Forestluv

I too would love to see an environment in which new questions are explored for the sake of curiosity, truth and progress. As you say, influences such as funding and agenda can corrupt. I see this a lot in scientific research and it’s getting worse as capitalism engulfs scientific research. Imo, questioning mainstream views for the sake of being anti-mainstream will create a dilemma. Mainstream views include that which is true, partially true and untrue. If a mind decides to reject all mainstream views, it will successfully filter out all the untrue views. Yet this comes at a cost - the mind will also filter out true mainstream views and partially true mainstream views. As well, the mind will be attracted to all anti-mainstream views, many of which are false or partially false. Such a mind will be gullible and vulnerable to any anti-mainstream outlet - includes nefarious outlets. I think this is one of the major issues for younger generations. There is an enormous amount of conflicting information online and not just news outlets - also social media. And people + algorithms are getting very good at disseminating misinformation - often in the name of “anti-mainstream”. I see many people believing whacky ideas because they are anti-mainstream.

I’m not referring to the “upfrontness”, I am referring to the frame. I’m happy to say it is an upfront, bad frame. It’s not just a new idea to be open to, it is the framing. We could easily be upfront with a more accurate frame. For example we could ask “Are you aware bacteria and viruses are only one variable of many that contribute to diseases?”. This is an upfront, accurate frame, however the publisher wouldn’t use it because it is not aligned with it’s intention to convince the readers that bacteria and viruses don’t contribute to disease. It would be like someone saying “Genetics doesn’t cause Schizophrenia”. This is partially true, yet highly misleading. Certain genes forms can contribute to Schizophrenia, yet are insufficient by themselves to cause Schizophrenia. There are many variables, including environmental variables. It’s thought that dozens of genes each contribute to Schizophrenia, yet collectively genetics only contributes about 65% and environmental 35%. . . Similarly, we could hypothesize that microbes are only one variable of many that contribute to a illness/disease, yet on their own are insufficient to cause a illness/disease. . . . In contrast, the claim that microbes in no way contribute to any illness/disease would be inaccurate. As well, the claim that microbes are the only causative agent of every illness/disease is also inaccurate. Both extremes are inaccurate, because it’s not an either / or binary situation. There is an inter-relationship of many factors - including (yet not limited to) microbes. I criticized them for their framing right out of the gate, not an agenda. These are two separate things. For example, if I asked you “When did you stop beating your child?”. The framing is bad, regardless of agenda. The framing assumes that you have a child and that you beat your child. As well, over simplification is a red flag for someone understands underlying complexity. Sometimes there is a balance between oversimplification and accuracy when trying to articulate understanding. For example, I was helping my niece with her biology homework and explained how genes have either a dominant or recessive allele. Technically, this statement isn’t 100% accurate. Yet in this situation, sacrificing some accuracy is worth it to be able to articulate a fundamental point. As she continues her education, we can add in complexities and nuances. In a few years she will fully understand the dominant vs recessive nature of genes and I will tell her “Remember how I told you there was only dominant and recessive alleles? Well, that ins’t totally accurate. . . check this out, there are also other forms”. In this context, removing complexity and accuracy for the sake of simplicity and fundamentals is not misleading. Yet in other contexts, oversimplification is misleading and hinders articulating understanding. The statement “microbes don’t cause disease” is so oversimplified that it is misleading. And the article double-downed on this misleading frame by repetitively trying to dismiss how microbes can be a contributing factor to disease.

When vaccines are prepared well for serious diseases, vaccines have strong benefits for society that outweigh the negatives. Most vaccines have trace heavy metals which are not good for the body to accumulate over time. For most people, such trace heavy metals will not show obvious negative consequences (although they could be one of many variables that contributes to an illness). As well, a portion of the population may have genetic or nutritional deficiencies that make them more vulnerable to vaccines. However on balance, I would say that, for serious diseases, the benefits of vaccines outweighs the negatives. Ideally, vaccine design would prioritize the wellbeing of individuals and society. Yet when we mix in toxic capitalism, politics, greed, power dynamics, misinformation etc. an altruistic intention can get corrupted. The question you raise about transparency is a core ethical concern of informed consent. Without transparency and accurate information, how can someone give informed consent? This is one of my main ethical issues in pharmaceutical research. For example, pharmaceutical-based research of Tamiflu removed data and misrepresented data. Their Tamiflu product was then marketed worldwide, which was later found to be mostly ineffective with lots of side effects. The pharmaceutical manufacturer was later found to have intentionally conducted bad science. This can be remedied somewhat by peer-reviewed publications, yet that can get corrupted too. As well, the structure of drug design sets up an inherent conflict of interest. By the time a drug reaches stage 4 clinical trials, 100s of millions of dollars are invested as well as the careers of researchers. It’s high stakes for the researchers, their funding and shareholders. This is a huge conflict of interest which leads to biased science (either intentionally or unintentionally). A country lacking altruistic intentions, integrity and transparency will also lack trust within the populace. In such an environment, I would not be comfortable. Yet keep in mind, it’s not black and white. For example, in the US there are both ethical and unethical practices of pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, the unethical aspects can get exaggerated and amplified in media through partially correct and partial misinformation. Below is a good video looking at “bad science”. It includes the mechanisms of generic bogus claims (like eating grapes prevents breast cancer). Yet also looks under the hood at how pharmaceutical companies can conduct biased, bad research and even publish it. However, this not to say all pharmaceutical research is biased/bad. Imo, the presenter is legit and see different perspectives clearly. Ben Godacre is a *real* physician that understands science and how people manipulate science to their own advantage.

