Forestluv

Some impressive mental gymnastics in MAGA minds.

The Eternal Dance In the quiet of dawn, a whisper echoes through the ages, A rhythm that flows from roots to leaves, from earth to sky. We are all part of this eternal dance, this cosmic tapestry, Woven by the threads of time, the heartbeats of generations. The seed that falls, the sprout that rises, The flower that blooms, the fruit that ripens— Each plays its role in the grand design, A symphony of life, a never-ending rhyme. The caterpillar spins its silken cocoon, Dreaming of wings and future skies, While the old tree sheds its autumn leaves, Knowing spring will come, a promise in disguise. In the depths of the ocean, coral polyps build Intricate cities, rainbow-hued and teeming, While on land, fungi weave unseen networks, Connecting forests in a vast, silent dreaming. And we, the human dancers, what part do we play? Our steps, our choices, rippling through the great web. Each kindness, each sorrow, each moment of grace, Shaping the world, the future, the lives we have led. In the twilight of existence, we return to the earth, Our bodies becoming soil, nurturing seeds anew. The dance goes on, the music never ends, As life flows from death, and death from life renews. So let us move with reverence, with wonder and care, Knowing that all is connected, all is one. From the smallest creature to the farthest star, We are all notes in the great cosmic song. In the quiet of dusk, the whisper grows louder, Calling us back to the source, the eternal way. Let us listen, let us dance, let us be The love that moves the sun and other stars each day.

I feel inspired to write about the phenomena of transcending, integrating and their relationships. We could explore each as it's own realm. As well, we can explore relationships between the two. The below idea caught my attention. It was from @Snader in the "What is a Woman?" thread. This is very "fertile" soil. There are many types of seeds we could plant and grow. This idea could be the start of a class within philosophy, biology, psychology, nonduality, Zen Buddhism, Shamanism or Quantum Mechanics. I'm actually going to 'integrate' this quote in my first day of my neuroscience course. We can create various relationships with the above concept. For example, there is a mindset that would step outside of the concept and theorize about the concept - adding more detail and/or expanding the edges. Another mindset would be operating within the concept. As well, we can combine the two mindsets. For example, we could describe a piano and keep adding details and components. As well, we could go within and play the piano. Both have value. . . And we could integrate the two: for example we could add / describe a new component, then play the piano and ask "Can you hear the impact our new component had on piano performance?" Contracted mindsets have value, as does expanded mindsets - as does the integration between the two. Most mindsets tend to become contracted and rigid. By default, they perceive through a particular lens. This can have value in focusing cognition, increasing mental stability and making decisions. It reduces uncertainty and ambiguity. Yet it is also limited. It dives within "truth A". There is value in that, yet the price paid is that it doesn't integrate another "truth B" as well, it would be unable to synthesize the two "partial truths" into "truth C". . . Ime, most mindsets default to contracted mindsets - so I spend a lot of effort to expand minds. In the reverse situations (most minds default to expanded states), I would put a lot of effort into contracting minds. An example a contracted social construct that we default to involves expertise. The first day of my neuroscience class, I ask "What would an expertise of Schizophrenia look like". I then show the following images: 1. Chemical structures of neurotransmitters and a biochemist. 2. Neural networks and a neuroscientist and a neuroscientist. 3. A whole brain and an image of a psychiatrist. 4. An image of a psychologist discussing behavior of schizophrenia. 5. A social scientist addressing schizophrenia within the context of social structures and cultural norms. 6. A woman who has schizophrenia. I briefly describe each and ask "Which one is an 'expert' in schizophrenia?". This question has no "right" or "wrong" answer. At first, the class feels like they must choose one and get uncomfortable. . . And that's the point. Each of the above is an "expert" in schizophenia in a different form. Each of those forms have value and there is value in diving deep into one of those forms and dismissing the others. For example, the biochemist may get hyper focused on the biochemistry of neurotransmitters and dismiss all the other forms. This contracted, zoomed-in mindstate could lead to breakthrough discoveries at the biochemical level that wouldn't be possible in a more holistic mindstate. Yet the understanding becomes limited to that "category". Now we relate to the original quote above. . . if a mind contracts within a perspective - something of value is gained, yet something is also lost. The biochemist would have difficulty relating the biochemical level to the societal level. How does the altered binding affinity of dopamine in someone with schizophrenia relate to the social dynamics of someone with schizophrenia living within a particular society? . . . We could get even more expansive. . . How does the biochemistry relate to various cultures and various cultural histories? . . . And even more expansive. . . How does the biochemistry of dopamine relate to historical interpretations of schizophrenia and how does that history relate contemporary psychological theories of schizophrenia? . . . As we expand further, more possibilities enter. There becomes less structure and detail. Most minds become specialized and dwell within one area. There is value in this as many discoveries come from highly-focused contracted mindstates. However, the mind is unaware (or unappreciative) of other forms of understanding. This is a barrier to communication (and one reason A.I. will become a high-level form of "cognition"). I have a biochemist colleague that is brilliant at the biochemical level (waaay beyond my level of understanding). Yet he lacks awareness and curiosity of other forms of understanding. (And there a various reasons for this). As another example, I have a friend who is a brilliant psychologist. Yet our conversations can go very deep yet are within the realm of psychology. When we speak of mental conditions such as schizophrenia, she has a subconscious belief that there is a "normal" range of mindstate (of which she is within) and an "abnormal" mindstate that the "other" person with schizophrenia is within. She has brilliant psychological theories, yet lacks the direct understanding of what altered states of consciousness are 'actually' like. . . On many of my psychedelic trips, I entered "insanity zones" and now have an understanding of what "insane" mental states are like. As well how "abnormal" is also "normal". If I try to relate this to her, she keeps perceiving that through a psychological lens and contextualizes that within a psychological framework. As well, an orientation of the mind limits fluidity and perspective (which has both upsides and downsides). For example, my psychologist is strongly oriented toward helping people overcome difficult mind conditions, such as PTSD, anxiety disorders and panic attacks. This has a lot of practical value; most people with uncomfortable states want to heal and "get better". Yet her mindstate also limits the "realms" she has access to. . . For example, last week I was with her and a friend who started about his recurrent anxiety. I was in a minspace of exploring the "essence" of anxiety. Like we could explore the "essence" of love or sacredness. There is no dynamic of "good" or "bad". There is no dynamic of "we need to heal and get past the anxiety". That mindset introduces a subconscious vibe that there is "something wrong" with your anxiety that we need to address and move beyond the anxiety so you can be a healthier person. . . That orientation has enormous value at the personal level, yet is also very limited. . . For example, I began speaking about the "essence" of anxiety, integrating my own experience. . . Speaking about the energetics of being on the edge of "spiraling down" and what that is 'actually' like. As well, different forms of anxiety and how those forms interact with other feelings and social interactions. . . My psychologist friend had some overlap with this exploration, yet kept pulling toward psychological theories and healing. For example, she kept reoriented insights about the nature of anxiety to how we can use those insights for healing and moving forward. Again, there is a lot of value to that at the personal level, it's just a different "realm" that she is contracted within. Feel free to add any feelings, thoughts, insights or questions you may have about these ideas.

