Jordan Peterson on Moral Law

[Jack River]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

How did you create the suffering of the family I lived with in Hondorus

Yep that was me. All of it is and was me

[Jack River]

Take responsibility as if it was all you, because it was 

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Yep that was me. All of it is and was me

I'll play ball with this perspective, even though I think it's quite foolish and limited to only look at issues in the world from this perspective.

So, from the manifestation/create your own reality perspective, what are you doing to fix systemic racism internally in hopes of projecting a better external reality?

Are you actively digging into your own shadow to see how your unconscious beliefs and viewpoints are creating systemic racism and actively dismantling them? 

Or are you just convincing yourself that, if I transcend the illusion of self, then all the relative problems in the world will be solved. 

Or are you convincing yourself that you've transcended the illusion of thought and that this is the solution... meanwhile deluding yourself and obscuring your awareness with  the thought, "I have transcended the illusion of thought."?

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Emerald

[Jack River]

Help with your own subtle violence dudes. Start closer to home before going across the world trying to save “others”. 

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Yep that was me. All of it is and was me

 

11 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Take responsibility as if it was all you, because it was 

I’m now at a loss how to explain it. It looked like we were making some progress, yet those statements are so far off the mark. Do you realize from the perspective I am trying to explain to you, those comments would be perceived as extremely hurtful?

One problem with a limited perspective is being unaware of intention and impact

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

Help with your own subtle violence dudes. Start closer to home before going across the world trying to save “others”. 

Why assume that we're not doing both?

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'll play ball with this perspective, even though I think it's quite foolish and limited to only look at issues in the world from this perspective.

Taking responsibility for what is happening is foolish? 

[Jack River]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Why assume that we're not doing both?

I’m not. 

[Jack River]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Seriously Jack. Do you realize how I’ve spent years looking within and volunteering with local victims of violence abuse?

I’m not dudes. A most excellent thing to do fosho. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Jack River

[Emerald]

Just now, Jack River said:

Taking responsibility for what is happening is foolish? 

Taking a limited perspective is foolish, when you can hold more than one perspective at a time. You're taking a huge gamble on the ASSUMPTION that reality springs forth from the self. You would also be taking a huge gamble on the assumption that reality is its own thing that has no projection from the self.

So, because we are in an epistemic blind-spot relative to the workings of reality, it is foolish to remain only in one perspective relative to a given issue.

I look at systemic racism from the "create your own reality" and "take 100% responsibility" perspectives as well. But I don't assume these perspectives to be absolute or think that I have reality figured out. And I don't really talk about them because a lot of people would fall down the rabbit hole and get stuck only in those perspectives

And furthermore, I don't use these perspective to avoid taking responsibility in realizing more down-to-Earth things about reality and helping others realize these things about reality that may have previously been obscured from view.

So, I always take responsibility on every level that I'm aware of. 

You are only taking responsibility on the internal level and are assuming a whole lot about a reality that you know literally nothing about, as a human being can't.  And you are using this assumption of how reality works to avoid responsibility for solving external issues in an external manner. You're only willing to accept responsibility in the internal sense... where you can also easily self-deceive and hide from discomfort.

 

[Jack River]

If anything having consciously aware people contribute as such is a plus. 

[Jack River]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Taking a limited perspective is foolish, when you can hold more than one perspective at a time. You're taking a huge gamble on the ASSUMPTION that reality springs forth from the self. You would also be taking a huge gamble on the assumption that reality is its own thing that has no projection from the self.

So, because we are in an epistemic blind-spot relative to the workings of reality, it is foolish to remain only in one perspective relative to a given issue.

I look at systemic racism from the "create your own reality" and "take 100% responsibility" perspectives as well. But I don't assume these perspectives to be absolute or think that I have reality figured out. And I don't really talk about them because a lot of people would fall down the rabbit hole and get stuck only in those perspectives

And furthermore, I don't use these perspective to avoid taking responsibility in realizing more down-to-Earth things about reality and helping others realize these things about reality that may have previously been obscured from view.

So, I always take responsibility on every level that I'm aware of. 

You are only taking responsibility on the internal level and are assuming a whole lot about a reality that you know literally nothing about, as a human being can't.  And you are using this assumption of how reality works to avoid responsibility for solving external issues in an external manner. You're only willing to accept responsibility in the internal sense... where you can also easily self-deceive and hide from discomfort.

 

Ok. 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

If anything having consciously aware people contribute as such is a plus. 

Or it could be the entire thing, for all you know. 

How do you personally know that reality springs forth from the self? Is it something that you observed directly? Or is it just something that you heard from someone else and adopted it as a belief?

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’m very empathetic and it’s difficult for me to comprehend such a constricted internal perspective. It boggles my mind. 

This is why I tend to avoid talking from this perspective.

It may be true on certain levels. But it tends to lead to a lot of self-deception, callousness, constriction, solipsism,and unconsciousness in general.

