Forestluv

When we get into the deeper levels of empathic understanding, the question of “what is knowing” arises. If someone ‘seems’ to experience the experience of another, do they actually ‘know’ what the other person experienced?. . . Yes and no. This gets into the seeping levels of empathic knowing in which distinctions can be made. As an example: one evening during a laying meditative state, there was a ‘clearing’ and no ‘me’. What arose was a past traumatic experience that ‘I’ never experienced. However, there was no ‘I’ at the time so this didn’t matter at that time. This memory of a traumatic form of abuse arose and there was a re-experience of it. There was a spiraling down period in which I wanted to get out, yet I couldn’t. I couldn’t make it stop and it was like it was happening again. The past episode was being experienced again. There was observation as well as experiencing. It was very stressful to the mind and body. Afterwards during re-grounding there was a realization that appeared “That is what a dynamic of PTSD is like”. There is a form of knowing. It is not an intellectual knowing by reading theory from a textbook or trying to figure it out. It is an experiential knowing. The question is: Do I actually know what it’s like? This gets into deep levels of memory, experience, imagination and reality. This isn’t theory creating the ISness of the experience. This is the ISness of the experience trying to express itself through theory. . . Can I know walk around and claim that I had this traumatic abusive experience in my life, a PTSD flashback and that I know what it’s like? Not quite. It would be extremely misleading to state this others, because I never went through the actual abusive traumatic episode. During my empathic development, a ‘teacher’ came that intensely reprimanded me for making this claim and showed me how I don’t ‘know what it’s like’ from one aspect of actuality. I felt awful for doing this and was brought to tears for claiming I knew what certain experiences were like without ever having that actual direct experience. I later came to realize, that this is one dimension of experiential ‘knowing’ and that there is another dimension of experiential ‘knowing’. When I get grounded in this dimension of experiential ‘knowing’, I can deeply relate with someone who has had abusive trauma and PTSD flashbacks. It is an empathic connection that opens a channel of communication. From another perspective: you wouldn’t ‘know’ what it’s like to experience your own experiences. This may seem absurd. “Of course I know what is was like to experience what I actually experienced!!!”. Yet ‘experience’ is a contextualization occurring now. The ideas of what I experienced is not the same as what was experienced. The person who underwent the experience is not the same person that is reflecting on the experience “I” had. This is one reason PTSD flashbacks can be so intense. It is not merely someone reflecting or remembering the experience - it is the stored ISness of an aspect of the experience. As well, contextualized memories can also be very different than the actual experience. In this context, my person ‘now’ does not truly know what the experience is like form my previous person. . . For example, suppose I underwent back surgery and was hospitalized for weeks. Obviously, I can claim I know what it’s like to undergo back surgery and be hospitalized for weeks. In one context, this is true. Yet consider another context. . . Studies have shown that people in serious hospital treatment will contextualize and remember *what is was like* disproportionally based on what the ending of the experience was like. There were studies that looked at people’s scores of pain during a hospital stay and how they later remember it. People remember the experience disproportionately based on the last few days. For example, a person that had a series of intense 7,8,9 pain days that ended the stay with some mild 2 and 3 pain days (with some loving care and laughter the final few days”, tends to remember the experience based on the last few days. They will say “Oh, back surgery isn’t so bad.”. The final 2/3 days are preferentially remembered over the series of 7-9 days. The flip also occurs. Someone could be receiving proper pain medication and loving care from nurses and have a series of 2/3 pain days. Yet the last few days, some overworked nurses may rotate in, take him off the pain meds and be dismissive of him. This may be remembered as 7-9 pain days. This person will have a tendency to remember the overall experience as being really bad and think “Back surgery is awful”. . . So. . . Does this person actually ‘know’ what their own experience was like? Imagine the person who says “Oh, back surgery wasn’t so bad” due to selective memory of the final 2/3 pain days. Imagine he visits his earlIer self during the initial 7-9 pain days. His previous self undergoing 7-9 pain days would tell him “You don’t know what it’s like to have back surgery”, even though it’s the same person!! This highlights that there isn’t the ‘same’ person because the ‘person’ is a construct, as are experiential memories of a ‘person’ over time. I speculate, and propose, that a mind that operates in a binary mode will have a tendency of remembering the experience as either “It wasn’t so bad” or “It was really bad”. It’s how they perceive the world. Their mind does not contextualize in mosaics, nuances and degrees. How might this mind contextualize the back surgery experience? More like “The first week was mostly roughly days. Some were more intense than others. When they were weaning me off the meds, there were some spots that were more uncomfortable than others. Yet even within my worst days of pain, there were some bright spots. There was one nurse that came in a couple times a day and could make me laugh. Even during the most painful days, he could inject humor and make me feel good for a brief moment”. This memory portrait is a much higher resolution. It can include 2/3 moments within 7-9 pain days. It’s not either all bad or all good. That is a low resolution memory portrait. However, a binary mindset may have been perceiving either / or during the time. It could have perceived the entire hospital stay as awful during the stay and filter things out like the friendly nurse because the friendly nurse is inconsistent with the binary mindset that it’s all awful. The awful filter will filter out non-awful.

