If a lion can become a vegan, so can humans.

[Forestluv]

@Scholar These are all theoretical constructs and I’m not pointing to that at all. I’m pointing at the transcendence of these theoretical constructs. You don’t seem to be aware of how deeply immersed you are within your theoretical constructs. It’s not the statements themselves. It is the relationship you have to those statements. Notice how with each post, you are getting more deeply immersed into theoretical constructs. That provides a sense of control and grounding. Yet at a deeper level, the subconscious attachment to objectivism can be revealed. It is quite profound and liberating, yet can also be extremely destabilizing and scary. 

This can be revealed by examining your relationship with the word “is”.

[Matt8800]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

 

There is no subjectivity, there is only what is. And the isness of suffering in you and in others is equivalent, it is not relative.

@ScholarThere is ONLY subjectivity and that is only what is.

Ultimately, there is only the ONE. Fundamentally, I am the chicken and fish that I eat.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Matt8800

[Matt8800]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar These are all theoretical constructs and I’m not pointing to that at all. I’m pointing at the transcendence of these theoretical constructs. You don’t seem to be aware of how deeply immersed you are within your theoretical constructs. It’s not the statements themselves. It is the relationship you have to those statements. Notice how with each post, you are getting more deeply immersed into theoretical constructs. That provides a sense of control and grounding. Yet at a deeper level, the subconscious attachment to objectivism can be revealed. It is quite profound and liberating, yet can also be extremely destabilizing and scary. 

This can be revealed by examining your relationship with the word “is”.

^^^ What he said

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar These are all theoretical constructs and I’m not pointing to that at all. I’m pointing at the transcendence of these theoretical constructs. You don’t seem to be aware of how deeply immersed you are within your theoretical constructs. It’s not the statements themselves. It is the relationship you have to those statements. Notice how with each post, you are getting more deeply immersed into theoretical constructs. That provides a sense of control and grounding. Yet at a deeper level, the subconscious attachment to objectivism can be revealed. It is quite profound and liberating, yet can also be extremely destabilizing and scary. 

This can be revealed by examining your relationship with the word “is”.

Can't teach a cup that is already full.

[remember]

4 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

There is ONLY subjectivity and that is only what is. Ultimately, there is only the ALL. Fundamentally, I am the chicken that I eat.

fundamentally you also are the person who fed the chicken to itself.

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

There is ONLY subjectivity and that is only what is. Ultimately, there is only the ALL. Fundamentally, I am the chicken that I eat.

lol, this conversation escalated beyond chicken and subjectivity.

In the realm I am speaking of, both subjectivity and chicken are not there anymore.

[Scholar]

There will come a day when those who seek Truth will not judge the words of others by it's content, but by the Truth hidden between the lines.

Also:

Those who know are those who have failed to recognize what there is to seek.

[Forestluv]

42 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Can't teach a cup that is already full.

A person may see a full cup and be unaware of the infinite empty cups. Your potential for expansion is way beyond what you are currently conscious of ? ♥️ 

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Don’t confine yourself to that cup. Your potential for expansion is way beyond what you are currently aware of ? ♥️ 

I was referring to you though. I will learn everything you told me, it is the inevitable path I am on. However, what I am pointing to is so subtle you might not ever see it. You could stumble your way into non-duality and enlightenment without ever having a keen sense of what I am trying to communicate to you. Is that not interested? I think it is.

See, morality is neither relative, nor subjective, nor objective, not existential. It is all of that (and more), and the traversal through these realizations is the exploration of that fascet of realness. Transcend and include, remember.

 

Ask yourself, could you give me a summary of the position or realization that I am trying to communicate with you? Could you explain to me what I am explaining to you? If not, how could you know what I speak of? How could you know I am wrong?

Is it maybe the case that you have interpreted everything I said in a way which would allow you to dismiss it, which would allow you to point to what I am wrong about? Did you even attempt to find truth in what I am saying?

 

I don't know, dismissing someones perspective because it is not non-dual enough seems to me like a bad move. The relative world has it's own things to explore, non-duality will not give you insight into all of existence.

[remember]

@Serotoninluv  a question about absolutism and how it might not be orange... i realize that in the science world it might seem like orange but who says science is operating in orange? if the system is blue, let`s say all hirarchical systems that operate on a belief into the system might be in a sense blue, then it would be easier to discern someone who believes in the system as blue, someone who uses the system for personal gains as orange, someone who uses it for more social and environmental purposes would be green, although it would get interesting as the colours mix so turquoise

Edited September 15, 2019 by remember

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

I was referring to you though..

Yes, I know that ☺️

4 minutes ago, Scholar said:

If not, how could you know what I speak of? How could you know I am wrong?

I am not saying you are “wrong”. The immersion into a construct of “right” vs “wrong” is extremely limiting. Personalizing the construct causes further contraction/limitation. This is part of what I was trying to point to. 

What I’m trying to point to is very difficult to describe in words to those who are not aware of it - especially via text on a forum. The risk I take in trying to do so is that the receiver will perceive a person that misunderstands/dismisses their ideas. This is not a good dynamic for expansion ime.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes, I know that ☺️

I am not saying you are “wrong”. The immersion into a construct of “right” vs “wrong” is extremely limiting. Personalizing the construct causes further contraction/limitation. This is part of what I was trying to point to. 

