Forestluv

Non-binary is not a green value. The green values are the recognition and inclusion of the relative existence of non-binary beings.

There is further expansion. One can be exploring Room 227 of a Grand Hotel. There is a subjective sense of exploration, discovery and forming holistic views as they explore Room 227, yet they haven't realized they are in Room 227. . .

For sure. This enters into the realm of ISness. So much to explore

You are missing the point. The point has nothing to do with rules, shoulds, shouldnts, guilt, shame or apologies. Yet that is the lens words are going through. If someone insists on wearing a red pair of glasses, they will interpret everything as red. They will not see orange, purple, pink, magenta, violet. . . If one asks "What is color?" and defends Red-ness, they won't see other colors people are trying to show. . . There is nothing wrong with red, yet the person will be missing out on a lot. This can create inner-turmoil. You are assuming I am wearing a blue pair of glasses trying to tell you that my blue is real and your red is unreal. This is not the case, yet through a red lens it is the case.

Who/what would identify as God? Identification requires separation. "I am X" means "I am not Y". There is something prior to that. Who/what is this "you" that is identifying as God?

@Mason Riggle Very nice. I like that imagery. What do you think of these basic stages? Stage 1: the person on the left can only see the six. They are attached/indentified of being a six. They debate and argue with others that it is a six. Stage 2: After years of arguing Six-ness, the person is getting worn out of the inner-turmoil and inter-personal conflict. One day they question their assumption and ask "What if it isn't just a six? What if there is another way of looking at it?". Stage 3: Intellectually realizing that there is another way to perceive the six and it could be perceived as a nine. However, there is still subconscious attachment that "it could be seen as a nine, yet it is really a six". The key here is that this is a subconscious belief. There is not awareness of this filter. Stage 4: The person has a false sense of "knowing". They are limited to an intellectual understanding that it could be perceived as a nine. They continue to intellectually argue for six-ness. Then there is a realization that "I am missing something". A curiosity and openness to explore what's missing arises. Stage 5: The person gains direct experience. For example, the person lives in a community of Nines. One day he sees the Nine and directly experiences Nine-ness. For a moment, there is Nine-ness and the person "gets it". . This is a profound experience that can trigger a groundless existential crisis. The person may think "What is real Six or Nine? Does this mean I am a Six or a Nine?". Stage 6: Attachment to Six vs. Nine dissolves. There is liberation from personal attachment to Six. A new realm of transcendent exploration opens up. Transcendent questions arise like "Who/What painted that number? What was their intention? Was the intention a Six or Nine? Or perhaps the intention was to allow awakening? . . What type of conditioning is necessary to become attached to being a Six or Nine? How does one de-condition the mind to awaken?"

Be careful with conflating absolute and relative. The truth is both simple and complex. . . In the car metaphor I've been using, we could say "It's all the One car. It's simple". That is one view. Yet there is another view. The car is also very complex. Within that One car there are many parts interacting with each other. It's takes years of study and work to understand the individual functions of each part and how all the parts interact with each other to give rise to a car. To understand a car, one would also need to study all the different ways in which a car could break down and what that appears as relative to the function of the car. As well, there are many different forms of cars that have similarities and differences. If we ask "What is a car"? We can have a simple answer that "All the parts are a car" or a complex answer that explores are the parts of a car and the inter-relatedness. There are also degrees of complexity. I'm not interested in deeply exploring car complexity. However, a car mechanic is very interested in exploring car complexity. The problem isn't so much about a holistic simple answer like "all the parts of the car are One" or a more complex answer like "a car engine is composed of five main parts". The problem arises when there is conflation between the two. When someone says "The radiator is the car. Talk about all these other car parts is mental masturbation. The Truth of the radiator as car is simple. There is no need to make it more complex". This would be a conflation between relative (the radiator as a part) and absolute (One car). In this example, there is no identification, so it is easily understood. No one thinks "I am the radiator. The radiator is mine and I need to protect the view as the radiator is the car". Without attachment/identification, there is space to explore and learn about different parts of a car and how they inter-relate. Yet if a mind is contracted and attached within the conflation that the "radiator is the car", various mechanisms arise to protect that contraction. One protective mechanism is "It's simple: the radiator is the car". The attachment to such a conflation will maintain contraction and block expansion. . . Another protective mechanism is to interpret expansion as anti-radiator. If someone points out "The radiator isn't the only part of the car. Look there is also the windshield". A contracted mind may interpret this as "No, the radiator is the car. Not the windshield. You are saying the radiator is not the car which is not true". The human mind is conditioned to think in opposites. This puts the mind in a situation in which it thinks it must choose between the radiator being the car or the windshield being the car. If the person is attached to the radiator being the car and sees the windshield being the car as an opposing threat - they will enter a defensive mode to protect their view that the radiator is the car.

