Forestluv

It depends on which conversation. I've been having conversations with people for months about how Biden is past his prime, unelectable and would tank in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Then it would be too late for him in S. Carolina. This conversation hasn't shifted at all after Iowa, it's exactly what was expected. There were other conversations that Biden was the "most electable". in this conversation, Biden is the safe choice and has the support from moderates necessary to defeat Trump. In this conversation, Biden was expected to be competitive (top 3) in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada - and then win S. Carolina and Super Tuesday. This conversation was obviously blown to pieces and there is no way to put it back together again. Biden got slapped hard in Iowa. He was a distant 4th place and received Zero state delegates. Moderates flocked to Pete, not Biden. Pete got so many moderates that he essentially tied for 1st place. Moderates soundly rejected Biden and blew away the conversation of "Biden wins moderates and is most electable", because he lost moderates and got 4th place. . . So the conversation has shifted. Because moderates voted for Pete, not Biden. Pete is now seen as the leader in the "moderate lane". He clearly was the top moderate candidate in Iowa and polling indicates he is the top candidate in the next two states: New Hampshire and Nevada. That gives him three victories as the top moderate. The top liberal candidate and the top moderate candidate will each be seen as the possible democratic nominee. For now, the top moderate candidate is Pete - due to Iowa results, polling and fundraising. I would say the big picture significance of Iowa was that the "old guard" in the democratic party was soundly rejected. Biden is "old guard" he has been in Washington for decades as a Senator and Vice President, he has national old guard support (e.g. John Kerry) and Iowa old guard support (e.g. Vilsak). The voters, including moderates, soundly rejected this old guard and voted for the new moderate, Pete - who is a young mayor from a small city. The only thing most Americans knew about this small city was Notre Dame football.

Hmmm. . . to me the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" assumes there is an actual thing called "something" that is distinct from "nothing". I can't begin to contemplate "why" there is a difference without knowing if and what that difference is. If someone asked me "why is there grictlef rather than nixqat?", I would need to know if there is difference between "grictlef" and "nixqat" prior to answering why there is that difference. If one goes "prior" and contemplates: "what is something?", "what is nothing?", one can observe the mind and body create stories of what "something" is relative to "nothing".

Ime, there are some similarities, yet also differences. LSD and shrooms are much more similar for me than LSD and 5-meo. For me, 5-meo is different than traditional psychedelics. It's like half psychedelic, half something else. So trying to equalize the two via dosage sounds weird to me. It would be like asking "If I took a serious trip Beijing China, would it match a casual trip to Madrid Spain? AS well, there are a wide range of resonances with psychedelics and subjective experiences that are shaped by many factors. We can't objectively say "An 300ug LSD trip will have 62.7% similarity to a 20mg 5-meo trip". Also DMT and 5-meo-dmt generally have very different effects. For example, DMT is highly visual, 5-meo-dmt is not.

Nice. That seems to be an effect for some people. That's a good point about the term "motivation". It can be used in a more general context or an acute context. For example, after my first few psychedelic trips, I became motivated to travel to spiritual places in foreign countries. I could also describe it as an energetic shift and re-alignment. The term "motivate" also has an acute "adderall-like" connotation. E.g. "I can't motivate myself to study for my exam, I need a drug to motivate me". . . Psychedelics don't have this type motivational effect on me.

I teach in a liberal arts college. Waldorf kids would do well in this environment. I agree that many University environments may favor grooming, but not all. And many Universities have honors colleges with low teacher : student ratios. Have you considered an IB program? Those kids come prepared for college. Even moreso than AP students.

@TheHealer Welcome back. It looks like you made some awesome progress ?

Everyone resonates with psychedelics differently. For me, psychedelics don't fix me, they dissolve me. Yet that's me. Psychedelics can reduce anxiety in some people. I haven't come across people becoming motivated. I only have experience using psychedelics for mystical intentions.

He just couldn't resist slipping in some morality. . .

