No Leo, Destiny is NOT Construct Aware.

[Bobby_2021]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/what-is-a-woman

A simple test of construct awareness is this: 

Ask them if sex is a social construction.

Ask them if biology is a social construction.

If they reply anything along the lines of "sex/biology is different from gender. Gender is a social construction while biology is not"

Then they are not construct aware. 

Biology is a social construction.

Who created biology? 

Men with glasses in some lab created this social construction over hundreds of years. They made this up using language which is also a social construction. English language is a social construction.

Every single feminist I have argued with have the same reply. Gender is social construction while sex/biology is not. 

I stopped arguing with them, because they are not construct aware. Destiny is not that far off. He is empathetic to the plight of people suffering from gender dysphoria. But he is not construct aware.

He has no idea what's it's like to appreciate the nature of constructions because he has not put in the effort to grok it over hundreds of hours he spend on streaming. That's just that.

[Bobby_2021]

Construct Aware stage of EDT >>> Stage Green SD

Stage green argues in a subversive way as opposed to Construct Aware EDT.

Who gets to define what a woman is? 

Who told you women have tits? 

Who told you that women don't have pp? 

They are undermining authority. Not construct aware. 

They don't undermine biology or sex. 

But they do undermine gender. 

All of which are social constructions by the way that are 100% socially made up constructions by society over thousands of years.

Construct Aware means you are truly aware of all the constructions in society.

Democracy is a social construction. 

Physics and philosophy is a social construction.

Your mother is a social construction.

Donald Trump is a social construction.

To be fair, the reason you could undermine the authority of these construction is because they are fundamentally social constructions. But they are not aware that they are constructions. 

The reason they revolt against these constructions is because they have been too oppressive to certain groups of people. That's fair. They have empathy. Although that doesn't convert to construct awareness.

[Majed]

@Bobby_2021 i guess leo didn't mean construct aware like ego development stage but construct awareness more broadly as a capacity of the mind. construct awareness starts at the pluralist stage i would say and then increases as you become more aware. 

[questionreality]

You nailed it. At the end of the day, the entire thing that you call "life" is a construct. 

If one were to deconstruct the entire reality, you probably wouldn't be able to function as you do now.

Many constructions hence serve practical purpose and are obviously needed for human life.

[Ulax]

@Bobby_2021 I like your point about recognising the social constructiveness of any concept. But I think Destiny would probably agree that all concepts are socially constructed.

[Leo Gura]

There are many degrees of construct-awareness.

As I said, Destiny is an order of magnitude more construct-aware than right-wingers, but he could be a lot more construct-aware.

You are correct in that Destiny does not regard "physical" stuff as a construct. Because he hasn't yet realized that materialism is a construct.

Edited August 15 by Leo Gura

[numbersinarow]

Biology isn't entirely a social construct, since you would still be self-constructing, without the help of anyone else, the things in it.

[Majed]

@Leo Gura yesterday i told my cousin that through consciousness work i can become a tiger, he thought i am crazy lmao

[Bobby_2021]

56 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are correct in that Destiny does not regard "physical" stuff as a construct.

This point is precisely why he is NOT Construct Aware and not even close to it IMO.

A woman is physical.

XX chromosome is physical.

But Destiny only thinks one of them is a social construction and that's his bias with political subversive motivations.

I don't get why you included physical stuff in  " " as if it holds more weight.

We only ever talk about physical objects.

Give me atleast non physical object we talk about. There is none. God is also a physical object by definition. It's all physical objects.

Women is a physical object.

Cars are physical objects.

Physical nature of reality itself is a social construction. There is not really a line between physical and metaphysical or the abstract.

54 minutes ago, numbersinarow said:

Biology isn't entirely a social construct, since you would still be self-constructing, without the help of anyone else, the things in it.

Tell me the part where biology is not a social construction.

Self- Construction is social constitution.

Social is merely a collection of selfs that are engaged in construction. Self and the other is a also a construction.

In short, all construction is self construction, although there are levels to this.

Pretty deep right there.

