Forestluv

Trump: “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!).” Trump is seriously mentally ill. If someone’s Uncle was this delusional, the family would come together and do an intervention to get him into a treatment center. If this was a pilot or doctor, he would lose his job. If a bus driver was this delusional, I’d get off at the next bus stop.

@Peo In terms of SD baseline consciousness, I would say green is where things generally start clicking with psychedelics. I was at upper orange / lower green when I first tripped. Yet I went into it humble and open. I really wanted to expand and I was teachable. My first trip took me into Turquoise and obliterated my orange anchors. Transcendence of Orange in one shot. . . Yet I also had years of personal development and meditation before that first trip. There might not be the same impact on other people. There are a lot of variables at play.

Tumors are in conflict with each other all the time. Big tumors kill little tumors so they can get more resources and continue growing. We wouldn’t call the big tumors doctors because they are killing little tumors. And humans as cancer is just an analogy. No analogy is perfect, they all collapse under enough scrutiny

They look like high conscious youths exploring different conscious states and realms. It is often referred to as “5D”. It’s great to see young people explore consciousness and expand. Yet they still have development along a timeline and they haven’t yet directly experienced Absolute Infinity / Mu. For example, they are nowhere near Leo’s level - yet have a good chance if they keep going deeper and broader.

@Peo You are missing the part about baseline conscious level and contextualization. If Trump did 5-meo there is a minuscule chance he would be able to integrate it as a full blown enlightenment experience. His baseline conscious level is way too low. On the other end of the spectrum someone who has had 30 years experience of personal development and conscious work would have a high likelihood of integrating it as a full blown enlightenment experience. The vast majority of people are somewhere in between and it’s much harder to predict. We can look at controlled studies in which normies are given a psychedelic in a clinical setting under the guidance of a health care provider. The majority of patients report it to be one of the most profound experiences of their life and that deep insights were revealed. Psychologists say one six hour session can be worth years of psycho-therapy. Yet most participants won’t be able to fully integrate the magnitude. This takes a high level of baseline consciousness. As well, usually only aspects of Truth are revealed and it takes many trips to be exposed to enough aspects such that a holistic big shebang is revealed and integrated.

Yes there is suffering from the perspective of the person. Humans have constructed a thing called "suffering". Different humans have different suffering constructs. For example, a common construct of suffering is that the mind and body experience intense physical/emotional pain and don't want to feel this physcial/emotional pain and there is a strong desire to be free of the physcial/emotional pain - yet an inability to be free of it. That is a human construct of suffering. It has practical value when humans are discussing their experience. When someone tells me they are suffering - I use this type of construct to relate and communicate with them. When you say their is *nobody, nothing* then how can there be suffering? You just said there is nobody to suffer, nothing. Is a bowl full of nothing suffering occurring in nobody wind? From a trans-human perceptive, we could say that there is a "thing" that the human calls "suffering" that appears in a "thing" the human calls It's mind and body - in which the human identifies as being "me". If you say it's "the suffering before nonduality is revealed" - then we are now immersed back into the perspective of the person. Which is fine. So overall, is it happening or not? Both. Illusion = Reality and Reality = Illusion. Non-happenings = Happenings and Happenings = Non-happenings. This is a deeper level in which the duality between dual and nondual collapses. Yes Nothing wrong with philosophising about duality and mechanisms of happenings. Confusion and inner turmoil arises when there is conflation between absolute and relative. As well, when there is a belief/assumption that relative is absolute. From the perspective of a doer, there is choice. From the perspective of no-doer there is no choice. From the perspective of intention and meaning, suffering is meant to happen. From the perspective of no intention or meaning, suffering is not meant to happen. You are getting into causation, determination and choice again. Your answer depends on how you create constructs of causation, determination, doer and choice. We can create all sorts of constructs, just like we can construct all sorts of sand castles. Creating constructs can allow insight and we can create more elaborate constructs. Nothing wrong with that - that's what humans do. Yet the inner turmoil comes with the seeking energy of wanting to create a construct that is objectively and universally true and permanent. Just like a child will experience inner turmoil if they want their sandcastle to be grounded and permanent. At the end of the day, all sandcastles will get deconstructed by waves. And all constructs get deconstructed to Nothing. . .

