Forestluv

Blue Recontextualization

Nothing screams innocence quite like discussing blanket pardons for everyone in your family.

I wonder if Rudy has licked enough of Trump's boots for a pardon.

Sure, in terms of existing as a biological entity and person there needs to be distinctions and biases. At a subtle level, I need to be able to distinguish between food and a car to survive.

It’s controversial whether a president can self pardon. The founders of the constitution probably didn’t imagine a president trying to pardon himself, so they didn’t explicitly set a rule on it. They will try to frame it as Trump simply protecting himself from an evil Democrat witch-hunt. I predict lots of framing around the “Russia-gate witch-hunt” and how many crimes Obama go away with. They will include some grains of truth and about 40% of the population will buy it. It would set up a bad precedent imo. Even if he gets away with a pre-emotive self pardon, I think the states can still prosecute. That should be enough since Biden has already indicated he won’t protect Trump, so the new DOJ will not protect Trump. Scotus may however. Part of me hopes Trump stays relevant and influential since he will split the GOP into two groups: somewhat reasonable conservatives and batshit crazy conservatives.

I think the spiral wizardry in section 3 had some good stuff. It’s written in the context of it’s time period, so some of the practical stuff doesn’t have much resonance in todays environment

That “but” is the pivot point when the mind starts creating constructs. At the personal/human level those constructs are useful in functioning and survival as a person in society. Yet in another context, such constructs are like clouds that distract and obscure. It’s similar with love and good. In one context, the theory is useful. In another context, it distracts and obscures. Yet to a mind grounded in intellectual constructs, it can be really hard to let go of, even temporarily.

I like the fluidity of word and meaning.

Yep. It's easy for the mind and body to become rigid as it ages. Staying flexible can take effort.

I see analytical activity as a subset of introspection. For example, I would include observation and intuition as within introspection.

I'd be cautious so he doesn't get Murphy'd into unhinged land. Perhaps talk in ways that aren't overly threatening to an ego, sending the mind-body into fight or flight. Perhaps things like flow states of consciousness, what are memories, Being Now, nonduality speakers etc.

Of course there is staging involved, yet to me you are saying that since there is any incident of staging, anything goes. Evidence and rationale no longer matter. It just depends on the context. If we creating fictional stories for video games, dreams, novels and movies evidence and rationale aren't very important. Yet if we are creating and living within a functional society, evidence and rationale becomes important. For example, let's say I go on a date and a woman lies about her income to impress me. We could say that she is staging - yet it doesn't mean everything is staged and we can make up whatever we want. It would be unreasonable to say "Ah ha! She just staged that! So that means she could actually be an alien that is conspiring with Bill Gates to control human minds through vaccines to create a collective Borg Mind. And this isn't even a cafe we are in - it is part of her Borg Mind and the waiter is actually Bill Gates!". That becomes creative fiction in which evidence doesn't matter. That is great stuff in some contexts. If we were creating a science fiction movie - then evidence doesn't matter and we can make up all kinds of whacky stories.

If Chris Krebs is working together with Trump, then why did Trump immediately fire Kreb’s after he spoke up? Why did Trump publically ridicule Krebs and cut off all contact with him? And today Trump is raging against Krebs for speaking on 60 minutes. Is that part of the Turqoise level 4D chess? If evidence and rationale doesn’t matter in this case, we can create all sorts of fictional stories. Creativity can be fun. We could say that Chris Krebs is actually a double agent for both Trump and the ghost of Hugo Chavez. But why stop there? Chris could also be collaborating with George Soros to cash in on election insurance. And for the cherry on top, we could throw in Bill Gates and his mind control vaccine. We could say that it’s just my prediction in case it’s true. I’m still on the fence about it. We could say we are radically open-minded and get attention. Why not use creativity toward a life purpose - such as writing fictional novels or movie plots?

The director of cyber security, Chris Krebs, debunks claims of massive fraud.

As I wrote above, I think there are weak points in the U.S. democratic system. Trump has been a stress test. If the election was a bit closer a competent authoritarian with a skilled legal / media team might be able to pull it off. We are fortunate there was a decent margin of victory and that Trump and his team is an incompetent clown show.

Ageing consciously with loss of physical ability, chronic pain and loss of health is also big challenge, ime. People like Deepak Chopra are doing it at a high conscious level, imo.

Don't forget to read the fine print.

I think Connor has some decent cognition - awareness, analysis, curiosity, introspection, intellect. He just seems unhinged to me right now. If he can build a foundation, integrate and stabalize - I think he has some potential. Even before his psychedelics, Connor had a decent amount awareness. Imagine being spiritually clueless and then witnessing 10 years worth of spiritual insights in 10 hours. That's a lot to handle. I can see myself going bonkers. Another way to look at it. Imagine a farmer from the 17th century being transported to New York City year 2020 for a day and then get transported back to his 17th century farm. The guy could go insane. To me, Jake has a dull mind and I don't see him evolving into a high conscious being. He reminds me of Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. I'm much more interested in Izzy. I can see him evolving much higher and I hope he does. A Tier 2 Izzy would be quite the character.