You seem to be oriented toward debating opposing view points in a rational matter with evidence, facts, proof etc. That's fine. There is value in that. I am more oriented toward exploration, discovery and forming integrative, holistic ideas. We aren't on the same frequency, which happens. Personifying points can be helpful in certain contexts, yet it can also be unhelpful in certain contexts. For example, telling someone "you are Orange" can be helpful if the person has desire and openness to observe the personal "you" part. For me, this is the deepest part - the actual issue of the debate is usually secondary. Yet it depends on context. On a forum with a mission of consciousness evolution, the "you" part is usually primary for me. If I was on a committee designing public policy, the content could be primary. In contrast, personifying points can be unhelpful. For example, telling someone "you are Orange" can be interpreted through a personal filter. When there is attachment/identification to the view, the personality is center-stage. The personality may think "He thinks he is so smart, well he isn't. He is being unfair to me. He doesn't consider my view. He is trying to make me look bad. He can't prove my points are wrong". Inter-personal communication through personal filters is a very common. It is the vast majority of communication. There is a his view and my view in opposition. Ime, debating opposing views have practical value in certain contexts - yet debate/arguing is very inefficient in learning, expanding and creating integrative, holistic views. Debating/Arguing over whether the radiator or alternator is the car is very inefficient in learning about all the parts of the car and how all the parts inter-relate to give rise to an emergent entity of the car. To me, the main inefficiency comes through personalization. If one person thinks "I am the radiator, I am the car" and the other person thinks "I am the alternator, I am the car". The "I am" association creates a new dynamic. Those two people debating whether the radiator or alternator is the car will not be able to see their contraction. They will not be able to see that both the radiator and alternator are the car and there are actually other parts of the car - and how all these parts fit together. . . This is how my mind is oriented. Others have a different orientation, which is fine. Not everyone resonates with each other.

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong and what you should or shouldn't do. The discussion is about cultural appropriation. I am saying that your view is incomplete. . . Imagine if we are having a conversation about how a car works and someone says "The car is the radiator and I am going to behave like the car is the radiator". . . This is a limited, incomplete view. If the person wants to learn about how a car works, they would need to expand beyond "The car is the radiator". They would need to realize the other parts of the car and how they work together. If someone insists that the car is the radiator, it will cause confusion and turmoil. For example, if the car's alternator is broken it will cause confusion because the person is trying to fix the radiator and can't figure out what's happening. @Key Elements Those are great points about resolving bigger picture issues in relationships.

@Key ElementsYou make good points, yet we are in different realms. ?

This is a such an inhumane distorted view. . . . I've lived in a poverty-stricken Honduran village with intense human suffering. I know Hondurans in the caravan that came to the U.S. You have no idea what it is like there, who these people are, their reality and what motivates them to risk their lives and their children's lives to walk thousands of miles to seek asylum in the U.S. These parents’ deepest desire is to give their children a way out of their suffering. They are willing to work extremely hard and sacrifice themselves. Among them are some of the most humble, kind and loving people I’ve met. You have no direct experience or empathic understanding of the suffering and the immense amount of love they have for their children. To suggest that Central American parents are causing unnecessary trauma to their children and that U.S. border patrol is separating the children from their parents and putting them in cages to protect the children from further trauma being caused by their parents is profoundly grotesque. And you don’t know what it’s like to have no voice. If you did, you wouldn’t use your voice as you do now.

