"My Descent into the Alt-Right Pipeline" Good video on internet radicalisation.

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Andreas said:

No I am not. That is not what I was referring to. I disagree on your statement that one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

My statement was in regards to Leo's image.

You stated what Leo's image meant. I responded that I gave it a different meaning. So the two of us have given Leo's image two different meanings.

I say that in a relative sense, we are both right. I can see your perspective. From your perspective, you are right - Leo's image has that meaning for you. Yet it does not have the same meaning for me. Trust me, that is not what my mind-body experienced when I saw Leo's image.

I am NOT saying one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I am saying we are both right in a relative sense. How can the meaning you gave Leo's image be objectively and universally true if that is not what I am experiencing? Are you saying the meaning my mind gave to Leo's image is wrong? 

Your mind seems to be highly contracted into an objective universal mindset. I am trying to crack that shell so you can expand. If you don't have interest in expanding, please let me know so we don't waste each other's time.

[Andreas]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I am NOT saying one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I am saying we are both right in a relative sense. How can the meaning you gave Leo's image be objectively and universally true if that is not what I am experiencing. Are you saying the meaning my mind gave to Leo's image is wrong? 

I think it’s true. It’s up to you if you agree with me or not. Your meaning can be right for you. Wrong for me. That’s true.

If I believe that 2+2 is 3 and you believe it’s 4 it doesn’t mean that 3 is just as right as 4. It just means I believe it’s more right and you believe it’s wrong.

2+2 is obviously not 3 so you would be right here. And I would be wrong without knowing im wrong. 

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I think it’s true. It’s up to you if you agree with me or not. Your meaning can be right for you. Wrong for me. That’s true.

My impression is that beliefs in an external objective reality are a source of grounding for your mind-body and there is a lot of resistance to shaking that grounding. My sense is that if I push harder the mind will try and reinforce that grounding. Notice how your mind has been reinforcing and defending your beliefs in an external objective reality. There is no curiosity or interest beyond that contraction. So I think I would do more harm than good to keep pushing and it is best that I just step aside. The last thing I want to do is push you further into a contraction.

If you would like to expand awareness, observe the attachment and identification that is going on here. Notice how strong the sense of "me" and "you" is. 

Lastly, I am not saying that you are "wrong". This is a very important point. I am saying I think your mind is contracted within a psychological dynamic. That does not mean you are "wrong". If you perceive what I write as saying you are "wrong", it will make it harder to expand. You are not wrong here. It is not a matter of being right or wrong. It is a matter of contraction and expansion - increasing one's level of awareness. 

 

[Andreas]

27 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

My statement was in regards to Leo's image.

You stated what Leo's image meant. I responded that I gave it a different meaning. So the two of us have given Leo's image two different meanings.

I say that in a relative sense, we are both right. I can see your perspective. From your perspective, you are right - Leo's image has that meaning for you. Yet it does not have the same meaning for me. Trust me, that is not what my mind-body experienced when I saw Leo's image.

I am NOT saying one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I am saying we are both right in a relative sense. How can the meaning you gave Leo's image be objectively and universally true if that is not what I am experiencing? Are you saying the meaning my mind gave to Leo's image is wrong? 

Your mind seems to be highly contracted into an objective universal mindset. I am trying to crack that shell so you can expand. If you don't have interest in expanding, please let me know so we don't waste each other's time.

Well from my perspective it looks like what you are trying to describe is that any disagreement someone has is a strange loop.

«I think you are wrong because I am right and you think I am wrong because you are right» 

Depending on what character you choose you will get a different percieved truth. 

My point is that if one of them believed that 2+2 is 3 then he would break logic (not transcend logic) and objectivly be wrong. He doesn’t know he would so he would need help to understand why he is wrong through mathematical arguments provided by the second person. This can be very hard to do when 2 people are egotistical and cannot differentite the ‘looser’ which would threaten the ego’s survival. This is where what I call toxic femininity emerges.

That’s the problem I am trying to point to. It’s not who of us is right because we really don’t know that. It’s how we figure that out. 

It is important that once one get to a higher level of awareness that they don’t develop a shadow. Not all people who disagree is closeminded, egotistical or anything. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Andreas

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Andreas said:

That’s the problem I am trying to point to. It’s not who of us is right because we really don’t know that. It’s how we figure that out. 

Same thing, a trick of the ego. That is. . . "we really don't know who is right, but my method of figuring is more right than your method of figuring. . .  (so therefore I am right).". . .  A psychological self can be oh so sneaky. . . 

