Forestluv

@Lyubov That cholesterol composition will take a toll. It's both the somewhat high cholesterol level, but also the LDL/HDL ration. LDL is the bad form and HDL is the good form. You can lower the LDL form by diet and boost the HDL form via exercise.

Being successful in many areas can limit the pool of potential dating partners. If someone is a competitive marathon runner, that would intimidate a lot of people. A lot of people would feel insecure that they aren't in great physical shape and exercising everyday. Similarly, if someone is a highly intelligent professor a lot of people would feel uncomfortable or someone successful that makes a lot of money. Personally, I wouldn't care if a woman was successful and had high income. It's about her orientation. If she was a successful artist that was chill and eccentric I would love it. Yet I would be totally turned off if she was a "professional" that was all proper, concerned about her image and wanted me to dress up in suits and go to fancy executive banquets. I'm not into that at all.

I like this analogy. I literally did this in real life when I was a youngin. I really liked a gal I started dating. She had recently moved from Florida to Colorado in her car and didn't bring many belongings. Winter was approaching and she had no warm clothing. So with good intentions, I went shopping for her and bought her a bunch of clothes - a few sweaters, a jacket etc. She seemed to appreciate the intention and thanked me, yet also seemed very uncomfortable and I was confused why? I told her that she could keep the ones she liked and I would return the rest, yet that didn't seem to help. . . Isn't it a good thing to buy someone clothes? Yet like you say, it's her closet. I hardly knew her and didn't even ask her about what she is into. A very different approach would offering to co-create together. To be open to what she is into and go with that flow together. If she said she was into one simple thing from ASOS, roll with it - rather than over-ruling her and saying "No, I'm you are getting four pieces from Walmart - whether you like it or not". Another example would be going out to clothes shop for Halloween. Here we are both getting clothes together. We would co-create our experience together. That is different than trying to impose upon her customs I assume she *should* like.

I received my second Moderna shot yesterday. I haven't experienced any side effects from either shot. @Fishmonk When considering extreme side effects, also consider frequency. I could post an image of someone having a severe anaphylaxis response to a bee sting. Yet it would be a distortion to present it as common. Only about 1 in 1 million people would have a response. If people believed it was common, they would have an irrational fear of bees and run away from bees. Similarly, only about 1 in 1 million people have a severe reaction to the vaccine. So in a large city of 10 million people, only about 10 people would have a severe response. Yet if we posted pictures of those 10 people as representative of the vaccine, it will create irrational fear.

Imagine living in a town your whole life. You've never left the town or seen anything outside of the town. One day you climb up a mountain and look down on your town from above. This is a very different perspective. In one sense, it is "higher", yet it's not a "better" perspective. Rather than calling it a "higher" view, I'd prefer the term more "expansive" view, because "higher" has a connotation of a hierarchy and being "better". Yet, you would be amazed by this view. For the first time, you would see how all the roads, houses, shops, parks etc are all inter-related within the town. You would be able to see how your town relates to neighboring hills, mountains, forest and other towns in the distance. This would massively expand ones mind. . . When you return to the town, it may be hard to make sense of it all. Was the mountain view a dream? Was it real? What does it mean for my everyday life experience within the town?

@Raphael One key of systems thinking has to do with causation. Most human minds are contracted within one proximal input of causation. It is more difficult to see multiple inputs of causation in an inter-related system over time. Many minds can only see one input at a time. As well, many minds are attached to pre-conceived ideas and will filter out or be defensive about multiple inputs. For example, if someone drove through a red light, hit and killed a bicyclist on the side of the road. . . most minds would focus on that one proximal point of causation that he hit and killed her. Yet in a larger system, there could be many causes - for example, the driver may have received a text that his father just had a heart attack. This could have distracted him, he could have been filled with worry texting family members and trying to get to the hospital. Perhaps he recently drank a couple beers that also contributed. And it was during a foggy night with low visibility. And the cyclist was dressed in dark clothing, had no reflectors and wasn't wearing a helmet. These are all contributing factors within a larger system. And we could expand it to a larger system. . . Perhaps this intersection was around a sharp bend and there is an accident every month there. Why hasn't the town previously taken action by putting up a flashing light before the intersection? . . . Perhaps the city council can do better community outreach to cyclists should be wearing reflective clothing at night, have bicycle lights and reflectors - especially during a foggy night. As well, the driver had previous DUIs. Perhaps the laws aren't strict enough regarding DUI. Perhaps there isn't enough resources in town to help people with drinking and drug-related issues. Yet this type of thinking system is more complex and takes more effort. Most minds want to simply blame the perpetrator or victim. The above image shows the inter-relationships of causation in a bigger picture view. We could also add more distinctions and make the map higher resolution as well as expand the map and add in more inputs of causation.

