Forestluv

The title of the thread assumes nudity, porn and masturbation is considered “bad behavior”. This is a relative judgement. Last summer, I visited a nude beach. Nudity was wonderful behavior.

? If we create a construct in which the construct is "right", then of course that construct is "right". We could create a construct that space kangaroos value Scooby Snacks more than candy bars. If we add in righteousness to the construct, of course it is "right". That's what we just created. . . At this point, we could remain contracted within the righteousness of the construct we created. Or, we could promote it's righteousness to others. Or, we could argue with others about it's righteousness. . . Or we could expand toward "Hmmm, maybe there is another way of looking at this. . . ".

@Anton Rogachevski Perhaps consider your meaning of “knowing”. For example, Do you know now is now?

I suppose from a traditional Christian perspective, the sexual behavior described in this thread might be considered "addicted", "bad" or "crazy". Yet to me it's pretty standard stuff. Compared to what I was exposed to in polyamory communities, it's relatively tame. Beginner to low intermediate kinky levels. It's cool to see that you are intensely sexually active together after being together for 25 years. There is a lot more to explore. If you are into voyeurism, I'm curious if you've engaged with any polyamory / swinger's environments as a couple. You wouldn't necessary need to have sex with anyone else - there are entry-level opportunities. To me, the environment of most video arcades is crude with a creepy vibe. I'd much prefer other environments for voyeurism. Yet to each their own.

Of course there are nuances and the term "healthy" is relative. I'm just speaking generally. A woman that is physically, emotionally and spiritually engaged is not going to get involved with a man that is addicted to methamphetamine, refuses to pay child support, has two outstanding warrants for his arrest and incessantly complains about how his ex-wife "did him wrong and had it coming".

Wouldn't men who have sex with healthy women be healthy men? One is in a relationship with someone on the same health level. A healthy woman will not get involved with an unhealthy man. And a healthy man will not get involved with an unhealthy woman. . . .

I'm curious about that as well. From what I've seen, "green level" feminists don't come out strongly against female dress in Islamic societies. If I had to guess, I would say there is another force at play - perhaps there is pressure in U.S. liberalism not to criticize middle-eastern cultures and Muslims. In the US, there is so much Trump fueled vitriol against middle-eastern people and Muslims that liberals and progressives are generally oriented to defend them and don't want to be perceived as being anti-Muslim

I think it depends on if the counter-narrative is effective. The main counter-narrative of Republicans is to portray Bernie as a radical socialist/communist that will take down the U.S. like Venezuela or the Soviet Union. A lot of people will believe in this narrative of authoritarian socialism and get scared of Bernie. In particular, a considerable portion of people over 45 y.o. Far fewer young people will fall for it. . . The corporate media also has a vested interest in painting Bernie as "too extreme" because he will cut into their corporate profits. Imo, Bernie's best chance is to connect with the pain and struggles of working class people. Rather than dividing people among racial, sexual orientation and religious lines - Bernie needs to create the division between the working class and the top 1% / billionaires. I think Bernie has a very good chance of doing this, in spite of Trump's treasure chest and anti-Bernie corporate media. Because, Bernie is 100% authentic. He has been fighting his whole life for the working class and this is his orientation and passion. It will be very hard to portray Bernie as another corrupt politician in the back pockets of wealthy donors and corporations. It would be like trying to portray Bernie as a female. It's obviously not true. . . If Bernie's democratic socialist message (a capitalist / socialist hybrid like Denmark) in which power is returned to the people - it will strongly resonate with over 60% of the population and be very difficult to defeat - even with massive amounts of money and ads. I thought Bernie's latest rally last night was his best. It was his first rally in which he took the identity of the candidate that will take on Trump. I think he did a very good job at conveying his understanding of the struggles that the working class undergoes - since he has spent his entire life in this space. Bernie and AOC are much better at this than any previous candidate I've seen - including Bill Clinton (I feel your pain) and Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if 20% of Trump supporters vote for Bernie. It's so obvious that Bernie is fighting for the working class and Trump is not - the contrast is dramatic and I think even 20% of Trump voters will realize this. And AOC will be a powerful surrogate. Imo, she is the highest level public speaker of our time - a once in a generation talent. It's amazing how high she has evolved in one year. I put her on a higher level than Obama, due to her underlying substance and willingness to fight. In terms of connecting with an audience with substance, she is up there with RFK in my book. I put her higher than Bernie in this area. General election rallies with Cornell West, AOC, Bernie and musical bands will draw enormous crowds.

