Great naïve model IMHO, but there are many lenses to choose from. Yes they can all be right and wrong at the same time. (Venn Diagram) Most powers that be are deemed evil because they are spending other peoples money on somebody else. Yes that sounds like a gardener or farmer. Farmer is a great way to think about the ultimate form of predation (domestication). So you will be domesticated, and be happy about it... No thanks brah

Your criticism is premature. Typically the way it works is you wrap your mind as completely as possible around a perspective before you criticize it. You heard a less than one minute long clip.

Nah I see love in all, but I kept looking.

Heresy hunters feign as though they love their neighbors in order to engage in opportunities for ideological conquest. Heresy hunters are looking for the first instance of disagreement as an excuse to dismiss the entire perspective of the other part. That's what you are and that's what you've done in this conversation. News flash: that's not love. Love does not seek to separate. Love seeks to unite. A loving person doesn't throw away an entire perspective at the first sign of disagreement. Neither does an intelligent person. An intelligent person realizes that they've never learned anything from someone with whom they completely agreed. An intelligent person acknowledges that no one person likely has all of the answers, but many people have some answers. An intelligent person realizes that by dismissing the perspective of someone after the first instance of disagreement has arisen, they are disavailing themself of the opportunity to find answers that the other party may have. Disavailing one's self of opportunity is, strictly speaking, not intelligent. I would encourage you to keep looking, even when you've found a single instance of disagreement. You never know what you may find. This is the lesson of Christ's camel and the eye of the needle teaching. This is the lesson of the empty cup Zen koan.

Maybe love is the wrong word then because oxytocin is defined as a love/hate drug. You cannot love without hate. That is how the human mind gets into conquest debates in the first place. Overriding that urge is to 'empty your cup'. I speak in models and apply multiple at once which is how many things can be right and wrong at the same time. Is that ideology conquest?

I once worked at a learning center. I'd only been working there for no more than a month or two when I attended my first "new parent orientation seminar". The "math lead" who had been working at that learning center prior to my arrival there was a very bright high school student who was about to go off to college. In that seminar, the director of the learning center told the group of parents that she loved that math lead who was heading off to college and that she loved me too. This kind of blew my mind because I'd only known her for no more than a month or two, as I said above. My concept of love was different from hers and that was something I needed to wrestle with. Now I see the service of holding a door open for someone as an act of love. I see the choice to take the earbuds out of my ears when I'm checking out at the grocery store so I can converse with the cashier and make the cashier feel seen and heard to be an act of love. There is always love to be found in each moment and we can always find a reason to express love for each person. It might be the only reason we can think of to express love for that person, but at least it's non-zero. I don't consider it to be a loving act or a loving disposition to ignore or dismiss someone when they wish to share something they've found to be significant with me. Likewise, I don't consider it to be intelligent to dismiss someone at the first sign of disagreement. If I acted in that way, I wouldn't have learned about the subject of jinn/djinn when discussing reincarnation with devout Muslim Bitcoiner Ray Youssef on X a few years ago. I'd never heard of jinn/djinn before that conversation. That conversation would not have taken place if I had not asked Ray how he explains the evidence collected by people like Dr. Ian Stevenson MD, Dr. Jim Tucker MD, Dolores Cannon, etc. I knew, going into that discussion, that Ray and I didn't see eye to eye on the big picture, but that didn't stop me from probing his perspective to see what interesting insights might emerge. That's emptying your cup. That's choosing the road less travelled. That's taking the saddle bags off of your camel so you can enter the narrow passage known as the eye of the needle. If you're unwilling to take the saddle bags off, the camel isn't fitting inside. If you are willing to take the saddle bags off, they're probably going to get stolen so, to enter the city and see what it has to offer, you must pay a cost and eat a loss. Eating that loss doesn't mean you will get no gains though, and you'll never know what kind of gains you could have gained if you don't shoot your shot. As Gretzky said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

You run in love. I run on hate. It's the same drug chemically in your brain. I'm not judging. It is what it is. We are the same 😂

I love that we each have the free will to choose to polarize in either direction.

It was never an either or.

Oxytocin is on both sides.

Yeah but I think we've reached a point where we say NO. The discernment thing to say is “You shall not pass,” even while recognizing that the enemy is, ultimately, a distorted expression of the same source you belong to (Love). The enemy is your teacher, yes, but sometimes the lesson is learning to build a shield, not learning to die beautifully. We need more 1776 and less 1984

How is my response not taking on the perspective of our enemy?

You called my perspective naive. I told you you were being prejudicial for judging my perspective after having only heard a 1 minute clip. That's like judging a book by its cover. You did attempt to take on the perspective of those that you consider to be your enemies. Your usage of the word "our" in that post is extremely dishonest and underhanded. I choose not to emulate your example of prejudice. I choose not to emulate your attachment to having enemies. I choose not to emulate your underhanded usage of snuck premises. Thank you for showing me those examples of how a person can be for my consideration to emulate or not. Your life is a precious gift. Keep being you in whatever way you choose.

So wait, people who spend other peoples' money on other people wouldn't be considered an enemy? Even Alan Turning was a pacifist, but he still fought in the war.

You're addicted to the us vs them mentality. Everyone is an example of a manner of being that can be emulated or avoided in part or in whole. Alan Turing is no exception. I can choose to emulate some aspects of his manner of being while avoiding others. As an example, I'm not gay, but he was, so I won't be emulating that aspect of his personality. I wouldn't go to war, but I would kill a rabid dog if it was attacking an innocent toddler.

I see, you don't operate at scale. I get it. It's cool 👍

Have fun staying spiritually poor.

Exactly. A person's capacity for growth is directly linked to how much truth they can face about themselves without running away. Your limits don't diminish my capacity to create conflict at scale against those who spend other peoples' money on other people. I will not nurture the conditions that allow victimization by refusing to pick sides.

Everything that exists is love/light so by choosing not to find a way to love everything to some degree or another, you are the one imposing limits. By drawing lines that create an "us" and a "them", you are imposing limits. By drawing lines, you create the conditions that allow victims and victors to exist. There is no victim or victor when there is no separation. I'm going to mute you now.

Muting regardless, I will be sure to let all the victims I encounter know. /s