Relativity always implied

[Gesundheit]

For example when someone says: this is stupid. What he or she actually means is that this seems stupid from their pov.

This is something I've struggled with for a long time. I tend to always express myself authentically and tend to use language in an assertive manner. Somehow this used to trigger some people and they criticized me for it even though I have good understanding of what relativity means I just leave it implicit. Looking back now in retrospect I realize that these people were probably neurotic or that they'd learned about relativity recently. So for them it seemed like I was talking in an absolute sense when in fact I was simply expressing myself and my relative point of view. They wanted me to explicitly expres my relative pov. Somehow they imprinted me with the idea that I should never talk in an assertive manner and it's exhaustive uou know. I had to go out of my way to fake language I don't even want to use so that they would not critisize me. I want my freedom back. With this insight today I don't have to limit myself any more. I am free to express myself however I see fit.

And now that I think about it, if we choose to imply relativity in every sentence it's actually a lot more powerful. If we make relativity the initial assumption for everything we receive from the outside world, think of how powerful that can be. You will never need to worry whether or not something you've heard is true because you know that it's relative to the speaker. I am free.

[Leo Gura]

Since most people are absolutists and don't understand or appreciate relativity, they will interpret your language as absolutist.

When most people say, "Fascists are stupid or evil" they don't mean it relativistically, they mean it absolutely. Which is a big problem.

I do the same thing as you. I always implicitly mean everything I say is relativistic, but because that's too long-winded to explain every time, I often make statements which sound absolutist and which people misunderstand as me being absolutist.

So, for example, when I say libertarians are stupid, I of course mean it relativistically. But people think I mean it absolutely.

It's hard to avoid this problem because you'd have to constantly qualify everything you say and an absolutist wouldn't appreciate your qualifications anyway because they reject relativity to begin with.

The solution to this is to teach relativity early in and all throughout school. Our culture itself does not understand relativity yet.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura I wanna say thank you for everything but it still wouldn't be enough. I owe the biggest part of my growth to you. I'm waiting for Understanding Relativity part2 and I believe a lot of people are the same. Is it close on your list?

[Rilles]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Since most people are absolutists and don't understand or appreciate relativity, they will interpret your language as absolutist.

When most people say, "Fascists are stupid or evil" they don't mean it relativistically, they mean it absolutely. Which is a big problem.

I do the same thing as you. I always implicitly mean everything I say is relativistic, but because that's too long-winded to explain every time, I often make statements which sound absolutist and which people misunderstand as me being absolutist.

So, for example, when I say libertarians are stupid, I of course mean it relativistically. But people think I mean it absolutely.

It's hard to avoid this problem because you'd have to constantly qualify everything you say and an absolutist wouldn't appreciate your qualifications anyway because they reject relativity to begin with.

The solution to this is to teach relativity early in and all throughout school. Our culture itself does not understand relativity yet.

Holy smokes, this blew my mind. I always thought you came of kind of douchey with your put down of others, "This guy has died like a 100 times and become everyone so why is he so critical towards the everyones he claims to be" But now I see... Absolute vs relative putdowns lol cool

I can see why it would be way too complicated to go "Theyre stupid but not really stupid just from my point view which is a relative point of view etc etc" Everytime. Sometimes you gotta be direct to guide your followers in the direction you want them to. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Rilles

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Rilles said:

it would be way too complicated to go "Theyre stupid but not really stupid just from my point view which is a relative point of view etc etc" Everytime. Sometimes you gotta be direct to guide your followers in the direction you want them to.

You got it

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I'm waiting for Understanding Relativity part2 and I believe a lot of people are the same. Is it close on your list?

We'll see.

I talk about relativity a lot in less direct ways.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura Love it! Always implied 

[Rilles]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You got it

Not an excuse to be a douche though.  

[Display_Name]

Of course. This becomes especially pronounced on spirituality forums where you’re shooting the shit and people respond with absolutist neo advaita.

Like no you idiot, yes of course it’s relative. Everything that comes out of our mouths is automatically not Truth. Doesnt mean we need to put a silly disclaimer infront of everything we say for un-nuanced idiots. It’s a given.

[Forestluv]

Yes, it can be awkward to add relative qualifiers - yet I also think it’s important to be aware of one’s intellectual as well as energetic relationship to the views their mind holds. I could give an intellectual explanation about relativity and how my views are relative. Including the view I express right now. Yet what is my relationship with those views? Am I actually holding them as if they are objectively true? Am I emotionally and energetically attached and identified to them as if they are objectively true? Can I let go of my closest views like a hummingbird that flies away?