Of course psychedelics could help with this. If my intention was personal and career development, I would probably use a low/moderate dose. For me, higher doses fully dissolve the self and there is no longer a "me" for whom to do personal and career development. Yet at low/moderate doses, psychedelics can bump up my conscious level to a meta view. In terms of SD, it would be like going from Orange to Yellow for a few hours. Some of my best creative and contemplative work has come in this zone. Yet everyone resonates with psychedelics differently. Psychedelics could show someone the intimacy of Now and afterwards the person might think "Yea but, what does that have to do with me and setting my goals? What a waste of time.". The psychedelic and the person are not on the same wavelength. Or a psychedelic could give someone a meta view of their abilities giving insight into a future career. The only way to find out is to do it.

Psychedelics have revealed a lot to me. Much more than I could have originally imaged. I'm a natural empath as well. As I learn and develop more, it seems like there are different types of empathic abilities. Different frequencies on what they are in tune with. I've gone to crazy deep levels of empathy on psyches. Sometimes it also appears when I'm sober. Thats awesome to hear. I love how something that was once judged as a liability is now realized as an ability. Tell Mother Aya I said "Hi" Setting can influence a trip. It can reveal new things. At times, it feels like "superpowers" are revealed. Yet, it doesn't seem like I get to chose what powers arise. Last year I took a trip with a gal who is an intermediate-level Reiki student. We went to an energy vortex in Sedona, AZ. She was vibrating even before we dosed. . . . During the trip she met some type of spirit guide and went to another realm. When she returned, she started crying and said "I can do it myself now. I no longer need anyone else to do it". She advanced a full Reiki level that day. Literally. When she returned, she was immediately advanced a full level. She was able to move energy on her own.

I imagine there is a range of quality from school to school, yet the foundations of Waldorf pedagogy has it's advantages over traditional schools. -- The curriculum is diverse and balanced. Creative, intellectual and spiritual. -- There is attention paid to the unique learning styles and abilities of each child. For example, a child may show an aptitude for abstract thinking. This would be encouraged, rather than discouraged. -- It is not hyper competitive with standardized exams. Students are not constantly compared to other students. Their value is not based on their place on a competitive grade hierarchy. Rather, an emphasis is placed on inner enthusiasm for learning. -- Rather than memorization, students are taught to be creative and critical, independent thinkers. -- It is highly integrative and develops minds that can see inter-connections. A mind that can assimilate information and to develop and apply it. This opens a path toward yellow-level creativity and thinking. Overall, it's like a liberal arts college for kids.

A thread about being overly serious and worrying caught my attention. . . I was raised in a very serious environment. Everything was so heavy and serious. If I got a "C" in a class very serious. Hours of lecture and a meeting with my teacher. . . If I left a light on in the house - very serious. A lecture about how hard my parents are working to put a roof over my head and food on the table - and I'm throwing money out the window (about 4 cents worth of electricity). Even family vacations were serious. Chronic seriousness has many unhealthy aspects. It's hard on the body. A chronic state of seriousness increases tension and levels of stress hormones such as cortisol. As well, it is a state of distress to the mind. Yet the mind and body love to find an equilibrium. Chronic seriousness may become "normal". Occasionally, a chronically serious person may catch glimpses and see it as a problem. Perhaps their bf/gf brings it to their attention. Perhaps the are at a party with people that are being silly and laughing - a serious may notice they can't let go and want to experience being playful and laughter. . . Yet often, a chronically serious person will avoid playful environments because it feels uncomfortable - they feel like they don't fit in. On the flip side, being playful, silly and laughing a lot is healing. It is a release to laugh and be playful - especially when we laugh at ourselves. It is enjoyable and increases our quality of life. It allows rebalancing and recovery from stressful serious times. A couple questions people asked me while I was immersed in serious zones: "What do you do for fun in your life?". If I can't answer this, its a good sign I'm too far serious. I may say "I go running". Yet is running "fun" for me? Or I may say, "I hike. I meditate. I contemplate". Yet is this "fun"? Am I spending any time in actual "fun zones". For example, going to a concert and dancing. Playing a coop board game with a friend and being playful. Playing frisbee golf with a friend (and not being overly competitive and serious). Getting excited when we hit a good shot, high fives, smiles and laughter. Actually playing,. Another question I ask is "How often do I laugh and smile? When was the last time I laughed so hard I couldn't stop?". I've noticed that many people crave to be playful, joyful, silly. They want humor and laughter. I've spent a lot of time with online dating and one of the most common desirable traits women say they want is a good sense of humor and laughter. People don't want to be in overly-serious relationships with chronic worry, issues and drama. As well, people want to be seen as an "easy going guy". So many online profiles have comments like "I like to have fun", "I'm an easy going", "I like to laugh a lot". Yet then when we go out on a date, they are sooo serious. . . @fridjonk Thank you for your comments. I'm not very familiar with Marcus Aurelius. A blue-level person that was also awakened and one with nature would be an interesting case.

