|
Post by someNothing on Nov 28, 2020 2:22:49 GMT
I have not read the book much, and probably don't agree with his take on the political animal known as DT either. The intent of sharing the link... it's just a free book (so, "classy" in that he is publicly sharing a book instead of having folks pay for it) that might give one a window for seeing how the model can be used for organizing thoughts on the complex topic of culture, values, and world views, and then re-thinking. I'm glad you could find something that fit your balanced unbiased narrative. You go, girl! Lead us to the truth of the politico-social reality! I'll remain faithful that you will paint and find what you are looking for! You're that good. My point is, the model clearly can also be used for re-affirming and giving weight to personal judgements, by that very fact of organizing and assigning a 'level' to them. Those folks whom we judge harshly and are very sure about as operating purely through their egos, get organized and assigned to a lowly level....that assignation doesn't actually change anything, if anything it serves as an anchoring in of position. The model works great if one is seeing past all his/her blind spots. If not...it's a re-affirmation of those. And re: the 2nd bolded bit...I'm not sure at what point this turned from what was a really good, non-contentious, non-personal discussion/debate into this kind of thing. Was it something specific I said..or something more general? Yes, every system that has any sense of hierarchy, or really, any system at all, can be used for such things. That's the problem of duality. If you get into at all, you'll see that the very peeps who genuinely use SD speak to your concerns directly and try to help one take it to the deeper, more self-aware use that it can also be used for. I think it was even in the very first video provided. Indeed, that's kind of the whole point of the system in the very first place, and it will take a little effort to start to play with the framework. But you've already found your bias and seem to assume you know more than even the original theorists, so we're already at resistance. Didn't take long. But, sure, the writer is just one person who has their own biases.
Re: your re: Are you talking about discussion/debates about SD or DT? You have hardly even begun to read, much less study, SD, and you've already defended DT twice in two messages on the thread. So, I think it's relatively obvious where this is discussion has already gone, which is antithetical to where SD would have it go.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 28, 2020 6:03:30 GMT
My point is, the model clearly can also be used for re-affirming and giving weight to personal judgements, by that very fact of organizing and assigning a 'level' to them. Those folks whom we judge harshly and are very sure about as operating purely through their egos, get organized and assigned to a lowly level....that assignation doesn't actually change anything, if anything it serves as an anchoring in of position. The model works great if one is seeing past all his/her blind spots. If not...it's a re-affirmation of those. And re: the 2nd bolded bit...I'm not sure at what point this turned from what was a really good, non-contentious, non-personal discussion/debate into this kind of thing. Was it something specific I said..or something more general? Yes, every system that has any sense of hierarchy, or really, any system at all, can be used for such things. That's the problem of duality. If you get into at all, you'll see that the very peeps who genuinely use SD speak to your concerns directly and try to help one take it to the deeper, more self-aware use that it can also be used for. I think it was even in the very first video provided. Indeed, that's kind of the whole point of the system in the very first place, and it will take a little effort to start to play with the framework. But you've already found your bias and seem to assume you know more than even the original theorists, so we're already at resistance. Didn't take long. But, sure, the writer is just one person who has their own biases.
Re: your re: Are you talking about discussion/debates about SD or DT? You have hardly even begun to read, much less study, SD, and you've already defended DT twice in two messages on the thread. So, I think it's relatively obvious where this is discussion has already gone, which is antithetical to where SD would have it go.
I'm talking about how in a few of your posts now, you've moved from an impersonal debate to making things personal. Like this here: Instead of debating/challenging the specific viewpoint I've put forth, you are criticizing the very fact that I've put forth an opinion that you disagree with. It's the same with you criticizing me for what you see to be putting forth opinions as facts, rather than directly debating those opinions as they arise, to provide a counter argument to demonstrate that those specific opinions are mere opinions and not facts. We were having a pretty good discussion/debate imo, up until you started critiquing the fact of my disagreement vs. the content of it. Yes, I think the author's spiral Dynamics categorization of Trump is off....it's lacking depth....DT's surface qualities only are being looked at and categorized...he's not seeing beneath the surface of things....that's my opinion. If you disagree, you could explain why that is, instead of taking me to task for having the audacity to critique the author's categorization.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Nov 28, 2020 16:48:33 GMT
Yes, every system that has any sense of hierarchy, or really, any system at all, can be used for such things. That's the problem of duality. If you get into at all, you'll see that the very peeps who genuinely use SD speak to your concerns directly and try to help one take it to the deeper, more self-aware use that it can also be used for. I think it was even in the very first video provided. Indeed, that's kind of the whole point of the system in the very first place, and it will take a little effort to start to play with the framework. But you've already found your bias and seem to assume you know more than even the original theorists, so we're already at resistance. Didn't take long. But, sure, the writer is just one person who has their own biases.
