Forestluv

This story keeps getting more bizarre. Trump’s doctors reveal he was diagnosed 72 hours ago (Wednesday). Which means he continued campaigning for two days without a mask until he succumbed to symptoms. I find it unlikely the doctor “misspoke”. This was a prepared statement and doctors are fluent in medical terminology. They use the word “diagnosis” everyday - both orally and in written reports. It’s possible they meant to say he was “exposed” 72 hours ago rather than “diagnosed”, yet that would be a glaring error for doctors. Perhaps when diagnosed with the virus on Wednesday, he was in denial about it. Or thought he could fight it off. In his obsession to win the election, he wanted to keep campaigning. Yet is he surround by such sycophants that no one was willing to pull him aside until the symptoms appeared? If it’s true they knew Wednesday, it enters another level of carelessness.

I’ve been perspective jumping. Not everyone is into this type of thing right now. Lots of different contexts of what “death” here represents. 1. There is the context of cheering on the death of a good person. 2. There is the context of personally hating a terrible person that has caused human suffering and cheering on their death as a form of justice. “Good for them. They got what they deserved”. 3. There is the context of cheering on the death of the suffering caused by an abuser. If someone abuses children and dies, there is the cheering for the death of the abuse. The abuse to the children has died. 4. There is also an impersonal form of death. If scientists figure out how to kill the coronavirus, the death of the coronavirus would relieve the suffering of billions of humans in the world. Yet the death of the virus could harm global biodiversity. Humans are cheering scientists on to develop a vaccine to kill the virus. Yet from the perspective of biodiversity in nature, nature may be highly uncomfortable cheering the death of a virus humans call terrible. From a trans-human view, the coronavirus and the death of millions of humans and subsequent re-structuring of human society may be good for biodiversity and nature. We could also draw a distinction between “rooting for” and “cheering for”. . . For example, let’s suppose If Trump survives, he will cause the the death of 2,000 plant/animal species and 200,000 human deaths in the next four years. From this perspective, who to root for seems like a no-brainer. Yet of course this is a simplistic hypothetical and it can get much more nuanced.

Those are all open-ended exploratory questions. There is a vast amount of exploratory space in each of those questions and can be like opening a can of worms. There is not target. That type of curiosity and open exploration is great, yet I would also balance that with practicality and a target. For example: ”How does an organization look like, if they apply the ideas of Spiral Dynamics.” There are many ways that an organization could apply the ideas of SD. As well, this is theoretical imagination. How many organizations are consciously and strategically applying the SD ideas - to the point that they have SD discussions in committee meetings? I’d say very few. How many organizations are unconsciously applying the ideas? They are doing so, without being aware it is within SD theory. There are probably some organizations that have some Tier2 leadership trying to integrate Tier 1 components, yet aren’t aware of SD theory. Here you might consider an analysis of case studies of a few organizations with different SD dynamics. For example, organization “A” incorporates aspects of blue, orange and green. Organization “B” is hyper orange. What comes to mind for me is if you want to enter a space in which you are imagining and theorizing what an organization could be like under a particular SD structure or analyze actual organizations. This could also be combined. You could come up with a hypothesis that an Orange-centered organization would look like ‘X’ and have ‘Y’ issues and then test the hypothesis by investigating an Orange-centered organization.

The underlying substance of theory is distinct from the name of that theory. For example, someone could make all sorts of ludicrous claims about how certain ethnicities are lesser evolved and closer to apes and say it is part of Darwin’s The Theory of Evolution. Yet simply saying something is part of the Theory of Evolution does not actually make it part of The Theory of Evolution. If we studied the actual theory we would realize that the claim is not part of the Theory of Evolution and in fact the Theory would state the opposit of the claim. Similarly with CRT, anyone can say “According to CRT, blah blah, blah”. Yet that doesn’t make it CRT. It is a common way for people to steal credibility from the work of others and elevate themselves. This is commonly seen with people trying to sell crap and say it is supported by science to raise the credibility of their claims.

