Forestluv

It’s very easy to see how ‘their beliefs’ are just a story. It’s much hard to realize that one’s own beliefs are just a story. You seem to belief that your beliefs are true and aren’t just a story. This is what a realization that “It’s just a story” looks like. (Not just ‘their story’, ALL stories, including ‘my story’).

@Preety_India That gif is a wonderful “wtf” expression ?

@Keyhole Could you imagine what Native American culture would be like if Europeans never entered the U.S. and Native Americans were allowed to evolve unimpeded? I don’t know much about Native American culture, yet their spirituality is striking to me. They seemed very advanced spiritually with connecting and communicating with animals, plants, earth, wind, fire etc. . . What if they were free to evolve the last 250 years?

That’s a good point. My impression is that the owners/commissioners/media of the NFL are Orange centered. They see a cultural shift and don’t want to be on the wrong side. So I suppose it’s better to say that they acknowledge Green and do not have resistance to Green. Rather than they themselves transitioning to Green it would be more accurate to say they don’t want to lose Green customers. Yet I still think it is a major event because it removes major resistance to Green as well as a ton of conflict. If the NFL brings back Colin K., he jersey will hit record sales. Colin K. now transcends the sport of football and people that don’t even watch sports will be buying his jersey. I might even buy one. As well, the NFL may let players and coaches kneel during the anthem and this becomes normalized. It becomes ok to be ok with BLM. All of this allows for easier transition into green, but yea they are still at orange because they are motivated by their own relevance and profits. Roger Goddells speech did not look like he had an introspective moment of awakening to me. What would it look like if the NFL owners/commissioner were actually moving to green? It gets tricky because at the transition, they probably have mixed intentions of orange profit and green community. I would start looking for things that don’t obviously help them increase their revenue. In terms of “real green” transitioning. I think Starbucks actions a few years ago is a good example. There was an incident in which employees called the police on a black customer as they assumed his was dangerous. Instead of shaming or firing the employee, Starbucks shut down all there stores for a couple days to give all their employees diversity training. They got a lot of backlash from people criticizing them as being “politically correct” and they lost a lot of money. If they just put out a standard apology, reprimand the employee and put out a statement about how they value diversity - it would have been enough for the vast majority of people. Yet they went above and beyond. To me, that seemed like a genuine move.

I don’t think what you are saying is incorrect,, yet I need to be careful creating constructs that I hold and own. I start to lose the ability of what those constructs were originally trying to point to. For example, the other day I saw a rabbit and just started staring at it. I went blank and the attunement/empathy/connection/oneness knowing etc. begin to arise. Yet as soon as I started questioning, thinking, defining, explaining etc. it dissolved away. For me, the blank clarity is a major key. Yet I can see how it could be helpful to create descriptions for grounding or to help others access it. I think that is a worthy endeavor and the world could certainly use more understanding of shared experience and empathy. I don’t have the ability to turn on hyper empathy at will. I can turn on meta views of images and thought constructs at will, yet that is limited and not nearly as holistic as what you are describing. For example, I can see two people debating and easily take a meta view and see both arguments, how they arise, attachment and identification. Yet this is a very shallow level. Levels of knowing and being go much much deeper. Like the example I gave of knowing of being a person that senses and interacts with dark energy spirits. That’s not my relationship with 5D. When there is all One, there is Nothing. In 5D, there are all sorts of things. I’m would describe it as transcending linear time (4D) into Now. Yet other people may describe 5D differently. Again, it’s not a theoretical thing for me. It’s an ISness that I would stumble around searching for words trying to explain it. I think you are exploring some cool areas here. You seem to be entering new realms that I hadn’t notice you explore before. In the past, you seemed to be more engaged with “normie” stuff. It’s cool to see you enter this area. It’s an area in which what imagination creates isn’t “right or wrong”. To me, what you describe is a description of a cool area of exploration and discovery. I would just be careful with the tendency of the mind to get to grounded and say “this is how it is”. That can become limiting. Yet again, there is a ‘space’ of ‘this is how it is’. I’m not sure if you have done psychedelics, yet ime the area you are describing goes very well with psychedelics. One can actually enter and be the realm and their ability can get magnified by 10X. It’s like jumping up multiple levels or getting a magic wand. For me there is a balance between experiential beingness and explanation. For logical things like science or politics I’m much more tilted toward explanation. For ‘paranormal’ things, I’m tilted more toward experiential/beingness. Yes, language does seem to break down in this area. I think you did great and have dug deeper than I have previously seen. Very nice work.

