Parththakkar12

Some additional points about human systems : Every human system needs a leader. Without a leader, the system doesn't move forward and do what it needs to do. So you need someone directing/leading the system. Say I'm the leader in a system and you're also part of it. I think that we should go left, and you think we should go right. Because I'm the leader here, we will go left. Thus by definition, the leader has the most power in the system. Also, we can't have everyone be a leader in the system, as everyone has different opinions and decisions will never be concretely made. I'm not 100% sure about this one, but I think a system can have only one leader. Now you may give me a counterexample of corporations having a board of directors, but I think that each member on that board leads their own systems, and there still is one CEO whose decision is final and binding. Please correct me on this if I'm wrong. I think that being a creator/designer of a system is an even more powerful position than being the leader!

I want to share some insights on systemic change. A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something. A system must consist of three kinds of things : elements, interconnections and a function or purpose. (Quoting from 'Thinking in Systems' by Donella Meadows) A system of humans can be looked at in an analogous manner to a system of interconnected parts of a mechanical machine with gears, crankshafts, wheels, axles, etc. So, if we look at a system of humans, which is also a collective ego, (from a certain perspective) the elements are human beings. The slots where the elements are would be analogous to roles that humans play in a human system. In a human system, unlike a machine, every role/component has certain degrees of freedom in the system, in the sense that there are specific limited ways that every role can alter the configuration of the system. For example, say you have a worker working a menial job with a very specific job-description. No executive power, very little agency when it comes to deciding their job-description, etc. The only way they can alter the system is by leaving their job, i.e. the system would then have to let them go and find someone to replace them. Every role also has certain constraints which the system imposes on it, because by definition of a role, it is limited. Now, lets look at an oppressive system. There can be many definitions to this, but my definition is : a hierarchical system in which the people above don't consider the perspective/best interests of the people below before making decisions that impact the system. The system is set up to suppress the voices of the people in lower positions such that the people in higher positions can get away with selfishly controlling the system to their advantage. A democratic system, on the other hand, would be one in which the authorities hear the voices of the people and consider them as important when making executive decisions. There's 3 types of roles in the systems I'm talking about : Roles whose voices aren't considered important to the decision-making process of the higher-ups. Examples of these are daily-wage workers, manual labourers, etc. These people are typically SD Stage Blue people who just blindly follow authority. They, in fact, may even prefer a system that doesn't depend on their opinion as that makes their job/survival simpler! Having an 'oppressive system' here may be beneficial to the overall system even if it exploits individuals. For example, if you're an army in a battlefield, you want the commander to just be able to give orders with the confidence that their soldiers will just blindly follow them without questioning them. Roles whose voices are considered important to the decision-making process of the higher-ups. Examples of these are union-workers, people 'holding authority accountable', all sorts of activists, exposers, whistle-blowers, etc. (SD Stage Green) These people want the authority above them to consider their best interests when making executive decisions, i.e. they don't really want to be calling the shots per se but they want to be a part of a more democratic decision-making process. Essentially they want the authority to take care of them, but they have their eyes open to potential exploitation. Some of them may even want to break down the hierarchy cuz they just see authority as a bad thing, like everyone should have an equal say in every decision. This would be the death of the system, as it lets go of the different and unique roles inherent in the system. Roles who are actually the ones calling the shots, with or without considering the best interests of the individuals below them depending on the types of relationships between lower and higher positions. If we're looking to solve systemic oppression/create social change, what we're essentially looking to do is to create a new system, which does the survival functions of the old system and more, which is a viable alternative to the old system. We can use ideas which we like from the old system and let go of stuff we don't like about it, so we're not completely demonizing the old system. Whether the old one gets replaced by the new one is out of our control, as that is for the collective to decide. Please feel free to add your analysis to this/ask questions.

I don't think we're ready for UBI yet. The way our collective egos survive, the powerful people of the world will just somehow use it as yet another tool to exploit those with lesser power. Collectively it's a low consciousness society with low consciousness leaders. The real way to go about this would be for people to do really well in the capitalist economy, so much so that the amount of money everyone has would be next to infinite (in an idealization). Thus everyone can get whatever they want and we aren't killing each other for power. This will require thousands of years of raising of collective consciousness and for every individual to take responsibility for the collective (which conscious business/life purpose is all about in today's date).

@Milos Uzelac Wasn't specifically directed at you. Interesting to see it rings a bell for you though!

That is the whole point! That's why this would work to create real change. This may require you to wake up to God-consciousness, or the reality that you are the creator of your world.

@Milos Uzelac A lot of what you're saying like holding authority accountable, waking up to injustices on a social level happens at Green. This includes forming unions, dissidence towards corporations who don't really care about them and so on. Blue, on the other hand, just blindly obeys authority without questioning it! It's very easy to exploit the Blue collective ego for Orange corporations. Blue people don't really give a damn about anything except just going about their day and not upsetting the status quo too much. Now they will suffer the most because of this, but I still feel that if they don't evolve quickly enough, there's no saving them from this.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/01/coronavirus-trump-considering-halting-us-flights-between-hot-spots.html We know Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about what's going on. My question is, why are we expecting better from him?! Lets just get ourselves a bag of popcorn and watch the shit-show unfold! Then, when the dust settles, lets peek outside from under our little shells and decide what to do about the mess.

