Forestluv

Yes, adults too. In crowded unsanitary conditions. It is especially traumatic to children that are separated from their parents and kept in cages. It is child abuse.

@Emerald Thank you for your comments. Good stuff. Conservatives generally have a binary mode of thinking, such as left vs. right. Us vs. them. Saving the life of an unborn vs. killing an unborn. Guns legal vs. Guns illegal. . . This are all very simple binary constructs. In general, conservatives are not into nuances. When I communicate with conservatives in this frame of mind, this is their mode of operandi - so I need to speak this language. My conversations with progressives are very different, because they are very comfortable using spectrums and relativity. And this is a great example of what I am referring to. Framing it such that change is always better is a binary construct. Of course change is not always better. It depends on the change. Changing laws to pollute air and water would not be better for most people. As well, the term "better" is relative. Of course change will not be better to conservatives. Freeing slaves was not better for slave owners. In general, progressive ideas are relatively better - yet they won't be perceived as better by everyone. For example, progressive believe in inclusion and equality for LGBTQ. Many conservatives don't like this and don't see it as better. They see LGBTQ as immoral, weird or against god's will. They are correct from their relative perspective. However this is a limited perspective. When a person expands to understand other people's relative perspective and experience, they understand how LGBTQ inclusion and equality is relatively better. Yet this isn't something that a conservative will be able to see. They would need to develop things like rational thinking and empathy. The key to understand various perspectives - intellectually, emotionally and through direct experience. For example if you asked me "How do you know that LGBTQ acceptance is the right direction?". I could give a logical explanation, yet it is much deeper than that. There are aspects of direct experience, empathy and intuition that are involved. Conservatives want no change, moderates want incremental change and progressives want rapid change. Yet there could come a point in which highly rapid change becomes counter-productive. However, the problem is when this argument is used to obstruct and try to maintain "traditions" and "hierarchies". Ahhh looksie, just like you do next. . . This argument of "preserving traditions" has been used by conservatives through history against any social change. For example, "preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage". This argument was used to obstruct inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage. If we allow blacks and whites to marry and *gasp* have children there will be social instability. If we allows gay people to raise children there will be social instability!!! If we allow women to leave the kitchen and enter the workforce, there will be social instability!! The list goes on and on and on. . . Conservatives are on the wrong side of history time and time again. Don't let that inhibit your personal development and growth. You are painting liberals with a broad stroke. I think you make a good point in that Orange and Green can be condescending to Blue. However, sometimes this seems unavoidable. For example, I've had conversations with conservatives that see gender as being either male or female. . . masculine or feminine. When I try to explain gender and sexual orientation spectrums, I've been accused of being a "know-it-all" and showing them no respect for their views. . . It's like someone believing men or either tall or short and explaining that their is a spectrum of height that ranges from short to tall and then getting accused of being a "know-it-all" that doesn't respect their view. Sometimes conservatives are such snowflakes. . . It is the general orientation for conservatives to perceive in binary constructs. If you compare Trump rallies/FoxNews to TYT/Majority report, it is completely obvious that conservatives are more oriented toward black and white thinking. Progressives are much more nuanced. I think there is a good point in here. Progressives can at times stigmatize right-wing people and I think they could do a better job at allowing space for growth. For example, right-wing nationalists or men with masculinity issues. At times, I don't think it's best to shame them as racists or toxic masculinity. There are underlying issues of concerns. For example, gender roles have changed a lot over the last generation and a lot of men are confused about what it means to be a man these days - this can bring up a lot of insecurity and a sense of not belonging. This can be amplified if they are called "toxic men". As well, some white men see a decline in their place in society with diversity and immigration. It can be feel like they are losing their culture, causing a sense of powerlessness and fear. In some contexts, I don't think it's best label them as bad people destroying society. At times, we need to allow safe space for such men to explore their underlying issues and grow. For example, Obama had social programs for white nationalists - these were safe spaces for white nationalists to work through their issues with people that understood (former white nationalists and people trained in this area).

The logic of math uses symbols. There is no need to imagine someone constructing that logic or symbols. Logic can be completely impersonal, just like listening to music or admiring a flower.

