• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About intrastellar

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender
  1. @Emerald To make this clear again: I never said that women shouldn't have a right to vote. I didn't even question it. Actually I said the opposite a few comments below and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise or cause anyone here to feel threatened. And still I see some value in Elliots perspective to be open minded about it. I understand that regarding this topic you have more skin in the game as a woman than he or I as men but that doesn't mean only women can talk about it or can add value to the conversation. If you don't see any value there thats your thing but if you're not willing or able to have a respectful eye-to-eye conversation then it's better we have no conversation. @Serotoninluv The idea that women maybe shouldn't vote is simply an idea and I agree with you that it's a regressive one. But I think it does matter who promotes the idea because the person behind the idea provides the context to understand where it is coming from and where it could lead - the context in which the idea might be realized (or not realized at all because there's a higher idea that blocks it). Also in reality it's not always so straight forward to determine the degree of development of an idea - they don't just come with coloured lables ready to be ordered in a hierarchy.
  2. @Serotoninluv @bejapuskas There is a difference between not caring about something and having dismissing something - it's like the difference between 0 and -1000. I wouldn't contempate bying a donkey to commute because I see there are better ways for me to get to work. But that doesn't mean I would dismiss the idea of using a donkey to get to work. I wouldnt form a strong opinion about donkeys and I wouldn't riddicule people who choose to use a donkey to get to work and call them undeveloped. I simply wouldn't use a donkey to get to work. And if some day someone tells me that he's always riding a donkey to get to work I wouldn't laugh at him but simply ask him why? And who knows... maybe he convinces me that riding a donkey to get to work is actually a great idea for me :). Or not. That is open mindedness for me. But dismissing something without trying to understand it first, which means understanding why it is true for this person at this time and place, is closed minded, is a contraction in your consciousness and a reaction against it.
  3. @bejapuskas Why do you think so? What does open mindedness mean to you?
  4. @bejapuskas Again - thats besides my point. I'm not here to argue if women should have a right to vote. If you want my opinion on this the short answer is a strong yes - men and women should have equal rights. And I can understand that someone questioning that might feel threatening to a woman. Im talking about open mindedness. It's easy to be open minded if it's in line with your ideals but not so easy if it threatens your self interest or agenda - but it's valueble nontheless. But you won't get any value out of something that you're reacting against by riddiculing, demonizing and assuming the worst.
  5. Being open minded necessarily includes being able to doubt and question things that seem obvious - even things like womens right to vote. That doesn't mean he actually wants to take that right away from women. You just assume the worst.
  6. You assume that Elliot is trying to oppress women and their right to vote. I don't necessarily think he is. And I didn't say "Women fighting repression for the right to vote" is equivalent to "men repressing women and their right to vote". I said questioning the value of 'the accomplishments of feminism' follows the same rationale as question the value of 'being alpha and getting what you want': The idea that what you want and what you need (or even what's best for you) is not necessarily the same.
  7. That's beside the point.
  8. So open mindedness is only good if it doesn't interfere with your or your groups self-interest or your ideology? Aren't you two preaching open mindedness all the time? And now you're ridiculing it because you don't like the direction it could lead? Eliott Hulse in questioning the value of - let's call it 'the accomplishments of feminism' - follows the same rationale that was used here earlier to question the value of 'being alpha and getting what you want':
  9. Yes, in this interview he was pretty grim. Here's a clip where he talks on Joe Rogan's Podcast about the Interview and especially about the tone, what happened before and what he thought about it (at about 3:00 he's getting into what happend before the interview started).
