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.