Forestluv

That could happen! ? I bet there are some people that would prefer Biden wins and steps aside to Kamala.

I’m curious: in general is your Life Purpose intention mostly focused on family, community or personal development/goals? Or perhaps a combination?

Are you considering filling that spiritual void? I'd imagine there are some Christian groups that are more open-minded about equality. There are some church groups in my area that are very open and inclusive - as well as "spiritual but not religious" groups.

What IS

Exactly! Most 18 year olds are not exposed to it and they have no idea how powerful it can be in their life. They have been conditioned to simply memorize facts for exams.

It's a freshman level "First Year Experience" course. It is intended to teach study skills, life skills, critical thinking skills and community building. SD is good because it teaches about values - they can look at their own values and that of others. We can also look at current affairs - such as the social unrest in the U.S and how people at different stages would view it Plus, the presentations are pretty easy for them - freshman students often have a lot of anxiety about public speaking.

Be open-minded and here to learn and expand. Tone down the closed-minded, arrogant, antagonistic attitude.

Ime, people are much less defensive when the person being evaluated is not them, however it is less direct. For example, I teach college students SD - we recently covered stage blue and discussed all sorts of different stage blue mentalities and students gave presentations of kkk, the amish, boy scouts, military etc. It's much easier for them to take a meta view when they are the observer. If I pointed at a student and said "OK, now let's take a look at YOUR blue level traits and views" - that is much more threatening. Yet observing others is often diluted. I have to remind the students that they may get some insight from observing others. As we observe Blue in others, do we have some in ourselves? What are the healthy and unhealthy aspects? What do we need to work on? It's a very different dynamic when pointing out one's self to them. I'm not very skillful in this area - I would make an awful psychologist. Quite often, I speak impersonally - that is great when we are doing an impersonal observation about how the mind of a tribal person works. I can put up a video of a racist person and say "Notice how his mind is structured and how he is defending certain views" - yet it s very different when I say "Notice how YOUR mind does xyz". People often take this personally - and I'm not very skilled at it. Look how many people I piss off on the forum when I say "Notice how the mind just did xyz". People don't like it. I don't know. I can tell when someone has been certain places. I've been to some of those places, yet not all. I'm happy to speak common language with you, yet I can't speak a language with you that you know not exists. It's important one realizes their limitation. Don't speak on a language you don't know exists as if you know. That is misleading to those trying to learn the language. If you have no interest in learning the language, that's fine - yet don't interfere with those on the forum learning it.

Be careful, you lack understanding of God and are misleading others away from one of the forum's missions. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional, yet you are on thin ice.

Of course. It's all relative. A materialist scientific forum will not tolerate what they perceive to be irrational, woo-woo nonsense. And in 200 years, this forum will be relatively low conscious. Keep in mind that Leo is holding back and this forum / videos are a small fraction of what he's got. He's trying to help others evolve.

It depends on context and degree. If a forum's mission is to create solutions about climate change, climate change deniers are not a good fit for the forum. The purpose of the forum is not to argue about whether climate change exists. If a forum's mission is to address institutional racism - institutional racism deniers are not a good fit. The purpose the forum is not to discuss IF institutional racism exists, it is about HOW to fix institutional racism. A forum with the mission of promoting LGBTQ rights is not going to tolerate those pushing an agenda that homosexuality is evil as stated in religious scripture. There needs to be standards and moderation - yet nobody likes to be told that they are sub-standard. An ego likes to think that it is the most awake and advanced.

That is exactly NOT what I said.

I agree that attitude, openness and intention are important factors. To me, that is what the guidelines are getting at: does the user have an attitude of openness and intention to learn and grow - or is the the user closed-minded with the intention to be dogmatic, argue and advance an agenda? Yet of course a closed-minded, dogmatic person will think "I'm open-minded and sharing my valuable views, I'm being censored!". When called out, closed-minded, dogmatic people do not self-reflect and ask themself "How am I being closed-minded? Is there something I'm missing?". Even though intention is important, impact is also a factor. Quite often the mind tries to shield itself with saying "It wasn't my intention", or "I was just joking" to evade responsibility. If a user name calls with racist slurs and has a disruptive impact, they don't get to absolve themself of all responsibility by saying "It wasn't my intention to be offensive. It's your responsibility for how you received it". Intention and impact are both factors. Steve wrote long in-depth essays about his forum dynamics and why it collapsed. He wrote that it was due to under-moderation, entitlement, low quality users using "freedom of speech", higher quality users and moderators leaving and splintering of the community. I was not part of Steve's forum. To me, he seems to have a very mature view of the dynamics on his forum and how it collapsed. In general, serious people working toward a goal are not going to put up with low quality crap. One can debate what counts as "low quality crap", yet there needs to be some standards. If someone is serious about learning Spanish and half the class is arguing over video games, the serous students will leave and find a Spanish school that is serious. All the mods on the forum work voluntarily and some of us receive some nasty harassment. Without moderation, the forum would degrade into a cesspool.

