Understanding Relativism and the Validity of All Perspectives

[r0ckyreed]

So I have been contemplating relativism and recently rewatched Leo's Relativism Part 1 video after I watched his Nihilism video.  

I am stuck at a wall when trying to see how relativism is true and yet not all perspectives are equally valid or "true."  

The thing I am trying to understand about relativism is the seemingly hierarchy of perspectives that Leo mentioned in the Nihilism episode when discussing higher vs. lower perspectives, which boil down to Love vs. fear.

So for instance, Qanon is a cult to me, but to the followers of it, it is the objective truth and reality.  This is all based on fear from my perspective, which makes it a lower perspective, but judging perspectives as higher or lower seems to be a construction rather than being a written truth in the universe.  In addition, the Qanon person could say that Biden supporters are based off of fear and not love.  What is delusion to one person is reality to another, but relative to the facts (which are relative) could we say that a Qanon supporter is deluded and misguided?  If everything is relative, where does that leave delusion, and what metrics are we using to say that a person or ourselves are deluded or not?

Obviously, I am still in this process of contemplating and unraveling relativism.  I am kind of in the phase of thinking that all perspectives are equally valid, but in my personal life, I do not act like this at all.  My biases infiltrate my worldview and color how I see the world such that I see more corruption on the Right wing than on the Left wing.  But the concept of corruption and what qualifies as corruption is relative to each individual, so a Right winger could see more corruption on the Left than Right depending on how they construct and define corruption.  But who am I to say that the Right wing is deluded or that Qanon followers or Flat Earthers are deluded? If perspectives are not equally valid, then what is the standard for which they are not equally valid?  Love vs. fear??

The whole metric of higher vs. lower perspectives does not seem to be a written truth in the universe, but is rather a construct and projection of the mind?  But I guess the same logic applies to viewing perspectives as hierarchical in that some perspectives are more valid than others.  But when I say that some perspectives are more valid than others, it does not seem like relativity anymore, but maybe I am still misunderstanding relativism.

So I guess my final thoughts on the matter is that the Elephant is Love and Truth, and all the perspectives of the blind men are partial, relative truths and the Qanon and Neo-Nazis are up deep in the elephant's asshole in fear because Nazism and Qanon is a form of love?  Whereas the Christ's and Gandhis are in the brain and heart of the elephant because they embody higher degrees of Love?

I appreciate any of your thoughts and perspectives on this.  

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by r0ckyreed

[Leo Gura]

In the Absolute sense, nothing is higher or lower. But in a relative sense, things are higher and lower.

Relative to survival and your personal well-being, you don't want to be QAnnon supporter. Being a QAnnon supporter is a problem relative to the QAnnon supporter's own worldview, because a QAnnon supporter's worldview holds that certain things are true and certain things are false. And one day the QAnnon supporter will discover that QAnnon violate his own standards of truth. It is not Leo who says QAnnon is false. It will the QAnnon supporter himself who will realize QAnnon is false. So the problem with QAnnon is that it is incoherent by its own standards -- it's just that the QAnnon fanatic hasn't realized it yet. When he realizes it, he will be in pain.

Any perspective which is selfish, unconscious, hateful, and fear-based will ultimately be incoherent by its own standards.

The only perspectives which are coherent are conscious, selfless, and loving ones.

Now you could argue: "But what's wrong with having an incoherent perspective? It's that okay?" To which the answer is: it's okay so long as you're okay with the suffering that incoherence results in. If you are okay with anything no matter what, then there is literally nothing wrong with anything. But then you're also awake. So the problem is that you are definitely not okay with anything on matter what. You are triggered so easily.

The perspective that you have two ass holes is not equally valid to the perspective that you have one ass hole. Because eventually you will have confront the reality that you only have one ass hole. So it does matter how truthful your perspective is. The less truthful your perspectives are, the more you will struggle and suffer. But if you are okay with massive struggle and suffering, then there is no problem.