Consider people like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Vaush. Each one of them can give a decent description of relativity. They have an intellectual awareness of relativity. And if called out on it, they would acknowledge that their own views are relative. Yet that then gets brushed aside and they continue communicating as if their views are objectively true, because their underlying relationship with their views has attachment and identification to those views as being objectively true. They will resist presenting their views as relative - not for the sake of clarity, rather due to their relationship with the views. I’ve had many conversations with people that may intellectually acknowledge “yea, it’s just my relative view” and then they continue to argue as if it was not a relative view.

In terms of SD, one line of Yellow development is intellectually understanding relativity. Other lines of development into Tier2 is that one’s intuitive, emotional and empathic energetics become aligned with relativity. There is a new sense of flexibility and fluidity in multiple modes of being. 

[Gesundheit]

36 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Yes, it can be awkward to add relative qualifiers - yet I also think it’s important to be aware of one’s intellectual as well as energetic relationship to the views their mind holds. I could give an intellectual explanation about relativity and how my views are relative. Including the view I express right now. Yet what is my relationship with those views? Am I actually holding them as if they are objectively true? Am I emotionally and energetically attached and identified to them as if they are objectively true? Can I let go of my closest views like a hummingbird that flies away?

Consider people like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Vaush. Each one of them can give a decent description of relativity. They have an intellectual awareness of relativity. And if called out on it, they would acknowledge that their own views are relative. Yet that then gets brushed aside and they continue communicating as if their views are objectively true, because their underlying relationship with their views has attachment and identification to those views as being objectively true. They will resist presenting their views as relative - not for the sake of clarity, rather due to their relationship with the views. I’ve had many conversations with people that may intellectually acknowledge “yea, it’s just my relative view” and then they continue to argue as if it was not a relative view.

In terms of SD, one line of Yellow development is intellectually understanding relativity. Other lines of development into Tier2 is that one’s intuition, emotional and empathic energetics become aligned with relativity. There is a new sense of flexibility and fluidity in multiple modes of being. 

So true. I'm only beginning to realize these nuances.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Consider people like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Vaush. Each one of them can give a decent description of relativity. They have an intellectual awareness of relativity. And if called out on it, they would acknowledge that their own views are relative.

I think you're being too charitable there.

These people are absolutists in many ways.

If you tell Vaush that fascism is only relatively bad, he will probably call you a fascist, Lol.

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think you're being too charitable there.

These people are absolutists in many ways.

If you tell Vaush that fascism is only relatively bad, he will probably call you a fascist, Lol.

I may be too charitable. I’m reflecting on the Vaush’s video on freedom of speech that was recently posted on the forum. Several times the caller said that this was just Vaush’s personal view, why should he get to say which speech should be banned and who gets to regulate it. This opened the door to relativity. Each time Vaush responded something like “Of course it’s just my belief. Everyone advocates for what they believe to be true. I’m not saying I would be regulating speech. I’m saying there could be a some entity that regulates speech”. So, he had a very basic awareness of relativity, yet then he went straight back to stating how we can construct philosophically sound positions and had a very absolutist tone that his views are objectively correct. 

One thing I like about Vaush is how intellectually tight and precise he can be. It’s like an INTP on steroids. My mind is much more fluid and at times I appreciate someone that is intellectually hyper grounded, structured and precise. 

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

“Of course it’s just my belief. Everyone advocates for what they believe to be true. I’m not saying I would be regulating speech. I’m saying there could be a some entity that regulates speech”. So, he had a very basic awareness of relativity, yet then he went straight back to stating how we can construct philosophically sound positions and had a very absolutist tone that his views are objectively correct.

Yes, if you push him on it, as a philosophical level he will acknowledge relativity. But then he will go back to calling half the country fascist.

It's an interesting dynamic.

Relativity is an extremely deep topic. It can be realized at mild levels or at extremely deep levels, or anything in between. Mostly people's understanding and appreciation of relativity is skin deep and purely theoretical.

[Gesundheit]

@Forestluv @Leo Gura although now that I think about it I do wonder. Suppose I have a position that I realize is completely relative yet I go on debating others for it. My relationship with the position is not necessarily related to it being objectively absolutely true. A lot of times for me it was pride and ego. I fully recognized the relativity of my position yet I would not admit it's relative. Or maybe I would admit that but would still argue for it as if it was correct. I mostly wanted to be agreed with so that I could control the narrative, even though some other times I thought my position was actually "better" than others' in the sense that I thought I knew better than them which I am still convinced till this day it may be correct. It's something that needs further inspection on my part I should say. But I'd like to hear your thoughts if you'd like to emphasize or comment.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Leo Gura]

Of course the ego-mind is power-hungry for purposes of survival. That's why it tends to think and act absolutistically. Absolutism just comes naturally with any sort of attachment.

