Forestluv

@SOUL I wasn’t aware he could enact a transaction fee on his own. He should highlight that more in his rallies. I hope you are right with M4A. I think when more people become aware of the advantages, momentum will swing. And Bernie wont be afraid to hold rallies in places like west virginia to get holdouts like Manchin on board. I’m getting more excited for the possibility of Bernie. A live in a midwest swing state, so he would definitely have rallies here. I’d love to go to a rally with Cornell West, AOC and Bernie.

My hunch is thats an intellectual construct for you. If you had awakened and embodied the singularity of experience, you probably wouldn’t be on the forum asking if its ok. You could do an experiment: dedicate the next three months of your life being permanently high on substances and see how it goes.

@JonasVE12 This reminds me of chasing experiencing. I'm good while high and not good while sober. I've been in this cyclic dynamic a few times. A much better place is when it doesn't matter if I am high or not. I'm ok either way and there is no desire to leave a sober state and no seeking for "good experiences" while high . Whatever happens, happens. . . One thing that has helped me is to enter those "quasi-like" states. For example, I would be hiking and wouldn't know if I was high or not. I would feel a bit trippy / stoned and question if I took something. And being able to enter intriguing states while sober was really helpful. The hard part about cannabis is that it can be habit forming.

My sense is that any answer I give you will be misleading because you are trying to create grounded concepts. When I was immersed in intellectualizing, I found it helpful to relax the mind and just be. I might have a background question like "what is existence?" and then I would let it go. If I was genuine and reset the question, often times things would appear. I wouldn't even be thinking about it and some type of message or insight about existence would seemingly randomly appear. Or I might have a dream about existence. In addition to relaxing the mind, other things like doing yoga, listening to nonduality speakers, sensory deprivation tanks, lucid dreaming, shamanic breathing and psychedelics were helpful. All of this helped me step out of immersion into intellectualizing. Also, I think you seem to be open and curious - which are important traits, ime.

I think this is a great question to contemplate. What if the belief that "consciousness is self-awareness" was a limiting belief? What if I let go of this belief? Many minds want grounding for security. They want to define things in concrete terms. "If consciousness isn't limited to self-awareness, what is it?". Then the mind can be obsessed with defining it and creating grounding. My mind was very much like this, however it's become much more fluid and comfortable with groundlessness. This is part of the magnificence. If consciousness isn't limited to self-awareness, that is a game-changer. That opens up a whole new world of exploration. This can change one's relationship to reality. Imagine walking through nature without being restricted to "consciousness is self-awareness". All sorts of new things will arise. It's can be so juicy. Go explore with a fluid mind, without pressure of figuring it out. You needn't be attached to any idea that pops up. It's freedom. And on a sidenote: Being able to explore these existential questions is a luxury few people have. 99% of the world's population doesn't have this luxury because they are consumed with surviving.

That is a good inquiry question. Just a couple suggestions that I have found helpful. First, if my mind goes into lots of intellectual analysis, I try to let it go. Yet passing thoughts are fine if I don't get immersed into them. For example, I may go for a walk in nature and ask "what is physical and nonphysical?" and then start walking with a clear mind. Perhaps I hear a bird chirp and the thought arises "was that physical or nonphysical"? Yet then if my mind goes into theory about wavelengths, air disturbances, eardrums etc. - I let it go. . . There is a place of not knowing. It is a beautiful place of curiosity, exploration and discovery. As well, it's not just a matter of either "physical" or "nonphysical". I stay open to the interplay. During my nature walk, perhaps there are things that are "sorta physical and sorta nonphysical". Sorta a combination of both. There are an infinite number of connections between the two. One thing that would be fun for me it to go in nature and look for things that are physical, nonphysical and hybrids of physcial/nonphysical. I observe and observe. It can be fascinating. . . Overtime, the distinction between physical and nonphysical starts to break down and there is awareness of how it's being created. A more contextual approach would be to explore quantum physicals. Also, I've found lucid dreaming and psychedelics to helpful.

I think I'm using the term "consciousness" too promiscuously here and it's causing confusion. Phrases like "personal, collective and absolute consciousness" are things I'm imagining and don't seem to be helpful in this context. A better term for SD might be "cognitive development". For example, a mind at stage yellow has reached a stage of cognitive development in which it understands relativity - yet a mind at stage orange hasn't reached this stage of cognitive development and would not understand relativity. In terms of consciousness, you seem to be using the term in the context of human awareness. For example "how could a rock be conscious? It doesn't have self awareness like I do". Another way of looking at it would be "ISness". Everything is ISness, right? Point to something that isn't ISness. . . . Now imagine being that ISness. . .

