Forestluv

Fun video, thanks. Along these lines, I heard about an experiment with children in which they were never told the sky was blue. When casually asked “What color is the sky?”, the children would say “white”. Around 7 yrs old they would start answering “blue”, yet would go back and forth answering blue or white. At some point, they started answering blue all the time.

I don’t know exactly how Carville and Cenk figured their 5 pt number. I was speculating. Yes The PA Supreme Court ruled to allow certification to continue. I think that there is enough corruption and weak spots in the system that if the election was a bit closer and Trump had a competent legal / media team he could have pulled it off. I also I think having a two month transitional period in which the previous president retains all power is problematic. It’s been fine in the past due to adherence to traditions and norms, yet it in the context of authoritarians it’s problematic. I think there should still be a transition, yet the president-elect should be acting president by this time.

Plugged is 3X as potent for me. It feels cleaner and about 1/2 the body load. It’s onset is much faster and the duration is only about 2hrs vs 4hr.

@xxxx Thank you for sharing your insights and giving a glimpse into that world.

If things are working on your path, great ?

4-Aco tastes nasty and has a burn. I’d plug it.

People have been discussing that for 4 years. His constant, massive lies allowed him to control media. No one could get up with the constant stream of outrageous lies and Trump dismissed the media fact checking him as "Fake News". This allowed Trump to dismiss factual information and create an alternative reality that 40% of the population lived within. In the future, there will likely be many sociology / psychology dissertations and books written about Trumpism.

Keep in mind that guys like Cenk are deeply invested in progressive politics and had an extremely strong aversion to Trump. Cenk probably threw out the 5% number to rally Dems and get a cushion. No one in October knew how it would play out in the courts. Hilary won the election by 2% and lost, so that's obviously not enough. A 3% win probably would probably have been very close in the electoral college, with one close state Trump needs to flip ala Florida 2000. A 4% win would mean clear, yet close, Biden wins in several states and probably enough (which is what happened) - yet you never now with republican election officials, legislatures and judges. So, throw on another 1% as a cushion and viola! 5%. Part of the reason Trump didn't even get close to pulling off a steal is that he and his team were incompetent clowns. If the election was a bit closer and Trump had a skilled team of lawyers and media propogandists - he may have pulled it off. And I don't think guys like Carville and Cenk did serious research of various legal scenarios in their 5% estimate. My impression was it was a crude estimate that did not want to underestimate Trump, so went a bit on the high side.

My impression is that Connor was strongly anchored in Orange, got rocketed up to Tier 2 with psychedelics and is now a disconnected conglomeration of Orange / Green with random fragments of Yellow and Turquoise being randomly contextualized. He has over 3M subscribers across his social media platforms. Based on the comments, the vast majority thinks he has gone crazy. Yet there are some that like the new Connor. He will likely lose a lot of subs, yet also attract some new ones into unhinged spirituality and sex.

I was already aware you saw wrongness of it. It looks like I may have missed some sarcasm. Yes, that is one form of the House I was pointing to. That is beautiful. Thanks for sharing it.

Keep in mind I'm also wrong.

I'm fine with the expression that Consciousness is infinite love and I'm fine the expression that Consciousness is not infinite love, depending on context. Imagine looking at a map of Paris and someone calling Paris Europe. That I have a problem with because it's misleading and it prevents others from learning about Europe. And the underlying intention is a factor too. If someone claims Paris is Europe because they've only seen a map of Paris, then they are unaware of Europe. In that case, I think it's best to reach out - yet if the person is too closed-minded they won't expand. And if they are too argumentative, they can be disruptive to other explorers. . . There is also the case in which someone has seen a map of Europe yet is trying to convince people that the map of Paris is Europe. That is a different context that I would be considered devilry. There is also the context of someone seeing both maps of Europe and Paris and asking "What is the best way to describe Europe?".

