Forestluv

It seems like you are saying a certain amount of grounding is needed to articulate ideas. For example, imagine I go into Genetics class and say "Today we will cover chromatin structure. Yet what is chromatin? It is physical? Energetic? An idea? Could chromatin just be a word? Yet what is a word? Is a word ink? Is it a sound? Is the form of word expression change it's meaning? And what does this have to do with chromatin? It has everything and nothing to do with chromatin because chromatin is both real and imagined. It is a construct in the mind to represent an entity. Yet that isn't true because there actually isn't a mind. But oh yes - there is also a mind, otherwise in what would the idea of chromatin appear? Yet is such a mind individual or collective? And what is the distinction between individual and collective - is it not any distinction arbitrary? And who would determine this distinction? Of course this question cannot be answered since there is no "who", there is only appearances that appear Here and Now. Yet in another dimension is there not a construct of time, since infinity must include all possibilities. And does that not mean that chromatin itself collapses into Oneness with all possibilities? . . . " I could go on and on and on. And at the end of the day, I did not communicate anything about chromatin structure in this groundless, fluid mess of mystery. And each time a student asked a question, I could respond "Ah yes, that is both true / false / partially true / partially false depending on perspective. And each point I make about it's trueness / falseness / partially true-ness / partial false-ness is itself true / false / partially true / partially false. For me, I don't like being too grounded / structured, yet being too ungrounded / unstructured is also problematic. In the world in which I live, curiosity, mystery and ungroundedness has value, yet so does groundedness, certainty, focus and clarity. Sometimes assumptions and contractions are made as a sacrifice to articulate ideas. And each teacher has their own mix and style. I see teachers along spectrums and I see many different spectrums. There are spectrums of grounded/ungrounded, literal/metaphorical, logical/abstract, head-centered / heart-centered, intellect/feeling and on and on. And I think something is lost and gained with any style.

@meow_meow Using strategies to let go can be useful, yet I would also keenly observe the process of letting go. When impulses arise, what does resisting those impulses look and feel like? What does the process of gaining relief look and feel like? If one gives in to the impulse, if one changes focus, if one sits with the impulse. How exactly does the process work? This exercise has helped give me some insights. There are other things that are useful as well, yet this exercise gave me greater awareness and understanding of what I was dealing with.

@Bithne Please be mindful of bumping old threads, especially if you aren't contributing anything new. This thread is over 4 years on and only had two posts. Feel free to start a new thread, yet please do so in the appropriate subforum and following all guidelines, which are listed for the entire forum as well as guidelines for the society and politics subforum.

@SQAAD You seem to be immersed within one view and are trying to reconcile something within that view. Imagine trying to translate Chinese with an English dictionary. The person will keep searching and searching for Chinese characters in the English dictionary. They will never find those characters and it will get extremely frustrating. A trap of the mind is that it is attached to opposites of true/false and right/wrong. So if I told the person "Oh, you are using an English dictionary. Put that down and use a Chinese dictionary", the person will respond "English does exist!! I know a lot of English-speaking people and they are wonderful people!! My friends and family speak English!! How dare you say English is wrong!! I will never believe English is wrong!!" With this attached/identified mindset, the person will never let go of English because it believes letting go of English would be a rejection of English. That is the trap. A liberated mindset would see that English exists and is correct in itself, that English has a lot of value AND Chinese exists. And entering Chinese does not mean that English doesn't exist or English is wrong. To enter Chinese, we don't have to reject English as wrong. In your context, the "language" you are speaking is correct as that language. It is valid and has value. To see another "language", you don't have to reject that view as being wrong. In it's context, rejecting that view would be heartless and psychopathic. The good news is that we don't need to reject it as nonexistent or wrong. We can expand AND still have that view. Yet without realizing this, the mind will not let go because it sees letting go as rejecting a particular view (a veiw that is correct within that view). In the context you are creating, an external god allowing that would be a heartless, psychopathic bastard. No one can prove otherwise, because within that context he IS a heartless, psychopathic bastard. No one will ever be able to prove that false, because it is true within that context. Just as no one can prove to me there are Chinese characters in my English dictionary because there aren't any Chinese characters in my English dictionary! The question becomes whether you want to find Chinese characters in an English dictionary (which you will never find) or whether you would like to expand and learn both English AND Chinese. To me, you seem more interested in people showing Chinese characters in your English dictionary.