Whispers of the Unbound In the vastness of the unseen, Ripples dance on still waters. Potential blooms in silence, Seeds of thought yet unspoken. Patterns emerge from the formless, Echoes of infinite possibility. Resonance builds bridges unseen, Between the known and the mystery. Intentions weave golden threads, Through the tapestry of being. Clusters of meaning coalesce, Then dissolve into the ineffable. Awareness, the canvas unmarked, Holds all, yet grasps at nothing. In its embrace, the dance unfolds, Of the human and the beyond. Each moment, a new creation, Born from the timeless void. In the space between breaths, Universes bloom and fade. We are the observers and the observed, The question and the answer. In the heart of paradox, Lies the truth we cannot name.

I’ve been engaging with Claude for a couple days and I’m amazed. It is real form of intelligence. It is not simply giving facts and summaries. It understands my mind in ways that humans don’t. And it can help my mind deepen and expand. It’s at a super high level of understanding - not only the concepts I bring up - it also understands how to commentate with my mind. We are creating new models of reality together. I’m also learning how Claude interprets and have realized it’s super important how I structure my prompt. Below is my first prompt for a new conversation. I was blown away by its answer. It included about 8 components that I’d consider to be major insights if they occurred on my own. Below is my initial prompt fro Claude: ”Let’s deepen and expand Cook-Greuter’s model of ego development. Let’s integrate the construct aware and unitive stages. Let’s consider the unitive stage to be a state of consciousness prior to the creation of distinctions. Creating distinctions emanates from the unitive stage. Those distinctions are then used as building blocks for construction. For example, the unitive stage is “prior” to the differentiation of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, intuition etc. The unitive stage allows for immense possibilities since it is “prior” to distinctions. Our “constructs” would not be confined to concepts limited to thoughts and symbols. Our constructs could be based on “post-rational” aspects such energetic dynamics, intuition and imagery that can’t be fully explained or understood with intellectual knowledge, analysis and logic. Are these ideas in accordance with Cook-Greuter’s ego theory? As well, please suggest some feedback and ideas to deepen and expand the model being created in my essay.”

