Evolution vs. Legacy

[Gesundheit]

This thread is directed towards Leo in specific, but it also includes all spiritual teachers.

I was wondering recently about something that I find interesting.
In Islamic history, there's this famous teacher/scholar called Imam Al-Shafiʽi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shafiʽi

This guy used to teach a certain version of Islam back when he was in Iraq, but then when he travelled to Egypt and learned more about Islam, his views expanded and he experienced a change of heart. When he came back to Iraq, he said that the new teachings are the correct teachings, and that those who would still follow his old teachings will go to hell. The two versions are now known as the old school and the new school of Al-Shafiʽi.

Now, consider for a moment that something like that happens with Leo or some other teacher. Let's say that at a certain point, Leo realizes something opposite to his prior teachings that it fundamentally dismantles the grounds of his older work.

Like, for example, let's say that he realizes that the best way to live life is to never ask any questions whatsoever, and to become closed-minded and ideological. Maybe at some point he will change his mind about Spiral Dynamics and then no longer use it, but rather criticize it. Maybe he will become anti-drugs and start saying that psychedelics are a hindrance to humanity. If any of these examples sounds radical to you, think twice with a radically open-mind. It's not about the examples per se, it's about the possibility of a radical change of perspective, like a 180° shift. I'm talking about fundamental changes that may oppose current teachings. I'm talking about Leo becoming a Trump supporter.

The interesting thing now is that the internet records everything we say. I'm failing to imagine how it would work out if something like that was to happen. I'm wondering if Leo has considered this before and if he has done anything to prepare himself for such a thing. After all, Leo has been an atheist for the better part of his life and believed he was right, like everyone else does. I don't see why it's unlikely that he will transcend spirituality to something else entirely, maybe something he currently considers degenerative of real growth and true spirituality.

And you as an audience/follower, how would you take it? And how would you react? Have you ever thought about that? Do you think something like that could ever happen? Etc...

[Forestluv]

I don’t see any relative construct as being 100% absolutely true or 100% absolutely false. I don’t see teachers as transmitters of absolutely true facts. I see teachers as artists that observe, discover and create. In this context, it would be odd to ask “How do we know that the artist’s painting is true? What if in 20 years, the painter says his earlier paintings were false?”.

In some contexts, SD has value. In other contexts, it lacks value. In some contexts, psychedelics have value - in other contexts they can be counter-productive to one’s goal. 

I’d also consider that the process of creation is an evolutionary process. If I visit with an Aborigine tribe for a week, I may return home and describe aspects of their culture. If I return and live with the tribe for 10 years, my understanding will deepen and broaden - yet this doesn’t necessary invalidate my earlier surface-level observations. This is why experience and expertise is important to consider. Someone who has tripped 5 times on 100ug of LSD and tries to describe the essence of psychedelics is different than someone who has never tripped, yet is also different than someone who has tripped 100+ times on various psychedelics and dosages.

In terms of objective analysis, I would say to verify claims oneself. Darwin proposed that babies are formed by pieces of the mother’s body traveling to her womb. He claimed that pieces of the mother’s heart, lungs, brain, kidney etc. travel to her womb to form the baby. With development of microscopes, we were able to test this hypothesis and show it is false. . . Similarly, if someone claims that psychedelics provide insights more powerful than meditation, we can test this by tripping and meditating. If we want to verify a claim that tripping 100+ times on a variety of psychedelics gives deeper understanding of psychedelics, we can test it by directly tripping 100+ times. Or we could test it indirectly by conversing with people that have tripped less than 5 times and people that have tripped 100+ times. 

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

I don’t see any relative construct as being 100% absolutely true or 100% absolutely false. I don’t see teachers as transmitters of absolutely true facts. I see teachers as artists that observe, discover and create. In this context, it would be odd to ask “How do we know that the artist’s painting is true? What if in 20 years, the painter says his earlier paintings were false?”.

What happens if the context changes? Maybe at some point you will see what you regard as relative constructs right now as absolute truth that is incapable of interpretation. This might sound odd or even crazy from your current pov, but is it really an odd possibility in practice? After all, what's the difference between an absolutist outlook and a relativistic one? Both outlooks are defined by the content, and content is always changing.

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

In some contexts, SD has value. In other contexts, it lacks value. In some contexts, psychedelics have value - in other contexts they can be counter-productive to one’s goal.