What I’m trying to point to is very difficult to describe in words to those who are not aware of it - especially via text on a forum. The risk I take in trying to do so is that the receiver will perceive a person that misunderstands/dismisses their ideas. This is not a good dynamic for expansion ime.

I know what you are pointing to Sero. But I still feel like you are not seeing what I am trying to point to. I don't attempt to put my language into this framework you are using where you want everything to sound Non-dualish. I don't care about that, I don't care if it comes of as absolutist. I just want you to see.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, remember said:

@Serotoninluv  a question about absolutism and how it might not be orange... i realize that in the science world it might seem like orange but who says science is operating in orange? if the system is blue, let`s say all hirarchical systems that operate on a belief into the system might be in a sense blue, then it would be easier to discern someone who believes in the system as blue, someone who uses the system for personal gains as orange, someone who uses it for more social and environmental purposes would be green, although it would get interesting as the colours mix so turquoise

Yea. You seem to have two things going on here, the mode and the value. Two different perspectives.

For example, we could say a binary thinking mode is blue, a spectral thinking mode is Orange and relativistic is Yellow. These are developmental cognitive stages. We could also look at things from a values perspective, as you described. For example, imagine a person buys an electric car. They could do so because they want to look good to others - maybe an electric car would make them look modern and sexy - this would be Orange. Or a person could buy an electric car because they genuinely care about the environment - this would be Green.

[remember]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yea. You seem to have two things going on here, the mode and the value. Two different perspectives.

For example, we could say a binary thinking mode is blue, a spectral thinking mode is Orange and relativistic is Yellow. These are developmental cognitive stages. We could also look at things from a values perspective, as you described. For example, imagine a person buys an electric car. They could do so because they want to look good to others - maybe an electric car would make them look modern and sexy - this would be Orange. Or a person could buy an electric car because they genuinely care about the environment - this would be Green.

why do you think orange is spectral? you mean simply spectral like without a spiral system behind? would a green person not go by bike? don`t take me serious spiral dynamics is really difficult the more the colours have to fit.

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yea. You seem to have two things going on here, the mode and the value. Two different perspectives.

For example, we could say a binary thinking mode is blue, a spectral thinking mode is Orange and relativistic is Yellow. These are developmental cognitive stages. We could also look at things from a values perspective, as you described. For example, imagine a person buys an electric car. They could do so because they want to look good to others - maybe an electric car would make them look modern and sexy - this would be Orange. Or a person could buy an electric car because they genuinely care about the environment - this would be Green.

Sero, one can use binary modes of thinking without being trapped to binary thinking. For example, what I was pointing out is that you guys are very binary about things being relativistic and subjective vs. quintessential (which is what I am pointing to!).

I feel like what you do is like talking about what kind of pen I am using to write, instead of actually trying to read what I am writing. Whether I use blue, orange or green language doesn't matter! It goes beyond all of it anyways.

 

Again, can you try to articulate to me what you think I am pointing to?

[Forestluv]

24 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I know what you are pointing to Sero. 

To me, it’s clear we are not on the same frequency. That’s ok. What I’m trying to transmit is difficult. In this case, it feels like I’m trying to thread a needle underwater.

You seem to be doing a lot of self actualization work and I wish you the best ? ♥️ 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, remember said:

why do you think orange is spectral? you mean simply spectral like without a spiral system behind? would a green person not go by bike? don`t take me serious spiral dynamics is really difficult the more the colours have to fit.

By “spectral” I mean a continuum. A basic binary example would be “people are either short or tall”. A continuum mode would see persons with in a continuum of extremely short to extremely tall - such as a bell curve.

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, it’s clear we are not on the same frequency. That’s ok. What I’m trying to transmit is difficult. In this case, it feels like trying to thread a needle underwater.

You seem to be doing a lot of self actualization work and I wish you the best ? ♥️ 

Sero... I feel like I am not the one who is struggling here

 

It's like you are in teaching mode, you don't even try to truly reflect upon what I am trying to say you just go immediately into "How can I teach him?"-Mode. Every conversation we have mutates into a meta-conversation about the conversation. It's like it always becomes a lecture on Spiral Dynamics. I want us to communicate, I don't know why you are giving up so quickly.

 

Either way, I think it would help if you tried to write down what you think it is that I am communicating. How else will be resolve misunderstandings?

 

I think this is kind of hilarious

Edited September 15, 2019 by Scholar

[remember]

@Serotoninluv ok i see what you are refering to. it`s getting more complex if the system is complex, if seen in a systemic way it`s sometimes difficult to discern system operting mode from personal operating mode. i`m not really good in actually discerning what the cognitive stages in people are based on the way they are talking, yet.

thanks for the good examples! i`m still learning the structures and connections, but i sometimes miss on the practice and theoretical foundation.

Edited September 15, 2019 by remember

[Forestluv]

@Scholar I’ve spent over 25 years immersed in theoretical modeling. I am trying to convey a transcendence of that. Yet you keep trying to re-contract into your theoretical construct. There is nothing wrong with that. The reason I am not participating in that is because it is much more important to me to help you expand your consciousness than engage in your contracted theory (to which you are attached and identified with).  I think you are really close to expanding here, which is why I’ve put so much effort.

There is a bigger prize here that I wish I could show you. And it will deepen your understanding of relativism. Some beings don’t care if others realize it or not. I’m not one of those beings. Yet I also understand I cannot force it upon someone. You don’t seem interested and I respect that.