Forestluv

There is a distinction between structure and content. Both have value. Leo's video on structure and content does a great job at drawing distinctions. Most minds get immersed in content and have a difficult time seeing structure. This is effect is much stronger when we enter identity issues. For example, it would be much easier for a mind to see the structure of movies. We could examine different movie settings, plots and roles. We could talk about various roles Leonardo DeCaprio has played. We could talk about various ways actors prepare for a role, such as method acting. Most minds could do this fairly easily, because their identity, egoic survival and physical survival is not dependent upon Leonardo DeCaprio movies. Yet when we enter areas of politics, gender, religion and racism - it is a very different inner game because there is attachment, identification and survival dynamics. A discussion of the dynamics of systemic racism becomes very different if the person has attachment and identification to an ideology of racism. Leo's video on open-mindedness covers this. To be truly open-minded, the mind needs to be open *prior* to the presentation of "facts" and "evidence". If the mind is holding pre-conceived ideology, the mind will perceive "facts" and "evidence" through a lens that distorts "facts" and "evidence" to match it's pre-conceived view. As well, it will try to control what counts as "evidence". For example, a racism denier may say that life experience doesn't count as "evidence". And of course a mind immersed, attached and identified to particular content will not want to introspect the structure of it's own mind. A mind attached/identified will say "All that stuff about mind structure is just psycho-analyzing people - let's get back to the content of which I am attached and identified to". Such a mind will not look at it's own attachment and identification. Why not? Because if it does, the gig is up!! Of course! All ideologies have partial truths. There is a distinction between ideology and being ideological. In one context, it doesn't matter. Does a child have value? Of course! Does algebra have value? Of course! Does a paramecium have value? Of course! However, in another context there is evolution of more complex systems. Is there a distinction between a binary construct and a spectral construct? Of course. The spectral construct is more evolved and more complex. This doesn't mean a mind limited to a binary construct is "bad", yet it does mean the mind is limited to the binary construct and unable to see more nuanced spectral constructs. This is context dependent. You are describing a mind that let's go of it's own perspective to understand another perspective. This is "perspective jumping" and very few minds can do it. Yet this isn't the dynamic I'm referring to. I'm referring to a mind that is attached/identified to a view and is "playing devil's advocate" to defend that same view. For example, a mind could be attached/identified to ideology that systemic racism doesn't exist and then pretend to play devil's advocate for the same view. It could give arguments against systemic racism under the delusion that it is "playing devil's advocate" when it is actually advocating for the views it is attached/identified to. This is a trick of the mind. A truly meta mindset would be aware of attachements/identifications. To reach this stage, a mind would need to be radically honest with itself through introspection. It would need to recognize "My mind is attached to ideology that systemic racism doens't exist. To expand my mind, I need to detach from that and consider other perspectives that systemic racism does exist". Further, it would look at it's structural biases: "To protect my attachment/ideology that systemic racism doesn't exist, my mind is saying that life experience does not count as 'evidence'. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps I should be open to considering that life experience could count as a form of 'evidence'. With practice and expertise, this form of perspective jumping becomes a natural working of the mind. The mind no longer needs to go through all these steps. It's like learning a new language. At first, there is a lot of translation and effort - yet with practice it becomes effortless and automatic. However, a mind tricking itself that it is "playing devil's advocate" while it is actually defending views it is attached/identified with is at a relatively early stage of this development. Yet importantly, it has begun the journey. This takes intense introspection and observation of one's own mind - and the ego is not going to like it. Ime, playing devil's advocate is rudimentary in terms of truly trying to understand another perspective at a deep level. For example, I wanted to learn about the perspective of poor, marginalized people. To do so, I spent years learning Spanish and lived in poor, marginalized villages in Honduras, Guatemala and Peru. I lived with them and had hundreds of hours of conversations learning about their perspectives and life experiences. I often asked "Am I understanding this correctly? Is it kinda like this?". And I wasn't satisfied until they told me "Yes, that's about right. You are understanding". They are the experts of their perspectives and they tell me if I'm understanding their perspective. Similar to how they told me if I was speaking the language correctly. This is a much deeper understanding of arm chair philosophy of playing devils advocate when the mind is actually defending it's own castle of ideology.