Nice question. Some imagery comes to mind. . . Do you know your entire body? Sure you do. Yet do you know the specific weight of glycogen stored in your liver? Of course not. It's not that kind of knowing. It is a transcendent body awareness type of knowing. . . Another metaphor might be: each of your fingertips has localized sensation yet there is a higher order knowing of those sensations. All of your fingers are part of the same organism called you. Yet at the finger level, each finger is limited in scope of sensation and awareness. Similarly, each human being is a "finger" on a giant organism. Yet at the human level, each human is limited in scope of sensation and awareness. . . You are essentially asking about how this magic trick works. . .

I like this example of an inter-personal dynamic. It's a bit different than the dynamic I was pointing to. To me, the situation you describe is one in which someone made a personal life decision that you can see, in hindsight, was not the best decision for his personality. In this context, I would take the same approach. I would not bring attention to previous decisions that led to personal hardship. It just wouldn't be right. The context I'm referring to is a bit different. . . Imagine a couple is having some marital challenges and the woman becomes so distraught she approaches her husband and says "We really need to have a heart-to-heart talk". The husband replies "Well, the heart is an organ in the body. Two hearts would have difficulty talking with each other". She sighs and says "We've been having marital problems and we never share our feeling with each other. We need to open up and share our feelings with each other". The husband replies "Oh. I feel that communicating about feelings can have a positive impact in a relationship. I read a study that showed couples that are open with their feelings have a 35% less chance of divorce. I read another study that showed expressing feelings through crying can increase oxytocin levels by 22%, which makes sense because oxytocin has been shown to promote human bonding". She responds "No, this isn't an intellectual analysis I'm pointing to. I'm feeling powerless in our relationship and I want for us to share our feelings with each other. How have you been feeling?". The husband replies "Well, I've been feeling tired from working overtime this week. Yet my knee has been feeling better. I think the physical therapy is helping. Thanks for asking". For anyone that has a basic level of emotional intelligence, it would be totally obvious that the husband is incapable of having a heart-to-heart discussion. The husband is unaware of this. Yet it is obvious to others that husband is incapable of an emotional mode of communication and forming inter-personal bonding. One doesn't need to know anything about the life history of the husband. One doesn't need to be a marriage counselor. It is obvious. . . To me, it would not be helpful to argue with the husband about the study with oxytocin. This is a distraction and will just further contract him. I think it would be much more beneficial to help him become aware of his emotions and help him communicate those emotions. It would be beneficial to releasing personal turmoil as well as developing a healthier relationship with his wife. If he insists on arguing about the oxytocin study, there just isn't much we can do. . . Yet there is another dynamic. The husband goes to work and starts telling his friends that women are stupid emotional dingbats that can't think rationally and they cause all the problems in relationships. His buddies say "Yea, they've got nothing to bitch about. They are just making it all up. Dumb broads". This is now spreading from the level of an individual consciousness to the level of a social consciousness. Now, it isn't just about the individual. There is a social component. It's not just about the husband anymore. Even if the husband is closed down, we can shed light so there isn't contraction within the social consciousness. We may say something like "Hey Harry, I sometimes opening up about feelings can help a relationship. I went through a workshop on emotional mastery and it really helped me communicate on an emotional level with my wife. Our relationship has improved". . . Even if Harry is closed down and wants to argue about the oxytocin study, this intervention can help transform the dynamic such that Harry's co-workers will not become hyper-contracted and may even get curious about emotional mastery and how that might help them.

No. . . Imagine you are fluent in Spanish and English. You are talking with someone in English and switch to Spanish. The other person is unable to speak Spanish. It is completely obvious to you that the other person has a deficiency in Spanish. . . Secondly, important aspects of Green lie outside of the ideology. An essence of Green is emotion, love, creativity, empathy, equality, inclusion and intuition. These are not ideologies. These are modes of being. A very important part of green in non-intellectual. This is why actual direct experience is so important. Things like volunteering for marginalized victims of abuse, volunteering with people with psychiatric disorders or living in a marginalized poor community. This is not found in textbooks or debated on internet forums. It is learned and embodied through actual direct experience. . As well, it is not adherence to a single perspective/ideology. Yellow is a dance of ideologies with no owner.

