Forestluv

I'm not arguing with you. Real = Unreal. What you describe is both real and unreal.

Ok, how do you distinguish between "a universal flow of energy not bound by ordinary physical law" and "a non-universal energy bound by ordinary physical law"? The point is that any duality you create between "real" vs "unreal" will collapse under enough scrutiny, as all dualities collapse.

To me this seems like social conditioning that homosexuality is somehow unnatural, weird, deviant, immoral etc. With that conditioning, of course homophobic fears may arise. Once that underlying conditioning is cleared out, new doors of exploration open up. For example, sexuality is not bimodal - gay vs. straight. Sexuality is a spectrum. A person may have attractions to both the same and opposite sex, yet might not want to get into a relationship and have physical sex with the same sex. As well, one is open to explore their own masculine and feminine energies. Personally, I have a mix of both and their is a certain type of male and trans-female I have attraction to - yet that attraction isn't strong enough to pursue a relationship and have physical sex with them. For others, it's a different. We all have our own unique mix of femine/masculine energy and attractions to others.

That is a conservative way to frame it. Another way to frame it is medical care for all. We could ask people if everyone has inherent worth and deserves medical care. If we start off that everyone deserves health care and then ask for justification why certain people should be excluded from medical and allowed to suffer, it is a very different frame and will have a different public response. Conservatives are much better at framing than dems and like to use fringe cases of people they stigmatize and ostracize - in this case they get a two-fer: prison inmates and transgender. This allows for greater leverage. One could amplify the leverage further by asking if a transgender person in prison for child molestation deserves a sex change surgery. Another key conservative/corporate frame is with the term "taxpayer". This orients a person into thinking "Should I pay for their surgery?". This frame drastically reduces public support. This has been used as an argument against M4A because M4A would increase taxes. Yet it is a highly misleading frame, since household costs would decrease with M4A. It would be like telling someone they should not accept a raise at work because it would put them in a higher tax bracket. As well, the frame does not acknowledge that the transgender community receives much more abuse than they dish out. Warren supports M4A, so it's only fair to use a frame within in M4A plan. Another way to frame the question would be "Medical professionals agree that gender-affirming surgery is a fundamental health need for transgender people. Warren's health plan would include all Americans and household costs would decrease. There are very few transgender people in prison and providing them health care would have a very low cost. Do you think gender-affirming surgery for inmates should be included within a public health plan?". This frame would have much higher public support. Another way to frame it would be "Do you think we should tax billionaire corporate CEOs that are ripping off hardworking people like yourself to pay for health care needs for all Americans, including gender-affirming surgeries for inmates (which would cost next to nothing) ?"

@Bobby What metric do you use to distinguish between "Real" and "Unreal"?

An investigation by a foreign government into a political opponent is considered a thing of value relative to an election. It's been previously established that a "thing of value" is not restricted to direct financial donations. To think that Trump was merely trying to root out corruption in general is very naive. Trump has only targeted investigations into his political rivals. When Trump was asked if he ever tried to start an investigation into corruption that was not a political rival, Trump could not give a single example. Even days after the question, he never offered an example. Regarding the president of Ukraine saying he was not pressured. . . you are not considering power dynamics within mafia-like game theory. Of course the Zelensky will say he was never pressured. Ukraine is a much much smaller and weaker country than the U.S. and is dependent on the U.S. for military aid and their own survival. As well, you are not considering underlying leverage Trump imposed by withholding funds, withholding a visit from the vice-president, and framing the situation as "we've been good to you, yet you haven't been reciprocal to us. We want you to do something". Political authoritarians/dictators/mafia bosses communicate implicitly, they don't directly say "If you don't investigate my political rival, we will cut you off from all support". That's not how it works. Doing so would make the authoritarians/dictators/mafia bosses more vulnerable to legal prosecution. It would be like a Mafia leader with lots of power calling someone who is dependent on the mafia leader for the own survival. The mafia leader witholds financial support and says "I've been good to you Joe, haven't I? You and your family have benefited from my assistance. Yet it hasn't been reciprocal, you just haven't done enough for me. Yes, yes I realize you are dependent on me for your survival, yet I want a favor from you though. My rival leader in the mafia has done some bad things and I want you to use your connections to investigate him". . . It would be very naive to think the mafia leader is motivated by a genuine honest desire to root out corruption, in general. . . Several career diplomats involved with Ukraine have called out this dynamic. The lens Trump supporters are using is distorted. It requires distortion and selective filtering to see Trump as having an innocent genuine desire to reduce corruption in politics. As more strain is placed on this distorted lens, more and more people will wake up. Yet this is a difficult process because the person will need to admit that they were wrong. As well, many Trump supporters are in a "us vs. them" and want to "own the libs". Seeing things clearly involves letting go of attachment/identification to "us vs. them" and "owning the libs" mentality. For many people, this is extremely difficult and requires a big jump up in consciousness - from red/blue to orange/green. That jump will involve a lot of resistance at the personal level and at the Trump collective ego level.

