Forestluv

@hoodrow trillson Yep, Trump is a raving lunatic and Kamal looks presidential

After I showered yesterday afternoon, I noticed a wasp was trapped between the glass window pain and the screen. It had entered through a small crack, yet couldn't find the crack to escape. It was trying to move through the screen to get back outside. I noticed it, yet it didn't catch my attention. I needn't to get to work to do important things. As I walked downstairs, there was a thought/image about how it was moving. It was stumbling. It could barely walk along the screen. It was hot. The wasp was dehydrating and dying, trying in vain to move through the screen. How long had it been trying? How much strength did it have left? Will it find the crack and escape? At that moment, I felt like what it would be like to be trapped and slowly dying as you can't find your way out. I returned to help it. There was also a storm window pane in there, which made removing the screen a bit difficult. I would need to get my hands close to the wasp to move the screen. I could get stung. I thought "screw it, I need to get to work. Let nature take it's course". Yet, I couldn't shake the slow death feeling. I went for it. I lowered the screen and there was an obvious two inch opening to outside. The wasp slowly crawled up the screen and sat on the top edge of the screen. It looked into the open space of the outdoors. I didn't know if it still had the strength to fly. I knew it wanted to and thought "c'mon you can do it". After about three seconds, it's wings fluttered, it jumped and flew away. The suffering had ended and it was free to express itself as a wasp. I smiled and felt joy. . . Then, I snapped out of it and thought "Dang, what time is it? I better hurry up and get to work!"

Very close! (INFP). I can do the J, yet it takes effort. What is your type?

@Leo Gura What’s your prediction for the debate on Tuesday?

Steve is great. Below is another one of my favorites about "zooming in" and "zooming out" and how different perspectives can be valid in one context, yet lead to erroneous conclusions. Zooming In and Out

Hmmm. . . I’m not sure. I don’t have much knowledge of philosophy so its hard for me to imagine.

@Keryo Koffa That’s crazy 🤪. A form of complexity my mind can’t handle. I’ve never imagined “integration” like that. Yet it gives me a different perspective. 🙏

That made me laugh. So true. When I returned from Peru, I had a bunch of San Pedro and had to get through Customs. With the officer, I had to speak calmly / matter-of-factly about myself and trip. They are very good at sensing nervousness. Similarly, a colleague recently caught me smuggling some God into the classroom. I recontextualized it into "System Thinking", of which we have little in our science department. She pushed back a bit about what systems thinking is. . . I agreed and added there are other forms. I went on to describe multiple forms of system thinking that can be inter-related into a higher system that includes the traditional forms she speaks of. . . which is true. She eventually said: "What you are describing is at higher level". I then knew I was home-free. I replied "Each form of cognition has its own complexities, nuances and value. It's great that we each contribute to different areas in our courses". . . I then got through Customs and moved on. . . Everything I said was true and expanded her mind a tiny bit.

Also, I don't have children. I've noticed if I date someone with children the pull is much stronger.

My standard courses have traditional titles like "Developmental Biology". Yet in the course, I have some liberty to "go out there". I've had the opportunity to create a few courses not constrained by science. One was titled "The Evolution of Consciousness". My most recent was titled "SuperNomal Abilities". There are aspects I like, yet there is also a social mind of academia that I don't fit well into.

Genetics, Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, Neuroscience. . . Yet I integrate a lot of stuff from other academic fields, such as Psychology, Sociology, Art and creative writing. Also, some things outside of traditional academia such as intuition and direct experience forms of understanding.