Yellow is tier2 and has made significant progress in dissolving personal identity and attachment/identification to perspectives. As well, an integrated yellow understands green, since they have embodied green. So generally there isn't the same type of inter-personal dynamic as in tier1. Integrated Yellow is able to communicate well with green (if they have embodied green). If it was a yellow that was strong intellect with weak green embodiment, Green would definitely pick up on the Green deficiency. I would consider Ken Wilber to be an intellectually heavy Yellow, with Green deficiencies. Green would be able to pick up on this, yet there isn't a much inter-personal conflict if the Green-deficient Yellow person has partial transcendence of the personality construct (they would not have strong attachment/identification to a particular perspective). So if a Green was picking up on Wilber's green deficiency, they could still explore together. It wouldn't be a debate like with a Green and Orange. Beings centered below Yellow will have a difficult time recognizing Yellow. However this is the first stage of transitioning into Tier2. The person will start to recognize aspects of Yellow, yet they will not be able to naturally operate as Yellow on their own. At this stage it's really important to have as many conversations with a Yellow-centered person as possible. These are open-minded explorations. Yet this requires a partial dissolution of attachment/identification to a particular perceptive. Yellow is addicted to new perspectives and integrating perspectives. Yellow wants to discover new perspectives. Yellow is an integrative machine and has orgasms creating integrative holistic constructs. Yet only someone at Green will be open to this. Someone centered at Orange will still be too attached/identified to their contracted view. For someone transitioning into Yellow trying to observe Yellow here are a few cues: A Yellow-centered person will see value in the other person's perspective and be able to see that view in the larger context. They will say things like "Yes, that is a piece of the puzzle from one perspective. There is more going on that has value in creating an integrated holistic view.". A yellow person may point at why another view is contracted. Yellow also understands the relativity of perspectives and is not attached to a particular perspective. Yet not just intellectually - Yellow doesn't just integrate intellectual concepts - Yellow also integrates modes of being. For example, intellect, empathy, intuition etc. In a conversation about racism, Yellow will understand multiple perspectives on racism and want to integrate them. Yellow will also know from direct experience to be racist and be subjected to racism. This is a very high level of development and would require one to realize their own subconscious racism as well as put themselves in situations in which they are subjected to racism. . . This is a very different orientation than Orange. Orange will be pre-dominantly intellectual and will not see the relativity of their argument. Orange has attachment/identification to a perspective that they are unaware of. Orange will be defensive regarding their perspective and interpret things personally (since they have not transcended their personality construct). Orange will want to debate and defend their view and will personalize things. Orange will say things like "You think you are so evolved", "You are criticizing me and don't even know me".

No, Green understands cultural appropriation and the harm it causes to marginalized groups. This isn't just an intellectual thing. You will need to evolve beyond an Orange level intellectual analysis. You are giving an Orange-level argument. It is essentially the "color blind" argument. That is: we should be color-blind and just see everyone as individuals. At an Orange level, that is resistance to Green - resistance to understanding/embodying the relative experience of others - in particular marginalized/ostracized groups. . . At stage yellow, there can be a return of the "color blind" perspective, yet it is integrated with understanding/emodiment of Green - which your argument lacks. That is Orange looking up and Green. It is a major misunderstanding of cultural appropriation. This is a major block that filters out A LOT. . . It filters out a lot of overt prejudice and filters out implicit biases. Imo, this is one of the major Orange lenses that creates distortion and resistance to Green. This is one dynamic that can be included in an integrated Yellow-level view. The problem is that you haven't emodied/integrated Green, so it becomes a contracted Orange-level view. You are hyper-focused on Orange-level individual consciousness and are not seeing the integration of individual and collective consciousness. As a more extreme example to make the point: it would be like saying being a black slave is just the personification of being part of a slave group - it's an idea that you can attribute the attributes of a slavery group to every individual slave. This fails to consider both individual and group dynamics. . . It is an Orange view that is resistance to evolution up to Green. Orange logical arguments can be very intellectually sophisticated. Orange can go into genius zones. Yet it isn't Yellow, in part because it doesn't have understanding/embodiment of Green and doesn't integrate Green. Reading about Green and intellectually analyzing Green is not Green and will not lead to embodiment.

