Am I being Dogmatic?

[Neuroknot]

I found myself having arguments with my mom and sister when I'm showing my point of view. For example when I talk about reality not being good or bad, or some controversial topic. What I've found is that I raise my voice and try to impose my thinking over theirs. Also, I justify myself saying "oh well, it’s just that I'm so passionate about it" I also found myself laughing, and I justify it as me being curious about human responses. When in reality I sense a feeling of superiority. 

How to solve it: 

• realize when you are getting anxious and your emotions are increasing.
• Realize that by knowing more about your emotions and how you judge yourself you can sort this problem more easily.
• Notice your reaction when you are agreeing with other people. How calm you become (this is also a way to discover dogma within yourself)

Do you know any another way to help me out not being dogmatic?

Sorry for bad english. 

[Forestluv]

I would consider different stages of cognitive development. You mentioned the relativity of good and bad, which is a more advanced stage than objective good or bad. If you family is stage blue, they may perceive in black and white. Imagine you were describing colors to someone was color blind. Would you get frustrated, raise your voice and argue? 

As well, I would also be open to how I could continue my cognitive development. For example, you mentioned your view that good and bad is relative. Yet, the view that good and bad is relative is itself a relative view. In other words, the mind thinks “my view that good and bad is relative is good” <= That too is relative. How can I criticize another for being unable to see a relative view, when I cannot see my own view is relative? We often criticize and judge others for something that exists within us. 

[Neuroknot]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I would consider different stages of cognitive development. You mentioned the relativity of good and bad, which is a more advanced stage than objective good or bad. If you family is stage blue, they may perceive in black and white. Imagine you were describing colors to someone was color blind. Would you get frustrated, raise your voice and argue? 

As well, I would also be open to how I could continue my cognitive development. For example, you mentioned your view that good and bad is relative. Yet, the view that good and bad is relative is itself a relative view. In other words, the mind thinks “my view that good and bad is relative is good” <= That too is relative. How can I criticize another for being unable to see a relative view, when I cannot see my own view is relative? We often criticize and judge others for something that exists within us. 

I think that I'm classifying "seeing colors" being better than "color blindness". This may be due to the fact that I’m taking a yellow explanation (there is no good, there is no bad) into my green point of view. This is a big problem of mine because I can see how those “higher teachings” sometimes make me go backwards. Instead of seeing an ego detachment I see my ego attaching to those…

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Neuroknot said:

I think that I'm classifying "seeing colors" being better than "color blindness". This may be due to the fact that I’m taking a yellow explanation (there is no good, there is no bad) into my green point of view. This is a big problem of mine because I can see how those “higher teachings” sometimes make me go backwards. Instead of seeing an ego detachment I see my ego attaching to those…

 In terms of SD, letting go of attachment/identification to ideas is a feature of transitioning into tier 2. I imagine ideas appearing and interacting with other ideas in a network - without any owner. Imagine being in nature and observing all the sounds appear and mix with each other. There is no owner here. It is freedom. 

There is personal attachment as well as grounding attachment. There mind likes to build constructs of concrete that are stable over time. This may provide a sense of security and stability, yet it hinders fluid exploration of groundless. A mind is fixated on stable construction is not fluid to construct, deconstruct and remodel. As well, if the tightly holds one view, it will see all else as counter-views and be stuck. The mind has potential to hold multiple views very lightly, allowing unattached meta views, integration and holism. This is a deeper knowing and understanding.

This is much broader than simple thoughts. This can extend into experiences - imagination, feelings, intuition, energetics. Imagine not being bound by “my experience”, such that you were free to explore experiences beyond the construct of “me”.

I would consider the example of “there is no good or bad” to be stage green. Yet, there are deeper layers that go well into yellow. We could say “Eating insects is bad”. Yet this is relative to context. In some cultures eating insects is considered bad, in other cultures eating insects is good. There is no universal, objective “bad”. Deeper than intellectual understanding, is the embodiment. 

If we go one layer deeper. . . The mind may realize “whoa! There is no good or bad! It’s all relative”. That is true, yet the temptation is to become attached/identified to this insight and try to solidify it for grounding. We could also let go of it and look at it from another perspective. The idea that “good and bad is relative” is itself a relative idea. It is relative to the idea that “good and bad is objective”. The two ideas are relative to each other. Here, we don’t need to fully accept or reject either idea. We are free to observe and explore both.

In other words, the mind thinks “There is no good or bad. What a good insight!!!”. This reveals a circular nature of concepts which creates strange loops.