Jordan Peterson on Moral Law

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’m very empathetic and it’s difficult for me to comprehend such a constricted internal perspective. It boggles my mind. 

This is why I tend to avoid talking from this perspective.

It may be true on certain levels. But it tends to lead to a lot of self-deception, callousness, constriction, solipsism,and unconsciousness in general.

And this isn't because it's necessarily incorrect. Reality could actually be working this way. The reason why it's a risky perspective to wield, is that it's  an easy perspective to hide behind and to avoid real-life situations and truths on other levels. Spiritual bypassing is a huge danger in this perspective, as the ego can use it as a shield and an affirmation that assures someone, "If I only get the internal right, then the external is fine no matter what."

But this mindset can also reveal certain truths about reality, as I have found that external conflicts do tend to shift with my personal shifts. So, I use this perspective in hopes of being able to address these issues from the inside and out. But I'm always careful about it because it's such an alluring trap to get caught in and very difficult to get out of.

[Forestluv]

@Emerald I went through a predominately internal reality construct and a few people told me I didn’t comprehend “intention vs. impact” regarding my words and actions. 

Do you think it’s related? I would imagine if someone couldn’t understand external perspectives in their life, they would have a harder time comprehending the impact they are having on others (i.e. how their words / actions would impact someone with a different perspective)

Taken to an extreme, couldn’t someone who is sitting by a person that is suffering think “I am creating this suffering person in my mind. I take full responsibility for the internal reality I am creating”, and just sit there as the person suffers? 

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Emerald I went through a predominately internal reality construct and a few people told me I didn’t comprehend “intention vs. impact” regarding my words and actions. 

Do you think it’s related? I would imagine if someone couldn’t understand external perspectives in their life, they would have a harder time comprehending the impact they are having on others (i.e. how their words / actions would impact someone with a different perspective)

Taken to an extreme, couldn’t someone who is sitting by a person that is suffering think “I am creating this suffering person in my head. I take full responsibility for the internal reality I am creating”, and just sit there as the person suffers? 

With the "intention vs. impact" issue, it's a little bit different in that there is no assumption of responsibility if the intentions are good. People in this groove tend to see racism as an intentional act. So, if someone isn't intentionally racist, then people who think in terms of intention just think "That person's not racist." So, they always bring things back to individual character flaws, and think about things in terms of "I'm not racist." as opposed to "There is racism." So, it is caring more about personal intent, then the impact of racism in general and being blind to the impact one's actions have because of the rationale of having good intentions or just lacking bad ones. So, this is a failure to zoom out and see how racism comes from more than just intent, and a failure to be less selfish, and consider that staking the claim "I'm not racist." is such a ego-driven focus on those issues.

With the "create your own reality" perspective, it could be very true. So, it's not necessarily rooted in blindspots to consider that reality may work that way. But it's susceptible to blindspots because of the way the human mind and ego work. And when the human mind and ego see this as the only perspective they can become very callous and even blaming of people who are suffering. There can be a person with cancer, and a person stuck in this perspective will think, "They caused their own cancer because they're creating their own reality. So, on some level they must have wanted cancer."

And yes. If there is someone suffering next to them, they could rationalize it either the other way in thinking 'everyone creates their own reality' and becoming callous to their suffering in that way. Or they can think of it in terms of other people being an illusion, and if there's a person crying next to them that it means something about one's own internal state. So, there could be an idea, "I'm taking responsibility for the crying happening next to me." by doing some kind of internal process... as opposed to thinking of the external perspective as another valid perspective as well and taking a human, hear-centered approach to what comes up in reality. But either way, it is a (in these cases) and invalidation of external reality as a valid reality.

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Emerald

[Haumea2018]

I'll give you a better argument than your mom.

The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority.

Most white SJWs of course don't see this because their entire theory is basically white paternalism, and it is rejected by a sufficient number of minorities as offensive.

Green is the paternalistic racism stage.

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

I'll give you a better argument than your mom.

The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority.

Even if we assume that as true from one perspective, it doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist or it shouldn’t be addressed. In fact, it would mean we should double our efforts to eliminate systemic racism. 

My mom would love that argument because it suggests liberals and minorities are hurting themselves with their own racism. 

[Haumea2018]

Quote

Even if we assume that as true from one perspective, it doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist or it shouldn’t be addressed. In fact, it would mean we should double our efforts to eliminate systemic racism. 

I think what it means is that we stop treating minorities as eternal helpless victims without agency, stop creating simplistic theories out of complex social phenomena and start asking ourselves the really hard questions, such as "what ego investment do I have in seeing the Other as victim to be rescued?"