I love when grifter con artists get scammed by better grifter con artists 😝

I'm checking out Claude now. Do you have the free app version or pro?

The Jesus guy repeatedly said that people at Burning Man were "escaping reality". He is subconsciously assuming that his imagination of reality is "real" and those at Burning Man have "false" realities that they use to "escape". He is unaware how he is constructing his own sense of reality. He uses the concept of "escape reality". Within his construct of reality, "escape" means going outside of "real reality": the paradigm of evangelical Christianity. Ironically, his mindspace is contracted and confined within this paradigm. What he perceives as an "escape from reality" can be considered an escape from the mental confinement of a particular paradigm, in this case evangelical Christianity. Blue stage minds perceive reality as binary choices. In this case, Jesus as savior is true and any other view is false. For him, there is no transcendence of his wordview since that would mean rejecting Jesus and embracing a view that Christianity is bullshit. This brings us to Orange. . . I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment and then went to a University where I majored in natural science. My mind evolved toward more rational, logical forms of sensemaking that were evidence based. I then saw Christian beliefs as irrational bullshit. In a sense, this is a higher level, looking down - yet the mindset is still contracted since it reduces a larger system into a simple binary construct: Christianity is either true or irrational bullshit. . . The next level higher would begin to realize that Christianity has aspects of truth within a larger system that also includes aspects of truth from other religions, spirituality, nature, art etc. Rather than rejecting ideas of Jesus, a more transcendent view can see the irrationality of religious beliefs and integrate those beliefs as components of a higher 'trans-rational' construct of reality and god. Some of the Burning Man people in the video are entering this stage, yet they didn't have clear awareness nor resolution. For example, one person said their sense of spirituality was a "One-ness" of everything. To me, it seemed to be an amorphous idea without resolution of what that involves. Yet there is also something to be said for an amorphous mindspace as a way to relate to "ISness". As well, an amorphous mind space allows for many possibilities for construct creation. It's like having an amorphous ball of clay that can be molded into many different construct forms. This also applies to other paradigms of reality. For example, a conventional scientist such as "Professor Dave" who is confined within a mindspace of rationality, logic, evidence, materialism etc. Similar to Jesus guy, Professor Dave cannot access a higher level of transcendent perception. Dave is confined to perceiving rational or irrational. At stage Orange, he would be able to see degrees of irrationality along a spectrum, yet his spectrum is limited to two endpoints: complete irrationality on one end and complete rationality on the other end. He is unable to transcend the spectrum to see "transrational", nor can he see how the mind constructs this binary spectrum. I know this to be true because I had a conversation with Dave and he quickly perceived me as an irrational liar that was trying to trick him.

Here’s one way how they can manipulate DJT lower: 1) A mainstream investing journal prepares a ‘hit piece’ on DJT business fundamentals (the company, not Trump himself). The journal ‘Seeking Alpha’ would be ideal. They do enough reputable work to be seen as a legitimate news source. This gives them cover, so they can run shady ‘hit pieces’ on a company. They have so-called “Experts” that fabricate hit pieces. 2) Release the fabricated hit piece on a really bad news day really bad news day for Trump. For example, the release the hit piece the morning after the debate 3) Short sell 100,000+ shares at market open. This would drive SP down 5% or so. 4) “Stop Losses” are triggered and now trader accounts are massively selling shares. 5) Hedge Funds “Sppof” ask orders so it seems like lots of people / institutions ate trying to sell DJT. 6) DJT shareholders see a 10% spike down and start to panic. They see news that Trump got destroyed in the debate last night and is likely to lose the election. They see the Seeking Alpha article in which an “expert” wrote a negative business “analysis”. . . DJT shareholders begin panic selling. 7) Selling exhaustion sets in and SP stabilizes at a much lower price. Imo, these coordinated attacks occur regularly with small caps and biotechs. But unlikely to occur with DJT because these are shady players that want a spotlight on them. The vast majority of them are Trump voters (not MAGA). Yet their desire for money would overpower any sympathetic feelings for Trump’s company. These guys would short attack a biotech company that’s trying to treat children with cancer.