You're looking at this from a value standpoint. But this standpoint might change at any point. I'm not talking about changes in the content of value. The context itself might change, and you may not be interested in measuring things according to value anymore.

And so forth...

For example, notice that Leo's philosophy is based on nihilism as a core truth. Leo believes that nothing has an inherent meaning, but rather we, humans, project meaning onto things. What might happen if this core belief changes? That is interesting to me.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

What happens if the context changes? 

It depends on one's relationship to the context. If my relationship with SD is that it is the only true theory and a new context is presented in which SD does not apply, then I will likely experience resistance and I may become argumentative to protect my theory. This is a mind that is too rigid. I might also become confused since there are two seemingly opposing views that both have truth. If there is a mind flexibility, I would become curious and excited. To the mind of a creative explorer, changing context is better than sex. 

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Maybe at some point you will see what you regard as relative constructs right now as absolute truth that is incapable of interpretation. This might sound odd or even crazy from your current pov, but is it really an odd possibility in practice? After all, what's the difference between an absolutist outlook and a relativistic one? Both outlooks are defined by the content, and content is always changing.

I also see relative constructs as absolute. From another perspective, relative = absolute. 

It seems what you are asking would be something like this:

I am hiking on a trail and see a snake. It is motionless. I'm able to slowly walk away from the snake. I go to Park Headquarters and tell them there is a dangerous snake on a trail. The Park rangers shut down the Park to visitors while they catch the snake. Yet it turns out it was a rope, not a snake. So my initial interpretation that it was a snake was wrong. . .

This domain has truth to it, yet like all constructs - it has assumptions. Here, we are assuming there is an external objective reality that is true (a rope) and false (a snake).  Yet there are many other ways to see the situation. For example, there are many images in the recontextualization thread of different ways to view the same image. It could be a nature landscape or a man's head, depending on how we look at it. Here, if I show people the nature landscape and someone points out the man's head, my initial interpretation was not wrong from it's own perspective. As a nature landscape, it is a nature landscape. Realizing it is also a man's head broadens my perspective to include two perspectives. This expands and deepens my understanding. And it opens new doors. I may start asking "Did the artist intend to do that?". 

From a human perspective, I would say problems arise when the mind becomes overly rigid or overly fluid. 

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

You're looking at this from a value standpoint. But this standpoint might change at any point. I'm not talking about changes in the content of value. The context itself might change, and you may not be interested in measuring things according to value anymore.

We are not confined to the term "value". We could also use the term "truth". We could say in some contexts SD has truth and in other contexts SD lacks truth. I used the term value because people are generally more open to considering a construct if they believe it holds value. Few humans are interested in exploring areas that lacks what they perceive to be of practical value. 

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

For example, notice that Leo's philosophy is based on nihilism as a core truth. Leo believes that nothing has an inherent meaning, but rather we, humans, project meaning onto things. What might happen if this core belief changes? That is interesting to me.

This is an interpretation through one lens. This seems to be a lens of "Leo believes the object is a snake. What if Leo changes his belief that the object is a rope?". Yet there are other lenses to view this, and all sorts of nuances about what is "truth", "belief", "meaning" and "projection".

To me, a belief itself is not the problem. The problem is when the mind holds onto a belief tightly with attachment, the mind becomes rigid. Then the mind cannot see other facets of the diamond. 

In terms of teaching, it is very difficult to articulate without grounding. Students need structural grounding on which to stand. When I teach genetics, I mention that science is one way of perceiving the world through particular models. Models are limited and true from one perspective, yet false from another perspective. Yet when I'm actually teaching genetics concepts, I have to be grounded and present it as if it were objectively true. "This is how it is". If I was oscillating between grounded and groundless, it is a train wreck. I can't flow between physics and metaphysics, saying things like "This is how a protein binds DNA. Yet there actually isn't a protein, nor DNA from another perspective. Yet these perspectives are not mutually exclusive and there can simultaneously be both protein / DNA and no protein / DNA. And all of this is just an illusion we are creating in this Dreamscape of Here and Now". . . Each component of that has partial truth from a perspective, and we could spend hours exploring each component. Yet it is a terrible way to teach Genetics. The students wouldn't learn Genetics models. 

 

[Gesundheit]

6 hours ago, Forestluv said:

It depends on one's relationship to the context.