Re: your re: Are you talking about discussion/debates about SD or DT? You have hardly even begun to read, much less study, SD, and you've already defended DT twice in two messages on the thread. So, I think it's relatively obvious where this is discussion has already gone, which is antithetical to where SD would have it go.
I'm talking about how in a few of your posts now, you've moved from an impersonal debate to making things personal. Like this here: Instead of debating/challenging the specific viewpoint I've put forth, you are criticizing the very fact that I've put forth an opinion that you disagree with. It's the same with you criticizing me for what you see to be putting forth opinions as facts, rather than directly debating those opinions as they arise, to provide a counter argument to demonstrate that those specific opinions are mere opinions and not facts. We were having a pretty good discussion/debate imo, up until you started critiquing the fact of my disagreement vs. the content of it. Yes, I think the author's spiral Dynamics categorization of Trump is off....it's lacking depth....DT's surface qualities only are being looked at and categorized...he's not seeing beneath the surface of things....that's my opinion. If you disagree, you could explain why that is, instead of taking me to task for having the audacity to critique the author's categorization. You've already stated that you are passionate about these debates/challenges for the personal and social reasons you've expressed. And now you are claiming that I am the one making it personal by pointing out what you're arguing "for", personal and social ramifications. Interesting.
I have specifically said that I do not approach these interactions as taking any solid position, other than the fact that such issues obviously cannot be understood/approached from the present level of social organization or societies "level of consciousness", which requires a certain transcendence. You have specifically stated that you "switched sides", which to me indicates that you are still seeing things from the level of the problem. The ideas presented seem one-sided in nature and have not really presented much that would really amount to a systems approach. I have put forward an open-ended framework that has helped me and others work with "real-life, practical" issues directly related to the complexities that, to me, are beyond and inclusive of the personal. True, it is not easy to grasp without considerable effort and an honest willingness. It appears you have spent some time looking for arguable points and come up with one for throwing the whole thing out based on the very apparent biases you consistently defend. And now, you want me to get into a conversation with you to supposedly help you change your mind about all things DT, COVID, conspiracies, and right/wrong. You enjoy arguing and a certain amount self-satisfaction gained from the endeavors more than most anything; just look at your history. Yeah, OK, you have been clear that you approach all this from a debate/challenge stance. Come to think of it, that maybe what has Laffy up in arms, as well, though I do sense he is approaching it from a system approach, albeit a different/closed one. I should have taken debate/argument as the gospel here, and thrown out the idea that it could ever be anything else. I see the necessity for a broader, more inclusive approach that requires redefining and categorizing elements~functions~interactions~ and even the boundary, as it refers to the very earth we are completely destroying as a species.
I sense an idea emerging from the act of writing this post out: that it may not be worth pursuing here.