Once you go alien you never go sapien. . .

Ime, the first order of business of psychedelics was to obliterate the person, not to develop the person.

If YOU is the only being, that IS the universe. Full Stop. That's it. Nothing = Everything. Notice how the ego won't accept that and adds in dualistic somethings about "others", "you" and "me". The ego loves to say "Yea, yea - I understand all that nonduality stuff, but. . . ". And then starts adding in dualisms. This boils down to "I am". When you ask "If I am the only being in the universe", the personality Shaun is identifying to that "I am". It is seeing itself as separate from other "things". There is a transcendence of Shaun in which there is One Everything. Yet that realization would mean the dis-identification as Shaun and the ego will fight like heck to prevent that from happening. From the ego's perspective, that is death. For these solipsistic thoughts to have personal relevance, there needs to be identification to a construct of a person - in this case shaun. Without that personal identity, the solipsistic thoughts are merely appearances with no more relevance than appearances of birds chirps.

I see that a vote for impeachment inquiry vote took place for Nixon and Clinton, yet I'm not aware of any requirement to do so. I would lean toward having the vote because I like transparency and to get people to voice their position publicly and get on record. And I think it's best to have majority support to start an impeachment inquiry. This would help maintain the pursuit of impeachment as a serious undertaking and not something a hundred zealous congresspeople could pursue. The dems changed the rule to 51 for executive and federal judges. McConnell changed the rule to 51 for supreme court. Reid's move gave McConnell cover, yet even if Reid didn't nix the supermajority, I think McConnell would have. Yet Reid certainly opened the door and made it easier. And McConnell is certainly taking advantage of it. In the big picture, reducing to 51 for approval may allow for the majority to legislate more efficiently, yet it allows allows for more polarization and extreme legislation. In terms of judges, it allows for more polarized judges which can have negative effects.

Possessive or guide is a relative subjective experience. My experience with Aya was that Aya was a possessive guide. I had no choice in the matter. Aya was possessive in the sense that something out of my control took control, I couldn't make it stop and there was no escape. Aya was a guide in the sense that it was a teacher that guided me through a process of realization. In contrast, San Pedro had very little possessive nature to me - it is a gentle guide. . . Yet others experience Aya differently.

With the creation of you and the other person, then the other person will also experience sex. If you need to validate this, the next time you are experiencing sex ask the other person if they are also experiencing sex. Without the creation of you and the other person, then there are not two separate people having sex.

You are creating a duality between imagination vs. real and physical vs. non-physical. This has practical value and is useful to function in the world. Yet upon closer inspection, there are not two distinct categories of imagination or real nor of physical or non-physical. We can see inter-relationships. As we look closer, there are more and more inter-relationships - eventually the construct of imagination and real breaks down such that imagination = real and real = imagination. In this context, everything is imagination (and everything is real). . . If we want, we can reverse course and construct again. We can re-construct categories of imagination vs. real. And we aren't limited to two categories. We could have multiple categories like: imagination, pseudo-imagination, integrated imagination/real, imagi-real, quasi real and real. We can create whatever we want. The question of physical vs nonphysical is both answerable and unanswerable. We can construct categories called "physical" and "nonphysical". Since we now enter the relative, it would be hard to get everyone to agree. What is "physical"? Most people would say something like "Well you know, physical. Solids, gases and liquids". Would wavelength be physical? What about energy, entropy, feelings, memories? Can a thing have some physical aspects and some nonphysical aspects? All dualities break down. It is like asking "Is the question of heads vs. tails not answered by the whole thing is the coin realization?". Well, the whole thing is the coin - and we can create constructs of the coin and say "This side is heads and this side is tails". And then we can observe an infinite number of inter-connections between the heads side and tails side such that heads vs. tails collapses back to the coin. If you dreamt you traveled to the moon, did you travel to moon?

