Forestluv

Thread topic has shifted toward how to source substances. Posts with instructions how to source have been hidden. There are tons of problems that arise when a forum engages in sourcing on the clear web.

By creating a feeling thing called "self" that I am not feeling. We can create a thing called "anger". I feel "anger-less" when I'm not feeling anger. If all feelings are one, there are no longer any distinctions that create different feelings. I can no longer feel "anger-less" because there is no separate feeling of "anger". Without distinctions, it's all one feeling. There are not longer various feelings for contrast - there is no longer "anger". From another perspective. . . There is an experience called "ruvaq". How would you know if you are experiencing the "jidfud" form of "ruvaq"? How would you know if you are feeling "jidfud-less" right now?. . . You wouldn't because there are no distinctions. It's all "ruvaq". And we haven't even distinguished what "ruvaq" is. This example seems like nonsense, because it goes prior to making distinctions. The questions you ask are after distinguishing a thing called "a feeling of self". You don't assume a thing called "ruvaq" exists because you are prior to that distinction, yet you assume a thing called "self" exists because your mind space is dwelling after that distinction.

Here is the Nevada 3rd district version of Big Dan. Here, Dan is "just a small business man, a family man, livin' in the suburbs". I'd like to see a version of Dan for each state. In Hawaii, we could have Big Surfer Dan, who handles liberals like he handles rip curls.

@Woke456 You can share right-wing views, yet you need to show some open-mindedness, intellectual curiosity, effort and nuance. Mindlessly parroting right-wing points like "You're a Marxist!!" won't cut it. As well, there are minimal consciousness standards on the forum. Mindsets like denying climate change, denying systemic racism, coronavirus hoaxing, flat-earthing, Qanon, god hates homosexuality etc. are below the minimal standards.

The boundaries between what counts as "liberal" and "conservative" is complex. It involves various issues with different degrees along a spectrum. If people learned what the issues are, I would predict the majority of people would support most 'liberal' issues - such as M4A - yet there is lots of misinformation people believe. As well, many people define 'liberal' as 'neo-liberal' or corporate dems. In this context, M4A would not be 'liberal' since corporate dems are fighting against M4A. Rather, we could call it 'progressive'.

@Milos Uzelac The title of the article is misleading. Most likely to be provocative and drive up clicks. AOC is democratic socialist to the left of Bien and to the right of socialists. She has criticized and praised both sides. This article is obviously to the left of DS because it is conflating DS Dems with corporate Dems. This is a common pattern for them far left. They have a point, yet are too hyperbolic.

I have and much more. Be mindful of your assumptions and projections.

I do an hour of breathwork every night and haven't taken a psychedelic for about a year. Be mindful of assumptions and projections of the mind. In the larger holism, both breathwork and psychedelics have value. You can see value within breathwork, yet you are missing value within psychedelics. There are different dynamics regarding the rigidity and fluidity of category creation. Observe how your mind is creating categories and the balance between rigidity / fluidity as well as attachment / letting go.

If the mind is immersed within a paradigm, it will not be able to see how that paradigm is constructed. Notice how you are defending a single lens by saying "my lens is direct experience". This highlights a mind that is attached and identified to *my one lens* and projects a single lens onto another. There is a metacognitive view that can observe these dynamics, yet it would mean letting go of one's attachment/identification to a single lens - which you don't seem interested in doing.

You are making crude, sloppy distinctions. You would need to take off the lens you are wearing to see new distinctions and add precision / accuracy to your mind map.

Sure, life in general won't come to an end - yet many forms of life will come to an end (and new forms of life will arise). Sure. I see that as well. I also think a lot of greens portray climate change as change for the worse. Although all life might not technically come to an end, many Greens are upset by the types of changes climate change could bring. Greens don't like the idea of having massive amounts of life destroyed such that we have polluted wastelands. Technically, some life and society could still exist in polluted wastelands. There are some bacterial species that would thrive in a polluted wasteland. Yet the quality of life for most species that exist today would decrease.

Yep. That would be like saying there is One Now. Yet the trap is to getting locked into "there can't be new experiences since experience is always the same". This is true from one perspective, yet would be a block to seeing the truth of "there can be new experiences since experiences are never the same".

@Woke456 Imo, you make a good point about 3rd parties - yet the way you are constructing categories is biased. If you want to take a closer look into subcategories, it is much more nuanced than your categories and those boundaries get blurry. For example, in the context of SD - it seems like you are trying to say that blue + lower Orange = "conservative" and upper Orange + green = "progressive". Yet this depends on were we draw the line between "conservative" vs "progressive". There are major differences between drawing the line at Blue, lower Orange or upper Orange. The meaning of "conservative" is fluid and constantly evolving. In today's climate in America, I would draw the conservative line at upper blue as represented by Trumpism / MAGA. Libertarians at middle Orange would have overlap with both blue (below them) and upper Orange (above them). A lot of libertarians voted 3rd party because they didn't like either the republican or democrat platform. I know a lot of people on the left that hated Trump and Biden so much that they voted libertarian, even though they were to the left of both Biden and Trump.

