Matt8800

Cultural Appropriation is a Non-Issue

122 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Key ElementsYou make good points, yet we are in different realms. ? 

Well, it may not be exactly what you mean, but at least I tried to solve the problem of the husband's and wife's fighting situation. These ppl are hypothetical. However, if they were real, they would have to transcend their relationship and culture in some way or another. How they do it is up to them. Sticking to any identity, esp adamantly, will never bring peace in one's life. It doesn't solve anything. The ego is fake. It doesn't have an identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv This is a lot of unnecessary mental masturbation to try to transform your subjective ideology into objective should and shouldnts. Spewing more words doesnt make it more true or valid.

If I want a taco on Cinco De Mayo, Im going to get one.

If I want to incorporate Buddhism and Yoga into my spiritual practice, Im going to.

If I feel like practicing Chinese Medicine, Im going to.

If I want Tibetan prayer beads, Im going to get some.

If I feel like experimenting with Haitian voodoo, Im going to.

Anyone's finger pointing at the "terrible oppression" I am inflicting because of my "horrific" actions above is silly nonsense. I feel absolutely no guilt and dont consider this Green non-issue issue when making my decisions in the least.

The irony is that many people that would express outrage over this nonsense have things like Buddha statues at home. Looks a lot like selective hypocrisy to sooth their white guilt to me. 

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong and what you should or shouldn't do. The discussion is about cultural appropriation. I am saying that your view is incomplete. . .  Imagine if we are having a conversation about how a car works and someone says "The car is the radiator and I am going to behave like the car is the radiator". . . This is a limited, incomplete view. If the person wants to learn about how a car works, they would need to expand beyond "The car is the radiator". They would need to realize the other parts of the car and how they work together. If someone insists that the car is the radiator, it will cause confusion and turmoil. For example, if the car's alternator is broken it will cause confusion because the person is trying to fix the radiator and can't figure out what's happening.

@Key Elements Those are great points about resolving bigger picture issues in relationships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong and what you should or shouldn't do. The discussion is about cultural appropriation. I am saying that your view is incomplete. . .  Imagine if we are having a conversation about how a car works and someone says "The car is the radiator and I am going to behave like the car is the radiator". . . This is a limited, incomplete view. If the person wants to learn about how a car works, they would need to expand beyond "The car is the radiator". They would need to realize the other parts of the car and how they work together. If someone insists that the car is the radiator, it will cause confusion and turmoil. For example, if the car's alternator is broken it will cause confusion because the person is trying to fix the radiator and can't figure out what's happening.

 

@Serotoninluv What does that have to do with me eating a taco or buying a buddha statue? If the only way you can explain something is to over-complicate it, its probably delusional. The Truth is simple.

Im not trying to analyze the "wrongness" or contemplate the consequences of eating a taco (as an example). I dont ruminate about the pain and suffering my taco-eating is inflicting on others. I find those that do humorous. 

Also, I dont attach my identity to groups nor do I participate in other people attaching my identity to groups or ruminate about which groups can eat tacos and which ones cant. Its all just silly nonsense to me. Your limitations are not mine.

You care about this but I dont. You keep explaining it more as if I would suddenly start feeling guilt about appropriating other cultures into my life if I could only understand. I understand what you are trying to say but I simply dont care about it or agree when it comes to my own decisions.

Im totally for culture appropriation, as long as one is not treating the sacred as profane. I will continue to enthusiastically appropriate other cultures, with respect to the sacred, if it enriches my life.

Edited by Matt8800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Zizzero said:

All you really do everytime you quote on of my posts is to ignore the arguments I made and put the label "stage orange" onto me which conveniently reliefs you from the duty to engage with what I say to prove how the claims you disagree with are wrong. So, instead of arguing the point, you put me into a spot where I have to argue why I'm not stage orange (btw a claim you have no basis to make since - and that I told you several times as well - you don't know anything about me) because once you carry the label "orange" on here, you are not taken seriously.

You seem to be oriented toward debating opposing view points in a rational matter with evidence, facts, proof etc. That's fine. There is value in that. I am more oriented toward exploration, discovery and forming integrative, holistic ideas. We aren't on the same frequency, which happens.