@Zizzero You are missing understanding and embodiment of relativity. This begins at stage Green and deepens into yellow. You only understand/embody your perspective and your relative experience and are making Orange level logical/analytical arguments. LGBTQ and non-binary are marginalized and face prejudice - yet you don't see this due to being contracted into a single personal perspective that excludes relativity integration. If you had a life history of being LGBTQ, you would have a very different perspective. Yet you cannot imagine this. Part of this involves empathic knowing, which starts at stage green. (Empathic knowing is distinct from compassion or sympathy). In addition to relativity, your argument also filters out power dynamics between minority marginalized/ostracized groups and majority privileged groups. This would reveal the false equivalencies of comparing the mocking of a Trump supporter to the mocking of LGBTQ. However, realizing this would mean letting go of attachment/identification to a contracted personal perspective. Orange-level logical arguments protecting that limited perspective will keep a mind contracted. You can remain contracted or you can expand. The choice is yours. No one here can make you do it.

Beautiful report, thank you. After such a mind expanding experience, the mind will attempt to make sense of it within a finite mind. It will create a contextualized experience. This can have practical value at the human level, yet keep in mind it is a contextualization. As well, it could have little practical value to the human. I have a shelf full of whacky psychedelic experiences I never fully integrated The Aya experience is Truth and a non-Aya experience is Truth. By asking asking whether the realizations are Truth or a belief/idea or imaginary is creating a duality. The psychedelic experience is as True as the sober experience. My second Aya ceremony was also "out-of-this-world, where do I even begin?". Yet I knew it was as real as sober reality. I just knew. I didn't need any verification or proof. There was simply Knowing, prior to constructs of truth, belief, idea etc. Yet, it still felt like another world. Gradually, with integration, the two worlds moved closer and closer together until they became One. Personally, I find sensational psychedelics with strong visuals to be mind expanding, yet a distraction to Absolute Truth. For me, 5-meo is the clearest.

Every thing is a partial truth. Everything is Truth. It is super common for the mind to seek Absolute Truth in a perceptual relative world. Conflating absolute and relative often causes inner turmoil.

Visibility is really important to transition from marginalized to included. Some forms of visibility are more helpful. I wouldn't consider painting crosswalks to be the best, yet I wouldn't personally interpret it as saying in other words, "There, take That!". Although at times a "There, take That!" type of message can be helpful empowerment to a marginalized group. Imagine being marginalized and ostracized your entire life, then one day having an opportunity to express yourself. Empowering marginalized people is is a key component. Another key component is to educate the majority and give the majority some space to grow/evolve. I would consider better forms of visibility to be things like LGBTQ events, pride parade, perhaps positive "celebrate diversity" signs, rainbow flags, bumper stickers, LGBTQ artwork in restaurants/cafes, LGBTQ shirts. It's important for it to be visible, yet also to naturally integrate within a multi-cultural environment. So somewhat subtle, yet not too subtle.

In terms of increasing inclusiveness and equality there is an interplay between state effort and federal effort. For example, states where the driving force in the inclusion of inter-racial and same-sex marriage. One by one, individual states voted to allow inter-racial and same-sex marriage. After enough states did so, a threshold hold was reached that triggered the federal government to step in a legalize inter-racial and same-sex marriage. This was a big step because about half the states still banned inter-racial / same-sex marriage and would have continued to do so for decades. There are southern states that certainly would still have bans on same-sex marriage without federal intervention. So it was an interplay between states initiating the movement and then feds putting it in over the top. Sometimes, it is necessary for the federal level to enter earlier and provide assistance. An example would be de-segregation. Several municipalities/states were trying to implement de-segregation - such as busing. Yet they did not have the resources to pull it off successfully. The strength of the federal government was necessary to allow de-segregation progress. . . A conservative tactic to resist such progress is the "State Rights" argument. Segregationists used this argument alot - not through a genuine desire for state autonomy - yet for a disingenuous desire to resist de-segregation. It is very context dependent. Regarding LGBTQ inclusion and equality: of course we don't want to promote inclusion/inequality in a way that puts people's health at risk. If road paint increases the risks of accidents, it shouldn't be allowed for any cause. We should be promoting LGBTQ inclusion and equality in a safe manner.

