Forestluv

Cultural relativism is so interesting- especially when it’s relative to me ?

Are you aware that you are criticizing a model of consciousness with a model of consciousness? Don’t get too attached your model. ?

The self will do anything to stay in the game. The self says "Ok. Ok. This attachment thing is getting pretty bad. I better get busy trying to figure out how to let go. I'll do some research online and discuss it on the forum. It's a good thing I stepped up to take action before it got out of hand" The self is so sneaky.

IME, on lower doses there, the context still has some dream component. It's like being rocketed up to high Yellow and Turquoise. I've tried to push the dose higher beyond that. My first two attempts I blacked out when I left all dream state. The third attempt I went to absolute nothing. A null void.

Thank you. Relativism is liberating and opens so many doors. By acknowledging the deep connection and meaning in my non-committed relationship, the following statements now become true: Commitment in a relationship is not required for deep connection within the relationship. Commitment in a relationship is not required for deep meaning within the relationship. The next higher level is to integrate this with advanced Green egalitarianism. That would be: The deep connection and meaning in Serotoninluv's non-committed relationship is as true as the deep connection and meaning in Key Element's committed relationship.

My point is: for high level relativism, the details are irrelevant. You told me you experienced deep connection in a committed relationship. That is all the information I need. I don't need any details to judge if you actually did experience deep connection. I believe that is your experience. I told you I experienced deep connection in a non-committed relationship. You responded "I guess so" and "I don't have full details". My question is: What details do you need to judge that I actually did experience deep connection? What details would move you from "I guess so" to "I believe you"?

When you tell me that you have had a deep connection and meaning in a relationship with significant commitment, I believe you. It's hard for me to imagine how someone could have deep connection and meaning in a highly committed relationship. Yet, I don't deny your experience. I don't say "No, Key Elements you are mistaken: you have not had deep meaning and connection in a committed relationship". Nor do I challenge you and say "Well, I guess you might have experienced deep meaning and connection in a committed relationship, but I don't know what happened in the relationship, so I can't know for sure". If you tell me you had deep connection / meaning in a committed relationship, I trust that you did. What more information would I need to verify that you actually did experience deep connection and meaning? Would I try to quantify your depth of connection/meaning? Perhaps do some scientific studies on you to gather evidence that you are telling me the truth? If I question your experience I am questioning who you are, I am questioning whether your experience qualifies to what I believe is deep connection and meaning. And I would be putting the burden on you to prove to me that you actually experienced deep meaning and connection. I would want more information so I can judge whether you experienced "actual" deep connection and meaning. I told you that I had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment. Why would respond with "I guess so."? Why don't you trust that I am telling you the truth? What additional information from my relationship do you need to move from "I guess so" to "I believe you"? What additional information do you need to verify that my experience was actually deep connection and meaningful? This is subjectivism/relativism at a lower Green level. I have found it is the key to reach deeper levels of empathy. To take it one step higher on the Green scale toward Yellow. . . As hard as it is form me to imagine how you could have experience deep connection and meaning in a committed relationship, I trust that that was your experience. I am comfortable saying: Key Elements experience of deep connection and meaning within his/her committed relationship is as true as my experience of deep connection and meaning within my non-committed relationship. This level of consciousness was a huge jump for me and my breakthrough experience was only about six months ago. This has opened up indescribable depths of human connection and empathy. And not just with people that have a similar orientation to me. Everyone. IME this level of relativism is necessary to reach the broadest and deepest levels of empathy. This opens up a much deeper level of communication and bonding. Rather than debating about how to justify and verify that a personal experience qualifies as "actual", the discussion can move deeper into exploring both "actual" experiences. For me, I become curious and fascinated. Judgement and separation dissolves and there is a sense of oneness. A beautiful empathetic and loving interpersonal connection. A high stage Green experience. And for icing on the cake, I experience and learn about things I could never had imagined.

Ok. I took out the effort part. Can we now agree they are both true? 1. Serotoninluv has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment. 2. Key elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment. If not, which statement do you disagree with?

@MsNobody I love the last sentence!

@Key Elements It boils down to subjectivism / relativism for me. I think you and Jay are within an objectivism / absolutism mindset. Can we agree the following two statements are true? (I believe they are) Serotoninluv has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment or effort. Key Elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment and effort.

