Yellow can hold 2 contradictory opinions at the same time?

[Forestluv]

@lmfao Some good points!! ?

[Nahm]

@Serotoninluv ?

[Shadowraix]

There is absolute truth and relative truth. Beware of half truths. 

The universe runs on paradox after all. 

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Leo said something in those terms in the SD Yellow video.

The question is, how do you hold completely two contradictory opinions without going completely bonkers? I carry a lot of confusion in my mind, lots of topics where I am uncertain what to believe in but usually I am more inclined towards one or the other. But believing in 2 contradictory things seems like an impossible thing. 

 

Can you believe and not believe that earth is flat? Can you believe in Darwinian evolution & book of Genesis at the same time? Can you agree that the planet is warming up and also that the global warming is BS? 

Don't give me any nondual explanation, most yellow thinkers are not there yet. 

I might have misunderstood the whole point but got me curious. Thoughts? 

 

It has to do with understanding paradigms and how they work. 

So, think of a paradigm as being a platform that has an entire perspective to it, that fits together and has consistency. And each paradigm is mutually exclusive with no mincing with other paradigms.

So, here is a contradicting view, that is true depending on which paradigm you're looking at.

So, from the absolute paradigm, everything is perfect and nothing needs to be fixed... or could ever be fixed.

But from the relative paradigm, there is no such thing as perfection as everything is inherently flawed based on the human conception of perfection. So, there is always room for improvement.

So, it is true that everything is 100% perfect and imperfect.

Or another example, is from a conversation I was having on the forum a few weeks ago.

From the scientific paradigm, race is an illusion because it's just based upon how much sunlight our ancestors got, and there's no clear declinations between races like we understand them to be.

But from the subjective paradigm, race is a reality that we as people can and do notice. And there is racism that effects people's lives, despite the fact that scientifically, race is an illusion. 

So, if you say "race is an illusion, therefore racism does not and cannot exist"... this is mincing paradigms and using a truth from one paradigm to invalidate a truth from another paradigm. So, basically, using truth to lie to one's self... or others. 

So, the key is have a really clear idea what the paradigm that you're using is and having the discernment to not lie to yourself or edit out truth based upon logical contradictions with another paradigm.

So, accurate perception of truths (not ideas or opinions) is key to being able to have this type of discernment. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Emerald

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Shadowraix said:

Beware of half truths. 

Would two half truths make a Truth? ??

[Michael569]

13 hours ago, lmfao said:

Maybe the yellow person doesn't actually "believe" in any of the perspectives, he just sees the perspectives.

@lmfao yeah this is what I am kinda inclined to believe now as it has been pointed out by others as well. 

@Serotoninluv makes sense. I think I got the whole point wrong and its not about strictly believing in something but more like being able to entertain multiple opinions and simply being ok with them. If there is one point that most people in this thread agree on, it would be that. 

@Nahm fair enough, one can wear different pairs of shoes without really attaching himself emotionally to any of them. Thanks for sharing your wisdom once again. 

@Emerald interesting concept, took me few reads to clearly get it but I think I did. So you're saying its not really about two separate opinions inherently but more about seeing the same paradigm from two different perspectives?

Edited December 13, 2018 by Michael569

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

 

@Emerald interesting concept, took me few reads to clearly get it but I think I did. So you're saying its not really about two separate opinions inherently but more about seeing the same paradigm from two different perspectives?

Not quite. To give an analogy, imagine that a paradigm is like a room that has certain empirically observable qualities about it.

So, if you're in the "room" of the scientific paradigm, let's say that it has blue walls. So, if you say, "This room has blue walls.", then you are observing an empirical truth about that room/paradigm. So, "This room has blue walls." is a true statement.

But if you're in the room of the subjective paradigm, maybe it has green walls. So, if you say, "This room has blue walls." (which was true in the other room/paradigm) then you are either lying or mistaken. So, "This room has blue walls." is a now a false statement from this POV.

So, it's a matter of being able to know which room you're in and accurately stating what you observe about that room without talking about observable traits of other rooms. This is why it requires accurate perception, because you have to look past your ideas of what "is" or "should be" in a room, and really notice what's actually there.

When you are in a particular room/paradigm, there are very particular things that are true/untrue that may contradict what's true/untrue in other rooms.

So, it's the ability to hold two or more of these contradictory truths at once and to understand how and why they're both true depending on the vantage point that you take (aka which room you're in).

And also to feel no need to cherry pick and mince together incompatible paradigmatic truths to justify some other idea that one is attached to. 

So, a lot of it has to do with detached perception.

Edit: Also, think of that famous M.C. Escher painting with all the staircases. And each staircase is its own paradigm. So, when you're on the right-side up staircase, you're walking right-side up. But if you're on a side-ways staircase, it's foolish in that world to walk right side up because you're not traveling with the platform. Walking side-ways makes more sense. 

So, the paradigm is like the platform you're walking on. And the paradigms don't have to connect or match up to other paradigms at all. What is true on one platform might be false on another. 

Then, you also should be firmly anchored in an awareness of the absolute... as this is the core truth of reality and the most all-encompassing paradigm that is true from every platform. But even though it's true... it may still not be appropriate in a given situation.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Emerald

[Hellspeed]

On 12.12.2018 at 0:48 PM, Michael569 said:

Leo said something in those terms in the SD Yellow video.

The question is, how do you hold completely two contradictory opinions without going completely bonkers? I carry a lot of confusion in my mind, lots of topics where I am uncertain what to believe in but usually I am more inclined towards one or the other. But believing in 2 contradictory things seems like an impossible thing. 