My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 28, 2020 20:14:25 GMT
You've already stated that you are passionate about these debates/challenges for the personal and social reasons you've expressed. And now you are claiming that I am the one making it personal by pointing out what you're arguing "for", personal and social ramifications. Interesting. You've mischaracterized my claim by a country mile. If your point was simply that my position on Covid mandates relates to personal and social ramifications...the damage they do, I'd be in full agreement. Yes, my view on the governmental response takes into consideration the extremely negative ramifications of those mandates..the economic, phychological, physical suffering that ensues with lockdown....and yes, I've personally experienced some of those ramifications, which as I've said, may play into my passion regarding the subject. You're going much further though...you've been suggesting that I conflate opinion with fact....although when I asked you for a precise example, you don't offer one. You've been asserting that think I know more than I do about the reasons certain decisions have made, but again, cannot offer up a precise example...and you suggest that I value the validity of fringe facts over verifiable science...again, unable or unwilling to offer up a precise example. You even at one point suggested that I am mutating my self image as I post what I post. (You then completely backed away from that one and said all you meant was that I present as 'knowing more about stuff than I actually do.' You seem pretty darned "solid" in your opinions regarding DT. And if you signed the Barrington Declaration, isn't there some 'solidity' there? I'm not saying throw the whole out. Rather, I'm pointing out that unless one is very clear, very able to see the "nuances," as a tool/model, it's not going to be very helpful. You present yourself as someone who is very good at detecting those nuances and yet, you regularly misconstrue the very basic, bold, obvious message within posts. Exhibit A above. You mistook what I said about the spiral model to mean "throw the whole thing out." And I call BS. Your views on Trump are intensely personal....I say your views on the Covid response is too....otherwise you wouldn't have gotten so snipey. I've actually said the opposite. And if you look at our exchanges, again, you were the first to start making subtle personal jabs. I kept solely to the content up until now. I am truly interested in the views on others on this thing..not just winning an argument...For example; I am interested in why some refuse to acknowledge that Covid mandates cause death and suffering, such as the stance Farmer seems to be currently taking. We'll see where our discussion goes though....I may be wrong about that. Perhaps he doesn't thing the mandates are causing death and suffering...we'll see. Fwiw, I'm completely up for discussing a more inclusive approach....if/when that is presented. You've yet to come and out and actually share your view about the Covid response, invoking this broader/more inclusive approach. To date, you've merely positied a broader/more inclusive approach as a counter of sorts to my view...but you have not explained how the broader/more inclusive approach renders a different view. Or is your talk of a 'broader/more inclusive' approach here, just a means of denoting my approach as shallow/myopic? Please do go ahead and share. I am very interested in seeing what the more inclusive/broader view of the Covid response looks like.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 28, 2020 23:11:12 GMT
Applying the SD model, I'd say the approach of protecting the vulnerable while the majority goes about business as usual, hopefully, eventually reaching herd immunity is on a higher level than the approach that says, lock down the world and eradicate the virus, at ALL costs.
The most lowly of responses (in terms of the model) imo, are the ones that consider the least number of people...the responses that are higher on the spiral, are those that take more people into consideration and more factors into consideration, to evaluate them all..to root out the facts surrounding all those effects and then to make decisions from there.
And on that note, SN, if my approach is as fundamentally personally motivated, as selfishly short-sighted as you seem to be suggesting, then I should be all for the lockdowns. Our family business is actually thriving right now, which is often the case in times of economic uncertainty for home reno businesses. Many folks at this time are choosing to renovate, paint furniture, spruce up the home they have instead of buying new.
