Reciprocality

"System" is as ambigous a term as "thought", the reason such avoidance of specificity has utility in this specific context is precisely because thought aswell as system gets in the realm of 'holonism' a new set of contrasting element. If that which before (system) were 'all-inclusive' now gets a relative value in its relation to something outside it whereby a new superset of "all-inclusivity" will emerge, then follow along. The 'holonistic' experience is by its nature first this new thing outside 'systems' but by the same nature it is also the system which preceded it, again only so far as the former is a part of the latter. Conclusively you can confuse systems for holons, thus disregarding the logic by which the system got its relative value in the first place. Google 'isomorphism', it is to my understanding a simple mathematical version of holonism (certainly what regards the mapping of territories, if not also the territory) whereby radically divergent layers of expressions can share commonality also in their (seeming and actual) mutual exclusivity. You can of course also choose to call it all a system, as would I in many instances, but do not be fooled believing that somehow undermine the difference those instances in between. And primarily what those instances reflects.

You want advices for how to appriciate being the hunter although you are nothing like one? I think i see some of your problems but they wont get solved to the extent i answer these questions. What is your natural inclination towards a woman you have met? Is this inclination not a manifistation of something about yourself you do not will into being? I will say yes, whereby you are destined to action. What do you desire that action to be? If you are not a 'hunter' from nature then why fool yourself thinking it will help you decieving women that you are? I must admit i may be the confused one here, but let's see.

I see the SD Model have gone right over just another sets of heads. A scenario in which one stands disaffected being assaulted by some thugs after a failed persuasion to peace would indeed be an unhealthy one at that, and likely more often represented in Green then in other stages. Its a shame you can not fit the pieces such to see nothing in that negates @Sempiternitys proposition.

It is correct that it does not mean that we can KNOW that there is NO objective existence, but with it does not follow the negation. Meaning we can not know there is that object outside in its own reality as a seperate entity, although we may believe it does. (or we may believe in the concept of it, for again we are bound to the mind)

Question is, what is better?

@WonderSeeker yes indeed

In any placement of discourse there will over time entail a prescriptive concurrence of kinds, this specific discourse tries brutally to get ahead in that. And that can not be but interesting, it is the system we depend upon, and always have. Necessarily, as we weren't 'we' before it. With regards to its specific modus operandi i am intrigued, as it diverge from others periodically alike in the form that it takes. There is much for me to love in it, and much for me to ignore. My relationship to it is alive, although i look forward to new times.

I must say its kind of hillarious that i messed up the actual word itself in my analysis of it.

I think that in the very nature of this concept inlies the method of learning it. If a subject within an envirement deals with a set of obstacles which is not the very groundwork for the evolusion of it then there is neccesary a superstructure of maluability in the subjects which survive and functions in that envirement (and across several potential other ones) Another word for such maluability is the quantity of ways one or several issues can be solved. As determined by some mean or median of puzzlesolving, or 'general inteligence' as within humans. So if you desire to understand the concept (the way i understand it) which i probably don't regarding the specifics of the field, then i reccomend searching for prerequesite variety in your own very ways of learning. The pragmatics of which consists of first-principled derivatives/conclusions and to a lesser degree a books with other's answers.

A civilized but brutal fighter. A comic. An activist. Someone wiser, atleast someone to look up to for primarily her/his wisdom. An unintentional rebel in their genuine artistry, some poet so potent as to be blind to their own brilliancy.

I don't believe in real deaths, i actually find those oxymoronic. I believe death is unreal, or rather absurd. But only absurd as far as phenomena/experience goes. Which i anyway find myself contingent upon, so therefore death is an absurdity. To think about it is an absurd act, as to think about it is nothing like it, and at the same time the thought about it is (presumably) its only essence. Which may even give rise to its only existence, which again is absurd. Seeing that it then exist as the opposite of what it "were to be".

