Forestluv

Yes the vaccine development was accelerated, yet that doesn't mean it's less safe than other vaccines. mRNA vaccines could be SAFER than traditional vaccines. Or it could be about the same or less safe. The data so far indicate the incidence of serious short-term side effects is very small. About 1 in 1 million people. That is a safe vaccine. How safe do you want? A 1 in 1 million risk is extremely low. It is MUCH lower than the risk of driving, having sex, eating etc. More people get serious side effects from eating than the vaccine! I could post lots of photos of people that got seriously ill from food poisoning and say "Look!! Eating food is dangerous!!". Yet that is a distortion because very few people get food poisoning in developed countries. Speculation about long-term negative effects is speculation. There is no reason to believe there will be long-term side effects.

@Someone here Great stuff. Timelessness opens up so many avenues. There is a video of a man that lost his memory. He only had 8 seconds of memory. There was a scene in the documentary in which he would write "This is NOW. I am awake!". Then later he would scratch that out and write "No, THIS is NOW. THIS is my first moment!! This is the REAL one!", then cross it out and have another first moment. This went on hundreds of times in the notebook. It gave me chills. Sometimes I realize "This is NOW!" and then later realize "No, This is NOW!". If the mind has a timeline of memories, it can get grounded. Yet when it gets really ungrounded, it can almost feel like psychosis.

Great stuff. I think this will become a common area of exploration in the future.

The fear mongering is not the information, it is how the information is presented. Imagine someone considering medication and the doctor shows them gruesome photos of side effect and then says "This is what happens when someone takes the medication". It is implicit that this is a common reaction. Leaving out the part that only 1 in 1 million people have this reaction is fear mongering. It is not "presenting alternative sources of information". The J and J issue was about 1 in 1 million people have serious side effects. That is extremely rare. It is important to have that information. Otherwise, it is fear mongering. Yes, there are serious side effects. Yet 1 in 1 million means that the medication is safe. A 1 in 1 million chance is MUCH lower than being in an airplane crash.

Yea. Unfortunately any word used is not another word. That is the wisdom of the saying "The deepest truth is silence".

Exactly. There must be a duality thing for it not to be that thing. It is true to say that there is nonduality and it is true to say there is duality. And it is true to say nonduality is both different and the same as duality. Yet the mind works in opposites, so it's difficult to get a handle on. Of course, that is the "no self" realization. That's not what I'm referring to. In that context, "no self" is the same as "Now", "Everything", "One", "Nothing", "Reality", "ISness", "Truth". Yet that is not the subconscious intention. Someone saying "there is no self" will not say it is the same as saying "There is ISness". The person will say "No, I mean there is no self".

Fun stuff.

I've been trying to in this thread If a mind is immersed with the view on one rooftop it won't realize views on other rooftops. And yes, there is an awakening that there is One Rooftop and there is an awakening there is No Rooftop (in addition to the multiple Rooftop awakening). Realizing "there is no self" is a major awakening few people realize. Yet immersion into this prevents the realization that "there is a self" as well.

That is not how 99.99% of people use the term "now", including spiritual people. In the OP, replace every instance of "now" with ISness. Imo, that is a recontextualization. The OP is clearly using the term "now" in the context of time (past and future). Nothing wrong with that, I'm super fascinated by time. I wish Leo had the time to do a video on it.

I understand that. That is not the point. The way you are using "no self" would be the same as "Nothing", "Everything", "Infinity", "Reality", "Now", "One" etc. Yet that is not how the phrase "no self" is used. It is used to tell people that believe in a thing called "self" that there not a thing "self". That is a major awakening. Yet there are other awakenings regarding "self" / "no self". Many minds get trapped into a "no self" domain for a looooong time. For example, we could rename this thread "There is no _______". Yet that is not the intention. The mind would say "No! I don't mean there is no ______. I mean there is no self!"

You've shown a pattern of starting inflammatory threads. You then disengage and disappear. This is a form of flame trolling. If you want to start a thread for discussion, show some open-mindedness, nuance and willingness to learn. And then engage in the discussion you are starting and expand your mind.

"Now" relative to what? If all there is is "Now", then there is no "Not Now". Without a "Not Now", there is no "Now". . . Without a past / future for contrast, "Now" collapses and is the same as "Reality", "Infinity", "ISness", "Nothing", "Everything" etc. Yet that is not how people are using the term "Now". They are using it like the phrase "The present moment".

