Forestluv

@SOUL That sounds great. ?? I was trying to get to something else, yet we don’t seem to be on the same frequency.

Ideas + ideas + idea + ideas = ideology. The context in which I'm using the term "ideology" is a related set of ideas. I would consider a set of ideas about "being present" to be an ideology. This does not suggest I disagree with the ideas. I think one question you allude to has insight value. That is "can there be attachment even if there is no identification?". I would say yes. Attachment can be very subtle. In it's most subtle form, any word, thought, image or perception is a subtle attachment.

Generally positive. I need to present it in a way that is rational and grounded. I see science, metaphysics and mysticism all inter-related. It's not like I go into "woo woo" mode about meditation and then say "ok, let's shift back to real science now". . . . Rather than speaking three different languages, it's like I'm speaking one integrated language. . . The only area I can't do very well is chakras. I just don't have enough direct experience and embodiment. It's like I'm presenting someone else's ideas and understanding. I just briefly mention it and move on. . . Yet I could easily do a whole semester on the science/mysticism of psychedelics.

I see it as a spectrum. In terms of genuinely wanting to lift up poor and working class people to have dignified, decent lives. . . I would put Tucker above Hannity/Limbaugh and below Bernie/Cornell.

That would be fine, yet it is a very different contextualization. At a blue level “I believe in god” is a religious external god. I might get some sneers from my orange and green students/colleagues - yet they wouldn’t find it threatening or want to stigmatize me. At green level, I could say “I believe in god” in which god is nature or energy. This might seem “woo woo” to my orange colleagues - yet they wouldn’t be bothered by it (as long as I didnt teach woo woo pseudoscience from their pov) Yet this recontextualization alters the whole point of awakening. Imagine my human students/colleagues all thought they were dogs. They serve food at the cafeteria, they put themselves on leashes and pee on fire hydrants. Showing them they are actually humans would be a major awakening, yet they would resist by going into attack mode. Telling them “ok, you all are dogs. I believe in humans”. . . It defeats the whole point to help them realize they are humans. It would actually be counter-productive in re-enforcing their attachment/identification as a dog.

Please don’t. It’s not a good fit.

A great question to contemplate, yet the mind will likely resist to maintain control of the mental narrative. A half-step would be “What’s the ideology of being present?” This can help reveal one’s attachment/ identification.

I would consider puffins to be the highest animal naturally adapted to water, earth and air.

@Raw Nature Larger animals are cool too. In this context, I would rank puffins high up.

These are fascinating areas. Two of the largest organisms on earth is an Aspen Forest in Colorado (a large forest that is one organism) and a mushroom in Oregon that spans 4 square miles. As well, symbionts blur the lines of what an "organism" is. For example, is the human gut microbiome "human cells?". Removing that microbiome causes all sorts of physiological problems. As well, the microbiome has direct communication to immune system cells and the brain (via the vagus nerve). Calling a an epithelial cell in the gut a "human cell" and a microbial cell in the gut a "non-human cell" is an arbitrary categorization.

Imo, Tucker was relatively respectful and has a certain respect for Cornell West. Tucker is immersed in a particular narrative and is motivated to protect and promote his narrative. It is a similar dynamic with Richard Dawkins and a science narrative. It is a very debate style posture. Tucker's posture was to protect his opinion and get a "win" over what he perceived to be Cornell's position. Tucker's motivation was not to learn, integrate or develop his understanding. A few things I found interesting in the context of SD theory: -- Tucker was very intent on defining "democratic socialism". When he started, he briefly mentioned their are different views. Yet this was just an window dressing. He clearly wanted to define "Democratic Socialism" as Venezuelan-style state ownership and control. In his interview with Cornell, he kept coming back to this definition and tried to pigeon hole Cornell. For example Tucker essentially asks "As a democratic socialist, you believe in open borders. How is that helpful?". . . Cornell spent some time trying to deconstruct the framing of the question before he could even answer it. -- Before Cornell entered, Tucker spent 3 minutes defining "Democratic Socialism" to set the narrative. His first question to Cornell was to give an example how Venezuelan-style socialism is successful. To his credit, Cornell did not take they bait. He stated there are various forms of socialism with good and bad aspects - yet the essence of democratic socialism is to ensure the dignity of regular people that they can live lives of decency. I was a bit surprised that Tucker agreed with the value of this. In doing so, the interview was recontextualized. Tucker still had his narrative, yet all subsequent questions were essentially "How could (xyz) achieve this goal? (to ensure human dignity and a decent life)". E.g. How can open borders ensure decent lives?". -- Tucker just cannot understand nuances and different perspectives - which is typical for stage Blue/Orange - in particular when exposed to Green-level nuances and perspectives. For example, several times Cornell tried to explain that there are various views and aspects of socialism with different degrees of benefit and harm. There is now a movement to utilize certain aspects of socialism - that hasn't been tried before. Tucker looked completely baffled by even the simplest of nuances and would respond with things like "yea but, how would open borders help?". Overall, I think it is a net-positive to have these types of interviews on Fox. Tucker introduced Cornell as the pre-eminent scholar on democratic socialism - bestowing him with authority. Then Cornell kept correcting Tucker's view. I think a small percentage of Fox viewers would subconsciously resonate with some of what Cornell is trying to say about human dignity and having a decent life. One of the problem for Tucker is that he cannot bait Cornell into an "us vs. them" divisive conflict because Cornell is oriented toward being inclusive. Cornell's "us" is all regular people deserving of dignity and a decent life.