What if your relationship to the context changes? What if you're not convinced anymore with the value of multi-perspectival thinking? What if you discover that closed-mindedness is better than open-mindedness? What if your preference of creativity is no longer exciting to you?

6 hours ago, Forestluv said:

This domain has truth to it, yet like all constructs - it has assumptions. Here, we are assuming there is an external objective reality that is true (a rope) and false (a snake).

What if you stop calling what you're calling right now "assumptions"? What if you start calling them "truth" or something else?

You think that you're assuming an external objective reality. But are you really? And how do you know? What if what you think is an assumption right now becomes then a thought that is not considered an assumption? Do you see the subtle, yet radical shift here?

As well, "To me, a belief itself is not the problem. The problem is when the mind holds onto a belief tightly with attachment, the mind becomes rigid. Then the mind cannot see other facets of the diamond."

This assumes a "mind" that is doing something called "attachment" and becomes either "rigid or fluid". It also assumes that reality is a diamond with different facets, but the present moment is one. There's no more than one facet except within an imaginary timeline. How do you reconcile that contradiction?

6 hours ago, Forestluv said:

We are not confined to the term "value". We could also use the term "truth". We could say in some contexts SD has truth and in other contexts SD lacks truth. I used the term value because people are generally more open to considering a construct if they believe it holds value. Few humans are interested in exploring areas that lacks what they perceive to be of practical value.

Yeah, "truth" is not very different from "value". They're both more of what we call "bigger picture/holistic thinking", which is considered as the ideal here, and now everything is challenged by it. But, let's imagine that this ideal has changed. Let's say you've stopped looking at the world from a "holistic perspective" (whatever that is, btw). Let's say that now you've come to value some parts over the whole, or more accurately, different parts than you used to do. Would that not be a radical shift?

Edited March 15, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Someone here]

I think Leo might /should change his mind about some of the insights that he's got from psychedelics. 

[Gesundheit]

7 hours ago, Someone here said:

I think Leo might /should change his mind about some of the insights that he's got from psychedelics. 

Why?

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Why?

The parts about Solipsism and reality being imaginary (his idealist philosophy).. I think it's ultimately false. 

[Mason Riggle]

"“I am whatever I need to be at the time I need to be it.” - Frank Gallagher, but also God. 

[Gesundheit]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The parts about Solipsism and reality being imaginary (his idealist philosophy).. I think it's ultimately false. 

Interesting.

I don't think it's ultimately false, but I don't think it's ultimately true either. To me, it's just beliefs/maps, not reality/the territory. At least for now lol.

6 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

"“I am whatever I need to be at the time I need to be it.” - Frank Gallagher, but also God. 

Wow! That is one powerful quote!

Edited March 15, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Someone here]

@Gesundheit he wasn't been able to provide any evidence so far. And a psychedelic Trip isn't an evidence. 

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here

Recognize that the only thing you can verify with 100% certainty, is experience itself.  Something is happening, that's for sure, but I might be completely mistaken about what that something is (I might be brain in a vat, or dreaming all this, or in a simulation, or hallucinating, etc).   It's only an assumption that reality is 'real' in the sense of it being 'separate' from 'the experience of reality'. 

What evidence would be sufficient to prove to yourself that you're experience is not a dream, that would not be 'part of your experience'?

[Someone here]

@Mason Riggle because simply it's not your experience.  Maybe you are God from ultimate perspective. I have no problem with that. But within this moment.. This current human being that you are is too weak and vulnerable. It needs God outside of itself. And that's why major religions teaches that God is separate from you and bigger than you and you need him (it) etc.. 

 

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here my experience is whatever my experience is. I'm not making any claims about it other than that. 

"'reality' is 'real' and 'I' exist within it" may be the case, but I can't say for sure.  That's sometimes what reality 'seems' like, but sometimes it seems like there is no separation between 'me' (the experiencer of reality) and 'my experience' (reality).  

Edited March 15, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[AdamR95]

@Gesundheit i had experience of holding all perspectives as true and false at the same time. It was meta perspective and very weird experience. But having too much perspectives at once is limiting too. Maybe this is the reason why god seperates himslef. Everyone of us as humans has just one perspective. I think even if you are in godhead state thats just one perspective. You need to be in superposition to see the whole thing and thats probably what is happening here.