Right off the bat, there is poor framing. The first sentence is “Do bacteria cause disease? Do viruses?”. . . That is horrible framing. It sets up a binary decision of whether or not bacteria and viruses cause disease. That is the foundation of the entire article. Such a binary construct will miss intricacies and nuances. Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? If we say ‘no’, we limit ourselves to diseases independent of disease. We exclude ourselves from learning and understanding microbial-based diseases. As well, the mind will not be open to see the interactions between microbial and non-microbial aspects of disease. For example, how the microbiome in the gut interacts with the genetic background in the grain. Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? If we say ‘yes’, it allows more space - yet it too can be limiting. For example, if we believe that only microbes cause disease, we will not be open to learning about non-microbial diseases. As well, we would not be open to viewing interactions between microbial and non-microbial within a disease. For example, someone may have a poor diet that leads to inefficient cellular respiration and a compromised immune system. Opportunistic bacteria may be able to gain traction in this body that was already compromised. So is the disease caused by the poor diet or by the bacteria? Both. Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? The best answer would be “yes and no” and then an open exploration. Since the article is grounded in “no”, it will be inherently misleading. It had some truths, yet it is also has misleading statements contextualized to support the underlying agenda of the article.

It seems like you may have created a dualistic construct of perception. Your mind perception is either presence or intense thinking. Such dualistic constructs can create value judgements (presence is good, thinking is bad) as well as desire (I want to experience presence, I don’t want to experience thinking). This in turn can lead to an internal conflict. There are many realms to explore within presence and within thinking. As well as the dissolution of dualistic boundaries. For example, the presence of thinking. One can change their relationship to presence / thinking and expand their exploration and awareness. In practical terms of quieting an over-active monkey mind, a few things I’ve learned: —The thinking mind wants to control the narrative, create thought stories to be grounded and decide what is true. —Loss of narrative control can feel uncomfortable and the mind may try to reclaim control —Thinking is like a drug and deprivation of thinking can feel like drug withdrawl A few things that have helped to reduce thought activity —A key has been becoming aware of attachment/identification to thoughts, rather than the thoughts themselves —To realize all thought constructs are sandcastles, not concrete. This realization makes it much easier to let go of thoughts. —Letting go of the desire and grasping to have a 100% thought-free presence. —Allowing thoughts to be background noise, like background traffic. They are just stray thoughts passing by. —To get curious about exploring non-thought realms —The awareness of “Divine Cognition”. These are “thoughts” that appear that are not generic self-centered thoughts. In a way, they aren’t really “thoughts” since distinctions break down. Intuition, empathy, feelings, beingness, thoughts are are integrated.

Leo did a video series on conscious politics starting here: As well there is a conscious politics resource thread here:

I am a reputable scientist that conducts research and teaches at a University. For your mind to remain locked into a conspiracy paradigm, you must maintain an either / or mindset and remain blind to nuances. That is your choice. I am not 100% pro-vaccine or 100% anti-vaccine. I am able to see nuances, degrees and multiple perspectives. I am often critical of corporate impacts. I teach a University class on the bioethics of pharmaceutical research, drug design and dissemination. I have many ethical concerns regarding pharmaceuticals. You guys are just scratching the surface of unethical corporate practices in medical research and treatment. . . However, it is not black and white. You can choose to see the issue as black and white if you wish, or you can expand your mind to see gray areas and nuances. As well, notice how you immediately categorized me as an “enforcer of the corporate regime”. Such quick categorization is often reflective of a binary mind locked in a perspective. If I am an enforcer of the corporate regime, why would I teach a University class about how unethical and harmful the corporate regime is?. . . If you stay locked within your paradigm, you would need to create a bizarre conspiracy story about how I am a corporate regimist using reverse psychology on pre-med students to promote corporate control. You can twist yourself into a pretzel if you like. . . Or you can let go of attachment to one view and start exploring and learning in a way that expands your mind.

