Forestluv

This seems to be a construct of an “i” that is simply a thought (“I want to be a no smoker”). If we are to construct an “i”, there is more to it than a simple thought. The mind can expand it’s awareness by becoming aware of what had been subconscious. Fantasizing to be something is not the same as embodiment. Fantasizing about being a marathon runner as I eat junk food watching Netflix doesn’t make me a marathon runner. It doesn’t give me the embodiment and lifestyle of actually being a marathon runner. Some changes come hard. I repeatedly failed to quit chewing tobacco. . . until I faced the real threat of mouth cancer, oral surgery and losing part of my jaw. That was enough to get me to quit.

It’s fun for a while, yet then it gets tiring.

This isn't quite accurate. For example, Dean Radin has published work with intentionality. His paper with Arabidopsis used the scientific method (including double blind experiments), objective measures (such as root length and enzyme levels) and statistical analysis. More research would be needed to increase confidence, yet this type of publication in a peer-reviewed journal using established scientific protocols is "tangible scientific evidence". You are pointing more at a scientific consensus based on extensive scientific evidence. Yet that is a high bar and is very different than saying "there's no tangible scientific evidence". Below is Radin's article. The data suggest a relationship between "intentionality" and plant growth (yet does not demonstrate). These experiments were inexpensive. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319400665_Effects_of_Intentionally_Treated_Water_on_Growth_of_Arabidopsis_thaliana_Seeds_With_Cryptochrome_Mutations I think you make some good points about limited resources in conducting scientific research and where to invest those limited resources. Pursuing any idea, regardless of how reasonable, is inefficient. Why invest a billion dollars researching if a space kangaroo exists? Yet on the other hand, much of scientific progress involves breaking through whackiness. For example, 200 years ago the idea that invisible beings are all around us, can enter our body and make us sick was a whacky idea. It was paranormal at the time. Yet scientists later discovered microbes and it is now a normal part of our lives. The challenge is to identify the wacky ideas that have potential for discoveries. Pursuing too many wacky ideas slows progress, yet not pursuing enough wacky ideas also slows progress. I would also add that there are additional forces influencing what get's research. Currently, utility and profit is driving a lot of scientific research. Research aint cheap an to get funded, one must apply to funding agencies / investors for money. Often, potential for utility and profit are major concerns. Funding agencies / investors want a "thing" produced. Such as a new technological gadget or a new drug. Doing things like scientific research on the neuroscience / physiology of yoga, meditation, breathwork etc. isn't always expensive - yet there is no useful gadget produced for profit. If we conduct scientific research to understand the neuroscience of meditation and new techniques to better utilize meditation for trauma healing - there is nothing to profit off of. Pharmaceutical companies would actually be losing money. Recently, scientific research into psychedelics is emerging. This creates an interesting Orange vs Green situation. Psychedelic therapy could create new jobs and help relieve trauma in individuals and societies. Yet who profits off of this research? We are starting to see the first signs of corporations entering and trying to get a slice of the pie. I wouldn't be surprised to see pharmaceutical invest in scientific research that designs new synthetic psychedelics that they can patent and profit off of.

That is an excellent question. A similar situation would be flipping a coin. Imagine someone flipped a coin 20 times and got "heads" 18/20. That is statistically very unlikely. We would expect something fishy is going on. However. . . like you said, if we had 400 people each flipping a coin 20 times, the odds are decent that one person will flip 18/20 heads. To look at an individual event, we use a chi square analysis. In our class, two individual groups (out of 8) had a significant value <0.05. To test ALL groups together as you suggest, we use Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). At the meta group level, only the two girls I mentioned above came out statistically significant. If we try to verify there result, we need to be mindful of what we are actually testing for. Imagine we redo the experiment and the two girls cannot reproduce the result. That shows that there is not a psychic phenomena that is reproducible in a new environment, yet it doesn't rule out the possibility that there was a psychic phenomena in the original environment. Technically, we cannot test that with 100% confidence since there is no way to re-create the environment exactly the same. Scientists try to control environment as much as possible, yet there is no way to do so 100%.