But anyway, SN, as I've already said, I am very interested to hear how your view differs from mine on this and how/why your view, opinion of what is the best approach regarding Covid is a more expansive one.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Nov 29, 2020 13:52:50 GMT
You've already stated that you are passionate about these debates/challenges for the personal and social reasons you've expressed. And now you are claiming that I am the one making it personal by pointing out what you're arguing "for", personal and social ramifications. Interesting. You've mischaracterized my claim by a country mile. If your point was simply that my position on Covid mandates relates to personal and social ramifications...the damage they do, I'd be in full agreement. Yes, my view on the governmental response takes into consideration the extremely negative ramifications of those mandates..the economic, phychological, physical suffering that ensues with lockdown....and yes, I've personally experienced some of those ramifications, which as I've said, may play into my passion regarding the subject. You're going much further though...you've been suggesting that I conflate opinion with fact....although when I asked you for a precise example, you don't offer one. You've been asserting that think I know more than I do about the reasons certain decisions have made, but again, cannot offer up a precise example...and you suggest that I value the validity of fringe facts over verifiable science...again, unable or unwilling to offer up a precise example. You even at one point suggested that I am mutating my self image as I post what I post. (You then completely backed away from that one and said all you meant was that I present as 'knowing more about stuff than I actually do.' You seem pretty darned "solid" in your opinions regarding DT. And if you signed the Barrington Declaration, isn't there some 'solidity' there? I'm not saying throw the whole out. Rather, I'm pointing out that unless one is very clear, very able to see the "nuances," as a tool/model, it's not going to be very helpful. You present yourself as someone who is very good at detecting those nuances and yet, you regularly misconstrue the very basic, bold, obvious message within posts. Exhibit A above. You mistook what I said about the spiral model to mean "throw the whole thing out." And I call BS. Your views on Trump are intensely personal....I say your views on the Covid response is too....otherwise you wouldn't have gotten so snipey. I've actually said the opposite. And if you look at our exchanges, again, you were the first to start making subtle personal jabs. I kept solely to the content up until now. I am truly interested in the views on others on this thing..not just winning an argument...For example; I am interested in why some refuse to acknowledge that Covid mandates cause death and suffering, such as the stance Farmer seems to be currently taking. We'll see where our discussion goes though....I may be wrong about that. Perhaps he doesn't thing the mandates are causing death and suffering...we'll see. Fwiw, I'm completely up for discussing a more inclusive approach....if/when that is presented. You've yet to come and out and actually share your view about the Covid response, invoking this broader/more inclusive approach. To date, you've merely positied a broader/more inclusive approach as a counter of sorts to my view...but you have not explained how the broader/more inclusive approach renders a different view. Or is your talk of a 'broader/more inclusive' approach here, just a means of denoting my approach as shallow/myopic? Please do go ahead and share. I am very interested in seeing what the more inclusive/broader view of the Covid response looks like. Whatever you say, Figs. It takes a lot of energy to weed through convos with you. No offense, just telling you how it registers with the conditioned mind here. It's mostly just a relationship thang, perhaps. When I said I have enough on my plate, don't have the time (and, admittedly, patience) to "prove" every perspective that doesn't jive with your self-perception, and typically avoid the win/lose games, I was being honest. I can easily find the same topics and battling camps approach being promoted here most anywhere else. It's not unique or captivating for me.
Taking the time to see how to potentially integrate medical, socio-psychological, economic, past lessons and forward-looking goals, and international perspectives is an example of what I would like to see as a COVID response. Such a discussion could evolve along the lines of what of these has been considered enough/too little or over-emphasized.
I sense an emerging barometric desire to kind of be done and move my attention to a space of more flow.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 29, 2020 17:39:03 GMT
You've mischaracterized my claim by a country mile. If your point was simply that my position on Covid mandates relates to personal and social ramifications...the damage they do, I'd be in full agreement. Yes, my view on the governmental response takes into consideration the extremely negative ramifications of those mandates..the economic, phychological, physical suffering that ensues with lockdown....and yes, I've personally experienced some of those ramifications, which as I've said, may play into my passion regarding the subject. You're going much further though...you've been suggesting that I conflate opinion with fact....although when I asked you for a precise example, you don't offer one. You've been asserting that think I know more than I do about the reasons certain decisions have made, but again, cannot offer up a precise example...and you suggest that I value the validity of fringe facts over verifiable science...again, unable or unwilling to offer up a precise example. You even at one point suggested that I am mutating my self image as I post what I post. (You then completely backed away from that one and said all you meant was that I present as 'knowing more about stuff than I actually do.' You seem pretty darned "solid" in your opinions regarding DT. And if you signed the Barrington Declaration, isn't there some 'solidity' there? I'm not saying throw the whole out. Rather, I'm pointing out that unless one is very clear, very able to see the "nuances," as a tool/model, it's not going to be very helpful. You present yourself as someone who is very good at detecting those nuances and yet, you regularly misconstrue the very basic, bold, obvious message within posts. Exhibit A above. You mistook what I said about the spiral model to mean "throw the whole thing out." And I call BS. Your views on Trump are intensely personal....I say your views on