|
Post by someNothing on Nov 30, 2020 22:59:39 GMT
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. You're interested in delving into the mind of the writer and then using it to create diversionary thoughts on how people can unconsciously decode the ideas to fit their self-image. I'm not. So, in that sense, we can just not ever talk about the potentials of SD. I'm totally fine with that.
OK, you have several opinions about me that you present as some kind of factual knowledge. No surprises there after years of watching the same. To be clear, you have no idea how much I've read and studied either topic, nor are you aware of the nuances of strategy that I take in coming to my opinions and conclusions about what I think are better ways forward. For example, after studying political/philosophical movements and language & cognition, living under a variety of different culturo-political styles, understanding the core of an anarchist's take on media, putting greater degrees of the locus of control in the hands of workers and common folks as a force of qualitative change in an existing governmental structure, etc. I generally do have a a relatively nuanced view of how I see things going forward. That you think I only have a simplistic or one-sided view of DT, the GOP-DNC dance, COVID, or whatever, leads me to think you either do not understand and/or want to believe something. At times, it can be interesting. At others, not so much. <shrugs>
Furthermore, I'm quite well aware of the unfolding story as just that, and that we are generally using such a broad pre-personal, more conscious view to act more consciously at the level of a personal or social level of the story. It is what it is, so I wouldn't take you to task on taking your daughters to the doctor or deciding to fight tooth and nail for peeps' rights to speech. It's something to do, and some such things are more profound or meaningful than others. On that note, I generally support decisions for staying alive, and I kinda snorta think you do, too. But, considering you sometimes attempt to verbally crucify peeps about pretty much any detail you can dream up, maybe I'm wrong about that, too! That said, yes, we have 8Bpeeps on this planet, so maybe a good old fashioned plague is kind of needed. Hard to find good life takers, when it comes down to it.
You're assumptions about my fear of death is, well, again, misguided. But yes, I have seen in the past how false narratives about peeps or oneself are sometimes created and wielded. Sometimes folks try to reverse or place the origin of certain issues on others and then place themselves in a certain position in the triangle. Peeps do such things all the time, like when working with hierarchical frameworks. Now, I have no problem with peeps leaning into others on occasion with respect to ND discourse "to see what's behind the present layer" or bring out what's really at play. But, as has been noted, sometimes it's just self-deception that is at play, wielding its unconscious devices and strategies. It often starts with a set of false assumptions and/or characterizations. Sometimes the endeavor just misses the mark. Sometimes, it works in getting whatever it is the unconscious SVP wanted. And still at other times, it comes back to bite that same SVP on the ass. Getting past it or letting it go, generally speaking, it seems that more profound and adult-like discussions could take place.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 1, 2020 1:18:14 GMT
You're interested in delving into the mind of the writer and then using it to create diversionary thoughts on how people can unconsciously decode the ideas to fit their self-image. I'm not. So, in that sense, we can just not ever talk about the potentials of SD. I'm totally fine with that. No "delving" necessary. His words more than adequately convey a shallow, knee-jerk based view of Trump, that aligns perfectly with the cardboard caricature CNN and similar media outlets puts forth. Are you at all aware that you are doing the same regarding me? Presenting your opinions about me as though they are fact? You did it above when you professed to know what my 'interest' is, and you were wrong. Gee Kev...Wow...how fascinating...never heard ANY of that stuff about you before..... Point is though, this isn't one of em. The death rate, the demographic of those who die, the recovery rate, remove Covid from the 'old fashioned Plague' category. A large body of scientists and doctors agree with me. The conversation I am trying to have here, is actually perty darned 'adult-like' in my estimation. Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've put forth though directly, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Dec 1, 2020 11:03:07 GMT
You're interested in delving into the mind of the writer and then using it to create diversionary thoughts on how people can unconsciously decode the ideas to fit their self-image. I'm not. So, in that sense, we can just not ever talk about the potentials of SD. I'm totally fine with that. No "delving" necessary. His words more than adequately convey a shallow, knee-jerk based view of Trump, that aligns perfectly with the cardboard caricature CNN and similar media outlets puts forth. Are you at all aware that you are doing the same regarding me? Presenting your opinions about me as though they are fact? You did it above when you professed to know what my 'interest' is, and you were wrong. Gee Kev...Wow...how fascinating...never heard ANY of that stuff about you before..... Point is though, this isn't one of em. The death rate, the demographic of those who die, the recovery rate, remove Covid from the 'old fashioned Plague' category. A large body of scientists and doctors agree with me. The conversation I am trying to have here, is actually perty darned 'adult-like' in my estimation. Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've put forth though directly, not so much. Such systems frameworks are meant to categorize/organize very complex detail into more manageable chunks. You seem more intent on going back into the detail and aligning it with your point of view. True, it does require all interlocutors to have a pretty decent depth of understanding of such a framework to be able to discuss it, which is why I called you out on not having done that. I believe you exhibit confirmation bias in most of what you deem as objective research. That has been something of the core of most of my interactions with you recently: language used, info/visuals/opinions provided, apparent desire to promote some conspiracies, etc.