@Javfly33 I think some of my experiences may overlap with yours. Not exactly the same, yet perhaps some key similarities. About 5 years ago I was dating a woman that seemed pretty open about spirituality and actualization. We planned to take a trip to Peru together. I went to Peru a month earlier than her. I went to the mountains of Peru, lived with a tribe and did Ayahuasca ceremonies. There were profound shifts, awakenings, erasing of duality, connections to God/Truth/Oneness. . . My girlfriend now seemed to be in another world and we couldn't live in both worlds simultaneously. I did not want to return to that dualistic world with her. I didn't want to devolve from conscious states of Enlightenment. I could see all the sorts of things that would pull me back down. And I knew she was incapable of joining me. So I decided to be True - I called her and broke up. When I returned to the U.S. I started feeling desires to be in a relationship with a woman. There are really beautiful aspects to romantic relationships. And I really thought I would be able to maintain my transcended states while engaging in a relationship - it would be a new form of experience. Perhaps she and I could synergize, grow, create and expand. So I started with a relationship with someone with LOTS of chemistry. . .There were aspects of beauty, connection and magic that were so satisfying. Yet there was devolving back into ordinary things - dualities, ego, right and wrong, petty personality conflicts etc. After about a year we broke up and then I was able to see how much was lost since my Peru trip. It was as if I was exposed to Enlightenment and then got De-Enlightened and it sucked. After that, I dated very rarely because I could quickly see the price I would need to pay. What's frustrating is that the "two worlds" overlap. There are flashes of "Enlightment' within the relationship. Sometimes really profound - and that gives me hope. Yet it's never enough to overcome the whirlpool that pulls me back into the ordinary world of personalities, egos and petty crap. I haven't dated anyone for years. At times I really miss aspects of it. So I may be able to relate somewhat, yet unfortunately I'm unable to provide a solution.

The fundamentals of this video is generally correct, yet he is not a geneticist and was imprecise on many points. I wrote a long post correcting each point, yet it got very long and wonky. Plus, his fundamentals are generally correct, so I deleted all the corrections. For the OP, there is a distinction between genes and forms of genes (alleles). Each gene is a sequence of DNA that usually codes for a protein. A different allele of a gene would be a different DNA sequence that would produce a different form of the protein. Each of us inherits the same genes from our ancestors - its the form of the gene (allele) at issue. Each generation receives 50% of the DNA from each parent (it's not exactly 50:50 due to the X chromosome and mtDNA, but it easier to round off here).. So your genome is 50% from Mom and 50% from Dad. Your genome is 25% from each of your grandparents. Your genome is 12.5% from each of your great-grandparents. Your genome is 6.25% from each of your great-great-grandparents And so on. . . Overall, you have all 15,000 genes in the genome yet you have very few of the specific forms of those genes from your maternal great-great-grandfather. For example, you and your great-great-grandfather both had a DNA sequence called the "RAS gene". If you don't have the RAS gene, you are dead. However, it is very unlikely that you have inherited your great-great-grandfather's specific gene sequence of the RAS gene because this specific allele of the RAS gene only has a 50% chance of being passed on each generation.

That is some beautiful writing. Thanks for sharing it.

That is a super interesting area to explore, yet very far from how my mind works. The question above has a destination. To reach that destination we would need to create limitations that exclude other possibilities. Doing so cages my mind. If we were to have a discussion of the above, I would want to explore various forms of emergence, self-awareness, omnipotential, transcendence and equivalencies. I would want to inter-relate all these different forms in different ways. Constantly creating and uncreating - like building many forms of a sandcastle that is continuously unformed by the ocean waves. Yet this drives most people crazy because it lacks structure and progress toward a final answer. In the context of the OP, there is a space of 'Enlightenment' and a space of 'Relationship with women'. There is desire for both, yet both cannot be experienced simultaneously. I know what that is like - it can be excruciating. We could recontextualize what 'Enlightenment' and "Relationship with women' mean such that they can co-exist - yet that changes the original meanings and might not be aligned with the underlying desire.

That's an aspect I'm very familiar with. . . I tried to introduce another aspect which is difficult to articulate with language because any combination of words I use is interpreted in a way which excludes other ways. I'm not disagreeing with the idea above. It is That within That. I'm trying to articulate there is a 'space prior' to the initial points created and that the mind uses points as grounding. Yet what I'm referring to would be incorrect within the space quoted. Someone would be correct to write: "No, no Forest . . . that is not what Breakingthewall is saying". . . This is why it's incredibly difficult for me to convey to some spaces. I don't have the ability to articulate multiple forms of rendering simultaneously. This is part of the human limitation hardship I live with, mentioned in an earlier post.