Did you actually watch the trial? The prosecution presented a very strong case with extensive evidence and well-renowned expert witness. The defense couldn't counter. It was like college professors up against kids with Down Syndrome. Based on the trial itself, I can easily see how a jury could go with the prosecution. This is a distorted narrative. Third degree murder does not require intent. Third-degree murder is unintentionally causing someone’s death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life. Chauvin is accused of committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime. Judge Cahill himself told jurors that under Minnesota law, an act that is eminently dangerous is one that “is highly likely to cause death,”. “The defendant’s act may not have been specifically intended to cause death,” and “it may not have been specifically directed at the person whose death occurred, but it must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life,” said the judge. The prosecution made an extremely strong case that Chauvin committed an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life and conscious indifference to the loss of life. This is one of the most extreme examples of indifference to the loss of life one can imagine. The defense didn't even counter this point. The entire defense was that other factors caused Floyd's death (such as heart condition, intoxication, CO poising). Even the defense witness conceded that Chauvin had an indifference to the loss of life. My only qualm would be the technicality of "depraved mind". Imo, it was established that Chauvin did not meet the standard of a "reasonable officer" (which the defense conceded after the 5min. mark). The trial did not dive into "depraved mind". Yet the judge set the standard of murder 3 in Minnesota to be "conscious indifference to the loss of life". A conscious indifference is totally obvious. Chauvin's fellow police officers were saying to roll Floyd over to his side. Floyd was motionless / dead for about 3min., an EMT was urging medical care, a paramedic told Chauvin that Floyd had no pulse. And through it all Chauvin kept up the pressure. They had to pull Chauvin off the dead body. I think any objective person would acknowledge this as "conscious indifference to loss of life."

Initially, I thought it was gross negligence (manslaughter). Yet after watching the trial and details of the event, I think it went beyond negligent -> into murder territory (not pre-meditated). Murder 3. I watch a couple legal analysts saying that it wasn't technically murder 2. I'm not sure on that one.

Of note: Biden and Harris called the Floyd family right after the verdict. It was recorded live in the courthouse. Biden mentioned that this was a sign of change coming to America. There is no way in hell Trump would have called Floyd's family at any time during the ordeal. It's a very stark contrast.

I think there may have been some public pressure, however the jury still could have gone for murder 3 without mass violence or threats on their life. As well, keep in mind that the state prosecutors totally outclassed the defense. The Minneapolis PD and police experts all threw Chauvin under the bus. And they prosecutors had well-renown expert medical witnesses. The defense witnesses were a joke. Carbon monoxide poising killed George? C'mon. They will certainly appeal - mostly on the grounds that there was intense media coverage and pressure jurors couldn't avoid. Even the judge said an appeal would have some merit. Yet I don't think they will be able to overturn the verdict all hush-hush. This would be seen as the judicial system overturning justice. That's way worse than a hung jury. Part of the social tension is injustice in the judicial system.

For me, psychosis is being trapped between two worlds and trying to grasp one of them. If I roll with either of them, it's smoother sailing.

You are making assumptions. You don't know that she was intentionally trying to emotionally manipulate him and reject him for her jollies. She may have been interested in him and enjoyed their time together, yet after a couple weeks she wasn't into it anymore. That is part of dating. I've dated many women in which we were into each other for a couple weeks and then it fizzled out for one of us. That doesn't mean it was emotional manipulation. Yes, she could have let him down easier - yet she is also young, immature and lacks dating experience. Yet keep in mind, it was only two weeks. Some of you guys make it seem like they dated for two years and all of a sudden she dumps him and disappears. In two weeks, a person doesn't owe the other person much at all. You can simply say "We had some fun, yet I'm not into it anymore. I wish you the best" and walk away. That's part of dating.

I know about opening up to a woman and then she tosses me aside like a rag. Yea, it sucks. And afterwards I'd become cynical and closed down - which sucks even more. Yet in two weeks, it's not really about her. You hardly knew her. If you fell this hard in two weeks, it's more about your hopes, fantasies and infatuation, then about her specifically. But yea, I know what it's like to meet someone and be totally into them and then all of a sudden they toss me aside. It's happened to me about 10 times in my life. It sucks every time. I think you mentioned she is 19. That is super immature and she lacks dating experience.