Personifying points can be helpful in certain contexts, yet it can also be unhelpful in certain contexts. For example, telling someone "you are Orange" can be helpful if the person has desire and openness to observe the personal "you" part. For me, this is the deepest part - the actual issue of the debate is usually secondary. Yet it depends on context. On a forum with a mission of consciousness evolution, the "you" part is usually primary for me. If I was on a committee designing public policy, the content could be primary.

In contrast, personifying points can be unhelpful. For example, telling someone "you are Orange" can be interpreted through a personal filter. When there is attachment/identification to the view, the personality is center-stage. The personality may think "He thinks he is so smart, well he isn't. He is being unfair to me. He doesn't consider my view. He is trying to make me look bad. He can't prove my points are wrong". Inter-personal communication through personal filters is a very common. It is the vast majority of communication. There is a his view and my view in opposition. Ime, debating opposing views have practical value in certain contexts - yet debate/arguing is very inefficient in learning, expanding and creating integrative, holistic views. Debating/Arguing over whether the radiator or alternator is the car is very inefficient in learning about all the parts of the car and how all the parts inter-relate to give rise to an emergent entity of the car. To me, the main inefficiency comes through personalization. If one person thinks "I am the radiator, I am the car" and the other person thinks "I am the alternator, I am the car". The "I am" association creates a new dynamic. Those two people debating whether the radiator or alternator is the car will not be able to see their contraction. They will not be able to see that both the radiator and alternator are the car and there are actually other parts of the car - and how all these parts fit together. . . This is how my mind is oriented. Others have a different orientation, which is fine. Not everyone resonates with each other. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv What does that have to do with me eating a taco or buying a buddha statue? If the only way you can explain something is to over-complicate it, its probably delusional. The Truth is simple.

 Be careful with conflating absolute and relative. The truth is both simple and complex. . . In the car metaphor I've been using, we could say "It's all the One car. It's simple". That is one view. Yet there is another view. The car is also very complex. Within that One car there are many parts interacting with each other. It's takes years of study and work to understand the individual functions of each part and how all the parts interact with each other to give rise to a car. To understand a car, one would also need to study all the different ways in which a car could break down and what that appears as relative to the function of the car. As well, there are many different forms of cars that have similarities and differences.

If we ask "What is a car"? We can have a simple answer that "All the parts are a car" or a complex answer that explores are the parts of a car and the inter-relatedness. There are also degrees of complexity. I'm not interested in deeply exploring car complexity. However, a car mechanic is very interested in exploring car complexity. 

The problem isn't so much about a holistic simple answer like "all the parts of the car are One" or a more complex answer like "a car engine is composed of five main parts". The problem arises when there is conflation between the two. When someone says "The radiator is the car. Talk about all these other car parts is mental masturbation. The Truth of the radiator as car is simple. There is no need to make it more complex". This would be a conflation between relative (the radiator as a part) and absolute (One car).  In this example, there is no identification, so it is easily understood. No one thinks "I am the radiator. The radiator is mine and I need to protect the view as the radiator is the car". Without attachment/identification, there is space to explore and learn about different parts of a car and how they inter-relate. Yet if a mind is contracted and attached within the conflation that the "radiator is the car", various mechanisms arise to protect that contraction. One protective mechanism is "It's simple: the radiator is the car". The attachment to such a conflation will maintain contraction and block expansion. . . Another protective mechanism is to interpret expansion as anti-radiator. If someone points out "The radiator isn't the only part of the car. Look there is also the windshield". A contracted mind may interpret this as "No, the radiator is the car. Not the windshield. You are saying the radiator is not the car which is not true". The human mind is conditioned to think in opposites. This puts the mind in a situation in which it thinks it must choose between the radiator being the car or the windshield being the car. If the person is attached to the radiator being the car and sees the windshield being the car as an opposing threat - they will enter a defensive mode to protect their view that the radiator is the car. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 Be careful with conflating absolute and relative. The truth is both simple and complex. . . In the car metaphor I've been using, we could say "It's all the One car. It's simple". That is one view. Yet there is another view. The car is also very complex. Within that One car there are many parts interacting with each other. It's takes years of study and work to understand the individual functions of each part and how all the parts interact with each other to give rise to a car. To understand a car, one would also need to study all the different ways in which a car could break down and what that appears as relative to the function of the car. As well, there are many different forms of cars that have similarities and differences.