It depends on your construct of "racist". If you are using a binary construct of racism, then no - based on a binary construct we would be forced to categorize each individual as "racist" or "non-racist". Yet if we create a more nuanced construct of spectrums and relativity, then of course each person has some degree and aspects of racism. Yet those degrees and aspects would vary from person to person. The mind can distract itself from introspecting itself. For example, the mind could say "there are differences between races. Black people have darker skin than white people, right. I'm not racist?". Of course there are differences. How can we create constructs of race without distinctions!! Yet the mind focus on some distinctions to cloak itself from other distinctions. For example, it may focus on how black people produce more melanin to cloak itself from introspecting it's belief that white people are smarter than black people. The mind can be very sneaky.

The molecular structure of 5-meo is the molecular structure of 5-meo. Of course different batches of 5-meo can be impure and have other molecular contaminants that may have effects - yet that is not an effect of 5-meo. For example, a batch of 100% pure 5-meo is different than a batch that is 90% 5-meo and 10% amphetamines. Yet the 5-meo is the same - it is the impurity causing the difference. As well, each mind-body will have it's own relationship to 5-meo. There will be some similarities and some differences. Even with a 100% pure batch of 5-meo, different people will features of unique experience. Two people could injest the exact same amount of 5-meo from the same batch and have very different experiences. And the same person could have different experiences with the same batch due to different conditions. For example, someone could vape 5-meo with a particular mindset and setting have a blissful experience full of insights. The next day with a different mindset and setting, that same batch could lead to a high anxiety experience without any insights.

I think this is possible, yet very rare. A mind that has a detached, meta view rarely tries to play devil's advocate in a convincing manner. This could enter actual devilry. For example, a person with meta cognition of how various minds view systemic racism is not attached or identified to any particular view. It would be devilry for that mind to pretend that it was a systemic denier, try to convince others that systemic racism doesn't exist and to undercut efforts to alleviate systemic racism. If a meta mind is called on this and tries to pretend "I was just playing devil's advocate", it would be a form of devilry, because it is aware that it is spreading misinformation. It would be a form of manipulation. Yet, I think this situation is rare. From my observations, most minds with metacognition don't try to pretend to be a devil's advocate to the point it actually appears that they are the devil's. A mind with metacognition can consider and express ideas without trying to advocate those ideas and push an agenda. For example, we could explore how and why a mind would deny systemic racism. How was this mind conditioned? How does this mind deal with cognitive dissonance? What are the nuggets of truth in this ideology? How does it serve their survival needs? Yet this is a very different orientation than a mind under the self delusion that it is a "devil's advocate" and unaware of it's attachment and identification to those views. Quite often, a mind claiming it is "playing devil's advocate" actually holds those views, yet doesn't want to take ownership of those views. For example, a mind that doesn't want to be viewed as a systemic racism denier may try to distance itself from the views it holds by saying "I'm just playing devil's advocate". This distancing can be of value in cognitive development. I would draw a distinction between "playing devil's advocate" and metacognition. I would consider playing devil's advocate to be a mid-range of conscious. People that play devil's advocate are often in a transitional stage of working through their own beliefs that they hold. Again, I am creating a relative construct of "devil's advocate". Others may create different constructs.

It depends on context and how we make distinctions. If someone acts in their best interest judging from what they know, does that give them immunity from being racist? Suppose someone is raised in an environment that conditions them to believe that white people are intellectually superior than black people. That's what the person knows and they act accordingly in their own self interest. Does this mean they are not racist? To me, this seems like a shield people with racist beliefs use to protect themselves. I'm observing people say "This is just my belief. I'm not racist". Yet what if that belief being held is racist? This also gets into conscious and subconscious forms of racism. For example, someone could consciously judge certain speaking mannerisms as stupid - such as broken street English. A mind could also subconsciously hold this bias and be totally unaware of it.