@NilsFlair @DrewNows Thank you for your thoughts. I think empathy is an often overlooked mode of being. Similar to you, I would make a distinction between empathy and sympathy/compassion - although they can inter-relate. I also agree that there is an empathy spectrum ranging from a pure empath to a pure narcissist. I would consider the top 20% of people on the empathy spectrum to be "empaths". People in the middle of the spectrum have the capacity for empathy, yet empaths have a higher skill for it. Similar to how most people can understand the basics of math, yet the top 20% have an aptitude for it. I like how you discussed how empathy can be misunderstood and cause confusion and inner turmoil. As well, empathic skills can be developed. Those in top 2% on the empathy spectrum get into a hyper-empathy zone that can be a paranormal-like. A few ideas of exploration. . . I would say it is also much more than this. You describe empathy between two communicating humans. Yet empathy can exist between a human and a tree. Empathy can also exist between a human and an inanimate thing, such as a stone. It can also occur between human and immaterial. For example, one may experience empathy with immaterial when they enter an ancient monastery. I would be careful mixing empathy with a variety of subjective experiences. This adds filters and muddy the waters. An entry level view of empathy would be shared experience, which could involve emotion - yet is broader. A simple example: imagine a woman has suffered through postpartum depression in which she experienced intense anxiety of harming/killing her newborn child. She joins a support group for mothers that have experienced and are recovering from postpartum depression. As soon as the mother starts talking about her experiences with harm anxiety toward her newborn - the other mothers will know exactly what that is like. They will know what the terror of the unwanted desire to harm their baby. They will know the feeling of being a monster. They will know the fear that others may find out she is a monster. The fear of others seeing her as insane - of getting locked up. All the mothers in that room will know what it's like because they have direct experience. Some of the mothers in the group may re-experience it during the support meeting - other women may just "know". This is a form of empathetic knowing - that may or may not involve the actual emotions. . . This empathetic knowing is much deeper than if you or I imaged what it would be like. We may listen to the mother and feel fear or anxiety - yet we don't know. . . People that are empaths can get very close to this knowing. These are awesome insights about increasing awareness about inter-personal emotional dynamics. This is super important to understanding someone else's experience and perspective and gives insight into how one's self responds to various emotional stimuli. I think societies are grossly deficient in this area and society would be much healthier if they could develop what you suggest. We could call this empathy for normies - yet for empaths it is much deeper. They don't need to try and interpret the essence of another - they are that essence. They just know. Perhaps like a language. If a person is fluent in Spanish and speaking Spanish with someone, they don't need to translate what the other person is saying. They just know. Similarly, in the deeper levels of empathy - there is a knowing without interpretation or translation. It is direct. . . Imagine sitting on a park bench with someone and a breeze flows by. You can't see the breeze, yet you know it's there and you know the other person is within the breeze as well. There is no "my breeze" and "your breeze" - there is simply the breeze flowing through both of you. There is no need to interpret the breeze. There is knowing of the breeze. This knowing may manifest as a sensation/feeling of the breeze and a knowing of that sensation/feeling. And a knowing that this breeze-related sensation is being shared. Or, there may be a knowing of the breeze and breeze-related sensation/feeling without a physical sensation/feeling - similar to a woman at the postpartum support group knows postpartum harm anxiety even if she is not experiencing harm anxiety in that moment. . . It's much easier for someone to enter these hyper-empathic realms if they have had previous direct experience with it. Yet strong empaths can enter this realm as a form of direct experience - yet not a traditional type of experience.