If we ask "What is a car"? We can have a simple answer that "All the parts are a car" or a complex answer that explores are the parts of a car and the inter-relatedness. There are also degrees of complexity. I'm not interested in deeply exploring car complexity. However, a car mechanic is very interested in exploring car complexity. 

The problem isn't so much about a holistic simple answer like "all the parts of the car are One" or a more complex answer like "a car engine is composed of five main parts". The problem arises when there is conflation between the two. When someone says "The radiator is the car. Talk about all these other car parts is mental masturbation. The Truth of the radiator as car is simple. There is no need to make it more complex". This would be a conflation between relative (the radiator as a part) and absolute (One car).  In this example, there is no identification, so it is easily understood. No one thinks "I am the radiator. The radiator is mine and I need to protect the view as the radiator is the car". Without attachment/identification, there is space to explore and learn about different parts of a car and how they inter-relate. Yet if a mind is contracted and attached within the conflation that the "radiator is the car", various mechanisms arise to protect that contraction. One protective mechanism is "It's simple: the radiator is the car". The attachment to such a conflation will maintain contraction and block expansion. . . Another protective mechanism is to interpret expansion as anti-radiator. If someone points out "The radiator isn't the only part of the car. Look there is also the windshield". A contracted mind may interpret this as "No, the radiator is the car. Not the windshield. You are saying the radiator is not the car which is not true". The human mind is conditioned to think in opposites. This puts the mind in a situation in which it thinks it must choose between the radiator being the car or the windshield being the car. If the person is attached to the radiator being the car and sees the windshield being the car as an opposing threat - they will enter a defensive mode to protect their view that the radiator is the car. 

 

@Serotoninluv Even after your in-depth car analogy, I still dont have any guilt or shame about my taco-eating, buddha statue, prayer beads, etc, etc, etc.

I simply dont care when it comes to culture appropriation. I dont care about your shoulds and shouldnts. I dont care about your invented "rules". I simply dont care and I dont apologize.

BTW, the ultimate bastardization of another cultures spirituality is Western Yoga. If one were able to ask Ramana about his opinion of the correct down dog position or westerners standing on one leg in a warm room thinking they are doing spiritual work, he would have most likely laughed. I hope you dont have a yoga mat at home because that would be the ultimate hypocrisy on this issue.

Edited by Matt8800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv Even after your in-depth car analogy, I still dont have any guilt or shame about my taco-eating, buddha statue, prayer beads, etc, etc, etc.

I simply dont care when it comes to culture appropriation. I dont care about your shoulds and shouldnts. I dont care about your invented "rules". I simply dont care and I dont apologize.

You are missing the point. The point has nothing to do with rules, shoulds, shouldnts, guilt, shame or apologies. Yet that is the lens words are going through. 

If someone insists on wearing a red pair of glasses, they will interpret everything as red. They will not see orange, purple, pink, magenta, violet. . . If one asks "What is color?" and defends Red-ness, they won't see other colors people are trying to show. . . There is nothing wrong with red, yet the person will be missing out on a lot. This can create inner-turmoil. 

You are assuming I am wearing a blue pair of glasses trying to tell you that my blue is real and your red is unreal. This is not the case, yet through a red lens it is the case. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You seem to be oriented toward exploration, discovery and forming integrative, holistic ideas and debating opposing view points through a rational matter with evidence, facts, proof etc. That's fine. There is value in that. I am more oriented toward exploration, discovery and forming integrative, holistic ideas. 

Fixed it ;)

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

On a forum with a mission of consciousness evolution, the "you" part is usually primary for me. If I was on a committee designing public policy, the content could be primary.

You and I are trying to get different things out of this forum. I see that and I can respect that

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

We aren't on the same frequency, which happens.

Others have a different orientation, which is fine. Not everyone resonates with each other. 

Well said. I can respect that as well. Nothing to add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

Fixed it ;)

There is further expansion. One can be exploring Room 227 of a Grand Hotel. There is a subjective sense of exploration, discovery and forming holistic views as they explore Room 227, yet they haven't realized they are in Room 227. . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are missing the point. The point has nothing to do with rules, shoulds, shouldnts, guilt, shame or apologies. Yet that is the lens words are going through. 

If someone insists on wearing a red pair of glasses, they will interpret everything as red. They will not see orange, purple, pink, magenta, violet. . . If one asks "What is color?" and defends Red-ness, they won't see other colors people are trying to show. . . There is nothing wrong with red, yet the person will be missing out on a lot. This can create inner-turmoil. 

