Forestluv

@JayG84 @Moon ♥️ ?

@Consept To add a few more “dots” to your painting. . . In the U.S. there is a powerful police union. Yet the police union is not fighting for the welfare of police officers (such as paid leave, free psychological counseling etc). The main thrust of police unions is pressing for militarization of police. Rather than pushing for reforms that would better serve communities, police unions are pushing for more arrests - as if arrests are a commodity. For example, police officers may receive merit bonuses and promotion for their number of arrests. This changes the mindset from serving the community toward “I need to make more arrests”. As if each arrest was like a businessman making a sale. If the businessman makes more sales, he gets merit bonuses and promotions. . . Adding fire to this is the “War on Drugs”. There is a lot of energy in police forces to win the War on Drugs and make lots of drug-related arrests. Adding further fire is the prison industrial complex. Private American prisons profit on more arrests and more prisoners. There is a conflict of interest. And the U.S. has skyrocket high prison rates. . . It’s good to see this discussion hit mainstream and I hope for real structural changes, yet I’m also concerned that those in power can create distraction and distortion. For example, look how many people are distracted by isolated violent events and looting. Look at how the message “defund the police” can be easily framed as “getting rid of the police”. As another view. I notice how much it takes for the voiceless to have a voice. Millions of voiceless people must come together to have one voice that will be heard. Everyone can now hear this voice, yet it takes millions of voiceless protestors to create one voice that is heard. . . . And one single billionaire person has a voice as strong as millions of voiceless people.

I didn’t say what you wrote doesn’t have practical value at an individual level. I would consider a couple things. When a mind is hyper-contracted into self preservation it perceives through a lens of self preservation. If my lens is that my highest value is my self preservation AND that the world is threatening my self preservation, how will I interpret my surroundings? Everything will be perceived through a lens that things are risky and I need to protect myself. If I go to the store, I may be concerned that the guy walking on the street has a gun and might hurt me. Buying and carrying a gun may give some comfort to this mindset, yet it will re-enforce the mindset. As well, this mindset attracts more risk and danger into my life because that is my orientation of how I relate to the world. Along this track, notice how the mind extrapolates isolated incidents as general reality. This is super common for a mind immersed into self preservation - especially when that mindset is re-enforced by social conditioning. For example, a lot of Americans are afraid of terrorists and want to protect themselves from terrorists. The news is filled with stories about terrorists. However, the chance of an American dying from a terrorist attack is less than the chance of being struck by lightening. Notice how the mind extrapolates isolated terrorist incidents to be a general phenomena which is dangerous to me. Yet the mind does not extrapolate lightening strikes as a general phenomena which is dangerous to me. Part of this is social conditioning. . . . My neighbor has a fear of terrorists and makes similar statements as you. She wants to get a gun. She tells me “Imagine yourself in a store in which your only means of living is that store and a terrorist comes in and you have no control”. . . The problem with this is that she now has a gun and is walking around town perceiving through a lens that other people may be terrorists. I’m not saying that terrorists don’t exist and there is no threat. I’m not saying that it is not a problem and shouldn’t be addressed. I am talking about the extrapolation of the existence of terrorists and the threat. And perceiving through this lens of extrapolation causes distortion and an expansion of the underlying problem. Consider if you are being conditioned within a violent environment and if you are extrapolating that view to be a generalized reality. To a hammer, everything appears to be a nail. Regarding SD. . . Red/Blue/Orange will not be able to understand Green and Yellow clearly. Yellow integrates Green, yet is not limited to Green. Yellow can integrate Green components into a more complex system. Yet Orange may label and dismiss what appears as Green components (within a Yellow system) as “beautiful, yet unpractical” because they don’t have a yellow meta view.

For sure. We could consider how each dot interacts and impacts other dots in a network. I like observing how dots interact and influence each other. The behavior of one dot can contract, expand, create and collapse other dots. So far, we haven’t added in any value judgements. For example, we could observe all the dots interacting in nature. There is plenty of life, growth, decay, death, sharing, stealing, protecting, killing in nature - yet we can observe this web without any value judgements of what is “selfish”, “good” or “bad”. Of course we could also add in these value judgments and that can have practical use. For example, we might want to conserve a forest - to do so, we need to make value judgements about what is “good” and “bad” for the forest. We may identify invasive plant species that are choking off the trees and we may remove those invasive plants. I’ve notice that when humans are added in the mix, a whole new dynamic enters within the human mind - because the human mind has identifications and attachments to humanness. Nazism is analogous to the invasive plants within the forest. Yet most human minds will have a very different relationship to Nazism compared to invasive plants within a forest.