Thank you. I should clarify that I only have experience using electronic dry herb vapes. I don't have experience with glass or oil pipes. I don't know the nuances of glass/oil pipes.

For sure. Vaping at 428F is inefficient vaporization, which allows for slower, extended delivery. I hold each breath for a few seconds. I would describe each breath as increasing lucidity. Sorta like entering a lucid dream, yet also not like a traditional dream. For me, it’s not dysphoric, yet I can see how it could be for others. I also see value in the wave-like effect of plugging. Based on my experience, I think inefficient vaping with an electric vape could be a good way for some to get their feet wet before diving in. Yet this depends on one’s mind-body structure. Each person is different and needs to do their own self-experimentation.

This is a creation of distinctions. What is there prior to the creation of the distinction that red is more red than pain is pain? If awareness can go prior to the creation of the distinction, it can observe how the mind creates the distinction.

I haven’t seen much hatred toward business owners that have been negatively impacted by looters or rioters. Being sympathetic to the underlying reasons driving looting and riots does not condone the looting or riots. It also doesn’t mean that one hates the business owners. Imagine a father abuses his child. We could come to understand that the father himself was abused as a child and has PTSD. The father has no health insurance and had no resources to heal. Understanding the bigger picture of the reasons the father is abusing the child does not mean that we condone the abuse. It does not mean that we hate the child. It does not mean that the father has zero responsibility. We may need to separate the father from the child. We may need to put the father in a rehabilitation center. Yet we can do so by looking at the bigger picture of causation. Such a systemic view can better help us address underlying issues. In the case of the protests and riots, what are the underlying issues driving their behavior? Not just the proximal cause. Consider the systemic ultimate causes. What impact do you think extreme inequality has on a poor community? What is the impact of ignoring the grievances of a poor community?’ What impact does lack of police, political, corporate and governmental accountability have? This doesn’t condone looting or destroying property, yet it can allow us to better understand the underlying factors of the grievances driving riots. Thinking that the rioters are a bunch of criminals that deserve to be put in jail is a myopic view that doesn’t look at the bigger picture.

Of course!! If Trump was compassionate, responsible, being of light and love - he would want to understand the underlying reasons why people are protesting and rioting. He would speak with community members about their grievances and include them in discussions about potential solutions. For example, poor handling of the pandemic has caused a major health and economic crises that is especially hurting poor urban areas. There are tens of millions of people that have become unemployed and are facing eviction. During this crisis, Republicans sent a trillion dollars of tax payer money to billionaires and gave those in need a few peanuts. A compassionate, responsible being of light and love would recognize that this is related to, and contributing to, problems in low income areas. A compassionate, responsible leader might say “What a minute. During the worst health and economic crisis in our countries history, perhaps we shouldn’t be sending a trillion dollars of tax payer money to billionaires. When people are losing their jobs and getting evicted, why should taxpayers be paying for a billionaire’s third yacht that he won’t even use?”. A compassionate, responsible leader would use that taxpayer money to help support those in need and create resources in those communities. That would help reduce some of the tension driving the riots. Of course this won’t solve the entire problem, yet it would certainly help.

For the newbies, I just want to re-iterate that there is a difference between glass pipe vaping (intense) and vaping with an electronic dry herb vape (much milder). Ime, vaping at 428 degrees F can be range from super mild (barely noticing an effect) to moderately intense, depending on how many inhales I take. One inhale is super mild. I need about 5 deep inhales to reach a breakthrough zone. So the intensity degree can be controlled from 1-5. My understanding is that this is different than glass pipe vaping which would be highly intense with one inhale. As well, plugging has a different experience ime. It’s more of like a wave that comes through and takes over.

