Forestluv

Member
  • Content count

    13,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Forestluv

  1. @Lento It’s just playful humor. A few months ago, there was a thread on personal shadows. One person jokingly confessed “I’m not an old lady”. It provided some comic relief.
  2. @Chives99 It’s amazing how well the mind and body does when it is free to just be, without cowbell thought stories of shoulds and shouldn’ts.
  3. It sounds like a great opportunity that may resonate with you. I’ve been through parts of southern Mexico, around Cancun. Also to Guatemala, Honduras and Belize. In terms of spirituality, it seemed most people were into religion, yet there were some aspects of traditional magic/spirits and a bit of new age type spirituality. I think you can find a lot of people open to discussing religion and spirituality, mostly in traditional contexts. I think some people, yet far fewer, would be open to psychedelics. From my impressions, some people would have respect for mushrooms since they were used by ancient spiritualists like the Mayans. A few would have personal interests exploring for themselves. I mushroom retreat center sounds awesome. I think it would take a lot of skill to be a leader of a mushroom retreat center. One would need manager skills, social skills to work with a variety of people, would need to work with local government, safety issues, psychological and therapy issues, working with tourists etc. I did an Aya retreat in Peru that was top notch. There was one main shaman leader, yet several other leaders very high up. The main leader wasn’t at most of the Aya ceremonies, the other leaders were very qualified. My impression is that it is helpful to have qualified partners in the mix. These are just my impressions from my travels. There could be other vibes in southern mexico I am unaware of.
  4. It would be more integrated, systemic, relativistic, meta and holistic. We can already see this in AOC and it would be super cool if she transitions full yellow. I’d estimate she is about 15% yellow now. For example, they way she views the Green New Deal has a lot of yellow. She doesn’t have a new age hippy view of saving the threatened animals and environment. She is starting to view climate change from a meta view as an existential threat to humanity. She is integrating multiple components and seeing it systemically. The science, geography, social structures. How climate change impacts biodiversity, yet also food supplies and refugee crises. To go further meta, she explains how GND not only addresses climate change, it also addresses income inequality, toxic capitalism, corruption in politics, racism, etc. This is a yellow level view and solution. It might not be the best solution, yet there are no other proposals out there because nearly all politicians are blue/Orange in the u.s. It would be great to have 5 yellow level proposals, yet we aren’t there yet. Not even close.
  5. Yes. It’s very hard to see the limits of rationality while contracted within rationality. Yet once you go post-rational, you never go back.
  6. I may have misunderstood you. I didn’t realize you were playing devils advocate. Yes, from the perspective of Orange, green may appear as is lazy, unproductive and clueless. I would add in irrational. My biggest resistance to green was that it seemed very irrational and woo woo. I was very rational, analytical and scientific. I was really turned off by what I perceived as the irrationality of green.
  7. Where did you get that idea from? There is no correlation between laziness and lovingness. My goodness, there a many many people that are highly active and loving. Loving isn’t just about hanging out in a forest smoking weed, singing and dancing. Orange resists what productive Green people are trying to produce. Just look at the Orange resistance and ridicule to AOC. What is it that she is trying to produce that Orange doesn’t like?. . . . Look at corporate dems resistance to Bernie Sanders. What is it are the values and policies of Bernie that establishment corporate dems don’t like? Consider the green values that underlie the personality. There was resistance to MLK similar to resistance to AOC.
  8. This caricature is not representative of all green. For example, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is as green as it gets and a good example of highly organized and productive green. Green has many expressions, including highly organized, motivated and productive. It’s like asking “what is it about Orange that makes them self-indulgent booze hounds that just want to get laid and rip people off in the stock market?”
  9. Of course. That’s part of the evolution. The efficiency depends on the resistance of the Orange and the skill of the yellow. Yet there are very few yellow-level teachers.
  10. @Homer You might be interested in Leo’s SD series. He addresses your question.
  11. You could start the process right here and now. Tell us what you want to attract. As well, you might start a dream board to charge up your LOA.
  12. @Identity Another way to look at is is inquiring “what is the physical body?”. . . You seem to be specifically referring to a physical body, yet what is a physical body? The molecules and cells? If so, “your” body has died many times. Over the the last decade, all of the molecules / cells have turned-over and died. The physical body from 10 years ago is completely dead. Yet it sure doesn’t seem like it.