You are assuming I am wearing a blue pair of glasses trying to tell you that my blue is real and your red is unreal. This is not the case, yet through a red lens it is the case. 

 

@Serotoninluv You are right...I have no clue what your point is. Maybe you could help illuminate the issue by spelling out a real world example.

Please finish this sentences to help me understand:

If I eat a taco, _________________ will happen to _____________________.

If I use Tibetan prayer beads, ________________ will happen to __________________.

If you cant finish those sentences, you have no clue what you are trying to say.

My prediction is that you will avoid the direct questions because you know that nothing will happen to anybody but refuse to admit the obvious. 

Edited by Matt8800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Matt8800 I'm not saying you are wrong. I am not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to show what a contracted lens is. You are perceiving through a particular lens. If you insist on viewing cultural appropriation through that lens, that's fine - yet you won't expand into a deeper and broader understanding/knowing of cultural appropriation.  There is nothing I can do to pull that lens out. You would need to do it. Yet you are not interested or open to doing that at this time. Maybe you will be in the future, maybe not. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Matt8800 I'm not saying you are wrong. I am not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to show what a contracted lens is. You are perceiving through a particular lens. If you insist on viewing cultural appropriation through that lens, that's fine - yet you won't expand into a deeper and broader understanding/knowing of cultural appropriation.  There is nothing I can do to pull that lens out. You would need to do it. Yet you are not interested or open to doing that at this time. Maybe you will be in the future, maybe not. Who knows?

@Serotoninluv You dont even know what you are talking about. You cant think of anything that would happen to somebody if I eat a taco or get a buddha statue. If you could, you would have said so by now. 

You are basically saying, "I cant think of any negative effects that would result from your cultural appropriation...I just know that if you expanded your perception, you would become aware of something I am unaware of."

Prove me wrong and tell me what will happen if I eat a taco...I dare you! :)

You assume that if somebody disagrees with you that it must be THEM that needs to broaden their perspective. If you cant even explain the effects of ignoring your ideology, then its a worthless ideology. 

I have given you numerous examples of how I take advantage of cultural appropriation and you have been unable to explain ONE negative consequence of my actions, despite an avalanche of words.

I am a pragmatist so Im not concerned about other people's imaginary consequences.

Edited by Matt8800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matt8800 said:

I have given you numerous examples of how I take advantage of cultural appropriation and you have been unable to explain ONE negative consequence of my actions, despite an avalanche of words.

How can I disagree with you if I don't disagree with you? You are having an argument with yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

How can I disagree with you if I don't disagree with you? You are having an argument with yourself. 

@Serotoninluv Im glad you finally have expressed your agreement that my cultural appropriation is a non-issue :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv Im glad you finally have expressed your agreement that my cultural appropriation is a non-issue :)

No. I am not saying your view is right or wrong. I am saying it is incomplete. You keep saying that a radiator is a car. I don't disagree with that. I am trying to show you that the radiator on it's own is incomplete, that there is more to a car. You keep asking me to prove that a radiator is not a car. . . Every time I point to other parts of the car, you respond "But that's not a radiator! Prove to me a radiator is not a car!". . .

You are missing the point. You have an incomplete picture of what cultural appropriation is. . . Another way to look at it. . . You think the running back is the football team and can't see the other players on the team. I'm not disagreeing that the running back is a member of a football team. I am saying that there is more to a football team than the running back. As well, there is more to cultural appropriation than what you can see. Yet you aren't curious and open to that - which is fine. Maybe you will be someday, maybe not. Who knows. There is nothing I can do at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

As well, there is more to cultural appropriation than what you can see. Yet you aren't curious and open to that - which is fine. Maybe you will be someday, maybe not. Who knows. There is nothing I can do at this point. 

@Serotoninluv Sigh....Yes, maybe someday my mind can awaken to the point where I can comprehend the nuanced evils of eating tacos and owning a buddha statue....until then I suppose I will just have to keep spreading destruction and suffering with my cultural appropriation.

If you happen to run across anyone that was injured or experienced suffering as a result from my taco-eating ways, please tell them it was only because I was not awakened enough to understand their pain and suffering......and then tell them to get a life :)

Edited by Matt8800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A clunky mechanical creation painted with colors of compassion and virtue.
Most often used as a tool for expressing ones narcissism and egotism.