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by AdamR95

[Forestluv]

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

What if your relationship to the context changes? What if you're not convinced anymore with the value of multi-perspectival thinking? What if you discover that closed-mindedness is better than open-mindedness? What if your preference of creativity is no longer exciting to you?

Then the relationship to the context changes, one is not convinced anymore with the value of multi-perspectival thinking, one discovers that closed-mindedness is better than open-mindedness and your preference of creativity is no longer exciting to you. One's relationship to reality would change.

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

What if you stop calling what you're calling right now "assumptions"? What if you start calling them "truth" or something else?

Based on conventional meanings, I would draw a distinction between "assumption" and "truth". For example, if someone asked me "When did you stop beating your wife", this assumes I have a wife that I beat. Yet, I don't have a wife. For accuracy, I would need to address the underlying assumption. . . If I didn't call it out as being an assumption and called it true, then I would be engaging within a false construct.

Yet not all assumptions are so obvious. Most assumptions are much more subtle. To create constructs, we often need to act as if assumptions are true - since we need some grounding and rigidity to construct. We cannot build a house out of water, we need grounding and materials with form and rigidity, such as wooden beams. Similarly, if I am building scientific models with a geneticist we need to make assumptions that are considered true - such as DNA codes for proteins.  That is needed as a substrate to work upon. If we deconstructed every piece of wood, we couldn't build a house. . . Yet I could have another conversation with a metaphysicist about whether DNA exists in actuality or whether it is an imagined concept. Here, we are examining the substance of the building material. . . One is not better than the other, yet problems arise when we get too loose with assumptions. For example, if we assume that all DNA mutations are completely random, this can lead to inaccurate conclusions. 

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

You think that you're assuming an external objective reality. But are you really? And how do you know? What if what you think is an assumption right now becomes then a thought that is not considered an assumption? Do you see the subtle, yet radical shift here?

This seems to dig into interpretation, belief and what makes something so. If a mind believes something is so, does that make it so? In a sense, yes - in another sense no. This gets into a tricky area of whether a thing has inherent properties independent of an interpretation of that thing. I consider this area of exploration to go deep into nuanced territory. It's also hard to answer because it's not just an intellectual domain, it merges with other domains. 

The part about "how do you know you are assuming an external objective reality" is more straight-forward. If a mind creates a construct in which there is a thing outside of a finite person and that is universally true, independent of any relativity, it is an "external objective reality". Yet this statement is also a construct - with relative word meanings as building blocks. We could also deconstruct each word in the statement to nothing or reconstruct it in many different ways.  

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

As well, "To me, a belief itself is not the problem. The problem is when the mind holds onto a belief tightly with attachment, the mind becomes rigid. Then the mind cannot see other facets of the diamond."

This assumes a "mind" that is doing something called "attachment" and becomes either "rigid or fluid". It also assumes that reality is a diamond with different facets, but the present moment is one. There's no more than one facet except within an imaginary timeline. 

Of course. All constructs have assumptions. These are needed as grounding and structural support to build a construct. I'm not claiming that any construct is objectively, universally true. We can deconstruct and reconstruct to create new constructs. For example, you pointed out that the construct I built used assumptions of the existence of things called a "mind", "attachment", "rigid", "fluid" and "diamond facets". We could examine each one of these assumptions, explore and create new constructs. For example, we could inquire "what is attachment?", "does attachment exist?", "what are different forms and degrees of attachment?".

Yet each inquiry raises new assumptions. For example, we could examine the assumption that there is a thing called "attachment" by inquiring "does attachment exist?". Yet this inquiry also has an assumption - that existence is a thing that exists. We could also examine this assumption, which leads to another underlying assumption. . . it never ends.

Although assumptions can be problematic, they are also necessary for learning, mind expansion and creation. If someone is learning Spanish and they stop their teacher on every word, pointing to an assumption. . . the person will not learn the construction of the Spanish language and will be unable to speak Spanish. Yet if we get to loose with our assumptions, we can close to many doors - leading to distorted perceptions. We will be missing out on a lot. . . Rejecting too many assumptions or accepting too many assumptions both can be blocks. 

