Forestluv

Fair enough. I could have misremembered. I’ve had to deal with a lot of gaslighting in the past and perhaps I’m overly sensitive to it. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and retract my previous statement. I’m willing to say I’m not totally certain what the original post was and that you may be correct. I wish you the best along your journey ❤️ ?

I didn’t add the rest later. If you don’t trust me that I am being honest with you here, I agree there is nothing more to say.

Not cool. First of all, if I edit a post it will be marked as “edited”. That part was in the original post. For some reason, you didn’t see it or process it. Secondly, if we are to have a mutual exploration of ideas, there needs to be a certain level of trust and personal responsibility. Cynical gaslighting alters the dynamics of a conversation and it is a dealbreaker for me. That quote was in the original post. Period.

Here is the perspective of a lifelong LAPD cop. He kinda rambles the first half of the article, then gives some of his insights into the events. He makes the argument that the prosecution won’t get a murder conviction. He mentions how Floyd resisted arrest and entry into the police car, he was intoxicated on fentanyl, was a meth user and was an “egg shell” due to his drugged state and a heart conditIon. As well, he mentions that “I can’t breath” is one of the most common ways to resist arrest and floyd claimed he couldn’t breath while resisting arrest into the police car. As well, he says the police report is written with seeds of doubt for a jury. After considering these points, I think a downgrade to manslaughter might happen. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/the-george-floyd-killing-a-police-officers-view/amp/

I didn’t say he was. I gave an example of different degrees of indifference. They are not all the same dynamic. In the case of the cop, being indifferent to wether you physically kill an unconscious man would be a degree worse than being indifferent about a starving child in Africa.

I consider there to be different degrees of indifference. It’s one thing to be indifferent about starving children in Africa. It’s another thing to be indifferent while actively torturing someone. They are not the same psychological dynamic.

If he thought floyd might just be unconscious, that would shift the dynamic toward intentional murder. They had him handcuffed with three cops on him, he is motionless for several minutes and the cop thinks he is unconscious and continues to put his weight into his neck. That seems like intention to induce more harm than unconscious, since he was already unconscious. I doubt he was intending to maintain a state of unconsciousness. Yet I’m also not saying he was intentionally trying to murder. He seems indifferent to me and his indifference might be considered a mental derangement.

After a paramedic took his pulse and told the cop he had no pulse? C’mon.

I just watched the second half. The me, it looks like the cop knew he was dead and kept his knee and full body weight on him for several minutes. That elevates the severity in my book. That is a level worse than a cop doing his job and using excessive force. It might not be a feature of a law, yet it is a sign of derangement.

Intention gets tricky for me. The bank robber originally intended to steal the money and get away with it. Shooting a teller would put him in a worse position if he got caught, So during the robbery, things don’t go as planned and he needs to shoot the teller to get away with it. . . . How much time and calculation is needed to qualify as “intentional”. Lets say a teller tried to ambush the robber, the robber freaks out and shoots her. We could say this was reflexive or instinctual. Not intentional. . . Yet what if the teller looked over at the alarm switch and for three seconds, the robber surveyed his options and decided to shoot her. Is this sufficient to be “intentional”. When I think of unintentional, I think of something like a couple having an argument. He pushes her, she trips and falls over a balcony and dies. The guy killed her, yet didn’t intend to push her off the balcony. He actually is horrified she fell and died. That’s not what the cop looks like to me. Afterwards, he wasn’t like “oh shit! The guy died. Fuck.”. It looked more like he didn’t care.

To me, it looks in-between intended and unintended. It looks like he didn’t care if he lived or died.

I notice Minnesota has 2nd degree manslaughter as well as 2nd degree murder. I heard they are going fir 2nd degree murder. I’m not well-versed in law. I’m just speculating about which one fits best.

Seems like 3rd degree to me. If the prosecutor goes for 2nd degree and comes up short, can there still be a3rd degree conviction? Or is the guy off the hook? Second-degree murder: According to the Minnesota statute, whoever causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting” is guilty of murder in the second degree. Third-degree murder: According to the Minnesota statute, whoever causes the death of a person “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree.”

You are not. You are unaware of how radical, deep and expansive it gets. As I’ve said, I was immersed within a rational, logical, scientific paradigm for 25 years of my adult life before transcending it. I know these dynamics very well. There are aspects you are unaware of and assuming you are aware will limit you. Your potential is far greater than you are aware of. If you are serious about transcending the current paradigm you are within, I would highly recommend utilizing psychedelics. They will dissolve all of your rational/logical/science constructs and help you expand and awaken.

If you would like to broaden and deepen your view of science and it’s relationship to reality, I would recommend listening to, and learning from, people that have gained expertise within science, have transcended science and can see the big picture, rather than accuse them of lying about their experience. I never claimed authority, yet I would be considered an authority in my areas of specialty by societal standards. Yet this has little relevance in the bigger picture that is transcendent to science. And upon further reflection, I came down too hard on you relative to where you are at.

@Nak Khid In a relative context, I don’t disagree with you and I know how it’s upsetting to see people claim higher ground and refer to police brutality, rape and murder as love.

I have in many forms.