I think it's better that Trump got impeached and there was a short trial. If Dems let this go without any response or accountability, they would have been complicit and Trumpers / Authoritarian hopefuls would have been empowered to do worse in the near future. As well, the impeachment and trial has helped to solidify the narrative that Biden won the election and their was an insurrection. Even most republicans concede those points now. I also like having republican senators on record. Trump's #1 legacy will be inciting the insurrection. In 100 years, Trump may be a blip on the screen yet he will be known for the insurrection. Similarly, all senators who acquit him will be tied to the insurrection. And the political winds can change rapidly. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2023 Trump is toxic and all the republican presidential candidates are trying to distance themselves from Trump. Similar to the Iraq war vote for Democrats. It seemed like a good idea at the time, yet a few years later it was an albatross around their neck. I think there will be Trump-sympathizing judges, yet that only goes so far. Trump's legal team looks really, really bad. "Lawyers" that probably shouldn't be practicing law. Imagine you are a Trump-sympathizing judge and Trump's 1st defense lawyer babbles for hours about his own personal childhood stories that has nothing to do with Trump's case, the 2nd lawyer goes off on an hour about how Trump really won the election and this is a witchhunt. The next lawyer tells same batshit crazy conspiracy theory about how communists in Venezuela changed Trump's records at deutsche bank and the evidence is on Hunter Biden's laptop that was lost in the mail?. . . There is only so far a Trump-sympathizing judge can go and retain any credibility. Judges are lifetime appointments. They also have their own selfish interests. A judge doesn't want to get impeached for agreeing with complete BS or lose all credibility within the judicial system.

You seem to be creating a single thing called "media" that should either be 100% trusted or 100% distrusted. I see it as much more nuanced. There are many forms / sources of media that are continuously evolving. As well, there are degrees of trust along spectrums.

@Carl-Richard During a class last semester, I wanted to introduce the scientific method to non-science majors in a fun way. . . The students paired up and were give Zenner Cards. These are five cards, each with a color symbol. One student chooses a card and tries to mentally/energetically project the image to the other student. No verbal or body gestures are allowed. This was a spontaneous, very relaxed environment. When I said to choose partners, two students immediately connected. They had been on the same wavelength the whole semester. They expressed joy as they partnered up saying "We've totally got this". . . During the exercise, there was a lot of fun and laughter. It was super relaxed. Each pair had 20 trials. Random guessing would be 20% correct, which is 4 out of 20. The group mentioned above got 16 or 20. And they thought they should get partial credit for a couple misses. (For one card, the student imagined a nature scene for the water symbol. The other student imagined a nature scene and chose the star from the starry sky). We decided to be more stringent and only count the 16. Statistically, 16/20 is extremely unlikely and is statistical "evidence" that there was more than random chance. Yet the tricky part now becomes how to reproduce, verify and prove they have a paranormal ability. It's possible that there was a psychic phenomena in that environment. The environment was spontaneous, relaxed and fun. They had no idea they were doing this and there was zero pressure. We cannot reproduce that exact environment. I then asked them: "How would you feel about proving your psychic ability in a scientific lab? There will be cameras set up, to make sure you are not giving each other cues and cheating". There aura completely changed. The aura of a relaxed, flowing, spontaneous fun environment changed to one of anxiety and pressure. One responded "I'd rather not, yet I'd I'm willing do it if she wants to". The vibe is now completely different. If they fail to reproduce their results in a manufactured, stressful environment in which they must "prove" their psychic ability - does that mean that there was no psychic phenomena in the original, relaxed, flowing environment in which they get to have fun exploring psychic phenomena? Reproducing internal / external environments is can be extremely difficult. And it's difficult to establish what counts as evidence. It's possible that the two students were in a temporary flow state of consciousness, similar to athletes. Yet such a flow state can be very difficult to reproduce, since it is interconnected with the environment. The behavior of teammates, fans, coaches and film crew all effect the vibe and the flow state. It is a combination of individual and collective flow. Even what the person had for lunch or his interaction with his wife that morning can have an impact. . . It would be very difficult to manufacture an environment and tell someone to prove they can enter a flow state. Doing it on demand is very different than having an ability that spontaneously arises when multiple connections come together. From my perspective, most people with psychic phenomena cannot turn it on by demand. It's not like opening one's eyes and seeing. Perhaps we are in the early evolutionary stages of psychic ability and it is somewhat crude. Similar to the early evolution of the visual system, when color perception began to arise. Only a minority of humanoids could perceive color and those that could saw colors crudely - like a greyish-redish color. If early humanoids were placed in a science lab and told to "prove" color perception, they might only be able to distinguish greyish-red from greyish-green, 80% of the time. And they may not be able to do it under all environments. For example, they might need a certain intensity of sunlight to do it and not be able to do it via candlelight. This makes sense to us know, yet at the time it wouldn't have. Similarly in 200 yrs, we may learn a lot about psychic phenomena. In the year 2200, people might look back and realize that in the year 2020, we don't know how to properly observe psychic abilities and develop them.