Yes, this is a filter block I’m pointing to. This will block the mind from seeing various factors within a bigger, integrated systemic picture. Yet, you don’t seem interested in exploring that now.

Of course not. It goes back hundreds of years. Trump has just intensified and inflamed an underlying pre-existing condition.

Yea, in the darkesness there is some hope. This week the commissioner of the NFL (football) stated they were wrong about Colin Kap and that Black Lives Matter. He was only half-ass sincere, yet that’s ok. It reflects a HUGE cultural change. The NFL owners and commissioners are all about money and for them to switch over to support the protestors is a huge win for cultural change. It is a major Orange organization evolving up to Green. There have also been some other lesser organizations joining in, yet this was the biggest one. As a side note, one of the most heartwarming scenes I’ve seen: Trump ordered a massive fence be built around his White House to keep protestors as far away as possible (his personal wall). The fence has turned into a memorial for George Floyd and other victims of police brutality. It brought a tear to my eye when I saw it. A massive symbol of division and hate was converted into a massive symbol of unity and love.

Well, that’s easy for you to say. . . To me, you have a very myopic view and are not able to see multiple social, economic, political and biological factors within and integrated system. This was showcased with your belief of “so-called healing, of course”. That belief will blind you. As well, you seem to be locked into hyper binary “either / or” constructs. This will limit your ability to see nuances. For example, a couple years ago I was in an inter-racial relationship with a black woman. It was my first time in an inter-racial relationship and it opened up my perception through direct experience. There were definitely times in which we were being treated differently based on us being in an inter-racial relationship. A couple times, it got dangerous. However, it doesn’t mean that we were maltreated 100% of the time. It’s not either / or. For example, there was a time we weren’t getting seated at a restaurant and were getting passed over by people that had entered behind us. Yet it wasn’t because we were and inter-racial couple. We were sitting off to the side and the host couldn’t see us and obviously forgot about us and she made an error in the seating order. It wasn’t because we were inter-racial. Yet there was a time in a bar in which we nearly got assaulted and it was 100% because we were and inter-racial couple. It wasn’t 100% racism all the time or 0% racism all of the time. . . As well, there were degrees ranging from light forms of racism and intense forms of racism. Similarly, it’s not 100% everything is racially biased because of slavery or 0% nothing is racially biased because of slavery,. You are getting trapped in hyper simplistic binary constructs. . . For example, if you said, “discrimination against inter-racial relationships ended decades ago. Everyone is ok with inter-racial relationships these days. You just believe it’s true, so it’s true.”. <= That would be highly ignorant to me. It would be clear you have no clue what you are talking about.

That’s fine, you can create any story you want. To me it’s very straightforward at a personal level: If I had the choice between getting hit by a stick or getting hit by a bus, I would choose the stick. Similarly at a community level. If I had the choice between my community losing 30 people due to the corona virus or my community losing 30,000 people to the bubonic plague, I would choose the corona virus.