According to consciousness models, that would be very rare. For example, bimodal thinking would be considered a lower level than continuum thinking. Once a person understands continuum thinking, they don't reject that and regress back to pure bimodal thinking. For example, someone might believe that all people are either good or bad. This is bimodal. They may evolve and realize that a person can have good aspects and bad aspects. Once a person realizes this, they very rarely regress. Similarly, liberal/progressive would be at a higher conscious level than conservative. I think by liberal, you might be referring to a high Orange form of liberalism, rather than a Green progressive level. . . Is it possible for a person to evolve to Orange politically and then regress back down to Blue? I would say yes, but with caveats. There are several different lines of development and a person is a mixture of various levels - we say they are "centered" at one level. So a person can have aspects of Orange along one line of development, such as cognitive - yet be Blue centered emotionally and have Blue shadow issues. As well, it is possible to regress if one did not fully transcend/embody a level and is inundated in a lower level. For example, someone might have developed aspects of Orange at a surface level, yet regress because there were actually underlying Blue values and they live in a Blue-centered environment and watch blue-level FoxNews. For example, someone might buy an electric car. This may seem like a progressive thing to do. Yet it depends on the underlying value. If someone buys an electric car because it was marked down 40% or to be popular with their peers, that is Orange. If someone buys an electric car because it is a natural expression of their connection and concern for the environment - that is Green. Progressives were very critical of Obama during the Edward Snowden whistle-blowing. Much more so than Trump supporters are critical of Trump. Green has a higher level of critical thinking than Blue. As well, Green will have a lower level of identification than Blue to a political person. Yet this doesn't mean there is no identification. It is just less. For example, Trump supporters tolerate lies and corruption from their candidates than Green. For the current standing of Blue, it is more about identity, bimodal culture constructs and "owning the libs". Green gets much more upset when their candidates lie and show corruption.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The traditional use of the term "ego" refers to an attachment/identification to a self construct. In this context, I wouldn't see the cognitive function of logic to be enhanced by ego. For example, when I use logic to solve genetics problems, it is egoless and I am very present. Adding in egoic dynamics would make the process much less efficient. Related to what you are saying. . . logic would be stage Orange, while post-logic modes such as creativity, empathy, intuition would be Green and above. So in this context, logic would be a deterrent. For example, a person contracted in logic would have a difficult time exploring creativity, empathy and intuition.

As I said, I simplified the example and there are nuances. As you state, there can be a continuum between "Real News" and "Fake News". It's not a simple binary thing. As well, plenty of progressives would consider FoxNews as "Fake News". I've seen the term "FauxNews". Trump constantly labels all news he sees as personally unfavorable as "Fake News", this allows his supporters to dismiss any news not favorable to Trump. . . Does that mean Trump is 100% wrong and all news is 100% accurate? Of course not. It's not a bimodal thing like that. Part of what makes Trump so effective with his supporters is that there are nuggets of truth in his devilry. In terms of SD conscious levels of news, I would rank FoxNews as red/blue/orange, CNN/ABC as orange and Majority Report and TYT as green. Each level higher, there will be less demonization and "Fakeness". Yet no one level is pure. It's like saying 12th graders and more mature than 6th graders. This doesn't mean that 12th graders cannot be immature. However saying "both sides" are immature removes an aspect of relativity and creates a false equivalency. The 6th graders will love this false equivalency and the 12th graders will detest the false equivalency. Similarly, red/blue conservatives will use more false equivalencies than green progressives to equalize the relatively unequal conscious levels. And it will bother progressives. Regarding the Mueller. . . Mueller has repeatedly stated that he did not investigate "collusion" - which is not a legal concept. "Collusion" is a nonlegal media concept. Regarding illegal conspiracy, Mueller stated he found insufficient evidence to establish an illegal conspiracy. There were improper interactions between Trump's team and Russia, yet illegal conspiracy is a high specific bar and there was insufficient evidence for the specific crime of illegal conspiracy. Yet this does not mean that there was not improper and concerning interactions between Trump's team and Russia. Well he did. Trump admitted directly soliciting help from Ukraine for a thing that was of personal value and the telephone document validates his admission. That is illegal. At this point, Trump and his defenders are arguing that his behavior was justified. Sometimes acting illegally is justified. In this case, I don't think his justification for committing a crime is sufficient. In another context, I would say that Edward Snowden's illegal acts were justified. For those that think the conscious level of FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC etc. is too low, there is a thread of higher conscious news sources in this subforum.