[StephenK]

What if humans as a collective are simply not evolved enough to rise up the spiral? Perhaps there are situations where engineering a society to rise up the spiral when it doesn't have the capacity to do so could cause untold chaos/misery and could be a deeply uncompassionate act. I fear those that have a 'taste' for engineering society, as they're normally the ones that inadvertently cause the most bloodshed. Systemic thinking has a high cost/reward to it when implemented. Implementation is often where reality will shine through and beat our ass red. There is much talk about 'why x or y is wrong', but there is little in the way of concrete examples as to what solutions should be put in place. In fact, most solutions I've seen proposed to fight systemic racism will just make the entire problem worse, as more and more attention is drawn towards race. It's a messy world out there.

[Haumea2018]

I'll give you a better argument than your mom.

The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority.

Most white SJWs of course don't see this because their entire theory is basically white paternalism, and it is rejected by a sufficient number of minorities as offensive.

Green is the paternalistic racism stage.

As an example: (from the Daily Beast, no conservative site:)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dear-white-people-well-meaning-paternalism-is-still-racist

Edited November 23, 2018 by Haumea2018

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

I think what it means is that we stop treating minorities as eternal helpless victims without agency, stop creating simplistic theories out of complex social phenomena and start asking ourselves the really hard questions, such as "what ego investment do I have in seeing the Other as victim to be rescued?"

If we assume that is true, I agree that it would be an important issue within systemic racism to address. It would be one of several components of course. Good point, thanks. ? 

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, StephenK said:

What if humans as a collective are simply not evolved enough to rise up the spiral? Perhaps there are situations where engineering a society to rise up the spiral when it doesn't have the capacity to do so could cause untold chaos/misery and could be a deeply uncompassionate act. I fear those that have a 'taste' for engineering society, as they're normally the ones that inadvertently cause the most bloodshed. Systemic thinking has a high cost/reward to it when implemented. Implementation is often where reality will shine through and beat our ass red. There is much talk about 'why x or y is wrong', but there is little in the way of concrete examples as to what solutions should be put in place. In fact, most solutions I've seen proposed to fight systemic racism will just make the entire problem worse, as more and more attention is drawn towards race. It's a messy world out there.

Some Yellow beings are into social engineering and I think it can have unintended consequences. Personally, I really want societies to evolve up the spiral and I often feel desire to push the progress faster.

[Haumea2018]

It's an important issue...period.  

If we shoehorn it into the "systemic racism" box we are unwittingly reinforcing it because that box reinforces paternalist notions.

That's what I'm talking about here.  This is Yellow stage stuff.  There is no reductive, simplistic social theory "Green" way of handling this stuff (without being racist.)

And how to actually do it is beyond my paygrade to fully describe; all I know is that it would be a remarkably nuanced and multifaceted approach. (In other words, if some smarter person manages it, I'll know it when I see it. :))

Edited November 23, 2018 by Haumea2018

[Haumea2018]

Demonstrable instances of employment, housing and educational discrimination should be redressed via civil rights legislation/litigation (and where appropriate, like repeat violators, consent decrees.).  Racial profiling in police work (in the sense of disproportionately targeting a race based on statistical estimates) should be illegal.  

Maybe some others like that that I forget.  Basic, meat-and-potatoes civil rights shit.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Haumea2018

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

Demonstrable instances of employment, housing and educational discrimination should be redressed via civil rights legislation/litigation (and where appropriate, like repeat violators, consent decrees.).  Racial profiling in police work (in the sense of disproportionately targeting a race based on statistical estimates) should be illegal.  

Maybe some others like that that I forget.  Basic, meat-and-potatoes civil rights shit.

Thank you ? 

[Outer]

1 hour ago, StephenK said:

In fact, most solutions I've seen proposed to fight systemic racism will just make the entire problem worse, as more and more attention is drawn towards race. It's a messy world out there.

That has been my point all along as it's founded upon a racist belief of division of humans into races and putting conscious value on it. But at the same time it's not dumb to acknowledge the unconscious racist belief of division of humans into races, among other ones. But we're not 100% sure there is unconscious racist beliefs at least depending on our definition of racism.

 

1 hour ago, Haumea2018 said:

I'll give you a better argument than your mom.

The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority.

Most white SJWs of course don't see this because their entire theory is basically white paternalism, and it is rejected by a sufficient number of minorities as offensive.

Green is the paternalistic racism stage.

As an example: (from the Daily Beast, no conservative site:)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dear-white-people-well-meaning-paternalism-is-still-racist

Technically I don't think that racist paternalism is applicable to the case of systemic racism. Systemic racism is basically the unconscious racism bias existing in most peoples mind's, but that is just an assumption as we can't even measure it accurately. It might turn out that most people don't have racism bias. Though it depends how we define racism. But we do definitely have biases, as it's a part of our cognitive machinery, to utilize heuristics or mental shortcuts for various reasons.