Don't over-estimate my abilities or desire to go into every detail. There's no real captain on this burning ship in a sea of fire.
I didn't say COVID was a plague, and do not believe it is. You've missed the point of why I made the tongue-in-cheek remark.... perhaps, based on your confirmation bias. This is indicative of another reason why I do not want to get into the weeds on these issues with you, especially in a message board format. I'd hazard to guess that it might be a fun rollicking discussion over a few glasses of wine.
The conversation you want is an argumentative debate. That's fine. I'd prefer peeps to give a shit about WIBIGO, sure. All good. I've told you about how I approach it, the categories that might mark my approach, and have shed some light on some of my take on DT and the general state of American-world politics and power. I might be more forthcoming on some of the details, but I am not really keen on getting into an argumentative debate in the style (and direction) you have exhibited. If, in your mind, that makes me a bad actor or seemingly escapist, invite someone else to play the part. I'm perfectly content with that.
My parting shot on DT and SD might go something like this. Many folks assume DT is Orange, but I disagree. I do think his unconscious substrate exhibits Red values, while he presents himself as a successful Orange. If you look at the field of business/entrepreneurship, you'll see variations of this general Red-Blue-Orange area, but there are distinctions to be made if someone is so inclined as a theoretical practice. On personal levels, I have seen peeps at Orange assume they are at Yellow, but again, there are unconscious drives that get exhibited when the guard is let down and the "true colors" come out. The "jump" from first tier (like Orange) to second tier (like Yellow) requires something akin to realization, self-honesty, and willingness. Thus, when you said DT was "integral", it made me ole' eyebrow rise. Of course, this does not get into the SD take on American society, peeps in and the overall quality of his administration and version of the GOP, the potential direction it all can go in "advancing/regressing" the quality of life on earth, and all other such drama-like things to which the SD framework could be applied. Again, it's complex stuff that, in my mind, requires a systems approach and a suspension of attitudes and hard conclusions as the data continues to come forth. So, say what you want to about my take on DT and COVID, or whatever. In the end, I do not really "know", per se, but I'm content enough with my takes and am perfectly fine with learning, shifting my opinions, and taking care of my shit.
It's my take on being Free, conscious of attempting to remain rooted in Truth, and walking around the amusement park of life, while enjoying some of the side shows and freak exhibits.
🍿
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 1, 2020 16:31:07 GMT
Such systems frameworks are meant to categorize/organize very complex detail into more manageable chunks. You seem more intent on going back into the detail and aligning it with your point of view. True, it does require all interlocutors to have a pretty decent depth of understanding of such a framework to be able to discuss it, which is why I called you out on not having done that. It's not at all complex as a system. However, it's a system that is highly dependent upon the clarity of the one using it. What I think you failed to see is that prior to your presentation of it, I was already invoking the very ideas inherent to the system, in my talk about "fundamental values" and how those very much play into where one sits on the Covid debate. Right back atcha. In truth, I look at both sides of the argument. That's the only way to arrive at a clear view. How about you? Ever take time to actually hear what the other side is saying? Such as? Everything I've put forth is backed by science..perhaps not the same science you are siding with....again, a huge issue with this whole covid thing is that the science (accredited experts on both sides) is itself split....not in consensus. Uh-huh. I didn't miss your point. Seems you missed mine though. Again, you're wrong. If a civil, well reasoned, emotionally calm debate ensues, I'm definitely up for it, but my main intent regarding Covid is to understand where others stand, why and how they arrived there. I am genuinely confused as to how so many believe it's important to try to stop a virus that has the low death rate and the death demographic it does...and why in doing that, it's okay to enact mandates that themselves do harm and even kill. I am finding it's not the easiest thing to get a clear answer on that. As I have these conversations, over and over I am seeing fundamental values and assumptions that are often going unseen by the one who holds the position. It's fascinating. And you with all your twisting and turning...anything to avoid clearly and concisely explaining your position, yet all the while accusing me of promoting conspiracy theories are doing that very thing. Notice how you won't come right out and say specifically 'what' the conspiracy theory is I'm promoting? Instead you just keep the accusation vague..that way you don't have to support your accusation. Your take on DT and mine are different because you are looking at him as a person (one whom you do not like) and I am looking at him impersonally, as 'an avenue.' Again, this is the problem with the SD model; Where you see someone else very much depends upon where you are looking from...and you could say, from where YOU are on the spiral...or whether you are even on the spiral or not as you look/see.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Dec 1, 2020 16:37:33 GMT