And this isn't because it's necessarily incorrect. Reality could actually be working this way. The reason why it's a risky perspective to wield, is that it's  an easy perspective to hide behind and to avoid real-life situations and truths on other levels. Spiritual bypassing is a huge danger in this perspective, as the ego can use it as a shield and an affirmation that assures someone, "If I only get the internal right, then the external is fine no matter what."

But this mindset can also reveal certain truths about reality, as I have found that external conflicts do tend to shift with my personal shifts. So, I use this perspective in hopes of being able to address these issues from the inside and out. But I'm always careful about it because it's such an alluring trap to get caught in and very difficult to get out of.

[Forestluv]

@Emerald I went through a predominately internal reality construct and a few people told me I didn’t comprehend “intention vs. impact” regarding my words and actions. 

Do you think it’s related? I would imagine if someone couldn’t understand external perspectives in their life, they would have a harder time comprehending the impact they are having on others (i.e. how their words / actions would impact someone with a different perspective)

Taken to an extreme, couldn’t someone who is sitting by a person that is suffering think “I am creating this suffering person in my mind. I take full responsibility for the internal reality I am creating”, and just sit there as the person suffers? 

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Emerald I went through a predominately internal reality construct and a few people told me I didn’t comprehend “intention vs. impact” regarding my words and actions. 

Do you think it’s related? I would imagine if someone couldn’t understand external perspectives in their life, they would have a harder time comprehending the impact they are having on others (i.e. how their words / actions would impact someone with a different perspective)

Taken to an extreme, couldn’t someone who is sitting by a person that is suffering think “I am creating this suffering person in my head. I take full responsibility for the internal reality I am creating”, and just sit there as the person suffers? 

With the "intention vs. impact" issue, it's a little bit different in that there is no assumption of responsibility if the intentions are good. People in this groove tend to see racism as an intentional act. So, if someone isn't intentionally racist, then people who think in terms of intention just think "That person's not racist." So, they always bring things back to individual character flaws, and think about things in terms of "I'm not racist." as opposed to "There is racism." So, it is caring more about personal intent, then the impact of racism in general and being blind to the impact one's actions have because of the rationale of having good intentions or just lacking bad ones. So, this is a failure to zoom out and see how racism comes from more than just intent, and a failure to be less selfish, and consider that staking the claim "I'm not racist." is such a ego-driven focus on those issues.

With the "create your own reality" perspective, it could be very true. So, it's not necessarily rooted in blindspots to consider that reality may work that way. But it's susceptible to blindspots because of the way the human mind and ego work. And when the human mind and ego see this as the only perspective they can become very callous and even blaming of people who are suffering. There can be a person with cancer, and a person stuck in this perspective will think, "They caused their own cancer because they're creating their own reality. So, on some level they must have wanted cancer."

And yes. If there is someone suffering next to them, they could rationalize it either the other way in thinking 'everyone creates their own reality' and becoming callous to their suffering in that way. Or they can think of it in terms of other people being an illusion, and if there's a person crying next to them that it means something about one's own internal state. So, there could be an idea, "I'm taking responsibility for the crying happening next to me." by doing some kind of internal process... as opposed to thinking of the external perspective as another valid perspective as well and taking a human, hear-centered approach to what comes up in reality. But either way, it is a (in these cases) and invalidation of external reality as a valid reality.

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Emerald

[Haumea2018]

I'll give you a better argument than your mom.

The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority.

Most white SJWs of course don't see this because their entire theory is basically white paternalism, and it is rejected by a sufficient number of minorities as offensive.

Green is the paternalistic racism stage.

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

I'll give you a better argument than your mom.

The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority.

Even if we assume that as true from one perspective, it doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist or it shouldn’t be addressed. In fact, it would mean we should double our efforts to eliminate systemic racism. 

My mom would love that argument because it suggests liberals and minorities are hurting themselves with their own racism. 

[Haumea2018]

Quote

Even if we assume that as true from one perspective, it doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist or it shouldn’t be addressed. In fact, it would mean we should double our efforts to eliminate systemic racism. 

I think what it means is that we stop treating minorities as eternal helpless victims without agency, stop creating simplistic theories out of complex social phenomena and start asking ourselves the really hard questions, such as "what ego investment do I have in seeing the Other as victim to be rescued?"

[StephenK]

What if humans as a collective are simply not evolved enough to rise up the spiral? Perhaps there are situations where engineering a society to rise up the spiral when it doesn't have the capacity to do so could cause untold chaos/misery and could be a deeply uncompassionate act. I fear those that have a 'taste' for engineering society, as they're normally the ones that inadvertently cause the most bloodshed. Systemic thinking has a high cost/reward to it when implemented. Implementation is often where reality will shine through and beat our ass red. There is much talk about 'why x or y is wrong', but there is little in the way of concrete examples as to what solutions should be put in place. In fact, most solutions I've seen proposed to fight systemic racism will just make the entire problem worse, as more and more attention is drawn towards race. It's a messy world out there.