Ime, it's hard to overcome over-seriousness when I take it seriously. . . One thing I've found helpful is to give myself time and space to not be serious. It's been helpful to have a few friends that are naturally playful, silly and laugh a lot (including themselves). Things like playing miniature golf or watching Rick and Morty are a good environment to practice being spontaneous, playful, silly and laughter.

@billiesimon I just read your other trip reports. You are resonating strongly with psychedelics right out of the gate. You likely have natural resonance. It looks like they are raising your energy in a pure way. . . They could be a really powerful tool for you. It seems all 4-5 of your trips had a love theme - which is awesome. And some signs of high level empathy. . . There are all sorts of "facets" psychedelics can help unlock and explore. It's not uncommon for someone with naturally strong resonance with psyches to have their baseline energetic level increased - and to become more sensitive to low doses. It happened to me too. If you want to explore more, you might try a new setting - like out in nature or try a different type of psychedelic. Give your mind and body time to acclimate, integrate and contemplate to each trip.

In that case, I would push toward eliminating caucus circuses. The shenanigans and inconsistencies are an inherent part of caucuses. Everything I've read and seen is completely expected and has been happening in caucuses for decades. It is a fertile environment for irregularities. Ranked choice voting is much superior. It's like allowing college students to take an un-proctored exam with three cases of beer in the room. And then being shocked and appalled that some students cheated and a case of beer is missing. That's exactly what's expected in that environment.

@Bno A lot of your concerns are not about specific candidates. Those types of shenanigans are inherent to the circus-like caucus atmosphere. It's been going on in caucuses for every US election. This was the first election in which first and second vote totals were submitted and there was also greater scrutiny - this increased the transparency of underlying shenanigans that have always occurred between rival groups in caucuses. If you are concerned about the absurdity of caucuses, push for ranked choice voting. It is far superior.

My sister gave birth to 3 girls in a row. Perhaps a pattern to be concerned with. . .

I'm starting to realize how deep and expansive paradox and meta views are. As well, paradoxes and meta views are closely intertwined. Unfortunately, it makes communication with "normies" very difficult. I find the dynamic so interesting. A mind without access to paradox and meta view, perceives it through more basic software. Like 4.0 information being processed by 2.0 software. The most common perceptions I see are: 1. An assumption that the other person disagrees with you. The mind holds "my position" as true, therefore "your position" is a counter position. This leads to a debate trap in which the person is debating themself. 2. The mind cannot be immersed within a position and see it from various angles. . . In organic chemistry, there is a focus on molecular interactions in three dimensions. It is very difficult for the mind to hold an images of molecules in there mind and rotate it in three dimensions to see it from various angles. The vast majority of students need to purchase physical molecular models. Similarly, it is very difficult for the mind to hold a view in their mind, rotate it and view it from different angles. I've noticed that very few minds can do it - mostly due to attachment/identification to the view. This ability empowers a mind to make inter-connections, integrate and be multi-perspectival, For example, there is a current debate on the forum about whether enlightenment is simply awakening to Now or whether it takes "work" over time. Each is true in a certain context. Yet a mind immersed in a view will not be able to see how it relates in different contexts. This is yellow level territory. An indicator that a mind is starting to transition into Tier 2 is if the mind pauses and thinks "it depends". This is an early indication that the mind is transcending a hard binary mindset. For example "Is this right or wrong? Just give me a 'yes' or 'no' answer!". Well, it depends on the situation. . . For my mind structure, this is so basic and I'm amazed at how hard it is for many minds to see. Unfortunately, it can make conversations difficult. 3. "You are over-complicating things". A mind with 2.0 software will perceive 4.0 information as "overcomplicated". In terms of SD, this is a classic mind response to "higher levels". A blue-level person will see an Orange level person as "overcomplicating things". For example, my mom thinks each person is either a man or woman. Men are masculine and are attracted to women. And women are feminine and are attracted to men. It's that simple. When I try to explain variations of gender she will respond "Why do you always complicate things?! A person is either a man or woman. It's that simple". . . . Similarly an Orange-level person will perceive a Yellow-level person as "overcomplicating things". Hallmarks of Yellow are multi-perspective meta views, integration and understanding of paradox. Orange doesn't have access to this. . . In the above example: a Tier 1 mind would take a position, either: "Enlightenment is spontaneously Now" or "Enlightenment occurs after spiritual work over time". By taking a position, the mind restricts itself and will not be able to see the truth in each position. 4. "Take a Stand". This is another one I commonly see. A Tier1 mind will see a right or wrong, especially Blue and Orange. I used to think it was only a Blue level trait, yet its widespread in Orange and fairly common in Green. Its not until Tier2 that bimodal mindsets are transcended. This is not because the mind is unable to cognitively transcend it - it is due to attachment/identification to a view. And that doesn't dissolve until Tier2. If you want to determine if someone is in Tier2 - look at their attachment/identification to "my view" and "your view". . . From a Tier1 perspective, Tier2 is maddening. Tier1 will often yell "Take a stand with one position or the other!!" and they will see a Yellow level person as indecisive, weak and lost in overly-complex abstract thinking.