  13. Yes, my “friend” has. ?
  14. @Vaishnavi I noticed one thing Trump does that was not covered in the video. In regards to Trump’s Muslim ban, Kimmel first asks, “But isn’t it un-American and wrong to discriminate based on someone’s religion”? The question of what is”American and Un-American” gets to the heart of Trumpism. As Trump is about to define “the problem”, the audience applauds in support of Kimmel - that it is un-American and wrong to discriminate based on religion. Trump picks up on this and intuitively knows he needs to throw out some cover and respond “I mean. . . Look, I’m for it”. He often uses the phrase “Look. . “ To suggest there is something we cannot see. In this case “Look, I’m for it” alters that narrative that Trump is discriminatory. In other words: “Look, I’m for non-discrimination in religion, but the problem is. . . “. Then Trump goes on repeating the word “problem” and the problem is death and injury. Yet notice how he doesn’t bring up religion or Muslim. He uses generic terms like “people” to mask the underlying discrimination. For example, he says “People are coming into the country looking to do tremendous harm”. He doesn’t say Muslim people. He just s says “people”. This gives the appearance of being non-discriminatory: “I just want to stop the people who want to cause harm - race or religion doesn’t matter”. This is the cover Trump uses. Trump does not have a “people ban” or “any person that harms us ban” - it is a Muslim people ban. And Trump followers know when he says “people” or “they”, he means Muslim people. . . Trump also does this with black and latinx people as cover for racism. The first part of Trump’s manipulation is to define the narrative as being non-discriminatory and just trying to protect Americans from harm. He then has a transitory manipulation step. Before Kimmel can question/challenge Trump on his view, Trump immediately cites all the significant people that agree with him and call to congratulate him. So now, someone that disagrees with Trump is un-American and is odd. It was now too late for Kimmel to address the first manipulation, and he took a swipe at Trump’s second manipulation by saying “They were probably crank callers”. Trump did not like this response, because it undercut his second tactic. As interviewers have wised up, they have challenged Trump’s tactics. Trump doesn’t like this, so has discontinued press briefings and has manipulated the environment when he interacts with press. For example, nearly all of his contact with the press in “chopper talk”. Trump stands besides an active helicopter making lots of noise. This gives the appearance Trump is very important and is off to some urgent important work. It also weakens press challenges. A reporter may shout out “When you say ‘people’ are you referring to Muslim people?’”. With all the noise of the helicopter, Trump can pretend like he couldn’t hear the whole question and can shout back “What I said was that people enter the country wanting to cause harm”. The reporter is trying to shout back “No, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if. . . “. In all the noise and chaos, Trump can pretend like he can’t hear the reporter and say “Next, question please”. . . The helicopter noise environment gives Trump cover to avoid and evade questions - yet it doesn’t look like he is rude or trying to evade questions. If he did the press briefing in a quiet room, it would be totally obvious. When he does interviews with international leaders, he os occasionally asked challenging questions. Trump can’t pretend he didn’t hear the question and usually gets angry and confrontational. @Hansu I think you make a super important points about relative meaning of terms in conversation. Yet in the context of the first video, Trump’s core terms of “problem”, “injury” , “harm” and “death” are being used with standard meaning nearly everyone agrees with (If someone can into a neighborhood killing people, all the neighbors would agree it is “harmful” and a “problem”. Here, it’s not so much the literal meaning Trump gives to these terms, it is how the terms are used.
  15. Last week a friend of mine told me about a guy she dated. She is average size. This guy liked thick curvey women. She told me this was the only guy she ever dated that loved her weight and even encouraged her to gain weight. He genuinely loved her weight and thought it was sexy and beautiful. She told me he was the only guy she felt completely comfortable with her physical appearance and weight - and she misses that about him.
  16. Pretending to be a little old lady from Madagascar. Oh shoot, that’s a different forum. . . .Nevermind.
  17. I have a friend that is very outcome oriented. We’ve been friends as long as I can remover. We grew up in the same neighborhood. He has always been hyper focused on outcome. For example, we trained for our first marathon together. On training runs, he was obsessed with our pace and how long to the finish. After a couple weeks of training, he was frustrated that he wasn’t in marathon shape. During the marathon race, he kept asking about our pace and finishing time. He really wanted to break 3:30 at the finish and that’s all he talked about. I kinda wanted to take in some scenery and talk with some of the other runners. Maybe I’d meet someone cool from another country or something. Yet I didn’t say anything to my friend. I didn’t want to upset him. Looking back, I feel like I missed out on the race and wish I had asked him to quiet down. . . . This was a common theme of our friendship for years. I kinda liked hanging out with him, yet he was so focused on the end goal that I always felt like I was missing out on the activity itself. . . A few years ago, we traveled to Peru. We were taking a long hike up to see Matchu Picchu. We were with a cool group of people and we were all excited to get to the destination. Yet my friend, like always, was obsessed with the destination, saying stuff like “I wonder what the weather will be like when we get there. I hope it’s not too crowded, I don’t like crowds. I wish we were already at Machu Picchu and didn’t have to do this hike”. . . The hike was actually beautiful and we were with some cool people. I spent over a thousand dollars for this trip and had been looking forward to it for months. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity and I was missing out on the journey because my friend was nonstop talking about the destination. . . I had it. I wanted to enjoy the journey and I didn’t want to look back on my life realizing I missed it all. Enough is enough. . . . I turned to my friend to tell him to quiet down and let’s enjoy the journey. As I looked at my friend, I realized my friend was me.
