Forestluv

@4201 The video was not a criticism of you. It was a playful poke at Leo and Meta-Man’s interaction. I thought you might find it humorous. Thanks for sharing your personal views. I was unaware of that dynamic and I will adjust my communication accordingly.

@4201

No, I didn’t know there was a second serve. That’s a game-changer!!

Without understanding the underlying structure, there will not be clarity. The issue of underlying structure here is Sameness vs. Difference. Leo covers this well in this video. Without this understanding, one will not be aware of how they are conflating sameness and difference, as well as absolute and relative. If someone seeks an absolute answer within a relative context, there will not be clarity because the mind is not aware of how it is creating relative distinctions. The structure of your frame has an underlying assumption that “acceptance” and “love” have distinctions and then asks if they are the same, without distinctions. Without awareness of the underlying assumption, the mind will conceptualize forever without making any progress. It’s like asking “Does A = B?” without realizing the underlying assumption that there are distinctions between A and B. As well, the frame does not look at the inter-rationship between parts and whole. It would be like asking “Is a leg a body?”. This cannot be answered as “yes” or “no” because the framing assumes a distinctive part of the whole. If we answer “yes, the leg is the body”, this is only partially correct. If we answer “no, the leg is not the body” it is also only partially correct. Similarly, “love” is and is not acceptance. The mind is oriented toward categorizing as either “the same” or as “different opposites”. With this orientation, the mind will not have the fluidity to see different contextual perspectives, inter-relatedness along various dimensions and simultaneous truth and falsity. Yet all of this are still theoretical constructs. There is also post-theory that cannot be accessed through intellectual constructs. Here, it is best to relax the min and simply inquire “what is love?” without any theorizing or constructing.

@ShugendoRa As you have been previously told, we don’t do that here and please don’t raise those distractions.

I’ve practiced my “smile serve” this morning. I’m discovering there are a variety of serves.

@Surfingthewave Thanks for sharing your views. I find value in them and have reflected upon many of the observations / interpretations you have raised. One thing I’ve learned is to pause when I encounter someone that is genuinely reflective since the mirror of reflection often reveals insight for me. One thing that arises is about allowing space for exploration. It’s a tricky balance to maintain. Without any boundaries, things become an “anything goes” mess. An example, would be something like 4chan. Yet on the other end of the spectrum, highly restrictive boundaries are stifling. For example, adhering to narrow dogma. This doesn’t allow space to express, breath, explore and grow. For me, it gets tricky because it’s not always “either / or”. I’ve been in various groups in which there seemed to be lack of boundaries in some areas and overly restrictive boundaries in other areas. It gets even trickier when I factor in my own relative interpretation of “too little” and “too much”. Generally, I try to trust underlying resonance and intuition. Sometimes it says to change direction. Other times it says to stay put and observe something new. And sometimes it’s a combination. I wish you the best in finding that resonance. You are welcomed to participate here to any extent you want, or not at all. Whichever your path leads is perfect.

@ShugendoRa Please don’t create manufactured drama. No one has said we should “hate” Sam Harris and no one has said Sam Harris is a “bad man”. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not intentionally trolling here. In the future, please be mindful of creating distorted frames that are inflammatory. A better frame would be “What are Sam Harris’ gaps of understanding? What are his misunderstandings?”. Framing it as “Everyone says we should hate Sam Harris because he is a bad man. Why should we hate Sam Harris? Why is Sam Harris a bad man?”. This is based on inaccurate assumption that can be distractive, potentially inflammatory and counter-productive to exploring and deepening one’s understanding. Sam Harris and JP are perfect as they are. They are evolving and growing just like the rest of us. This doesn’t mean we should each have perfect understanding of everything. Both Sam and JP have value - if they resonate with you, great.

Sure, there can be some of that as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. You asked the questions “What is Reality? How is Reality = Love?” To me, those are abstract existential questions that won’t attract concrete responses. And as you observe, some people may parrot existential-sounding answers without understanding. Others may have partial understanding and still working through things and others have a relatively deep understanding. It can be a mixed-bag which can create a sense of fog, confusion and irritation. Along these lines, I remember getting really annoyed with a buddhist group I participated with. To me, they often spoke in these stupid nonsensical riddles to sound spiritual. Like: “when you drink a cup of tea, it is the tea drinking itself”. I often got annoyed and said “could you please express yourself in normal English. Just state upfront and clearly what it is”.