In some contexts, that certainly has value. However, that is a limited dualistic mindset. There is transcendence to that. A meta view is very different than fence sitting and much can be learned, such as paradox.

@billiesimon It's awesome that you resonate so well with psychedelics. They can be a super powerful tool for some. Sometimes I feel like they are like a magic wand for me and my own personal enlightenment teacher. . . And to enter the realm you did on a low 40ug dose suggests you may have some abilities.

@whoareyou I am not saying you are wrong. I am not disagreeing with you. If I was to create a panel discussion to express the truth within your position - you would be an awesome spokesperson for that. You are missing a meta view due to attachment/identification within your position. This creates a limited lens. There is something you are missing, yet will not be able to see it while immersed within a position.

@Bno You clearly have good intentions of wanting to help others and improve society. And, I'm not saying you are right or wrong. . . There is another way of seeing things, by letting go of content and looking at the structure of how we interact with reality and interpret content. Like you, I have a desire to transmit information and genuinely want to help people. For a long time, I was immersed in content. For me, it was science. I wanted to transmit scientific facts and help irrational people think rationally. I spent a lot of time trying to help "woo woo" people with irrational thinking to start thinking rationally. I was so immersed in the content of science, that I couldn't see my mind structure and how my mind was interpreting through a filter. I was so immersed in a scientific narrative that I couldn't see any biases. I couldn't see what I was missing. This is really hard to do because of attachment/identification to a narrative and the genuine desire to help people through this narrative. Yet it is worth it, ime.

@whoareyou A key is: I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying that is true and false. If someone can only see the truth in it, it is helpful to show the falsity in it. If someone can only see the falsity in it, it is helpful to show the truth in it. There is something underlying related to paradoxes. If a mind takes a position, it takes a view against not-that-position to maintain it's own position. This will contract the mind and prevent seeing a meta view of truths and falsities. . . . You can clearly see how the position you hold is true, no more "work" is needed. Can you also see how your position is false? This would require letting go and taking a meta view. One might call this realization a sudden realization that spontaneously appeared. Or, one might call this realization part of the "work". To relate this back to the original thread topic: an agenda of pushing dogmatic ideology is "work" in the opposite direction to the work that leads to transcendent awakenings and meta views. If one cannot see a meta view, they can only "criticize from below", they will not be able to "criticize from above" - yet the mind will resist this due to attachment/identification to a position.

@PenguinPablo Yes, there certainly are challenges and traps with psychedelics. It takes practice and skill. 20+ years of my spiritual path was all substance-free. There are positives to it.