@TrynaBeTurquoise It sounds like you may need to find your own niche and it might not be "mainstream". . . . I've known a few PTs that are worth their weight in gold, yet like you say - they are highly specialized and not very integrative/holistic. Yet each component within an integrated system is still important for the system. . . An athlete specialized as a sprinter will not be a good decathlete. Yet a decathlete without sprinting skills won't be good either. It's hard for me to even imagine doing that. It would be very radical in my environment. I think an entire course entitled "I Am God. You are God" would be needed.

Of course. Imagine having to dissect out the brain of a mosquito. Wouldn't a video showing you the process be helpful?

To me, it seems like there is some deep religious conditioning that is being worked through. I grew up in a fundamental catholic environment and received a lot of religious conditioning on sexuality. For many years, I tried to reconcile that. I tried to understand and make sense of it. At a deeper level, I was trying to figure out who I was and how I fit in society. It was really easy for me to slip into religious constructs. This was a very contracted existence, yet it didn't seem so until I expanded beyond it and looked back on it. To me, you seem to be attracted to the dramatic. In regards to growth, the dramatic can be helpful to break us out of a contracted state - yet it can also have the opposite effect in re-enforcing the contraction. This is what I see happening here. This experiment has an underlying energy of confirmation bias - which would only re-enforce one's immersion into their own contracted story. The fundamental question I would ask is whether I want to stay contracted within a particular story or whether I want to be free and grow beyond that story. Another approach would be to enter a new, novel environment that is very different than one's conditioning. Imagine someone's wordview was based on the Die Hard movie series. This is the only thing they have been exposed to their entire life. With this conditioning, they would perceive the world as very dramatic and antagonistic - in which men are valiant protectors. If this person wanted to expand their view, going to see Die Hard 6 is counter-productive. It will only re-enforce their pre-conceived view. It would be much more productive to see a very movie with a very different theme - such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. If you decide to go the route of posting naked photos on Craiglist, it's best not to connect the actualized forum to naked online photos. It wouldn't be a good fit for the forum.

A beautiful union.

This reminds me of quantum mechanics. There is a “superposition” of all / no positions. Upon observation, there is a position. If we make an observation of position, there is a position. With “why” questions, there is often an underlying assumption. If I ask “why am I experiencing this position, rather than another position?”, it assumes I am experiencing one of many possible positions. Nothing wrong with this as long as the assumption is realized. There are more fundamental questions prior to the assumption, such as “what is an experience?”, “what is a position?”. These insights may recontextualize the original question “wait a minute. . . am I really having an experience of a position?”

I would put bacteria on the list. They may rank #1 for environmental diversity and high for cooperation and function. They are decomposers and can carry out photosynthesis. As well, the cooperation of microbiomes is extraordinary. They are symbiotic with human structure and function- including metabolism, immune function and brain develop and function. This greatly expands their cooperative functional capacity.

Over the years, I’ve gained more confidence to speak of such things in an academic environment. Yet there are things I don’t speak of because the risks are too high of being labeled insane, stigmatized and losing my job. Speaking about stuff that was cutting edge decades ago is easy. Speaking about stuff that is currently cutting edge can be uncomfortable. Speaking about stuff that will be cutting edge decades in the future can have an intense negative reaction and consequences. It can be perceived by others as insane, threatening and/or scary. For example, psychedelic therapy will revolutionize how we perceive and treat mental illness. I’ve seen / experienced stuff that probably won’t become mainstream for another 30-50 years. And I don’t dare speak about it to my colleagues, students or administrators. Society isn’t ready yet. And I wouldn’t even be able to explain it in today’s modes of communication and conscious state. It would be like trying to explain algebra to a donkey underwater with a kazoo.

@TrynaBeTurquoise When at an entry level, there is often more pressure to conform. That you are bothered by pressure to conform to traditional paradigms is a trait you have. I teach at a liberal arts college and I’d say only about 10% of undergrad students are considerably bothered by being limited within a paradigm. I would gut out the last couple semesters. I would also plan ahead accordingly. Intentionally choose environments that will allow you space for expansion - now and years into the future. This was my #1 priority when choosing my current job. I wanted space to be able to explore, expand, integrate and create. I don’t like feeling contracted, limited and restricted by outside forces. As you reach higher levels in a profession, you can get more space. You can be the one creating new methods and understandings. I also felt too constricted within the traditional scientific paradigm. I’m now able to expand beyond and create novel material. I created a neuroscience course that integrates neurology, meditation, yoga, psychedelics, collective consciousness, chakras, paranormal, science and mysticism. The only reason I haven’t been labeled a quack or gotten fired is because I have a deep sense of knowing from decades of study and direct experience. Most of my colleagues think I’m eccentric - yet in an innovative way - like I’m years ahead of the field is n many ways. You may have a different niche than me, yet I would be very intentional about choosing and creating environment that allow you space to explore and expand.