Highest ratings does not necessarily reflect highest conscious level. In the 1850s, the news reporters with the highest ratings were pro-slavery.

If a person doesn’t have a sense of “what it’s like” to be another person, they will have a limited view and fall prey to extrapolating that. This causes distortion at the wider view, because it is not comprehensive. Imagine taking a 3 x 5 image and extrapolating it to an 8 x 10 image. What happens? It becomes distorted because limited pixels have been extrapolated into a larger image. To retain clarity, more pixels need to be added in - yet we cannot simply guess what those pixels are. We need to discover actual information we were missing and add that to the image. Similarly, if someone has a narrow view they cannot simply extrapolate that into a larger view. That will cause blur. To create a larger view that is clear, they need to go and find out what they were missing. However, with personal views, people don’t want to do that because they are attached and identified to the personal view. Many people feel like they would be wrong if they acknowledge they are missing some pixels. For example, many men believe that women in abusive relationships just say they don’t want to be in an abusive relationship, but they actually do want to be mistreated by an abusive boyfriend / husband. Why would they stick around in an abusive relationship when they can just leave? . . . From a narrow view, this has some truth to it. The problem is extrapolating this view into a wider truth. Without adding in more “pixels”, this extrapolated view is distorted. What are these “pixels” that are missing? . . . The above view doesn’t understand what it’s actually like to be in an abusive relationship and not being able to leave. This is where one’s own experience or empathic understanding comes into play. A person that lacks this experience or empathic understanding and believes that someone can simply leave an abusive relationship is not going to *get it* on multiple levels. A mind cannot cognitively think it’s way through this and think “yea, yea. I know women can be pressured to stay in a relationship”. Yet they don’t actually *get* what that actually is. I’ve been in an abusive relationship with a high level narcissist. I know what it’s like to be gaslighted and manipulated to the point where I cannot tell anyone what’s going on. I cannot tell a psychologist or any friends. I know what it feels like to be trapped with no way out. I know what it feels like to not even be aware that I am trapped and should be looking for a way out. I also spent years volunteering in a psychiatric ward and had hundreds of hours of conversations with people (nearly all women) entrapped within abusive relationships. There is an understanding that cannot be figured out intellectually. It’s got to come through either direct experience or an empathic awakening of “ooohhh, so that’s what it’s like. . . “. We can create intellectual constructs of why people stay in abusive relationships. We could say that even though they are trapped, they are sticking around for something they subconsciously want. This has some value and truth to it, yet it will be limited without the understanding of what it’s actually like. Does one need to be trapped and suffer within an abusive relationship to know what it’s actually like? Sadly, I’m coming to the realization that the answer is “yes” for cognitive, intellectual types. Even if they are well-intentioned, they are so immersed into creating intellectual constructs that they are unable to add in non-intellectual components, such as indirect empathy and intuition. They don’t have the imaginative abilities to indirectly *get* what the experience is like. For people with imaginative empathic skills, watching a documentary of women explaining what it’s like may be sufficient. I watched a documentary of a teenager / young woman who was kidnapped and abused. The guy kept her in a small box in which she couldn’t move. Sometimes 20+ hours a day. Or even consecutive days or weeks. This was used to punish her for disobedience and break her. He also psychologically brainwashed her and physically abused her. She came to believe that there was a larger group of men watching her every move and if she tried to escape, they would kill her and her family. They guy even created newspaper articles to this effect to brainwash her. After years of this, he could allow her to go outside on her own. She went for walks on her own and to the market. He even brought her to see her own family!! They actually spent an afternoon together with her family and she didn’t say a word. She made no effort to communicate that she is trapped and cannot leave. We could create all sorts of intellectual theories about why she didn’t reach out for help when she could have. These theories have value. Yet it is incomplete without the knowing of what it’s actually like. As I watched this documentary, I slipped into a non-intellectual space of what this would actually be like and from that knowing, it makes complete sense why someone would not try to leave. Yet this understanding isn’t an intellectual theory. It’s an “I get it”. Type of thing. From my observation, hyper-intellectuals have a very difficult time indirectly imaging what it’s actually like. Intellectually thinking about it is insufficient. Unfortunately, to get a sense of the actuality they would actually need to be entrapped in this way to the point in which they become that person and they themselves cannot leave when they have the opportunity. Then once free, they realize “Ooohhh, so that’s what it’s like”.