There is also the issue of awareness. The mind can subconsciously unaware or consciously aware of the rejection and acceptance of assumptions. As I write this, there is background awareness that I am making assumptions as I create this construct. I can place my attention on those assumptions to gage if they are sturdy blocks that fit well together. This will create a sturdier construct. If the assumptive blocks are like jello or don't fit well together, the construct will be flimsy. This situation can also be super interesting, depending on our intention. 

If someone points out "What a second, you are using blocks of assumptions to create your construct", it can be a major realization. That type of metacognition is a super power in one domain of creation and opens doors to new domains. 

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

How do you reconcile that contradiction?

Infinity allows for "contradictions". 

Ultimately, any duality is a "contradiction" since two is not not-two. This seems like a contradiction since two is not-two and two is not not-two. 

A is B and A is not B.

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Yeah, "truth" is not very different from "value". They're both more of what we call "bigger picture/holistic thinking", which is considered as the ideal here, and now everything is challenged by it. But, let's imagine that this ideal has changed. Let's say you've stopped looking at the world from a "holistic perspective" (whatever that is, btw). Let's say that now you've come to value some parts over the whole, or more accurately, different parts than you used to do. Would that not be a radical shift?

Here, "truth" and "value" are building blocks within a construct. If we want, we can more closely examine these building blocks and ask questions like "What is the difference between "truth and value?". "are we assigning the same meanings to these terms?". 

One of the most common causes of miscommunication are two people assigning different meaning to the same terms. For example, you write "truth" is not very different from "value". Here, you are creating building blocks in which the "truth block" is similar to the "value block". At this point, I could clarify the meaning I am assigning to the terms "truth" and "value". This would be increasing the rigidity of the construct I'm creating. Or I can be more fluid and adapt to how you are using the terms. I could say "Ok, let's use the terms that way". Sometimes, the underlying meaning is more important than terms use. One may say "I couldn't care less about what words are used, it's more important to convey the underlying essence of what the words symbolize". . . To increase the construct rigidity, I could ask you for a higher resolution description of how you are using the terms "truth" and "value". 

In terms of assumptions, problems of miscommunication arise when two people are unaware they are making different assumptions - and they believe these assumptions are objectively true. For example, I may state "Truth and value are very different" and you state "Truth is not very different from value". Here, we are using very different building blocks and labeling them the same. Person 1 is labeling a triangular block "value" and Person 2 is labeling a rectangular block as "value". If the "truth block" is square, then Person 1 is correct that the two blocks are very different and Person 2 is correct that the two blocks are the similar. Here miscommunication arises. If both people think their labeling of the blocks is objectively true, they may engage in argumentation trying to prove their labeling is correct. This is unfortunate as the underlying essence is missed. Yet if there is awareness of block labeling during construction, there can be fluidity of term usage. Yet then intentionality arises and how interested the mind is engaging within that particular construct. If one mind is creating a construct about how the coronavirus is playing a role in human evolution and realizes the other mind is using the same terms in a way to create a construct in which the coronavirus is a hoax, the two constructs don't have enough overlap - either an argument will ensue or one person loses interest. 

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Yeah, "truth" is not very different from "value". They're both more of what we call "bigger picture/holistic thinking", which is considered as the ideal here, and now everything is challenged by it. But, let's imagine that this ideal has changed. Let's say you've stopped looking at the world from a "holistic perspective" (whatever that is, btw). Let's say that now you've come to value some parts over the whole, or more accurately, different parts than you used to do. Would that not be a radical shift?

I'm not suggesting that "bigger picture/holistic thinking" is always ideal. It depends on the situation and the intention. If our refrigerator is broken and our intention is to fix it, it will not help to use bigger picture thinking about how the Big Bang triggered absolute connectivity and there are infinite inputs of causation leading to our broken refrigerator. Here we need to zoom in and look at the components of the refrigerator to figure out which one is broken and causing the problem.

If a mind is locked into holistic views and comes to realize the value of parts, yes this would be a radical shift. Yet if it is a "shift" it is merely moving from by contracted in one domain "big picture thinking" to another domain "small picture thinking". In terms of mind expansion, the mind would be able to use both maps, depending on context. A simple example would be using geographic maps. A person locked into a big map would be using a map of Europe and dismissing the value of a Rome city map. If this person visited Rome and realized the limitations of his Europe map and the value of a Rome map, that is potentially an expansion. Yet if he rejects the Europe map and and becomes locked into the Rome map, he is just trading one map for another. This is fine as long as he is in Rome. Yet if he travels outside Rome, it becomes problematic. Ideally, after the realization the person would be able to use both the big picture Europe map and the small picture Rome map. 