You are using the term “perspective” differently than I normally do, which is fine - I can be fluid with terms. What we call “my present moment experience” and “memories of past experiences” has a lot of nuance to it. For example, if we are truly talking about “my present moment experience”, that is Now. There is no “my”. There is no “present”, since there is not past or future for contrast. I would consider this “direct experience”, yet not “my” direct experience. That gets contextualized into “my experience” within a timeline. There are an infinite number of contextualizations that are available. In terms of constructs, some people say that this contextualization of “my experience” is influence by pre-conceived filters due to conditioning from past experience (such as memories). Yet this assumes that those past experiences occurred in the past. That’s fine, yet they also did not occur in the past. They are occurring now. They are all appearances happening now and we create a back story of my memories of past experiences. Humans create all sorts of back stories. . . I usually don’t use the term “perspective” to describe this. To me, your description of “mental software that runs mind, which gives rise to my ideological positions is my individual interpretation of those experiences”. To me, the phrase “mental software that runs my mind” is vague., . . . As well, I would be careful with “my”. To me, you are getting into an area in which “my” starts to break down. In this area, we could also say that there are ideological thoughts that appear, yet with no owner. We could add in a transcendent “I”, yet that’s not the sense I get from you here. My sense is that you are using a personal “I”. If so, another way of looking at it is without a “my” owner, without identification and attachment. Here, there is no internal system separate from an external system. There is an inter-connected system. In this context, everything around me feeds into interpretation. I’m not saying the construct you are creating is wrong or has no value, yet it doesn’t resonate with me much so far. Here-in comes the dilemma I have. How can I get deep into your lived experience if your lived experience never occurred? Your lived experience is a contextualization occurring Now. So to me, what you are saying is imagine I can get attune to what is happening now in “you”. These happenings could be thought memories, body memories, energetics etc. I would consider this a high level of attunement. It is a master level of ESP/empathy/intuition/knowing. The way you are using the term “life experience” assumes you actually experienced things in the past. This would be a 4D dimension, yet it’s very difficult to me to limit myself to a 4D dimension here. It would be like trying to have a conversation without the letters “E, T, H and R. Plus, every third word needs to rhyme with “shark”. It would be difficult for me to have that conversation. My impression is that you are saying that there is a thing called “life experience” that happened to you in the past that I can attune with. Attunement to me means I have no cleared ALL of my “life experiences” and I am now ALL of your “life experiences”. I have literally experienced everything in your life. In terms of “life experience” we know share the exact same life experience. There is no longer a “you” and “me”. There is one set of “life experiences”. Yet you know go on to say that there is something else, some additional “mental software” that you have but I don’t. We are the exact same person in terms of “life experience” yet we are two different people in terms of “mental software”. The problem I have with that is keeping the mental software separate from life experience. I don’t see how we can have the exact same life experience with different mental software. To me, the mental software is involved in creating the appearances of “life experience” Now. I would need to temporarily disable my mental software to fully embody your life experience in both contexts of it happening in the past as well as being created Now. Yet then I would be surrendering my mental software and using yours. In an absolute sense, I agree. Yet in this absolute sense, it’s game over for relative. There is one singularity. There is no “one reason” and “another reason”. Sure. I’ve seen others create similar constructs. That’s fine. I would just be careful with your use of the term “consciousness” there are many different contexts that people create. To me, you seem to be using the term “conscious” in different contexts. Here you seem to use it as meaning “aware”. If you create “someone else’s perspective”, you have just created separation. If you create separation, you cannot know to things. If I am a human I am not a rabbit. If that is a rock, it is not a ham sandwich. If that is someone else’s perspective, it is not my perspective. In this context, you don’t know because you just created separation of not knowing.

Your block is with “so called healing. Ridiculous of-course”. With that filter block in place, you will not understand my analogies. I could add in a component about how previous bone trauma still affects the person decades later, yet you wont get it due to your “so called healing” filter block. Notice how the block is maintained. It’s not just “so-called healing”. It’s so-called healing of course. That “of course” is an added protection so that you don’t look under the hood. “Nothing to see here, of course. . . “. It re-enforces the block to which the mind does not want to explore. As well, I could give you examples of how structural racism introduced a hundred years into my institution where I work, yet you will have a “so called healing” filter block that won’t allow you to see it. @Carl-Richard Nice one. ?

As an expansion of the analogy to better fit the situation in the U.S. Image that my entire skeleton system isn’t doing to well. It’s in the early stages of osteoporosis. A bone in my arm is bruised and a bone in my leg is broken. A holistic approach would be that, overall I need some skeletal system changes. I need to improve my diet to help the entire system. I start taking calcium and glucosamine-chondroitin supplements. As well, when I do the inventory my bruised arm bone needs some attention, perhaps a massage and a bandage to protect it. My broken leg bone needs more attention. It will need a cast to protect it for a while. . . . To go an even deeper level: Imagine there were cells in my bruised arm bone dying and cells within my broken leg bone dying. We could say “All Cells Matter”. We could say that the death of each cell in my bruised arm bone is just as bad as the death of each cell in my broken leg bone. From a cellular perspective, this is correct. Yet when we go to the higher organismal level of the entire skeletal system, attention needs to go to both arm and leg bones, yet more attention needs to go to the broken leg bone than the bruised arm bone.

WHOOOOSH!!!!

I’m amazed about how much personal identity, attachment and survival clouds such a basic principal. One analogy I like is “All Bones Matter”. All the bones in my body matter and it’s best to have a good diet and exercise to keep all my bones healthy. Yet if I break my femur bone, extra attention needs to go to my femur bone. There needs to be attention toward “My femur bone matters”. I would need to get an extra of my femur bone. I might need surgery and physical therapy to help my femur bone heal. It would be silly for my scapula bone to get upset when I acknowledge that “My Femur Bone Matters”. It would be silly for my scapula bone to get upset and scream “No, All Bones matter!!”. . . .This would be a highly contracted self-centered view of my scapula bone. It would be identified and attached to it’s scapula-ness and not be able to access a higher consciousness of all the bones in the organism.

