Fran11

I'm not opposed to these kind of solutions per se, but I a line must be drawn at some point becouse it is impossible to allow everybody to legally force everybody else to respect their identifications. Also, trans gender and trans age are notions that deppend on prior social stereotypes in continuos revision and deconstruction. So my guess is that probably in the future these will be discarded and only the freedoms that they allowed will remain, without changing an irrelevant label becausd stereotypes will be gone. This may take generations.

Yeah we can make guesses but who's really to say? We'll have to wait and see... It is close-minded either to discard anything or to totally buy into every random green-sounding thing.

Exactly. With the "Green rising", along with the real social progress, inevitabily appear a lot of extremist ideas and proposals that aren't of much value and will latter be descarded. This is totally natural and it happens as we struggle to find the new equilibrium. But of course arguing against these extremist ideas with Green may cause him to percieve you as being conservative.

Also, underdeveloped societies are usually the ones with the "eye for an eye" philosophy (look at the punishments they use in Middle East, some parts of Africa and some parts of Latinoamerica), and criminal activity is still higher than on more developed regions. It doesn't solve anything.

You must differentiate punsihment from protecting other people. Punishment for the sake of it, is low conciousness, because it ignores the external factors (genetics, enviroment) that led the person to commit the crime. It's just revenge seeking. Regading actions in order to protect others being insuficient, because of S. Green fanatism maybe, is a different regard and it depends on where you live. I also judge them to be insuficient in my country.

The problem is where do we draw the line. Shoule we allow everyone to legally force everybody else to validate wether self-perceptions they have? Evidentely, this would be far too impractical. But of course there's value in using the power of goverment in order to help correcting social issues. Like preferential hires like you said. It's a delicate balance in my opinion.

It's reinforcing them in a way. If I am old and happen to like things that society considers to be "for younger people", by changing my age I'm actually convalidating that these things are in fact for yonger people. If people don't get offended by someone asking them the very thing they are pushing society to deny, there would be no problem. But that's too optimistic in my experience.

That's why I think we should work on deconstructing these social sterotypes instead. By education, for example. Age/height/weight do have important uses and implications taken as biological facts. We would lose that if we allow people to just change them instead of attacking the real root problem.

You can identify yourself the way you want, the point is if you should be able to legally force the rest of society to conform with your perceptions. An advanced spiritual practicioner also feels ageless, and doesn't need society to validate this. This, on the other hand, seems to me just pathologic denial of bodily age, and wanting society to validate this for you.

Gender IS a complex social construct. Age/weight/height HAVE complex social constructs attached to them. These constructs and steretypes do exist and require social evolution in order to be trascended (which is slowly happening). But it's nonsense allowing people to legally modify these raw variables just because they feel like.

But I want people to periceve it longer and tell it to me, while keeping it exactly as it is, like with age change. No, I have a post on that and I'm even more progressive than most. Trans-age on the other hand seems ridiculous to me.

I've alway felt my d*ck is five inches longer, where do I change it legally? Metrics are a social construct after all... Please, this is a good example of Stage Green excesses.

Some people have a hard time telling masculine and femenine energies appart from more supperficial social costumes like clothing, grooming, etc. First learn to identify both energies in yourself and also see how the balance it's not static buy they vary. You should work towards being able to move across the spectrum at will according to the needs of the moment, just like sometimes you need to be more left-brained and sometimes more right-brained. That's what Sadhguru means IMO. Neglecting either side of the spectrum is unhealthy for both sexes. If you are mindful about it, you will see many man you wouldn't consider to be girly are actually quite near the center.

Everything that can be, is. Everything that cannot be, is not.

How do you do your self-inquiry exactly? Anyway, if you stay in deep concentration long enough, it will naturally deepen into Savikalpa Samadhi (ego death achieved using a support object). Not the best kind of ego-death for God realisation, but still it's quite deep.

A bit off topic but yes, appearences can be said to be absolute because they are an aspect of the absolute. Or relative because they are changeful in our experience. None of this terms does justice to reality, so whatever. In the other topic I was refering to the relativity of linguistic truths specifically, different subject.

"Pain" is a linguist concept of course, but it points to a relative distinction in conciousness. Again, animals don't have a language and still they experience what we call pain.

Oh thanks I clearly didn't understand that. Thanks for dispelling my ignorance Lord Jesus.

I didn't say that. I said as long as there are senses there will be imaginary distinctions in conciousness. You can realise that they are still an aspect of the one conciousness. Consider that if an enlightened person's conciousness didn't differentiate colours, he wouldn't be able to see.

Awake and see.

God of course. Pain and pleasure are both God

Yes. A sensation, like you said above. In the absolute sense they are always the same, wether you label them or not. But in the relative sense they are not the same, also wether you label them or not. Colors won't suddenly look all the same to you just because you stop labeling them. Conciousness creates reality by imagining distinctions, these are not to be confused with our human mental distinctions. As long as you are experiencing the senses, relative distinctions in conciousness will invariably be there.

I try to find the point but all I read are assumptions about me. Will I recieve the actual argument by email?

Yes. The animal kingdom clearly shows that conciousness designed certain objects of perception to be inherently painful or pleasent prior to the arising of these labels.

Again, only applies to humans.