Forestluv

The most revealing aspect I notice from Elon: He stated that the government should create a commission that monitors how tax dollars are spent. On the surface, this might seem reasonable - yet it is completely opposite the conservative positions of deregulation and small government. More strikingly, Elon then volunteered to "help" with organizing and implementing this new tax monitoring commission. To me, that was revealed some of Musk's underlying desires - to gain more power in government money flow. , , As well, he proposed that he was "moderate" and leaned left. That might be true for some issues, yet I don't see him left-leaning overall - especially in regards to corporate issues. Also, Elon spent a lot of time framing messages for Trump. Overall, I got the sense Musk was trying to portray himself as a regular, moderate guy that wants the same stuff we all do (such as being safe in our cities). There might be some genuineness to that, yet I also got the sense of him trying to portray a moderate / reasonable character with an underlying desire to gain more influence / power into a potential Trump presidency. (which is true for lots of different people / groups - both on Kamala's side and Trump's side).

I'd say that's true in one context. It's fair to say that a mind cannot be "fluent" in yellow because of yellow's fluidity. A language is a structured set of rules and meanings - yellow is not. As stated above, yellow's fluidity involves abstraction, subjectivity and relativity that is not bound to a structured set of rules like within a language. So here is one of the components of a Yellow mindspace: it's fair to say Yellow cognition is NOT like fluency in a language. It's ALSO fair to say that Yellow cognition IS like fluency in a language. A Yellow mindset is very good at comparing (similarities) and contrasting (differences). It can also transcend apparent paradoxes since it can see truths within multiple perspectives. In this case, seeing that Yellow cognition is both not like fluency in a language AND like fluency in a language. (And Yellow seeing this within Yellow is a form of metacognition, also a component of Yellow). Also, I would point to a distinction between speaking of something and speaking within something. We can speak of abstraction and relative, yet that is not necessarily utilizing abstraction and relativity within the ideas. We can define what abstraction "IS". Yet that is distinct from expressing abstraction abstractly. It would be like someone defining a piano, yet not actually playing a piano. If an alien asked "what is a piano?". We could define / describe all the components of a piano - that is one context. Or, someone could simply sit down and start playing the piano. BOTH are valid descriptions / expressions of a piano, yet they also have distinctions. Again, I'm not suggesting abstraction has more or less value than concrete thinking. Both have advantages and disadvantages. My mindspace is based within forms of abstraction, which grants me abilities - yet it causes all sorts of problematic challenges for me in a practical sense. About 90% of people are primarily concrete thinkers that default to mindsets of "true or false", "agree or disagree" and they subconsciously define what a thing "is". That can have practical value, yet my mind doesn't work like that at all. It's very challenging for me to communicate with 90% of the people in society. For me, concrete thinking takes a lot of work. I also find it boring and frustrating. It feels like I'm trapped within a cage. Relative to this thread: we could try to create a concrete definition of what a woman "is". A concrete definition would point to physcial aspects such as genitalia and chromosomes. This could have practical value in society, yet it's also limited. There are also aspects that aren't concrete. This thread is interesting to me as I observe abstract ideas trying to be communicated to concrete mindsets.

One ability is to be intellectually aware of a model in which one mode of cognition can see and understand other modes of cognition. It is another ability to actually be fluent in that mode of cognition. There are trade-offs for different modes of cognition. I've paid some large prices in my life to gain that ability. As well, I've lost abilities in the process. . . With the cognition you utilize, you are able to relate to things in ways I am no longer able to do. I can see that. Similarly, with the modes of cognition I utilize, I am able to relate to things in ways you are unable to do. Yet you cannot see that. One of the blocks to expansion is being immersed within a particular mindset. There are both advantages and disadvantages to that.. . . There are lots of dynamics that keep a mind contracted, such as attachments and identifications. For example, if I said that you are speaking English right now and are not fluent in Mandarin - I predict that you would be OK with that. You would be aware that your cognition utilizes the English language and there is awareness that there is another language, Mandarin, that you are not fluent in. Yet if said that you speak Blue/Orange and are not fluent in Yellow, I predict you would have a very different response.