Not really. This is moving into more construction. You've now created second-order material consciousness and first-order immaterial consciousness. This is creating more distinctions and dualities. If it were me, I would go more fundamental. I would ask simple questions and not theorize about it. For example "What is physical and nonphysical?" and then sit still in emptiness and see what appears. Observe around you. Don't go into thought stories and analysis. . . .Other good ones are "what is existence?" and "what is real and imagined?". . . Yet when my mind goes into analysis, I let go or take a break. For me, it's more insightful when it is organic arising. For example, I may enter a space in which I cannot tell the difference between real and imagined. For example, I may lay under a tree for hours staring at the leaves flutter and the clouds. I may enter a lucid state of awareness - in which there is no distinction between real and imagined. There just is. When I "return", the mind may start thinking "whoa, what just happened? was that real or was that imagined?". If the mind stays relaxed, insights can arise. For me, coming from a transcendent direction of the implicit and trying to communicate it explicitly is deeper than trying to intellectually / explicitly try to figure out the implicit.

Yes, all of it. Yet this is all within creation. There is transcendence of this that I would describe as full deconstruction to Nothing and full construction to Everything. Such that Nothing = Everything. Yet not in terms of words, images, concepts, ideas, things. Yes. In this context I am communicating as a human being with a personal story over a timeline. In another context, what I wrote is false and I have no understanding of psychedelics as these thoughts and images are merely appearances of "experiences" - similar to the appearances of bird chirps. In this context, I have never done psychedelics in the past and have no experience with them. I'm comfortable with both contexts. I would agree with this. As well, I'm not saying that your ideas and insights don't have value. I think they have value from certain POVs. In this context, I would agree with you. The benefits of psychedelics are relative to the person. I know someone who did psychedelics and contextualized an experience of meeting the Trinity and it confirm everything in the Bible. I've also known a level 1 Reiki student that advanced a full Reiki level during one trip. We were together in Sedona, AZ and it was amazing to observe and feel. These arevery different impacts. So yes, some people just don't resonate with psychedelics. Humans like Sadhguru, Ram Dass and Alan Watts didn't resonate with psychedelics, yet are highly advanced in many areas. Much more advanced than I am at a human level. Yet we don't know to what extent their small amount of psychedelic use shaped them. And I would also agree with those who say that psychedelics can induce dynamics of distraction, confusion, getting lost in illusory constructs, chasing experiences etc. A lot depends on the baseline conscious level of the person and contextualization into an "experience". The question about breaking logic is a tricky one. A person may think they have "broken logic" yet still be using logic. One thing about psychedelics are they are nearly guaranteed to take a person into non-logical realms and it may be shocking. For me, the higher doses are so far beyond logic and symbolic representation it's super hard to describe and I think it takes a lot of trips, integration and embodiment to express the implicit explicitly. Also, this whole discussion is from the perspective of a human person. That's the filter a human person uses "how would it effect me? what's in it for me? What insights can be gained to improve understanding of reality, relationships, insights etc". Yet there is also something beyond this in which there is no personal human. This personal human doesn't matter at all. This opens up a lot. One metaphor I've used is going from an ant consciousness to a human consciousness. Being an ant is now completely irrelevant. Stuff like building ant hills, fighting other ants, having ant sex and figuring out a life purpose of an ant are completely irrelevant. The new human level of consciousness opens up entirely new domains. Upon returning to ant consciousness, it's really hard to express in ant language. All they have are a few pheromones and knock each other antennae. As well, if the other ants said "that was just an illusion you had", it would seem silly (unless the human consciousness was contextualized into a silly ant consciousness - which happens a lot). As well, it would seem odd if asked "how does that experience now help you as an ant?". Why would the perspective of ant consciousness get more relevance than the human consciousness?. . . From the perspective the ant, it might say "Because I'm an ant and I have to live with ants". This has partial truth, yet the tendency for humans is to become attached/identified to their human-centric narrative in the mind.

There are different contexts of "consciousness". We could talk about personal consciousness, social consciousness, collective consciousness and absolute consciousness. We can create lots of distinctions between these categories, yet they are inter-related and would eventually collapse into One consciousness. Saying that everything is consciousness or that everything arises from consciousness would be the context of an absolute, universal consciousness.

@Mongu9719 The term "consciousness" is often used in various relative ways. For example, we could say that someone in a coma is "unconscious" and that I am aware (conscious) right now as I type on my computer. One could also talk about a "social consciousness" or a "collective consciousness". As well, we could talk in terms of an "absolute consciousness" which is everything. A lot of confusion arises when someone is unaware or doesn't understand a term. For example, if I am using the term "consciousness" in the context of a collective consciousness - that will appear odd and confusing to someone that has not contemplated or had direct experience with collective consciousness. They are thinking in terms of personal consciousness - since that is all they are aware of. SD is a theory that uses context of conscious "levels". This incorporates both personal consciousness of an individual and social consciousness of groups of people. Yet it does not use absolute consciousness. (it does somewhat in the Turquoise stage).