@Roy Yes, that is consistent with what I wrote. Leo described this in his process video on discovering truth.

I don’t like experimenting on vertebrates. My experiments involve creating a variety of genetic mutants, toxins, fixations and dissections. I don’t like exposing vertebrates to that. They are too far up the evolutionary ladder and sentient. I don’t want to cause them suffering. In laymans’s terms, neuralplasticity is the ability of neuronal circuits to rewire itself. A simple example of this is learning. Imagine learning a new language. In the beginning, you keep forgetting the vocabulary words. Yet with repetition, word association, imagination etc, you begin to remember the words automatically. New synapses have formed and are strengthened. There are many examples of neurological conditions that could be helped with psychedelics. For example, depression and PTSD. Yet I’m not interested in human experiments. Yet these conditions are difficult to study in invertebrate model organisms. Its not straightforward to study something like depression in fruit flies. . . So I would likely study the basics mechanics of neural plasticity. For example, the structure of synapses and neurotrophic factor expression induced by psychedelics. As well, there are good invertebrate models for nuerodenegertive diseases, such as Huntington’s and Parkinson’s disease. We can see if psychedelics can help alleviate the symptoms. Several psychedelics have been shown to induce neural plasticity at the cellular level, including LSD, DMT. MDMA, Psilocybin and 5-Mel-dmt. As well, these compounds have been shown effective at relieving symptoms in humans at the organismal level. Yet we know very little about the mechanisms and how cellular changes relate to changes at the organismal level. For example, how does rewiring serotonin synapses in certain regions of the brain relate to reduced PTSD intensity? I appreciate your interest in this research. Yet I also don’t want to derail the thread, so I’ll be stepping aside.

I’m interested in the neuroplastic-stimulating effects of psychedelics. I don’t like working with cell culture or vertebrates, so I’d work with an invertebrate. There are many invertebrate models of neurological conditions. Some experiments can test if psychedelics can rescue neurological abnormalities at both the cellular and organismal level. For example, we could examine neurite growth with various antibody markers. Yet for me, a higher level would be how to guide neuralplasticity beneficially. We don’t want the brain to rewire in a messy manner. Basic generation of synapses is fairly easy to test, yet the more complex circuitry would be very difficult to examine. As well, a higher level is to actually experiment on one’s self by ingesting psychedelics and working through the process. With enough skill, one can work within multiple levels - cellular, organismal, energetic, nonphysical, collective etc.

Hogwash. . . It depends on context. Vaping 5-Meo is very gentle, yet also deeply profound. The user has lots of control over intensity. I can’t think of a better introduction for a novice than vaping 5-Meo. I’ve done over a dozen psychedelics and by far the most gentle is vaping 5-Meo. (Vaping, not smoking). I’d say it’s even more gentle than San Pedro, because the body load is much lower. However, a breakthrough experience on 5-Meo for a novice is a different context. That I wouldn’t recommend. And setting is also a factor.

@wordsforliving I spent 25 years meditating and felt like I was still at surface levels. I had my first trip at about 45y.o. That one trip was more insightful than the previous 25 years of meditation combined. If you haven’t done traditional psychedelics, that’s were I would start. They can be an incredibly powerful tool. I wouldn’t narrow it down to 5-Meo or bust. I’ve gone to incredibly deep zones of love with Ayahuasca, 4-Aco-dmt and LSD. In some ways stronger than 5-Meo. One can also enter deep direct experiences of Now and the source of Divine wisdom. I could go on and on about the dozens of transcendent experiences I’ve had with traditional psychedelics. If you haven’t exhausted traditional psychedelics, I would go there. Just get some 4-aco-dmt or 1p-lsd online. We can’t source here, yet it’s very easy to find with google. You could have your first transcendent experience in the comfort of your home within the next two weeks.

