Forestluv

I think you make some good points and I agree that personal responsibility is an important factor, yet it is one factor. I also think you are minimizing other contributing factors and aren’t acknowledging serious systemic problems. We may give different meanings to the idea of integrity. For me, integrity includes taking responsibility for one’s actions and integrity is also acknowledging and speaking out against inequalities and injustices - even when one is not negatively impacted by those inequalities and injustices. And I’m impressed by the amount of personal responsibility you took. When I was younger, I spent brief periods on jail and had severe alcoholic issues to the point it almost killed me. It was extremely difficult to look at myself and take responsibility for my actions and to stop blaming others. Yet I can also see environmental inputs. Imagine a child that grows up in poverty, is severely abused, has PTSD, serious psychological Issues and no resources for help in his community. What if this damaged person lashes out his trauma? At what point does our compassion for him end? On his 18th birthday? If he lashes out against another during a PTSD episode? Can we simply just tell him “Take responsibility for your actions?”. Or should we also look at the bigger picture of what type of society we have, if we have resources to help those in need, if wealth inequality allows tens of millions of people to suffer while 20 mega billionaires blow coke with hookers on their yacht - paid for by taxpayer money. To me, personal responsibility is just one piece of the larger puzzle. I would also say their is a range of personal responsibility. During the opioid crisis, pharmaceutical CEOs intentionally tried to get as many people as possible addicted to opioids to increase profits. They manipulated doctors to push drugs. A lot of people trust their doctors and were very vulnerable. Millions of people become addicted and suffered terribly. Do we place 100% responsibility on the individual and place 0% responsibility on the pharmaceutical CEOs? Similarly during the housing crisis: Banking criminals created toxic loans that intentionally sent people into bankruptcy and the Banking criminals shorted those loans and made billions of dollars as hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes. These loans were intentionally written in highly technical terms that the average person didn’t fully understand and they trusted their real estate agent. Do we place 100% responsibility to the individual and turn a blind eye to the corrupt Bankers?

I did not say laws and order has no value in a society and I am not suggesting that a lawless society is superior. It is context dependent. Throughout history there have been unjust laws and protests. The suffrage movement protested the unjust law that women cannot vote. However, there are also laws that have value for societies. And there are issues of whether laws are being fairly enforced and accountability. That is not what I mean by taking a meta view from an Ivory Tower. An example would be an academic that lives in comfort and security. He has the luxury of viewing things systemically. If we put that academic in the forests of Columbia where he is threatened by bandits and mafia, it would be much harder for him to view things in the bigger picture since he would be pre-occupied with survival. Yet having financial stability is insufficient. Someone could be raised in financially stable environment yet conditioned to believe in white supremacy. They could be be a frustrated incel bullied at school and become involved in a gang or online white supremacy group, which contributes to unhealthy expressions of violence. This of course would not be considered a higher consciousness in most models. A better example would be someone raised in an environment in which the “other” was not demonized and not seen as a threat. Rather, an environment in which various perspectives are considered. Perhaps this person has traveled and had many discussions with people from different walks of life. In doing so, they have a better understanding of where people are coming from and can see inequalities and injustices. Consider a white person that temporarily lives in a predominately black poor urban area and sees firsthand the biased injustices and can see how policing and the justice system cannot be fully trusted by some people. Or a white person that gets into a relationship with a black person and becomes aware of racism because they are now experiencing it and observing it. It now becomes undeniable. To me, you seem to be demonizing the movement broadly as “rioters, Antifa, terrorists, violent” etc and don’t seem open to acknowledging and considering legitimate inequalities and injustices that underly and drive the social unrest. How could we have a discussion about the causes of climate change and possible solutions with someone that denies climate change exists and thinks all environmentalists are dangerous terrorists?

In theoretical terms of consciousness evolution, I would not place riots themselves at a high level - yet I can see the underlying causes that drive them. I would put protestors able to see underlying inequalities / injustices in society and are protesting for a more equal / just society of inclusion and diversity to be at a relatively high conscious level by today’s standards. Those that have a binary “law and order” and “us vs them” mindset that want to use force to inhibit addressing those underlying issues would be at a relatively lower conscious level, imo. A level higher consciousness can see systemically how a history of systemic racism, corporate plutocracy, exploitation, corruption, wealth inequality, disproportionate power dynamics, biased judicial systems, biased laws / enforcement / accountability and barriers to social advancement are all underlying and contributing to the social conflict seen today. Yet it’s easier to take a systemic meta view when one is in an ivory tower. It’s much more difficult to see when one is immersed within those dynamics and fighting for their survival.