What you need to realize is that it is you yourself who is judging the results of your own perspectives. If you didn't judge your results, there would be no problems. But you judge your results very much, hence you literally create your own problems. A wrong perspective is not wrong because others say so. It is wrong by your own standards!

For example, you might adopt the perspective that rape is good. But then when someone rapes your mother you will realize: rape is horrible. And thus you yourself will violate and condemn your own perspective. You will realize that your perspective was selfish and foolish. In this way you evolve. It is your own internal contradictions that lead to your ruin.

[r0ckyreed]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

In the Absolute sense, nothing is higher or lower. But in a relative sense, things are higher and lower.

Relative to survival and your personal well-being, you don't want to be QAnnon supporter. Being a QAnnon supporter is a problem relative to the QAnnon supporter's own worldview, because a QAnnon supporter's worldview holds that certain things are true and certain things are false. And one day the QAnnon supporter will discover that QAnnon violate his own standards of truth. It is not Leo who says QAnnon is false. It will the QAnnon supporter himself who will realize QAnnon is false. So the problem with QAnnon is that it is incoherent by its own standards -- it's just that the QAnnon fanatic hasn't realized it yet. When he realizes it, he will be in pain.

Any perspective which is selfish, unconscious, hateful, and fear-based will ultimately be incoherent by its own standards.

The only perspectives which are coherent are conscious, selfless, and loving ones.

Now you could argue: "But what's wrong with having an incoherent perspective? It's that okay?" To which the answer is: it's okay so long as you're okay with the suffering that incoherence results in. If you are okay with anything no matter what, then there is literally nothing wrong with anything. But then you're also awake. So the problem is that you are definitely not okay with anything on matter what. You are triggered so easily.

The perspective that you have two ass holes is not equally valid to the perspective that you have one ass hole. Because eventually you will have confront the reality that you only have one ass hole. So it does matter how truthful your perspective is. The less truthful your perspectives are, the more you will struggle and suffer. But if you are okay with massive struggle and suffering, then there is no problem.

What you need to realize is that it is you yourself who is judging the results of your own perspectives. If you didn't judge your results, there would be no problems. But you judge your results very much, hence you literally create your own problems. A wrong perspective is not wrong because others say so. It is wrong by your own standards!

For example, you might adopt the perspective that rape is good. But then when someone rapes your mother you will realize: rape is horrible. And thus you yourself will violate and condemn your own perspective. You will realize that your perspective was selfish and foolish. In this way you evolve. It is your own internal contradictions that lead to your ruin.

Thank you for your time and detailed response! It makes much more sense now. Thank you!

So on the one hand, there is a way that reality actually is and the way we imagine it to be. So for example, earth is round from outer space but appears like a plane from earth perspective. What I did wrong was I confused objective truth for relative truth. So flat earthers are wrong about the earth being flat from space relative to their perceptions and sensations. If an alien looks at earth from 7D and sees it as flat and I am in 3D seeing it as round, then we would be both “correct” and no perception in this case is more valid than others relative to survival. If the human who sees in 3D and is on a planet in 7D, their perceptions won’t match with the survival needs of those in 7D in this hypothetical.

So assuming we all perceive reality in the same dimension, a flat earther would see a similar social constructed spherical shape, dictated by our culture as spherical and round. The flat earther would be fooling themselves if they denied their perceptions that the earth appears spherical when it is. But the Alien in 7D May see our earth completely different and not spherical at all. Maybe aliens see shapes totally different like you mentioned in the Cat and Boop example.

And to a blind man, the earth is neither flat nor round in the experiential perspective. Shapes and colors do not exist visually to a blind man and shapes are relative to how we define shapes. 
 

Thanks for your response and I plan on contemplating this a bit more and I will reread your post again to add more clarity to my contemplation and to make sure I am getting this and not confusing or deluding myself.

Edited May 25, 2021 by r0ckyreed

[Leo Gura]

@r0ckyreed Yes, you got it.

[VeganAwake]

Relatively is another name for separation or duality.