I didn’t say Orange or Green is 100% honest and accurate. I am pointing to the underlying values and potential harm dynamics. Toxic orange has immense harm potential. However, there are mosaics and degrees of corruption and harm. An average Mafia leader, average banker and average Yogi have different degrees of corruption and toxic shadows. Notice the assumption that I watch and trust news outlets such as CNN. This assumes immersion within content and unawareness of structure. This view does not take into account a meta view from above. As well, it is a binary view in which so-called MSM is to either be 100% trusted or 100% not trusted. This is a hyper-simplistic view. It is much more nuanced than that. News outlets like CNN are mosaics of various intentions and accuracies. And there are degrees. As well, there can be binary judgements to categorize others as someone who either watches and trusts MSM or doesn’t watch or trust MSM. This too is hyper-simplistic.

Leaving an abusive relationship is not simply leaving because it’s not what the person wants. Women are often intricately entrapped within abusive relationships. They don’t have the psychological, social and/or financial resources to leave. I volunteered in a place that was a temporary safe space for women in abusive relationships. These abusive relationships can involve twisted psychological / physical mistreatment and intimidation in which the abuser isolates and entraps them. In many abusive relationships, it’s not so simple as just leaving if you don’t like it.

To create credible caricatures, conspiracy theories etc., there must be some grains of truth. As well, it takes time to build the caricature. For example, there was some truth to Hilary being corrupt and there was 20 years of FoxNews portraying her as corrupt. It was very easy for FoxNews to exaggerate this and turn Hilary into demon-level corruption to be hated and feared. . . Fox is trying to paint Biden as some crazy liberal, yet he has no history of being a crazy liberal and his policies are centrist. There isn’t any truth to it. So they try to paint Biden as being under control of crazy liberals like AOC, which is laughable. There aren’t any grains of truth or history of caricature building. . . It would be like trying to paint Biden as a crazy Vegan under the control of PETA. . .

I had a dream in which I observed others having dreams. . .

In terms of the structure of conscious levels, also consider the underlying content values of what is being presented. When I was traveling through Colombia, the mafia cartel did a poor job of presentation. When I stayed within a meditation / yogi community they did a much better job at presentation. To say the yogis were more dangerous than the mafia leaders is absurd. The underlying values of the mafia leaders are clearly more dangerous than those of the yogis. This example is obvious since there are three conscious levels of separation. It’s more difficult to see with one or two levels of separation.

I like sensory deprivation tanks for this type of thing.

0.2g is sub-threshold for the vast majority of people. If you did a half tab of LSD with no trouble. 1g of shrooms should be fine. Be mindful of mindset. Imagine a kid waiting in line to ride a roller coaster asking “But what if I lose control, strip naked and jump off the roller coaster?“ . . That’s not a great mindset. Much better to let go and enjoy the ride.

@freeman194673 Observe your concept of “love”. You can let go of that concept and create a new form of love that is much better than the one you hold now.

Meditation and yoga centers

Interesting. I’ve always typed at the extreme end of P. You’ve only seen online posting persona. Perhaps one’s virtual reality online persona can be distinct from their regular real life persona.