I'm not referring to hedonism either. There can be a form of joy in sadness.

No. You are viewing it as a universal objective truth - which is it is not. That idea of enlightenment has practical level at one level - yet it is relative. It is a relative view of enlightenment within a larger Truth. Failure to see this can create an "enlightenment story" that the seeker seeks. It has relative benefits, yet also a source of turmoil. The definition you offered is pretty close to how the term "enlightenment" is used on the forum - and that has practical value. Yet we could easily find other definitions of enlightenment. Or we could create others ourselves. That is the nature of relativity.

I would say this is only one variable. Yet it is not only for the wealthy and privileged. Anyone that is perceives themselves as benefiting from Trump could also be mesmerized by the reality TV show. Look at a Trump rally. . . Conflict, drama, rage, us vs. them. As you mentioned, those that are suffering in Trump's reality TV show will won't out. Caged children on the border are not going to be into it. As well, some people will get sick of watching a gruesome demented reality TV show and will want it to stop. That is all part of the drama and conflict. . .

It's not just a politics thing. And I'm not aware of a book pointing to it. Various speakers point to it in various ways. It's not just intellectual. Also intuitive. A simpler example would be: Imagine a person that believes the moon landing was fake. He is full-on deep believing it was a government conspiracy. You say that there seems to be evidence that the moon landing was real. He says all that evidence is bullshit and part of the government conspiracy. He demands that you"show me" the evidence. . . With this orientation, how will any evidence be interpreted? As fake of course. This person has a lens through which any evidence will be interpreted as being fake. If you show him video footage of the moon landing. . . fake. If you introduce him to the astronaut that landed on the moon, he will say this astronaut is fake and part of the conspiracy. With this filter, everything that supports the conspiracy is "true" and anything that argues against the conspiracy is "fake". . . At this point, whether the moon landing was real or not is a secondary issue. The primary issue is for the person to become aware of their lens. Without that awareness, they won't be able to see clearly. This is why Trump's "Fake News" crusade is so effective for his followers. They can dismiss any evidence counter to the pre-conceived reality as fake. This example is very either / or for simplicity. There are further nuances like relativity of truth that could be further explored.

@Maycol Some nice insights in there. Thanks. Yes and No. You are creating that difference. You are creating a thing called an "enlightened one" and giving that thing attributes such as "knowing the Truth about Reality" and "doesn't suffer". Nothing wrong with that, yet be aware of what you are doing. You are making it up. Your image of an "enlightened one" may have practical value at the personal level, yet it's also a creation like within a dream. I also use the term "enlightened one" - it has relative value in some contexts. Yet it is relative - both true and false.

I think there is actually something to this. Trump is good for ratings - he knows it, promotes it and exploits it. Trump's reality show presidency can complete with sporting events, Game of Thrones etc. From a certain Orange level perspective, there is value in this and it helped Trump get elected. . . The reality show presidency doesn't need to be all peaches and cream. That would actually reduce ratings. Imagine if Game of Thrones was all positive. Everything worked smoothly and everyone was in harmony. No tension or conflict. The show would bomb. Just like all the conflict and drama helps GoT in the ratings. all the conflict and drama in Trump's presidency helps the ratings of his reality TV presidency. It's an unfortunate aspect of red/Orange. It's one reason Trump is a conflict magnet.