At the population level, I think it’s best that each person is allowed 1 vote and each person that votes has their vote counted once. However, disenfranchisement is a major threat to this fundamental tenant of society. Enfranchisement and 1 person / 1 vote go hand-in-hand. I also think that there are some legitimate points about disproportional voting power for the health of a country or subpopulation. For example, some may argue that rural farmers would be neglected without disproportionate voting power. I can see the value in that, yet it does not override the fundamental tenant that each person gets one vote. And I am not “liberal biased”. Liberals may argue that marginalized and oppressed people should be given extra voting power. I can see the value in that, yet it doesn’t over-ride the fundamental tenant of democracy for me. As a test of bias: How would you feel if every black person got to vote 3 times? That dynamic is now occurring in the current EV system.

You are creating these meanings. Even within the meanings you create the two are intimately connected. As well, you are creating your own definition of a “conscious person” and I would consider your description to be a relatively low conscious level. It goes much deeper and broader. You seem to be conflating different forms of “conscious”. For example, you seem to refer to unconscious biases, which is a lack of awareness. For example, I may be unconsciously biased about someone’s manner of speaking. I may judge a person based on how well they speak English, without being conscious that I am judging someone. This unconscious bias is also called a subconscious bias or an implicit bias. . . As well, we could create a hierarchy of consciousness and say some reasons for holding a view is more conscious than other reasons for holding another view., SD contains this type of hierarchy. Both contexts of “conscious” have value, yet to me you are conflating the two. You are getting into relativity of “right”, which is an interesting conversation - yet not the area I was engaged in. I am pointing to immersing into a perspective so deeply that it becomes your perspective that you identify with and are attached to. In doing so, understanding of the perspective would be revealed. It has nothing to do with being “right” or “wrong”, it is prior to being right or wrong. For example, one time during hiking in nature I went into a waking lucid dream state and started sensing dark spirit energies. I didn’t have any perspective on dark spirit energies. I’ve never really considered whether they exist or not. It’s not something that I’m interested in. Yet here I was, sensing and interacting with dark spirit energies. There was no “is this real? Or am I imagining it? Are dark spirit energies right?”. That was present, this was prior to that. I WAS a person sensing and interacting with dark spirit energies. I could sense them moving and knew how they move into living beings. I knew the fear associated with it. I was like a person that lived in a small S. American village. I knew what it was like to seek a Shaman to exorcise dark spirit energies. . . After a while, I regained a non-lucid state and the relations with the dark spirit energies dissolved. As I sit here right now, I don’t have any perspective or experiences on wether dark spirit energies are “right” or “better” or “real” than any other experiences. I am not living my life as if I need to protect myself from dark spirit energies. However, I know have a much deeper understanding of the essence of dark spirit energies and what it’s like to be a person that interacts with dark spirit energies. Yes, this is a good point and I often have to old back. Having an expansive consciousness is not necessarily good or healthy. It depends on the person. For my personality, I resonate with the interplay of expansion and contraction. I have a desire to explore consciousness. Yet this is not for everybody. Some people like to stay immersed within a character and that’s ok. It’s like being a character in a movie and they don’t want to stop playing that character. And yes, the process of this transcendence can be related to losing sanity. I’ve gone through periods of losing sanity and I have a sense of how it can trap a person. For example, I’ve been able to become so immersed cycling through multiple perspectives that it was like having multiple personalities. It was very unstable at times and I may have been diagnosed as having multiple personalities. I can see how someone gets trapped within this mindset. It took a lot of practice and work for me to gain grounding at a meta level to the appearances of multiple personalities. Yet I have a decent understanding of how a mind can get trapped within it and how insane that would be.

You are missing the points: 1. The map above is inaccurate due to rounding errors and inaccuracies (not just with California). For example: the population ratio between S. Dakota and N. Dakota is not 2 : 1. The ratio is 1.16 : 1. The map is filled with errors and collectively, they make a big difference. Rounding off, the Dakotas should have the same number of EVs. One of the Dakota’s would need about 50% of their population to be undocumented immigrants and the other Dakota to be 0% of their population to be undocumented immigrants to push the ratio to 2 : 1, which is not feasible. There are major inaccuracies in the map. 2. The map does not consider voting population. It only considers residential population. As I said, if only 1 person in Texas voted the map above would give that person the rough equivalent of 29 million votes for the candidate of there choice. 3. If EV votes was proportional to relative state voting populations, Trump would have lost. You are not seeing statistical inaccuracies and biases. You don’t seem to have an interest in seeing them. I would consider the map you linked above to be an improvement to the current EV map since it makes an attempt to better proportion EV votes based on state residential populations. Yet it is still filled with statistical inaccuracies and bias. This is a nuanced, multifactorial system.

