Consept

Yeah this pretty much sums it up, right wing want to keep things how they are or even go back and left wing wants to change things. Those that want to keep things they are tend to be those with money and power, obviously as they want to preserve things for their benefit. Those that want a change are those who believe they're not getting a good deal but also those that feel compassion for those not getting a good deal. The amazing trick the right wing play is to convince those not getting a good deal to vote for them, usually by blaming others that are getting an even worse deal or by fear mongering that things will be even worse if the left get their way. Demonising socialism for example. Left wing can also get caught up in the game and base policies around fear as they know they may be more likely to get voted in, they can also be corrupted by those in power. Its a devilish game

Regardless of the timing or agenda behind the publication, the words apparantly were spoken by trump, so whats your assessment of his comments?

I get what you mean but i think the idea of non-duality as cold and uncompassionate is most likely a projection of those that only have a logical understanding of non-duality rather than an experiential one. If you have a logical understanding and you like the idea of it, you may think that to get to live in a non-dual state you need to brainwash yourself and convince yourself that there is no you. This is way too much activity and as you say ego cycling. Ultimately its about letting go and acceptance, acceptance is almost inter-changable with love, so to fully accept or love everything is the basis of non-duality but its not a doing, its not an action, its a letting go. The ultimate compassionate thing to do is to help others realise they dont need to suffer, which is what teachers aim to do, it may include seeing death (and everything) as a happening rather than a thing happening to you and it may look uncompassionate from a particular state of consciousness but from a higher state it looks very different. If you want freedom you can not take your self with you.

The assumption that non-duality is not humane i dont think is correct, if you have a non-dual perspective you see everything as yourself or at least that youre connected to everything, in that sense its hard to hurt other sentient beings but is not as if youre trying to live up to some moral code its just that experientially it would be viscerally difficult. Really we are only able to hurt each other if our level of consciousness is low, a good example is if you join the army they have to brain wash you to some extent so that youre able to kill in battle, but even with this training many still get ptsd after the fact. This suggests that we're not really supposed to be killing each other but are able to do it if we drop our level of consciousness. If you have a high level of consciousness this is not even possible

Fair enough, well its more a definition issue, i would call it relative facts. Usually its fine but humans are subject to bias, emotions, imagination etc, you should always question your thinking otherwise youll end up joining a cult or following qanon or something. Final point, quote from wikipedia - "In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." We wouldnt be able to know objectivity as we as humans are subjective individuals, to have a completely objective view in a human body is by definition impossible

I get what youre saying but i dont really agree it defines objectivity, it might define relative facts. Theres a quote i found on another forum i thought was quite interesting and relevant - "In German we have the distinction between Realität (reality) and Wirklichkeit (which best translates into actuality). Realität equals to the facts we have/know, while Wirklichkeit is what is above that/us." - A german guy

OK well thats a separate argument, maybe we'd be happier if we didnt question 'facts' you might be right. For most people thats the case but i think if youre interested in deeper knowledge you will question them, it could be argued that humans naturally will question so called facts and always push knowledge forward that is how evolution occurs. There were probably some cavemen sitting around saying its a fact only god can make fire and then someone questioned that and made fire themselves.

If human thought is not factual, where are your facts coming from did you not think them?

OK so let me try and clarify what youre saying, Objectivity is not permanent and can change dependent on the situation. It is reached by a consensus of different groups of people who decide whether an action is right or wrong. If they decide its wrong for example it would be objectively wrong, however this can later be changed if new technology or a new perspective comes into being. Does that sum it up?

Really consider what you just wrote. At some point the idea of the flat earth was the pinnacle of human knowledge, so much so that you could be killed for claiming otherwise, so it very much was a fact at a certain point in time for humans. By saying things are facts now, youre assuming that we are at the pinnacle of human knowledge and that so called facts can never change, but that has never, ever been the case, things are constantly changing. Modern science you know now that all your facts are based on is relatively new in human history, and in a few 100 years what we think are facts today will most likely be completely different. To you it maybe seems like someone just thought the earth was flat a few hundred years ago as there tech was limited compared to ours, but they could say exactly the same thing about us in a few hundred years.

