Forestluv

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.

This is the emerging field of epigenetics. This field studies how environmental input can be alter gene expression, without changing DNA sequence. Studies have shown the effects of some environmental input can be passed on to the next generation. Yet this is still a young, emerging field and there is still a lot we don't know.

relative = relative not actual = not actual actual vs not actual involves another distinction. Any separation of Oneness involves relative distinctions to contrast a thing that is not another thing. Any thing has a not-that-thing for contrast. If we say that is a cup, it is relatively contrasted with all that is not-that-cup.

@Parththakkar12 I’m not disagreeing with the essence of the idealism. I’m questioning the realism of it. I could imagine a world in which no dogs ever fight. Yet realistically, that would take a lot of work - lots of de-conditioning, training, breeding, scientific research, building infrastructure, education, etc. And to attain 100% peaceful interactions would be extremely difficult to attain. How many humans today have 100% peaceful interactions? I suppose we could try cloning 7 billion Eckhart Tolles. I may say you are a dreamer, yet you are not the only one. I hope someday others join you and we can live as one. . .

Whether it is a made-up distinction or a non-made-up distinction does not nullify the distinction. And ‘made-up” vs “non-made-up” is itself a relative distinction. It’s in the realm of distinguishing between what is imaginary and real - another relative distinction.