If you've only spent two weeks together hanging out, you fell way too hard. The first few weeks is getting to know each other and having fun together without pressure. One cannot get a good idea of long-term relationship potential in two weeks. I've met women in which it seemed like we had amazing chemistry at first. We seemed to be "soul mates" reunited. And then *poof* it's gone. Two weeks isn't enough time to get a good idea if long-term is viable. You hardly know each other. It takes more like 3+ months to start getting a good idea. The first two weeks is chill, have fun and get to know each other without pressure. If it works out great. If it doesn't work out, oh well we had some fun.

Yea, pharmaceuticals are a mixture of bad and good. It can be difficult to sort out. Developing drugs that people take daily is very different than developing a vaccine. There is very little profit motive in vaccine development. The federal government has already paid and continues to pay the pharmaceutical companies. Currently, biotch is in a great position. They are making huge profits, with virtually no risk. This is very different than if stockholders were investing into the development of new heart medication. As well, biotech is under a social microscope. If they are caught doing shabby or unethical work, there would be a big price to pay. Covid vaccine development is a case in which competition can be a good thing. As well, there is always inherent risk. Even if pharmaceuticals are 100% altruistic, there will still be some negative side effects. If we expect a pharmaceutical to develop a 100% perfect vaccine, it will never happen. It would be like demanding a doctor be 100% perfect are they are liable. If that is the standard, say goodbye to doctors - even the best doctors that are 100% altruistic doing their best job. The question is what is our threshold of negligence and malpractice? For the case of covid, I would say the threshold would be gross negligence / unethical behavior of pharmaceuticals. For example, if a biotech got caught hiding data about negative effects of the vaccine, they should be held accountable for that.

Two sides of the same coin. One side: things happen for a reason AND the other side: things don't happen for a reason. Both are true, yet it gets tricky because the mind thinks in terms of either / or. . . . .Either things happen for a reason or things don't happen for a reason. With this mindset, the mind will not understand both sides of the coin. You can already see the side that things happen for a reason. You don't need anymore work in that area. Put that aside for now. You are missing the other side that things don't happen for a reason. You can easily see this in your direct experience right now. Look around here and now. There is simply ISness. Simply things appearing. That's it. Of course we can say "Yea, but. . . " and start talking about causations and reasons. That's fine and dandy, yet that is the other side of the coin. You already realize that side of the coin. To a mind that can only see one side at a time, this seems like an impossible paradox. "How can a coin be both Heads and Tails?" This is obvious to you because you see this side. Imagine someone with the opposite confusion as you. This mind cannot see how things have a reason. For such a mind, the big realization would be "Omg!!!! My anus exists for the reason of pooping!!!". That would be a huge awakening. Yet it seems trivial to you since you already see that. For a mind with the opposite orientation the big awakening is "Omg!!!!! Everything is one inter-connected whole being created right here and now!!!!"." Both are true.

I’ve experienced so much love / beauty it became quasi painful. One time a person in public saw me in this state and with a look of shock exclaimed “Omg! What’s wrong? Do you need help?”. I replied “It’s all so beautiful” as I writhed. She looked at me super confused. I’d say the energetic/emotional/physical intensity could be a lot for the body to handle, yet I doubt enough to actually kill a human body. Its not like an overdose of fentanyl or meth.

@alchemizt If you want to learn about Breathwork and get good at it, I would highly recommend joining an online breath group with a facilitator. I'm involved with several. My favorite is Breathchurch, that meets at 6pm (NYC time) every night. Zoom Link Regarding the pain you describe: It's called tetany and is very common in breathwork. It is due to a change in O2 and CO2 balance. Some say it's due to "holding on" to something. Maybe, yet I prefer the physiological explanation. Tetany is harmless and will go away, yet it can be very uncomfortable and painful. If you are experiencing that cramping, it means you are activated. Congrats, you have arrived. Imo, breathwork isn't about taking massive breaths as deep as possible, as fast as possible for as long as possible. I think Breathwork is more about getting into "the zone". That does not mean hyperventaliting to the point it becomes excruciatingly painful. If you are at the point that tetany is painful, back off. You should be in an "activated zone". Once you get activated, start doing other breaths. Do some slow Ujaji breaths on the way out. Do some shallower breaths. Do some breath holds. Play with the breaths like you are playing a saxophone. Do body awareness. Look at the nuances of breath. As you do Ujaji breath, notice how the energy in your body changes. Relax. Pretend your body is so relaxed you are a corpse that is breathing. Allow creativity to enter. If insights arise, let them. If spirits arise let them. If old emotional memories arise let them. If tears arise let them. Be present and let go. Don't be so obsessed with breathing as fast and deep as possible. The key is to relax, especially on the outbreath. Yet if tetany gets severe, start exploring other stuff. Imagine scuba diving down 50 meters and thinking "I'm feeling intense pain, yet have to dive deeper". . . Why? Diving 50 meters is amazing!! There is amazing stuff to explore between 10-50 meters. Relax, and swim around. . . Overtime, the body will start adjusting and you may find that you can deep deeply and fast for a longer period without tetany.

