Forestluv

I saw them live. They rotated band members and played nonstop for five hours. It was amazing. And George Clinton has an awesome vibe.

You missed the point: the idea is that empaths are not simply kind people that were punished for having boundaries. Rather, they can “feel” others energy - like a sixth sense. This aspect has nothing to do with being kind and setting up boundaries - and saying “NO” - so others won’t take advantage of you. Rather, the empathic boundaries are important so an empath doesn’t absorb and take responsibility for others’ negative energy. It is a very different dynamic. Learning how to say “No” so people don’t walk all over a person is a healthy skill. Yet that is not what is being pointed at here regarding empathic traits and boundaries. It’s as if we are discussing the aroma of a scent and you are talking about the volume of a radio.

I think general social equality is important as well. Evening social equality through wealth redistribution is one aspect of that. Yet there are other aspects such as power redistribution.

I think it would be common for abused individuals and abused social groups to be resentful toward their abusers. I would be.

I read a study on this a couple years ago. They asked if poor people in wealthy countries have higher wellness than poor people in poor countries. I forget the main conclusion tho. I don’t understand what you mean about how to justify if a poor person is unhappy in a wealthy country. I haven’t made these types of distinctions. They may have relevance in increasing the overall subjective wellness of the world. Yet on this issue, I’m much more human-centered. I see the human before nationalities, politics, public policy etc.

Sure, if someone went in with money with egoic intentions, desires for control, power, influence, personal gain etc. problems will arise. I’m talking about genuine intentions. Yet, I’m oriented toward altruism and empathy and human experience. I’m not as oriented toward politics and public policy. I’m fairly naive in this area. If I was a manager of a large grant to help an impoverished area, the first thing I would do is hire experts in the areas I have deficiencies. I would lack technical knowledge in these areas, yet I think I could hire experts that have a genuine character.

I don’t see it as Honduran suffering, American suffering or German suffering. It is human suffering. Yet there are also political and cultural dynamics at play. I’m not much interested in that. I tend to go to tge human aspect.

I don’t understand your question. I would imagine the U.S. is probably ranked in the top 15 wealthiest - yet I don’t understand the relevance here.

On one level I agree with that. On another level I disagree. I’m not talking about people trying to keep up with the Jone’s. That is very far away from what was going on in the impoverished towns of Honduras I lived in. I’m unable to communicate the essence of that direct experience. In my view, there is a dynamic you are not considering. Yet I also acknowledge that my experience is limited and I am also unaware of many dynamics.

One thing about psychedelics is they can take a mind-body into insanity zones. I’ve never wanted to eat or kill people while tripping, yet I’ve been to other insanity zones and that experience has given me a better understanding why people may want to do things that appear to be insane.

We were discussing my town and you seemed to flip the script to an entirely different dynamic. Of course that would be a different dynamic and I would approach that situation differently. In general, I think offering resources to abused communities is helpful. Yet implementing those resources effectively requires skill. The implementation might be challenging and there might be growing pains. There may be political and dependency issues to address. Yet I think that is a better path than depriving an abused community of resources. That would mean they continue to live the abuse and suffer in poverty

Imo, incompetency on how to implement grants is a separate issue than whether the donation was given based on love or guilt. If competency was an issue, I would spend 10 million of the 100 million dollars to hire the most skilled community organizers in the world to help us. Imagine someone telling our town that we could receive a 100 million grant - enough to totally re-structure and vitalize our town, yet it’s better if we don’t get it because the donation was based in guilt and we would just screw it up anyway. Best to just stay impoverished. . .

I live in an impoverished community with 50% unemployment, high crime and few resources. I think love and money would be great for my town. Yet if our town received 100 million dollars anonymously with no love attached, I think we could put it to good use to build a healthier community. Would it solve our of our problems? No. Yet I think we could create a much healthier and loving community with those resources. If we had the opportunity to receive a 100 million dollar donation and somebody told us it won’t help because the donation is based on guilt, not love - I would disagree. And I think many of the impoverished people in my town that are living in shacks, malnourished and struggling to feed their kids would also disagree.

Based on my experience living in both poverty-stricken and affluent communities, I would say both money and love would be helpful. They are not mutually exclusive.

I would also predict that outcome. Your description of social abuse rings true to me as well ??

@Identity Some people are good at making flimsy arguments sound sturdy. Here, let’s say that there is a correlation between race and IQ. That does not mean genetics has anything to do with it. That is an assumption. The correlation could be spurious or there could be an underlying cause. Perhaps genetics, environment or a combination of both. To show genetic causation - one would need to show an association of actual genes. For example, if a cluster of specific gene alleles are associated with low IQ AND blacks have a higher frequency of processing that gene cluster, THEN one could make a genetic-based argument of genetically/relevant racial differences. Yet no one has showed that. It’s easy to spot when others are making “rational” arguments that are actually irrational. Are they providing evidence of specific gene differences or not? If not it is just speculation. For example, imagine there is a correlation that Canadians consume less gelato than Italians. I then said it was due to genetic differences. Wouldn’t that seem irrational to you? It could also be because Italy is a much warmer climate and gelato is a big part of Italian culture. To show a genetic component, we would need to show actual genetic differences between Canadians and Italians that alter their gelato consuming behavior.