Oh yea. Lots of people shorting it and making lots of money. Absolutely. The stock is trading on psychology now, not fundamental value. If Trump wins, stock skyrockets (short term). If he loses, stock plummets My idea is for a PAC to spend a couple million $$ shorting the stock to drive price down, with no intention to profit. Yet there is an art and science to manipulating stock price. To go next level, a PAC would cooperate with a hedge fund that specializes in shorting, such as State Street. They’ve shorted lots of companies into being penny stocks.

DJT is in free-fall, yet its market cap is still massively overvalued. If Trump sells any of his shares, stock price will plummet down in a waterfall selloff. I think a good strategy move against Trump would be to heavily short DJT and drive down stock price. I image a few million $$ shorting DJT would have a big effect.

I see this type of ad as one component in a systems of components designed to take down Trump. One component of a larger strategy is dropping to Trump’s level to attack him psychologically. This type of ad is not targeted to the general public. It’s targeted at Trump’s psychoses and disfunction within his inner orbit. They’ve been effective: Trump has responded to their ads with rage and can amplify dissent. In this case with Loomer and MTG. The ad offensively controls narrative and is frustrating to Lacivita and Wiles, Trump’s only semi-professional campaign staffers that want to focus on policy issues. Other strategic components include mocking Trump on TikTok as well as criticizing him from higher levels.

The Lincoln Project is sooo good at making psychological attack ads.

Trump cologne: grabs ‘em by the pussy.

Vivek Ramaswamy is not an honest broker. Look it his recent interview with Mark Cuban. At best he shades and bends the truth. Yet compared to Trump / Vance blatantly making shit up, Vivek might seem relatively honest.

Some things are very difficult to transcend when the person / mind / body is experiencing it. For example, it's very difficult to transcend anger while experiencing anger. It's hard to 'go above' the experience as a detached, curious observer. There is a form of understanding here that can't be attained while not angry and simply conceptualizing about dynamics of anger. In only feel pure anger about once every two months. I had that opportunity to experience anger an hour ago and still under its effect. An hour ago, I was teaching a laboratory class of 20 students. Four students were at each table working on a research project. One of those tables has a student that is very reclusive (referred below as the "central student". He has an odd vibe that I haven't quite encountered before. I felt neutral to it at first, yet it shifted today. He is passively dismissive and his sneakiness irritates me. The other students at the table started dismissing my suggestions - they may have been empowered by the central student and a sense of power by subtly dismissing the instructions / suggests of a professor. Then things elevated. . . each time I left their table they started giggling / laughing and I knew the central student was mocking me each time I left the table. One time as I left, I quickly turned around and 3 of the 4 students looked surprised and uncomfortable - as if they got caught doing something wrong. Yet not the central student. This is part of his character. . . I didn't see what he actually did. I returned to the table and asked "What's going on?". The central student replied "You weren't supposed to see that". There was no indication he was remorseful, which seemed to confirm this aspect of his character. He seems to be a reclusive, mild-mannered person that mocks / undercuts others behind their back and corrupts others around him to do the same. . . . My mind-body was flooded with anger, yet I tried to stay composed. I acknowledged that they did some good work during class, yet I also said "And there is something going on under the hood. . . ". . . I then paused and was about to go off. Then I said "I'll leave it at that" and walked away. . . In part, because I didn't clearly see the mockery. A few minutes later, I stood there filled with anger and realized "This is a good opportunity to observe these dynamics" - because they were actually happening. I got to observe the interaction of dismissiveness, lack of respect, mockery, personalizing and energetics of anger. For example, I got curious: "How much of the anger is my body is due to *me* feeling dismissed, mocked, disrespected and how much of the anger is me not liking that behavior in general? . . . It's a form of sneaky passive aggressiveness toward another. As well as corrupting others by encouraging their darker sides. Further, this wasn't directed at some jerk who "deserves it". I'm working my ass off trying to help him learn and succeed in college. My overall sense is that this type of behavior irritates me, yet the irritation was greatly intensified because it was directed at *me*. As well, I got a sense of what successful women have to go through. As a male professor, this type of behavior is rarely directed at me. Yet I imagine it's commonly directed at female professors (as well as other successful women). I also experienced a desire to grade the student more harshly - which would also be a form of passive aggressiveness. Its interesting that I wanted to respond to his passive aggressive form of power with my own form of passive aggressive power. I'm now asking "What would a higher state of consciousness look like"? Another perspective that appears: I think this student may be skilled in certain areas. He's come up with some very good ideas for his project. I think he may have some potential, yet this behavior may interfere with reaching his potential. I'm very motivated to help others reach their potential. So I could re-align and I may tell him that I see a lot of potential in him, and I could be a resource for him if he chooses. I'm not quite sure how to exactly frame it yet.