@Mongu9719 One thing I find helpful is to take a meta-view. Rather than having to choose between material vs. immaterial - what if both are true? Why can't there be both material and immaterial? Why can't consciousness be composed of both material and immaterial?

@Vladz0r I'm curious how much Bernie could actually get done within a structurally corrupt government. At the very least, there will be no cuts to social programs and he will appoint higher conscious cabinet members and judges than Trump. He will also transform the Democratic party. And international relations will change. And he can do some things through executive order, like legalizing cannabis nationally. I also think he can expunge the records of those with possession convictions and change the schedule class of psychedelics. Yet in terms of policies that need to go through the senate to go into law (like M4A and student debt forgiveness) - there will be a lot of resistance. However, Bernie will change the narrative. Everyday we will hear President Sanders, his cabinet members, vice president and surrogates exposing corruption and those blocking his bills. Changing the national narrative can be powerful, yet I don't know if this will be enough to get some of his policies through. Yet I think it would set a new direction for the country.

I'm not asking what creates consciousness, I'm asking what consciousness itself actually is. You say that "consciousness itself is the physical brain". Really? A physical brain itself is consciousness? Yet if you are conscious of your brain, how can that consciousness be the brain? What is conscious of the brain? You say that consciousness is "a property emerging" out of the brain. Yet for a materialist, what material thing is that "property". The term "property" is vague. Show me the physical thing that is actually that "property". As well, this is still a relatively basic exploration of a personal consciousness. It goes way beyond personal consciousness, including collective consciousness, infinite consciousness etc. I'm asking what material thing consciousness is. You now say that consciousness is "an illusion" or "an outline". An "illusion" or "outline" is an idea. It is not a material thing. What material thing is an "illusion" / "outline". You say that consciousness is the physical brain and then say that consciousness is an illusion. That would mean that the physical brain is an illusion. . .

Stating "the brain produces consciousness" doesn't explain the ISness of consciousness. If the brain produces consciousness, then that means the brain itself is not consciousness. To me, the doesn't do much to answer what consciousness itself actually is. This is a trap of being contracted within materialism. Yet I'm not taking the opposite of immaterialism. . . . Physical vs. Nonphysical is a duality that breaks down. My question for someone that is a pure materialist would be: what material thing is actually consciousness? . . . Not what material thing is associated with consciousness or what material thing produces consciousness. Rather what material thing itself is consciousness?

That is why a variety of direct experience, coupled to concepts, integration and embodiment is important. Ime, I had little understanding of psychedelics early on. After 100+ trips - with various psychedelics, dosages, ROAs, settings and mindsets - and years of integration and embodiment, I have a much better understanding.

All the data indicates Bernie is the strongest candidate against Trump. All the national polls show Bernie performing best, as do all the battleground state polls. The status quo doesn't like Bernie because when he beats Trump, business as usual for the status quo is over. For example, Bernie will re-structure the DNC and the democratic party to be more progressive. Also, I think there are a handful of congressional democrats in moderate / republican-leaning districts worried about their re-election chances if Bernie is the nominee.

@Annoynymous It's a relative spectrum. Relative to Trump and Bloomberg, yes Pete is liberal. I would also make a distinction between proposing something and fighting for it. For example, Pete has mentioned a tax on billionaires. Yet this would need a fighter to get through the Senate. Is Pete really going to put all his political capital down in an effort to raise taxes on the wealthy when he is funded by the wealthy? Is Pete going to go into Kentucky and hold rallies against McConnell to raise taxes on the wealthy? I would say, no way. Would Bernie fight that hard to raise taxes on Billionaires? You betcha. He has been doing it his entire life. And yes, Pete is much better than Trump and I think voters would support him, if he wins the primary voters. If Bernie wins a plurality of votes and Pete is selected the nominee by the democratic establishment, I think that would fracture and destroy the democratic party, since that move would be anti-democratic.

@Mongu9719 Yes, I understand the model and the association of material to consciousness. Yet the model above is a model relating material to consciousness. It does not explain what consciousness itself is. You said this was a materialistic model of consciousness. What I'm asking is what exactly is the material thing that is consciousness. Would you say that the material brain tissue itself is consciousness?