The “what I believe love is” defines what the “highest embodiment of love is”. How can one be “the highest embodiment of love” without a thought construct of what “the highest embodiment of love” is? I think it’s also important to observe the “I want”. Who/what is this “I”? Who/what is the chooser and doer of wants? What would happen if you dropped all the stories about what love is. All the stories about how you should behave to reach the highest embodiment of love. Imagine you are completely free and immersed in nature. How would you freely express yourself? Perhaps you would laugh. Perhaps you would climb a tree or jump in the lake. Perhaps you would wish you had a girlfriend with you. Perhaps you would cry. Perhaps you would would hunt down rabbits. Perhaps you would. . . With surrender comes freedom. . .

You can, but you won’t believe it or act on it because you are not wired that way. The relativism already exists. Look around you. There is no “leading to” anything. I’m pointing to how you are picking and choosing what love is from your orientation. We can recognize that serial killers are expressing love and still put them in prison as an act of love. The two are not mutually exclusive. It’s not about what we intellectually label things. It’s about actuality . A serial killer is expressing love. Watch a documentary on serial killers. Observe closely as the killers describe themselves. If you are open, you will “get it”. They are expressing love. If you deny that, you don’t know what it’s like to be a serial killer and you are missing something important. I am speaking from a relative views. You seem to want to give your relative view more relevance than another relative view. . . If I was doing volunteer work in a prison and a serial killer couldn’t understand why his behavior was harmful and why he was in prison, I would be having a very different conversation with him than I’m having with you. If someone is only aware of their right hand, we show them their left hand. If someone is only aware of their left hand, we show them their right hand.

This mentality intensifies violence cycles. This is one reason there are more guns than people in America and why America is in the situation it is. Adding in even more guns will make the problem worse at a societal level. This is why it’s important to not just think in individualistic terms, yet also in societal terms.

At the retreat, we didn’t sit 6hrs continuously. We sat 1hr. periods and rotated sitting and walking mediation, with breaks. Long meditations don’t necessarily need to be fights with inner devils in dark places. There are many other mind spaces. Value is relative. What I consider of value, may not be of value to others. For me, exploration of consciousness itself is of value. If I am walking through nature exploring consciousness, that itself is of value - even if it has no further utility in my life. Similarly, if I am enjoying a roller coaster at an amusement park - that in and of itself has value to me. These explorations also expand my mind and allow for greater understanding and empathy. If I am in nature and enter a lucid state in which the water, wind and birds are communicating to me - I will gain a better understanding of what this is like from direct experience. I will better understand people who interact with nature in this manner, for example American Indians. In terms of “bad” contexts. . . I would say if I am driving my car on a highway, it would be “bad” to drift into a mind space in which I am communicating with water, wind and birds. Imagine the police report: “The driver indicated that prior to the car accident he was channeling American Indian spirits and communicating with a Raven”.

That itself is relative. For a thief, stealing is loving. For a serial killer, killing people is an expression of love. For you, acts of charity is love.

Part of the problem I see with de-arming police is that there are more guns in America than people. If a cop pulls over a person for a suspected DUI, the cop has no idea if the person has a gun. There are too many guns. How can you ask a police officer to enter a situation unarmed when there is a very good chance the person has a weapon? You are suggesting a two-tiered police system. One for violent situations (gangs, murderers) and one for non-violent situations. We could say that someone calling in suicidal would be non-threatening. Or homeless people. Perhaps we could use more social workers for that. Yet what about a standard domestic argument? Some guy is screaming at his gf and a neighbor calls the police. Again, there are sooo many guns in the U.S. I don’t think we can ask a cop to do a domestic violence call unarmed, since there is a good chance guns are in the house. . . .Even on something trivial like a noise violation. Nearby me, there is a low income apartment complex and the people there party and blast their music late at night. On occasion, I’ve called public safety to ask them to turn it down. The folks over there have guns and I don’t feel comfortable confronting them at night when they have been drinking and there are guns around. . . It’s just a call for a noise violation and it might seem silly to ask a police officer to bring a gun. Yet how can you ask the office to enter that situation unarmed when everyone there has been drinking and are armed? And these are not gang members. They are just regular Americans jacked up with guns. I think you are underestimating how prevalent guns are in America. They are all over. Yet with that said, I like the direction you are heading. I would very much like to see less guns and less violence in the U.S. Unfortunately, I think many Americans have become de-sensitized to gun violence.