That’s not context of how i am using the term “judge”. I’m using the in the context of demonizing or personally judging someone. This decreases up the spiral. For example, if someone said “Climate change is a Chinese Hoax and isn’t real”. Mature Green to Yellow may judge them as a climate change denier, yet would be better able to see that they are denying climate change due to their social conditioning and survival needs. They would be less prone to judge the person as “stupid” or “evil”. Similarly, if someone wanted to argue that the earth is flat we could judge that this conversation would be a waste of time. Yet we could recognize that the person was likely conditioned to believe this and perhaps their entire identity and social community is flat-earther. We could see that they genuinely believe this and perhaps they also genuinely believe they are helping the world to realize the earth is flat. Yet judging them as a flat-earthier and the conversation as a waste of time is distinct from judging them as a bad, stupid person that intends to destroy civilization. Regarding systemic racism, I would consider Mature Green to Yellow to recognize various degrees of systemic racism. Immature Green may over-judge everything as being racially motivated because they strongly empathize with those impacted by racism. Mature Green to Yellow would have better judgement of different degrees. We could also call it “discernment”. For example, we could do an evaluation of a biotech company and see major levels of institutional racism. We could then do an evaluation of a University and see that they have a minor level of institutional racism. Judging degrees is distinct from being a systemic racism denier. As well, judging degrees of systemic racism is distinct from judging the people as bad, evil racists that are trying destroy people’s lives and our country. We could make a distinction between a person attached and identified with stage blue conservative vs the stage blue conservative ideas. Yet from my POV, the phrase “I’m just playing devil’s advocate” gets tricky because it can allow the ego to express views in shadows and then when light is shone the ego can say things like “I was just playing devils advocate” or “I was just joking”. From my observations, when someone plays devil’s advocate so well that it’s indistinguishable whether they hold those views, there is probably some holding. For example, we could speak about a mind that denies systemic racism. We could try to imagine how that mind is structured and why it believes what it does. Yet it’s pretty clear that we have a meta view and are not ideological about it. If someone was an ideologue and started arguing and defending the position that systemic racism doesn’t exist - that is a distinct mindset. Saying “l’m just playing devil’s advocate” doesn’t erase any attachment or identification that may exist. That is a separate, deeper process. I’m not saying this is your mindset, it’s just something I’ve observed fairly often.

Are there various forms of one-person-one-vote being corrupted? I can think of: 1. The electoral college is biased toward rural voters. Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin. 2. Voter suppression. Polling locations closed in poor urban areas. Undercutting the USPS. 3. Lobbyists and corporations inject massive amounts of campaign funding to skew elections toward plutocratic power 4. No ranked choice voting

A few thoughts of systemic racism in the context of SD: Blue: Systemic racism denial (e.g. Tucker Carlson). A desire to deny that any incident is racism. Gets defensive, plays victim of “being silenced” or others calling them racist. Speaks reverse-racism. Hyper-sensitive that others are shaming and guilt-tripping them. Orange: Self-centered mindset of “I’m colorblind” or “I’m not racist”. Thinks some racism exists that isn’t right, yet isn’t that interested in it. Is more upset that they don’t get to watch sports than the underlying racial issues of why their sports teams are protesting. They will jump on the BLM bandwagon if they can personally profit. May pretend to care about systemic racism so they can be perceived as being a good, caring person by their peers, yet will undercut actual efforts toward equality if it isn’t beneficial to them. Immature Green: Is aware of systemic racism and feels empathy and compassion for those subjected to racism. Demonizes those that deny systemic racism or engages in racism. However, immature Green goes too far in over-labeling events as racist. Anything that involves race is seen as racially-motivated. For example, an underperforming black worker who is fired is seen a racially-motivated. Can identify racist dynamics, yet also perceive racist dynamics when there really isn’t much there. White people at this stage are working through their own conditioned racially biased tendencies, subconscious biases, guilt and shame. Some virtue signaling. Mature Green to Yellow: Are more comfortable acknowledging and introspecting their own racial biases. They better understand that systemic racism deniers are doing so due to social conditioning and survival desires. Mature Green to Yellow judges less and is able to have discussions about the extent of systemic racism in various contexts. The intention is to identify degrees of systemic racism in different contexts to better remedy the systemic racism, rather than undercut efforts to address the systemic racism. For example, given a 2 million dollar city budget, how can we best allocate the funds to address systemic racism in the community?