It can be, depending on dose, mindset and setting. Plus, I suppose some background physiology could come into play. I’ve done synthetic 5-Meo in a peaceful, familiar setting (my home). I get into a relaxed mind and body state. My heart rate goes up perhaps 20bpm - from about 70 resting to 90 - which is about my walking bpm, so no big deal. I’ve felt minor constriction, yet I think this is more to do with mild anxiety. For those that have an extreme physiological response, I would speculate that there may be a background condition, or high anxiety/panic due to one’s personality and setting. When I was new to psychedelics, I had anxiety/panic issues and was very careful about setting. If I ingested toad venom deep in a Peruvian jungle with tribesmen in face paint danicing and people on 5-Meo flopping around on the ground like fish, you bet my heart rate, anxiety and panic would have gone through the roof. @fridjonk The imagery that arises for me with 5-Meo is that of a block of perfectly clear crystal. Within that crystal is perfect clarity and anything can arise within it due to its infinite clarity. For me, I can compare all traditional psychedelics to one another, yet I don’t compare 5-Meo to any other psychedelic since everything arises within the clarity of 5-Meo. . . . It would be like comparing a bird to a butterfly and then comparing a birds and butterflies to air. It doesn’t make sense because both birds and butterflies appear within the clarity of air. . . I resonate very strongly with clarity. I’m not the biggest fan of bells and whistles that traditional psychedelics offer. Yet I could see how someone might find the clarity of 5-Meo to be insufficiently entertaining and boring. Especially for those that like CEVs. It’s a thin syringe, not a 10” dildo. Good grief. . .

From what I’ve read of your experience with psychedelics, you seem ready and in a good place. I would follow your heart and what’s worked for you. For me, if I feel a calling, I trust it. Heading into the trip, I try to have a genuine, positive mindset - one of openness, curiosity and anticipation. And I like just a smidge of nervousness mixed with giddiness. A little bit of nervous is reflective that this is an important new event for me and the giddiness is reflective that I’m excited about it. The days preceding a trip, I try to nourish my mind and body - I will avoid junk food and negative stuff - like negative news, arguments, disturbing movies etc. Rather, I’d spend some time in nature, yoga, creating art etc.

Part of the issue is how questions are framed. The question “What is Reality? How does Reality = Love?”. Is an existential framing that will attract metaphysical and abstract responses - not concrete responses. If we want to learn about love in a practical manner for self improvement, a concrete question frame will attract practical, concrete responses. For example, we could ask “What steps can I take to expand my capacity to Love?”. With this frame, we can give specific concrete ideas about specific actions toward self improvement and expanding Love in one’s life. I can think of about five concrete ideas off the top of my head. In general, I would say the forum heavily leans toward abstract thinkers, as you have observed. A concrete thinker would usually need to explicitly frame a question in concrete terms to get concrete, practical responses. I’ve seen how maddening it can be. I’m naturally an abstract thinker and I often unintentionally drive concrete thinkers crazy.

It’s amazing how little has changed since Leary pushed the boundaries of psychedelics in academics. Yet the first couple dominoes have now fallen. Last summer, a student and I did a study with a psychedelic-like psychoplastogen called DOI. It partially rescued neuromuscular defects in insects, supporting a model that psychoplastogens stimulate neuroplasticity. Undercover, I spiked a couple solutions with my private stash of 5-Meo and got similar results. It sucks that I would get Timothy-Learied if I revealed data showing neuromuscular healing properties of 5-Meo. The structure of scientific research can be so messed up. Yet I can’t stand the politics, egos and closed-mindedness in the status-quo of science and have an aversion to getting involved in that cluster. I’m able to teach at a yellow level. Many orange/green level scientists are ok with Yellow. It may seem “eccentric” in some ways, yet there is something appealing about Yellow to Orange. The problem is when I try to add in some Turquoise. I’d get Deepak Chopra’d. It’s too much for an academic world. Even though Turquoise can be the most important lessons in life, it is seen as “impractical” and “woo woo” by Tier 1. Especially by Orange. This was the first semester I told students that I did an Ayahuasca retreat and described the direct experience in terms of imagination/reality, psychosis, insight and direct experience knowing (vs. theoretical knowing). I haven’t gotten any pushback so far, which is a good sign. Yet I felt the need to stress that Ayahuasca retreats are totally legal in Peru, which felt weird to say.