From my POV, they guy escalated several times. He put himself in a really bad position. I feel for him. Before the arrest, he started talking about his family. He was probably a low income person without the resources to pay heavy fines, lose his license and perhaps go to jail. He is in a terrible position and put himself in an even worse position. To me, this is a grey area situation regarding the gun shots. It’s the type of grey area in which specific policies are written. Like you say, there could be a policy that in this type of situation the officer cannot shoot above the waist. Or he cannot shot unless it’s clear the person has a lethal weapon. During cadet training, they could use this type of situation for training and even have re-enactments in which officers learn split second decision making. It was clear that the cops treated him respectfully until the escape. If anything, they treated him too gingerly during the arrest, which gave him the opportunity to fight and run. In hindsight, they should have been more forceful when handcuffing him. Yet he seemed like a nice passive guy and they gave him the benefit. And if they used more force to cuff him, people would get upset that they used to much force on a guy that was nice and passively cooperating. A guy that obviously wouldn’t have fought them, steal a weapon and use it against them. . .

Based on how they treated him before, and during the fight, I think the cops would have tried to chase him down if he simply ran away. They had been respectful and clearly did not intend to injure him during the sobriety test or the fight. The game-changer is he stole the taser and tried to use it against the officers. This is a split second decision and the officer doesn’t know if he got one of their guns during the fight. In hindsight, they could have just shot him once and injured him. Yet again they don’t know if he got one of their guns. In a split second decision, there is no time to check in with your partner and create a plan. A cop needs to be evaluated for what he knew at the time. We can’t expect him to base his actions on information and hindsight he didn’t have at the time.

That is a professional, respectful DUI sobriety test and arrest. If I was pulled over for a DUI, that’s how I would expect to be treated fairly. By fighting, he escalates the situation to a new level. Yet, the police officers still tried to restrain him professionally without intent to harm him. Once he grabs the tazer, runs away and uses it against the police - he escalates it to an even higher level. And the cops did not do any of the escalating. In hindsight, the only thing that could have been better was to shoot him once and injure him. Yet the cops don’t know if he got one of their guns. If he hadn’t taken and fired the taser, my guess is the cops would have chased him down, based on how they were previously using appropriate force. Stealing the taser and shooting it off creates a split second decision. There are much clearer cases in which police use excessive force or act in a racist manner. This instance is not a good example. Imo, it’s counter-productive to use it as an example because it’s barely in a grey area. There are much clearer examples.

A major victory for LGBTQ in America https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees

Usually I see people use the term “soul” in the context of a transcendent spiritual “me”. There is often a past-lives component as well. Examples include “I am an old soul”, “That song touches my soul”, “We are lost souls re-united”.

@Romer02 I’ve found the ego likes to take ownership of either “good” or “bad”. If I can’t learn a foreign language, the ego takes ownership that I’m stupid and not good enough. If I learn to play the trumpet, then the ego takes ownership and says “look how awesome I am!!” There is also a place of recognizing one’s skills without taking egoic ownership. That actually slows down development and utilizing the skill. For example, my mind is very good at abstract thinking. It’s just how my brain is wired. Yet if I take ownership and get into “I’m such a genius. Everyone look how abstractly genius I am”, It actually blocks further development of abstract thinking abilities. And it interferes with me using this ability to contribute to others. Lastly, it blinds me from seeing deficiencies. For example, my mind is not very good at memorizing and remembering facts and details.