I do not think there is any care for anyone's feelings behind it. I've never seen it used in that way.

The most common feelings one can spot when it is used are rapidly spreading fear,anger or disgust. Resulting in huge energy waste and increase in friction. So in that sense, I do think it is a good way to see it as a non-issue, at least you wont feed it that way.

Those are my observations

Edited by Yog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Keyhole said:

  Some perspectives are easier to put together because I don't have an attachment to it - cultural appropriation is not something that I have to worry about - but then when it comes to something where there is an attachment, putting down that perspective to add more to it is like a knife in the gut.

Yep. That’s the dynamic. . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv here's another way of putting it...

Let's say someone you know has seven little children, and you think that she can't control her children very well. And, you tell her this. She might not like it. She might start to feel uncomfortable and start avoiding you, and wonder, "hey, this dude doesn't have children. What does he know about managing children?" If I was the one telling her that she can't manage her children, I will be the one "at fault." Why? I did not embody some aspects of stage blue. I don't have a large family to manage--no experience. I never took care of seven children at once. Why is it my job to tell her?

If I said, "I've adopted and raised ten children of my own..." that would be stronger communication.

It's the same for SD. The ppl who are actually stuck in orange will have to discover it for themselves. And, there is a difference between embodying orange and moving on verses being stuck in it. If someone is speaking with orange aspects, it doesn't mean they're stuck in it. It could mean they've embodied the positives of it and moved on. They say it to reflect on it. A person who skipped orange is most likely to be stuck in green. They will defend the green position as if it's yellow. For example, just because someone talks about entrepreneurship doesn't mean he/she is stuck in orange. Entrepreneurship starts at orange, but it doesn't have to be stuck in it. The startup could show different levels--orange and above, like a rainbow (or touch on the aspects below, like red).

I knew ppl who are in green, and they skipped over the entrepreneurship aspect of orange, which is a huge part. You can't even tell them anything on it without them thinking of you as a scammer or a Trump wannabe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 6:10 PM, Keyhole said:

Even if you don't feel that it is a problem, a lot of people feel that they are effected by it and having an understanding of this subject can be helpful if you end up in a situation where you need to communicate with someone who feels hurt, or if you are learning a spiritual skill from a traditional teacher, researching this subject can help you to not make mistakes.

@Keyhole Yes, it is a good thing to be mindful of where certain groups of people might be hurt. With that said, almost all of the people that are doing the complaining on this issue are exactly the people that people on this thread claim have no right to an opinion - white people (ironic).

If you try to look up instances where the party whose non-white culture was appropriated, and they are complaining about it, you can hardly find anything. Its white people doing all the complaining for them. The only exceptions you will find is when something is sacred, which I said previously was the only issue to consider here. 

For example, an Indian may get offended when a non-hindu celebrity (or non-celebrity) wears a bindi if they are not Hindu. In the case where Gwen Stafani wore a bindi, she was doing so without full Hindu integration into her life. The bindi is sacred symbolism in the Hindu culture. If they have not fully embraced, integrated and converted to Hinduism, then the wearing of a bindi is being used in a profane way because wearing it outside of the full context of Hinduism.

If a white person has fully converted to Hinduism, most Hindus would agree that it would be appropriate for all Hindus to wear a bindi if they choose. There might be an occasional Hindu that thinks that non-whites cannot be Hindu, regardless of their devotion, which is the exact definition of racism. Racism exists in ALL colors. Even so, if 95% of all Hindus believe that other racial groups can convert to Hinduism and 5% what to exclude all other racial groups, then the majority wins imo. I dont think its necessary to ensure that we please all the people all the time (impossible).

The message is this: 

If you are going to treat the sacred as sacred within the full context of that culture, appropriate away. If you disagree with this, please provide a specific example to illustrate your point. So far, @Serotoninluv and @Scholar have not been able to come up with ONE specific example to make their point that cultural appropriation is "bad" even when it is treated as sacred. When I asked them to please finish the sentence "If I buy a Buddha statue, _______ will happen to __________", they refuse to answer the sentence rather than admitting that there is nothing wrong with appropriation in that way. If that doesnt ring the bullshit alarm, I dont know what would.

 

Edited by Matt8800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now