I just did a google search for empathy and let’s just say that the current resolution is very low. Imagine the evolution of vision. Early on, animals had very crude vision. They could barely make out shapes. All they could see was the outline. They could barely make out light and shadows. All they could see was grey contrast. They could not see colors, textures and other details. That where we are with empathy. Most of the psychological theory I saw had one vague idea of empathy, that it’s about being able to feel what others feel. From psychological theory, the most distinctions of empathy I saw was three. . . Three! That’s some looow resolution. I’ve search what self-described empaths have written, the most distinctions I’ve found is five. Five! And this is from self-identified empaths. So all the psychologists and empaths combined have written about a total of eight forms of empathy. I could easily add another 20 distinctions. . . Neuroscientists are trying to map empathy to brain regions in monks meditating on compassion. These neuroscientists don’t even know the difference between empathy and compassion. How the fuck are they going to be able to map empathy in the brain. Imagine a surgeon not knowing the difference between your elbow and ankle. . . Folks, we are in the dark ages of empathy. Future generations will look back and be amazed with how crude we are today. Imagine having a language with eight words. Yet that’s how language did indeed begin. They began with just a few symbols of representation. Recent articles in business are starting to see that value of empathy in leadership. A good leader can sense the needs of others. It’s comical how they are patting themself on the back for this deep “insight”. It’s like realizing “Hey, you ever notice it’s good for a basketball player to be tall?”. . . Guides on how to improve empathy are equally shallow. “Listen carefully to the other person and try to imagine where they are coming from”. It’s like trying to describe how to spot a ball with flashing neon lights in an empty room. . . Ahhh, but there-in lies the rub. The room isn’t empty. . . One of the worst places to observe one’s potential empathic abilities is with another person. There is too much noise. There is all sorts of energy regarding how I am perceived, what they are thinking, co-decency, wanting affirmation, being right and on and on and on. . . A much better way to test yourself for human forms of empathy is when there is no other person around. Yes, this sounds counter-intuitive because empathy is supposed to be about feeling what the person you are with is feeling. Yet let’s remove the human noise and get a clear look. When you are watching a movie, you can relax and let yourself go. There is no concern about what the characters on the screen think about you. There is no concern about impressing the characters on the screen or being right in a debate. You can let yourself go. Imagine you let yourself go. You forget that “I” am watching a movie. You forget that you are in a theatre. You forget what time it is. You are immersed in the movie. What is your relationship to the characters? Is it like you are an outside observer watching the lives of others? Do you think about and analyze the plot?. . . Or do you have a different engagement. . . Do you feel like you know one or more of the characters? Does a character almost feel like your friend? If she gets in a dangerous situation, do you feel your friend anxiety for your friend? If so, that is a form of empathy. . . Also, do you ever feel like you are experiencing through that character? Do you feel like you are experiencing their sadness, hope and joy? If so that is also a form of empathy. You can do it. You can do the same test with characters in a book. . . Movies and books are a clean, direct form. With actual humans in real life, things get messy because all sorts of other noise variables are thrown in. If the movie example resonated with you, test your range. . . It is much easier to empathize with a character you can relate to or you like. If you are a female that likes a handsome guy to romance you and sweep you off your feet, it is much easier to relate to a movie character that is a female being romanced by a handsome guy. This is empathic bias. You will empathically relate to her and adopt all of her biases. Just like there are intellectual biases there are empathic biases. . . Observe your range of empathic ability. Can you merge with a movie character unlike you and your desires? If you are a young English straight male, could you merge with an old gay Mexican guy or a Portuguese lesbian woman? If you are scientifically-minded, could you merge with a paranormal witch? This is a much harder empathic test, because there is greater distance between your identity and the character’s identity. This is a higher level of transcendent empathy. In developing empathic skills, one can use similarities to get closer and closer to the character, yet there are identity blocks that need to get released. One way to do this is letting go, another way to do this is curiosity and indirect relating. For example, if there is a character getting marginalized and stigmatized for having an anxiety disorder, it’s easy to relate to the character if you have had an anxiety disorder, you already know what it’s like. Yet even without having an anxiety disorder, the jump may not be that far. For example, you may have ADHD and know what it’s like to be marginalized and teased. You know what it’s like to be told you are just making it up. You know what it’s like to feel like no one understands you. This can bridge the gap with the character. . . Or you may have had one experience of an anxiety attack that you long since forgot. For example, maybe as a kid you were standing on the high dive at the pool scared and had a panic attack about jumping. . . Or you could have had minor anxiety experiences and you can imagine them as being as severe as the movie characters disorder. All of this can help draw you into merging with the character.

I love this image. The integration of colors, nature, art, femininity, eye gaze. Beautiful.

I agree. Introspective questions can have a lot of value.