As soon as we say "there is no self", there is a self. There cannot be "no self" without "self". We can say "There is no ________". Yet as soon as that blank is filled in, there is a thing. It doesn't matter what we place in the blank. It is a thing that is not another thing. Another perspective: imagine telling a Chinese person "There is no self". He is learning English and doesn't understand what you mean by "self". He might ask "Is this 'self' a tuna sandwich?", we would say "No, that's not it". . . . "Is this "self" a candle?". No that's not it. . . We would need to define "self" as some thing and then say that thing is not a thing. The realization of "no self" is a major realization. Yet I find it entertaining that "no-selfers" subconsciously carry a thing called "self" as they claim "there is no self".. . . Such a beautiful paradox.

Along these lines, there isn't even a "now". . . A "now" requires a past / future as contrast. Without a past / future timeline, now disappears. It no longer makes any sense to use the term "now".

The "anti-rioting" bill is a good example of when1st Amendment freedom of speech is operative (as opposed to "cancel culture" online). The 1st Amendment forbids the government from suppressing speech and assembly. This does not apply to social media sites monitoring speech on their platform. A statement from Orlando attorney's filing a lawsuit: “These statutes are unconstitutional on their face and as-applied to Plaintiffs’ planned speech and expressive conduct because: (1) they target protected speech under the First Amendment; (2) they are written with the intent of defining any such protest as a “riot” or participation in such protest as “inciting a riot”; and (3) they retaliate against those subjected to these laws with excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment as a means of hindering the speech of dissenting opinions,” the lawsuit states. The sneaky part is giving the state authority to declare any protest they want a "riot" and arresting anyone involved in a protest for "inciting a riot". This currently happens, yet it's not in state law. For example, police have declared public gatherings as "unlawful assemblies" for trivial reasons so they can break it up. Yet it's not legal to do so and people can file lawsuits - so there is some protection against it. Yet this law would remove that protection by legally allowing the state to declare anything they want as a "riot".

The tricky part is that those immersed and identified within a story will consider their side to be subjected to injustice. They are the victims. Protecting this story is a matter of survival for the ego. Those storming the capital truly believed that Trump won in a landslide and communists stole the election and will take over the country - leading to hell. Their survival and the survival of America depends upon "Stop the Steal". They are the true patriots defending America from Biden and the evil communists. They truly believe this and their survival depends upon it. I saw interviews and interacted with MAGAs that were extremely distressed. To them, storming the capital is justified for their survival and the survival of their family and America. . . And Trump / Republicans made a fortune fundraising off this. Fearmongering is great for fundraising off tens of millions of people.