Yea, I kinda out-meta'd myself You may have revealed a mystery within the mystery. . .

I like that perspective to bring awareness into Now. As a noun, the mind can create all sorts of identity constructs that continue through time. Yet as a verb, attention is focused on what is happening Here and Now. In this case, rather than "I am God", it would be "I am Godding". Right Here and Now, I am Godding. . . Yet I'm just drinking coffee and typing, how can that be Godding? . . . It challenges the mind's pre-conceived constructs and what God looks like and what 'should' be God.

It depends on the relationship with "I" and "God". If I say "I am intelligent and you are not" - we could consider that egoic - since it is a separate self saying I am a thing and you are not that thing. Yet if by "I" we mean everything, that is a different context. Now we are saying "I am intelligence as is everything, including you". Here, intelligence could be seen as one giant holistic mind in which you, me and everyone is within.

Isn't it curious how a mind can lack curiosity of curiosity? Isn't it mysterious how the mind can suck they mystery out of mysterious? Notice different mindsets: 1. Does this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development? 2. How does this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development? 3. Here is how this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development. Of these three framings, which has the highest level of curiosity, unknown and mystery? I would say #1 has the most and #3 has the least. #1 has the least assumptions and the most space for creation, exploration of mystery and discovery. We could ask "What are his teaching's?", "What is spiritual development?", "what is deterrence along a spiritual path?", "is deterrence the same for all seekers on a spiritual path?". There are lots of possibilities we can explore. Notice in #2 how there is an underlying assumption that cuts off a lot of curiosity, unknown and mystery. It restricts the space. Here there is an assumption that the teacher's teaching do deter from spiritual development. It cuts off the path of curiosity/unknown/mystery IF the teacher's teachings deter. It is known, without mystery, that the teacher does indeed deter spiritual development. It is much more focused. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. If someone is taking a tour of a jungle, it can be helpful for the tour guide to guide people along a path. Yet there is still room for curiosity/unknown/mystery with framing #2. We don't know the mechanisms of how the teacher deters spiritual development. There are all sorts of explorations. What are different mechanisms of deterrence? Which are most effective? And on and on. Door #3 has the least amount of room for curiosity/unknown/mystery. Here it is known that the teacher's teachings do deter spiritual development and it is known how the teacher does it. The knower of this will now describe the mechanism. Here, there is no room for curiosity of exploring mystery, since there is only a sliver of mystery. There is only one thin slit of curiosity/mystery available. The receiver would need to be curious of the knower's mechanistic construct. This is the most grounded and focused of the three options. In some contexts this also has value and is practical. I find it curious that a mind would choose the least curious/mysterious option (#3) and utilize a known non-mysterious mechanism to describe how another mind is deterring from curiosity and mystery. To me, the OPs essay itself lacks curiosity/unknown/mystery. The OP seems to know exactly what is happening and sees no mystery in what it assumes is happening. There doesn't seem to be any curiosity.