From a genetics POV: this is not a simple single gene trait like cystic fibrosis in which 25% of siblings will inherit the condition. It is a complex trait in which many genes and environment plays a role. In these situations, we expect a low association between siblings sharing the trait, since there are many variables. It is more like schizophrenia. There are about 40 genes associated with schizophrenia and many environmental inputs - yet no one gene or environment event causes schizophrenia. Multiple inputs need to synergize for the manifestation of schizophrenia - for this reason, a person with a schizophrenic sibling is only mildly more at risk - even if they lived in the exact same environment. Looking at whether two siblings both become enlightened is not very helpful in complex traits. Regarding family studies, what you would want to look at is whether identical twins tend to both become enlightened. If there was no association between identical twins and enlightenment - that would argue against a genetic component - yet the same argument cannot be made with regular siblings - that data is much weaker due to the extensive genetic differences between regular siblings

And what evidence is that? I’m not aware of any evidence that shows a significant causal relationship between intelligence-associated genes and race. Many algorithms have been developed to examine this and I am unaware of evidence of a causal link. I would be very interested in that evidence. If you are referring to a correlation between melanin producing genes and IQ, that is very different. First, corollary evidence is the weakest evidence in science. There are many spurious correlations - such as margarine consumption is highly correlated with divorce. Yet there is no evidence that margarine consumption causes divorce. Similarly, even if there was a correlation with race and intelligence, that does not provide any evidence whatsoever that there is a genetic component associated with race causing IQ differences. My understanding is that scientists have analyzed genome-wide association screens and no significant associations between particular alleles of intelligence genes and race have been found. That is the key genetic evidence. Without that, it is speculation, not evidence. It is easy to argue against that belief system since that belief system is based on speculation, not on relevant genetic data.

Haha, yes. That is a great metaphor. . . Isn’t a house of mirrors a form of illusion?

If you believe enlightenment is “seeing the ‘world’ as a complex matrix of hubs of energy that are just made up of matrixes within matrixes within matrixes” and you self-describe yourself as being able to do that, then your subjective experience will be that of being that belief of enlightenment. If that belief of enlightenment changes to being able to perform high-level calculus, you will no longer have the subjective experience of being that belief of enlightenment. I think what you describe is a high level of consciousness. I would observe if there is an underlying belief of what enlightenment is.

@sausagehead It sounds like there is still an assumption of a self in your post - based on the usage of “I”. Notice how you use the term “I” above as if it is a real thing, a real entity. Exactly what is that “I”? To deconstruct the psychological self, I would spend more time and effort observing your own psychological dynamics as they appear in the mind. As well as self inquiry. What is your “self”? Is it your thoughts? Is it memories? Feelings? The brain? The body? In this area, I’ve found it more helpful to observe and dig into what is actual, then vague abstractions and concepts.

@Identity If you want to make a genetic association, then you have to associate. . . actual genes. Genes involved in intelligence - not genes involved in melanin production. There have been no association between melanin producing genes and intelligence. In contrast, genome-wide association screens have identified over 1,000 genes associated with intelligence (“intelligence” based on classic definitions of intellect/IQ). Those are the genes of interest. So far, it does not appear that allelic frequencies of any gene clusters are significantly associated with a particular race. Until one can show that, I think there is a very very weak genetic argument. If you want to make a genetic argument, you need to base the argument on actual intelligence-associated genes - not melanin-producing genes. There is zero evidence that melanin-producing pathways have anything to do with intelligence. They don’t even occur in the brain for goodness sake.

Direct experience of not knowing is deep, yet be aware if the mind then tries to reject knowing and embrace not knowing. This can create a new duality and attachment.

This is the deepest thing you touched, imo. I would change “minute” to “moment”. “I feel like i waste every moment that I'm distracted, yet I don't know what that moment should have been occupied with.” Notice the distinction between future desires and this moment now. There is a desire to be somewhere else. To move toward that place. Yet that “place” is within a time construct. It is an ambiguous place that isn’t actual. “I should be doing something to get somewhere”. The mind will try and build a stable somewhere in the future. “Ahhh yes, this awakened being explains it - yes that is the place to go. I shall do these practices to get to that place”. . . Yet that place is not Now. All future places have something in common.: none of them are here and now. . . The mind-body once again is left scratching it’s head “I should be doing something to get somewhere”. You don’t know how each moment should be occupied because your mind is assuming there is a destination in the future you should be moving toward. Yet the destination is now. The journey is the destination. To me, your uncertainty is a good sign you are close to a realization of the nature of Now and beingness. I sense that your mind-body is strongly oriented toward moving toward a destination and trying to figure out how to get to a somewhere that doesn’t exist. That somewhere is here and nowhere. It is not to be found in the timeline. Only Now. You are on a journey in which you have already arrived - right Now. Whatever arises right Now. This is it. Observe the feelings and thoughts as they arise. Observe, learn and embody.

I see learning and unlearning as one. Construction - Deconstruction - Construction - Deconstruction of distinctions. Back and forth we go. Yin and Yang. A mind fluid with this is also quite nimble. This is a mind that cannot easily be taken hostage by an ego and thought stories. When a mind can go both forward and reverse, it is far less likely to get stuck in subtle attachment. Most people spend years trying to deconstruct a few thought stories. They don’t want to look at them and experience discomfort. Imagine being able to deconstruct a thought story in minutes, even seconds. It opens space for new construction, new learning. Yet that new learning can easily be deconstructed as well. Back to nothing if the mind so desires. That is a liberated mind - beholden to no idea, knowledge or concept.