the Covid response is too....otherwise you wouldn't have gotten so snipey. I've actually said the opposite. And if you look at our exchanges, again, you were the first to start making subtle personal jabs. I kept solely to the content up until now. I am truly interested in the views on others on this thing..not just winning an argument...For example; I am interested in why some refuse to acknowledge that Covid mandates cause death and suffering, such as the stance Farmer seems to be currently taking. We'll see where our discussion goes though....I may be wrong about that. Perhaps he doesn't thing the mandates are causing death and suffering...we'll see. Fwiw, I'm completely up for discussing a more inclusive approach....if/when that is presented. You've yet to come and out and actually share your view about the Covid response, invoking this broader/more inclusive approach. To date, you've merely positied a broader/more inclusive approach as a counter of sorts to my view...but you have not explained how the broader/more inclusive approach renders a different view. Or is your talk of a 'broader/more inclusive' approach here, just a means of denoting my approach as shallow/myopic? Please do go ahead and share. I am very interested in seeing what the more inclusive/broader view of the Covid response looks like. Whatever you say, Figs. It takes a lot of energy to weed through convos with you. No offense, just telling you how it registers with the conditioned mind here. It's mostly just a relationship thang, perhaps. When I said I have enough on my plate, don't have the time (and, admittedly, patience) to "prove" every perspective that doesn't jive with your self-perception, and typically avoid the win/lose games, I was being honest. I can easily find the same topics and battling camps approach being promoted here most anywhere else. It's not unique or captivating for me. Taking the time to see how to potentially integrate medical, socio-psychological, economic, past lessons and forward-looking goals, and international perspectives is an example of what I would like to see as a COVID response. Such a discussion could evolve along the lines of what of these has been considered enough/too little or over-emphasized.
I sense an emerging barometric desire to kind of be done and move my attention to a space of more flow.
Um...yeah....that's a good summation of all the factors of consideration I also deem to be important in assessing the best response to this thing. Those are in fact, the factors that have informed my current opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 29, 2020 21:37:55 GMT
You've mischaracterized my claim by a country mile. If your point was simply that my position on Covid mandates relates to personal and social ramifications...the damage they do, I'd be in full agreement. Yes, my view on the governmental response takes into consideration the extremely negative ramifications of those mandates..the economic, phychological, physical suffering that ensues with lockdown....and yes, I've personally experienced some of those ramifications, which as I've said, may play into my passion regarding the subject. You're going much further though...you've been suggesting that I conflate opinion with fact....although when I asked you for a precise example, you don't offer one. You've been asserting that think I know more than I do about the reasons certain decisions have made, but again, cannot offer up a precise example...and you suggest that I value the validity of fringe facts over verifiable science...again, unable or unwilling to offer up a precise example. You even at one point suggested that I am mutating my self image as I post what I post. (You then completely backed away from that one and said all you meant was that I present as 'knowing more about stuff than I actually do.' You seem pretty darned "solid" in your opinions regarding DT. And if you signed the Barrington Declaration, isn't there some 'solidity' there? I'm not saying throw the whole out. Rather, I'm pointing out that unless one is very clear, very able to see the "nuances," as a tool/model, it's not going to be very helpful. You present yourself as someone who is very good at detecting those nuances and yet, you regularly misconstrue the very basic, bold, obvious message within posts. Exhibit A above. You mistook what I said about the spiral model to mean "throw the whole thing out." And I call BS. Your views on Trump are intensely personal....I say your views on the Covid response is too....otherwise you wouldn't have gotten so snipey. I've actually said the opposite. And if you look at our exchanges, again, you were the first to start making subtle personal jabs. I kept solely to the content up until now. I am truly interested in the views on others on this thing..not just winning an argument...For example; I am interested in why some refuse to acknowledge that Covid mandates cause death and suffering, such as the stance Farmer seems to be currently taking. We'll see where our discussion goes though....I may be wrong about that. Perhaps he doesn't thing the mandates are causing death and suffering...we'll see. Fwiw, I'm completely up for discussing a more inclusive approach....if/when that is presented. You've yet to come and out and actually share your view about the Covid response, invoking this broader/more inclusive approach. To date, you've merely positied a broader/more inclusive approach as a counter of sorts to my view...but you have not explained how the broader/more inclusive approach renders a different view. Or is your talk of a 'broader/more inclusive' approach here, just a means of denoting my approach as shallow/myopic? Please do go ahead and share. I am very interested in seeing what the more inclusive/broader view of the Covid response looks like. Whatever you say, Figs. It takes a lot of energy to weed through convos with you. No offense, just telling you how it registers with the conditioned mind here. It's mostly just a relationship thang, perhaps. When I said I have enough on my plate, don't have the time (and, admittedly, patience) to "prove" every perspective that doesn't jive with your self-perception, and typically avoid the win/lose games, I was being honest. I can easily find the same topics and battling camps approach being promoted here most anywhere else. It's not unique or captivating for me. Taking the time to see how to potentially integrate medical, socio-psychological, economic, past lessons and forward-looking goals, and international perspectives is an example of what I would like to see as a COVID response. Such a discussion could evolve along the lines of what of these has been considered enough/too little or over-emphasized.
