for them and wants to help them. Even if this is all true, it's not Green because his "community" is too contracted. Green community is more expansive and inclusive than men struggling with their gender. JP's community size would be more expansive than Purple, yet more contracted than Green. It would be like someone who felt for their fellow Catholics that are facing religious persecution. And this is being generous as we are assuming JP is completely generous and his constructs of gender are accurate. Assuming JP is genuine, the hint of green in JP would be him showing vulnerability and crying in front of others. That is counter to a standard blue/orange male role in which the man is the pillar of strength and doesn't express feminine emotions like crying. Assuming he is genuine, I would consider that green and it is good to show other men that it's ok for a man express 'feminine' emotions and cry. Yet this flash of green-ness does not put JP as very green. His structure is based on blue and orange constructs - not green. JP has stuff to offer in blue / orange to help bring up men through blue and into orange. This has value. Yet JPs poison is his intense green shadow and demonizing green as the cause of men's suffering. He characterizes men as victims. In the video you posted, he characterizes green as tyrants that are painting men as evil, misogynistic repressors. This is not a perspective of Green men. This is the perspective of blue men. A green perspective would acknowledge that a portion of men are struggling with identity. Yet a higher perspective can see how much of this is due to green-level progress that is expanding inclusion and community. Green level community is more expansive than blue. Green includes men, women, LGBTQ and doesn't have strict gender roles. This triggers blue/orange men like JP. Green is more progressive than than JP's center of gravity.

No one on the forum is saying the vaccine is 100% safe. It is more like 99.999% safe from serious side effects. As well, a small percentage of people have health conditions that would make them more vulnerable - such as an auto-immune disease. Anyone posting on the forum stating that the vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of people will be corrected. Nothing is 100% safe. If 300 million people were given peanuts, there would be a small percentage of cases that are serious side effects and death. The fear-mongering comes when a person exaggerates the risks. For example, if someone posted that a significant percentage of people have serious side effects to the vaccine, that would be fear mongering, since that isn't true. It would not be fear mongering to state that a significant percentage of people have serious effects from rabies virus infection because that is true. This isn't about censoring anything that is counter mainstream media. It's about having quality standards and filtering out B.S., especially when that B.S. is fearmongering. Over 1 billion vaccinations have been administered. 1 billion!!! If a significant portion of people had serious adverse reactions / death - it would not be hidden. If 10% of people had serious adverse effects / death from the vaccine, it would be 100 million people suffering terribly from the vaccine and dying. There is no way that could be kept secret. No way. Everyone would know lots of people that were seriously harmed and died from the vaccine. Hospitals would be filled with people suffering from the vaccine. There is no way that a government or mainstream media could hide that from the public. It would take a massive conspiracy to hide that from the public - which goes into batshit crazy conspiracy theories and fear mongering. That is why it gets filtered out from many online forums. Notice in your previous posts you posted horrific side effects from the vaccine. That may be true, yet you left out the part about how rare it is. It's somewhere around 0.00001% of people. That is important context. We could post up horrific images of people that have been struck by lightening. If we present that as representative, that is misleading and fear mongering. By that framing, it would be justified to ban people from being outside during a storm. Yet it is important to also state that only about 0.00001% of people get struck by lightening during storm. Now it's not justified to ban people from being outside during a storm.