  18. What comes to mind for me is “Being Now” I often notice my mind a try to manipulate an environment to achieve a result. I may manipulate a “meditation environment” to achieve some state - no-self, attention, peace, insights, bliss, relaxation. This has it’s benefits, yet also it’s downside because this orients meditation. Orientation isn’t necessarily bad. If I want to travel to Mexico, I better orient myself south. Yet with orientation comes a price. . . Some of my best meditations are spontaneous. Just me sitting on my couch staring at the window and just Being Now. No bells or whistles. Just Now-ness.
  19. And that which identifies as the dreamer of dreams is also a dream.
  20. I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. To me, the perspective is narrow and you are extrapolating. I feel bad for a boy or girl that is discouraged from developing their masculine traits. And I feel bad for a boy or girl that is discouraged from developing their feminine traits. Yet I don’t correlate male = masculine and female = feminine as best. It is just as disappointing to me to see a boy discouraged from expressing masculine as a boy discouraged from expressing feminine. Yet in most cultures, it the suppression of males expressing feminine is more common, so that is my bigger concern. You seem to be hyper focused on the loss of masculinity. What about a young boy raised in a house with a masculine father who learned masculine traits? This boy was deprived the opportunity to develop as a feminine man or transgender woman. If he was raised by lesbian women, perhaps he could have blossomed into a beautiful transgender woman - rather than being stuck as a masculine male. When we identify and see only one side as being good, it creates a lens of perception. If I identify as male and think masculine maleness is best, I will interpret reality through that lens. I will feel bad for boys raised in single mother homes because they didn’t get a chance to have a masculine father role model. if I identify as nonbinary and see exploring non-binary gender as best, I will feel bad for children that grew up with heterosexual parents and were raised to believe they were male or female. I would feel bad they didn’t have the opportunity to explore non-binary genders. Both views come from a place a love, we want people to have access to what we think is good. Yet each view is also contracted through a lens of perception. I don’t see a LGBTQ or progressive conspiracy to brainwash children into becoming gay, lesbian or transgender. The goal is for LGBTQ inclusion and equality. Yet to the majority dominant group, inclusion and equality appears as a threatening power grab that is harmful. Cis, trans, straight, gay can all be included in society. Ironically, the opposite of the situation you describe above is very prevalent and causes a lot of harm. LGBTQ kids undergo enormous marginalization/ostracization/stigmatization. Abuse toward LGBTQ teens is prevalent - such that they often mask their identity and suffer. Their rates of psychological problems and suicide is much higher than the general population. Why don’t you feel concern for these kids? Why aren’t you a advocate for them and willing to fight for them?
  21. There seems to be judgements of what is “good” and “bad” as well as a rationalization of that judgement as being “right”. Of course a household with heterosexual parents can be healthy, it can also be unhealthy. As well, a household with lesbian or gay parents can be healthy. You don’t seem to be seeing this through other perspectives and relative experience. . . A man you judge as insufficiently masculine is as “natural” as you are. The relative experience of a human being that identifies as man or masculine is as true and natural as the relative experience of a human being that identifies as a woman or feminine. There is a young man that has an inner desire to be more masculine, yet didn’t have the resources as a child. There is a young man that resonates with femininity, yet suffers because society tells him there is something “wrong” with you. There is a young man that is gay or desires to be a transgender woman, yet suffers because others have projected onto him that he is not normal and needs to be someone he is not. Marginalization/ostracization of gender is a major cause of neuroses, depression and suicide in young adults. I would love the person. If they asked me for help to learn about their true self and grow, I would try to help them. I wouldn’t say “No, that’s actually not who you are. You need help to be someone I think you should be”. If someone told me they desired more confidence and assertiveness, I would try to help them with that. If someone told me they desired to get in touch with their emotions and learn how to be vulnerable, I would help them with that. I wouldn’t project onto them what I think they should be. For me, that doesn’t feel loving and being truly helpful. I’ve found it helpful to spend time with actual LGBTQ people, learn and observe how natural they are.
  22. Perhaps more “helpful” questions might be: How can we accept and love him without projecting onto him that he is incomplete and needs “help” to develop masculine traits? How can we help men that judge other men as being insufficiently masculine in need of “help”?
  23. People resonate differently with each psychedelic. If you want strong CEVs perhaps try psychedelics that generally give strong CEVs like dmt, ayahuasca or 4-ho-met.
  24. @cetus56 Like when a neutron star meets a black hole. . .
  25. Monty Python is another form of insanity...............................