“No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.” — Niels Bohr This is the ability of an empath. There is a form of ‘knowing’ or ‘relating’ without being a direct victim of the abuse. At a surface level of empathy, one is restricted within their own experiential life history. For example, if someone lost their spouse to covid and never got to say goodbye and ‘I love you’ due to covid isolation - they would have empathically relate to anyone that experienced the same event - because they know what it’s like. This is a normal level of empathy - it is restricted to one’s self domain of experience. Yet it goes much much deeper and broader than this. Consider rational thinking, logic and abstraction. Your mind has a natural aptitude for this. I imagine it’s so natural that it may seem normal to you. And I bet you can clearly see when someone is at a surface level of logic and isn’t getting the deeper level logic trying to be communicated. Similarly, there is deeper, broader realms of empathy. It is post-rational, yet a rationalist will see it as irrational because they cannot distinguish between irrational and post-rational - so a rationalist will group it all together as “irrational” because that is their only filter. Some beings have an extraordinary ability of imagination. It isn’t an intellectual thing. They are very very good at imaging “what it’s like” to the point is starts to overlap of what it’s actually like. One way to verify this is to speak with people that have actually experienced it. For example, someone might imagine what a PTSD episode is like to the point they are experiencing a PTSD episode, even if the event didn’t even happen. They could then ask a person with PTSD “is it kinda this?”. There may be a resonance of “yea, yea and kinda like this”. It’s not so much the words, it is the underlying essence of the words. Another form of high level empathy is a “getting it” with someone you are with. For example, a woman trying to communicate what postpartum harm anxiety is like. There is a form of empathic knowing. Or being with someone who is a non-speaking autistic trapped in their own mind. A form of empath might enter a similar insane experience of being trapped within their mind. Or imagine watching someone describe the horror of being in solitary confinement. A rationalist might find it intellectually intriguing. A normie might experience mild discomfort and change the channel. One type of empath might enter that realm of insanity - they have that ability. As if they become entangled - ala quantum physics. For such people, they need to be careful for at the deeper levels, it can become traumatizing. Almost like having a terrible nightmare, yet not being able to distinguish it as “just a dream”. Form some beings, psychedelics can elevate a baseline empathic ability. Yet one needs to be careful. Jumping from empathic level 3 to empathic level 52 can be intense and very difficult to integrate. One key to developing post-rational connections is the awareness when someone is communicating “no, no. That’s not what I’m trying to communicate”. A major block for an objective rationalist is assuming they know what another is trying to communicate. Some rationalists even tell the other person what they are trying to communicate. Empaths aren’t oriented like this. And all of this is merely one ‘part’ of the elephant. The leg so to speak. We could move over and explore the tusk and everything above would go *poof* into dust (unless we wanted to draw inter-connections between the leg and tusk within a larger system. Yet even that larger system of an elephant is within an even larger system (herd of elephants) and that system is within a larger system (the ecosystem) etc. to infinity).

Just some ideas floating around: We each have our own resonance for ‘knowing’ certain parts of holistic ISness. Each person has their own natural abilities. I have a natural ability to empathically relate to those that are marginalized, stigmatized and abused. It takes no spiritual work for me. If I’m around someone that has suffered / been stigmatized with PTSD, schizophrenia, placed in solitary confinement, has been force-fed in prison, domestically abused etc. - I can naturally enter that realm. Part of it is imagining what it’s like, another part is empathically, intuitively knowing. A kind of ‘getting’ it. It comes easy to empaths. Normies have some capacity for empathic understanding, yet it takes work to get to the deeper levels. Narcissists lack capacity of empathy. There is a spectrum of empathic ability. Being able to empathically / intuitively relate to a villain, such as a sociopath harming others is like another dialect of empathy. Some people can speak one language fluently, other people can speak both language - yet only semi-fluently. A trick of the mind would be for someone to think that they speak an empathic language fluently, when they are only semi-fluent.

These comments are meant to be impersonal and not directed at any one person. This is a rational, logical perspective. This has value and is a partial truth. Yet one cannot see and understand the bigger picture of locked into this perspective. It is like the analogy of the blind men and the elephant. The man feeling the tail thinks the elephant is a rope and the man feeling the leg thinks the elephant is a pillar. Both have a partially true perspective, yet if they stay contracted within that perspective and debate whose part is actually the elephant, they will not be able to expand and gain broader understanding of the elephant. In SD theory, this would be a Tier 1 mindset. A Tier 2 mindset would realize that they are missing something and get curious. The man feeling the tail might think “What a minute, maybe I’m missing something”. Then the mind would get curious and want to explore other parts of the elephant. Yet this would involve letting go of the tail and exploring other parts (yet this does not mean the tail is “wrong” - it is still a part of the elephant). An orange level mind would want to either dissect the tail into smaller parts to understand the elephant or debate that the tail is the elephant. A yellow mind goes off into exploratory mode. Examples of such Tier 2 minds would be Gregory Bateson and Richard Feynman. In this metaphor, we could say that the tail of the elephant is rational reasoning of the situation and the leg of the tail is empathic / experiential understanding. Both are parts of the holistic elephant and both the tail and leg and inter-connected as rational thinking and empathic knowing are inter-connected. Yet a mind immersed in one part will not even be aware of other parts. The first step is to become aware that there are many parts that make up the elephant. Then the mind will create separate categories of parts. The next step is to see that all the categories are inter-connected. Bateson describes this beautifully in the Ecology of Mind documentary.

I naturally resonate with a similar empathic state. From a simple view, one might ask “Why aren’t you empathetic to Trump?”. Yet for most empaths, it’s much easier to experience empathy for those that are vulnerable, marginalized, stigmatized and abused than it is to experience empathy for someone who has power and uses their power to abuse those that are vulnerable. It’s natural for me to empathetically relate to the victims of Trump’s abuse. Empathetically relating to Trump himself takes work. Those that are immersed in intellectually analyzing the situation will not understand empathic dynamics. Rationalists will say things like “You are getting too emotional and not looking at this rationally”. It’s like speaking two different languages.