I think it depends on basal conscious level. For Orange and below, "You are God" is generally counter-productive. Similar to psychedelics - at Orange and below psychedelics are often counter-productive.

It's much deeper than simple namecalling. It's a nuanced thing. If a person believed in equality, they would not get upset by others that are fighting for equality. If a person believed in equality they would be supporting efforts toward equality. That Star Trek clip is an utopian fantasy. In the 1960s, Star Trek was very progressive on racism - and not just the clip you showed. Addressing racism was a theme in the series. Star Trek was the first TV show with an inter-racial kiss. This was radical in the 1960s and there was a huge backlash. The actors and producers risked the show and their careers to address racism - it was highly progressive at the time. Yet in 2019 it is now a centrist position, leaning conservative. It is a view some white people would like to view things. "Let's just view everyone as equal". This mindset is a big jump up from overt racism. Yet the problem with this mindset is neglecting the impact of centuries of racial abuse as well as current racism at both individual and systemic levels. The mindset that color is doesn't matter doesn't address societal issues in which color does matter. It allows white people to avoid their responsibility in acknowledging the impact of racism and their responsibility in promoting a more just society. It allows the status quo of racism to continue. A healthy orange perspective would likely look at statistics and support action toward equality. For example, in the U.S. black women have a much higher frequency of pregnancy complications and morbidity than white women. Scientific studies have normalized for every conceivable environmental factor such as low income, single mother, lack of education, obesity, alcohol and drug use, smoking etc. When all of this is normalized there is still a huge gap between black and white women. As well, no genetic differences can explain the discrepancy. Furthermore, studies have shown black people have higher levels of chronic cortisol (a stress hormone) and chronic cortisol levels are positively correlated with cortisol levels - which has an adverse impact on health. Taken together, the data support a model in which an environmental input of racism has negative impacts on health. . . Another type of orange thing: About 30 years ago DNA fingerprinting emerged in court cases. DNA fingerprinting was used to revisit previous cases to see if prison inmates were wrongly convicted. And guess which race was wrongly convicted the most? . . . Black men were wrongly convicted in crimes against white women. . . There are many scientific studies showing racism within the justice system. Orange will see this data and think - this isn't right. Orange is oriented as primarily self-centered, yet has the capacity for fairness. They might have an attitude like "The studies show effects of racism, something should be done about it". The key word being *should*. Orange is still too self-centered. If racism doesn't affect them personally, they won't be that concerned. They will be more concerned about themselves. They may think "OK, studies show some racism, but what about white people like me? I haven't had it easy either". Orange has a low capacity to understand another perspective/experience and does not see things at a collective level. Another common orange idea is: "I'm not racist. I don't see why this is such a big deal. Why can't people be more like me". This view does not take into account societal and systemic racism. As well, it will allow the person to avoid looking at their own subconscious biases. Green is capable of understanding the data and logic - green also has the capacity to understand another's relative experience. Green "get's it". Green "knows what it's like". Yet this doesn't mean that green will always be appropriate and effective in promoting equality. You give a good example with aggressive mob mentality. Imagine if you stated the view that blackface is racist, yet not being allowed to blackface is also racist. And the backlash to blackface is racist. . . Now imagine if unhealthy greens on the forum antagonized and shamed you. Then they spread your comments on Facebook and Twitter. Then the greens at your job try to get you fired because they don't want to work with a closet racist. This would be unhealthy excessive green. In many situations it is healthier to have a safe space in which one can explore issues without fear of being stigmatized and ostracized. In other situations, a more assertive approach is better. For example, if a political group was intentionally trying to prevent black people from voting.

I would be more concerned about proper brewing and dosage than having a trip sitter.