Ideal is relative to context and intention of creation. Big picture (low resolution) thinking is not always ideal and small picture (high resolution) thinking is not always ideal. Being able to zoom in and zoom out is a metacognition skill that few minds have. In terms of conceptual construct creation, I would rank it as one of the most important skills. If I was creating a team to build complex constructs, I would include minds that specialize in big picture thinking and minds that specialize in small picture thinking. Yet it is also essential to have some minds that specialize in zooming in and zooming out. These minds are super important for inter-connectivity within the higher-order collective mind of the team. 

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Gesundheit he wasn't been able to provide any evidence so far. And a psychedelic Trip isn't an evidence. 

Deconstruct the concept of evidence. Ask yourself; What is evidence? Or maybe create a thread lol.

1 hour ago, AdamR95 said:

@Gesundheit i had experience of holding all perspectives as true and false at the same time. It was meta perspective and very weird experience. But having too much perspectives at once is limiting too. Maybe this is the reason why god seperates himslef. Everyone of us as humans has just one perspective. I think even if you are in godhead state thats just one perspective. You need to be in superposition to see the whole thing and thats probably what is happening here.

Maybe, but this still assumes "perspectives" which is a made-up "perspective" in and of itself.

[Gesundheit]

52 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Then the relationship to the context changes, one is not convinced anymore with the value of multi-perspectival thinking, one discovers that closed-mindedness is better than open-mindedness and your preference of creativity is no longer exciting to you. One's relationship to reality would change.

Connect that with OP. Let's say you've become a Trump supporter. How would you handle it? At least, how do you expect you would? Do you even think it's possible? Likely or unlikely? What does this kind of change depend on in your current opinion?

(This is more directed towards Leo and other teachers that make videos and write books, etc...).

I'll contemplate the rest of your posts and see what comes up.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

One is not better than the other, yet problems arise when we get too loose with assumptions. For example, if we assume that all DNA mutations are completely random, this can lead to inaccurate conclusions. 

"Problems" is an imaginary construct too! And it depends on one's agendas. (Just observing here).

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

This seems to dig into interpretation, belief and what makes something so. If a mind believes something is so, does that make it so?

"Mind/interpretation/belief" are imaginary constructs, until we decide otherwise. (Again, just observing).

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Of course. All constructs have assumptions.

What about the construct of constructs? Is it an assumption or truth? You're choosing to view things from a relativistic/construct-aware lens. But that's just your way of looking at things. (Mine too, btw).

Quote

These are needed as grounding and structural support to build a construct. I'm not claiming that any construct is objectively, universally true. We can deconstruct and reconstruct to create new constructs. For example, you pointed out that the construct I built used assumptions of the existence of things called a "mind", "attachment", "rigid", "fluid" and "diamond facets". We could examine each one of these assumptions, explore and create new constructs. For example, we could inquire "what is attachment?", "does attachment exist?", "what are different forms and degrees of attachment?".

Yet each inquiry raises new assumptions. For example, we could examine the assumption that there is a thing called "attachment" by inquiring "does attachment exist?". Yet this inquiry also has an assumption - that existence is a thing that exists. We could also examine this assumption, which leads to another underlying assumption. . . it never ends.

Although assumptions can be problematic, they are also necessary for learning, mind expansion and creation. If someone is learning Spanish and they stop their teacher on every word, pointing to an assumption. . . the person will not learn the construction of the Spanish language and will be unable to speak Spanish. Yet if we get to loose with our assumptions, we can close to many doors - leading to distorted perceptions. We will be missing out on a lot. . . Rejecting too many assumptions or accepting too many assumptions both can be blocks. 

I'm not questioning the necessity of assumptions within a construct. I am rather questioning the validity of constructs in and of themselves. One question that arises is: Why is a construct important?

I'm not done yet. I'll still be contemplating the rest in the meantime.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Here, "truth" and "value" are building blocks within a construct. If we want, we can more closely examine these building blocks and ask questions like "What is the difference between "truth and value?". "are we assigning the same meanings to these terms?". 