Its a fictional story in which an individual living in a world of meaning, purpose and value, endlessly strives for fulfillment in the future.

In that relative dream story the individual never finds what's truly longed for because what's truly longed for is the end of feeling separate. 

What's longed for is the end of ME that feels separate, incomplete or lacking. 

The cosmic joke is that "the separation never occurred" -ACIM

It was only a dream story all along.

❤

 

 

 

 

[Flowerfaeiry]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

In the Absolute sense, nothing is higher or lower. But in a relative sense, things are higher and lower.

Relative to survival and your personal well-being, you don't want to be QAnnon supporter. Being a QAnnon supporter is a problem relative to the QAnnon supporter's own worldview, because a QAnnon supporter's worldview holds that certain things are true and certain things are false. And one day the QAnnon supporter will discover that QAnnon violate his own standards of truth. It is not Leo who says QAnnon is false. It will the QAnnon supporter himself who will realize QAnnon is false. So the problem with QAnnon is that it is incoherent by its own standards -- it's just that the QAnnon fanatic hasn't realized it yet. When he realizes it, he will be in pain.

Any perspective which is selfish, unconscious, hateful, and fear-based will ultimately be incoherent by its own standards.

The only perspectives which are coherent are conscious, selfless, and loving ones.

Now you could argue: "But what's wrong with having an incoherent perspective? It's that okay?" To which the answer is: it's okay so long as you're okay with the suffering that incoherence results in. If you are okay with anything no matter what, then there is literally nothing wrong with anything. But then you're also awake. So the problem is that you are definitely not okay with anything on matter what. You are triggered so easily.

The perspective that you have two ass holes is not equally valid to the perspective that you have one ass hole. Because eventually you will have confront the reality that you only have one ass hole. So it does matter how truthful your perspective is. The less truthful your perspectives are, the more you will struggle and suffer. But if you are okay with massive struggle and suffering, then there is no problem.

What you need to realize is that it is you yourself who is judging the results of your own perspectives. If you didn't judge your results, there would be no problems. But you judge your results very much, hence you literally create your own problems. A wrong perspective is not wrong because others say so. It is wrong by your own standards!

For example, you might adopt the perspective that rape is good. But then when someone rapes your mother you will realize: rape is horrible. And thus you yourself will violate and condemn your own perspective. You will realize that your perspective was selfish and foolish. In this way you evolve. It is your own internal contradictions that lead to your ruin.

This is incredibly enlightening. 

[Mason Riggle]

@Leo Gura Leo, would you say that generally speaking, there is a natural progression from 'lower' to 'higher', and so this is sort of what is actually meant by 'lower' and 'higher', and a good pointer to know which is which?? 

For example, addition and multiplication are two valid 'perspectives', but generally, the natural progression in learning goes from addition to multiplication, and never the other way around, so we can think of multiplication as the 'higher' perspective?

[r0ckyreed]

5 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

This is incredibly enlightening. 

I agree.  The last paragraph reminds me of Tony Stark's (Iron Man's) worldview of making weapons and how he thought it was good, until he realized the weapons were used against him.  Then, he saw his weapon-making as a corruption of evil and shut down Tony Enterprises.

 

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Leo Gura Leo, would you say that generally speaking, there is a natural progression from 'lower' to 'higher', and so this is sort of what is actually meant by 'lower' and 'higher', and a good pointer to know which is which?? 

For example, addition and multiplication are two valid 'perspectives', but generally, the natural progression in learning goes from addition to multiplication, and never the other way around, so we can think of multiplication as the 'higher' perspective?

It depends on what you mean by "natural" and "progression."  I think you make a good point about natural progression in the analogy of math, but don't forget about the plateau in life.  You could say that spirituality is the process of going from addition and subtraction progressing all the way up and through to calculus to eventually jailbreaking the mind and going beyond math all together to realize its illusory and constructed nature.  

So likewise when one meditates and inquires into life, one goes from unconsciousness to consciousness from survival to liberation over time.  But I could be wrong.