I like this example in terms of conscious levels, emergent properties and identification. How many people identify as their phagocytes, gut bacteria or liver cells? Nobody. We just want to keep going. . . If someone had chronic knee pain and had the opportunity to get two knee replacements that are twice as strong with zero pain, everyone would jump on it. Noone would be attached/identified to their arthritic knee or morn the loss of their arthritic knee. As well, all the atoms/molecules in the body turn over. From a physical perspective, my physical body is completely different than it was 10 years ago. None of the atoms / molecules are the same. . . I'm curious when spiritual seekers ask about "physical death" and not "ego death". Physically, they have already "died". None of there physical body is the same as 10 years ago. Yet I never see anyone mourn the loss of their old physical body that has turned over. People don't care about the survival of their physical body, they care about the survival of "me". Imagine having the following choice: 1. Your physical body can exist for 200 years in a coma with zero awareness. 2. Your physical body is replaced with an artificial body (with sensations) and you can exist with all of your awareness and memories for 200 years pain-free. It's a no-brainer. Everyone would choose option #2. As well, I like this example in terms of "conscious levels". Everyone can perceive their mind-body such that their biological cells are not aware of "me". Collectively, the trillions of cells in my body give rise to an emergent property of "me", yet none of my cells are aware of "me". This is the highest "level" most people reach due to attachment/identification to "me". . . It would be very difficult for my pancreatic cells to jump up a conscious level and awaken to the "higher" collective consciousness of "me". . . Similarly, it is very difficult for "me" to jump up a conscious level and awaken to the next "higher" collective conscious level of "X". Really hard because it requires letting go of the identification of "me". . . One good exercise. . . The next time you are in a social setting (a movie theatre, sporting event, concert etc), see if you can let go and drift into a collective consciousness. Imagine that each person around you is like a neurotransmitter in a "higher" collective organism. Just like there are neurotransmitters in your brain, all of us people are neurotransmitters to each other in a higher collective entity. . . She is dopamine, he is serotonin etc. . .

If this is a compliment, thank you. At a personal level, I'm nowhere near "the very top".

Exactly. A MGTOW male-centric perspective will be very different than a common female-centric perspective. Each is relative to that who holds the perspective. It would be very difficult to for a MGTOW-centric male to totally let go of his perspective and fully open himself up to a common female perspective and to understand it so deeply it's almost as if he is that female. . . Similarly, there are some women that demonize men and it would be very difficult for her to totally let go of her perspective and fully open herself to understanding a MGTOW perspective. . . It is super hard to do for most minds. . . I would say this is one of the most powerful features of psychedelics. It can allow a mind to enter this space. Of course. It goes both ways. There are some cultures in which most men want women to dress provacatively, such as showing a lot of cleavage. This would be considered an Orange level. . ,. A religious blue culture would be much more conservative. Here, women may be expected to be fully clothed and show no skin - such that men are not tempted to be lustful - which would be a sin in this context. I would also draw a distinction between girls and women. These are different dynamics. A man could want his daughter and other girls in the middle school to present themselves without any sexual connotations. Yet the same man may want his secretary to wear low cut blouses without a bra, so he can oogle her breasts and fantasize about having sex with her in his office.

There is also the issue of objective, universal truths. . . Each meaning is a relative, partial truth (including "my" meaning and "your" meaning). Sure. You thnx to you as well.

This suggests an external god. . . To me, your writings have an underlying theme of an external, anthropomorphic god.

There is the duality of blue - green as well as the duality between subject - object. To me, you seem focused on the blue - green duality at the expense of the subject - object duality. For example: "doesn't allow god to accept it," This assumes a duality of subject ("god") separate from an object ("it"). You seem to frame your constructs with an external "god" that views things that are separate from itself. To me, this is a relative construct mixing in absolute. For clarity of a relative construct, I would simply call it a relative meta view, rather than suggesting an external anthropomorphic god.