From a human perspective, it seems like this is much easier realized in nature. I’ve walked with others in nature and have pointed to birth, growth, life, decay and death as one inter-related beautiful cycling of Love. Many people can see it. Yet as soon as humans are introduced, it’s like a switch is triggered and they go into a totally different mode and cannot see it.

@Leo Gura Do psychedelics to allow some beings to temporarily access superhuman?

In a rational, relative context of love you are correct. In this context, no one here is advocating to accept or cause harm to oneself or others. You are perceiving what you consider to be “nonduality” through a relative, rational filter. This creates distortion. A dead-giveaway of the attempt to maintain a relative, rational filter is that you continuously default to rape and murder as not being love. Of course, rape and murder are not love in a relative, rational context. You write: ”This is the danger I am talking about that occurs when nonduality is divorced from it's traditional and then when further confusion is added by attempting altering to change the meaning of the word love”. You are creating that divorce. No one here is advocating for the divorce of what you call “nonduality” and a relative form of love. A transcendent awakening reveals both and how they are connected as one. If you haven’t had a sufficient awakening, you will not be able to see this and absolute and relative will get conflated. The divorce, confusion and conflation is your creation by trying to figure this out through a limited rational, relative lens. As well, there is no objective, universal meaning of love in relative, rational constructs. You can easily explore this yourself by examining grey areas of what qualifies as “love” and how meaning is relative. For example, my parents don’t consider homosexual couples as being “love”. They see it as unnatural, deviant behavior. Yet to the homosexual couple the meaning is love. As well, you obviously don’t consider rape as love, yet I’ve known rapists that clearly considered it love. . . Yet again, these are relative explorations to breakdown the illusory construct of an objective, universal love within relative constructs. There are much much bigger fish to fry. What is being pointed to here cannot be figured out rationally, because the rational filter itself is causing distortion. You would need to awaken beyond this limitation. In doing so, you will not have to reject any of your relative constructs of love, yet you will become aware that they exist within a higher transcendent love. Some body-minds may realize this in a “Big Bang” type of awakening. Yet from what I’ve observed, most body-minds need to continually expand their capacity to love in a relative sense. The further out the boundaries are pushed, the higher likelihood of a big awakening. For you, rape and murder are too far outside your current edge. Focusing on rape and murder is just re-enforcing your relative, rational construct. I would consider working at your edge. For example, consider someone/something that is right on the edge of being worthy of your love. Who/what is in that grey area in which they sorta deserve your love, but don’t quite qualify for your love. Work in that range and expand your capacity for relative love. Ime, this will provide grounding for higher awakenings. You could also take a fast track through psychedelics, yet it would be much harder to integrate the higher awakenings on the small ground you currently stand. If and when you have a full awakening, you will realize “It’s Love”. There is no other word for it. It will be the word that appears.

To me it seems like what you find “attractive” is evolving in a way that is foreign to you. There were times in which I started noticing things about women I never used to notice or care about. As they first surfaced, there was uncertainty whether they counted as “attractive”. Yet these features began to be attractive to me. I am now attracted to women very differently than I used to be. Yet with that said. . .. there can be an “it” between us. This “it” has had many different manifestations. These days, it is a combination of mental, emotional, intuitive, physical, intellectual, energetic flow. Yet it is not something I can create or dismiss. It’s a key ingredient in relationships for me, yet it’s rare and doesn’t always work out because of practical reasons. Currently, I am dating someone with whom we connect and get along very well, yet that holistic “it” is not there. It seems there for her, yet not for me. Unfortunately, it’s not always mutual. I enjoy being with her, we connect in a lot of areas and the practicalities are aligned. We are on the same page. Yet, I do miss that “it” and wish it was present. As well, for me what you are describing is getting waaaay ahead after only two dates. That creates all sorts of analysis, expectations and pressure. I’ve found it best just to enjoy time together for a while and get to know each other.

Of course not. Why would I want to tightly hold onto an idea as being true? That would be a limitation of exploration. What is referred to as “your belief system” is partial and incomplete (as is any belief). Of course there are blind spots within any belief system. That is a main limitation of any belief system. Imagine standing on a rooftop viewing the city below. Any view is partial and incomplete. Another way to look at it. Imagine that we are sharing one connected mind. There is no “my belief system” or “your belief system”. There are merely ideas appearing in our collective mind. This recontextualization alters the energetics and relationship to ideas. A trick of the mind is to create “your belief” and “my belief”. Yes I did. I had previously written: Notice how the mind filtered this out. . . There seems to be some personalization arising. For example, the passage below is not using personal pronouns for the ease of linguistic conversation. It seems like straightforward personalization: This misses a point. You can already see how Leo is wrong and you are right. Why on earth would I point that out to you? You already have that part down. You can clearly see how Leo is wrong and you are right. What you are missing is the awareness of how Leo is right and you are wrong. Again, notice how an interpretive mind filter works. . . I’ve already said it twice and I’ll say it again a third time: I acknowledge that you are right and I am wrong. Lack of this realization is a major block and reveals the limitation of creating a “your position” and “my position”. It restricts the amount of territory that can be explored. There is understanding and misunderstanding. I don’t claim to own either. If we create two separate consciousnesses (“you” and “me”), then it is true to say that I don’t understand you if you say that I don’t understand you. You get to create that and I don’t get to override your creation since you are your own authority. You are god creating reality. You can create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t understand me and is arrogant and offensive”. Or you could create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t seem to fully understand me, yet he seems to be aware of something that intrigues me”. You have created the former, which is fine. I don’t really care either way since I am not invested into being right or wrong. This would be a waste of effort since any construct created is partially true and partially false. As well, seeing an intellectual construct does not equal the ability to utilize that construct. For example, a mind may be able to see various levels of resolution when pointed out. Yet that does not mean the mind has the ability to create various levels, the ability to zoom in and out of various levels or make connections among various levels. This is a much more advanced skill. Thank you. That allows space. Curiosity is one of the most important ingredients to consciousness exploration. I’ve found that when curiosity is expanded, space for observation and exploration is expanded. Notice how the mind can be selectively curious. . .