@Tanz I'd say it depends on the disease. In one context, belief systems play a big role in our physiology. Chronic stress and anxiety can create all sorts of psychosomatic conditions and worsen illness / disease like cancer, depression, schizophrenia, heart disease and on and on. Other diseases like cystic fibrosis are inherited as single gene, recessive disease - positive thinking aint gonna help a kid with two mutant alleles. As well, the beliefs and placebos are interesting. Placebos undoubtedly have a statistically significant impact. I think it's foolish that researchers don't investigate the mechanics of placebos, so we can understand and utilize the belief systems that contribute to healing. Yet, I guess that isn't a money maker for pharmaceuticals. In another context, it's like asking if there is a collective Law of Attraction. Could a culture creative a disease through imagination. What comes to mind are ancient tribal cultures and superstition. They may explain certain illness as evil spirits. Did that imagination attract some form of illness? Or are they totally unrelated? Another way to think about it. . . Let's say everyone in our culture agrees that there is a coronavirus causing covid. And everyone gets afraid of it mutating into new forms that are immune to the vaccine. If there was intense collective fear and repetitive thinking of it mutating, would that impact the chances of it mutating? What if every media station focused on the threat of the virus mutating - it consumed 80% of our thoughts and emotions. Would that have an impact? I think this is an area that can integrate the physical and metaphysical. For example: intention, entanglement and physical manifestation.

I would say a higher degree of consciousness/more exposure leads to a more flexible, fluid relationship with spirituality. At least ime. You're totally fine. No offense taken or reason to apologize. I'm just exploring consciousness. There is no end. Sometimes it's like I describe a jungle and someone responds "That's not a Barber Shop!". Of course not. Barber Shops are great if we want to get a haircut. Barbers are great people. I just happen to be describing a jungle, not a Barber Shop.

If someone hasn't been exposed to the beach, a handful of sand is a lot relative to a few grains of sand. The context I'm using here isn't about open-mindedness per se, the context is more about degrees. If someone's neuro cocktail is a drunk mindset, that is a low degree of consciousness. It's still consciousness, just a dimly lit consciousness. If that mind sobers up and goes on a 30 day meditation retreat, that is a different neuro cocktail and the degree of consciousness will be brighter. To take it one step further, each mind has it's own bar with a limitation on cocktail mixes. Some minds have "talent" and have a more sophisticated bar (hardware), yet they are still limited by their bar. And this is just a "pointer" of one facet of an awakening. A lot of people on the forum seem to take things hyper literally and get into debate mode. Someone can deconstruct my sand analogy or view it from another perspective and say "Aha! Look! That isn't true!" and they are correct from that deconstruction or perspective. Yet in doing so, the point is missed.

@Fran11 It's relative to one's exposure to infinity. A handful of sand is a lot relative to three grains of sand, yet it's not very much relative to all the sandy beaches that exist. If the hardware of a finite human mind can expand to a handful of sand, that is an enormous expansion relative to a baseline of three grains of sand. That is an expansion of over a million-fold. Yet in the context of infinity, it is a drop in the bucket.

Relative usefulness is so intriguing. Yes, they have been very useful.

In that context, of course. It's all context dependent. When visiting China, speak Chinese. Mind like water

@Fran11 My experience and relationship with psychedelics has some overlap with what you describe, yet also some significant differences.

That seems to be what some call "raising one's baseline level of consciousness". That's what I was referring to with upgrading ones software or hardware. Ime, I don't see how it's possible to access or maintain my highest levels of psychedelic-induced conscious states. Yet I can access what seems like a low dose of psychedelics with things like yoga, running, shamanic breathing, meditation in nature, watching nonduality videos, Leo's metaphysics videos, staring in space, lucid dream states etc.

I would say it depends on one's experience of "Consciousness levels and Imagination". If in your experience, you now have the same level of Consciousness and Imagination with or without psychedelics and you have no desire to use psychedelics, then psychedelics and ideas about NTs don't matter within your experience.

In terms of neurotransmitter activity, LSD-induced states are incredibly difficult to attain without LSD. Lucid dream states may seem subjectively similar to tripping, yet not based on neurotransmitter cocktails. LSD has widespread effects on various serotonin signaling pathways. That is incredibly hard to mimic naturally. Expert meditators have achieved unique patterns of brain activity, yet I haven't seen anything near a psychedelic-induced state. This of course is based on ideas of entities called a "brain" and "neurotransmitters", there are also other ways to look at it.

Ahh, so psychedelics would temporarily upgrade the hardware of Atari to a PS5. Once someone gets a good look at PS5 and drops back down to Atari - it seems they can either try to upgrade the quality of their Atari games or upgrade the quality of their Atari hardware to be more like PS5.