It sounds like you are creating two categories: psychedelic-induced amazingness and suck-ass sober thought identification. It reminds me of my early days with psychedelics in which I was transported into genius-level, expansive domains. Then I would return back to "me", which was quite disappointing. There was desire to return to that transcendent place. It was almost like I had super powers there. It is great news is that you found a tool that can bring you to higher consciousness levels. You get to see and experience higher aspects of yourself. That is an immense gift that few people in the world receive. Most people spend their life contracted within a personality construct. And many people do not resonate with psychedelics. I know many people that tried psychedelics and it was like a wild dream, or they got nothing out of it. After trip-sitting a friend, she said to me "I don't get it. What was supposed to happen?". . . In contrast, you've *gotten* something. You now have a search image for a domain of expansion and way of relating to the world. At the human level, we can consider the work and practice needed to move toward transcendence. For example, a few years ago several of my trips took me into a space of immense creativity and awareness of inter-connectedness within systems. It was genuis-level beyond anything I could imagine in a sober state. When I returned there was a sense of disappointment and frustration that I couldn't express it or access it sober. I was back to my normal, logical contracted self. I'd walk in the forest and it would be boring. My mind was in immersed in simple constructs and thought identification. Yet the good news was that I was now aware of much higher modes of creativity and intelligence. Importantly, I realized it wasn't just the psychedelics - the psychedelics revealed higher potential within this being called "me". Rather than all-or-nothing thinking, I've found it helpful to look at it as a continuum. Let's say that psychedelics rocketed me from a genuis-level of 3 to a genius level of 3,000. That is a 1,000 fold increase. Yet it's partially incorrect to think "I'll never reach a genius level of 3,000 sober. While sober, I'm stuck at a level 3, which sucks now that I've seen 3,000". It may be true that psychedelics are needed to reach and sustain level 3,000 - yet it's false that I'm stuck at level 3. This is a limiting trap of the mind. Human potential is far beyond what the sober mind imagines. With work and practice, I may be able to reach a level of 300. That is a 100X increase. A 100X increase is massive! What work and practices can we do to progress? It's different for different people. For me, psychedelics revealed certain "its", although I couldn't access it while sober, I could see glimpses in others. For example, I would go into imaginative spaces I didn't have any words for. I couldn't access it while sober, yet I saw glimpses of it in others. They called it things like "systemic thinking". Some people were much better than I was. If I was a 3, they were at 30. I could now recognize it in others. So I started watching such people and having conversations with them. They pulled me up. Almost like learning Spanish - being with a fluent Spanish speaker can pull one up. . . Yet I still couldn't do it on my own, which was disappointing and frustrating. I also found it helpful to set intentions. I would start off walks in the forest with an intention: "I intend to relax my mind and enter creative flowing mindspaces free of thought / personal identification". And I would start to get glimpses. I would see a field of wild flowers and realize it looks like a painting. Then it was like the most amazing 3 dimensional painting I've ever seen. I realized an artist could never capture all the detail and dimensions of it. Then I realized, the love that motivates an artist to try and re-create it - and the creativity that goes into re-contextualizing it. Not only did I intellectually see it, I also emotionally felt it. . . Then I realized there was higher order integration appearing right now, as if I was on a moderate dose of psychedelics. I was now able to recognize it and with practice, my mind got better and better at it. When using psychedelics, I've also found it helpful to use low doses. That can give a boost to become a co-creator. As well, breathwork can allow the mind-body to enter a trans-personal space similar to a moderate dose of psychedelics. Yet it is much easier to be a co-creator and integrate. As well, I've found it helpful to set an intention going into a trip. I've had trips in which my intention and question was "How do I do it sober? How can I turn off attachment/identification to thoughts. Please show me how". And more is revealed. And from a neuroscience perspective, there is immense potential to rewire the brain through neuronal plasticity. Yet this takes work. If a mind is has neuronal circuts and patterns that have been re-enforced over and over again for years, it can take some work to rewire that. Imagine how much it would take for you to forget English and stop perceiving the world through English? That would take enormous rewiring. Now imagine, you learn Spanish fluently and can spend days speaking Spanish with very few English words appearing. That also takes work and practice to rewire, yet is definitely possible. Nearly every human mind has the potential to become fluent in another language. And that "language" can be all sorts of transpersonal conscious states.

Flow states of creativity generally involve a 1) relaxed mind, 2) attention, 3) awareness and 4) expertise. A lot of people talk about unlimited creativity and not putting limits on ourselves. Some limits for each category: (1) My creativity will be limited if my mind is busy with escaping from a vicious dog chasing me. (2-3) My creativity will be limited if I'm drunk or half asleep. (4) My creativity is limited in creating Spanish guitar songs since I can't play the guitar and I don't speak Spanish well. Part of creativity involves relaxing the mind, letting go of distractions and getting into a good mindset. Yet part of becoming more creative also comes from work and practice. If Mozart hadn't practiced piano and learned music theory, he couldn't have created his masterpieces.

@Prolite I understand what you are saying. I teach this material in my neuroscience and cell bio courses. I’m not disagreeing with you. I am adding in more nuance. The limbic system, HPA axis, cellular respiration and cardiovascular systems are all inter-related. Your categorization of survival priorities has truth and value. I like you construct. I’m just adding in some more nuance. In terms of your construct, short-term neuronal plasticity is critical as well. And that is super immediate - on the order of milliseconds.