And also both real and not real. And either real or not real. A coin can be either heads or tails. A coin can be neither heads nor tails. A coin can be both heads and tails. The mind creates distinctions.

You are assuming police and the justice system have integrity and can be trusted, which is true from your perspective. Yet consider things from another perspective. Imagine living in a place where the police and justice system cannot be fully trusted. If you get into a run in with police, there is a real chance you will get abused and screwed over in the justice system - even if you’ve done nothing wrong and comply. In these situations, it’s probably best to comply, yet you don’t know for sure and evading / resisting police is an option on the table to consider.

There are different forms of Democrats. The major distinction is between progressives (democratic socialists) vs. neoliberals. In the US they are both called "Democrat", yet in Europe they would be too separate political parties. People could lose trust in neoliberals and recognize progressives are very different (as I have). If so, there could be a shift of power such that the progressives control the Dem. party. This would completely change the party platform - e.g. toward AOC type. Another possibility is that a new viable 3rd party rises for real and gains power. These massive shifts are rare in the U.S., yet it looks like the crises are becoming so severe that a major shift can happen. Imagine tens of millions of evicted people sitting homeless on one side of the street looking at empty apartments / homes on the other side of the street while billionaires get richer. That is unsustainable.

If all the U.S. problems are placed on the neoliberals and we all realize they are incapable, I wouldn't assume regression back to a Trump-like president. That is certainly possible, yet it is also possible that a Bernie-like progressive rises to the top.

Perspective jumping! Hold ideas loosely, observe, get curious and imagine.

Add in stock market reaching record highs.

I was commenting on your original statement of: I am looking at it from multiple perspectives. Yes from the perspective of someone being raped and her family, friends - rape doesn't feel good. Yet from the perspective of a rapist, it may feel good. Thus, it's not so simple as though if the universe doesn't want it, it wouldn't feel good. By that logic, the universe would make it feel bad for all rapists such that they wouldn't do it. I agree that empathy is important and we can have empathy for both the victim and rapist. It's much easier for people to have empathy for the victim and demonize the rapist as being damaged, immoral etc. Yet we can have empathy for both the victim and rapist. Quite often, those that were abused were abused themselves. Many rapists were abused and molested as children. They too underwent trauma and are now acting out their trauma. Have we provided enough resources and support for such individuals? Or once they become adults, do we marginalize and stigmatize as them being damaged misfits?

Nobody said rape was not wrong. The question is whether it is is objectively, universally wrong. This is a higher existential question than a simple binary construct of right vs. wrong.

@Gesundheit My impression is that you are shifted far into theoretical grounding. That’s great in some contexts, yet there is also a price to pay in other contexts.

For the rapist, it feels good. Consider the rapist's POV.

ISness is what IS, it is not limited to an idea called "nothing". Of course, from that perspective one word is too many. And from that perspective, an infinite number of words is not enough. You are using a different context of "everything". If ISness is everything, then it includes ALL distinctions. Thus, it has no contrast to distinguish itself and it no longer exists as a separate "thing". My impression is that you are creating constructs of "nothing" and "everything". There is also direct experience and experiential knowing of the null void and absolute infinity. Theory has value and I creating theory - yet to me, you seem contracted and immersed within theory. Just my impression.

If the one word ISness is absolute truth, then that’s it. Any descriptions of what ISness is, goes too far. You seem to be creating a construct that there are a set of truthful thoughts that accurately describe what ISness is and a set of thoughts that falsely describe what ISness is. These are distinctions further than ISness. We are creating a construct in which ISness is this, but ISness is not that.