I find the path of self actualization for a professional actor to be intriguing. In spiritual circles, we often discuss how the person is a “character”. That it is merely a story construct that can be transcended. . . Well. . . an actor is literally playing a character. The better they play that character, the better actor they are. The more they believe they are that character, the more believable it is to oneself and observers. There are similarities to “real life”. We play a character and they more we believe the character, the believable it is to oneself and observers. I’m particularly interested in method acting. This is a deep form of acting in which the actor literally tries to become that person. For example, an method actor given the role of a homeless many may actually live homeless on the streets for six months. There have been method actors that have gone so deep, they were never able to fully comeback.

I think the questions the mind asks is reflective of that mind space and orientation. The answers to the questions above is that it can be. I’ve been in those spaces.

Is the paper itself the color yellow or does the paper have a discolored yellowish look?

You won’t be able to figure it out. I would suggest letting go of cognitive Yellow-level constructs and engaging within 5th dimensional realms that seem like magic, without trying to figure it out conceptually. Much of Turquoise is non-verbal and non-conceptual. Thought stories are not front and center on the Turquoise stage. One orientation is to try and figure out that which is cannot be figured out. This is the slow approach, like crawling up a mountain on one’s belly. Another orientation is that actuality of that which is not figured out and being like “Omg!! How do I even begin to explain this??!!”. For some minds, a psychedelic is like taking a helicopter up to the top of Mt. Turquoise.

I’m observing some meta-intellectual mindsets contracted within intellect. . . We could spend many hours of creating intellectual models of intuition, yet that ain’t intuition. We can spend many hours creating intellectual models of empathy, yet that ain’t empathy. An intellectually-dominated mind will want narrative control within intellectual frameworks. It will not want to surrender space to emotional, intuitive and empathic modes of intelligence. Just as an intellectual mind will struggle to let go of the intellectual ideas it is attached to, it will also struggle to let go of intellect itself. In terms of SD, transitioning into Tier2 involves meta awareness. In terms of intellect, the mind may realize that it’s own intellectual constructs are relative. It may become aware of attachment to those constructs. This can allow the mind to let go and become more fluid with constructing and deconstructing within intellectual realms. Yet there are other modes of intelligence. Transitioning into Tier2 for an intellectual mind also means becoming aware of attachment to intellect itself. Surrendering attachment to intellect allows a different type of fluidity. A fluidity that integrates various modes of being, including intellect, emotions, energetics, empathy, intuition etc. Similarly, there is transitioning into Tier2 empathy that involves meta awareness. In terms of empathy, the mind may realize it’s own empathy is relative. It may become aware of attachment to specific forms of empathy. This can allow the being to let go and become more fluid within empathic realms. This involves surrendering attachment to certain forms of empathy. The being is no liberated to empathize beyond it’s previous contraction. For example, in Tier1 a person may only be able to empathize with people that have similar life experiences. This is an empathic contraction. In Tier2 attachment to self-related empathy is transcended and the being is now free to empathize and understand experiences outside of it’s own limited experiences. At higher levels, this can include empathic essence way beyond one’s own life experience. For example, at a high level of empathy, a being may empathically grok the essence of a person that lives in a small village in Peru that interacts with dark spirit entities. This could be well outside the empathic person’s life experience and belief system. They might not know anything about small Peruvian villages, they might not even believe in dark spirit entities. Yet there is an empathic essence that arises and the person is like “Whoooaaa, so that’s what it’s like to be a Peruvian villager who interacts with dark spirit entities”. The person actually interacts wIth dark spirit entities. Since this is not an intellectual realm, constructs like “is this real or imagined?” don’t even appear. It is beyond, or prior to, such intellectual constructs. . . This is a Tier2 level of empathy. There are likely many other forms of Tier2 empathic manifestations. I can only describe what has appeared for me. However, one being can have different levels of development for each area. Similar to how a person can have different levels of fluency in foreign language. A person can be fluent in English, partially fluent in Spanish and lack fluency in French. If someone is fully fluent in English and at an intermediate level of Spanish, what will there default language be? English of course. By default, they will naturally think in English and will have a habit of translating Spanish into English. It takes effort to break this habit and learn to understand and communicate directly in Spanish. Then the person can become an integrated bilingual. Similarly, a mind can be fluent in intellect and be at an intermediate level of empathic fluency. The default mode of being will be intellect. The mind will translate empathic essence into the intellect language. It takes effort to break this intellectual translation and learn to understand and communicate directly in empathy. Then the person can become an integrated bilingual. To me, the orientation of being intellect-dominant and expanding into being intellect plus empathic bilingual is most obvious. Probably because this is the orientation I have been evolving. As well, it seems this orientation is more common for males that females. There is also the orientation of being empathic-dominant and expanding into being empathic plus intellect bilingual. I imagine this would be a more common orientation in women.