@fopylo Imagine a character in a movie. It's very straightforward for the character to simply pursue self-gratification without any type of introspection or contemplation. Simply try to get laid, party, seek money, get pissed off at people that treat me bad and on an on. This would be like living like an animal that is unconsciously acting out fears and desires. In a way, it does have a form of flow. Look at a stray dogs - they simply act out fears and desires, they have a form of flow of just being. Yet they lack deeper awareness and understanding. For some people, this deeper understanding / awareness can resolve a lot of life difficulties and stimulate a new level of freedom and meaning in life. Yet it doesn't come easy. Humans have a lot of conditioning. In the movie example, imagine the character is so conditioned to be that character, they never even question anything. It would take effort to be like "Who am I really? Why do I react the way I do? How do inter-personal relations work? How do barriers hold us back from our potential? How is this movie created? How does this all work?". These types of questions might not lead to surface-level pleasure like having a one-night stand or fun getting drunk. They are longer-term ventures with deeper levels of satisfaction. Yet I would also say there is something to be said for playing our character in the movie. If the introspective / spiritual work gets overly-serious it can become counter-productive and miserable. For example, if we hyper analyze every single thing that happens in a day.

I’m giving a formal job interview this Wednesday. When inquiring about their professional experience, I’d love to slip in “Do you have any experience with 5-Meo-dmt? If so, how would you integrate 5-meo into your computer science courses?”. . . and see their reaction.

Psychedelic and Schizophrenic experience may have overlap based on subjective descriptions and brain studies. Yet I wouldn’t assume that psychedelically inducing a schizophrenic-like state in some that has schizophrenia will help them. It’s not like the two cancel each other out. I suppose it has a chance of helping, yet I would say it also has a chance of making things worse. I imagine risks are higher. Perhaps using a low dose. There haven’t been any psychedelic clinical studies on this. People with schizophrenia get declined for the studies.

@Blackhawk Adam did not have a gun 0.0001 seconds before he lifted up his hand. The officer was in a difficult situation, yet do not distort and manipulate. Adam tossed aside his gun and then lifted his hands. A more accurate representation would be that Adam tossed the gun about a half second before he turned and the cop had 0.85 second seeing his hand without the gun. Even the police defending the officer quantified he had at least 0.85 second to react in which Adam had no gun in his hand. At night, 0.85 second to react is about the threshold in which it’s reasonable for an officer to make the proper judgment. There have been various studies done on this. However, your narrative that Adam had a gun in his hand and the officer needed to shoot before Adam shot him is a blatantly false narrative. The officer shot a boy that was unarmed with his hands up. He made the wrong judgement, yet making the right judgement is challenging since he only had about 0.85 seconds in a poorly lit area. It was a challengeing call, yet doesn’t take “supernatural abilities”. A skilled officer could have made the call. As well, hooded training exercises can vastly improve split second decision making. There have been studies studying reaction time percentages in these situation.I don’t recall the specific numbers, yet I think it’s about half the time officers can make the right call with 0.85s in a poorly lit area. As well, I’m not sure we know if the officer even knew that he had a gun. In that situation, the odds would be shifted toward not shooting.

Adam didn’t have a gun in his hand while he turned around and lifted his hands up. His hands were empty.

Yet the cop might not have known any of this. He could have simply been called in on a shooting and upon arrival identified Adam as a suspect. It is a very different situation if the cop was informed there was a prime subject and given a description. I think its only fair to judge the officer’s response based on the information he had at the time.

In the surveillance video, it looks like Adam stopped, reached into his pocket, pulled something out and thew it. The officer repeatedly yelled for Adam to stop, yet never yelled “drop it”. If Adam had been running with the gun in his pocket and the officer never saw it, would you still consider the shooting justified?