Is this the whole clip or was the scandalous part cut out?

@Preety_India The more you engage with him, the more obsessed he will become. I would cut it off. Block him before he gets more obsessive. I'd also ask mom not to engage with him.

@How to be wise Coronavirus strains may become endemic. We may need to get new shots periodically. I wouldn't be surprised if we need to get a new shot once a year for a few years. Yet the infrastructure is now in place. They will be able to create new vaccines more rapidly and distribute them faster. Similar to flu shots.

This is why it's important to see broader contexts and integrate multiple modalities of knowledge, evidence, reason, experience and intuition. I also remember Colin Powell's testimony and I wasn't faked out one bit. In the larger context, it was totally obvious that neocons were using the WMD story as a smokescreen for their real goal. Rumsfeld, Cheney and co. wanted to invade Iraq to increase influence in the middle east for over a decade. It's was obvious all their efforts to link 911 bombers to Iraq were absurd. Real experts and actual inspectors were saying that the WMD claims are likely false and that Iraq is probably not that far advanced in development. The neocons WMD story was so absurd it lacked credibility - so they needed the only man with international credibility, Colin Powell, to sell his soul and pump the story. This isn't obvious in hindsight, it was obvious then to anyone willing to take a detached look. The covid pandemic is very different. Anthony Fauci is a lifelong epidemiologist and is credible, similar to Powell. Yet it's obvious Fauci wasn't a stooge for Trump, like Powell was for Bush. And it's clear that Fauci is genuinely trying to give the best information he can to the public. He might not be 100% accurate, yet the odds that he is intentionally misleading the American public is extremely small. Trump was obviously trying to mislead people. Other times, it can be difficult to tell if someone is intentionally misleading. For example, during the primary Kamala Harris was sometimes in a grey area from my POV. Even someone like Bernie Sanders can be off. He genuinely wants to help and empower people, yet sometimes he distorts facts to make a point. For example, last summer he was posting figures about how much the top billionaires made during the covid crisis. I read critiques that the specific numbers were not precise and inflated. Bernie's point was that as millions of people were losing their jobs and homes, the top billionaires were making obscene profits. He used inflated numbers, yet I would give him a pass on that.

I understood you. Your point is that some people will do whatever the government tells them. Yet that doesn't equate good advice to protect one's health to absurd advice that would damage one's health. The problem with equating the two is it creates a hyper libertarian mindset that the government is bad and can't be trusted on anything. Believing that everything the government says is false is just as delusional as believing everything the government says is true.

Unfortunately, Trump stacked the courts with his judges. Let the good news is that no lawyers want to defend Trump. His entire legal team to defend him against impeachment conviction quit because he is a nightmare to work with. Now he has an incompetent county lawyer representing him. He will skate through this impeachment trial, yet he will be in trouble in real courts. No good lawyers want to defend Trump.

They would then vote whether to permanently ban him form future office. This only requires 51 votes. Conviction requires 67 votes. So if they vote to convict, there will certainly be 51+ votes to bar him from future office.