Your question is "are others *real*"? So we would need to define what "real" is. If I asked "Are others tragluf?", we would first need to define what tragluf is before we can determine if others are tragluf. You say that real means "they are the same entities like me" and unreal means "they are projections". How can we determine if another is a "same entity" or "projection"? If we keep asking this question and dig deeper and deeper, we will end up in a relative circle. This is a good way to collapse a duality and realize there is no objective truth. Ultimately, real = unreal. You are creating relative distinctions.

@Matt8800 A few things to unpack here. I am not saying your points are wrong, I'm saying they are components within a bigger picture. It is like the brakes of a car. There is nothing wrong with the brakes - yet they are just one component within a larger picture. We wouldn't say "the brakes are not the car", nor would we say "the brakes are the car". The breaks are within the car. To better understand the overall car, one would need to let go of the idea that the brakes (and only the brakes) are the car. I'll offer just another perspective. It is doesn't resonate and isn't helpful, feel free to ditch it. This is also a contracted view. You did add the term "extreme", yet the underlying suggestion in the views you've expressed is that this narrative is not extreme. It is the basis of how you have been defining cultural appropriation. If this is an extreme perspective of cultural appropriation, we shouldn't give it much weight in understanding the true essence of cultural appropriation. We should the majority of our time examining the true essence of cultural appropriation. For example, I can define environmentalism as extreme groups blowing up SUVs. I can call it "extreme", yet if I limit myself to this extreme definition I cannot learn about true environmentalism. I would think things like "Can you believe those environmentalists that blew up those SUVs? Environmentalists are so dangerous. I am going to spend all day watching environmentalists blow up SUVs. I'm going to watch the court cases that convict those criminal environmentalists. It's awful. We should ban environmentalism." . . .This view is very contracted and will not allow us to explore the vast world of the environmental movement and to learn/understand what the environmental movement is really about. Similarly, we can contract ourselves into an extreme view of cultural appropriation - yet this will prevent us from exploring cultural appropriation and to learn/understand what it is really about. . . Once the awareness of contraction is revealed, it is a personal choice of whether to stay contracted or to expand. If I had the view that "the environmental movement is about blowing up SUVs" and it was revealed to me that blowing up SUVs is just a small extreme component of environmentalism and that there is much more going on with the environmental movement - I now have a choice. I can choose to stay contracted within my view or I can choose to expand. Nobody can force you or me to expand. The person needs to be open and have desire. Yet this can be difficult. If I was raised my whole life that environmentalists are dangerous criminals to may blow up my SUV and threaten my survival - I will be conditioned to see the environmental movement through that lens. Intellectual theory may be insufficient to break that lifetime of conditioning. One may need more, for example to join an environmental conservation group. Perhaps join the Peace Corp in live in a rain forest for a while. This type of thing can help de-condition prior conditioning. Regarding the definition you offered: Cultural appropriation is a nuanced topic that is context dependent. If you are looking for a black and white definition, it will be very limited. That is stage Blue. I provided a link to an entry-level perspective of cultural appropriation, yet you don't seem interested. You seem more interested in protecting the boundaries of a contracted view. That is fine. Yet you won't expand that way. The choice is yours. I can't make you read the article or explore more. This is the opposite of my point. Core dynamics of cultural appropriation is an oppressor group and oppressed group - and there is an inherent dynamic. The privileged group (related to the oppressor group) has the privilege of setting the narrative - NOT the oppressed group. That is the key of the power dynamic. What you observed is an expression of this power dynamic. Your googling revealed the narrative being exclusive set by the privileged group. That is an aspect of privileged and the privileged group generally isn't even aware of it. This gets to one core of the issue. Why do the privelidge group get to set the narrative? It doesn't matter what that narrative is. The narrative could be that any time a white person does anything from another culture it is cultural appropriation. The narrative could be that all white people are guilty of cultural appropriation and we