It's all imagination, including what you are imagining. You are in a different domain than what I am describing. You won't be able to connect with the lens you are wearing. You would need to remove that lens of interpretation and look with fresh eyes. Yet you seem very attached to your lens. I don't see it as trying to "achieve" something. I am much more process-oriented than product-oriented. Imagine exploring a forest with someone and they ask you "what are you trying to achieve here"? If I was to choose an achievement, I would say the achievement of seeing a larger system and increasing the number of inter-connections within that system. I suppose one could interpret as criticism, yet that isn't my orientation. I think the ideas you present have value. I'm not saying those ideas are wrong. Rather, those ideas are within one component of a larger map. Imagine we were constructing a map of Europe and someone pointed out that our map only included Germany and that there are other countries in the larger map of Europe. The map of Germany isn't wrong. Rather, Germany is within Europe and our map is incomplete without other European countries. You don't seem interested in looking at other components, which is fine. I wish you the best,

I would draw a distinction between the following two statements: A) "I see beyond the race of the individual" and B) "I see beyond the race of the individual in a context-dependent manner". There is overlap, yet also distinctions. It depends on whether one subscribes to position (A) or (B) above. If I have the mentality that "I always see beyond one's race", that is the same as saying "I am colorblind". If one "always sees beyond race" how can they see or address racial dynamics? They always see beyond it!! If I am looking at the sunset beyond the beach, I now longer see the beach - I am "beach-blind". If I am always looking beyond the beach, I will not be able to see the beach or any issues occurring on the beach. However, this is different than looking at the sunset and being aware of the beach and how the beach contributes to the entire experience. That is a "nonracist" position. It doesn't intensify racism, yet it passively allows the status quo of racism to continue. It's much easier for a white person to have this mentality because they aren't impacted by racism like minorities are. As a white male, I don't have to be pro-active or confront racism. I can let it be the problem of minorities. This is a form of 'white privilege'. Poc don't have this privilege. They have to deal with some form of racism most days of their life. They don't have the luxury of saying: I don't usually find myself in situations where that kinda approach makes sense, so I'm not pro-active. If you were the recipient of daily discrimination, you would have to deal with it and be pro-active at times. Yet there are many different issues in the world and now one person can be pro-active for all of them, so I don't see a nonracist position as problematic. Some people want to focus on other things in life. Yet it becomes problematic if one cloaks themself in non-racism to block progress on racial issues. This is not the level of consciousness I'm pointing to. Imagine that you lived in an Ethiopian village for five years. You were the only white person in this village. Now, you get to experience race in a very different context. You will now have direct experience of what it's like to be the only person of a race in a society. You would get direct experience what it's like to be the recipient of racism. You would get experience what it's like feeling non-belonging based on race. And what it's like for people in Ethiopia to be subjugated to discrimination from other cultures. You would be exposed to issues and perspectives that you didn't even know existed. . . Now imagine that you marry an Ethiopian woman and have two children together. Then your family returns to Germany, where you have to deal with racial issues you never even knew existed. Then one day at work, a person from Ethiopia enters. Of course, you wouldn't say "You look different", because your understanding and connection would be much deeper than that. What I'm pointing at isn't a surface level understanding, it's much deeper holism than that. It includes understanding the paradigm you are stating and beyond. It would be like a Brit who has only lived in England and only speaks having a discussion on inter-national linguistics. They could have a lot to offer, yet they are limited. Someone who spoke 20 different languages and lived in a dozen different cultures would have a much broader understanding.

Consider: "What is a new experience?". Is it possible not to have a new experience in each moment? If I put my foot in the same river each day, is it actually the same river each day? In one context it is. It another context it isn't. Visit the same spot in a forest everyday and closely observe. Is it the same thing everyday? If the mind creates a crude map, yes. Yet if we increase our level of awareness, we will observe many different things. The sunlight is a bit different. The shadows are different. The wind and temperature is different. The position of every leaf and their specific movements are different. The positions and movements of centillions of atoms are different. . . This opens the question "Is it possible to return to the forest and have it be exactly as it was before?". Or another perspective. . . look around you right now. There are centillions of atoms (1 followed by 303 zeros). That is beyond comprehension. What are the odds that each of those centillions of atoms are in the exact place they are now, moving exactly as they are now? What is the chance that someone could predict yesterday the totality of ISness right now? A zero followed by an infinite amount of zeros. . . You are essentially asking if Pi ever stops. . .