There are different contexts. I’m pointing out the conditioned ‘you’ and a purer ‘true you’. I gave the example of climbing trees when I was younger. Consider these contexts: Context 1: When I was young, I was told that I wasn’t “tall enough”. That I would get bullied in school because I wasn’t tall enough. I wouldn’t get a girlfriend because girls like tall guys. This conditions the mind with an identity that “I’m not tall enough”. This may lead to a low self esteem and being shy because I’m not “good enough” to be loved. Context 2: Sometimes when I was climbing trees as a boy, I couldn’t quite reach a branch. I would realize “I’m not tall enough to reach that branch”. This is a totally different context. It has nothing to do with wether I’m “good enough”. It just means I’m not tall enough to reach that branch. As a child this is no big deal. It’s a non-issue. I just figure out another way. Perhaps I go a different route or next time I bring a rope and hook to help me reach the branch. Similarly the idea of “I’m too fat” is loaded with value judgements of not “being good enough” and being unloveable. All of that can be let go. Yet also consider another context, If I am 100 pounds over my BMI, I’m too heavy to run a marathon. It’s not about being good or bad. It’s just the physics. If I am 100 pounds over my BMI and try to do 20 mile training sessions, I will get injured. There will be too much impact on my joints and bones. So like a child climbing to the top of a tree, I would need a new approach. If I want to run a marathon, I would need to start off with a lot of non-impact training, such as swimming, walking and the elliptical machine. Over time, weight will be lossed and we can add in some light running.

There have been multiple threads on this such as:

Be mindful of context and creating a straw man. No yellow level thinkers here are advocating that we should create a “perfect, spiritual and consciousness that can look down on all the other morons trying to figure out what you’ve succeeded in figuring out”. Yes, each person is at their own stage of development, appropriate for their self. And yes, each perspective has value and we can all learn from each other. In addition to that dynamic, there is also the dynamic of evolving. The politics subforum mission statement states the target is to evolve up to a Tier2 level of discussion. Within that framework, engaging in Red-level food fights isn’t going to cut it - no more than students arguing about algebra is B.S. in a calculus class. In accordance with the subforum mission is to be open-minded and learn. It’s not a 4-chan, anything goes forum.

Be mindful of characterizing an entire group based on the action of an individual within that group. This is the same dynamic as “police bashing”. Just as it is not fair to label all cops as bad cops after the behavior of a bad cop - it is not fair to label all protestors as violent after the behavior of a violent protestor. At this point, I’m not seeing any information on wether this was an individual person, an angry mob or if the shooter was even a “protestor”. There have been some fringe anarchists and rioters that attend the protests that aren’t there to protest. If the shooter does turn out to be a protestor, it’s important to have self-accountability and for the protest community to condemn excessive violence and make a statement that the protests are not about violence. Just as it is important for the police community to condemn police brutality when it occurs. Escalation of us vs. them violence dynamics will intensify violence.

Ime, the sense that “I’m not good enough” runs deep into the subconscious. Bringing it up to the conscious level is super helpful because awareness is part of the cure. One thing I realized is that “voice” in my head saying “You aren’t good enough” is not my true voice. They are other people’s voices that got programmed into me. When I was a boy, I loved climbing trees. It was joy and freedom. And never once did I ever think “I’m not good enough. I’m not smart enough. I’m not good-looking enough. I’m not ‘xyz’ enough”. All that stuff got programmed into me. Particularly, by hyper critical adults. Then those their voices became the voices in my head. I would now criticize myself. I was my own worst critic. Realizing this is a game-changer. Yet the voices kept appearing and I had to go through a process of de-conditioning. How are these voices limiting? One of the strongest voices was “I’m not smart enough”. With this programmed belief, I am going to activities that require being smart - because I don’t want to fail and I don’t want people to find out I’m not smart enough. Or if I do engage in ‘smart people’ activities, I will constantly be worrying about wether I am smart enough. I will feel like an imposter and worry about if I said something stupid. I will be trying to prove to others I am smart enough. I will seek their approval and validation. Yet no amount of validation, recognition, publications, scholarships or awards will fill that deep hole of “I’m not smart enough”. All of this is distraction from actually exploring and developing my true gifts and abilities. In addition to all the distracting thoughts I mentioned above. . . I had a belief that “being smart” meant memorizing a lot of facts. It turns out this is actually my weakest aptitude. I’m not very good at memorization and I don’t even like it. Yet I thought memorization and knowing facts meant “being smart”. This blocked me from developing my actual skills. I am a natural abstract thinker. Yet to access my abstract thinking abilities, I had to realize and drop the belief that “I’m not smart enough”. And that “being smart enough” meant memorizing, knowing facts and receiving awards. Beliefs that other people programmed into me. Once free of this, I was able to start exploring what I actually love to do and what I am naturally good at. In doing so, life becomes more fascinating, enjoyable, creative and free. We no longer have to live somebody else’s life.