@Waken He is creating a dualistic construct within an infinite sea of potential creations. It would be like me holding a grain of sand and telling you it is the beach.

Part of attachment/identification is creating “my ideas” and “your ideas”. As well as creating things like “my experience”. Such personalization can lead to interpretations such as “you are arrogant”, “you don’t understand my direct experience”, “you offend me”, etc. This appears in my mind at times as well. . . These are reflections of attachment/identification to personality dynamics that relate to belief systems. In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear. You are missing the point that I can see that you are correct and that I am wrong. If that were true, your mind would be fluid like water and you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right. Claiming ownership as a “personal opinion” is one of the best indicators of contraction. Any opinion / belief held tightly by the mind is a contraction. And there is nothing wrong with contraction. Life is an interplay between expansion and contraction. Like the in-breath is expansion and the out-breath is contraction. Yet some minds get stuck in contraction as it grasps. If I tightly hold an apple in each hand, how can I play the piano? This is a good place to observe creation. You have created an idea of a love theory of which I think is more inclusive than a love theory you claim as “my personal opinion”. Yet I have not held any love theory. You are creating that. So tell me, what is this “love theory” you have assigned to me? Notice how the mind is creating a love theory that I hold to provide contrast for a love theory that it desires to hold and is attached to. Agreement and disagreement is a creation of the mind. This is necessary for contrast and ownership of a belief it holds. I’ve already acknowledged that you are right and I am wrong. And last night I had a conversation with someone in which I illustrated the same ideas you are presenting here. How can we “agree to disagree”? To do so, we need to create an idea that one person holds as true and contrast that with a different idea that another person holds as true. Notice what it’s like to hold ideas lightly without attachment, as you would the ideas within a birdsong. . . Imagine a discussion about geography in which one person only sees a map of France. When the conversation involves Europe, the person says “France is Europe”. Is that correct or incorrect? In a way, it’s correct, yet in another way it’s incorrect since it is contracts Europe within France. From this mindset, someone that claims “Madrid is Europe” will seem like an opposing view. As well, someone saying “All of these cities are Europe” will seem like an opposing view. It’s not that France is technically wrong, it’s just contracted. One would need to hold their map of France lightly to see other maps of Europe and start connecting dots. Yet the mind often thinks “My belief is that France is Europe. This is obviously true. I’m not willing to reject my opinion that France is Europe and accept your opinion that France is not Europe. Let’s agree to disagree”. Yet it’s not about rejecting one view and accepting another. It’s about zooming out and seeing the big picture. When we zoom out and see the big picture of Europe, we are still holding an image of France in our mind, yet we do so loosely - then we can see how France fits into the bigger picture. I’m not disagreeing with you that France is Europe. From one perspective, it is correct. From another perspective it is incorrect. A fluid mind holds these ideas lightly and can see how they are all connected within a bigger picture. France, Madrid, Big Ben, Poland etc. are all Europe.

You are aware of it within the construct you reside. You are creating that “it”. You are not aware of something outside your construct. Again, this is not to say that any awakenings you have had are Illegitimate. Yet you are clearly not fluent in another area. When someone can speak Chinese fluently, it’s totally obvious when someone cannot speak Chinese fluently. Yet this does not suggest that English is “wrong” or has no value. Creating a being called “Serotoninluv” that is making assumptions and trapped within his construct maintains contraction within that construct. It creates a dynamic of “my idea” vs “his idea”. This is the contraction that is being pointing to. To say an expansive view is less inclusive than a contracted view is the silliness. You are creating and attributing an idea of “love” as “Serotoninluv’s” idea that is contrary to your idea. This is your creation. What is pointed at says your idea of love is correct AND there is a more expansive understanding that INCLUDES your idea (as true) within a larger truth. However, if one extrapolates a contracted truth into a broader truth, it becomes a falsehood within the larger truth. This is part of contraction maintenance. The mind creates competing theories of love in which one is true. The mind double downs on this by deferring to “evidence” as the arbiter of truth. Two points you are missing is that I am saying you are right and that I’m wrong. Yet to see this, you would need to let go of your creation of opposing love theories and your attachment to one of those theories. Importantly, letting go does not mean rejecting.