So you know what im gonna say, if one fact can change over time (flat earth for example) couldnt we say that every 'fact' has the potential to change over time dependent on new information, technology, perspectives? If thats the case how can there be an objective truth, if objective truth has the potential to change and in fact, if history is anything to go by, will almost definitely change?

@Danioover9000 @Psychic crocodile Can facts change through time? Or have facts changed through time, advancing tech etc?

Can you define a fact and who decides what are undebatable facts? Also what happens when two people say something is a fact but they contradict each other?

You'd need to watch it before casting a judgement, he's not really talking about what you're talking about

A consensus amongst people is not the same as objectivity, if the nazis had won the war, the world would've come to a consensus that killing Jews is fine, or during trans Atlantic slavery, the world did come to a consensus that slavery and torture was fine. Consensus can be useful as well but you can't call it objective, if anything it's a collective subjective.

The question will be whether we can move beyond orange before we do irreparable damage to the earth or destroy ourselves.

Thats it!

Why can you not think rationally and have emotions? One doesnt exclude the other. For example i could not believe in something like flat earth due to rational thinking but still be emotional. Its not a binary thing although i can see how if you only learnt rational thinking you may get stuck in a materialist paradigm, but of course you could also learn things beyond rational thinking, but i believe rational or critical thinking should be taught in schools and we should all have an understanding of it to help us get to relative truths. Otherwise everyone will end up being taken in by cults and ideologies, which is whats happening

Facts can be debatable, it would depend on your perspective and level of consciousness. For example I would say capital punishment is wrong, but many who believe in Sharia law would say its justified. Similarly we'd also slavery in the past was wrong but that is from our perspective in the present, those in the future, in 100 years or so may say things we do now are barbaric like eating animals for example. So objectivity would be nearly impossible to prove that it even exists, however we can look at rape from our relative perspective and probably all agree that it shouldnt be allowed, but from a lower consciousness they may not see it like that, so in which case how could it be objective?

If you read the youtube comments a lot of people disagree with Hulse. Its interesting because before this Blue stuff i wouldve said he would appeal more to orange and maybe even green with his biodynamic (i think its called that) stuff, this is such a 180 turn that he mustve alienated a lot of his followers

How is it decided what a fact is?

Be careful with that, cults can definitely be bad. I think ultimately you need to separate the content of what someone says from the person, don't just follow someone because you like what they say, they are still human and still fallable. They can only point you to truth, they are not truth themselves

Obviously this isn't a spiritual take, but I've found that having other perspectives on reality not being real can be helpful, at least for the logical mind. This is a more scientific take, but obviously just a Ted talk, he goes deeper on more content on YouTube

Luck is basically causation from a human perspective. Hard work is a factor but then you could even argue that it was luck that you were born with a certain work ethic or that you were lucky enough to have parents that drummed it into you, or that you didnt have anything when you were young so that encouraged your work ethic. We like to think that we decided to work hard and so if we are successful thats why, but there are plenty of dishwashers that will work harder than a millionaire ever worked in their life but get no where near their success. Its an illusion of control that makes us feel good and really only serves to let us feel better than those we perceive to be below us, because if they only made the same choices and worked as hard as me theyd be where i am now. Its a clever illusion as it keeps everyone working hard and keeping society moving, but an illusion none the less. Its a good way to keep the less advantaged down as well because you can just blame it on them instead of inequality, genius actually

Hes not saying everyone should have the same levels of masculine and feminine, hes saying everyone should have a balance of masculine and feminine within themselves. Hes also not necessarily ascribing traits of each, i think what hes getting at is to get in touch with every part of you. For example if you act overly masculine and macho as a man youre denying your feminine side, that side is still different to someone elses feminine side and can be expressed in many ways, being more compassionate might be one way.