Lofty ideas about the relativity of identity -Leo video

[Preety_India]

If everyone decided to change all at once, the society would collapse, this is understandable.  Yes. Significant changes and openings to relativity might destroy families or the whole structure. Change is desirable obviously and we do pay a price eventually, however it all works out for the better. Like you said you need to appreciate the rate of change. Conservatives are not very tolerant of change and that's not because they are bad people. Majority of people around the world don't have the luxury to sit and think lofty ideas about the relativity of identity. 

But do you sometimes think that change being a permanent state, no matter how slow, is also a bit of a danger, because there are things that are worth preserving. Things we cannot simply experiment with or else we end up paying huge costs. 

I see it this way. Change is desirable. But only to a certain extent. Such an extent or boundary needs to be determined to have a perfect curve of growth without going off the deeper end. This means there has to be a resting point or a mid point on this curve where conservation or preservation would make more sense than to continue with making more and more changes. Leo you talk about infinity. Infinity does look good in theory. And as you say we should appreciate the rate of change. But I don't think it's so much about the lofty ideas about the relativity of identity, or the experience of liberation when you're freed from these identities, it's more about how much change should we really allow room for. Because at a certain point the death of civilization or the collapse of society might become inevitable whether this change is sudden or extremely slow. When a sudden change happens it's a shock. However even slow changes over time can radically alter a social image or structure and this is equally dangerous, only that it gives more time before the eventual collapse.  I think you're wrong if you believe that change should be permanent in terms of relativity. Why don't you think of a mid point,( of course this is very arbitrary) where change becomes less desirable and equilibrium is achieved?

This is in regard to the gender social construct video. 

 

[Leo Gura]

All Goodness in life hinges on exquisite balance. This is true of change and not-change alike. Too much change is dangerous and so is too little. How do you tell exactly how much change is best? Through consciousness and selflessness. The more conscious you are, the more selfless you are, the more exquisitely intelligent your balance becomes.

Everything I say requires a deep, organic conscious intelligence. Otherwise it becomes evil.

God is infinitely intelligent balance. The whole Universe is balanced on the thinest razer's edge.

[Preety_India]

@Leo Gura thank you for the answer. 

[BipolarGrowth]

This is why variety is so important. Different perspectives tamper humanity against stagnation as well as progress which is too rapid. As much as I think full legalization of psychoactive substances with proper regulations would be a huge benefit in the end, if my radical position were immediately adopted, it would cause way too much drastic change for it to be worth it. The downside of the status quo being stagnant in this sphere is incredibly problematic too. The tug of war of progressive and conservative stances ultimately exposes the limitations of each biased perspective in important ways. We are certainly going in the right direction, but this is only due to the balance which is created by the opposition and competition of worldviews. 

[Preety_India]

So what's the limit?

 

[BipolarGrowth]

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

So what's the limit?

 

The collective ego of humanity. Everything we’re talking about here marches to the beat of that drum. 

[Preety_India]

2 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

The collective ego of humanity. Everything we’re talking about here marches to the beat of that drum. 

No I wasn't saying in that sense. What's the limit or where do we draw the line in this tug of war between conservatives and progressives, and where does it end where we can say it's enough and no more. You mean infinite and why not finite?

 

[TheDao]

16 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

No I wasn't saying in that sense. What's the limit or where do we draw the line in this tug of war between conservatives and progressives, and where does it end where we can say it's enough and no more. You mean infinite and why not finite?

 

@Preety_India When we stop cramming people into gender roles. A man can cry and has deep feelings too. A women also wants a certain amount of power. When we stop pushing women into more caring roles and men to have power. When we stop the stereotypes of men and women, that subtly but still powerfully push people into those roles. Etc etc. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by TheDao

[Preety_India]

@TheDao that question wasn't about gender. 

You implied a completely different meaning to the question I asked. 

I was asking about social change in terms of opposition of World views balancing themselves and when enough is enough. 

 

[Preety_India]

6 minutes ago, TheDao said:

 

? You need a example on which to apply this.

Look the second wasn't related to the first. This is not about semantics. 

 

 

[BipolarGrowth]

7 hours ago, Preety_India said:

No I wasn't saying in that sense. What's the limit or where do we draw the line in this tug of war between conservatives and progressives, and where does it end where we can say it's enough and no more. You mean infinite and why not finite?

 

We draw the line when unnecessary suffering is caused. This doesn’t mean everyone will want to follow the line. Where it “ends” is when enough humans begin to see more similarities with their enemies than differences. Then the conflict can become more compassionate and effective. Conflict will not disappear. Conflict happens on so many levels, and in most cases it eventually leads to a better world from the human perspective.