Notice how you say *I* suffered, rather than suffering appeared. There is an "I" dynamic that can be transcended. Again, notice how you say *I* tried to end the suffering. It's fine to talk at the level of the personality, yet there is transcendence of that. To me, it seems like you keep reaching out for that transcendence, yet can't quite take the plunge. Who/what is this *I* that is suffering and trying to end it's own suffering? Is it a story of *I*? Is it the brain suffering? The body? . . . So far, you have said "I know *I* doesn't exist, yet you know what I mean". . . If you don't get clear on the "you know what I mean part", you will be swimming through muddy waters. Notice how you default back to your pre-conceived assumption and construct. Using the framework of a psychological self is fine if you want to talk about suffering in the context of a psychological self. Yet you are using the framework of a psychological self and reaching toward transcendence of that psychological self. You've said multiple times "where we obviously don't exist" - and then you speak as if we do actually exist. To me, it seems like you are reaching toward nondual transcendence of the psychological self, yet you are still clinging to the grounding of a dualistic psychological self. Eventually, the duality of nondual vs. dual collapses - yet you seem to be trying to skip a step. From the nonduality, there is no god experiencing through us. You said yourself: "where we obviously don't exist". So Everything is God. There is One God. Not god experiencing ourselves. Just God. No ourselves. . . To me, this seems to be the next big realization which comes through direct experience.

@kieranperez Along the imaginary theme. . . Could you have a dream in which objects fell to the ground when dropped? Sure. I've had many dreams like that. @Jed Vassallo Nice jinx.

Yes. Simply Being the magic. . . Those intrusive thoughts can be quite the kill joy.

If there is no person, who/what is suffering? Does there need to be a sufferer to suffer? Right now, my neighbor is suffering because he lost his job and is unable to provide for his family. Are you suffering over this? Why not?. . . I imagine you are not suffering over this because this person does not exist to you. For all you know, I made it up. . . You have no attachment/identification of being this person. . . Yet if you identified that this person was you, you would be suffering. What is necessary for suffering? Is being human necessary? Can a rock, tree or dog suffer? Can an idea suffer?

I generally don’t journal about this type of thing. Yet I can see value in journaling about it. I usually journal about existential stuff. Yet sometimes there will be a pressing personal issue and it helps to unload it via journaling. I generally try to deconstruct the me thought story, rather than construct a more elaborate me thought story

I've found different sources of energy motivating this desire. As you wrote, there is a desire to preach/guru. Yet there is another source of the desire. For me, it's like observing a beautiful sunset. A yearning may arise to share this with another.

@Hansu We all have them. I’ve found it helpful to observe the root of recurring thought patterns. Sometimes the thoughts are unwelcomed yet keep appearing. Like some guy who comes to a party unwelcomed. . .

You may want to observe the images and source of the images. . . .This may bring greater awareness to underlying psychological dynamics.

His reaction was way too excessive. Beating an unleashed dog is a form of physical assault and is probably against city ordinance. Although the response was excessive, I understand aversion to unleashed dogs and why there are leash laws. As a runner, I've experienced many cases of dogs aggressively chasing me and on a couple occasions, attacking me. This leads to a different perspective than most dog owners have. When a dog is approaching/barking at me - I don't know the degree of danger. Once a person has been chased and attacked by dogs, it can trigger a strong "fight or flight" response. Similarly, when one's leashed dog has been aggressively approached/bitten by another dog - it changes the dynamic. . .When a dog approaches and barks at me, I don't know how dangerous it is. When a dog is approaching/barking, the dog tries to appear dangerous - that is the whole point of approaching/barking - to appear dangerous and to intimidate. All dog owners I've met think their dog is a peaceful dog that would never harm anyone. Until they do. . . One time a dog approached me barking and I just stood still so I didn't seem like a threat - I stood still hoping it wouldn't bite me - which it did. . . The dog owner was shocked and said her dog "cupcake" is a good dog that would never harm anyone. Then she accused me of scaring cupcake and said her dog was simply trying to defend itself from me (as I stood still with my arms by my side). . . . And I had some sharp words for her irresponsibility as a dog owner (although hitting her dog or threatening her would have been excessive). . . . From this perspective, unleashed dogs that bark and approach can be very intimidating and distressing. It can make an environment very unpleasant. . . However, truly gentile non-barking dogs, like golden retrievers, are different - since they are non-threatening.