This is perception through a narrow lens. There is some truth to what you write, yet it is narrow. Trying to extrapolate a narrow view into wide view will create distortion because nuances and dots outside the narrow view are not integrated. For example, you have the luxury to have the view you do. You don’t need to worry about contracting polio, smallpox or a variety of other diseases because people before you took vaccines. You take that for granted. As well, your hyper libertarian view will get distorted at the population level. For vaccines to be effective, a threshold percentage of the population needs to take the vaccine. By your logic, a misinformed public in which 30% of the population refuses a vaccine will make the vaccine ineffective at the population level. This would have negative consequences at the social level. Illness and death would increase. The economy and healthcare system would be damaged. There would be enormous cost at the population level. This isn’t fascism. That is paradigm-locked into an anti-government, libertarian perspective. A mind locked in this perspective will be unable to see the medical and social benefits that come from vaccines. There are many intricacies and nuances about vaccines. As well, I’m also seeing another odd idea that Big Pharma profits big off vaccines. . . From a capitalist perspective, pharmaceutical industries do not like investing in vaccines. The profit motive isn’t there. Often they just break even. Pharmaceutical companies dread investing the immense amount of workforce and money into developing a vaccine that is only used once. The profits are too low. Pharmaceuticals would much rather have chronic illnesses in which people need to take the drug daily - such as hypertension medication. That is where the profits are. Regarding Bill Gates. . . a lot of you are locked into an angel vs. demon duality. Personalities are not that simple and not easily categorized into a binary system. Has Bill Gates stepped on some backs to accumulate his wealth? Yes. Is his ego involved with his latest Coronavirus fame? Likely. . . However, Gates also has genuine desire to help others. For example, he has invested 100s of millions of dollars into research and treatment of tropical diseases. These are neglected diseases that cause and immense amount of pain and suffering. Very little resources are invested to help these are poor people in developing countries that have no voice. Research and treatment money go toward diseases of developed, wealthier countries such as cancer. Gates has invested 100s of millions into diseases that affect 100s of millions of poor people that are neglected. For example, we have made huge progress in combating and treating river blindness, a disease common in poor areas of Africa. Gates isn’t profiting off this, nor is it bringing him fame or fortune.

Yes. I’m not sure if the optimal vaping temp. My vape only goes up to 428F which works, yet is likely inefficient. If I had a higher setting, I would try it.

@Schahin As soon as the mind tries to contextualize awakening as an idea or experience, it is partial. Totality cannot be fully captured within any imagination, since that imagination is within totality. ‘Going Deeper” is a construct that is easy for the mind to comprehend and get some grounding while exploring groundlessness. The ideas of ‘progress’ and ‘going deeper’ has a lot of practical value at the human level. It helps give us reference points along the journey and communicate with each other. Yet ultimately, ‘deeper’ is a relative term. Are there infinite layers to awakening? Yes and no. Infinity is infinite, so of course there will be infinite layers. As well, there is singularity of reality, so of course there are not infinite layers of awakening. . . Reality includes all contradictions. It’s so beautiful and liberating.

@Chumbimba If you only made it 7min., you might want to start slower for the first five minutes and perhaps on an empty stomach. I also get dry mouth and a desire to swallow - which u fortuanely breaks the rhythm of the breathing. Yet after about 10min, the breathing starts breathing itself and I may go into a lucid zone in which I don’t notice the dry mouth and tingly face/hands/feet. It can be uncomfortable getting there, yet afterwards I always feel like it was worth it

@william bond It’s fine to discuss different psychedelics, doses, ROAs, mindset, settings, trip reports and integration. However, discussing sources is against forum guidelines. Here is a list Leo put together of psychedelics that have value in spiritual work and those that lack value or are not safe https://www.actualized.org/insights/psychedelic-wishlist

Look closer at the last refrigerator. . . Yes!!! ?

About 40% blue, 45% orange and 15% green.

Very close! You may have missed something about the last caterpillar ?

The Zen of Observation. . .

Look closer!

Round 3. Ding! Ding!

@SilentTears Sneaky sneakers! Lol. Thats good.

@Thought Art The one nahm posted is the new party. I’ve got 27

@Roy The answer is not 12. . .

I get 27.

@Nahm Nice variation! I don’t think the answer is 11 for this one. . .

11 (not two)

@Endangered-EGO One can be advanced in some areas and simultaneously be a newbie in other areas. One of the great pleasures of exploration.