Notice how the ego wants to set the rules for the correct method of figuring and what counts as evidence. My mind did this for 20+ adult years and knows this dynamic well. . .  This is still within an external objective universal truth dynamic. Again, I am not saying it is "wrong". What you are saying is very useful in certain situations, yet the problem occurs when the mind completely contracts itself within this dynamic.

[Andreas]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

Same thing, a trick of the ego. That is. . . "we really don't know who is right, but my method of figuring is more right than your method of figuring. . .  (so therefore I am right). A psychological self can be oh so sneaky. . . 

Notice how the ego wants to set the rules for the correct method of figuring and what counts as evidence. . . 

Yeah even trying to talk about how to have a discussion will get twisted into falsehood. All for survival. I think it’s important to try to expose this problem generally. Because it is a really deep problem in this site and society in general. Might be worth to shot a video on the topic. It hinders our collective growth. 

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Yeah even trying to talk about how to have a discussion will get twisted into falsehood. All for survival. I think it’s important to try to expose this problem generally. Because it is a really deep problem in this site and society in general. Might be worth to shot a video on the topic. It hinders our collective growth. 

Yes. Having fluid conversations can be challenging.

[Quicksilver]

Isnt this a great example on how self actualization and transcendence leads to the inability to act?

We are here in a thread where not only we cannot agree on what is right vs wrong, but we cant also agree on the existence of the notions of right and wrong... 

How are we gonna get anywhere? 

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Quicksilver said:

How are we gonna get anywhere? 

? 

[Forestluv]

@Etherial Cat I go through a similar dynamic at times ♥️ ? 

[Quicksilver]

My point is that its this kind of fence sitting and inactivity from the part of good people which lets moral decay in through the back door into our culture and society. 

There are lessons in tolerance, relativism and non-duality to be learned but the more time i spend dwelling on this, the more i realize that these teachings are better left to people with a life long of experience in the real world and not to young, inexperienced adults. 

In the young and naive learning about these things leads to passivity and inactivity in the face of tyranny. And in the absence of good men to oppose societal corruption this allows both the corrupted left and the reactionary alt-right to creep in and polarize the conversation and society as a whole. 

 

[SFRL]

I have been seeing this thread build and go on and on and I have just been too lazy until now to even be bothered to reply. 

But that Stefan Molyneux video got so many holes in it's reasoning it just makes me tired thinking about a reply. 

First of all it is widely known that IQ tests can be trained for and measures school book smarts and knowledge. It basically measures how well you can score on a test playing by the White upper middle class rule book. I am upper middle class White and grew up upper middle class White but still don't be ignorant. Don't be living in a bubble. 

Also the video talks about Whites, Jews, Blacks, Asians, etc. Like we can all just be divided like that. Especially this day and age. There are so many mixed race people, makes me wonder what about them? At least aestheticely they tend to turn out very pretty, probably because of two fresh gene pooles mixing. It might be that it has a positive effect on their intellect as well. 

And then to think that Black Americans are a mixed race people anyways. The average African American is 20% White. And they also have a lot of Native American blood in them. Native Americans are genetically closest to Asians. And in the video he claims Asians tend to have a slightly higher IQ then Whites no? 

Makes me think. If IQ determines success and Asians being slightly smarter then Whites as he claims. Then why have Whites dominated the world pretty much roughly since the year 1500 until recently. 

Also he mentions the most successful immigrant group in the US are Nigerians. And most of the slaves that were taken from Africa were from the West coast/Nigeria. So then how does that work? 

Edited April 24, 2019 by SFRL

[Leo Gura]

16 hours ago, Quicksilver said:

Isnt this a great example on how self actualization and transcendence leads to the inability to act?

We are here in a thread where not only we cannot agree on what is right vs wrong, but we cant also agree on the existence of the notions of right and wrong... 

How are we gonna get anywhere? 

There is no right or wrong. It's all relative to survival.

Hence there is conflict and disagreement, and it will always exist.

Action is not achieved through total consensus. Power prevails. There are winners and losers.

Don't blame this on self-actualization or transcendence. This is life. You cannot escape survival dynamics.

[Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj]

Omg...

Edited April 24, 2019 by Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj

[Andreas]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no right or wrong. It's all relative to survival.

Hence there is conflict and disagreement, and it will always exist.

Action is not achieved through total consensus. Power prevails. There are winners and losers.

Don't blame this on self-actualization or transcendence. This is life. You cannot escape survival dynamics.

How would the statement 2+2=4 not be right? 

How come the ‘highest’ value of the ‘most developed’ stage be ‘absolute truth’ if there is no truth? 