It gets easier as one ages due to changing hormones and decreased sex drive. Yet some guys 60+ are still captivated by it. I would say spiritual masters are in a unique environment. Their stature may allow for younger women to be attracted to them. And the spiritual master may be able to get away with it without much consequence. That is very different than 60+ men living in a Florida retirement home that doesn't encounter or attract many women. And different than a 60+ college professor that is around a lot of younger women, yet would face serious consequences if he slept with one.

Most senate republicans are worried if they vote to convict Trump, they will lose half the republican base. They would face a MAGA-like primary challenger that would be a very difficult race to win. Even if they won their primary, they would have a hard time winning the general election losing MAGA voters. From the perspective of political survival, it's in their interest to act like they are "concerned" and "troubled" by the events and then acquit Trump. They could say that the riot and violence was wrong and then pivot to "all violence is bad" and there is "violence on both sides" we need to address. And then say that they acquitted Trump because a former president can't be impeached (even though he was impeached while president). Or that Trump didn't give an explicit order to storm the capital (mob leaders never give explicit orders that would incriminate them). In the end, I predict 6 republican senators will vote to convict.

Then restructure government for progress. In my view, allowing a corporation to create their own virtual mini-country in which they write all their own rules without regulation is giving corporations even more power. That is moving in the opposite direction of progress. "Too restrictive" is from the perspective of the corporation. Of course corporations see any regulations that interfere with profiteering as "too restrictive". They don't like being told they have to socially distance due to the pandemic, they don't like minimum wages or unions, harassment and nondiscrimination laws. They want more power to hire and fire anyone they want, have however they want, dump toxins into the environment without consequence and set up their own legal / judicial system. . . It's privatization on steroids. At the societal level, "restrictions" (aka laws and regulations) is a good thing. Yes, there can be over-reach at times. Yet overall, the majority of governmental laws and regulations are a good thing for society. I'd much rather see government progress than give corporations the power to write their own laws and do whatever they want.

They are essentially trying to sell power to corporations. Companies can move overseas to increase their relative power. For example, clothing manufacturers can increase their power by locating to a country in Asia that has lax laws and won't try to regulate the company. This is basically telling mega-companies that they can create their own virtual mini-country.

Your framing has aspects of truth, yet it is hyper biased and lacks any nuance. Of course not everyone with covid will end up in the hospital. Younger people, in general have stronger resistance to covid. Yet look at how you are extrapolating. You are using a tiny sample size of 9 and extrapolating that covid is just a regular fever. Most of those 9 people, were likely younger than 50 without any pre-existing conditions. At the other extreme, what if we went into an old folks home and 7 of 9 elderly people who got covid died. Would you be ok saying “Covid is deadly and kills 75% of people it infects!!”? Fear is certainly an issue and media may be over-playing fear. Yet I would say in another context, not enough fear is present. In my area, many people think covid is just a fever, so they won’t wear masks or socially distance. This is causing problems at the social level. They are spreading the virus and hospital beds filled up and a lot of people got seriously ill. For people that believe covid is just a fever and don’t wear masks / socially distance, we need to inject more fear into them. For people that refuse to acknowledge that covid is more than a fever, fear can be used to change their behavior that covid is more serious than they think. That is partially what the media is doing. At times they overplay the seriousness in an effort change the behavior of those underplaying the seriousness. This can have value in changing the behavior of covid deniers, yet the downside is that overplaying seriousness will instill too much fear in people that already understand how serious it is. As well, there can be too much focus on the harmful impact of the virus and not enough focus on the harmful impacts of lockdowns. Regarding the seriousness of covid, from an epidemiology perspective there is an argument that the coronavirus is the worst virus in human history. The coronavirus has an dangerous combination of Ro (contagion), illness severity and mutation rate. Because you are focusing on the level of self and not at the level of society. This framing assumes that spreading the virus to others is always an “accident” and the vaccine is equally harmful to the coronavirus. Another way to frame it: why shouldn’t I be allowed to drive drunk? This over-reaction assumes that society will disregard science and reason. A viral pandemic is completely different than bacteria on cash. However, further research could indicate that bacteria spread through handling cash increases illnesses by 20%. If we can decrease human illness by 20% by transitioning to mostly digital currency, why not do it? It’s similar to seat belts. If seat belts reduce car injuries and deaths by 20%, why not add seat belts to cars? Advising people to wash their hands and wear a mask to protect themselves against covid is very different than advising people to microwave their feces and eat it to protect themselves from covid. I agree that government can over-reach for greater control - yet you are also downplaying covid because you think it is “just a fever”. I wouldn’t say requiring a vaccination for airline travel is unreasonable (for now). Yet I also think there should be exemptions. For example, the small amount of people at risk for vaccines.