should pay reparations. The narrative could be that cultural appropriation is a bogus theory mad up by guilty white people. What the narrative is is irrelevant. What matters here is that the privileged group (white people) gets to set the narrative of what cultural appropriation is and that those actually being expressed do not have equal input. This is an essence of marginalization and inequality. A striking example would be with slavery dynamics in which white people were the where not enslaved and black people were enslaved. The privileged group is white people. White people had the privilege of setting the narrative of the ethics of slavery and what types of rights. White slave owners said slavery was ethical and white abolitionists said slavery was unethical. White segregationists said black people should not have equal rights and white anti-segregationists said black people should have equal rights. The point isn't the narrative. The point is that white people had the privilege and power to set the narrative and decide the ethics of slavery and what racism is. The oppressed slaves were marginalized and didn't have input into the ethics of slavery or what racism is. And they were the ones being oppressed!! If anyone should have a say in what oppression is it is those being oppressed. It would be like an alcoholic father abusing and beating his wife/children. . . and the father gets to decide what counts as "abuse". It is really important that the wife and children have a voice. However this would be threatening to the father who has the power in an inequal power dynamic. This is what made MLK and the civil rights movement so powerful. For the first time in American history, the oppressed, marginalized group was able to have a voice about segregation and rights. . . Similarly, it is important that the marginalized, oppressed groups have a say in what cultural appropriation is - yet most of the privileged group will not like that because they want to control the narrative (whatever that narrative may be). So it's important to include input from oppressed groups when creating these constructs, yet we don't want to go to an extreme and put the entire burden on them. For example, to ask black people to define what cultural appropriation and racism is - so the majority group doesn't have to put any effort into the conversation. Unfortunately, the voice of oppressed Native American groups is marginalized. You offer one form of cultural appropriation: "Using sacred objects in profane ways with no respect for the sacred.". I think most would agree that this is cultural appropriation. Yet what you are doing is setting up a blue-level bimodal "either / or" construct of cultural appropriation. This is very limiting in that it limits the discussion to two extreme poles. You are filtering out many aspects of degree, nuance and contexts. To expand one would need to let go of attachment to the binary construct and explore. Yet that decision is up to the person, no one can force the person to expand. Who is this "One" you are referring to? In a binary system, this "One" would be an extreme, strawman position - which happens when a duality is reduced to "either / or" extremes. What you are calling "cultural appropriation" is really really contracted. I would also consider it distorted. In the context of what you have described, I wouldn't consider it cultural appropriation. Yet there are many nuances and you don't seem interested in exploring the issue.

@wesyasz How do you distinguish between real and unreal?

If the highest desire is to awaken to Truth for Truth's sake, it doesn't matter. If you are concerned that spiritual progress will mean poverty, then that's where you are. Honor that. You are not some greedy rich narcissist worried that spirituality means you won't be able to screw people over. You are a person that has lived in poverty that genuinely wants to grow spiritually, yet also wants to meet basic survival needs for yourself and those you love. . . That is love and there is plenty of room on the spiritual path for that orientation. I would be mindful of seeking others to awaken yourself. Others may reveal blocks, limitations and traps within yourself. Yet this is your unique path. There is no outside person that has arrived to God realization that will lift you up to your final destination as God. Every person is merely a pointer. Some may point to release traps, others may point into traps. As you grow, you will outgrow teachers and become more and more your own teacher. . . You have already arrived, yet haven't realized it yet. Awakening can only occur Here and Now. The journey is the destination. . . . The human feels lost and has a deep desire to find home. Home is returning to Now. Yet without that realization it seems like there is a journey to a destination. This is the spiritual path and part of the human experience. . . Along the path, beware of thought stories. . . Trust your inner guide. Your intuition. What resonates with you. This is your maze to transcend.