Duplicate thread

@TheDao You are not seeing my view clearly. I'm not saying that the men don't have significant problems. My view is that both genders have to deal with significant problems due to gender. As well, my view is that both genders have to deal with significant problems due to wealth inequality.

There are different ways to get a sense of one's expertise level. Probably the easiest is to have a 1 on 1 conversation with them. Being an outside observer watching someone talking to a beginner audience can be more difficult, yet an expert can still tell because they can see minor errors. For example, if an expert in English was watching someone teach a beginner audience English and the person said "An example of the past tense is 'Paul was sleeping when the alarm went off". The expert would know that is an error, it is not the past tense - it is the past progressive tense. It's possible, that the person was dumbing it down, yet it's becomes fairly obvious if the person doesn't know the difference between the two tenses. And it's super easy for an expert to tell when they are having a conversation with another - even if that conversation is for an begginner audience. For example, the host may say "You claim that there are different forms of the past tense. Can you give us an example?". The expert guest then responds "An example of the past progressive is 'Paul was sleeping when the alarm went off"". The host then says "Huh?, That is the past tense. Why are you saying it's another past tense". . . Here it is obvious that the host is not an expert. This isn't dumbing down to help the audience.

I would say I'm a fairly average Joe. I make an average salary and I'm in a mid-level position. I don't have to deal with being sexually harassed at my workplace. If I was, I wouldn't have to worry about my boss firing me if I brought it up. Many work cultures are tolerant of men disparaging women. This is slowly changing. Of course men have issues as well. I'm not denying that. Yet I would say it's insecure and petty to dismiss how men maltreat women because men have issues too. If women at my work came forward that there is a lot of sexual harrassment at the workplace, it would be insecure/petty for the men respond "Us men have hardships too. Why should we pay attention to sexual harrassment?" As well, most of the issues females bring up is related to maltreatment from men in higher positions of power. For example, a woman up for promotion is passed over for a less qualified man. Or, male bosses are acting sexually inappropriate. The issues you bring up for men are not due to maltreatment from women. Things like men going to war is not maltreatment from women. Men have the power to send other men to war. Again, I'm not saying that men have it easy. You are bringing up valid issues, yet there are multiple dimensions of input. You raise the dimension of power hierarchies. The wealthy have more power than poor people. Poor people have less power and are often exploited in the workplace, the justice system etc. Yes, poor people often have to work crappy jobs in unsafe conditions. Poor men are exploited differently than poor women - yet they are both exploited due to wealth power structures. Wealth power structures are also an important issue, yet so are gender power structures. The garbage man you mentioned has to deal with issues of wealth inequality, yet he doesn't have to deal with being a female maltreated by men. For example, Joe doesn't have to deal with men sexually harrassing him at work. What-aboutism can be relevant, yet it can also be a distraction to deal with an issue at hand.

Aneorobic respiration is glycolysis in hypoxia conditions. It does not mean the organism is no breathing. The person is still breathing and taking in oxygen and expelling CO2. It still needs oxygen and CO2 expulsion to survive. While running, the body is taking in more oxygen and expelling more C02. If someone didn’t breath while running away from a predator, they are much worse off. It would make the hypoxia much worse and have negative physiological conditions. Imagine sprinters holding their breath the entire race. They wouldn’t stand a chance against breathing sprinters. It seems like your argument is that someone can survive for a few minutes without breathing. Thus anything that threatens survival in under a few minutes is top priority.

That is a distraction from looking at disparity. For example, a government may be 80% men. Technically, women are not denied the right to serve in government and men can say “they have the same rights we do”. The problem is disparity. Women are under-represented and it is much harder for women to speak up. Men will have asymmetric power and control. @TheDao No one is saying men have it easy and live in a nirvana. People are pointing out asymmetric power dynamics.

How could you determine someone’s level of English speaking? Since you are fluent in English, you could easily tell the difference between beginner, intermediate and advanced levels.

A microscopic organism that is a causative agent of disfavorable effects on macroscopic organisms. The chemical analog of a germ is a poison. However there are some grey areas, such as a virus. Technically, a virus isn’t a microorganism, yet it has a lifecycle. Thus, classified as a germ.

You seem to be creating multiple forms and trying to relate them to each other: 1) Forms of empty and full 2) Forms of fabric and non-fabric 3) Forms of nothing Reason alone cannot transcend reason. There needs to be Rhyme and Reason.