I sense an emerging barometric desire to kind of be done and move my attention to a space of more flow.
What I keep trying to put forth in this discussion is the difference in some very basic, fundamental values that make for the difference in opinion regarding Covid approach. Many seem to assume that there is a basic, undeniable, objective fact that lies fundamental to Covid, and that assumption is that this virus and others like it, that will inevitably arise in the future, absolutely and unequivable require an organized, government orchestrated and mandated plan. SN, you don't even question that assumption, have you noticed? All of your points hinge upon it as a carved in stone, objective fact. It is not. It's a value judgement. If we use this SD model you've put forth, the very highest levels open up a transcendent perspective beyond the spiral, that is fully accepting, even embracing, of the fact of death as a naturally occurring facet of life....it's a perspective/paradigm that accepts viruses and other naturally occurring phenomena that may present a risk to health and life as just that...natural, included in the 'perfection of what is,' and thus, rather than taking an approach to 'fight against the virus' instead, takes the path of least resistance. It's very difficult to explain this perspective/paradigm to one who assumes that of course, everybody agrees with him that Covid is a horrific, scaryb-bears thing for which drastic measures MUST be taken..and that's specifically because, he's seeing from within a different paradigm (on a different level of spiral).
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Nov 30, 2020 11:49:25 GMT
Whatever you say, Figs. It takes a lot of energy to weed through convos with you. No offense, just telling you how it registers with the conditioned mind here. It's mostly just a relationship thang, perhaps. When I said I have enough on my plate, don't have the time (and, admittedly, patience) to "prove" every perspective that doesn't jive with your self-perception, and typically avoid the win/lose games, I was being honest. I can easily find the same topics and battling camps approach being promoted here most anywhere else. It's not unique or captivating for me. Taking the time to see how to potentially integrate medical, socio-psychological, economic, past lessons and forward-looking goals, and international perspectives is an example of what I would like to see as a COVID response. Such a discussion could evolve along the lines of what of these has been considered enough/too little or over-emphasized.
I sense an emerging barometric desire to kind of be done and move my attention to a space of more flow.
What I keep trying to put forth in this discussion is the difference in some very basic, fundamental values that make for the difference in opinion regarding Covid approach. Many seem to assume that there is a basic, undeniable, objective fact that lies fundamental to Covid, and that assumption is that this virus and others like it, that will inevitably arise in the future, absolutely and unequivable require an organized, government orchestrated and mandated plan. SN, you don't even question that assumption, have you noticed? All of your points hinge upon it as a carved in stone, objective fact. It is not. It's a value judgement. If we use this SD model you've put forth, the very highest levels open up a transcendent perspective beyond the spiral, that is fully accepting, even embracing, of the fact of death as a naturally occurring facet of life....it's a perspective/paradigm that accepts viruses and other naturally occurring phenomena that may present a risk to health and life as just that...natural, included in the 'perfection of what is,' and thus, rather than taking an approach to 'fight against the virus' instead, takes the path of least resistance. It's very difficult to explain this perspective/paradigm to one who assumes that of course, everybody agrees with him that Covid is a horrific, scaryb-bears thing for which drastic measures MUST be taken..and that's specifically because, he's seeing from within a different paradigm (on a different level of spiral). The difficulty is the hopping around from critique to critique.