I guess from one perspective he his smart. From a manipulative boss kinda way. I would say there are different forms of intelligence. For example, Nelson Mandela had high social intelligence. Mozart had high creative intelligence. Isaac Newton had high intellectual intelligence. I would say Trump has a form of social intelligence that goes through a personal filter. He is very good at resonating and controlling his base for his personal interests. In terms of intellect, I would consider Trump to be very intellectually incurious and to have a dull mind. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, yet I read that the House does not need to vote for an impeachment inquiry to begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't think that is in the constitution or was done during any of the three previous impeachment inquiries. In terms of accusation and defense, that seems more like a trial which takes place in the Senate. The House Impeachment proceedings don't involve rites for a defendant like in a trial, as far as I'm aware. Regarding compliance of subpoenas, Trump won't comply regardless of of an impeachment vote. Trump has continuously put himself above the law in various contexts and will continue to do so, imo. Trump has spent his adult life in courts and litigation fighting legal restraints. That's his orientation. The only way I think he complies is if it becomes in his self interest to comply. For example, if 20+ senators come out stating they will convict Trump unless he complies - then it becomes in Trump's self interest to comply.

Is God a dream character or the dreamer? You seem to be identifying as a character within a dream. . . When you are asleep dreaming is not Everything within the dream You?

To me, the demand for an impeachment inquiry vote is a procedural power play by Trump - to regain some control and call some shots. Suggesting he will release documents and comply with subpoena after an official impeachment inquiry vote is similar to Trump suggesting he would donate $1 million to Warren's favorite charity if she took a DNA test. Warren took the test and then came after Trump for the $1 million. He had all the power and leverage at that time. He said he would only pay up if he could do the test himself or if she became the nominee. Of course he won't pay. To make matters worse, Warren tweeted Trump that since she took the test, he should release his taxes. Please. This is Trump's game. He humiliated Warren and she looked very weak. It nearly ended her candidacy. To her credit, she learned and changed strategy. Plus, the WH just sent the House a letter saying the entire impeachment inquiry is illegitimate. Does anyone really think Trump will comply with subpoenas because the Dems held a vote like he demanded? I don't think so. He will have a more powerful position and know that he can manipulate procedure. His leverage are withholding documents and noncompliance with subpoenas - compliance would be surrender to Trump. The only way he complies is if 20+ republican senators come out against him.

@Hansu False equivalencies of racism IS defending racism. . . A false equivalency of Blackface racism is a form of defending Blackface. These false equivalencies and "both-sides-ism" is a form of racism and allows racism to continue unchallenged. Black face is extremely racist and harmful at both individual and societal levels. Both direct individual racism and indirect systemic racism. Blackface is disgusting, not the people that get upset with blackface. You are not seeing this from the other perspective and don't have empathy for black people that undergo historical and contemporary racial discrimination and racial abuse. People that understand and are empathetic to that historical and contemporary racial abuse are coming from a place of caring and love for our fellow citizens. That is Green. White people are not oppressed because they don't get to wear blackface. White people are not victims because they get shamed for wearing blackface. This is not "reverse racism". It is a hyper white privileged blue/orange perspective of a dominant culture group that lacks understanding and empathy of the direct experience of others. If you had the direct experience of a black man, you would likely have a very different perspective than you do now. Imagine your daughter was killed in a train accident and you and your family suffered terribly. Now imagine people coming up to you, tangling toy trains in front of your face and saying "choo choo, your baby girl is gone forever" at you. Wouldn't that be disgusting? I would say yes. What about people that came to your defense and told those idiots to knock it off? I would consider them as having loving intentions. Now what if the "choo choo" people said they were the ones being discriminated against and they were the real victims of reverse-discrimination? To me, that is twisted and absurd. Yet to someone who doesn't understand, who has never lost a love one and lacks empathy - the "choo choo" people might seem ok.