Trying to look at Yellow through a blue/orange lens yields a distorted view of Yellow. . . Yellow is a different form of cognition and cannot be understood from a blue/orange mindset. Expanding from a Blue/Orange mindset can be extremely challenging and I've become fascinated by mental dynamics that keep a mind contracted. I've observed several within this thread.

In terms of Spiral Dynamics, this thread is a good example of Yellow interacting with Blue/Orange. It's interesting to observe the gaps and what prevents bridging gaps.

In terms of biology, it's just one tiny bit of DNA - the SRY gene on the tip of the Y chromosome. If that bit of DNA translocates to the X chromosome - it yields an XX male that presents as a normal male. Similarly, a deletion of that one bit of DNA yields an XY female. . . The SRY gene is necessary and sufficient to stimulate testis growth and subsequent maleness.

--Even reduced to biology, it's not clear. -- I spend less than 1% of my life consciously aware of my penis. For all I know, my penis disappears 99% of my life. Yet I would have no idea because the essence of "me" is fully present and those around me continue to treat me as me.

@LifeEnjoyer That is a super good question. . . For me, one thing I've learned is that I can't make insights happen. I can't take a walk in nature and turn on insights. This is why they are really special to me. There is a sense of grace, appreciation and fun when they arise. Like a gift. Although I can't make them happen, I can get into a mindset that is welcoming for insights to arise. This includes a relaxed mind that isn't pre-occupied. Yet perhaps most important, a mindset of curiosity to explore and create. . . My favorite mindspaces are like a half-dream state, where it feels like I'm a co-creator in what's arising. Some of what arises seems to come from beyond me, yet there is also a sense that I'm participating in creating the overall mindspace.

The men on the panel don't have the cognitive capacity to comprehend relativity and totally lack construct awareness. As well, they have zero curiosity. . . The men start of defining what 'woman' means as the authoritative truth. Their definition has some value and truth, yet it is also very contracted and limited. They have an audience of females, yet the men have zero interest in expanding their understanding. If one of the females supported the men's definition, the men would validate her. Yet if a female went outside their definition, the men corrected her and pulled her back in. . . I kinda remember what those contracted mindsets are like. . . yet it seems bizarre to me when a mind cannot zoom out and see a larger map.

I've found that taking extended breaks from psychedelics can allow for integration into my baseline level of consciousness. I took a year-long break and during that time, many insights / realizations arose that were related to previous trips. It's as if previous trips created doors into walls. . . doors that I couldn't open at the time - yet could be opened later.

@Joshe To me, it's an intriguing interplay between science and art. The science aspect is strategizing based off data analysis, logic, focus groups etc. The art is about the actual expression, connection, intuition, flow and co-creation. I think both are important and the Harris/Walz campaign is doing very well so far.

11) I forgot to mention. . . I was impressed with Kamala's improved response to the pro-Palestine protestors. Also, I was very impressed with how she then got back into her zone. My job is 80% public speaking and it challenging to let go of disruptions / fumbles and get back into the zone. 12) During the Nevada rally, I noticed more of Kamala's mindspace went to vigilance than previous rallies. Normally, a portion of our mindspace is vigilant of our surroundings, usually subconcious and in a protective mode. For example, if you were walking through a somewhat rough area in a foreign city, vigilance would increase - which could be subconscious. . . During any high energy rally, there will be splatters of shouting things out - often in support. Things like "We believe in you!" or "Unions are for Kamala". During the Nevada rally, I noticed Kamala was very sensitive to shouts from the crowd - a nervous sensitivity, anticipating another disruption from protestors.