My apologies. I should re-phrase: . . . To me, the opinions written about psychedelics under the word "lento" are based on little understanding. A lot of people on the forum are into personal development, so sometimes I use personal contexts. My intention was not to stimulate an inter-personal conflict. Everything written can be phrased impersonally. Yet it can get a bit awkward at times. If someone doesn't know, isn't it best just to say that? Sadhguru carries a lot of authority with many people. His words carry a lot of weight. To me, the most responsible thing for such a person is to acknowledge they don't know and perhaps lead them to someone that might know more. If someone asked me about using acupuncture for a health condition, I wouldn't start throwing out stuff about acupuncture like I knew what I was talking about - I know very little and have never tried it. I would suggest that contact those that actually have understanding of acupuncture. It's amazing to me how high a spiritual being can go, yet still be unable to realize, acknowledge and express "I don't know".

Warren would be my #2 choice, yet she is nowhere near the level of Bernie in fighting corruption. . . Warren could probably get a couple bills past in which corporations and billionaires concede some profits. Billionaires can see the level of public unrest. It's in their own interest to throw working people some crumbs, so they can maintain their plutocracy. Warren is not going to fight to fundamentally change the system and deconstruct the plutocracy like Bernie would. Warren has a corporate super-pac for goodness sake. . . Yet she is much much better than Trump or Bloomberg and moderately better than any democratic candidate not named Bernie. I doubt Bernie will choose Warren as his VP. Bernie's entire life has been dedicated to fighting corruption and plutocracy, fighting for workers rights, decent wages and equality. He is not a normal politician, he is a once in a generation politician. His highest priority is to pick someone that is a leader in the movement. Someone like AOC (if she was old enough). Warren isn't within the movement. @Vladz0r I would think for Yang to have a chance at VP he would need to endorse Bernie soon and become part of the movement.

Please tell me how that area of the brain "lighting up" is consciousness. Is consciousness the light? Is consciousness a neuron? Is a neurotransmitter consciousness? Exactly what physical component is consciousness?

Healthcare for all is not "forced onto" anyone. Everyone wants healthcare. Nobody would not say "no thanks, I don't want healthcare. Don't force healthcare onto me. I'd rather suffer in pain and die". Nobody thinks like that. Ask Canadians what they think about having "healthcare for all forced upon them". They would look at you oddly. It's like asking an American "How do you like having your fire department forced onto you?". . . Huh??. . . Everybody wants healthcare and deserves healthcare. Last year, I had an UTI and kidney stone that was extremely painful and would have been life threatening without healthcare. I needed health care to survive, not "people to care for one another". I needed a urologist, a surgeon, an anesthesiologist and a nurse. Are these healthcare providers the "people" you are referring to? Because my friends, family, coworkers etc. couldn't do jack squat. They gave me emotional support, yet I would have been screwed without healthcare. I am fortunate to have access to healthcare. Yet, what about the tens of millions of people that don't have healthcare in a similar situation? They're screwed. The people around them will not be able to to provide healthcare to them. As well, the millions of homeless people don't even have a social network for emotional support. Do we just deny them healtcare and let them suffer, while billionaires are making hundreds of billions of dollars profiting in healthcare? Should millions of people suffer in illness so a healthcare executive can make his billions and buy his third yacht that he doesn't even use, yet looks great sitting in a harbor? Healthcare for all will improve health for everyone. It will improve the health of the communities we live in.

Hmm hat's a good question. . . I would say yes with a caveat. . . When I feel entertained and engaged with what's happening now. I don't want to change now, I'm enjoying what's happening now. For me, boredom is a form of dissatisfaction with what's happening now. It's not enough. There is a desire to have a better now. This might motivate me to take some action to entertain myself and get relief from the boredom. Or I might sulk in the boredom. I like how you phrased it as "Can boredom become a gate to presence?". Rather than the gate to presence. I'd say it is a gate to the presence of now (yet not the only gate). Boredom is a gate, because it is resistance to now. . . . Consider the experience many people have with meditation. Often the monkey mind gets lost in thought and a person might feel frustrated. It's also common for new meditators to feel bored. That is often how being presence of now is perceived. The mind is conditioned to perceive in terms of past and future. When past and future dissolves, now is often perceived as boring. Thoughts like "Is this it? Staring at a wall? What's supposed to happen?". . . Working through this boredom can be a gate of entry into deeper levels of now - what is happening now is infinite - with infinite exploration (just as much as past and future exploration) - yet at first now can seem so ordinary thats its boring. In a way, boredom is a guardian of deeper truth.

@Lento To me, you have little understanding of psychedelics. You seem to have created a structure and want to maintain that structure. That's fine, yet it tends to produce a dynamic of debate in which "I'm right" and "You're wrong". This doesn't allow openness, space and curiosity for exploration and expansion. If you would like to deepen your understanding of psychedelics, I think a great way is to try them. Yet not everyone is curious about deepening their understanding in this area - and that's fine. To each their own. These are just observations based on my experience and current level of understanding. If this doesn't resonate with you and is unhelpful, feel free to dismiss it.