One thing I’m trying to point out is the dominance of intellectual modes over other modes of intelligence. Notice how the intellectual mind says “I respect social scientists that help people with their developmental empathy”. This is an abstract intellectual idea that has not embodied the actual developmental empathy. It only respects those that actually speak the empathic language when that language is aligned to the intellectual constructs it holds. Look at the mind’s response to the U.K. exercise. Does that look like a mind that respects and values people that speak empathy?. . A mind creating a frame of “I respect xyz and it is a key piece in the whole chain of creating systems” is still an intellectual-dominant frame. It is looking at developmental empathy from an outside intellectual perspective. It allows the communication of the empathic language as long as what is being communicated is subordinate and aligned within it’s own intellectual construct. Saying I respect and value empathic development is a contraction if restricts those fluent in empathy to only speak their empathic language within one particular intellectual frame. Consider this frame: This is a mindset that is not fluent in empathy. It does not even consider other intellectual frames. I’m not saying the view is wrong, no more than I would say a hammer is better than a screwdriver. However, this mindset is clearly not fluent in empathy. Notice how the mind frames this situation as training people for racial bias and how it is distasteful, arrogant and ungrateful. That is not a mind that understands or respects those that speak empathy. The mind is not willing to say, “I respect and value those that are fluent in empathic development. Since I am not fluent in speaking empathy I will allow those that are fluent in empathy space to speak here”. Rather, it is defining the efforts of those that speak the empathic language as “distasteful, arrogant and ungrateful” (which is true from one particular cognitive frame). Yet if both camps are truly going to work together, how can the intellectual camp tell the empathic camp that they can only speak their language in contexts that are aligned with a particular intellectual model? Allowing other modes of intelligence to merely exist within one particular intellectual model is a contracted mindset. Integrated yellow is not merely integrating intellectual constructs into a system, it also integrates other modes of intelligence. Integrating other modes of intelligence through an intellectual filter is distinct from integrating the actuality of that intelligence from that intelligence itself. Integrated yellow is fluent in several languages of intelligence. To a mind that is at a yellow+ level of empathic fluency, non-fluency is totally obvious. Just as non-fluency in intellectual modeling is totally obvious to a mind fluent in intellectual modeling. Acknowledgment and respect for the existence of the empathic language still has major gaps. You say that you would like to see ”both camps work together”, yet how can “both camps work together” when the actuality of the empathic language is labeled as “distasteful, arrogant and ungrateful.“ when it is not aligned with a particular intellectual frame? What does that communicate to people that speak the empathic language? Is it telling them “I respect and value your empathic understanding. Welcome. Let’s have the empathic and intellectual camps work together”. As someone who speaks the language of empathy, I can tell you it is not. It is excluding the empathic speakers .It is saying your camp can only work under my camp under my terms. And for those at intermediate levels of learning the empathic language, empathic understanding is not contracted to one’s experience, worldview and identity. That is green-level empathy. Tier2 meta-empathy transcends the self construct and there is expansion. Just as one transcends intellectual attachments and develops meta-intellect in Tier2, one can transcend empathic attachments and develop meta-empathy.

This is immersed and limited to intellectual modeling. It excludes the value of direct experience and empathic understanding. An integrated stage yellow is not limited to intellectual modeling. Complexity is not limited to intellectual complexity. It also includes the complexity of integrating empathy, emotions, intuition. The integration of these components is not simply from the intellect. Some Yellows treat these as abstract ideas, because they are intellectual dominant. A direct experience of empathic understanding is as deep as any intellectual model you create. And in some contexts, much deeper and powerful. Yet a mind that likes to control through intellectual modeling will not want to venture into this zone. Such a mind will be repelled because it desires cognitive, intellectual control of creating narrative.

Sounds to me like a night of love and romance. Back in the 80s, songs were more implicit than today.

That would be interesting. I’ve read criticisms about various online tests. I’m curious about accurate one could be either in person or via forum posts.