Recently, I've been intrigued by the interplay between organic / grassroots and the campaign team. A few observations: 1) Kamala and Tim Walz have really good chemistry. Together, there is a new emergent quality. After she gave her final pitch during last night's Nevada rally, Kamala began waving to the crowd, she turned. saw Tim and her face spontaneously lit up. I think they really like each other, appreciate each other and complement each other. 2) From their first rally in Philly, I could tell that Kamala like's referring to Tim as "Coach". To me, there is a sweet, genuine vibe to it. It was well received by the crowd and I think the campaign is doing well co-creating with grassroots supporters without 'manufacturing' or 'pushing' something onto them. For example, the campaign was in a school in Las Vegas in which teachers and kids were creating artful posters with the images of "Kamala and the Coach". As well, the campaign created "Coach" signs for rally-goers. This seems like a really good balance to me. Yet I think the campaign needs to be careful not to lean to hard into these phenomenon or try to ride it too long. 3) One of the most brilliant lines I've seen in politics was the line: "If he's willing to get of the coach and show up to the debate" line. This integrated many different elements / dynamics of which I could write pages about. Suffice it to say, it came across as light-hearted humor, yet it also cut very deep. . . I imagine it would be extremely tempting for the campaign to double-dip into their best line of the campaign. I'm very impressed that they had the instincts to know not to say it again. That would have ruined it. 4) I think they need to be careful not to lean too hard into genuineness and good vibes. For example, the campaign is reclaiming the essence of "Freedom". The have a real, genuine and powerful example of this with Walz's family history with IVF, naming his daughter "Hope" and the fun relationship he's had with her. . . Tim tells this story every rally and I saw a new development in Arizona that was a major red flag. . . When a campaign want to create a new chant, the speaker will repeat the phrase in the cadence of a chant. This is how Kamala and her campaign created the "We're not going back" chant (which is fully embraced by their supporters). . . During the Arizona rally, when Walz got to the end of the IVF story, he put extra stress on the line "We named her Hope". Then he forcefully said it again (which they hadn't done before). To me, it looked like the campaign trying to start the chant "Hope!. . . Hope!. . . Hope!" chant - which would be a powerful chant because it integrates multiple messages. Yet the campaign would need for it to arise organically. . . The crowd began chanting "Hope! Hope! Hope!" with relatively low energy and Tim responded like he was surprised and deeply touched. There is probably some truth to that, yet I strongly sense the campaign was trying to start that chant as a new organic phenomenon and it was pre-planned. . . Imo, that enters into manipulation and could cut into the sense of genuineness and relatability - which is one of the foundations of their good vibe right now. I'm relieved they didn't try it during the next rally. I haven't seen anyone online pick up and this. I think they flew under the radar of what could have been a major unforced error. 5) I'm impressed with how the left is reclaiming things like Patriotism and Freedom. It was brilliant for Kamala to praise the gold-medal-winning basketball and soccer teams. . . then for the crowd to spontaneously chant "U.S.A.!". . . I think contrasting healthy Patriotism vs unhealthy Nationalism is a winning issue for them. . . Moreso, they are making a much stronger move to reclaim "Freedom". This has become the top theme in their campaign. I think they are winning big on this theme and the campaign knows it. In Las Vegas, they tried to take it to the next level when Kamala said "If they want to come after our Freedom, I say "Bring It On!". She said the phrase multiple times trying to encourage the crowd to start chanting "Bring It On". The crowd did so, yet tepidly. There was not an explosion of energy with a "Bring It On!" chant. In the beginning of the chant, it sounded like a regular half-hearted rally chant. I'm really impressed that Kamala allowed it to incubate. After several rounds, the crowd started chanting with more force and the energy leveled up. . . I can see the campaign inviting more of this to get the battle to be about protecting rights and freedoms. I think the Dems would win that battle. 6) To me, the campaign is trying to build a coalition of subgroups - with a "Something for Everyone" approach: each subgroup gets something, yet not as much as they fully want. Yet again, it's enough (at least for now). For example, Kamala allowed the Palestinian protestors to have their voice acknowledged on a huge national stage and to move Kamala to call for a "Ceasefire" and a return of hostages. That's significant, yet not enough. That subgroup wants serious actions toward a ceasefire and an arms embargo (which they will not get). . . However, I could see a Harris that moving further left and placing conditions on the arms sent to Israel, which I think would seem reasonable and have mainstream support. . . On the other end of the spectrum. . . today Kamala is with major donors in San Franciso. Similarly, I can see a dynamic in which donors get something they want, yet not nearly everything they want. . . I think what holds the groups together is a shared disdain for Trump and a strong appetite for something new into the future. 7) A Taylor Swift endorsement would obviously have a positive impact - yet I think it could potentially have an enormous impact. If Taylor simply endorses from a distance as her own personal choice it would have a modest impact, imo. Yet she could cause a big cultural shift toward Kamala if she becomes part of the movement, even if she is tangentially involved. 8) If the energy / momentum continues, I think the voices of reasonable Republicans will get louder. If Trump loses, his political career is over. Period. Trump could still have influence, yet there is no way he will be able to run in 2028 and his power will be greatly diminished. Many on the right-wing will try to be the next Trump, yet I don't think that will work as every mini-Trump effort has failed terribly. . . The dynamic of Trumpism was there before Trump and will be there after Trump. Yet there will be no copycat Trump that works. In spite of all his failings, Trump is extremely good at capturing media attention for the immediate news cycle. Yet what was once an asset is becoming a liability. . . 9) I've noticed a significant shift. . . In the 2015 campaign, Trump would say things that would have ended other politician's careers. Things like "Mexican's are criminals and rapists", "Good people on both sides" and ""Grab them by the pussy" - actually empowered Trump and his movement. Yet there seems to be a different dynamic now. I think Trump's NABJ interview in 2015 would actually have empowered him and his movement and they would have leaned into it. Yet in 2024, it had a strong negative impact on his campaign. 10) I think the mainstream media has a vested interest in a close race. Kamala and Tim are getting a lot of positive coverage. There is a strong appetite for an Obama-eque vibe of something new and historic. Yet they are also covering Trump as a relatively normal politician running for president. For example, after Trump's press conference this week, most headlines were something like "Trump attacks Harris' record on immigration". This has some truth, yet there is also truth in headlines such as "Deranged old man rambles about Helicopter delusions".