The jury is now deliberating on the Chauvin case. A few thoughts and predictions: I watched the majority of the trial and various analysis from defense and prosecuting attorney's. Imo, the defense simply tried to plant doubt into how George Floyd died (that he died from heart disease or intoxication). Secondly, they tried to cast doubt into whether the force was unreasonable. Yet the Minneapolis PD through Chauvin under the bus and even the defenses own witnesses conceded key points. One defense witness agreed that Chauvin use of force was unreasonable after Floyd was motionless and had no pulse (i.e. dead). And there were some bizarre moments for defense witnesses. One tried to claim that Chauvin didn't use force because Floyd was never in pain. Another defense witness claimed Floyd's death was mostly due to carbon monoxide poising from the patrol car's tailpipe. I can't see reasonable jurors being convinced by the defense for a full acquittal. Overall, I think at least manslaughter (due to gross negligence) was demonstrated. My predictions from least likely to most likely: Highly unlikely (1% chance): Acquittal on all charges. This would take a unanimous jury. I can't see it happening. The state made a much stronger case. Plus, the jury is 50% poc. I can't see a 12-0 ruling of not guilty on all charges. Unlikely (10% chance): Involuntary murder 2. Jury would need to be unanimous that Chauvin intentionally committed felony assault prior to Floyd's death. I don't think the jury will unanimously find Chauvin, a police officer, guilty of intentional felony assault. I don't see a jury unanimously convicting on the highest charge, when two lesser charges are available. Possible: Hung Jury (35% chance). All it takes is for one juror to say not guilty on all charges and it's a hung jury. Chauvin isn't acquitted, yet he also isn't found guilty. In a hung jury, the state would need to decide whether to retry, which they would likely do. Likely: Murder 3 or Manslaughter (55% chance). My hunch is that the 12 jury members will be divided among the charges ranging from murder 2 guilty to innocent on all charges. Murder 3 and Manslaughter are the "compromise" verdicts. To me, manslaughter seems like a pro-police position. Even the Minneapolis police department threw Chauvin under the bus and said he used excessive force. When your fellow cops are testifying that it's manslaughter, it doesn't look good for the defendant. To acquit on manslaughter, a juror would need to be to the right of the police department. Post Verdict Highly Likely: An appeal. It's almost guaranteed that the defense will appeal either murder 2 or 3. I'd say a 50:50 chance of appeal on manslaughter, since I think Chauvin / the defense realizes they probably won't do better than a few years in prison on manslaughter. I think an appeal has a good chance of being granted. This jury was not sequestered and there has been a ton of news regarding protests and pressure for a guilty verdict. Today, Maxine Waters joined protestors and called for increased confrontation if there isn't a guilty verdict. Imo, it's reasonable to say that jurors could not avoid all news and were influenced by news. The defense is saying there needs to be a specific threat to jurors, vague calls for "increased confrontation" are insufficient. I could see it going either way. Public Reaction in order of severity: Full Acquittal: I don't see full acquittal on all charges since it requires 12-0. Yet if it happens, all hell will break loose. . . Massive protests, riots and violence. However, it's not like it's an all white jury. Half the jury is poc and would need to vote not guilty. I don't see it happening. Hung Jury: Massive protests across the country with riots. A hung jury means the state can retry, yet I think most of the public would see this as he wasn't found guilty. Guilty on manslaughter: Any guilty verdict would quell unrest to an extent, yet just manslaughter would not be enough for the left. Many people would see this as too light. Some large protests in large cities, yet nowhere near as intense as the two cases above. Murder 3: I think most people will see this as simply a murder conviction since "murder" is in the title. I think this is the "over/under" conviction for the stage green. Most of the public and green would see this as "convicted of murder". Mild protests by the left. The right would whine a bit, yet also say "See, there is no systemic racism" Murder 2: This is the top charge, so obviously no one can demand higher, including blm and sjws. Yet the question becomes will the right-wing get upset and protest? I doubt it. Even the Minneapolis police department and various police experts said the force was excessive. I think there would be whining from the right, yet mostly on FoxNews, Briebert and social media. Yet no protests on the streets. The right wing would also use a murder 2 verdict to counter-attack the left's claims of systemic racism in America.

Yes, some are intellectually pompous and it's a major turn-off for me. Yet usually, academics are thoughtful and appreciate being with another academic that is chill. I went on a date with a pompous academic that kept asking during casual conversation "As an expert in your field, what do you think about xyz?'. She kept adding in credentials and expectations that I was super knowledgeable and an authority in the area. She was creating a high standard for my response and oneupmanship. And then she would say "As an expert in your field, I'm sure you are very familiar with Dr. ABC's work on XYZ. What is your expert impression?". Sometimes I said "I never heard of the guy". And she would look disappointed and say "Oh, I would think that an expert like yourself would be more knowledgeable than that". It was sooo annoying.

I've noticed this as well. This is the dynamic of selective filtering and creating false equivalencies. Protests that get unruly because people as so fed up with injustice as very different than protests that get unruly because people believe democrats are satan-worshipping pedophiles that eat children. The underlying energy driving the protests and violence needs to be considered. Right-wingers have the capacity to understand differences of motivation. They know the difference between someone killing a person to steal their car and someone killing a person in self defense. Both involve violence, yet have different motivations driving the violence. However, if someone is identified and attached to one form, they will filter out the differences. For example: "Why is everyone so upset with the capital violence, yet not upset with BLM violence?"

In that case, I might downplay it and be like "yea, it's something I gotta do for work and maybe it will help prevent an illness. It doesn't seem like the risks are high". In general, I would try to avoid putting her on the defensive. And I would make it seem like it isn't that big a deal. I might even play a bit innocent. "Everyone at work is getting it, it doesn't see like a big deal". I would also keep in mind, that your mother is acting out of love for you. She genuinely believes her delusional thoughts and wants to help you out of love. That can shift the dynamics. . .