In terms of convenience when busy, a large slow cooker is great. It's super easy. Just chop up a bunch of veggies, beans, fish, meats etc. You can get a week's worth of meals in 1hr. prep time. And it's hard to screw up. I suck at a cooking and often dump a bunch of random stuff in the cooker - it always seems to come out ok. Another option is a healthy fast food option. Places like Subway and Qdoba offer much healthier options than McDonalds. As well, avoid high-fructose drinks. They are super addicted and unhealthy.

A comment about assumptions and dualistic constructs. . . Consider the following question recently asked on the forum: "Why is there no free will? Why does god allow this?" (this sets up a mental state that spirals into "no meaning. no purpose". Let's take a closer look at the question. . . Imagine I ask: "Why do pink three headed unicorns torture my kittens? How does the transcendent dragon of eternal power allow this?" With attachment/identification to the above statement, a lot of turmoil will arise in the mind and body. Of course, my modified question appears absurd and laughable. Yet the original question is just as absurd and laughable. Yet, the mind treats it as "reasonable". To get to a "higher" level, one must go prior to the assumptions and inquire/contemplate. For example "what is the nature of the pink three headed unicorn? What is real? Whati is imagined? What is the nature of the transcendent dragon of eternal power? What is real? What is imagined?" Similarly: "What is free will? What is god? What is real? What is imagined? Going prior to the assumptions is really important, yet so is the nature of inquiry and contemplation. If the mind and "What is free will?" and then goes into la-la land of theorizing - that is the wrong direction. We want to keep going prior. . . . Just sit and look around. . . "What is free will?". As theory enters, let it go. Allow space for implicit insights to arise. Look around and observe. Implicit insights are all around us. . . The second point is related to the first: the mind loves either / or dualistic structures. The mind assumes that there must either be free will or no free will. One must be true and the other false. This is an extremely contracted mindset. . . As consciousness evolves, paradoxes will be revealed and deeper understanding of paradoxes will arise. This is essential to get to expanded states of consciousness. Free will exists and is non-existent. Part of this understanding comes from contemplating what is free will? (and then free will vs. no free will). As well, what is existence? (and then existence vs. nonexistence). In doing so, an implicit understanding that free will exists arises. It's so obvious, look around. . . As well, an implicit understanding that free will is non-exist arises. It's so obvious, look around. . . With awakenings comes an energetic shift. The above statements would have driven me crazy 10 years ago. I would have gotten very frustrated and confused. Yet now, the contradictory insights above become so beautiful it gives me chills. It is freedom. It is fascination. It is awe.

Please stay on topic. The OP is not asking about the pros and cons of NoFap - there are several other threads on that topic in the dating, sexuality subforum.

This phrase on the forum caught my attention "it's being imagined by you as God." In one context this is true and can be a useful "pointer" in some contexts. It also has untrue features in another context - this can be subtle and difficult to pick up on. From one perspective, there is an underlying assumption of separation. The human mind is conditioned to perceive through a filter of separation. For example, the mind is conditioned to think in terms of a "me" here and a "god" out there. This filter will make it very difficult to see what is pointed to in the above statement. When the above statement goes through a filter of separation it creates; an "it" that is separate from "god". There is a "god" thing imagining a non-god "it" thing. It doesn't matter what the "it" is. . . A belief, an image, a coffee cup. It doesn't matter. What matters is that whatever this "it" is. . . "it" is separate from another "it" called "god". This separation allows one thing "god" to imagine another thing (whatever "it" is). . . The main problem I see with this construct is that minds are conditioned to believe in an external "god" out there. An external god that creates other things, judges other things, imagines other things etc. This is how the mind is conditioned. It is much more difficult to see without the separation. Here, the creator = the created. There is no separation. We could say that which imagines is god and that which is imagined is god. Yet this is very awkward for a mind to hold. How can the creator and the created be the same?. . . Another approach is to let go of trying to capture within intellectual constructs. As well, the term "god" is so loaded with prior conditioning that it can be hard to let go of. . . An easier path to this realization is "observer" (creator) and "observed" (the creation). If we observe something, the mind interprets as "I am observing that". For example, I am now observing a monitor. There is separation. 1. An observer separate from 2. a monitor. This is super obvious to a conditioned mind. Yet there is also lack of separation in which observation and the observed are the same. There is just one "IS". This is much harder for the mind to "grok", in part because thinking about it can be a huge distraction.

Sure, from the perspective of a self that values comfort over Truth, it might not be "worth it". Yet finding Truth is the ultimate "worth", because it includes all "worths".

I don't know if you can this, yet a human can taste sound or light. A couple ways come to mind. -- In a condition called "synethesia", sensory information is processed such that our traditional definitions of senses break down. A person would have the subjective experience of tasting sound or light. A song by The Strokes may taste salty. . . For some people, psychedelics can induce a form of synethesia. As well, a mind can enter lucid states (while asleep or "day dreaming") in which sound or light is tasted. -- We could also examine the boundaries of our categories of "sight", "taste", "hearing". Upon close inspection, these boundaries break down.