Did I say to take the word of "elite authorities" without evidence? To me, you don't seem open-minded to evidence. You have made up your mind. I don't take an either / or mindset that everything stated about Russia is 100% true or 100% BS. That is a hyper simplistic mindset. There is a much more nuanced, complex view available. To me, you've entered the opposite extreme you are criticizing others for. In doing so, you've entered the polar opposite conspiracy theory. Essentially, an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory. I do not have a 100% absolutist position like you seem to have. I criticize Trump, Republicans, the DNC, Clinton, Obama etc. I think you make some good points that have value. Yet to me, you seem paradigm-locked and not looking at things objectively with an open mind. Be mindful of entering dogmatism with your views and trying to advance an agenda. That is against forum guidelines.

That is the relativity I am pointing to. Each of us can create our own idea of what "high consciousness" is and we all want our views to be considered "highest conscious". This is human nature. I agree with you in that it's very easy to overdo it. A leader of a forum could say "this specific set of ideas is the highest consciousness and no other idea will be tolerated". At an extreme, it becomes a fundamentalist, dogmatic religion or cult. Yet the other extreme of "anything goes" doesn't work either. If a forum is a formless blob of whatever, then there is no forum. Imagine going to a class or an event. The class or event has to be about something. It's got to have some type of structure and goal. If everyone does whatever, it's not a class. Where to draw lines can be difficult. I would say there needs to be space for that, yet there comes a time in which there needs to be standards. When I was learning Spanish, I really wanted to be with the advanced students, yet I wasn't quite ready yet and got moved to an intermediate class. I'd also say attitude is important. If someone has a good attitude and wants to learn Spanish, that's different than someone who thinks Spanish is harmful and has an anti-Spanish agenda. @Raphael ?

From my POV, the forum has a much stronger emphasis on structure than content. The emphasis is developing meta views. People holding different worldviews will disagree with what "high conscious" is. Of course, each individual will think their view is "higher consciousness". If the goal of a forum is to learn Spanish, isn't it a distraction if someone constantly posts Chinese video games? I think we would all agree this would be a distraction. The key is that we agree what "Spanish" is. If someone thought "Spanish" was about video gaming in various languages, they would perceive themself has being "censored" or "canceled" after they posted valuable "Spanish" examples of Chinese video games. Anyone cannot create their own relative definition of what "High Consciousness" is. There is a component of groundless relativity. Yet there is also a component of grounding. Without some sense of grounding, there is no purpose or forum. As a simple example, someone who believed that each person is either 100% good or 100% bad would have a simplistic view. A higher evolved view would see that a person could be on a spectrum of good and bad (murder is worse than stealing an apple) and a person can have both good and bad qualities. Further, what is "good" and "bad" is relative. . . Someone may believe "My view that a person is either 100% bad or 100% good is the highest conscious view" and argue with others. That is a fundamental feature in nearly all models of consciousness evolution. A strict binary view won't cut it on any consciousness forum since a strict binary view is within a more expansive view (that includes binary, spectral and relative). Similarly, Xbox is more evolved than Atari. Yet Atari lovers may say that Atari is more evolved and feel like they are being censored on a forum about game design. This of course assumes aspects of a hierarchy and stages of development. We could modify such a model or create a totally different one.