Tim Walz just released his financial history and he is unbelievably clean imo. He owns no stocks or investments. Zero grift. . . Not even a book to advance his career and rake in profits. His finances look like a regular guy that isn't a politician. He overlaps with Bernie in many ways, yet some differences. Bernie has a good heart, yet terrible political instincts. Also, Bernie is very antagonistic to corporate powers (which can be good). Walz is much more easy-going. Everyone from AOC to Pelosi to Manchin speaks very highly of him. I think he could be instrumental in working with congress to pass legislation. In terms of progress, I actually think Walz could be more effective as a VP than Bernie would have been as president.

Herhee, a few alien trips recently. I’ve been away from the social mind of academia for three months, which has allowed space for reality surfing 🏄‍♂️

Regarding the VP pick: In terms of governance: I think Walz, Breshear and Kelly could be effective as a VP. To me, Shapiro is overly-ambitious and power hungry. I can see controversies and power struggles arising with him as VP as he tries to position himself as a future presidential candidate. I also think Shapiro has baggage that undercuts Kamala's message (and I find Shapiro's fake Obama impression annoying). . . Yet, Shapiro is much, much better than Trump / Vance and I can see why he could be chosen for Electoral math, since winning the election is by far the highest priority. . . So, I'm coming to terms that it's probably Shapiro.

I found the thread of Dave's video"debunking" Leo and mysticism. . . A few of Dave's comments to me: "Oh look, a Leo apologist! I was wondering if any of you would show up." (After I told him I'm a college science professor): "Right, like the psychology of cult leaders. Such as Leo. Get your shit together, man." "When you have to lie about your credentials on the internet, it sort of undercuts any credibility in your arguments." A few things I notice: Rather than face cognitive dissonance, Dave quickly dismisses ideas not aligned with his paradigm and labels me a liar. Also, Dave has a debate mindset of "arguments". I stressed several times I was not disagreeing with him and there was some truth and value with his perspective. Rather, I was pointing out that rationality/science is also a component within a larger whole. Yet he and others on the thread were incapable of seeing this.

