This seems like a simple thing… If we go far enough, we come out on the other side.
And this seems true for radical relativism, realizing all as perfect as is, loving what is, seeing all as pure innocence, seeing how all human actions come from fear, then love, noticing the inherent neutrality of all situations, and much more.
If we go far enough in any of these, see it clearly enough, feel it in our bodies, love it as it is, as what is already more true for us, we come out on the other side. We are free from it, in terms of our actions.
We see any story as just a story, the inherent neutrality of any situation, all as pure innocence, so we are free to use stories as practical tools in daily life. We are free to act in any way that seems appropriate to the situation.
We are free to have an open heart, receptive view, a sense of nurturing fullness, and act from compassion and care, meeting people exactly where they are.
And meeting people where they are, sometimes means tough love. It sometimes means a clear no to what they are doing, in our words and actions, if it harms others.
Quite the contrary from hindering action, as some seem to think, it frees up action. It frees up our range of possibilities, the repertoire of stories we use as practical tools only to guide actions in the world.
So why beat people over the head when they explore radical relativism and the other things mentioned above? Why make it “wrong”, as for instance some in the integral world like to do? At best, it stops people where they are, it prevents people in going far enough in exploring it, which means they don’t come out on the other side.
Why not instead encourage it? Encourage going all the way, exploring it all the way through to the freedom on the other side. The freedom from identification with stories, and instead finding them as tools of practical value only.