It depends on your definition of “god”. If you believe in an external “god” in human form, then one will construct their reality through that lens. If they pray for a sick family member and the person recovers, then god answered the prayer. If the person dies, then god decided they should be in heaven, or god is testing them or god is working in mysterious ways. If someone doesn’t believe in an external god, then the question becomes silly. It would be like asking “Does Santa Claus grant wishes?”. If there is no Santa Claus, how can he grant wishes? There are also other constructs of “god” humans create, yet it isn’t an external anthropomorphic god. It would be more like energetics, karma, LOA. For example, one may do visualizations of attracting a lover into their life. If someone entered their life, they may say it was LOA.

Did you check his blog?. . .

The Spiral Wizard section was written better. There is a chapter on each stage. They go well with Leo’s video series.

Upcoming events: Rebecca Llewellyn is offering a facilitated breath session / healing circle this Wednesday night (Feb 10th) at 8pm EST (New York City time), (GMT -5). It's free, yet donations are encouraged if you can afford it. I've done a breath session with Rebecca - she is pretty good. Link for info / registration Neurodynamic Breathwork is offering a free 2hr session (60 breathing) on Friday Feb. 12th at 6pm EST (GMT-5). I haven't done a session with the group, yet it looks interesting to me. Link for info / registration The Breathing Festival from February 11-28, 2021. This festival is coordinated by one of the top masters in the field, Dan Brule. They have a list of some of the best facilitators in a wide range of breathwork. The cost is $11 for the entire festival. All daily sessions will be released at 10 am US Eastern Time / 3 pm GMT and available for 48 hours to allow for you to watch at your leisure. Link for info / registration