1 hour ago, Ulax said:

@Bobby_2021 I like your point about recognising the social constructiveness of any concept. But I think Destiny would probably agree that all concepts are socially constructed.

As of now he doesn't. 

But I get your point. If we push him on it, he might else his gender ideology motivations will go in vain.

But even for destiny, it nowhere going to be easy. Tell him that he is a social construction. He wouldn't be able to digest it. 

If he isn't able to digest that he will not be able to assert that a woman is a social construction either.

He will look selfish if he did accept that, so how is he different from the conservatives. Both are holding on to their identities.

[Bobby_2021]

What concerns me is the subversive nature of postmodern deconstruction. People don't see that there are dreaded consequences for allowing subversive ideologies to take hold of society.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the same people who advocate for trans rights are also advocating for open borders leading to unchecked and often illegal immigration?

Because they have deconstructed the boundary between US and Mexico since all boundaries are socially constructed. Why hold them?

[DocWatts]

Thing is, a recognition of social constructs is a form of a Construct Awareness.

Knowing that something like 'crime' is socially constructed, rather than an 'objective' reflection of right and wrong, does take a level of epistemological and ego development that not everyone attains.

It's a level of 'early' or 'entry level' Construct Awareness, in a sense. More 'mature' forms Construct Awareness involves understanding how our ego identity, sense perceptions, and all conceptual distinctions are created and sustained by our minds.

I'd venture that social constructs are where most people who do go on to develop more mature forms of Construct Awareness get started, since it's the most accessible entry point into that capacity.

I'd be surprised if more than maybe %20-30 of people living in a developed country would have a solid enough grasp on social constructs to be able to articulate why 'crime' is socially constructed. It's all too easy to downplay how much development and education it takes to get even this far. (Remember that the majority of people in the world have thier 'center of gravity' somewhere around SD-Blue)

Edited August 15 by DocWatts

[Staples]

13 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Because they have deconstructed the boundary between US and Mexico since all boundaries are socially constructed. Why hold them?

That's right. It's fun to watch society slowly awaken to construct-awareness.

Although it's important to understand things like that are usually constructed for a reason.

We are learning that some constructions are not always empowering, like traditional sexuality.

But some constructions are still effective and empowering and valid to maintain stability in a chaotic world, like borders.

I do agree that unless one recognizes that everything is a construction, one is not construct-aware. I suspect Destiny only understands gender constructs in a conformist sort of way, not with any real meta understanding.

Edited August 15 by Staples

[Leo Gura]

Construct-awareness is a huge spectrum. If you hold construct-awareness as a binary, yes/no, you'll be in serious trouble.

Edited August 15 by Leo Gura

[Ulax]

@Leo Gura Can you give some sub categories of construct-awareness pls?

[Davino]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Construct-awareness is a huge spectrum. If you hold construct-awareness as a binary, yes/no, you'll be in serious trouble.

Lmao I was thinking to post the same

---

For example, are you aware of how I am constructing Davino as I speak?

To which degree?

For example, are you aware of how I am constructing my body as I speak?

To which degree?

For example, are you aware of how I am constructing thoughts as I speak?

To which degree?

For example, are you aware of how I am constructing emotions as I speak?

To which degree?

For example, are you aware of how I am constructing sensations as I speak?

To which degree?

For example, are you aware of how I am constructing history and memory as I speak?

To which degree?

FUck, where am I?

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@Leo Gura Can you give some sub categories of construct-awareness pls?

I have a whole mind-blowing video planned on it.

Although it's so good I'm not sure if I will release it for feee. Cause it's a little too good.

[Davino]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Although it's so good I'm not sure if I will release it for free. Cause it's a little too good.

Oh no, how good it is Leo?

Jokes aside, it's time for another video you lazy ass

I guess you've been busy with the new Course

Edited August 15 by Davino

[questionreality]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

This point is precisely why he is NOT Construct Aware and not even close to it IMO.

A woman is physical.

 

But even for destiny, it nowhere going to be easy. Tell him that he is a social construction. He wouldn't be able to digest it. 