If there is no right or wrong, how come your statement that there is no right or wrong be right? 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Andreas

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Andreas said:

How would the statement 2+2=4 not be right? 

How come the ‘highest’ value of the ‘most developed’ stage be ‘absolute truth’ if there is no truth? 

If there is no right or wrong, how come your statement that there is no right or wrong be right? 

You can't understand that at your current stage of development and consciousness.

At your stage of cognitive development you simply take objective reality for granted, as a given. But there actually isn't such a thing.

Your MIND is constructing "physical" "reality". The reality you construct is precisely of the sort which allows you to survive as yourself. Everything you consider "real" is filtered through your ego to make sure it allows the illusion of a self to survive as the illusion that it is, without you realizing that it is an illusion.

If you weren't doing this, you'd be dead and a physical world would not exist.

2+2=4 is a relative truth. It is true because you say it is and by how you situate it within your entire scheme of conceptual understanding. It is not an Absolute Truth.

[Andreas]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

You can't understand that at your current stage of development and consciousness.

Because are your stage you simply take objective reality for granted, as a given. But there actually isn't such a thing.

Yes of course I am unconscious because I disagree with your opinion. Stigmatization is not an argument. If you are so developed and understand all of this, why can’t you answer even one of my questions? 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Yes of course I am unconscious because I disagree with your opinion. Stigmatization is not an argument. If you are so developed and understand all of this, why can’t you answer even one of my questions? 

I did answer your questions but you are incapable of understanding what I am saying because you insist on maintaining your paradigm.

What I am telling you is outside that paradigm. So this conversation cannot go any further.

You are not appreciating how tricky the mind is. You cannot trust anything your mind says. It's all games and lies.

[Andreas]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can't understand that at your current stage of development and consciousness.

At your stage of cognitive development you simply take objective reality for granted, as a given. But there actually isn't such a thing.

Your MIND is constructing "physical" "reality". The reality you construct is precisely of the sort which allows you to survive as yourself. Everything you consider "real" is filtered through your ego to make sure it allows the illusion of a self to survive as the illusion that it is, without you realizing that it is an illusion.

If weren't doing this, you'd be dead and a physical world would not exist.

2+2=4 is a relative truth. It is true because you say it is and by how you situate it within your entire scheme of conceptual understanding. It is not an Absolute Truth.

You have still not answered any of my questions.

My first question was HOW 2+2=4 is not true. Answering that with it is a relative truth is not explaining strictly how 2+2=4 would not be true. 

My second question was HOW come the absolute highest value be truth if there is no truth? Answering that with you do not understand because you do not understand that you do not understand is also not an actual answer to my question. It would have been an answer to the question «Do I understand absolute truth by this definition..»

My third question was HOW can you know that there is no right and wrong if there is no right and wrong? Your answer to that was that I cannot know that you can know because I am deeply stuck in my ego and I do not understand that I do not understand and that is the precise reason to why you are in reality, right. But how is that so if nothing is right? And if nothing is wrong, how is it not wrong to say that you are wrong? 

My fourth question will be why do you insist that I am deeply unconscious if that statement in itself cannot be right?

[kieranperez]

13 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Answering that with it is a relative truth is not explaining strictly how 2+2=4 would not be true. 

Any distinction you come up with is not fundamental. It is a relative distinction you came up with. In other words... you literally made up 2+2=4. You invented that entire world for there to even be that distinction. Anything that you invent and create is not fundamental. If it is not fundamental, it is not Absolute by definition. However, at the same time it is included in the Absolute. It existence is the illusion... and you created it.

When you taste the Absolute for the first time, you’ll know. 

18 minutes ago, Andreas said:

there is no truth?

That right there is a truth lol... just an Absolute one. 

You’re conflating Absolute and relative as the same. All relative truths are illusions (they exist as the illusion). Absolute transcends all of that yet includes that. 

22 minutes ago, Andreas said:

My third question was HOW can you know that there is no right and wrong if there is no right and wrong?

Because you can become conscious that you invented that. You invented “right” and “wrong”. You were programmed with that distinction. You can become aware that you, this silly character you think you are is an entire fake molding built of indoctrination, programmed beliefs, values, emotional triggers, dogmas, character traits, preferences that you pretty much had no awareness of as it happened. You can become aware that the “other” that programmed you to believe “right” and “wrong” are none other than you and you will have no one else to look to other than of course, yourself. Right and wrong are not fundamental. They are fabrications for a purpose.

25 minutes ago, Andreas said:

My fourth question will be why do you insist that I am deeply unconscious if that statement in itself cannot be right?

By reading your questions. Your questions and responses says it all.