  10. Thats where we disagree on him I guess. I don't think he's merely playing the open minded guy who's really pushing a secret agenda to get people stuck in blue. (or something like that - I actually don't fully get your point there or what makes you think that. He seems like an overall honest guy with good intentions to me - not some master manipulator). In my opinion (and experience) he has value to people in the whole spectrum from blue up to yellow. Maybe he has the most apparent value for Blue or Orange people, but for Green people too (if they are willing/able to listen to him, which I see can be difficult though because of his tone him attacking them directly). Also this view of him incepting ideas into his fanbase is a bit limited. It takes away all agency from the people listening to JP like they are just some formless mass who blindly swallow everything he feeds them. Sure there are some group dynamics at work like a certain building of an ingroup against the outgroup of "the radical leftists" or whatever. I bet there are many people now that kind of identify with being a "Jordan Peterson Follower" which makes them more disposed to take in his ideas and reject ideas from "outside". But they are also individuals that are interested in improving their lifes, getting their shit together, finding meaning and purpose and getting the best for themselfes and the people around them (from the point of view that they have at the moment). And attacking this group from outside will only make the group-boundaries and resistance against you and your ideas grow stronger. "The problem is if the shadow masculine disguises itself and FEELS like empowerment when it's really not. And I've seen this happen with a lot of his followers. He gets them mired in a kind of trap they don't even realize that they're in." Maybe that's just you looking down at them from a "higher stage" and seeing that they are not where you want them yet. But maybe they are where they want to be at this time - where they need to be in their development. "But I am not telling men how to be empowered. But I will interject if that supposed empowerment they're seeming to get from JP is coming over into my lane... and it does." But you kind of are - at least it sometimes looks that way. By the way what do you mean here with him coming into "your lane"? The only way Peterson could be sending them back to Blue is if there's unfinished business for them - like unintegrated stuff. And then that might be a necessary thing to do before even being able to get into Green. It's allways a good idea to get your foundation straight, right? Maybe the fastest way to get people into Green and beyond actually is by stop resisting to the fact that many arn't ready yet and giving them time to grow at their own pace instead of draging them up the spiral and thus causing them to see Green as the enemy.
  11. Isn't this whole talk about who is seeing further or who is more developed rediculous in the end? The whole point of integral theory and what i really love about it is this statement, that noone is capable to be 100% wrong - no person, no system, no idea... But isn't this also true the other way around? That noone is capable of being 100% true? Or even of being 100% more developed than another person, meaning being further in EVERY single line, stage, state and whatever else. And that would mean that everyone can learn at least something from everyone if one is just open enough and actively looks for it.
  12. Yes you wrote a few times how important it was to empower men - i noticed that - but you also always expressed concerns what that would mean for women/the feminine. I agree with you, that its best to do empower both in a human - like you said getting them in tune with their natural Yin/Yang siganture - thats actually a beautiful way to think about it. But I don't think Peterson is the bad, one sided influence that you think he is. He's talking much about balance, about not being ideoligical, about the importance of the dimension beyond rationality and not being purely intellectual... all things that are necessary for the development of a healthy Yin/Yang balance. So maybe he's not going all the way there - ok. I don't think he does too. But he's pointing in the right direction. By talking about these and similar topics he's priming people to get more real balancing later when they are ready for it. And he's helping people - helping them to grow and get unstuck - get less miserable. That can't be bad. Not for them and not for people around them. It's miserable people oppressing others, not empowered and responsible ones. That's also something he teaches - doing the best not just for yourself but also for the people around you. I think you need to have a little more trust in men and that they won't oppress you just because they feel empowered now. I think most of what you are concerned of will take care of itself as those people keep growing too and maybe finally outgrowing what Peterson has to offer or at least settle in a position that is better than before - for them and for the people around them. But you can't tell men how they should be empowered and that it has to happen your way. It has to happen their way. It has to be voluntary and as fast (or slow) as they are comfortable with it. And it has to be whatever they need next. Otherwise you only cause resistance.
  13. JP empowering men shouldn't be a problem - unless you think it's a zero sum game where eigther men or women are empowered. But if I understand you right you want both to be empowered, right? Then why not let JP do his thing in the realm of masculinity and let someone else empower people in their femininity? "His rhetoric and his effect on men, make a lot of women feel very unsafe like the rug may be pulled out from under us at any moment." Can you elaborate on that? Do you fear that if men (or the masculine) get empowered, that they will oppress women (or the feminine)?
  14. Sure, watched it 1 or 2 days ago - just couldn't remember that phrasing. But you didnt answer how he was bypassing anger or where he's lacking green integration, you merely assume it to be the case. Everything you (and I) are writing here is intellectual. It may be based on an emotion or an intuition but then its translated into intellect. And it's interpreted by you - so it's not absolute but relative and from your point of view.
  15. What are those green tools and modes of being that he doesnt use? Yes he is comfortable in cognitive realms but that doesn't mean hes uncomfortable in emotional realms. Like I said - the conversation was about communicating a model and his conclusions. So he wasn't in a stop in Peru, but more like in a classroom in England - why should he speak spanish there? I mean how do you think he would have communicated his ideas if he was using all green tools and modes that you are missing and had them all full integrated? What do you mean by that? Whats this "existential anger" and why do you think he's spiritually bypassing it? I don't know those two - do you have examples where they do this "deconstruction of emotions"?