It's a combination. Paul Rossi is clearly blue/orange resisting green. He has a similar orientation of Jordan Peterson. The easiest way to tell is that Rossi is criticizing green from below, not from above. He is trying to pull green down, not pull green up. He is highly antagonistic to green initiatives and has no interest in improving them. For example, he insists that white people are being demonized as evil. This is a classic blue/orange response that green wants to shame them and guilt-trip them. Paul's position is that the school board is demonizing him and white kids as being evil. Yet that is not the orientation of green that is motivated by diversity, equality and inclusion. This is a hyper-sensitive response referred to as "white fragility". A blue/orange level person will not have meta awareness of this and will perceive DEI initiatives as an attack, take a defensive posture and play victim. Rather than trying to improve the teaching content, he wants to prevent the teaching content. A yellow-level person criticizing from above would have a very different orientation. For example, a yellow-level person would understand how a blue/orange level white person may become defensive regarding teaching things like institutional racism. And a yellow-level person would be more interested in improving how to teach content, rather than trying to prevent it. For example, a yellow-level person may criticize green by saying "Yes, teaching about institutional racism is valid content, yet the way it is being presented will be interpreted as threatening to some white faculty and may give the impression that white children are to blame and inherently bad. Let's restructure the content in a way that teaches de-personalizes blame". I also read Paul's essay and he makes some valid points, yet he has a contracted blue/orange mindset and cannot see larger systems and nuances. For example, he gives the classic blue/orange view of being "colorblind" and treating all students the same so nothing is projected upon them. In some contexts, this is true and has value. It is the right-wing idea that anti-racism projects victimhood onto bipoc. There is some truth to that in some situations. Yet Paul has a myopic binary view and cannot see the bigger systemic, nuanced picture. Paul's myopic view has partial truth, yet in some contexts it turns a blind eye to racial disparities. In one context, all students should be treated the same - in other contexts they should not be treated the same. Different students have different issues. Some issues are socio-economic, some issues are group and some issues are specific to them personally. Paul is not able to see these distinctions and puts them all in one category of treat everyone the same. Unfortunately, Paul (and blue/orange), puts everyone in their own category. This is desire for privilege and status quo. For example, Paul was outraged that the school encouraged faculty to use the term "parents" rather than "mom and dad" since some students have same-sex parents. Paul wanted to keep using the terms "mom and dad" because it fits his in-group. He is not aware of how that creates a barrier for students that have same-sex parents. Yet Paul doesn't care about creating a better solution so that kids with same-sex parents are better included. Paul could have responded with "Yes, it is important that all kids are included and have a sense of belonging - yet I don't think only using the term "parents" is best. Let's brainstorm even better solutions". No, Paul is outraged that he might lose hetero-sexual terms and doesn't care about greater inclusivity for kids with same-sex parents.

Guys pump in and out and bust a nut. Women are more complex. I dated a woman that had an orgasm every few minutes. There were times she would have 20+ orgasms in a session. That's how she was. I also dated women that only orgasm'd half the time, and they didn't appreciate me thinking this was an issue they had and they needed to be fixed. Sometimes, they just liked the sex and were more into the whole process of foreplay, intercourse and snuggling afterwards. Many women are not hyper-focused on orgasm, like men. . . How many guys to you think have had sex, enjoyed it and decided it was time to stop before orgasm and snuggle? It is inconceivable to men, yet sometimes women find it satisfying. Yet other times, guys focus on their own orgasm and think it was great sex and now it's time to sleep or play some video games - without even considering the woman's desires as she lays there unsatisfied. And I've dated women that had been sexually abused and had issues with orgasming. Sometimes they don't want to address it, other times they did. I dated one gal that couldn't orgasm with a guy and we worked together to make it happen. It was like figuring out a combination lock. Yet she wanted to try and opened this door. Some women rarely have vaginal orgasms, some can orgasm via anal sex, others not. There are all sorts of different varieties. This is also another dynamic. Things can become routine and a gal can repress sexual desires. Yet personally, I would be careful with making assumptions that "she must want XYZ because that's what my previous gf wanted". I try to engage in a dynamic that she feels comfortable telling her desires. If a woman is repressing desires it's her and the guy. She doesn't feel comfortable expressing it with the guy. I've found putting expectations onto her can make it worse. A feeling of being judged is the biggest block to opening up about repressed desires. She could be into learning about how to have vaginal orgasms. Yet if I make that assumption and it's not her deeper desire, she won't open up. Imagine a gal with repressed desires to be dominated and rape fantasies. If a guy is focused on making her vaginal orgasm, he is in another world. . . Rather, I would talk about some of my own "gray area desires" and get in tune with her response and energy. I might mention how I'm curious what it would be like to have sex with someone voyeuring us. This could open a door. She might respond "You too? I've never felt comfortable telling someone that". Or she might respond with a "yuck". Then I recalibrate. Imagine a gal has a fantasy about role reversals and being dom. If I'm oriented toward trying to help her orgasm, that is a dom role and she won't feel comfortable expressing dom desires. Yet if I mention curiosity about getting plugged, she might ask "what is that?" and perk up. Or she might look disappointed (indicating she is more sub). One great way to open doors to repressed sexual desires is role playing. For me, that is the #1 door opener, because it's a character and not them. When exploring roles we could play, one can throw out a character and not be judged as it being them. For example, I was exploring role playing with a gal and she mentioned being a young teenage girl with a crush on the landscaper, who is a full grown male. I wasn't like "Omg, that would be child rape! That's so fucked up!". Another gal told me she wanted to play my psychologist and wanted me to play her patient - and she would mentally manipulate me into having sex. I wasn't like "That's unethical". I was like "ooooh, that could be interesting. . . ". It was obvious that these were repressed fantasies they had and hadn't felt comfortable sharing it with a guy.