 

Can you believe and not believe that earth is flat? Can you believe in Darwinian evolution & book of Genesis at the same time? Can you agree that the planet is warming up and also that the global warming is BS? 

Don't give me any nondual explanation, most yellow thinkers are not there yet. 

I might have misunderstood the whole point but got me curious. Thoughts? 

 

Yes both up and down, down to red, beige, up to tuquoise, coral. 

[lmfao]

@Emerald Good posts. A view I have about paradigms is that the defining properties of a paradigm are the baseless axioms and assumptions in that paradigm. For example, mathematicians have spent loads of time writing down extensive lists of all the assumptions they hold about abstract objects and these assumptions are necessary for the use of logic and deduction. 

Trying to go deep down into how assumptions and axioms are formed is mysterious. For me to even try to understand this issue and conceptualise the existence of axioms and assumptions requires that I use axioms and assumptions. Everything I've ever typed including this sentence is based on assumptions. In the end it all just comes down to "absolute infinity". 

Edited December 13, 2018 by lmfao

[Joseph Maynor]

I’m starting to be able to do this.  It requires a transformation regarding what kinds of expectations you place on language.  Most people think of language as giving us conceptual truths, and they look for conceptual truths.  These are linear statements — it’s this way or that way and never both.

When you move away from the issue of Truth and become more pragmatic, you stop expecting language to give you conceptual truth so much.  What happened to me is instead of using language to create and believe in conceptual truths, I use language now to make sure I’m seeing all sides of things when I’m trying to balance my life, make decisions, do planning, etc.  

I tend to think in terms of paradoxes but I don’t interpret the paradoxes to be conceptual truths, just useful heuristics that keep me from being stuck in belief or ideology one way or the other.  Paradoxes allow me to utilize the pros of concepts but avoid clinging to beliefs or other cons of concepts.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, lmfao said:

@Emerald Good posts. A view I have about paradigms is that the defining properties of a paradigm are the baseless axioms and assumptions in that paradigm. For example, mathematicians have spent loads of time writing down extensive lists of all the assumptions they hold about abstract objects and these assumptions are necessary for the use of logic and deduction. 

Trying to go deep down into how assumptions and axioms are formed is mysterious. For me to even try to understand this issue and conceptualise the existence of axioms and assumptions requires that I use axioms and assumptions. Everything I've ever typed including this sentence is based on assumptions. In the end it all just comes down to "absolute infinity". 

This is a good analogy. Ultimately, all relative paradigms are kind of like castles in the sky... and all of them are relative including the paradigm of the absolute as the absolute can't be properly encapsualted in a paradigm... only alluded to. This is the nature of human conceptions.

It's that we have to take certain assumptions and observations to be true to build one. Then we scaffold other building blocks onto that paradigm that fit and are consistent with the rest of the paradigm. Then, eventually, you have a castle in the sky... which is a huge complex building that has no foundation from the perspective of the absolute. It's just mysteriously floating in space... but miraculously has consistency and a sense of realness from certain relative paradigms. 

[LastThursday]

On 12/12/2018 at 11:48 AM, Michael569 said:

The question is, how do you hold completely two contradictory opinions without going completely bonkers?

If you want the best view, sit on the fence.

Honestly the world isn't black and white. If you hold a strong belief in something, you can bet it will be wrong, every time. There's always something that doesn't fit into your worldview.

[Consept]

The other day I thought to myself, 'why does anyone argue? having a strong stance on a subject can only limit your understanding of that subject'.

Every topic is very complexed and nuanced by picking a 'side', essentially what you're doing is trying to 'win' you're not trying to see or find truth. So it becomes an ego game, ego attaches itself to opinions and cherry picks information that backs up what the stance is. 

So if we look at the current male v female situation which I find myself drawn to for some reason, there is a lot of information to back up both sides (manosphere v feminists). Women might say we don't get paid as much, men might say that's only because of maternity. Now because the stakes seem high for either side they don't want to look at the others points, but that doesn't mean the points don't exist or that the points aren't true. Either side is trying to 'win' which means that they are not looking for truth. So I think the answer is to drop your ego and search for truth rather than just to back up your already chosen stance 

[TheAvatarState]

@Michael569 a Yellow person can do this because he realizes life is a strange loop. Be open to paradox, confusion, and not knowing. These two positions are merely surface- level contradictions. Logically contradicting. But the deepest insights are trans-rational, and this will require nuance to deconstruct and really find out what it means. 

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

@Michael569 a Yellow person can do this because he realizes life is a strange loop. Be open to paradox, confusion, and not knowing. These two positions are merely surface- level contradictions. Logically contradicting. But the deepest insights are trans-rational, and this will require nuance to deconstruct and really find out what it means. 

That’s where magnificence dwells. ?? ? ?‍♂️ 

[now is forever]

On 13.12.2018 at 1:53 AM, Serotoninluv said:

Would two half truths make a Truth? ??

depends on what halfs and how you tinker them together, or apart ??‍♀️

(a half truth is still a full half truth)

Edited December 15, 2018 by now is forever

[purerogue]

On 12/13/2018 at 0:53 AM, Serotoninluv said:

Would two half truths make a Truth? ??

They definitely would make it more  true, but would it make it true? 

Having multiple perspectives does not mean that one perspective is just as right another, you can have multiple perspectives and make one better perspective, but it will be just more balanced , because it holds some truth from each perspective.