Most celebrities are spreading the message that 'You should wash your hands, adhere to social distancing, etc.' So yeah they are using their fame to help the situation!

Is this considered a 'conspiracy theory' in America? Here in India (especially the medical community) it's considered a fact. We have contacts in Wuhan who attest to this. Of course China won't tell this to anyone.

My mom is a doctor. This knowledge is what she bases her treatment on!

The medical community says that it was China's weapon of biological warfare which accidentally got leaked and spread first in China and then the rest of the world!

Just a thought...

This is an interesting point. I want to add to this : It's possible to be very highly intelligent at any stage! Here's what intelligence looks at seemingly not-so-smart stages : Red : Really good con-artistry, white-collar crime, manipulation, conscious and deliberate gaslighting, really good planning and execution of crimes, professional crime, ability to keep corruption under wraps, creating and managing a cult, exploiting loopholes in the law, etc. Blue : Smart justifications for why they have the Absolute Truth, why they're a good person, why they're right, keeping the status quo

While analyzing this systemically, we need to also remember that the reasoning of most people doesn't really go much deeper and nuanced than 'Rapists should be in jail' and 'Men should be taught to respect women'. It didn't previously occur to me that your reasoning was that simplistic @Preety_India . It's not the 'one right way of looking at this issue' like you've been portraying it. I've been talking about it in much more complex systemic terms. The root causes of these issues go a lot deeper than this. Feel free to re-read my comments.

Projections don't help either tho... I conclude my piece with this.

Okay. I understand what you're saying. My point though, is that men aren't these evil masterminds orchestrating master-plans on how to oppress women for fun! Men have their own chauvinistic role to fill according to the patriarchy and are struggling to break out of it themselves. The patriarchy doesn't help men a lot either. For the most part, men are in the same boat relative to the patriarchy! Every single female issue has a mirror opposite male issue. It can't not be that way in a universe based on oneness.

First of all, they're not necessarily my issues. Secondly, good luck resolving your issues by holding up separation between male issues and female issues! They're mirror images of each other.

I'm here to tell you : it's disempowering for men too. It's an archaic system that everyone's been programmed with and very few people question. You can debate all day whether men get affected more or women (apples or oranges) but the fact remains that men are also programmed to make major sacrifices for the system. Do you really think men don't get taught to respect women?! It's very strict like you're not allowed to be sexual towards anyone. That's part of the problem.

Of course it means to empower men!! Do you really think men feel empowered by the patriarchy?! Hell no!! Men face shaming for 'being a player' or 'being a harasser' if they just initiate dating. Men or women don't really have sexual autonomy here. Of course you gotta fit into the chauvinistic mould! Initiating dating is seen as 'being disrespectful towards women'. The whole parenting strategy and value system sets you up to be the best candidate for an arranged marriage. The issue is created by the collective, but will be conclusively resolved on an individual level by those who care about it.

Women who follow the current social structure have very legit reasons for that. The patriarchy is one of the most central institutions of survival here. Family values have been a huge deal from a survival perspective. Now shifts need to happen and are happening, so the smoothest transition would be to create new systems of survival that don't require the old patriarchy. This will take a lot of consciousness from progressives and patience with the general herd, allowing them to evolve at their own pace. Believe me, I would change this overnight if I could! Newer generations are standing on the shoulders of bigger giants though so it's not fully hopeless.

We Indians really value our moral characters. Therefore if someone triggers shame in us, we will perceive it as a threat to our character and respond defensively/aggressively with moral indignation! We need to learn to give each other the benefit of doubt in such conversations, that it's all well-intentioned.

Nobody is entitled to a safe world from universal perspective! The reality is that this is a jungle, where we're all vulnerable to each other. The rules of the jungle are : Everyones out for their own. Now I may care about your safety individually, but this doesn't change the rules of the jungle! You have 2 options : either wait for the world to make it better, or initiate it yourself.

Oh man! Equal representation in positions of power is a long way coming. There's more pressing issues right now, like dowry, female infanticide, equal opportunity for education for boys and girls, the whole institution of arranged marriage, etc. I distinctly remember that when I was in school, my school had twice the number of boys than girls. That can't possibly be an accident!

I never said it's easy. We're in the dark ages and we've got a long long way to go. However, the reality is, that nobody can empower you except yourself. Empowerment is inherent and it's chosen. Maybe it means stepping into your power to reject dangerous men, maybe it means finding a way to exit this society, maybe it means finding some compromises (I don't prefer this one) with the patriarchy but choosing to do so instead of feeling like you had to. I wish we could change people!! It'd be really nice if we could. This isn't the reality we live in though. Change is gonna have to start with the individual cuz that's all you individually have control over. I understand it's really fucked up. This is what all of us are responsible for creating, men and women. I'm not saying you should become empowered. That's entirely your choice and it's valid either way. I'm just suggesting a way out of this mess!