A juicy paradox: If "any explanation of infinity is false", then the explanation you give of infinity is false. The construct involves distinctions such as absolute vs. relative, infinite vs. finite and true vs. false. . . From one perspective there is insight and value, yet there are steps prior to the construct created. Consider: "at an absolute level the only explanation of infinity is that it is infinite.". . . The statement "infinite is infinite" is closer to source since it is an explanation without explanation. . . Then we take steps away. . . "That is, at an absolute level. . . ". . . now, distinctions and meanings are introduced to the blankness. If the mind holds those meanings as true, the blankness is no longer blank. There are now points. . . To have grounding, the mind relates to the point as if it is real and gives it stability. This allows for a structure to be built. Without the points of grounding, the mind melts back to liquid. I've spent thousands of hours watching the mind do this and I'm fascinated by the initial steps of creating distinctions, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, meanings. . . and how the mind relates to it as if it were real. I'm not saying the idea quoted is right or wrong. My mind lives in a reality of true / false, partial truths and unlimited forms of 'what is' that can be created. . . Similarly, I've had a few experiences of infinite: one was completely overwhelming to my mind-body, two were peaceful to the mind-body. . . My limited human form, Forest, can only embody a tiny fraction of what has been revealed. This limitation can allow for great mystery and curiosity. Yet it also creates experiences of hardships. For example, there is knowing of infinite forms to render reality within mindspace. My limited mind is aware of this, yet my limited human mind-body only gets to render reality in one form - that which is. Right now, there are infinite ways to render reality, yet I only get one which includes: a sound I interpret as my neighbor's dog barking, a bodily sensation of being annoyed, memories of peaceful times before he and his dog moved in and thoughts whether I should buy an ultrasonic dog bark deterrent. The rendering of reality changes with time, yet at any given time I only get one form. After being shown unlimited, these types of limitations can be hardships to me.

4-HO-MET gives amazing CEVs.

Yea, it's a branch of genetics. . . 'epigenetics'. I was playing loose with the idea of 'Past lives'

Were these in recent years? There seems to be an evolution relative to your posts a couple years ago.

Lex is like a 0.5 mg dose of Xanax for Cenk. He's chilled out enough that his emotion / passion can help deliver his points effectively. I usually can't listen to Cenk because his emotional displays become too intense for me.

One of my curiosities is the interplay between imagination within my mindspace and inputs from the environment Much of my mindspace is within this realm.

Headphones (and a donut pillow if needed).

1) Genetics 2) Past life 3) Environmental I can't resist integrating these together. I'll probably get a bit loose with definitions as I often do. . . It's known that we inherit our DNA gene sequences from our parents. What's less obvious is that we can also inherit patterns of gene expression. One factor the influences which of our genes get turned on and off stems from the environment of our mother before we were born. . . A classic experiment involved mice and a cherry blossom scent. Mice have no reason to fear the smell of cherry blossom. . . Scientists repeatedly exposed female mice to the smell of cherry blossom and then electrically shocked them. The female mice then began turning on stress-response genes in when exposed to a cherry blossom scent. . . Intuitively, this makes sense. Let's now consider her offspring. . . her offspring also turn of stress-response genes when exposed to a cherry blossom scent (even though they've never been electrically shocked). If the child mouse could think, it might think: "Why do I get stressed-out around cherry blossoms? It makes no sense. Perhaps I had a Past life where I was traumatized by cherry blossoms". In a sense it's true. The mouse had a 'Past life' in which the 'Environment' shaped their "Genetic" expression. Similar phenomena have been observed in other vertebrates such as fish and humans.

I like to live in a mindspace in which every human has a unique superpower. . . I love to spot them in people. Once I spot a unique superpower, it opens a new door and expands my mind. I highly value that. My superpower is that I can go 'prior' to anything. . . Any thought, idea, construct, identity, belief, image, perception, sensation, feeling and emotion. . . I can go 'before' it. This mindspace can observe how things arise and the formation of mental constructs. . . For me, this is effortless and ordinary. It so normal to me that I've assumed everyone can do it - yet I'm now aware that they can't. In rare cases, I've seen others access it briefly. Yet for me, it's like breathing. It's always in the background and I can access it anytime I want. It allows for a very fluid mind with immense possibilities. All sorts of ways to see things and combine things. For example, my mind can inter-relate mysticism, neuroscience, memories and energetics. . . because my mind can go prior to all those things. The trade-off is that this fluidity doesn't allow for the grounding necessary to build sophisticated constructs. Whenever my mind begins to add structure and details - it begins to melts and new forms arise. . . This mindspace doesn't have a lot of traditional 'knowing' of facts, nor the intelligence to create intricate masterpieces. Rather, there is a 'knowing' of origin, allowing for an understanding of all expression from that origin. For example, knowing the origin of Sacred allows for an understanding of all forms of Sacred. . . . As well, an awareness of how energetics interact with personality, behavior and social systems (if the mind wants to explore there). Then that can start to melt down and new dynamics arise. A few musings on a Friday night :-)