Didn't you say that you believe there was Russian interference? And there is a mountain of evidence showing ties between Trump's team and Russia - financially and via communication. Didn't comprehensive investigations led by a Republican, statements from nonpartisan career diplomats and a Republican-led commission conclude this? How can the substance of this be considered a nonfactual conspiracy theory? Do you think all the investigations led by Republicans and nopartisan U.S. officals and diplomats are "nonfactual". Why on earth would career diplomats be in on a conspiracy theory against the executive branch of the United States? That would be the opposite of what nonpartisan diplomats, spies and intelligence officials do. They try to stop misinformation and conspiracies against the United States? It's irrational to think that Republicans, FBI, CIA and counter-intelligence would all be in a conspiracy theory to harm it's own executive branch of the U.S. that it protects. That itself would be a conspiracy theory. I'm just not buying it. Putting political theater aside, doesn't Trump deserve harsh criticism for this? Don't these events threaten the integrity of American democracy and shouldn't they be taken seriously? To me, you seem to be hyper focused on the childish political theater and not focused on how problematic the behavior and events are. We can say it's unethical for a politician to try to personally gain from unethical, illegal and damaging behavior of a criminal. That is a relatively low conscious level (in this case some Democrats). Yet why get distracted by the immature sideshow from seeing how the unethical and problematic behavior is damaging to our democratic institutions and the welfare of society? Why focus on the behavior of immature children if there is a serious threat to American democracy and wellness?

It’s good. We are all works in progress, including myself.

Sure, we can create that too. It is right within it’s creation. There are other creations we can create, yet you don’t seem interested in that.

C'mon. Notice the desire to set up two positions (that I am defending a position and have a dogmatic attitude) and framing then framing to either refute or support your position. An orange version of a Roman gladiator fight. Notice how you are trying to define what counts as a "disagreement" in a Blue / Orange contextual frame. Why do you think you rarely see Mods / Leo disagreeing within your Blue / Orange framing?. . . think about it. . . To a Red level person, it only counts as a "disagreement" if there are death threats, physical violence and bloodshed. Wouldn't that seem odd to you? Moderators and Leo have disagreed with each other regarding dating and what women want in relationships. There ya go. Don't drag me into your vendetta on love and psychedelics.

What is your belief it’s true based upon?

This gets into social constructs of what “maleness” and “femaleness”. What one needs to do to qualify as being “a male” is relative and dependent on social constructs. What does a trans-male need to do to be considered a “male” in society? Well, what is “male?”. If the person takes testosterone supplements, has large muscles, facial hair is aggressive, appears 100% male and is treated as a male because nobody can tell he is a trans male, is that close enough? I don’t know. This person wouldn’t understand things like getting a hard-on or getting kicked in the nuts. Yet then how “male” am I? I don’t have certain hyper masculine traits, do I still qualify as being a male? Who is more male, an aggressive trans male that hunts, dominates women, and does MMA or an effeminate cis-male that is in touch with his emotions, very creative and likes flowers and butterflies? This is the interplay between objective form and relative formlessness. Between grounded and groundless. If we go too far in either direction, problems arise. If we try to create a hard binary male vs female construct it won’t work because nobody will meet all the criteria for being either male or female. Yet if we say identity is formless and constantly changing in the moment, how would society function? What if every person completely changed all their identities everyday - their age, race, gender, career, etc. On Tuesday, its Bob the 40 yo white male banker with three kids, on Wednesday it’s Priscilla the pixie dancer from Xenon with mixed intergalactic heritage, on Thursday, it’s Ron the gay psychologist, Friday, its Amanda a bisexual Vietnam veteran with PTSD. If everyone did this, it would be a mess. Extreme fluidity has problems as well

I don’t understand what you mean by “the gender they were born as”.

This is the burden progressives, innovative, creative thinkers must carry. Yet there is a distinction between what was innovative in the past and what is innovative in the present. The idea that the earth is spherical was at one time highly innovative and controversial. The burden was on those who were ahead of their time to blaze a new path for others to follow. Yet today, those who believe the earth is spherical no longer carry that burden. They are under no obligation to prove to flat-earthers that the earth is spherical. It is no longer a new, progressive idea. This is part of the problem of people making up any nonsense they want and then demand to be taken seriously and expect to be shown proof they have already dismissed. A modern day example would be coronavirus hoaxers or climate change deniers. However, those with new, innovative ideas carry a burden of convincing a public - or they can keep it to themselves or a small circle of friends. If someone makes a claim like “everyone is racist”, they will likely face some resistance since it’s a relatively progressive idea. The person would need to explain things like racism being on a spectrum, relativity, subconscious bias etc. Yet if someone made the claim that the institution of slavery is racist - that idea was progressive 200 years ago, we are way past that.

For the question “ should we allow someone to change their birth sex as will”, does this mean changing physical sex characteristics like genitalia, hormone levels etc? If so, I’d say it depends on the situation. I would say someone should be a certain age, has gone through education, it’s informed consent and freedom of consent for the change.