02-21-2016, 05:58 PM
This will be typed up as a single post because it deserves it's own space to focus on and to hopefully get feedback.
Before addressing the deep and extensive topic about ethical and psychological disorders I want to go back to the OP to reevaluate the "sinkhole of indifference".
Are people here familar with a sinkhole? Check Google images or Wikipedia to see these collapsed deep depressions that make vertical drops like a cliff. When you step off into a sinkhole you plunge vertically to the bottom. Everyone plunges to the bottom and are at the same bottom level.
The word "sink" is used because it's like a kitchen sink which also abruptly drops vertically at the edge to a fairly deep level bottom. All cups and dishes are at the same bottom level in the kitchen sink.
So to paraphrase -- "the sinkhole of indifference is between [51% STO and 95% STS]"
This means that everyone between those threshold values step off and plunge to the bottom of the sinkhole of indifference. They are supposedly at the same level of indifference since they are all at the bottom. It doesn't matter if you are 49% STO or 92% STS, you are both at the same level of indifference.
So does this make sense?
I think the Ra group were applying the literary device of hyperbole when they said "sinkhole of indifference". It sounds impressive and has artistic flare, but to me it is not very accurate.
How about being stuck in the "mudhole of ethical inertia" or flailing in a kind of quicksand in the "slippery sloping hole of ethical chaos"? Here inertia means a state of stagnation or sluggishness and chaos means a state of confusion and disorder.
Indifference exists but there are varying levels of indifference, inertia and chaos (slippage) within this hole. It also exists in people as NTS/NTO or NCS/NCO -- neutral, apathetic or uncaring and amoral to some degree. They are drawn to moral relativism and instant gratification which supports the above Chakra System graphic and the ROY triad of 173.1 ccs and 126.9 cco -- a greater quantitative self-focus.
But still there are people at 90% STS striving for 95% or at 45% STO striving for 51%, so
climbing out of the hole is doable. I even used the example in the OP of the 60% STS Yoga Teacher from Hollywood who feels the need to strive for 95% STS via more DTO which will indirectly allow her to gain more STS focus and polarity.
And one last point to refute the Ra group's hyperbole, if you met a 90% STS person and a 45% STO person are you saying that you couldn't tell the difference in their ethical polarity, since, after all, they're in the sinkhole of indifference? Unless you are totally dim you should be able to tell the difference -- and thus prove varying degrees of difference and indifference.
So this analysis of "sinkhole of indifference" was beneficial because from it we can add to the apparent quantitative factors of ethical focus, range and volatility the new and apparent qualitative factors of ethical inertia and ethical slippage -- both of which relate and modify ethical focus, range and volatility in some manner. There's always more to research here.
We can also conclude from all this that ethics and ethical polarity isn't a simplistic cut and dry STS/STO dynamic. There's more complexity and nuance to 3D ethics and beyond.
Just look back at the 2D kinds of ethical relationships in the above post to get a sense for this complexity.
Before addressing the deep and extensive topic about ethical and psychological disorders I want to go back to the OP to reevaluate the "sinkhole of indifference".
Are people here familar with a sinkhole? Check Google images or Wikipedia to see these collapsed deep depressions that make vertical drops like a cliff. When you step off into a sinkhole you plunge vertically to the bottom. Everyone plunges to the bottom and are at the same bottom level.
The word "sink" is used because it's like a kitchen sink which also abruptly drops vertically at the edge to a fairly deep level bottom. All cups and dishes are at the same bottom level in the kitchen sink.
So to paraphrase -- "the sinkhole of indifference is between [51% STO and 95% STS]"
This means that everyone between those threshold values step off and plunge to the bottom of the sinkhole of indifference. They are supposedly at the same level of indifference since they are all at the bottom. It doesn't matter if you are 49% STO or 92% STS, you are both at the same level of indifference.
So does this make sense?
I think the Ra group were applying the literary device of hyperbole when they said "sinkhole of indifference". It sounds impressive and has artistic flare, but to me it is not very accurate.
How about being stuck in the "mudhole of ethical inertia" or flailing in a kind of quicksand in the "slippery sloping hole of ethical chaos"? Here inertia means a state of stagnation or sluggishness and chaos means a state of confusion and disorder.
Indifference exists but there are varying levels of indifference, inertia and chaos (slippage) within this hole. It also exists in people as NTS/NTO or NCS/NCO -- neutral, apathetic or uncaring and amoral to some degree. They are drawn to moral relativism and instant gratification which supports the above Chakra System graphic and the ROY triad of 173.1 ccs and 126.9 cco -- a greater quantitative self-focus.
But still there are people at 90% STS striving for 95% or at 45% STO striving for 51%, so
climbing out of the hole is doable. I even used the example in the OP of the 60% STS Yoga Teacher from Hollywood who feels the need to strive for 95% STS via more DTO which will indirectly allow her to gain more STS focus and polarity.
And one last point to refute the Ra group's hyperbole, if you met a 90% STS person and a 45% STO person are you saying that you couldn't tell the difference in their ethical polarity, since, after all, they're in the sinkhole of indifference? Unless you are totally dim you should be able to tell the difference -- and thus prove varying degrees of difference and indifference.
So this analysis of "sinkhole of indifference" was beneficial because from it we can add to the apparent quantitative factors of ethical focus, range and volatility the new and apparent qualitative factors of ethical inertia and ethical slippage -- both of which relate and modify ethical focus, range and volatility in some manner. There's always more to research here.
We can also conclude from all this that ethics and ethical polarity isn't a simplistic cut and dry STS/STO dynamic. There's more complexity and nuance to 3D ethics and beyond.
Just look back at the 2D kinds of ethical relationships in the above post to get a sense for this complexity.