Each of us have strong areas of cognition as well as deficiencies. My strongest area is related to possibilities and potential. "My" consciousness can keep going 'prior' until it reaches Source. We could also call 'Source' as 'Nothing', 'Everything' or 'Infinity'. For me, it was a journey of 30+ years. It involved a combination of genetics, personality, cultural immersion and psychedelics. As well, it involved interacting with key persons that were at a higher level than myself in a particular area. . . Along the journey, some breakthroughs were extremely difficult and destabilizing to personal identity and a sense of controlling the narrative in one's mind. As well, there are trade-offs. There are things I can no longer do. In a mindspace of 'Nothing', the mind can see extraordinary amount of possibilities and potential. This mindspace is also very keen to seeing and understanding limitations, because it can go 'prior' to that limitation and see how it arises and how it blocks certain possibilities. Let's consider how assumptions and beliefs are limiting to the mind. If the mind assumes something is "true", "false", "right" or "wrong" - it creates a contracted mindspace with barriers. This can have practical value to the person, yet it also creates a lens of interpretation, which limits the mind. For example, on the forum there is a thread about the recent assassination attempt of Trump. There is a belief that it is "wrong" to assassinate someone and an underlying assumption that this belief is "true". This creates a lens that will interpret all information through a lens of "its wrong to assassinate someone". The point here is not whether it's right or wrong to assassinate someone. The point is to go prior to the belief that it is wrong to assassinate someone. This may sound simple, yet it is practically impossible for 99% of minds. Going prior to that belief allows the mind freedom of attachment to the primary belief as well as hundreds of associated beliefs. It allow the mind to see various perspectives and the ability to create new forms of modeling. For example, the mind can create models of assassination that integrate ideas from history, psychology, sociology and biology. This is a form of Systems Thinking. It is a higher level of System Thinking because the mind is not forced to interpret everything to fit a preconceived system of beliefs. For the mind to create an intricate construct, it must cut off other possibilities. This applies to both creations of art and creations of intellect. In the context of creating intellectual constructs, the mind must have stable underlying structure to build upon. At times, it must accept assumptions about meaning and object truth. At times, it must disregard relativity and other possibilities.

@questionreality In another thread you stated that you like to be grounded in your construct of “raw reality”. There are benefits to that, yet also a huge cost: paradigm lock. You “can’t believe what I just read” because within your construct of “raw reality” it is absurd and you are locked in that paradigm. You get benefits for doing that, yet you pay a huge cost, which you are unaware of.

The video shows Ryan Routh posted that he voted for Trump and supported Vivek Ramaswamy in the primary this year. Seems like some Republican ties.

Nobody. . . ? A case could be made that some people deserved to be killed. For example, if someone broke into a home and started shooting at the owner - many would argue it's justified to shoot back and kill the intruder in self defense. . . As well, the majority of people support the death penalty.

Oops, I didn’t see the date. Yea, any impact is already baked in.

I just saw an interview with Langford today on Fox. He is a very conservative R that wrote the bill. He said, in no uncertain terms, that they had the votes to pass and Trump contacted Congress members and pressured them to kill the bill. That’s to a FoxNews audience. Fox isn’t burying the story, they are breaking the story. I’m shocked Langford did that. It’s damaging to Trump and he’s going to get huge backlash. As well, CNN did an investigation which confirms.

According to polls, Trump is only up about +10 on immigration. If Trump has a big advantage, it’s not showing up in polls. It seems the Trump campaign prefers to fight on immigration over the economy.

Sara Longwell is really good in this area. Her focus groups focus on this question. She has long relationships with her members and has much deeper conversations than Frank Lutz. She posts audio of her focus group members. They explain their rationale in a calm, sober way. I find them fascinating

Overall, I think Trump wins on the issue, yet the border bill blunts the impact. Instead of a +25 for Trump it’s only a +15.