You seem to be creating "altered" state and a "normal" mental state categories. If you look closer, this duality collapses into simply the mental state that is. For example, when I am feeling down I may go for a walk in nature, do yoga or go for a run. This "alters" my brain chemistry and often perks me up. In contrast, if one sits around all day and ruminates about how much their life sucks and how noone loves them, this also "alters" brain chemistry leading to misery. These are all "altered" and "normal" states of mind. Regarding one's "own choice". . . who/what is the "chooser"? If you don't have a clearly defined "chooser", you will be exploring through muddy waters and won't be able to see clearly. Who/what is this chooser? Are you referring to the subjective experience of a chooser? Or is there some thing that is a chooser?

@Davidess I would be careful with the term "love". Attraction and infatuation can be a beautiful thing, yet can also be confused with a love that takes time to develop. From what you wrote, your attraction is so strong that you don't think you can be friends with her. She has sent mixed signals about her interest in you and now she has a boyfriend. If it were me, I would focus on getting distance from her. Let go of the physical and emotional attraction and look inward. . . What benefit would you get from entertaining fantasies about her? You would just cause yourself more suffering and may interfere with her new relationship with her boyfriend. If you do love her, you would set her free and wish her happiness with her new boyfriend . . . Then shift attention to another gal that is available.

@PlayOnWords "Do Nothing" involves a form of mindfulness - one is mindful of whatever is happening in the mind and environment. I would say that "mindfulness" could also include aspects of attention. For example, if someone is playing a guitar in a bar - they may be mindful of playing that guitar - yet may filter out some of the background, such as people's conversations. In both cases, there is mindfulness of Now - yet different breadth of Now. . . In contrast, non-mindfulness would be a loss of Now awareness. For example, the guitar player might start worrying about how he is going to pay his rent this month. He becomes mesmerized into thought stories of past and future, thus losing mindful awareness of Now. These are constructs that make sense to me. Others may describe "mindfullness" differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Gautama_Buddha

That’s weird, it’s not the video I originally linked to. It switched to some random video. I tried to switch it back.

Perhaps a new Yellow/Turquoise TV series: Psychedelic Detectives. . .

Yes, the consciousness with psychedelics is evolving. During your psychedelic part, I like how you framed it rationally/scientifically. For example, the scientific studies at Johns Hopkins. It frames psychedelics as "cutting edge". In the future, you may want to add scientific studies showing that psychedelics can stimulate neurite-genesis and synaptic plasticity - allowing new insights and neural pathway rewiring. Psychedelics are becoming a cutting edge area of neuorscience. . . Last summer I did some lab research to see if a psychedelic could alleviate neurodegeneration in flies. I was concerned how my colleagues would perceive the psychedelic part, so I downplayed it, I called the psychedelic a "psychoplastogen" and presented it as just a compound. During the Q and A, a biochemist asked me why I didn't highlight the potential of psychedelics. He said that is where the action and interest is. Then the conversation turned into recent work of psychedelic therapy. I was really surprised this group of scientists were this aware. . . The times are a changing. . . I look forward to your future videos. You have a talent in this area and are making a great contribution.

@Focus Shift I think this is a great video to reach out to open-minded rationalists. This would be upper-orange on the SD scale. I like how you integrated QM, meditation, NDEs, psychedelics etc. Of these, I think QM would carry the most weight with rationalists. QM is science that expands beyond the scientific paradigm. In a way, QM is science transcending science. Most materialists like science and use science to support their materialism. When a rationalist/materialist asks me for evidence of immaterial, I point them to QM - it is not some "woo woo" pseudoscience. QM is hardcore science and has among the highest predictability power in all fields of science. Then we ask the materialist/rationalist "Do you value the highest level of scientific evidence or not?". This is helpful at a transitional stage. . . My only suggestion comes at 50sec. You start off stating the irrationality of traditional religion and a higher level of reasoning/science. . . and then state "However those that have had a psychedelic or mystical experience. . . ". I wouldn't have led off with psychedelics - a lot of rationalists/materialists may get turned off and think that psychedelic experiences are just woo woo hallucinations that aren't real. This could turn some people off. I would first hook them with QM with something like "However science has revealed new insights into both material and immaterial. . ." . Overall t's a great vid. and you have a great voice for this type of thing.