This is a great question from a human perspective. The mechanisms of "how" are interesting to study. I spend a lot of time studying mechanisms. Yet I think you are missing something transcendent to the mechanisms. A lot of your questions in recent threads all seem rooted in this transcendence. Questions about cause/effect, mechanisms, time and space are all related to this transcendence. We can add in an entity called "god", yet this isn't much different than adding in an entity like "physical laws". I would say adding in a concept of a god entity would add more complications since it adds in the concept of intention. I'm not saying your questions are wrong or have no value. I'm saying there is another "something". For example, imagine being in Paris and asking how France creates Paris. Then someone replies that France is in Europe. If the person is contracted within France and is unaware of Europe, this will be very confusing. The person will keep saying "No, what I'm asking about is how does France create Paris?". . . There is nothing wrong with asking how France creates Paris. It's a great question we can pursue. Yet if the person is unaware of how France is in Europe, their exploration will be very confusing. One must expand to a higher, more expansive level of consciousness. You essentially start off your question "If Paris is in France. . . " and are restricting yourself in a contraction. Nothing wrong with this, yet you won't expand within this contraction. When you say "If God is not separate from us. . . " Full stop. If God is not separate it is Everything. There is no creator or creation. There is no God and us. There is no God and trees, pencils, animals, etc. I think this is the part that you are missing. There may be a cognitive logical understanding, yet not a deeper embodiment understanding through direct experience. You don't seem satisfied with this. To me, it seems like "Yea, yea. God is Everything. I get that. So how does God create Everything and not know it is creating Everything?". This is missing what Everything is. You've got the separation part down. You are missing the non-separation part. . . If God is Everything, how can God create anything? There is no separation between God and any thing. There is no creator to create. Your confusion about God is God. All mechanistic details of how God creates stuff is God. Whatever is happening is God. There is no way to step outside of God and point to God. Illusion is God. What is real is God. . . This is very dissatisfying at the human level. It is a trans-human level and the human mind will not want to make this transcendence. It requires a surrender. As well, the opposite of everything I wrote is also True. Yet to me you already have that part down. You already have the separation part down - with lots of curiosity about things like cause/effect and mechanism. From my POV, the next big revelation will not come from intellectually figuring out relative "how's", it will come through direct experience of Everything. Then it comes together: Absolute Everything = Nothing = Now. And facets of absolute are revealed. Absolute Perfection, Absolute Peace, Absolute Love, Absolute God etc. It's not an intellectual thing because intellect is within the relative (which paradoxically is also Everything, God etc). . . In other words, it's like you are asking "How can I figure out Absolute through the relative". It doesn't work that way because Relative is within Absolute and Relative is Absolute. Somewhat similar to how France is within Europe. Once cannot awaken to Europe if they are contracted within France. Yet paradoxically, France is not separate from Europe - it is within Europe.