- SD
- the writer of a book on SD
- the writer's view of DT
- my perception of DT, COVID, life/death
Then, there are typically numerous fires to put out with various morphological issues that arise, which, to some extent, is normal.
It's true that this message board may not be the proper platform for hashing out the views and complexity of the discussion on politics and a society's or the world's response to COVID. Indeed, it would require a commitment that I, for one, am not able to take on.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 30, 2020 19:20:13 GMT
What I keep trying to put forth in this discussion is the difference in some very basic, fundamental values that make for the difference in opinion regarding Covid approach. Many seem to assume that there is a basic, undeniable, objective fact that lies fundamental to Covid, and that assumption is that this virus and others like it, that will inevitably arise in the future, absolutely and unequivable require an organized, government orchestrated and mandated plan. SN, you don't even question that assumption, have you noticed? All of your points hinge upon it as a carved in stone, objective fact. It is not. It's a value judgement. If we use this SD model you've put forth, the very highest levels open up a transcendent perspective beyond the spiral, that is fully accepting, even embracing, of the fact of death as a naturally occurring facet of life....it's a perspective/paradigm that accepts viruses and other naturally occurring phenomena that may present a risk to health and life as just that...natural, included in the 'perfection of what is,' and thus, rather than taking an approach to 'fight against the virus' instead, takes the path of least resistance. It's very difficult to explain this perspective/paradigm to one who assumes that of course, everybody agrees with him that Covid is a horrific, scaryb-bears thing for which drastic measures MUST be taken..and that's specifically because, he's seeing from within a different paradigm (on a different level of spiral). The difficulty is the hopping around from critique to critique. - SD
- the writer of a book on SD
- the writer's view of DT
- my perception of DT, COVID, life/death
Then, there are typically numerous fires to put out with various morphological issues that arise, which, to some extent, is normal. It's true that this message board may not be the proper platform for hashing out the views and complexity of the discussion on politics and a society's or the world's response to COVID. Indeed, it would require a commitment that I, for one, am not able to take on. There's really not as much "hopping around" as you may think. It all relates. My points regarding the writer of the book on SD and his views of DT are one in the same. He very aptly demonstrated (in my opinion) the pitfalls of the model....that if we simply use the model to re-affirm an opinion that someone is at a lowly egoic level, rather than taking the time to really analyze that persons deed, behaviors, actions, intents, in the case of the President, his policies, and in an more expansive sense, the 'avenue' forward he presents, the model simply then, becomes nothing more than a means of further anchoring in personal judgements rather than actually trying to understand where someone is really coming from. & YOUR perceptions of DT I see to be similar; You've made some cursory, knee-jerk based, snap judgements, you're holding to, without actually taking the time to research deeper. Way back when Muttley and I got into it a bit over DT and he advised me to take a deeper look, although not incredibly motivated at first to do so, I finally did and was bowled over at how much I'd bought into a media narrative that was really not near as factually based at what I'd previously believed. It's clear from conversing with you that you have not explored both sides of either DT or the Covid response. You say you don't take sides, but clearly on these issues, you have. You see DT as nothing more than a jack-ass and you see Covid as necessitating Govt action. The Covid conversation and how that relates to fundamental values regarding life/death, may on the surface, indeed appear to be a different one than the convo about DT and the depth of our observations about him, however, make no bones about it, the issue of fundamental values...and really, SR itself (or the lack thereof) does also play in to that conversation as well. The ability to look beyond surface appearance, regarding both circumstance and people, is directly related to what's been realized, what hasn't been. And specifically speaking now of our views about the Covid response; The absence of the SVP does impact experience and the most notable evidence of that absence is the end of the fear of death...the acceptance of death as an integral facet of life. And in my estimation, it would be extremely odd for one who is absent that fear of death, to be in support of the necessity for government to impose restrictive mandates for a virus similar to a bad flu, & more pointedly, mandates that serve to preserve biological life of those who are already very close to death, at the expense of those who are not.
|
|