I find it interesting how Obama's rhetoric was soaring and inspirational to progressives in 2008. Yet similar rhetoric by Pete is falling flat to progressives in 2020. This is the type of thing Pete says a lot. The below phrase was a prepared remark that he said during the debate and highlighted as a meme on his twitter feed. "I’m not interested in labels. I’m not interested in what Republicans are going to say. I’m interested in the style of politics that we need to put forward to actually, finally, turn the page - in order to win, yes, but also in order to govern." To me, it almost seems like his campaign has an algorithm with positive keywords/phrases like: unity, turn the page, meeting this moment, think bigger, this defining moment, galvanize, bold ideas and negative keywords/phrases like: division, looking back, polarize etc. A lot of Pete's rhetoric seems similar to Obama, yet the feeling and impact is sooo different. It's also recontextualized how I view Obama. With prominent speakers like Cornell West, AOC and Bernie being the energy of inspiration, Obama now seems so out-dated. In addition to the traditional left vs. right axis, there seems to be a very strong old vs. new axis that is particularly strong this election cycle.

I'm not saying that is wrong. I just want to clarify what I'm trying to (imperfectly) explain. "basically from that high perspective it doesn't matter if you live in the materialistic world view or another world view, only a limited human would find value in such distinctions." This statement is reflective of a relative hierarchical system of "levels" in which there is a "high level" perspective that wouldn't judge one view or another. Sure, that is true of a certain meta view that is "higher" than human judgments of different worldviews. . . In this context, it's a good fit. Yet it another context, it's not a good fit. For example, it assumes that there is a "limited human" that is separate from a "high perspective". In a practical sense, constructs of different levels, realms, dimensions etc. can have a lot of value - in terms of growth and navigating through life. Yet in another sense, all of these constructs are partial truths that collapse under scrutiny. That's one reason why is so hard to express implicit understanding through explicit language and concepts. Anything I express explicitly to "point" to implicit will be partially false.

This is hard for me to answer, because in my view it is mixing relative and absolute. This is the best I can do to contextualize it explicitly through language. Yet I don't claim that my understanding or explanation is 100% accurate or true. Anything I say through language is relative and goes through a filter. As well, as a human I know so little that I essentially don't know anything - relative to what can be known. My human knowing is a single grain of sand of all the sandy beaches. In a relative sense, this "god" is a separate entity judging other things - for example, whether green concepts have higher value than blue concepts. Yet I don't resonate with that type of external god of judgement. So I can't answer within this context. In an absolute sense, God is One. God is green concepts and God is blue concepts. In this context, it's an awkward question to me. It would be like saying "Every single thing in this room is One Everything". And then asking "Is Everything of more value than Everything?". To answer this, we would need to separate into things and compare one thing to another thing and make a value judgement. Yet now we are in the human realm of relativity. (which is also God). If I was pressed to be explicit, I would say that God values green higher than blue and God values them equally and God values blue higher than green and God makes no value judgement. -- A green person that values green over blue <= that person is God -- A blue person that values blue over green <= that is God -- A yellow person that values blue and green equally <= that is God -- A kangaroo that cannot comprehend Spiral Dynamics and cannot make a value judgement <= that is God On a relative human level, it depends on context. On a practical level, I could say that it's better to vote for Bernie over Trump. Yet in another context, I am practicing to dissolve as many judgement and filters of others as possible - to grow toward clarity and unconditional love. Yet as a human, I am limited. For example, my perception involves a survival filter of what's "good" and "bad" relative to the survival of my self, mind and body. I've dramatically decreased the intensity of those survival filters, yet they go very deep. I've only had glimpses and short periods with no filters and pure clarity.

@Llight In addition to "infinite love", another way to look at it is "unconditional love". In this frame, love is not conditional on circumstances. Everything is love, unconditionally. . . . Most humans aspire to "unconditional love" and like to identify as an unconditionally loving person - until they find out what "unconditional love" includes. . . "You mean I'd have to love that? No way!"