@Amy 40 is a great age for long-distance running. Below is an age histogram for the 2017 Chicago marathon. 40 years old was the most common age of runners for both men and women. And there were more 50 y.o. women marathon runners than 22 y.o. women. Some cities have running clubs that are popular with runners 35+

Along those lines, cities within a country seem to have aspects of unity as well as division. There are subculture identities at conflict within a country. For example, southern city subculture may identify with heritage and be attached to the confederate flag and civil war statues - while northern subculture sees this as appalling and promote boycotting some southern cities. As well, subculture identities are often in conflict for the more expansive country identity. We now see this with subculture competition for what is "America". A good example would be with the controversy of black athletes kneeling during the national anthem. One subculture identity was that "America" is about respect for the American flag and all the soldiers who died to protect that flag. Another subculture identity disagrees and says "America" is about protest and fighting for what is right, such as equality. I would say that some of the "glue" holding subcultures together within an American identity is an appreciation of American subcultures and multicultural mixing. Many northern Americans love to visit those southern cities for the subculture. The food, music, architecture of subcultures in New Orleans and Charleston, SC is amazing. And multicultural fusion of subculture music is beautiful. . . Some more glue connecting American subcultures as America is an over-arching American ego that we are the strongest and the best. Part of the American identity is relative to other country identities. For example, an American identity might be that America is more civilized than barbaric 3rd world countries or that America is wealthier, more successful and powerful than third world countries. If we expand into a global consciousness, I can see some glue holding subculture/countries together - such as emergence of new phenomena due to integration of subculture components. Perhaps a technological emergence that is greater than the sum of it's parts. Yet, wouldn't relative global identity glue be missing? What is the global identity relative to? What is the next higher level? There wouldn't be a global identity of Earthlings relative to Venus, Mars or Aliens. There wouldn't be an Earthling ego unified against those pesky Martians. The closest I can imagine is the threat of climate change destruction. Here, there can be a global human identity that forms relative to an existential threat like climate change.

Nobody is getting arrested. I didn't make my point clearly. . . Another example: security checkpoints in airports aim to reduce the risk of murder on airplanes. People going through airport security are not getting arrested. They are getting screened to make sure they don't have bombs in their bags. I would not consider airport security screening to be authoritarian. You are seeing this from the perspective of a white person that has never suffered discrimination and abuse for being black. You don't seem to be aware of the deep significance and impact of blackface in history. Blackface is emblematic of some of the worst discrimination, abuse, oppression and suffering in human history. You are totally missing the impact of blackface at human and societal levels. It has caused and still causes extreme harm at both individual and societal levels. Part of not realizing this may be due to ignorance or selective dismissal. Yet a big part is a lack of empathy. You have no clue what the direct experience of being black is like. If you were a black person you would have a different perspective. Even as a white person, one can develop empathy. I'm a white male and was in a relationship with a dark-skinned black woman. As well, I live in a poor town that is predominately black. Although I'm not black myself, I see the impact of racial discrimination everyday in my community. And I directly experienced some intense racism while I was in an inter-racial relationship with a woman I loved. These included deeply painful experience and a couple that were very scary. And I just experienced the tip of the iceberg. Blackface is harmful to both individuals and societies. That is why Green takes it so seriously. Not because they want to be politically correct jackasses. Rather because Green "gets it". They understand and know at a deeper level the harm of something like blackface. One way to transition to a higher state of consciousness is to become aware of intention vs. impact. Orange is so hyper focused on themselves that they only look at their own intention and are oblivious to the greater impact. One may say "What's wrong with blackface? I don't intend to be racist. I'm not trying to harm anyone". This is hyper focused on intention with unawareness of impact. Understanding impact and developing empathy requires stepping outside of one's own self-centered contraction. It involves seeing other's perspectives, not just at an intellectual level - beyond that. This is one of the keys of development into Green. Some of the activities i found helpful: I lived in poor communities in Honduras and Guatemala. I volunteered helping psychiatric patients in a mental institution. I've been in inter-racial relationships. I lived with a tribe in the mountains of Peru. I volunteered with female victims of domestic violence. I've been a mentor for many recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. I've visited prisons and spent time with inmates. I didn't do all of this because I'm some kind of saint. There was some motivation to help others, yet the stronger motivation was that terminal orange is so fucking painful. I couldn't stand being miserable anymore and I was willing to surrender my self-centeredness to expand and grow. These activities were extremely uncomfortable at times, yet the expansion, depth and meaning is beyond description. You have no idea of what Green is about. Stop watching YT videos of SJWs that trigger you. That aint Green. Put yourself out there and immerse yourself if you want to discover the true essence of Green. It absolutely blows away Orange. It's like the difference between drinking polluted water and natural spring water. You have no idea what you are missing. . .

The same imagination applies to both dream states and wakeful states. . .