If he isn't able to digest that he will not be able to assert that a woman is a social construction either.

He will look selfish if he did accept that, so how is he different from the conservatives. Both are holding on to their identities.

100% agreed, he would for sure not keep saying that a woman is a social construct if he was actually aware.

 

[DocWatts]

3 hours ago, numbersinarow said:

Biology isn't entirely a social construct, since you would still be self-constructing, without the help of anyone else, the things in it.

I actually wrote a bit on this subject, for the book I'm putting together.

On the surface, no - biology isn't a social construct, at least not in the more straightforward way that say 'crime' or 'gender roles' are socially and culturally constructed.

But on a deeper level, the conceptual distinctions that biology is derived from are indeed mentally constructed - not 'objective' features of a mind-independent Reality. They instead arise from needs, interests, and capacities of a human vantage point. This is feature - not a bug - of these distinctions.

Just because these conceptual distinctions are constructed doesn't make them imaginary, however - and this is a common way that Constructs are misunderstood.

Physical objects are actually a good parallel here:

__________________________________________________________________________________
Objects Are Mentally Constructed (But Not Imaginary)

In essence, objects are a type of interaction which happens between our embodied minds and our surroundings; neither existing ‘out there’ in some external Reality, nor as a pure fabrication of the mind (distinguishing them from hallucinations, which present us with non-existent phenomena). In sum, objects are mentally constructed (but not imaginary). 

Before proceeding, let’s first clarify what a mental construct is. What a mental construct (or just a construct, for short) refers to is a distinction that our minds create and sustain, which is coupled to some observation about ourselves or our world. 

If we think more deeply about what an object actually is, it’s our mind’s way of drawing a boundary around some portion of our local Reality. The advantage of carving up Reality in this way is that it allows us to relate to what’s contained within a given boundary in a more concrete way (as a house or as a chair, for example). As such, the boundaries which mark where one object ends and another begins are not arbitrary; rather, they are functional in nature. They are our mind’s way of packaging our surroundings into more manageable ‘chunks’ that are easier to interact with and understand.

Because this point can be easily misconstrued, the contention here isn’t that objects are ‘imaginary’ (like how Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are imaginary). Instead, what’s being pointed out is that objects are the products of a cognitive process that puts us in direct contact with the world. As living beings that are adapted for survival, objects would be useless to us if they didn’t convey generally reliable information about Reality. This also explains why there’s a valid distinction between objects and hallucinations, despite both being mentally constructed. Since the former puts us in touch with our surroundings and our environment, while the latter does not. Hence, objects are mentally constructed, but not imaginary.

Edited August 15 by DocWatts

[Davino]

2 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

But on a deeper level, the conceptual distinctions that biology is derived from are mentally constructed - not 'objective' features of a mind-independent Reality. Just because these conceptual distinctions are constructed doesn't make them imaginary, however - and this is a common way that Constructs are misunderstood.

Depends on how far you wanna strecth the notion of Construction.

4 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

If we think more deeply about what an object actually is, it’s our mind’s way of drawing a boundary around some portion of our local Reality. The advantage of carving up Reality in this way is that it allows us to relate to what’s contained within a given boundary in a more concrete way (as a house or as a chair, for example). As such, the boundaries which mark where one object ends and another begins are not arbitrary; rather, they are functional in nature. They are our mind’s way of packaging our surroundings into more manageable ‘chunks’ that are easier to interact with and understand.

Because this point can be easily misconstrued, the contention here isn’t that objects are ‘imaginary’ (like how Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are imaginary). Instead, what’s being pointed out is that objects are the products of a cognitive process that puts us in direct contact with the world. As living beings that are adapted for survival, objects would be useless to us if they didn’t convey generally reliable information about Reality. This also explains why there’s a valid distinction between objects and hallucinations, despite both being mentally constructed. Since the former puts us in touch with our surroundings and our environment, while the latter does not. Hence, objects are mentally constructed, but not imaginary.

You're making a deep point on distinctions but you are in truth understanding constructions and divisions within different levels

It's ilusions all the way down and all the way up everywhere at everytime