I do agree with the article however, racist paternalism is definitely a thing, and it is founded upon the same belief as the racists, namely that people can be divided into races/groups and that we must give value to Any color of the skin rather than organizing our organizations and institutions, etc, around the fact that all are to be treated fairly and equally, to the point that we don't even have to bring it up.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Outer

[StephenK]

The other issue is that often race comes along with a set of cultural values, and these are hard to tease apart. It is easier to do business with people that share your own culture, as social nuances and cultural norms are more readily understood, therefore reducing friction within trade. In other words, maybe the problem isn't race so much as it is cultural values (which race tends to correlate with to some degree because of historical reasons).

[Jack River]

8 hours ago, StephenK said:

In other words, maybe the problem isn't race so much as it is cultural values (which race tends to correlate with to some degree because of historical reasons).

I would say that is getting much closer to the root for sure yes. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

The self that is identified as a certain race is the culture it is conditioned by. This culture and its conditioned traditional values are seen as all important or priority over other races/selfs/subcultures. The self being identified with its subculture/race will place itself/subculture as more important than anohter. This is a defensive mechanism of self. The self clings to what is familiar( the group/race/nationality and such).  Fear/seeking psychological security makes for resistance, antagonism, violence. This violence expresses itself in many ways than just physically. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Jack River

[lmfao]

Ooo lala this thread looks juicy with 456 posts. 

[SOUL]

21 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is *extremely* difficult to do with a mind that is locked into a perspective and defensive. 

This is one of the most important skills to develop at the Yellow level to help pull people up the spiral. Yet, it is a very difficult skill to develop. I think Emerald has developed this skill well in many areas. Some minds are particularly hard to open.

Also, threads aren’t just about the conflict within an individual mind in a thread. It’s not just the one user in a thread. There are many minds reading this thread that are open to progressing upward through these resistances. Emerald isn’t just speaking to Outer, she is speaking to other minds reading this thread, but not comnenting. This can help raise the average consciousness on the forum. 

Of course it's difficult to do, otherwise it would have been done already but how does comparing someone to a disease make it any easier? It doesn't, although, it does make the moralizer feel better about themselves through the negative comparison, that's why they do it. That's the definition of 'self-righteous' and it isn't too effective in awakening people to their unconscious bias. If the goal is to awaken people to it and motivate them to change it then results should matter more than a self appeasing method.

Edited November 23, 2018 by SOUL

[SOUL]

20 hours ago, Emerald said:

This is why I make a point to state that the system of racism is mostly an invisible hand issue, that stems from the workings of the system as opposed to direct malicious intent. So, unconsciousness itself is the primary enemy, not individuals.

But I do believe in being as frank and direct as possible for the sake of understanding and optimization of nuance in that understanding. And I don't like to sugar coat anything, as it is not necessary and tends to coddle and muddy the waters. The social system is very impersonal anyway, so just being accurate won't make anyone feel implicated or demonized... unless they were going to project that anyway no matter what anyone has to say on the matter that they disagree with. 

The way I see it is that if I am as perceptive, thorough, and honest as possible then the people who are the least emotionally attached to their current paradigm will be able to have an "aha!" moment and be able to have more clarity around this situation. People who are very emotionally attached to their perspective are unlikely to change no matter what, unless they share the value of becoming more conscious. 

So, the way I see it is that I'm very unlikely to make those that are triggered emotionally by this topic budge at all. But there are a ton of people who aren't triggered emotionally who will be able to recognize these patterns if I lay them out accurately and thoroughly, as their emotional attachments won't stand in the way of their perception. 

You can idealize the awakening process as much as you like consider your own efforts as such as much as you want but eliminating the discrimination behavior and the suffering that comes from it is the goal. Extremists are the few who purposefully and consciously behave from that bias aren't the ones who will be swayed by any reasoning, it's the moderates who are the majority that mostly have unconscious bias we are hoping to awaken them to.

By using language that characterizes them as a disease which virtually all have had someone they love taken from them by it doesn't serve the goal and can push them away from the middle towards the extreme. If the past decade isn't proof of that I don't know what more can show you that.

Healing people with embracing language in awakening them seems more likely to have the desired effect of motivating them to change it because the era of vitriolic social media mobs attacking at every perceived violation has only created more extremists. You may be a moderate person reaching out to other moderates but if you adopt the language of the extremists it can lead to more extremists in reaction.

Moderates are the majority and if we want to shift the collective bias away from what contributes to discrimination and suffering we do it by awakening the moderates that may be unconsciously participating in it to that and allow that to motivate them to change it. This will create the dynamic of shifting the whole window of collective experience to a more inclusive and equal personal experience.

Edited November 23, 2018 by SOUL