I think he has some nice descriptions here. A couple things I'd like to elaborate on regarding the impacts of trips on the mind-body. From a human mind-body perspective, I've learned that intensity and time have an impact on the mind body. If I 'travel' to a 9/10 trans-human conscious state where the psychological self and physical body may dissolve, yet the experience still has an impact on the human mind-body and it can be a lot - especially trips lasting multiple hours. . . And long trips that require "working through" things like anxiety, letting go, surrendering etc. has an impact. . . I've also had trips of transcendent beauty that were overwhelming - that was a lot for the mind-body to handle. . . These days, I try to balance degree and duration. During a 5-meo-dmt peak, time is altered or lost. One minute can seem like an eternity in that realm. Yet in another realm, there is still "ordinary time" of about 20min. for a 5-meo-dmt peak. Ime, being in such a state for 3-4 hours would be much more strenuous on the mind-body. Some people may be able to roll through long, intense trips - yet I feel impacts on my mind-body. Plus, I've had about 40 intense, long trips over a 5 year period. They can yield awakenings and mind expansion, yet they also take a toll on the mind-body. From a trans-human perspective during the trip - the self, mind and body can be irrelevant. Yet with the 'return' to the human mind-body, impacts become very relevant. . . . These days, I only do light-moderate doses for long-lasting psyches. I sometimes use 5-meo-dmt during Shamanic Breathing sessions to help me get 'out there'.

A few years ago I had a brief conversation with Professor Dave related to Leo and Acutalized.org. . . He put out a video that "debunked" mysticism, which included Leo and Actualized. . . Thirty years of my life was spent in traditional science training in which my mind was contracted within a rational/scientific paradigm. So I'm very familiar with Professor Dave's mindset. . . . Anyhoo, I contacted him and wrote that I'm a college professor of molecular biology and I use many of his videos in my courses (which is true). I also said that he was missing something and unaware of it. . . This provoked his interest and he responded. . . I tried to communicate that rational thinking and scientific constructs are within a larger whole. He was not open to this idea and I was reminded of Wilber's "Pre/Trans" fallacy in which the rational mind interprets "trans-rational" as "pre-rational". He got into debate mode and I tried to tell him I wasn't disagreeing with what he was saying. . . It was as if he kept insisting that Paris was in France as I tried to show him Paris is also in Europe. After a few exchanges he accused me of lying about being a college science professor and he ended the conversation. Within the construct of Sprial Dynamics, Dave would be centered at Orange and can see the irrationality of Blue - which he likes to expose (I think this has value). However, he is unable to see / access different modes of cognition. . . Stage Blue sees things as binary constructs. Stage Orange can see both binary constructs as well as spectral constructs. Dave isn't limited to a binary mindset of "Irrational" or "Rational". He would be able to see a spectrum from extremely irrational, to moderately irrational to moderately rational to extremely rational. As well, he would be able to see that even extremely rational people could be irrational on occasion. What he wouldn't be able to see is another "realm" of cognition. . . ,. Ime, this can be very threatening because a mind contracted within a 'irrational --- rational' spectral construct misinterprets expansion 'beyond' the construct as a rejection of rational thinking and science 'within' the construct. . . This was a major obstacle for me and I was not able to transcend and integrate until I started using psychedelics at about 45 years of age.

I teach college kids. I'd say there is overlap with teaching college and middle school kids, yet also differences.

@DocWatts In today's interview with Stephanopoulos, Vance said if he was VP he wouldn't have certified the 2020 election.

This thread reminds me why psychedelics can be very useful in expanding / deepening understanding.

@Leo Gura What do you think of Andy Beshear, the governor of Kentucky? He easily won two elections in a very conservative state.

Those Citizen Free Press polls were from last January and not relevant anymore. The Emerson polls indicate Trump likely has a lead in swing states, yet they are all within the margin of error and four months is a long time.

My first 5-meo-malt trip earlier tonight. 10mg plugged for a solid 1.5hr trip + 0.5hr. afterglow. I liked the mindspace and some aspects of bodyspace. Only downside for me were moderate body aches during and after. Does anyone know the tolerance profile on this? How often can it be used without tolerance buildup? Is there cross-tolerance with other psychedelics such as LSD?. . . 5-meo-dmt is nearly tolerance free, yet the trips are very short.