I'm resonating so strongly with breathwork right now. Some nights take work. I'm just not into it and it takes effort. Other nights, like tonight, are effortless. I'm entering interfaces between subconcious and conscious. Between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. Between the autonomic and somatic nervous systems. I've done 5meo about 40 times and I'm now entering areas comparable to 5-meo. There are similarities, yet breathwork zones have some uniqueness as well. Both have value. I'm now entering deeper zones of mind-body awareness during breathwork. I'm unable to discuss the nuances with my breath group. They don't have the level of fluency - in this area. Tonight I was reminded about Leo's video on how learning is making distinctions. A novice can only make a few distinctions. An expert can make many distinctions. For example, I am a novice at carpentry. I couldn't even tell the difference between different types of wood. Yet becoming an expert carpenter involves practice, paying attention and being aware. A trained carpenter can make hundreds of distinctions between different woods. . . It is similar with Breathwork. When I first started, the facilitator would say "drop the outbreath". I only had one form of "dropping the outbreath". I would just let it go. Yet over the past six weeks of daily breathwork and paying attention, I've become aware of about 10 different forms of "dropping the breath". They are inter-related, yet I could create about 10 forms in my mind. This is learning new distinctions as we become an expert. This week, I've also become aware of the physiological process during a breathwork session. Clearing the mind-body of past traumas and attachments allows the mind-body to become present and go deeper. I was fortunate that I had nearly a month to focus on breathwork and yoga. I wasn't working and I don't have a gf or kids right now. It's like have a full month to immerse yourself in learning Spanish. . . . A few observations: most breathwork facilitators go hard and try to breakthrough. This could be could for people that have a lot of resistance and baggage, yet not for a "breath ninja". Starting off with intense open-mouth breathing to get under the hood has value, yet there will be A LOT of nuances missed and they won't breath well. It would be like a marathon runner sprinting from the start or someone that just wants to play guitar fast. They won't become a master runner or guitar player. A few things I've learned: At the beginner stages, it is critical to relax on the out-breath. Most breathers try to go too hard and they are NOT relaxing on the outbreath. For begginners, it is MUCH easier to relax on the out-breath if you don't take full in-breaths. Just take a comfortable in-breath and "drop" the out-breath. Focus on completely letting go and surrendering on the out-breath. No effort. Observe different ways you can release the breath. There should be a feeling that there is release on the out-breath. An "ahhhh" type of feeling. It's like the body is a mound of sand that dissolves into the beach. On the in-breath the mound of sand rises up and on the outbreath the mound of sand completely dissolves into the sandy beach. Likewise, the body dissolves into the ground. Taking fuller in-breaths can allow deeper letting go, yet be careful. Another image is an accordion - going back and forth. . . Trying to fully expand on the in-breath creates other physiological effects which can make it difficult to maintain a relaxed out-breath. The out-breath should feel deeply relaxed. Secondly, it is critical to have a "circular" breath. No long pauses at top of bottom. Smooth. Not jagged. . . Imagine sobbing - that is jagged breathing. . . Another way to imagine it is a pendulum that swings back and forth. Once you get it, there should be an intuitive sense that the breath is circular and relaxed on the out-breath. At first, the mind may question "Am I doing it right? Am I pushing out the breath?". Yet good signs are feeling like "The body was breathing itself" or the "breath was breathing itself". Yet this may be difficult to hold in the beginning. You might only get 1min and the mind starts wandering or distractions enter like worries, emotions, memories, tingly, tetany. In the case of emotions and memories - that may be the purpose of the breath session. It may be about releasing and working through repressed emotions / memories. Yet if it is purely physical, such as physical tension / tetany - you are probably not fully relaxed on the out-breath and are going to hard. There is some value in pushing through, yet imo it should not be the standard practice. Focus on fully relaxing on the outbreath and circular breathing - even if you have to slow down. The next stage is what I call "The corpse". The body is so relaxed it is like a the lungs are breathing in a dead corpse. There is a circular rhythm that is effortless (yet may take a bit of effort to stay in the zone). This is also the stage in which the in-breath becomes relaxed. Both the in-breath and out-breath are relaxed (in a corpse). Here the body may start taking fuller 360 degree breaths. Yet keep in mind, it is much harder to maintain relaxed corpse breathing with expanded breaths. I started to consistently hit the "corpse zone" about a week ago. One can stay in this zone with moderate breathing. There are plenty of insights to be gained here. Or one can go more intense by fuller breaths and starting to pull harder on the in-breath - like taking a big gasp of air. Yet keep in mind, it will be MUCH harder to maintain relaxed breathing. It takes practice. Most people try to start off this way and they don't notice how tense their body is. I would recommend to first reach "corpse" level and then seeing how far you can expand / quicken the breath while still maintaining relaxation. Scan your body. Are muscles in your neck and shoulders tensing a bit? Is your lower back starting to arch?. . . Imagine your body as a mound of sand dissolving into the beach. Imagine your body as a corpse. . . This assumes there are not emotions / memories / abstractions arising. Sometimes other stuff arises and that takes over. For example, the body might want to make sounds, pound the ground, cry or contemplate life situations. Or go on a fantasy voyage. . . I would just be mindful that the breath is relaxed and circular. After doing breathwork everyday for a month, my body could automatically breath full, relaxed and circular. In some of my breath sessions, the mind may contemplate how I can better teach my students. The mind may enter a zone of creativity. Then I come back and my body hasn't missed a breath. It's still a full, circular, relaxed rhythm - yet I will check in on it. If the mind is in a zone of pure body awareness, it will not stay in "corpse mode" for long if there are rapid in breaths. Remember that the out-breaths are relaxed (this cannot be stressed strongly enough). The next stage is that after a few minutes of quick, expansive, 360 degree in-breaths there are physiological changes. (Imagine quickly filling a balloon with air and then letting it all out). . . The physiological changes are more intense tingles and tetany - not just in the hands, it starts spreading through the arms and legs. As well, there is the appearance of shivers. It will seem like the body is cold and shivering. That was my first impression and I think that might be part of it. Yet I also think something else is going on. I paid particular attention to this tonight. There are also shivers, yet also tremors that aren't cold related. Almost like the whole body has Parkinson's disease and is trembling. I'm actually curious is cranial substania nigra and dopamine pathways are being altered, similar to Parkinson's. . . At any rate, it is much harder to maintain full, smooth, circular, relaxed breath with all this shivering and tremors taking place. Tonight I tried to let go into it, yet it was like my chest muscles were also shivering/trembling. I became aware that I could take this further such that my entire body was severely trembling / shivering. Yet I remember the yoga saying of "take it to your edge". So I took it too my edge. Just to the point in which the breaths were not quite smooth, circular and relaxed. That is the zone I focused on to improve my skill. This is where I entered the interface of subconscious and conscious. Between the autonomic nervous system (involuntary) and the somatic nervous system (voluntary). It was almost like being in a lucid dream. I was present and aware and had some participation, yet there was also subconscious mind-body activity. Through controlling the depth and pace of the breath, I was able to maintain being at this edge through the rest of the session (about 15min). I'm curious if I can maintain it longer. . . This was an area in which deep body awareness and subconscious is revealed. I think there is great possibility to consciously become aware and communicate with subconscious - somewhat similar to a lucid dream. I also think there is potential for self-healing and re-wiring in this zone.