As was referring to allopathic doctors in general. It’s great to see some specialized doctors in psychiatry getting some formal education in psychedelics. Contemporary psychiatry often incorporates a lot of biochemistry, neuroscience and pharmacology - so it doesn’t surprise me that they are open to psychedelics. The biochemists I know seem more curios and open-minded - yet that their thing - to design molecules and manipulate biochemical pathways. As well, there have quite a few papers now published in neuroscience and biochemistry of psychedelics. . . The psychologists I know seem to be lagging behind, especially the older ones. They seem to be stuck in traditional therapies that they were trained in or more modern techniques that are mild, such as CBT. Yet, they seem to come around slower with something radical like psychedelics (in spite of all the psychological publications). Perhaps it’s far outside their comfort zone and the effectiveness of psychedelics could be a threat to their traditional therapies and way of life. A traditional psychologist would need a lot of new training, not something like a workshop. More like an entire course.

I admire Leo for this. It’s not easy to do. If I researched psychedelics in my lab, there would be legal implications. I’m more concerned about the stupid legalities than my reputation as a scientist. Many of my students and colleagues don’t consider me a “real scientist” anymore. They don’t consider me a “quack” - more like an “alternative version”.

Love created Love. Because it is what it is. ISness is ISness. Any dualistic construct will eventual become circular as it collapses into nonduality. It’s fun to create constructs, yet it becomes frustrating when we try to build concrete constructs made of sand.

Yes. To any observer, like the people in the cafe, it was just an ordinary story. I guy enters, orders a sandwich, takes the sandwich to go and eats the sandwich in a park. Yet in my internal world, it was extremely dramatic. I almost stood up screaming in the cafe - which would have appeared “psychotic”. Yet it was 100% real to me. . . These types of experiences have given me more understanding and empathy for those that have “psychoses” like delusional schizophrenia. I have a pretty good idea what that’s like.

I could lose my job and face criminal prosecution. . . It’s against the law for me to use psychedelics in my research. There are some simple experiments I could do at home, yet I need some equipment and reagents at the University to do what I want to do. And if I was to publish in a scientific journal, it would be rejected (and I would likely face severe consequences). I suppose I could try to do some simple experiments at my home, yet it would be very limited because I don’t have any equipment and it would be a big time investment. Plus, I wouldn’t be able to publish it in a reputable peer-reviewed source. It would be more like an open internet source that wouldn’t get disseminated very well. There is currently an effort to relax restrictions and regulations on psychedelic research, yet changes come slowly. Perhaps in the next five years or so.

Research is expanding. Unfortunately, psychedelics are a schedule I substance and it is nearly impossible for me to get clearance. I would need to secure a large grant and then apply to get approved. And then. . .there would be a ton of regulation. I can easily order enough mercury to kill wipe out an entire city, yet I’m unable to get a 1 nanogram of LSD that wouldn’t be enough to make a fruit fly trip. I have collaborated a bit with an approved-lab. I’ve used “psychedelic-like” compounds like DOI with insects (looking at neuromuscular effects). I’ve also done some experiments with standard psychedelics independently and have found certain psychedelics can partially rescue neurological defects in insects. Yet it is hard to stay motivated because I can’t tell anybody about these results - not my students or colleagues. I can’t present it at meetings or publish it. That totally sucks and it sucks the life out of the inquiry. I can make discoveries to satisfy my personal curiosity, yet I can’t share my discoveries with anyone. This is an area in which the structure of scientific research is counter-productive. Although I can’t speak about my research results with psychedelics, I can speak about psychedelics in general and help educate the scientific community.

I love this exercise!!! One thing I would add is to create a genuine smile - as if you are smiling to a good friend you care about (rather than it appearing as a forced smile or constipation). I have had so many brief, yet meaningful, moments with smiling with people. All sorts of people from around the world. Many people that I woldn’t have anything in common with. A smile can be a connection. It can transcend all identities and opinions. And it’s amazing how many flavors of connections can be formed through a shared smile. I’ve had people pause and smile back as if they were touched. . . . One time, I was running down a country road and was passing by a farmer in the field. I know nothing about farming. It’s another world. And our worldviews are likely completely different. Yet that doesn’t matter because a genuine smile transcends that. I gave him a smile and he paused and smiled back. There was a brief moment of connection that we experienced together. It’s brief, yet if we pay attention, we can fully experience it. Like the gap between thoughts,. . .