“But here's where the real problems are: If a black person gets arrested... He doesn't have the education to really know his rights. The public defender lawyer piece of shit, has no respect for "Javon". The nig*** knows that once he enters the criminal justice system, he's donzo. So he has to fight. What choice does he have?” This is one of the points I’ve been trying to articulate. Unfortunately, this voice has little power and isn’t heard. The stakes for a young black male are higher than for me as a young white male. When I was young, I had a variety of low to moderate offenses: public intoxication, belligerence, DUIs, shoplifting, driving on the revoked list and yes, even resisting arrest while I was drunk. This did not all occur in upper class white neighborhoods. Many of the incidents happened in inner cities. Over and over again, I was given a second chance, then a third chance, then a fourth chance. . . Finally, I shifted gears, went back to school and started a successful career. I had that opportunity, because there were no long lasting consequences. I was never placed in the prison system and I didn’t have any record that would flag me during an employer background check. Yet for a young black inner city male, the stakes are different. They are commonly jailed for the same behavior that I got a slap on the wrist for. If I had gone to prison for something like cannabis possession and suffered through prison for a trivial offense, the game changes. I am now at a huge disadvantage toward getting my life back together. I now perceive the police and judicial system as adversaries. They are not on my side. They are not supportive advocates. Once I’ve entered the criminal justice system, I’m donzo. Now, if I’m approached by a cop for a relatively minor offense like cannabis possession, minor shoplifting or urinating in a back alley, the stakes are much higher. Once in the pipeline, I know I’m going back to prison for this. This increases the incentive to run away or fight. If I’ve already endured prison life over a minor offense, why would I give up over another minor offense if giving up means going back to hellish prison?

@DevOcean That’s a really sweet spot. The term “empty listening” comes to mind. There are no mental filters processing, analyzing and calculating how best to respond. The mind is not thinking while she is speaking. There is simply listening. And it’s amazing how much understanding there is! I was amazed that I could understand someone without ‘translating’ what there were saying. . . On the flip side, I’ve noticed I can go into a “just speaking” mode. The words are just coming out. I don’t know where the come from or how the sentence is going to end. It’s like just flowing out of me. . . And as you say, these conversations are wonderful. I can also relate about a feeling of ‘safe space’. I have a good friend and we have the ‘flow’ conversations you describe. We’ve told each other some crazy personal stuff and became even better friends. No judgements. Just listening, speaking and exploring. . . Yet today, I have to do a meeting with my boss and co-workers. It’s a serious conversation about work policies, salaries and layoffs at my work. It will likely get testy with egos flying around. For me, this space doesn’t feel as ‘safe’ and I the mental filter of caution will likely enter. One thing I’ve been working on to be a better listener. Quite often when someone else is speaking, my mind is thinking about my own story or what I’m going to say next. There isn’t that sense of ‘empty listening’. My find is full of thought chatter as she speaks. I’ve noticed that there is an attachment to ‘my’ thoughts. They seem more important. I might feel a desire to tell ‘my’ thoughts and even interrupt her! This isn’t always ‘bad’. Sometimes she reminds me of a memory and I get excited to share it. When I get immersed into ‘my’ thinking, sometimes the awareness you describe enters. That self attached to ‘my’ thoughts dissolves and I can make ‘her’ spoken words ‘my thoughts’. ‘Her’ spoken words are appearances in ‘my’ mind, just as if they were ‘my’ thoughts. This breaks down the duality between ‘her’ and ‘me’.

I don’t think this is feasible. There is the cost issue, yet also the police presence issue. There comes a point in which people don’t want to be over policed, even if that means increased risk. There is a point of diminishing returns. Adding 100 police officers in my neighborhood might increased my safety by 5%. Each police officer would have less responsibility and be less stressed.. Yet I don’t want to live in a police state with 100 cops in my neighborhood looking for troublemakers. And it would raise new problems. I’d like to see changes that would make police officers jobs easier. For example, banning semi-automatic weapons and get as many off the street as possible. Hiring professional social workers, psychologists, addiction specialists and de-escalation experts into the police force. This would put less pressure on police to deal with mentally ill people, drug addicts and homeless. That’s not really what they are trained for. Also things that increase communication between police officers and the community. To me, being a police officer would be a miserable job. The entire job reveals around conflict, pain and danger. I’d be constantly stressed.

@Epikur There are a lot of people from Germany that come to the Detroit electronic festival. And the crime rate in Detroit is relatively high for a city. There are some dangerous sections and I’m not saying it’s filled with angels.