The law states that a president cannot solicit a foreign government for a thing of value toward an election. The term "value" is relative, yet I think most people agree that an investigation into a political opponent in an election would be a thing of "value". So there are two parts, the solicitation part and the value part. No one is debating the solicitation part. Even Trump himself has admitted this. As well, very few people are arguing the value part. The argument that an investigation into Biden is not a thing of value toward Trump's re-election is extremely weak. Republicans aren't even arguing for this. So Trump directly solicited Ukraine (which Trump himself admits) for a thing of value toward his campaign (which virtually noone is arguing against at this point). So, this is a crime - unless one can argue no thing of value to Trump was involved. However, just because it is a crime doesn't mean it wasn't justified. This is a separate issue. One can commit a crime in a justified manner. Or, there can be two opposing laws. The whistleblower Edward Snowden found himself in such a dilemma. There were laws of confidentiality within the NSA as well as laws to uphold the constitution. Edward Snowden broke a confidentiality law to uphold a higher law of the constitution. There can be other situations in which it is justified to break a law. For example, suppose Biden was plotting with Ukranian terrorists to drop nuclear bombs on the United States in a week. Trump could have decided that this matter was so important and urgent he had to call Zelensky and ask for help. He would be breaking the law to do so, yet believe he is justified in doing so, because going through the proper channels of the CIA or Justice Department would take too long. . . Here one could argue that it is justified to break the law to save the country from nuclear destruction. In this context, I would agree. The argument that Trump didn't break this law is incredibly weak. Trump and his defenders are not arguing that there was no thing of value - they are arguing that Trump's behavior was justified. They are also trying to conflate breaking the law with justification. These are two separate issues, yet Trump's team is trying to conflate the issue that justification means no law was broken. However, there is a distinction. . . So, was Trump breaking the law justified? I can see an argument both ways, yet I would lean toward "no". If Trump believed this was a matter of national concern, he could have gone through the proper channels - yet he did not - he called Zelensky and directly solicited. I don't think this is justified. This is not a case of such impeding urgent danger to our national security that Trump could not have worked through proper channels. We are talking about wether Biden's son should have been on a Ukranian gas company board making lots of money. Hunter Biden was obviously unqualified for this position and only received the high paying position due to being the son of the vice president. This is unethical and worthy of investigation, yet imo not at a level of such extreme national urgency to justify Trump breaking a law. . . The second issue is that Biden spoke in favor of firing an Ukranian prosecutor. This Ukranian prosecuter was seen a corrupt by the Western World. All international groups were calling for his termination, including the IMF for goodness sake. One could claim that Biden was speaking on behalf of the international community. There is a lot of support for this - in particular the international community wanted the prosecutor fired and wanted the vice president of the U.S. to speak on behalf of the international community. As well, there are criminal issues regarding extortion and cover ups. In cases of extortion, the power dynamics are very important. The Ukraine is a very small country with a small military (on the level of Sri Lanka) trying to defend itself from it's neighbor - Russia, which is imperialistic and much more powerful. The U.S. is orders of magnitude more powerful than Ukraine. So the context here is that there is an extreme power imbalance. The U.S. is thousands of times more powerful than Ukraine. And Ukraine is in dire need of 400m of U.S. military aid. There survival is dependent on this aid. The House has authority to allocate this aid to the Ukraine. Trump took an unprecedented step and blocked this aid. Again, this is not the proper channel. The House determines foreign aid. Days after blocking the aid, Trump called Zelensky to ask for two favors. The power dynamic is important for determining extortion. . . Trump starts off by saying how good the U.S. has been to the Ukraine and that Ukraine has not reciprocated to the U.S. Zelensky brings up the issue of military aid and Trump pivots toward asking for favors. . . To me, this sounds like a strong case of extortion - which would be a second crime. Extortion cases don't involve the perpetrator specifically saying "I'm going to cut you off from all aid unless you do me a favor". No extortionist is that stupid, including Trump. Extortion cases lay out just like this one. There is a power imbalance and the more powerful player witholds something from the weaker player. Then says something like "We've been good to you and you haven't been doing enough. I want a favor. . . ". Or they may make a "suggestion" or "request". Yet in the larger context it is extortion and this seems to be a strong case of extortion.

Part tongue-in-cheek. Part something deeper. But not in a rational/logical way. More like an intuitive, synchronicity kind of way.

@krockerman Those are some nice insights. One thing I’ve noticed is expecting happiness or peace to look a certain way. One day, I was listening to some sad music and started feeling sad. They were really heartfelt songs - like about loving someone really deeply and the sorrow of losing that person. I felt deep sadness of the human experience in life. Yet it was also really beautiful. I was in this space for hours. Later, I met my girlfriend and she said “Oh no, you look sad. What’s wrong? Let’s get you happy”. . . The weird thing was, that nothing was “wrong” and I didn’t need to get happy. The sadness was really beautiful form of sadness. In a way, I was already happy. I didn’t want to change it. There was a deep form of happiness and peace. Not the kind of happiness like getting a present you want. Something deeper deeper than that. Like a happiness of deeply connecting to other human beings.

No one is advocating a zero diplomacy policy with North Korea. It’s not a good thing for Trump to be cozying up to dictators like jong, Putin and MbS. This sends the wrong message and leads to decay of democratic systems. Dictators that can act oppressively without consequence will be emboldened - as we are seeing now. You say there is no point in just ignoring evil and walking away from it. That is exactly what Trump has done with jong, Putin and MbS. He has even tacitly supported the evil at times.

@Emerald Do you think Bernie’s lack of establishment/corporate support would hurt him in the general? Warren seems to be positioning herself so that she is at least tolerable to establishment/corporate. Under Warren, they would need to get a haircut, yet the main capitalistic power structure would remain. Bernie also has more courage than any other candidate. For example, he held a rally in deep red Kentucky to shame McConnell in his own backyard.