@Torkys All you need to watch is from 1:25 - 1:58. That sums it up.

Yes. I think he is locked into logical / scientific thinking and does not understand relativism. My favorite clip was a woman born with a penis, yet identifies more feminine and female. Ben spouted off studies about hormones and brain scans indicating that she is physiologically experiencing maleness. She responds "That's not my reality". Ben is like "yes, it is". . . Face palm.

@Emerald Thank you. It is sooo refreshing to read a highly conscious explanation of gender. Do you have a video appropriate for people transitioning upward into this level of understanding for gender?

When I transitioned out of Blue, my type of prayer evolved. I no longer prayed to a specific entity (like Jesus or Buddha). Rather, meditation and sutras became my "prayer". I also prayed in general that suffering in the world be reduced. Also, I've always like the prayer of St. Francis. You can do it without praying to a god. Sometimes, I sit with a word without thinking and just let stuff arise. Something like "What is genuine". It kinda feels like prayer.

I watched a couple videos of Jay and I liked them. I think he can be nuanced and has depth. In this particular video. I think he oversimplifies and overgeneralizes. I think he is transitioning into Green or upper Green. I hope he continues to grow. He can be very insightful and inspirational. Jay goes much further than meaningful conversations. Jay could have simply said "meaningful conversation can promote deep connections within a relationship". Yet, he didn't. He went one step further and created two tiers: actual relationships and illusion relationships. And he starts making judgement about what an "actual" relationship is. It's not limited to petty conversation. According to Jay, you are not in an "actual" relationship if: 1. You chase love without falling in love. 2. You commit a little, but not a lot 3. You are at a shallow level without deep connections 4. You haven't achieved a "real" connection. 5. Your relationship is based on social media 6. You and your partner don't want to label your relationship 7. You and your partner just want to go with the flow and see where things lead 8. You want to stand independently 9. You want to take things slow 10. You don't want to unpack your baggage 11. You don't want to help someone else unpack their baggage 12. You choose to watch Netflix over having a "real" conversation 13. You want a warm body rather than a partner 14. ****The things YOU really want, the things that YOU really find meaningful, the things YOU find genuinely fulfilling ALL require patience, work, and effort. No, the things that Jay thinks people *should* want, *should* find meaningful, *should* find genuinely fulfilling all require patience, work and effort. That would be a big steaming pot of NO.. One of my most meaningful connections was a woman I met in Colombia that I spent two days with. It was one of the most genuinely fulfilling connections in my life. We went DEEP fast, effortlessly. It just flowed. Just because Jay can't imagine this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What people want, find meaningful and genuinely fulfilling is relative to them. Jay doesn't get to tell me or anyone else what I *really* want, find meaningful or fulfilling. Jay hasn't even met me. Some of these apply to some people in some relationships. Some don't. It depends on the couple and the relationship. Each person gets to decide what they want in their relationship. Each couple can decide what works best for them.

Ok. So you think Jay would consider a woman with a primary partner, two secondary partners and a comet partner as having four "actual relationships" as long as the conversations were not petty? If Jay was at a swinger's party would he evaluate whether the conversations at the party were petty to determine if they qualify as "actual"? Would a couple that live in different countries that base their relationship on social media be an actual relationship as long as their communication isn't petty? IMO, relationship structures are much more nuanced and complicated than Jay acknowledges.

How can one exclude polyamory? That's like discussing a nature center and excluding the trees. Jay goes MUCH further than simply saying relationships take work. Jay consistently uses the term "actual relationship" as the ideal. How do you think Jay would define "actual relationship"? How would you? This is a highly subjective term, yet Jay uses it absolutely/objectively without ever defining it. At what point does an illusionary relationship become an actual relationship? Can an actual relationship be whatever a couple or group mutually decide is an actual relationship for them?

Well said. I would agree that this is partially right for some people. I would say this speaker is a mix of blue, orange and lower green. Blue - he sets up a bimodal framework of "illusion relationship" or "actual relationship". Either / Or thinking is stage blue Orange - He speaks mentions plenty Orange key words such as "acheiving" and "winning". As well . . . personal hardwork to reach a goal. Lower Green - He is critical of certain dynamics common at Orange stages. For example, Orange often acts in their self interest and their relationships are often shallow - e.g. more about sex than forming human bonds. As well, he speaks of real human connection. Yet doesn't go further into green - he doesn't stress the value of equality and empathy as being core components of relationships. I'd say he places the highest value on commitment - I think this is the most common value he uses. Upper Green - Upper green has mastered cultural relativism and has a basic understanding of holistic relativism. The speaker does not use either mode of thinking. Overall, I would say he is transitioning into Green, yet is burdened with Blue and Orange level views.