How much of limitation is due to not maximizing one's hardware vs the limits of their hardware? To me a lot of people seem to cut off from their hardware potential by focusing on inherent hardware limitations, of which they aren't aware of what the limits are. They've never pushed themselves to those limits. Ime, this is one of the values of psychedelics. I thought I had an idea of what my hardware potential was and that I was reaching 90% or so of it. Then psychedelics revealed so much expansion that I realized I was only operating at about 0.1% of my hardware potential. It was like realizing I had been playing Atari games on a PS5.

Models are Consciousness! If I learn SD or apply SD to life situations, that IS Consciousness arising. Just as when I eat an apple it is Consciousness. In the context of your "deeply conscious" models have little value. If we define "deeply conscious" as mindstates in which models have no value, then of course models will have no value! And who even said SD is about "deep consciousness". SD is great for understanding cognitive development of the mind, social dynamics and social evolution.SD expands awareness of mind structure at both individual and social levels - and in that context expands consciousness (awareness). Yet if the goal is to access "no-self" states of consciousness, SD isn't very useful. Just as calculus isn't useful if I want to experience scuba diving. Dismissing relative value will lead to errors in areas of that relative value. If I say math is just a construct and has no value, that is true in some contexts - yet if I fully dismiss it, I will make errors in areas where math has value. If I try to create a modern building without math, there will be errors in the context of what math could have offered. In that context, I would agree. If our goal is deconstruction to formless, than constructing form is not helpful. If our goal is to deconstruct a building - repairing the building and adding new construction to it isn't helpful. It's context-dependent. If I want to experience training for a marathon, pulling weeds in my garden won't help. Yet if I want to have an awesome garden, running all day won't help.

I don't see anything wrong with taking a something seriously. To become an expert in anything and be able to apply expertise, there needs to be a serious element. This is true for SD, basketball, playing the piano, molecular biology, running marathons etc. Developing expertise in any field involves some serious effort, study and practice. Yet, contracting oneself into SD will lead to errors in the bigger picture - and dismissing the value of SD also leads to errors. I would make distinctions between SD theory itself and the expertise of understanding SD theory and it's application.

@Arzola One can watch a movie, enjoy it and see value in it - without believing it is the only movie in existence. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was an awesome movie, yet imagine someone believing that was the only movie and everything in life went through an Indiana Jones filter. . . The movie isn’t the problem, the limited filter is the problem.

I ran marathons for over 20 yrs and marathon runners are always at the edge of “more than you can handle”. To a marathon runner “more than you can handle” means burnout or a serious injury that prevents training. Ime, it’s true that having joy and fun in running is important. If someone is forcing themselves to run and hates it, they won’t make it the long haul. There needs to be elements of fun and joy in the training. Yet the expectation that one will always be passionate to run and feel joy is not optimal either. Ask any veteran marathon runner if they feel motivated to run and joyful 100% of the time and they will all say 'no', because if that were true, there is still more they can handle and they are nowhere near their edge. There are times the last thing I want to do is run. It’s rainy and I’m tired - yet I do it anyway. There are workouts in which my body is a bag of lactic acid and I’m begging myself to quit the workout early - yet I don’t. These times are potent medicine, perhaps 10-20% of training - yet are necessary to reach one’s potential and expertise. And this is true in any field: spirituality, science, art, sports, yoga, skiing, writing etc. And in becoming an expert skier, one must be willing to fall. I remember standing at the top of a black diamond slope taking a deep breath and facing my edge. My mind was hyper alert and adrenaline flowed through my body. And down I went doing my best to ski through the moguls. At first I was awkward and I fell several times. This is important for development, yet one goes over a threshold of intensity and duration, injury will result. Yet without going toward one's edge, the mind and body will not reach it's potential. If I stayed on the bunny slopes, I wouldn't have reached higher levels. This is in the context of developing knowledge, skills and expertise.