Trump’s non-verbal communication is one of his skills - yet it cuts both ways. It is both attractive and repulsive. And I think you are under-appreciating Bernie’s nonverbal. Bernie also has a non-verbal vibe that will resonate with a large portion of the electorate. He also also good intuition. His spontaneous “I wrote the damn bill” during the debate absolutely flattened Tim Ryan and was inspirational to a lot of people that are fed up. He would do the same to Trump. This may not resonate with you, yet it does with a lot of others. Bernie would get massive energetic crowds that want to be part of a revolution. I don’t see Bernie’s strongest asset as logical arguments. That is Warren’s wheelhouse. Bernie shouts things out like “500,000 people went bankrupt this year because of corrupt health insurance crooks stealing your money!, And we are not going to take it anymore!”. Trump may inspire his base more because he divides people culturally. This will ignite more passion due to fear and hate. One of Trump’s boogeymen are scary Hispanic men that want to steal our jobs and rape our women. “But we won’t let them!!”. Bernie’s boogeyman is a faceless corporate CEO that has too much wealth and power. That’s not going to generate as much fear and emotion.

@Emerald It would be amazing to see the contrast of Bernie’s pure real populism and Trump’s polluted fake populism on a debate stage. Trump can try to paint Bernie as a scary socialist, yet not as a corrupt politician. And trump has recently been quoting as saying beating socialist populism won’t be a slam dunk like originally thought.

I agree, yet I’m not sure about impeachment proceedings. I could see them going toward Clinton or Nixon. Or something in between. My concern is that republicans are much better at messaging than establishment dems. So I can see it benefiting him. Yet I think no impeachment proceedings would benefit him more.

@whoareyou There seems to be a shift since Trump entered the picture. Things seem much more about identity and emotion rather than rational discussions about facts. Theatrics over substance. Reality TV. Trump is a master at this. Dems suck at it. This is my major concern with them bungling impeachment. They will try to make the hearings about substance and have poor theatrics. I have a similar concern with Bernie. He does not have the theatrics. However, there is an energy that he inspires. I think he is the purist candidate and calls it like it is. This was one reason Trump is popular - his supporters feel like he calls it like it is and that he doesn’t try to be politically correct. . . My bigger concern about Bernie is that he is too far from corporations and mainstream media. I actually like that, yet I think it would hurt him in a general. . .

@Emerald In terms of the election, I think there are potential of risk/rewards with impeachment. I lean toward impeachment because I think the risks of no impeachment outweigh potential benefits. As well, I think it is the right thing to do on principles. . . I would place establishment dems a bit further to the left than you do. High Orange on the SD scale - a level lower than progressives. I also see the toxic orange aspects you describe. Yet, I also err toward seeing good in people. At times I’m naive and slow to see the mal intent in others. @Cocolove Thanks. It can be hard to explain some things in a way that connects with people. It is one of my yearnings and I hope to get better at it. I appreciate that you see potential. ?

@Emerald I agree that establishment corporate dems are more concerned about their their electoral power than doing the right thing. By impeaching Trump over this, they get a three for one. They damage Trump by exposing his wrongdoings, they deflect the wrongdoings of Biden and they inhibit interference that would help trump in the 2020 election. If polling had shown 60% of the population supported impeachment, proceedings would have started a long time ago because it would have helped establishment dems. In terms of progress, I think the top priority is to get Sanders or Warren in the WH and fundamentally change the narrative to progressive. And then put the focus on corporate/political corruption. I think Biden will fade on his own without the Ukraine stuff. I think Trump’s wrong doings related to Russia, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia is worth pursuing for various reasons.

@Emerald I’d say it’s a combination of holding Trump accountable and protecting Biden. I think this rises to a higher level than Trump’s other wrong doings because he is directly interfering with an upcoming election. And Trump is hiding evidence on high level coded servers that only a few people can access. The previous Russia investigation was indirect interference by Trump on a previous election. Ukraine is an escalation and much more threatening to democrats - and democratic elections. I agree that some democrats are protecting Trump. In particular Richard Neal on the ways and means committee that refuses to investigate Trumps financial dealings. My hunch is that doing so would expose a lot of shady dealings by corporate democrats, like Neal himself. Unfortunately, we haven’t evolved enough for progressives to be self sufficient and win elections, we still need corporate dem votes. Hopefully SD models are correct and in the future there will be a green-level progressive party and an Orange level corporate party. And the current red/blue Republican Party will dissolve.