"Inclusiveness, everyone gets an opportunity Don’t exclude anyone Tolerance" Green actually takes a far stronger stance against inclusivity (as such) then the stage before it, rightfully, thankfully, neccesarily. 'Far from everyone gets an oppertunity' would be a more like it. Interestingly enough that is but an outcome in the orange societies, and never an axiom as it is in the green.

So to answer what i think you ask: Write down your rationale, your reason regarding a certain topic and analyse over time how your emotions diverge from the set structure, and how your reason will be subject to an absurd mutation or alternation, the nature of which forms in the commence of the former, the emotion. That emotion is likely functioning as a desire, ideal or identity.

It is impossbile yo lie to yourself, if the self of the lies are to be considered the same. As what constituates a lie is the divergency between ones belief/knowledge and what one COMMUNICATES those to be. I will grant you that a part of the self indeed does communicate with a same part, but it can not possbily communicate to itself that which negates its belief. It is however: possible to deny one's better judgement, in that the judgement is seperated from YOU.

Norway, north-west Europe

The survival of our kind depend upon the stupidity of our time. Does not mean we will survive, but it means that it aint us who are surviving if without the stupidity we survive.

The early Greek philosophers were neccesarily non-yellow, the sd-paradgm functions only insofar as the world it tries to reflect has the sets of attributes with which the paradigm were assigned to model. Most of academic philosophy even today is below yellow, in that much of it is a semantic game IN that it contextualize like phenomena fundametaly different, never understanding the isomorpich nature with which context emerge, out of neccesity. The "absurdity" ofcourse, is that as soon as you disagree with more then half of another's propositions you'll behind the curtains agree just the more; the less axioms you have in common. And that is the integral discovery. It is not that those supersets are perfectly negatively proportionate so to constituate an isomorpic agreement, but that particular subsets therein has that effect. Presumaby, this is why the importance of linguisitcs as John Searle pointed out: became the philosophical discourse. I am yet to read much Postmodern thought, but it surely must have been the discovery of Derrida aswell

@Lyn119455 forgot to tag

Is it that groups of people serves you a bad mode trough which to relate? I will assume that to be the case, for to be approachable in a setting which have 10 ears in one direction and one mouth in 5 is to act accidental to those passions and drives you can understand and share with but two of those ears. It is to make generalisations, a superset of shared commonalities, which again surves as a divergency in contrast to other sets of groups. If you have lived this far without a skill as such, then chances are you have no real desire for it today, only as a means to other ends. Myself i would question those ends, but for you (given that you can develop these skills) i'll advice for a trial and error scheme, in which failure is the only route to success. That is, cringe and awkwardness to be commended.

@Captain_Diabetes Indeed it is cringe, but from what else than cringeness would you find meaning in despising opposites? Is not cringe an essence of you in that you so wholeheartedly needs avoiding it? Is it unlikely that in the divergence between youre ideals and that which constituates societie's you undermine that of the former to fit within that of the latter? I believe that (if to be the case) is quite cringe.

Out of a hundred progressive policies one may commit oneself to believing, free speech is that which secures the potential of all the rest. Thus, one may say: it is the most important progressive one. : ) It is the power of the people, the masses. The singular most important one against tyranny, one which you Americans should be very wary of tossing in the bin, be you anywhere on a progressive spectrum.

All speech ought be protected on public ground, except within cetain institutions and situations however narrow those exeptions may be. : )

Two lamps, both of which lights inadequatly for one to focus on that which they presumably both ought iluminate? Interesting problem, find a job.

You say you feel like the emotions have you in their grip, and not by your choice? Where thereby you by some other emotion desire that not to be the case? Will it not be emotions which have you controlled even if your desire were to be fulfilled? Now that absurdity/double negation makes me question the premesis themselves, i for one have many times been sceptical towards my emotions, but in their quality, not their nature. What is an ideal emotion, which you aspire towards having? Is it possible that the guitar is not something you yourself desire mastering, and that you have undermined the "instrument" you actually would've?

They've made him a living martyr now, as though subject to opressive kings he is banished from his first ammendment, they believe. It is dangerous what they've done. As in dangerous on themselves.