[Jacobsrw]

16 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

For example when someone says: this is stupid. What he or she actually means is that this seems stupid from their pov.

This is something I've struggled with for a long time. I tend to always express myself authentically and tend to use language in an assertive manner. Somehow this used to trigger some people and they criticized me for it even though I have good understanding of what relativity means I just leave it implicit. Looking back now in retrospect I realize that these people were probably neurotic or that they'd learned about relativity recently. So for them it seemed like I was talking in an absolute sense when in fact I was simply expressing myself and my relative point of view. They wanted me to explicitly expres my relative pov. Somehow they imprinted me with the idea that I should never talk in an assertive manner and it's exhaustive uou know. I had to go out of my way to fake language I don't even want to use so that they would not critisize me. I want my freedom back. With this insight today I don't have to limit myself any more. I am free to express myself however I see fit.

And now that I think about it, if we choose to imply relativity in every sentence it's actually a lot more powerful. If we make relativity the initial assumption for everything we receive from the outside world, think of how powerful that can be. You will never need to worry whether or not something you've heard is true because you know that it's relative to the speaker. I am free.

Nice insight. It’s a great realisation to have. Unfortunately, many do not see how imperative it is to realise their own bias.

Really, to have a perspective is to be limited, since perspective necessarily entails that one localises their consciousness to a specific lens in order for the perspective to be known.

To be unlimited is to be pure consciousness itself unrestrained by the incessant distinctions of the mind. This means to have no perspective at all. Since that’s what consciousness fundamentally is, perspectiveless. A state of unconstructed potentiation, it’s quite beautiful.

 It’s useful to see that when you become consumed by a perspective or opinion that your are limiting yourself. To enter higher states of consciousness, begin to allow and embody the perspectives of others, as this means you will naturally expand. See that your perspective is no more superior than another’s since all perspective are limited by the same mechanism, the mind.

As Leo said, it’s just whether a perspective is helpful for survival or not. That is it’s only metric. Other than that just BE.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Gesundheit]

3 hours ago, Jacobsrw said:

Nice insight. It’s a great realisation to have. Unfortunately, many do not see how imperative it is to realise their own bias.

Really, to have a perspective is to be limited, since perspective necessarily entails that one localises their consciousness to a specific lens in order for the perspective to be known.

To be unlimited is to be pure consciousness itself unrestrained by the incessant distinctions of the mind. This means to have no perspective at all. Since that’s what consciousness fundamentally is, perspectiveless. A state of unconstructed potentiation, it’s quite beautiful.

 It’s useful to see that when you become consumed by a perspective or opinion that your are limiting yourself. To enter higher states of consciousness, begin to allow and embody the perspectives of others, as this means you will naturally expand. See that your perspective is no more superior than another’s since all perspective are limited by the same mechanism, the mind.

As Leo said, it’s just whether a perspective is helpful for survival or not. That is it’s only metric. Other than that just BE.

??

Thanks for putting this here.

[Display_Name]

18 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Yes, it can be awkward to add relative qualifiers - yet I also think it’s important to be aware of one’s intellectual as well as energetic relationship to the views their mind holds. I could give an intellectual explanation about relativity and how my views are relative. Including the view I express right now. Yet what is my relationship with those views? Am I actually holding them as if they are objectively true? Am I emotionally and energetically attached and identified to them as if they are objectively true? Can I let go of my closest views like a hummingbird that flies away?

Consider people like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Vaush. Each one of them can give a decent description of relativity. They have an intellectual awareness of relativity. And if called out on it, they would acknowledge that their own views are relative. Yet that then gets brushed aside and they continue communicating as if their views are objectively true, because their underlying relationship with their views has attachment and identification to those views as being objectively true. They will resist presenting their views as relative - not for the sake of clarity, rather due to their relationship with the views. I’ve had many conversations with people that may intellectually acknowledge “yea, it’s just my relative view” and then they continue to argue as if it was not a relative view.

In terms of SD, one line of Yellow development is intellectually understanding relativity. Other lines of development into Tier2 is that one’s intuitive, emotional and empathic energetics become aligned with relativity. There is a new sense of flexibility and fluidity in multiple modes of being. 

Very true

Edited July 22, 2020 by Display_Name