There may be a window here with the ideas of "from reality". From an absolute perspective, reality is all there is. There is nothing separate from reality. An easy test of this is to actually try and separate yourself from reality. Do something that isn't happening in reality. Do something that is not reality. If I hide in a closet. . . (happening). If I scream. . . (happening). . . If I think about nothing happening. . . (happening). . . . There is no way to escape it. Any thing I think, say or do is happening. In this context, Everything is Reality. We can't separate things into two boxes of 1. Happenings that are happening and 2. Happenings that are not happening. Whatever is happening is happening. Appearances are appearances. This might seem simple and boring, yet it goes very deep and broad. Very few minds have a good understanding of it. The mind wants to create constructs of reality. This is relativism, which can have a lot of value. It helps to make sense of the world and navigate the world. The mind also likes to assume an objective reality . . . "This is how it is", "This is true, that is false". This can provide grounding, yet most minds cannot see the constructs they create from a meta view. Humans minds are deeply conditioned to make assumptions. There is both internal and external social conditioning. This has value for human survival, yet most minds get trapped into a contracted mindset. In this framework, it becomes important to be aware of meaning when saying things like "how accurate is my view of reality?". This assumes there is an objective thing called "reality". That is a different orientation than being aware we create relativity that was call "reality". For example, we could create a construct that reality has things called "past", "present" and "future". We could say that for something to have happened in the past, there should be "evidence" that it occurred - otherwise it is not "real". Consider Qanon. In an absolute sense, that phenomenon is a happening, just like me singing right now is a happening. In a relative sense, Qanon believers have created a relative reality that is 100% true for them. Yet most people have created a relative reality in which claims like "Jewish space lasers, funded by George Soros, started the California wildfires". To most people, this is batshit crazy because we've created a relative reality in which "evidence" of occurrence within "reason" is necessary to consider something "real". Qanon lacks this evidence and reason and are perceived as batshit crazy by people not in Qanon. In the bigger picture, this is great news because we have a lot of influence over the reality we create. It's like being in a dream and realizing you are dreaming. Once in a "lucid dream", we have a lot of control over how the dream goes, yet we don't have full control. I entered a lucid dream last week. I wanted to fly in the dream, yet was unable. However, I was able to summon a friend into the dream. . . .Similarly, when we realize reality is a dream, we gain much more control over how the dream proceeds - yet not full control. Entering these areas can become very ungrounded and fluid. Some people like it, others do not. One can experience it as curiosity, fascination and creativity. Others can perceive it as illogical, stupid or threatening. They prefer to have a sense of grounding by assuming an objective, external, normative reality. And that's fine too. Yet when relative realities don't have much overlap, conflict can erupt.