Such systems frameworks are meant to categorize/organize very complex detail into more manageable chunks. You seem more intent on going back into the detail and aligning it with your point of view. True, it does require all interlocutors to have a pretty decent depth of understanding of such a framework to be able to discuss it, which is why I called you out on not having done that. It's not at all complex as a system. However, it's a system that is highly dependent upon the clarity of the one using it. What I think you failed to see is that prior to your presentation of it, I was already invoking the very ideas inherent to the system, in my talk about "fundamental values" and how those very much play into where one sits on the Covid debate. Right back atcha. In truth, I look at both sides of the argument. That's the only way to arrive at a clear view. How about you? Ever take time to actually hear what the other side is saying? Such as? Everything I've put forth is backed by science..perhaps not the same science you are siding with....again, a huge issue with this whole covid thing is that the science (accredited experts on both sides) is itself split....not in consensus. Uh-huh. I didn't miss your point. Seems you missed mine though. Again, you're wrong. If a civil, well reasoned, emotionally calm debate ensues, I'm definitely up for it, but my main intent regarding Covid is to understand where others stand, why and how they arrived there. I am genuinely confused as to how so many believe it's important to try to stop a virus that has the low death rate and the death demographic it does...and why in doing that, it's okay to enact mandates that themselves do harm and even kill. I am finding it's not the easiest thing to get a clear answer on that. As I have these conversations, over and over I am seeing fundamental values and assumptions that are often going unseen by the one who holds the position. It's fascinating. And you with all your twisting and turning...anything to avoid clearly and concisely explaining your position, yet all the while accusing me of promoting conspiracy theories are doing that very thing. Notice how you won't come right out and say specifically 'what' the conspiracy theory is I'm promoting? Instead you just keep the accusation vague..that way you don't have to support your accusation. Your take on DT and mine are different because you are looking at him as a person (one whom you do not like) and I am looking at him impersonally, as 'an avenue.' Again, this is the problem with the SD model; Where you see someone else very much depends upon where you are looking from...and you could say, from where YOU are on the spiral...or whether you are even on the spiral or not as you look/see. Okey dokey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2020 16:56:21 GMT
It's not at all complex as a system. However, it's a system that is highly dependent upon the clarity of the one using it. What I think you failed to see is that prior to your presentation of it, I was already invoking the very ideas inherent to the system, in my talk about "fundamental values" and how those very much play into where one sits on the Covid debate. Right back atcha. In truth, I look at both sides of the argument. That's the only way to arrive at a clear view. How about you? Ever take time to actually hear what the other side is saying? Such as? Everything I've put forth is backed by science..perhaps not the same science you are siding with....again, a huge issue with this whole covid thing is that the science (accredited experts on both sides) is itself split....not in consensus. Uh-huh. I didn't miss your point. Seems you missed mine though. Again, you're wrong. If a civil, well reasoned, emotionally calm debate ensues, I'm definitely up for it, but my main intent regarding Covid is to understand where others stand, why and how they arrived there. I am genuinely confused as to how so many believe it's important to try to stop a virus that has the low death rate and the death demographic it does...and why in doing that, it's okay to enact mandates that themselves do harm and even kill. I am finding it's not the easiest thing to get a clear answer on that. As I have these conversations, over and over I am seeing fundamental values and assumptions that are often going unseen by the one who holds the position. It's fascinating. And you with all your twisting and turning...anything to avoid clearly and concisely explaining your position, yet all the while accusing me of promoting conspiracy theories are doing that very thing. Notice how you won't come right out and say specifically 'what' the conspiracy theory is I'm promoting? Instead you just keep the accusation vague..that way you don't have to support your accusation. Your take on DT and mine are different because you are looking at him as a person (one whom you do not like) and I am looking at him impersonally, as 'an avenue.' Again, this is the problem with the SD model; Where you see someone else very much depends upon where you are looking from...and you could say, from where YOU are on the spiral...or whether you are even on the spiral or not as you look/see. Okey dokey. lol
|
|