This seems to be a shift in position. The original position seemed to be 'I acknowledge racism at the systems level, yet I see beyond race at the individual level'. The new position now seems to be 'I'm mentally flexible and can both see beyond the race of an individual and see the race of the individual, depending on context". That is a different position. And there are many more nuances. For example. . . why wait to be aware of the impact of racial discrimination until a poc has been so negatively impacted by it that they approach you about it? That puts the burden on the poc. It is a very low level of awareness and sensitivity. We can expand our awareness and be more pro-active. I work at a college. Imagine I have the mentality that I see beyond the race of each of my students - unless they are suffering so bad from discrimination that they come to my office to discuss it. That puts the burden on the poc and puts extreme pressure on them. It would be very unlikely that a poc would even approach a white professor or administrator that had that mentality. It would be much more likely that the student of color would approach a professor or administrator of color. Or the student of color may drop out. Imo, it's not fair to put such burdens on poc - that is part of systemic racism. We need to be working on this together. That involves being proactive about systemic changes, yet also having an awareness of the inter-relationship between the system and the individual components that make up that system. It's not always a good idea to put attention on race, yet it's good to have a background awareness that race within systems impacts individuals within that system. If a black pre-med student enters my office, I won't start off saying "I see you are black. As a black pre-med student, you will have these five major issues of discrimination". I can see beyond race and I might not put any attention on race (unless the issue up). Yet I also have a background awareness that racial inputs have factored into this student's life experience and conditioning. And it racial inputs factor into this person's experience presently in the college and during the career path in the future. With this background awareness, I can be an ally pro-actively. For example, I can put supportive symbols on my office door to let everyone know they are welcomed. I can give a vibe of being accepting and supportive. I don't need to wait until the student is so distraught confronting discrimination that they come to my office at a breaking point. And that would unlikely happen. If I don't show awareness of racial dynamics upfront, they won't come to me with issues - because they will know I don't 'get it'. People that have to deal with racial discrimination every day develop certain expertise regarding who 'gets it', intentions of another and the degree of their racism.

Yet that doesn’t seem to be what you are advocating for. You seem to be making the point to simply see a person beyond color. Yet if you don’t see a person’s color and understand how how discrimination might impact them, how can you be an ally to them regarding the discrimination they may face? Part of being an ally is to listen to poc and trying to understand their life experience and POV. Then, to be supportive to them - rather than saying “I see beyond color” and trying to control the narrative.

Conservatives have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections. And they lost 7 of 8 with voter suppression. To win on unpopular conservative platforms, they need partially un-Democratic systems (electoral college) and voter suppression. Currently, conservatives are so unpopular that their current level of voter suppression is insufficient to win elections - so they need to increase the level of un-democratic policies and voter suppression. They could change their platform to be more mainstream, yet they aren't willing to do that at this time. The MAGA influence is much too strong.

I don't disagree with those ideas. I was responding to the idea that a 2 degree temperature increase won't end anything. . . It would end lots of things. What ends and begins after a 2 degree increase is a different discussion. To me, your framing suggests change is change. Yet I would say there is a higher resolution quantitative and qualitative view. For example: there are millions of species, yet there can be very different compositions of millions of species. There could be the extinction of all multi-cellular organisms and we could still maintain the same number of species by increasing the number of uni-cellular species. There is still the same number of species, yet the biodiversity has decreased to only uni-cellular organisms. A reality with a diversity of uni- and multi- cellular organisms is very different than a reality with soley uni-cellular organisms. As well, technology might create new realities - yet there are qualitative differences. All animals (except humans) could go extinct and humans could create virtual "animals" and "ecosystems". Or miicrobes could become so dangerous that humans need to create and live within sterile bubbles to survive. . . These are qualitive differences, yet I'm not suggesting a better or worse. Today, the vast majority of humans would find such future realities abhorrent. Yet humans in the future might like virtual plants and animals if that's the reality they are born into. They may see ancient videos of a when there were actual biological giraffes, hawks, eagles and forests. . . and think "they kinda suck, our virtual plants and animals are so much better".

It would be the end of thousands of species and some ecosystems.

I noticed you can’t see “Dan’s” face while riding the bull, which means it’s a stuntman.

He is running for the Texas-6th, a safe Republican district. I noticed the ad had all the conservative greatest hits, yet conveniently left out liberals on covid. Perhaps because the seat Big Dan is running for is open because the Republican who held it recently died of covid.

I got my first vaccine shot last Tuesday. For me, it’s about risk / reward at both individual and social levels.

@isabel I can’t speak for Tolle, yet my interpretation is that two sides are integrated as one. Yet that doesn’t mean the two “sides” are the same. For me to have a relationship with a thing, there needs to be a relationship with that thing. I don’t have a relationship with the food broshwort. I’ve never seen, heard of, or eaten broshwort. I have no relationship with it. I actually just made it up now. In contrast, I have a relationship with wasabi. I’ve had intense negative reactions to wasabi. Even the smell of it will make me nauseous. My mind and body reacts strongly against wasabi, so there is an aspect of wasabi in me to have that relationship with it. However, that aspect in me that relates to wasabi is not the same as wasabi itself. I met someone in a village in Belize that never heard of wasabi. They don’t have a relationship with wasabi like I do.