I think there is a lot of value in the video relative to specific forms of relationships. I think his video is oversimplified and overgeneralized. He sets up a binary framework by repeatedly saying "illusion relationship" and "actual relationship". Yet, he never defines what an "actual relationship" is. The meaning of relationship is a highly subjective / relative concept. There are hundreds of different forms of relationships. It's highly complex and simplifying it to undefined "illusion relationship" and "actual relationship" only works at a surface level. It's "either / or" blue-level thinking. A person is Either in an illusion relationship Or an actual relationship. It doesn't incorporate Orange-level continuum thinking such that relationships lie on a continuum between illusion relationship and actual relationship. For example, a couple that live 100 miles apart that see each other on the weekends and communicate via social media on weekdays might be considered 60% illusion relationship and 40% actual relationship. As well, his binary framework does not include relativism found at Green and Yellow levels. From a relativist perspective an actual relationship would be however a couple or group define what "actual relationship" means for them. You say that "it" could work in any type of relationship, yet if we look closer - does it really? He excludes social media based relationships by labeling them as "illusion relationships", so it doesn't work for people that define a social media relationship as an "actual relationship". (And he cites outdated social media such as facebook - and does not consider more common and more interactive social media such as facetime/skype.). As well, he states "We want to take it slow, we want to see where it goes, we don't want to label things, we just go with the flow" as being in the illusionary relationship category. So, "it" doesn't work for this type of relationship. Yet, for some people taking things slow, not labeling and going with the flow is very healthy and works for them. If that's what a couple decides is best for them and that is an "actual" relationship for them, how can the speaker discredit their relationship as not being "actual"? There are also mongamous relationships, polyamourous relationships, open relationships etc. And with each of those forms of relationship, there are subforms of relationships - monogamy can range from strict monogamy to a flexible monogamy. Does "it" work for all of these forms of relationships? I don't think so. What about a woman that is in a primary relationship, two secondary relationships and a comet relationship structured as a hierarchical relationship with her primary partner. The video assumes a person only has one relationship (he consistently says "a relationship" in it's singular form. So, is this woman in an "actual relationship"? Should we group all four of her relationships and decide if it's an "actual relationship"? Or should we consider each relationship separately? What if she is highly committed to the primary partner and one secondary partner and they have lots of quality time together - and one secondary partner and the comet partner is based on social media? Would we say she has two "actual relationships" and two "illusionary relationships". At what point does an actual relationship become an illusionary relationship? Or what about a happily committed married couple that likes to spice things up with threesomes and swinger parties? How would we label their swinging partners? What if the swinging partners were in a tight-nit group that communicated through social media and got together for a party once a month? What if they shared deeply with each other and had close bonds? How would we apply the speaker's advice to this couple and their swinging relationships?

This looks like the next generation of conservative values. My parents’ generation criticized my generation’s style of relationships as being shallow and lacking substance. Similar to how he is doing here. He seems judgemental and ideological in this video. I don’t think this is fair portrayal of millennial relationships and I don’t think they are inferior to traditional relationships.

Just ideas floating around. . . My mind is trying to claim them as beliefs. . . ?

@Joseph Maynor Keep in mind these are all just ideas. If your mind holds the ideas as beliefs, it will limit your expansion. The way you state the ideas seems like you believe it.

Says who? The emergence of genders is not restricted within previous human constructs of gender. Old models of gender do not get to set rules that restrict the parameters of new emerging models of gender. Horse carraige drivers did not get to set the rules on how emerging automobiles would be manufactured.

That sounds like a human construct to me. It’s filled with interpretation, value judgement and intention. You seem to use a lot of intellectual concepts and present them as truth. Those ideas are not truth, they arise from truth. Be aware that if your mind holds those ideas as beliefs, it will limit your expansion. All those concepts are within something much broader and deeper. Don’t get too attached to them. Be open, flexible and nimble ?

Gender and sexuality is evolving fast. I think there are genders emerging outside of the masculine - feminine continuum