Welcome to the forum Itp! You ask a wonderfully inquisitive question. Your question is at the interface between objectivism and relativeism. It is a major jump up in consciousness. In SD terms it is going from Orange to Green/Yellow. I can explain it logically, yet keep in mind that there is logical understanding as well as embodiment. Embodiment often comes through direct experience in which the person just "gets it", deeper than thinking. You question combines duality and nonduality, which can cause confusion. You start off with nonduality, then switch to dualistic relativity. Let's consider the four different constructs we can create: 1) Pure Dualistic: The vast majority of people are in a pure dualistic mindset and will subconsciously have the following construct: There is a difference between dreaming experience and awake experience. As well, there is a difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior. Such a person will subconsciously believe that dreams are illusions and awake is real. They will also subconsciously assume that things like violence is unethical and things like honesty is ethical. The problem with this construct is that the person assumes there is an objective reality of dream vs. awake and ethical vs. unethical. They are not conscious that these are relative constructs they are creating (and society creates). I would estimate 85% of the world's population is locked into this orientation. About 13% of the population has rudimentary awareness of relativity and about 2% have a fairly solid understanding. 2) Pure Nondual: There is no difference between dreaming experience and awake experience. As well, there is no difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior. It's all just ISness. Here there is no difference between sleeping and awake or between violence and peace. This is an advanced conscious state. I would estimate that only about 1% of the population has a solid theoretical understanding of this and has had some nondual direct experience that they recognized and integrated. Yet I would estimate that only about 0.0001% of the population has deeply embodied this. The challenge with this orientation is that is runs counter to the pure dualistic perspective described above. Humans will strongly resist this pure nondualistic perspective because it involves the dissolution of all dualities including right vs wrong, sense of self, personal survival etc. A subjective nondual experience can be blissful and liberating - yet it can also be very scary and threatening. . . A second complication is that humans live in a relative world and 99.9% of the world's people are spending the vast majority of their time within subconscious dualistic constructs. It would be very difficult to function and survival while always being in a nondual state of consciousness. Imagine trying to function in society with no sense of ethical vs. unethical. No sense of up vs. down. No sense of dream vs. awake. It would be very difficult to function. Those at more advanced stages often talk about "flipping" between nondual and dual conscious states. (Yet this itself is also a dualistic construct). 3) Dual/Nondual Hybrid: There is a difference between dream and awake (dual), yet no difference between ethical and nonethical (nondual). Such a person would distinguish between when they are dreaming and when they are awake, yet would not distinguish between things dishonesty/honesty, violence/peace etc. I think this would be more of a thought experiment and not relevant to your question. 4) Dual/Nondual Hybrid: There is no difference between dream and awake (nondual), yet a difference between ethical and nonethical (dual). This is the framework of your question. Notice how you start off saying "what if there is no distinction between dreaming experience and awake experience". That is a nondual construct. . . Here comes the big jump in consciousness, fasten your seatbelt. . . Notice how you subconsciously assumed that there is a difference between ethical and unethical (violence). There is an underlying assumption that this difference is objective. The big jump in consciousness is to realize that this difference is not objective, it is relative. You are creating it. Societies create it. This underlying question led to your question "Is he *supposed to*. . . ". . . *Supposed to* is reflective of a mind that is assuming there is objective ethics and is unaware of relativity. This is a very very common assumption. This first step is to consciously realize this intellectually, yet the much deeper realization is the post-intellectual embodiment, which is much more difficult to obtain. . . Many people may say "Yea, yea, I know it's all relative. . . but what about. . .". They may intellectually recognize relativity, yet their underlying orientation is objectivism. So there highest conscious answer to your question is there is no answer. You can create any of the above constructs you want. You create your own reality. . . However, we live as a person in a relative world and some constructs are more practical in life. If I were to build a practical construct regarding your question it would look something like this: If someone is dreaming about suffering and violence that is reflective of underlying psychological issues at the human level. The mind and body may become distressed by such dreams. This could interfere with there waking life. It may cause problems in their relationships and at work. It could be a signal that the person has psychological issues they need to work through for personal development toward a healthier life. However, I wouldn't judge the violent dreams as ethical or unethical and I would not judge or sham the person for having them. If they asked me for help, I would try to empathize and help them.