One of the most common causes of miscommunication are two people assigning different meaning to the same terms. For example, you write "truth" is not very different from "value". Here, you are creating building blocks in which the "truth block" is similar to the "value block". At this point, I could clarify the meaning I am assigning to the terms "truth" and "value". This would be increasing the rigidity of the construct I'm creating. Or I can be more fluid and adapt to how you are using the terms. I could say "Ok, let's use the terms that way". Sometimes, the underlying meaning is more important than terms use. One may say "I couldn't care less about what words are used, it's more important to convey the underlying essence of what the words symbolize". . . To increase the construct rigidity, I could ask you for a higher resolution description of how you are using the terms "truth" and "value".

In terms of assumptions, problems of miscommunication arise when two people are unaware they are making different assumptions - and they believe these assumptions are objectively true. For example, I may state "Truth and value are very different" and you state "Truth is not very different from value". Here, we are using very different building blocks and labeling them the same. Person 1 is labeling a triangular block "value" and Person 2 is labeling a rectangular block as "value". If the "truth block" is square, then Person 1 is correct that the two blocks are very different and Person 2 is correct that the two blocks are the similar. Here miscommunication arises. If both people think their labeling of the blocks is objectively true, they may engage in argumentation trying to prove their labeling is correct. This is unfortunate as the underlying essence is missed. Yet if there is awareness of block labeling during construction, there can be fluidity of term usage. Yet then intentionality arises and how interested the mind is engaging within that particular construct. If one mind is creating a construct about how the coronavirus is playing a role in human evolution and realizes the other mind is using the same terms in a way to create a construct in which the coronavirus is a hoax, the two constructs don't have enough overlap - either an argument will ensue or one person loses interest.

I already specified the context that I am interested in. Truth and value are similar in the context of bigger picture/holistic thinking. Outside of this context, they could be different. But that would be beside the point. Notice I also specified that I don't even have a rigid idea of what bigger picture/holistic thinking are. So your points are already included.

I was just highlighting the intellectual position of favoring bigger picture/holistic thinking over the opposite. And I was doing that rather from a bigger picture/holistic thinking vantage point.

(Now I realize my point was addressed later in the comment).

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

I'm not suggesting that "bigger picture/holistic thinking" is always ideal. It depends on the situation and the intention. If our refrigerator is broken and our intention is to fix it, it will not help to use bigger picture thinking about how the Big Bang triggered absolute connectivity and there are infinite inputs of causation leading to our broken refrigerator. Here we need to zoom in and look at the components of the refrigerator to figure out which one is broken and causing the problem.

If a mind is locked into holistic views and comes to realize the value of parts, yes this would be a radical shift. Yet if it is a "shift" it is merely moving from by contracted in one domain "big picture thinking" to another domain "small picture thinking". In terms of mind expansion, the mind would be able to use both maps, depending on context. A simple example would be using geographic maps. A person locked into a big map would be using a map of Europe and dismissing the value of a Rome city map. If this person visited Rome and realized the limitations of his Europe map and the value of a Rome map, that is potentially an expansion. Yet if he rejects the Europe map and and becomes locked into the Rome map, he is just trading one map for another. This is fine as long as he is in Rome. Yet if he travels outside Rome, it becomes problematic. Ideally, after the realization the person would be able to use both the big picture Europe map and the small picture Rome map. 

Ideal is relative to context and intention of creation. Big picture (low resolution) thinking is not always ideal and small picture (high resolution) thinking is not always ideal. Being able to zoom in and zoom out is a metacognition skill that few minds have. In terms of conceptual construct creation, I would rank it as one of the most important skills. If I was creating a team to build complex constructs, I would include minds that specialize in big picture thinking and minds that specialize in small picture thinking. Yet it is also essential to have some minds that specialize in zooming in and zooming out. These minds are super important for inter-connectivity within the higher-order collective mind of the team. 

But still, bigger picture/holistic thinking is not absolute truth. It may be closer to absolute truth from a certain perspective on certain levels, but essentially isn't it the same as small picture thinking/closed-mindedness? In terms of value, the mind is trying to control value and distribute it in the way it sees fit. Yet, in practice, the mind is too limited to know everything. It does not posses infinite intelligence. So, while on the one hand, it may be creating desired results, on the other hand, it might as well be creating problems in the long run that it cannot forsee no matter how big/holistic it gets.

Okay, now I'm done.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Gesundheit