I’m really impressed with Tyson. He looked fit and was moving well with skills. And good cardio as well. He took it seriously and came to fight. He looked awesome for a 54 yr old fighter. I think Tyson clearly outperformed Jones. Tyson had way more strikes, controlled the fight and Jones kept clinching. Perhaps they called it a draw because it was two legends in an exhibition match. And Tyson smoked some weed before the fight ?

A different mindset/intention is to investigate the process of getting caught up in thoughts. I knew what it was like to be present and I knew what it was like to realize “Omigosh, I just got lost in thoughts! How much time passed?”. Yet I had no awareness of the actual process of becoming lost in thought. So I started doing meditations with the intention of observing this process. Before the meditation, I would ask questions like: —Does my mind become lost on one single thought? Or are a combination of a few thoughts together necessary? — Are there certain types of thoughts that pass by and other types of thoughts that catch me — Is it a switch in which my mind becomes lost, or is there a brief transition period in which I go from present awareness to lost? — If there is a transition period, can I lengthen that transition period and develop the ability to regain awareness as it’s happening? — Once I discover this mechanism, can I maintain awareness and allow the thoughts to arise without being lost in them? One evening, I noticed how my cat sits still and concentrates on a cub board. He knew there was a mouse on the other side and he would wait hours for a mouse to eventually come out and then he would pounce on it. I thought “that is how I will meditate. I am going to be like a cat, sit and watch intently for the first mouse (thought) to come out”. The entire purpose was to identify the first thought and the exact point of getting lost in thoughts. So I would sit there waiting and an amazing thing happened. No mouse (thought) would come out for a while. Then I realized I was thinking “Why isn’t a mouse coming out? Am I doing this right? Maybe if I change the strategy a bit. Perhaps I could change the environment”. The I realized I was lost in thought! It got me! I missed how it happened! Such a sneaky mouse! . . .This time, I’m going to catch the mouse and see how the mouse operates. At first the mice kept tricking me. Yet then I got really into it, as if it were a game. After a while, I sa tarted to get glimpses. “Aha! I see you! That’s how you did it!”. . . This exercise helped me become aware of the mechanisms and process of becoming lost. It helped a lot with getting grounded as the witness. There were times I could sit as the cat observing mice running around me. And I didn’t get lost in chasing them. And after a while, the mice get tired and things naturally calmed down.

I let go of the intention of finding *the* answer and allowing *a* answer to arise. For example, I may ask “what is thought?”. All sorts of ‘answers’ may arise and I may think “Omigosh! I never saw it like that before”. I also try to allow space for ‘answers’ beyond logical thought answers. For example, one time I contemplated “what is genuine?”. There were all sorts images, feelings, intuitions, energy - without thinking and trying to define “genuine” in words. This can deepen and broaden understanding.

People respond to substances differently. There are many variables including: genetics, childhood conditioning, life history, mindset before the trip,intention, the setting of the trip etc. And after the trip, people contextualize trips differently based on their baseline level of consciousness.

A good example of re-contextualization. Thanks for the trip report and sharing your insights ?

I care more about the underlying intention and value of rules/laws than it being a rule/law. There are many rules/laws that become outdated and we realize they are irrational, counter-productive, or useless. In Georgia, it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket on Sunday’s. The original reason for having a multi month transition period in which the previous president retains power was to give enough time for a president to move to Washington D.C. via horseback. The president-elect could not be acting-president because he was moving his family across the country by horse and carriage. Times change and we need to re-evaluate rules and laws. Rules that make sense in an environment at one point in time, may not be useful in a different environment hundreds of years later. To me, your example is hyperbolic on the innocent side. In that context, of course we wouldn’t change the baton hand-off rules. Yet we can recontextualize it to the other hyperbolic extreme. Suppose a runner figures out that if he holds onto the baton until the end transition zone he is able to release a chemical that paralyzes his competitors, allows him to hold onto the baton and win the race. In this context, we might say “Whoa! We didn’t think that was possible! Perhaps we should change the rule so the baton must be passed at the start of the transition zone”. If the intention is to maintain rules for the sake of maintains rules, then we would keep the status quo. Yet if the intention is to create a system that protects democracy and efficient functioning of government, then we should consider changing the rules, including systemic changes. I wouldn’t change it this lame duck period, I would consider changing it next year. From what I’ve read from other countries with coups, allowing the loser of an election to maintain power for an extended time can be problematic.