This is just my view, which of course is biased and shaped by cultural influences. I would make a distinction between "being presentable" for a particular environment and being pressured to appear a particular way for the pleasure of another. Of course there are many nuances and degrees along a spectrum. A benign example would be dressing up a bit for a fancy event - like a symphony. On the other extreme would be the practice of subjecting young girls to foot binding. I would put pressures/expectations for women to present themselves a certain way that is sexually pleasing to men, somewhere between these two extremes. . . . In some environments, there is a dress-code. At my work, we aren't allowed to come work dressed in our underwear or a bathing suit. As well, there are certain "norms". It would be "abnormal" for a man to wear a dress or a woman to wear a suit and tie where I work. To me, that's not a big deal. My threshold is when one person/group puts pressure on another person/group (against their will) to present in a way that is sexually appealing to them. For example, if a male boss told a subordinate female to wear low-cut blouses and show off her cleavage (for his own enjoyment). T I would agree with you that their are societal pressures to present well for both men and women. Yet there is also another variable - men have more power, leverage and influence. This is not to say that women don't have any power or influence. If women became attracted to men in tight-fitting shirts, men would likely feel pressure to wear tight-fitting shirts so they are attractive to what women want. Yet there is also patriarchal powers. For example, over history it's been common to have male management pressure female workers to present a way that is appealing to men. For example, showing cleavage. If a woman's breasts weren't large enough, she might be pressured to wear a padded bra. Yet this reciprocal dynamic doesn't really exist. It would be very rare to have a woman-dominated management that forces the male workers to wear tight-fitting pants to show off their bulge at the sexual pleasure of the women. And if their bulge isn't large enough, they have to pad their crotch with a sock. To me, voluntarily presenting well because the person wants to present well is different than being pressured to present a certain way. If women at my work forced the men to unzip their pant zippers and pull out their underwear/penis at the behest of female viewing pleasure - it would be over the line, imo and I would take action against it - just as I would take action against men going over the line in pressuring women to present according to their sexual viewing pleasure.

I get the same sense. He can speak with frothy appeal and can skirt around criticism, yet I don't think he can handle punches very well. Like a boxer that that bobs and weaves a lot. My sense of him change in one moment of this weeks debate during the race question to Pete. After Pete bobbed and weaved, the moderator pinned him down directly and Pete looked like a deer in headlights. And then he explained himself as targeting black communities for cannabis possession to reduce the damage of black crime. That looks really bad to a democratic audience, especially minorities. Yet more importantly, I think he buckled under pressure and that level of pressure is nothing compared to what Trump would do. As well, Biden's recent ad against Pete was brutal and he had no defense. Trump will be 10x more brutal. I'm sensing more and more that Bernie has the best chance. Look at the rally Bernie had last night with Cornell West and AOC. Thousands of high energy, motivated people. They are two of the most powerful surrogates in history. Bernie's got the energy and movement to bring people to the polls. No other candidate comes close. Biden's rallies look like they are in a nursing home. Pete looks sooo uptight and uncomfortable around working class people.

Is a role for women to make themselves more sexually appealing to men? Should we expect women to be sexual eye candy for men? . . . From the perspective of many men. . yes!!! Women should present themselves in a way that I, as a male, find sexually appealing to satisfy imagination. Imagine living a life in which every morning you have to go to a studio for an hour to put on lots of makeup. You have to wear shoes that are very uncomfortable - these shoes even cause damage to your feet, calves and knees. And then one day you realize you've been doing all this because the chipmunks in town like it. . . Wouldn't you pause and think "Wait a minute. . . why am I spending all this time, effort and money on this? Why am I damaging my body to do this? To give chipmunks I don't even care about a quick pulse of feeling good?". I think it would be reasonable to say "Screw this. I'm not going to spend all this time, effort, money and stress to my body to please chipmunks I don't care about. They can look at some chipmunk porn to get their jollies". Now imagine years later, your son starts going to the makeup studio everyday. He starts wearing uncomfortable shoes that are damaging his body. He is trying to please the chipmunks in town like a good boy should. To me, it seems reasonable to tell him "You don't need to do this". You don't need to spend all this time, effort, money and stress your body to please the chipmunks. Yet a chipmunk-centric view would be very different. . . .