Seems like facts only matter when they support your ideology. If facts truly mattered to you, you would want to consider them without a filter of bias. For example, you will likely dismiss the below statistics because they do not align with your ideology, rather than considering the statistics from an objective non-biased viewpoint. If you life depended on considering the below statistics from an objective non biased view, you would have a very different relationship with them. https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938186/police-shootings-killings-racism-racial-disparities https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/study-shows-racial-bias-shootings/

“No, you are the one holding the perspective tightly” is a mechanism of maintaining immersion within a “me vs you” dynamic. It will prevent you from taking a meta view. If a person can only see their left hand, it is best to point to their right hand so they can realize their right hand and have awareness and understanding of both hands. If someone can only see their right hand, it’s best to point to their left hand so they can realize their left hand and have awareness and understanding of both hands. . . The challenge is identification and attachment to one hand. Yet it is key to exploring and expanding consciousness.

I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. I’m saying by tightly holding the perspective you are, you cannot truly understand another perspective. Go live within a poor black community in New York City. Ask black people how Trump’s actions have harmed them. Have lots of deep conversation for months. Observe how Trump’s behavior has harmed them. This would give you a better understanding of that perspective. It may even loosen the hold on the perspective that you are currently holding tightly. If you become a black person living in a poor black community in NYC, you would hold a new perspective.

If you were personally being harmed by Trump’s actions, you would likely have a different perspective.

That map is not population neutral to the voting population. It still gives disproportionate weight to certain voters. If it was weighted population neutral to the voting population, Clinton would win by 2% EV votes (as she did with the popular vote). Imagine that all 600,000 people in Wyoming vote and they get 1 vote each. Imagine only one person in Texas votes, yet because Texas has 29 million people, that person gets to vote 29 million times for their preferred candidate. That is biased. The actual voting population is also an important factor. Plus the map doesn’t even equilibrate state populations correctly. Montana does not have a 2 : 65 ratio with California. It has a 2 : 74 ratio. They are rounding off small numbers which creates significant rounding errors. Democrats do not defend the EV system since it is currently favorable to republicans. I posted a link above to statistical studies showing the EV system is biased. I’m not talking about how best to play a game within a biased system. I am talking about the biased system itself. You will need to let go of one side and take a meta view to see this. If we were talking about a biased game between the drefto beings vs the saxtrop beings on the plant xescref, you would be able to see the bias because you would not be identified and attached to either side. This is still within an “us vs them” mindset. One’s relationship to an inequality is irrelevant to the inequality itself. Two pounds of rice is heavier than one pound of beans. It’s irrelevant wether I love rice and hate beans. It’s irrelevant if rice is more nutritious than beans. It’s irrelevant if I harvest rice. It’s irrelevant if I think bean lovers are a threat to the country. It’s irrelevant if an absurd “beanless only burrito” law was enacted. These are all distractions from seeing that two pounds of rice is heavier than a pound of beans. One would need to let go of their identification to rice and beans and take an objective, detached meta view. If you can’t see the bias in the EV system, you aren’t taking a detached meta view. The EV system is inherently biased and one party can benefit from that bias. In the current political environment, republicans are benefitting. There are also situations in which there is a net neutral benefit or that the Democratic Party benefits. Yet this isn’t the current political landscape. Whether one party plays the game better and benefits from the bias is irrelevant to the structural bias itself. Read some statistical studies, like the one I linked above, to learn more about EV bias.

No, it felt good.

@Bodigger Studies have shown that republicans have a statistically significant advantage in the electoral college system. This is why republicans defend the EV system. If it favored democrats, republicans would be against it. (The same can be said about democrats). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/9/17/20868790/republicans-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college As well, the main point is not that the EC favors republicans. The main point is that the EC is fundamentally undemocratic because it gives more voting power to certain people. Regarding disproportionate campaigning: look at the current situation with the E.C. There are only a few swing states that candidates campaign in. In 2016, after clinching the nomination Clinton campaigned in 12 states and Trump campaigned in 13 states. Most if these were the same battleground states. The vast majority of the country was ignored on the campaign trail. And your argument falls flat within states. Everyone within a state has 1 vote toward that states E.C. By your logic, people in densely populated areas of Wisconsin should get 1 vote and people in sparsely populated areas of Wisconsin should get 3 votes, so politicians don’t neglect them.