I may have misinterpreted on that one. For me, this gets super tricky. If there is a truth prior to language, evidence or interpretation - how can my mind conceive of it without language, evidence or interpretation. The best we could do is say “It’s just ISness”. Yet what it the substance of that ISness and how can we describe it without language, evidence or interpretation. Imagine you have lost all of your senses and cannot imagine. You are in a space of aware Nothingness - not even a thought or image. What ISness is here? Thinking “this is an empty space of Nothing” is something - it’s a thought. What is objective and universal in this environment? Objective relative to what? I’m not necessarily disagreeing that you are describing a truth and an important truth - especially in today’s society with so many people creating their own narratives of their relative truth. Yet I wouldn’t term it “absolute truth”. And what is the point of reference of this thing you call an “apple”? Is it not a diffuse cloud of atoms indistinguishable from the “tree”? What is the objective, universal truth of what you call an “apple”? This is why I included the term “external”. You seem to be suggesting that there is an innate truth “out there”, independent of an internal perceiver.

@Gohabsgo Some people say rape is wrong, yet the rapists thinks it’s right. Others say rape is sorta wrong, yet they get off watching rape porn. Who is the judge objective enough to declare whether whether rape is objectively wrong, objectively right or objectively sorta wrong, sorta right? This is a main ingredient of religions. They have a external god that objectively decides what is right and wrong.

@Gesundheit Thanks for the clarifying your thoughts. I’ve tried to explain truth giving a similar example (a murder, rather than a bank robbery). That is, that the truth of the murder is prior to any evidence or interpretation. Regardless of the stories, evidence or interpretations, a murder occurred. Yet I would probably term this “realistic truth” (of what really happened) or “actual truth” (of what actually happened). I’m using the term “absolute truth” in a different context. What you are describing seems to involve an external, objective, universal reality.

I'm not sure of your situation, yet perhaps consider developing life skills and purpose. Building community, discipline, working towards goals, developing expertise, adventure. Sometimes mal-adjustments to life are linked to upbringing deficiencies and poor development in some areas.

Stage Red is sometime seen in childhood books and videos, which can influence the development of a child's self identity. As a child, I felt strongly connected to the Green TinMan and Scarecrow. The Red wicked witch and her flying monkeys terrified me and gave me nightmares. The evil wicked witch was contrasted with the Good Witch of the North, introducing a binary blue Good vs Evil.

Magical Purple spirits of nature become powerful Red gods with human foibles; they are spiteful, demanding and jealous. Red Aztec Gods:

I imagine a meta-Picard facepalm of both facepalm receiver and facepalm giver.

The original statement was: How can a set of relative thoughts describe absolute truth and another set of relative thoughts not describe absolute truth? By this logic, absolute truth is itself relative to not-absolute-truth and a subset within something more expansive, which would include both the set of absolute truth thoughts and the set of not-absolute thoughts. I suppose we could say there is a subset of absolute within Absolute. For example, we could say that there are different aspects of infinity within Absolute Infinity. We have infinite size, infinite shape, infinite numbers, infinite space etc. - all within Absolute Infinity. Although the term "within" is not quite accurate, since there is no "outside" of Absolute Infinity. Of course. We can't take a single step to anywhere. Not much fun in that. Full deconstruction to singularity isn't very satiating to a human mind that like to construct. Any thing is relative to not-that-thing. So we are essentially asking "Is a thing actual?". Is a thought actual? Is a cow actual? Is the color red actual? I find this difficult to answer since it can be answered in so many different ways. Any answer I give is a partial truth that omits another partial truth. We could say it simply "IS", yet what it the substance of it's ISness? This gets into form = formless. I would say there is immense metaphysical value in understanding distinctions. A mind able to deconstruct prior to the first distinction has attained a form of awakening. A mind awakened to full deconstruction to Nothing and full construction to Everything is a special mind, imo. What I'm referring to comes prior to true or false and is much simpler. True and False is a relatively complex construction of the human mind.

That is one model of systemic destruction. Clare Graves offered three potential future possibilities based on his SD model. Your ideas seems aligned with possibility #1. My impression is that the U.S. is stuck in possibility #2 right now (with the addition of some red). 1. The chance that we might fail to stabilize our world, and regress through successive catastrophes, as far back as when humanity started. 2. Another option could be that there will be a fixation on the BLUE/ORANGE/GREEN social complex. For Graves, this combination would promise a tyrannical, manipulative government with a glossy veneer of humanitarian thought and moralistic rationalizations. 3. The last possibility was that we could emerge into the Second-Tier YELLOW level, and proceed toward stabilizing our world so that all life could continue.