@Nevillizer I've had similar experiences on low-moderate doses of 5-meo. Yet, I wouldn't refer to it as having a pre-formed question answered. It's not like I went into the trip asking "How can I lucid dream better?" and then that was specifically answered like "Do the nose blowing reality check 10 times a day". . . . Others may have that type of relationship with 5-meo, but not me. . . I would lean toward your usage of the term "reveal". It's like stuff is revealed that I was not aware of. I didn't have any questions about "x" because I was unaware of "x". At a human level, to me it feels like my consciousness is expanded. In terms of SD, we could say going from Orange/Green to Yellow/Turquoise. Or going from the level of ant consciousness to human consciousness. An ant is incapable of coming up with human-level questions. Other imagery I would use is: imagine living within a city your whole life. Fully immersed in the hustle and bustle of the city. Then one day, for the first time, you go to a mountain top. This would give an entirely different perspective. Stuff will be revealed at this meta view that could be applied to the city view - yet it's not like a city-level question was answered. For me, any question I come up with at the human level is very limited at a trans-human level. It would be like an elementary school student that becomes a university calculus professor on 5-meo. Any question the elementary school student comes up with becomes trivial. For example, the student may ask "In the equation 2X = 4, what does 'x' equal?". Once reaching the level of a university calculus professor, this question becomes so trivial that it would likely dissolve - there are bigger fish to fry. At higher 5-meo doses, the whole "me" dissolves. Being human dissolves. So questions like "What is my life purpose?" and "how can I help humanity?" becomes irrelevant, because there is no "me" to have a "life purpose" and humans would have no more significance than a colony of ants on some random island. At lower doses, there is still a sense of a character called "me", yet it is completely detached and dis-identified. This can allow for meta view insights. For example, at one time there was some friction in one of my relationships. A completely detached and dis-identified meta view offered a lot of clarity about "me", "her" and "us". Not intellectual. Energetics. There is one question on the human level I did repeatedly ask and got an implicit answer. Through daily 5-meo use, there became continuous stretches of thoughtless consciousness (stretches of 4-6 hours without a thought). It was a very different relationship with reality. Yet the mind would drift back at times and thoughts would return. I could clearly see attachment / identification / immersion with thoughts. So, my question was "how can I access these thoughtless states of consciousness without 5-meo? How can I stop thinking?". . . As mentioned above, at transcendent states this question dissolved - it didn't even make sense. . . Yet, when "I" started to "return", I noticed a window of opportunity to ask the question. As soon as "me" and thinking started to re-appear, I paid close attention to the re-appearence of thoughts and the mechanisms of attachment/identification and asked "how can I let go / stop this?". . . This is one of the fundamental questions / states that people pursue through meditation for years and decades. Thousands of hours of meditation. . . Could I learn to do it here and now in a matter of minutes. . . My question was rebuked over and over - and then there was a reluctant answer. Almost like a higher consciousness sighing and saying "ok, I'll give you a hint". Then I was given a hint how to consciously do it. Thinking disappeared and it was like "see? that's how you do it". In a way, I was like "ooohhh, so that's how it is" another part of me was like "wait a minute, can you explicitly explain that??". . .

Last week I was in a museum and saw a vase on display that captivated me. I was in awe of it's beauty. I stood there gazing at it, appreciating it's magnificence. Those moments were fully complete. I didn't need to own or possess that vase to make me complete. There were no thought stories about how my life would be better if I could get my hands on this vase. There were no thought stories about how I'm not good enough because I can't own a vase of this beauty. There was simply the experience of beauty and love without attachment. Sometimes when I see a person, there is an appreciation of beauty. Perhaps it's the clothing or jewelry they wear. Perhaps it's how they smile or the way they interact with others. Perhaps it's their sense of humor or how they create art. That resonance to beauty and love is amazing and I wouldn't want to miss it. I think you said it best: "there is something amazing of reality that you are missing". What is this "something" you are missing? Is not this moment fully complete as it is?. . . Do you think it's a coincidence you feel this "missing something" around women you adore? . . . Do you have a similar yearning for a missing something when you view a beautiful vase, flower or painting?

Yea, from a partial perspective the author of the video is correct - yet he's not seeing his view as a relative partial perspective. He extrapolates his partially true perspective to be universally true. This will keep him contracted within a limited view (that is partially true). In SD terms, this is a difference between Orange and Yellow. At a very basic level, I love blueberries. Yet I don't assume everyone likes blueberries like I do. Some people may detest blueberries. Some people might only like blueberries in a smoothie or on top of granola. Others may "sorta" like blueberries. This is easy for people to comprehend this form of relativity because there is no personal attachment/identification/survival needs to blueberries. It's much harder to see relativity with deep attachment/identification/survival dynamics - like with sex, gender, identity, religion, politics, race, etc. If one's personal wellness, identity and survival was dependent on blueberries, there would be online forums filled with people arguing over equal access to blueberries and blueberry privileges. . . And we would be discussing partial blueberry truths and how to transcend attachment/identification to blueberry beliefs.

How will the contemplation of the "non-existence of me" allow space for experiencing this moment free of "me". The contemplation of the "non-existence of me" just keeps "me" in the game. . . . "Hmmm, this stuff about me not existing sounds pretty serious. I better spend some time contemplating and figuring out the non-existence of me" <= That is self keeping itself in the game. Let all of it go. All of it. Including thought stories about the nonexistence of me. If thoughts arise, let them go. Don't have tea with them. If they stick around, just let them be background noise - like backrgound traffic noise.