That would be a form of retributive justice. After Larry Nassar got busted I noticed a range of retributive justice sentiment. Some people wanted him to pay for his crimes by serving time in prison. Others hoped and fantasized that he would be abused and suffer in prison. One person even described graphic images of how other prisoners should abuse him. In a way, that is proportional since Nassar inflicted abuse and suffering onto others. At a healthy Blue level, there is serving a prison sentence. Throw in some Red and we get into an “eye for an eye” justice served mentality. Utilitarian justice would have a very different perspective. This is focused on rehabilitating criminals so they can return to society as contributing members. Yet it seems very unlikely that Trump can be rehabilitated. This itself is a relative view, many believe Trump is a hero the way he is. From the perspective that Trump is a criminal, in what form will there be justice? He has an impeachment on his record, yet that is merely a wrist slap. Is losing an election ‘justice’ for crimes? I’d say that is a consequence, not justice. Will Trump ever be tried in court and serve a prison sentence? I’d say unlikely. Is Trump’s karmic discomfort in living life as a narcissist sufficient justice? I’d imagine most people would say no. . . So this brings us back to the virus. Many people see the virus as a form of justice that Trump cannot escape - yet he is trying to do so with the best medical doctors and science. In this framing, it would be similar to Trump facing a trial for his crimes and his team of lawyers (doctors) are trying to use legal arguments (anti-viral treatment) to save him. Rooting for the prosecuting attorney’s and a life-long prison sentence (or death sentence) would be like rooting for the virus. From this perspective, the virus within Trump is the good guy of justice - the only chance for Trump to face justice. Just one perspective of many. It’s amazing how many perspectives are flying around right now. It’s like a playground for minds that can perspective jump. There are distinctions. A person can hope for the death of an individual as a form of retributive or utilitarian justice. Experiencing pleasure via the pain and suffering of another’s death is sadism. That is a different ballgame. Yet there are various degrees and forms of sadism.

So much of life centers around image.Think of all the people that care about image and framing of this situation. Lots of different motives involved at personal and collective egoic levels.

It’s context dependent. Some Dems like Maddow are laundering Trump by literally equating him to a friend that got lung cancer because they were irresponsibly smoking cigarettes.

Regeneron reported on it last week. It’s not a vaccine. These antibodies are produced in a lab and injected into people that have the virus. It’s only in early clinical trials, yet the stuff works. Unfortunately, few people have access. https://investor.regeneron.com/news-releases/news-release-details/regenerons-regn-cov2-antibody-cocktail-reduced-viral-levels-and

Trump is getting pumped up with antibodies, which should improve his prognosis. He got a high does of the Regeneron Ab - they recently showed a 99% reduction in viral load in several days. I’d put my money n Trump getting back within an over/under of 7 days.

FoxNews Greg Gutfeld: “Trump didn't hide from the virus. And the reason why he didn't hide from the virus is he didn't want America to hide from the virus. If he was going to ask America to get back to work, right? To get back to work and experience a risk, he was going to do the same thing.He was going to walk out there on that battlefield with you, and not sit somewhere in a basement” Amazing how many people fall for this blatant gaslighting.

Imagine Trump goes on a ventilator, struggles for 7 days, has a NDE and survives. Do you think he is capable of empathizing for other people who had covid? I'm curious if Trump has the potential for any empathy or if he is hard wired narcissist. What more would someone need to develop empathy than going through it themself? "Trauma is a very profound vehicle for awakening." -Ram Dass

They obviously want to make Trump look as good as possible, yet he does look in decent shape. Just some mild slurred speech, pale skin and perhaps a hint of vulnerability. Perhaps he realizes he is up against something that he can't manipulate, intimidate and litigate his way out of. Most of the tweet comments are sharp.

Of course!! From the perspective of Orange gamblers, this is exciting. There won't be a vegas betting line on Trump's death, yet a lot of money is flying around in the election betting markets right now - in Biden's favor.

Red likes to dominate and exploit nature. If nature harmed Red, I could see them seeking revenge. For example, if Bolsonaro got ill from a pathogen found in forests, he would want to destroy more rainforest in revenge. Red is pre-rational.

In one context, this situation is like a massive metaphysical experiment of intention. Hundreds of millions of people energetically hoping for Trump's demise and hundreds of millions energetically hoping for his recovery. Intense polarized energy. I also think there are some Trump underlings licking their chops. That's how Red culture is. Soprano style.

Everything remote from his sterilized basement. . .

This is the alt-right position I predicted. Yet it won't save them. If Trump kicks the bucket I see an implosion. "China killed Trump with the Coronavirus - let's get revenge on China!!" aint gonna fly with mainstream America.

Chris Wallace: Trump arrived too late to be tested in Ohio before the debate, we relied on the 'honor system' Relying on the honor system with Trump usually isn't a good idea. . .

From a political power perspective, Kamala's stock is rising. One can hope it's a peaceful and blissful ending for Trump. Hate and sadism would take pleasure in pain and suffering of Trump.

I'm not sure of the full context, yet I think this is the jacket