@thetruth As I said, there is conflicting data regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of HCQ in different covid situations. Conflicting evidence means evidence for AND against it’s efficacy and effectiveness. As you’ve stated, you opened an account to spread one particular ideology. I’m not saying that there are no nuggets of truth in that ideology. However, spreading an ideological agenda is against forum guidelines.

@thetruth This is a nuanced issue. There is conflicting scientific evidence over the efficacy and effectiveness of HCQ in different COVID situations. Don’t cherry pick data and try to advance an ideological agenda.

Authentic vs. In-authentic is a construct we create. It has practical value in life, yet is still a construct nonetheless. For example, how can a dog be “in-authentic”? Obviously it can’t. A dog has no concept of authenticity. However it expresses itself is authentic: barking, peeing in the house, attacking another dog, licking someone’s face - all authentic. Similarly, we could say that whatever a person is doing is authentic. A person being dishonest and manipulating others is authentically dishonestly manipulating others. Yet at the personal and community levels, an idea of authenticity has wellness value. Rather than intellectual constructs, I like to focus more on feelings. What does being inauthentic feel like? If I go on a date and lie to her about my life experience, interests and intentions - how does that feel the rest of the day? It feels crappy, because I am being inauthentic. Then I have to pretend to be somebody that doens’t feel right. Then I have to create all sorts of stories to rationalize why my inauthentic behavior is ok and I start feeling worse.

That is not the point I’m trying to make. Perhaps I’m not able to explain the point well enough. I’m not trying to invalidate a point, rather I’m trying to take a meta view and look at multiple points. I think your points have some truth and value - yet there are other angles to look. That’s just my impression. Perhaps I misunderstand and I’m missing something. At any rate, I’m more into exploring points than arguing over points. Thanks for offering your view and I wish you the best.

@Rajneeshpuram It’s ok to share right wing views. However, it’s not ok to spread FoxNews, PragerU, Ben Shapiro etc. ideological agendas. If you want to express right wing views, do so with an open mind and add some nuance / contemplation. As well, the concept of “conspiracy theories” is not cut and dry. There is a spectrum of conspiracy theories and they all have some nuggets of truth to give followers a sense of grounding. There are also grey areas of conspiracy theories. It is not “either / or”. Please be mindful of this and that there are cutoffs on when an ideology goes too far and starts to enter the conspiracy zone. I haven’t seen posts wishing the death of the Kenosha individual. Depending on context, that could violate forum guidelines. If someone did that, please report it. There is a difference between observing ideology from a meta view and being attached/identified and ideological within the ideology. For example, we can observe, contemplate and understand the ideology of Tucker Carlson without being ideological and without pushing an ideological agenda.

In my view, you didn’t set a clear distinction. Without acknowledgement and establishing a clear distinction - and only focusing on one aspect, the implication is an extrapolation of that aspect. To me, it seems like you were using contracted theory and examples as if they were representative of a larger truth. I was merely pointing out other dynamics in a larger picture. Also notice how the mind can respond in various ways - it can get curious (expansion) or get defensive (contraction). As well, it can either go into cooperation or conflict. For example, we could say that there are situations in which a person naturally wants to engage in cultural constructs outside the “norm” as well as situations in which there are cultural pressures to engage in behaviors that feel unnatural to the person. We can then say, let’s focus on these subset of dynamics - with an understanding of the existence other dynamics. We could then integrate various components together. It is possible that someone understands your point, yet sees the point within a bigger picture. If someone says that Paris is within France, we can see that point. If we say that Paris is also within Europe, it doesn’t mean we do not understand that Paris is also in France and it doesn’t mean that we disagree that Paris is in France. I think you make good points that have value. Yet I also think those points are limited within the bigger picture. You are free to disagree with me. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps I am wrong. Or perhaps I have an insight with value. That is up for you to decide. My impression is that you don’t think I have anything of value to offer, which is fine. In that case, there is no use for me here and I wish you the best.