@SQAAD I've had similar experiences. For example, during or after the trip I might get uncomfortable and think "Why am I tripping again? I'm avoiding life. I should be getting my shit together and doing healthy things in life". And after enlightening transcending trips, I may feel down after coming back down to earth. In terms of human wellness, I've tried to mix in other natural forms of "spirituality", such as yoga, running and breathwork. In particular, breathwork can induce quasi-psychedelic experiences, yet the "person" is still engaged and participating. One can go to all sorts of conscious states that feel healthy, productive, self loving and easy to integrate. I also try to be grateful for know having the memories of the transcendent trip. It would be like being contracted in a small space, expanding to the top of the mountain, and returning to the small space. In a sense, it sucks to return to the small space - yet there is also appreciation for the expansive experience. A piece of that stays with me and I have a better idea what it feels like.

We covered this in class today regarding schizophrenia. I showed them various perspectives and how each has value: 1) A biochemist developing antipsychotic drugs, 2) A neuroscientist expert on dopamine and serotonin pathways, 3) A psychologist expert on behavior, 4) Gabor Mate: an expert on social system psychology and empathy, 5) A woman who actually has schizophrenia. I then asked them if each area has value in our understanding of schizophrenia - all students agreed. I then asked them if it is possible to become an expert in one area and lack expertise in another area? E.g. could a biochemist become so immersed in drug design that he knows little of how social phenomena (like stigmatization) can contribute to schizophrenia? (All students agree). I then asked if the woman with schizophrenia is a type of expert, yet lacks expertise in the biochemistry. . . (all students agree). Then I asked "Each of the people shown here is an expert in one area. Is it possible to get expertise in multiple areas?". Long pause. . . and then they start to get it. I asked them "Assume I have expertise in neuroscience. Could I do psychedelics to induce temporary psychosis to get direct experience of what psychosis is actually like? Would that expand and deepen my understanding?". Long pause. . . and then they start to get it. I then play a 10min video of a woman describing her experience and encourage the students to try to relate to her and imagine what it's like from her perspective. I prime them by reflecting on their own experience by saying "You've all had a nightmare dream that seemed very real. While you were waking up, there was about 5 seconds in which you couldn't differentiate what was dream and what was real. You may have thought 'Omg, I drove drunk last night and killed someone' or 'the stalker is coming after me. . .', yet then you realized 'Oh, it was just a dream - thank god'. Now imagine that 5 seconds of not knowing extend for your entire day. You never realize it was just a dream and cannot tell what is real and unreal. ". This puts them in a mindset to imagine and relate.

One thing you didn't mention is whether she believes the vaccine is dangerous or used for mind control. If she just thinks the pandemic is a scam and the virus doesn't exist, you have an opening (as long as she doesn't believe the vaccine is dangerous). People that are immersed deeply into a story often see in opposites and try to put the other person in the opposite position. If someone believes that the pandemic is 100% scam they will try to put an opposing view as the polar opposite (the pandemic is 100% legit). To decrease the polarized energy, I would take a more moderate position and try to stay grounded. For example, I would acknowledge certain aspects of her story. I might say "yea, essential oils have value. The law of attraction has value". As well "yea, the government may be exagerrating". I would then take a "better safe than sorry" position. "I want to get the vaccine, just in case.". Like an insurance policy. The risks are low that I will get into a car accident, yet I still wear a seatbelt just in case. It is unlikely to rain, yet I still bring an umbrella, just in case. This would only work if she doesn't think the vaccine is dangerous.