@electroBeam I would remove the personal component, it adds an unnecessary dynamic in this case. Imagine that we visit a house together. It's not a house "you" created or a house "I" created. It's just a house that's there. We enter the house and a tour guide describes different aspects of the house - the type of wood, the paint colors, they style of windows, etc. We could say "based on x, y and z", the tour guide's description is accurate. We could also say this is all still one perception. A dog would view the house differently. Yet we still could say "based on x, y and z parameters this is how it is". I'm totally cool with that. What I'm pointing at is zooming out and looking at the house and all the inner details as a house. From within the house, everything is within that house. It will appear as the universe and is the universe. From within that house, reality is the contents of the house. There are also other houses and there are not other houses. If there is one house, that is the universal house. If there are additional houses, then it is a house within a more expansive House that contains smaller houses. This gets into a dilemma of infinity. Individual minds often want their house to be The House. Here the house is The House and is universal infinity. Those that speak of stuff outside the house would be saying there is something beyond infinity. This is correct in this context. Yet minds that are contracted within a house erroneously assume it is the House. The trick is that they are correct in one context, yet incorrect in another context. At the human level it is much easier to see the context in which one's mind is correct than the context in which one's mind is incorrect. In particular, because the mind sets up a true / false decision and puts itself in a position of having to fully reject a view, although that view is correct in one context. The house is the House AND it is just one of many houses within a more expansive House. Both are true (and false). Am am pointing to the house is not the House. Yet I'm not rejecting the house is the House. If someone keeps defending a view that the house is the House, they would be contracted within the truth of that statement. Which is fine - yet it prevents the mind from seeing that the house is also not the House.

Value is context-dependent. In one context, it’s beneficial to disregard everything I’ve proposed as trash. In another context it is a key to enter a new area. Trying to explain the molecular mechanisms of epigenetics during sex is a mismatch of contexts.

@electroBeam Of course there are practical considerations. Ultimately, the world in which I live has true / false and lacks true / false. It is a fluid reality. Imagine a block of plastic that is constantly going through a cycle of melting , forming, melting, reforming. Each form has unlimited perspectives in a static spatial dimension and the process of melting / forming itself has infinite positions in a temporal dimension. And each “position” in the temporal process would have infinite spatial perspectives. Even saying “relativism” is inadequate, because it suggests a stable “thing” to be relative to. Relative relative to what? At best, we could create a “point” as being relative to another “point”. Which of course can provide some grounding. This type of imagination isn’t efficient or practical in one context, so I often chose a “position” and get grounded on it. Like stepping on a stone to cross a stream, grounded positions have practical value in certain contexts. The form you’ve created is true as it’s form. We could assume that form and view at from various angles as a static 2D or 3D form. Or we could melt it down and view the 4D process. Or we could view angles of various 3D appearances within the 4D process. Or we could partially melt it down and create a new form. Or we could fully melt it down and create news forms. Or create the same form and observe the process of its creation. Again, I understand such groundlessness is impractical when the desire is to discuss one particular construct. To me, it’s as if you built a house and are describing the house to me. Yet you seem to want me to somehow debate whether the details of your house are the details of your house. My mind doesn’t work that way. I don’t ‘disagree’ with what you created, no more than I would ‘disagree’ with a painting an artist created.

It depends on the intention.

@electroBeam I like your imagery as well. I don’t preface everything I express with “in one context. . . “ because it gets cumbersome and can be too groundless for exchanging ideas and insights. Any ideas I express can be critiqued as being incorrect from another perspective, including what I’ve written in this post.

Trump has often used chaos for his advantage and to harm others - on smaller scales. This would be an escalation of chaos for him. It may also give him a sense of power and reclaiming the media attention and power. Yet it doesn’t seem like the people around him will go along. The U.S. President is technically the commander of the military, yet within some semblance of reason. Pentagon officials and military will not go along with a batshit crazy lame duck president desperate to feel significant.

I like that imagery.

I think it is conflating different meanings of devilry from spirituality and religion. That’s just one interpretation. There are other ways to view it.

@snowyowl I don’t subscribe to the “get rid of the self” narrative or “there is no self”. I’m more into explorations of expanding self, introspecting self, increasing fluidity of self, observing self, playing a self etc. Similar to participating in movies. I think “no self” is an important awakening since it contrasts attachment/identification to self. And ime it’s beneficial to get direct experience of two opposites. Yet “self vs no-self” can become it’s own duality. My mind won’t stay in one place long enough to maintain a static “self vs no-self” construct - due to a combination of ADD, psychedelics and metacognition.

It’s not the words, it’s the meanings. For example, we can say “she likes hot food”. There can be confusion if we conflate ‘spicey hot’ with ‘temperature hot’. A woman burns her mouth from boiling soup and yells at the waiter. The waiter replies “You told me you wanted it extra hot!”.

In some contexts, that has a lot of practical value, in other contexts it can be problematic.

Zen devilry is distinct from Lucifer devilry.

A double shot of Beingness, no chaser.