Being open-minded, nuanced and contemplative takes a lot of work and can be uncomfortable. Many minds like things cu-and-try. It is easy and provides grounding. Many minds don’t like uncertainty, ambiguity or paradox. And the mind also creates a strong attachment/identification to an ideology. Then the seeking begins. Confirmation of that ideology / identity is like a drug and the mind becomes addicted. The news media plays into this and benefits. Yet there are other media outlets are beginning to explore nuances - for example shows go into the pros and cons of certain phenomena like psychedelics. Yet it’s much harder on topics people are highly attached/identified that they see as personally threatening - such as politics, religion, science. We don’t see many people getting ideological about diapers, sunsets and paper clips.

I’m not disagreeing with you. I am offering a different perspective. It’s like you are saying the elephant is the tail. I’m saying, “yes, the elephant is the tail. And look here, the elephant is also the ears”. How cool it is too look at both tail and ears to get a bigger picture view of the elephant! I’m not triggered by elephant tails. There is partial truth in elephant tails and they have value. Yet an elephant tail is an incomplete elephant.

It reminds me of walking through nature and appreciating all the different forms of beauty. A cougar on the prowl has beauty. A delicate flower gently fluttering in the breeze has beauty.

Really??!! Can you change your taste preferences for a shit sandwich at will? Can you choose to be sexually attracted to a hamster right now? The labels themselves aren’t the problem. It’s the attachment, identification, judgements, stigmatizations, impositions etc. of those labels. We could walk through the forest and have a discussion about birds, rivers, trees and flowers - and how we feel and experience it all. Those are all labels we use to communicate with each other, to connect to each other, to explore and expand. The labels themselves are not problematic - they are simply symbols. Imagine we were hiking in a forest and you said that every label is bad and there should be no labels. That would massively limit how much we can explore and communicate. I’m not talking about cultural pressures imposed upon someone. I’m talking about the freedom to explore and express within cultural constructs. There is a lot of beauty and within some cultural constructs. Things like art and sports are cultural constructs and part of the human experience is exploring, participation and experiencing within those constructs - as well as creating new constructs. The problem occurs with marginalization, stigmatization, expectations, judgements, impositions, abuses etc. You are projecting upon the trans person. Notice how you say “what the fuck she/he wants with having to legally change genders in order to match society’s stereotypes”. That is a great point from one perspective, yet misses other perspectives. What do you mean by “change gender”?. I am a biological male, what would “changing genders” mean to you? If I express my love of butterflies, is that “changing genders”. If I express my empathy for another and cry for those that are suffering, is that “changing gender”? If I wear a dress to work? If I go on testosterone inhibitors? If I get facial reconstruction? If I get top of bottom surgery? Exactly what is “changing genders” for you? Of course someone may feel pressure to conform to societal standards of gender. If a male resonates with what society calls female, the person may feel pressure to conform and look more like a female. Yet you are not considering the possibility that some people naturally want to express themselves that way. Some transgender women want to wear make-up and dresses. They naturally like to be engaged in what society calls “womanly”. If you truly want to allow transgender person to do whatever the fuck he/she wants, that includes anything that he/she wants - including engaging in what you consider “society’s stereotypes”. If my transgender male niece wants to do boyish sports because he naturally wants to, that is different than feeling pressure to do boyish sports so he can feel like he is being perceived more as male. There is a distinction there.