Lews Therin

So, to give some context, i like to see the mind as a parliamentary body, composed of many parts, factions or groups, each with it's own desires and agenda. The Ego is composed by the ruling coalition, and it tries to steer the person and the mind towards it's goals. The coalition can vary in size, with a broader coalition often meaning a more well integrated person, with less conflict between the parts that compose the ego and the parts that don't. The ego needs to have a minimum amount of forces aligned under it's umbrela in order to function, otherwise the person feels lost, without knowing what to do or even who they are in this world. parts gain in strength when they manage to deliver results that satisfy other parts, and lose when they fail repeatedly. As a person you want to have the rulling body (Ego) be in contact with as many parts as possible of yourself, since that makes it so they don't feel the need to "join the opposition". This can be hard sometimes, as trying to hear and satisfy many parts takes time and energy, which can be needed to acheieve the goals of the ego. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Having ADHD, based primarily on my experience, but in accordance with some videos i saw about basic psychiatry (importance of dopamine and norepinephrine), means that the ego will tend to be weaker, with the parts of you that are not in the rulling coalition having a "louder voice". That means that when you are trying to focus on your work, the parts of you that want to do something else can easily say "hey, remember this..." and this derails your thoughts. On one hand that is good, as it makes it easier for certain parts of your self to bring their concerns to awareness, and thus to help you know yourself better. On the other hand, it makes it way harder to focus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ So here we have options like vyvanse, they surely help me focus much better, and after going back on it after being off for a long time (i took it everyday for two years around 2017 to 2019), i can more clearly understand what it does to me. When i take vyvanse, it seems like two things happen: - firstly it seems to lessen the size the size of the coalition needed for the ego to work. you can thus focus on something and do that for the whole day, as a very narrowly focused ego becomes viable, without needing to have may needs align in order to make you do something. - secondly, it silences or at least lowers the volume of the other parts, allowing you to focus without needing to spend energy fighting the other desires. Simultaneously it seems to strengthen the ego, allowing it to easily ignore distractions The result is a more efficient way of pursuing whatever your goal is, allowing a person like me to finally feel like they can have a productive day without depending on the whims of the uncontrollable "ADHD hiperfocus". The result is also that it becomes much easier, and therefore likely, that you will ignore certain parts of yourself. Heck even the part of me that does the "meta-thinking", questioning "where does this come from" after a certain thought appears seems to be silenced while i am working on something else. And this is annoying, for i always considered meta thinking to be one of my favorite traits about myself. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Now, i am a noobie trying to learn active imagination, i have done it a few times going back a few years, but have never gone very deeply, mostly dialogues with myself after moments of anger and sadness. Never focusing too much on images. Recently i had a figure who claimed to be my anima tell me not to take vyvanse, and after some negotiation we settled on a deal that involved me doing 30 minutes of meditation a day, as well as daily active imagination, the figure seemed to think that even so i shouldn't take the meds. i unfortunately failed to live up to the agreement, i meditated most days, but slacked on the AI. which was followed by spontaneous imagery of a a figure dressed in black trying to kill me with a sword twice, and both times it suggested it was in part due to me taking vyvanse, or at least not following the agrrement. This, in conjunction with the reduction of meta-aware thoughts made me stop the meds at least temporarily. i can follow the agreement, but i wonder if even doing everything right, the meds won't be a barrier towards integration. Anyways, this isn't exactly a question, but this is my experience with ADHD meds and trying to deal with the unconscious. i would love if other had any insight or notes to share on the subject, as so far i haven't been able to find anything usefull on the subject.

who says meditation isn’t interesting? The fucking mind and the ego for god’s sake. Meditation is to bask in existence itself. If that’s not interesting, you don’t really want enlightenment.

But can it really say how it sees reality, or is it just telling you what it read about how it sees reality?

Hi, i am currently in a dilemma i imagine people here have dealt with wanted to share my thoughts on the matter I have three goals in my live. Attaining Enlightenment, developing my mind to be able to understand the problems of our world, and being capable of causing a positive impact on the world. The problem to me now seems to be a certain clash of goals, as i feel both my desire to understand the world better (which involves constantly making notes of ideas and thoughts), and my desire to achieve the means to influence it (which currently rely on making videos about those ideas) make it so that i am always grasping at any interesting thought that may arise in my mind, as it could either offer new insights, or be content for a video by itself. Now, i imagine lots of you already see how that is counterproductive in regards to the goal of being liberated. Today i had to stop during my meditation session because i had a few thoughts that i wanted to register. Now, this instantly felt bad, as when i went back to meditating 10 seconds later i could feel the grasp of the ego was stronger. But even in observing this we have but a manifestation of the problem, a part of me thinks it was useful to have stopped just to be able to observe how the ego got stronger, which is an insight i am now attached to. Is this greed? It seems to be the case, and i have my mind set on maintaining the sanctity of my meditation sessions. But **how should i know something to be greed when it is so well aligned with what i believe to be my life purpose**? Sure, we could rationalize most things to have alignments, like earning money that could be useful in a project or finding a woman that could be helpful and provide emotional support, but some things, like thinking about the our collective problems, are tied to the core of what i want to pursue, not as a support for it. I feel like it goes to the realm of greed when it threatens other goals and principles you might have? like when it interferes with my meditation? So **greed will push a goal that you already have into sacrificing other things that are important** in the name of that original thing, but **when that sacrifice is done, greed will get stronger**.

Do dead people count? My top 3 are Alan Watts, Leo and Daniel Schmacktenberger

that seemed wholesome. Maybe it's my biases, but i am wondering now how much being glazed like he was by that reporter can make the best side of someone show up. When you just got validated, it is one of the brief moments in which the common person will not be seekiing validation of their ego, and thus feel comfortable expressing love for others that would normally be blocked by self preservation

Hey, just wondering, how does pSpiral Dynamics explain tribes that extend far beyond the Dunbar Number? It is my understanding that purple share an identity with those whom they share a personal connection with, and blue extends that to include cultural connections. But how does that explain tribes that occupy many villages through a large area, like we have some today in the America's and Africa, but also like the Gauls, Goths and Iberians in ancient times?

"beyond the green idea that any mention of eugenics is immoral" When green is the stage of moral relativism? You are essentially looking at one aspect of the system, "inteligence" and trying to optimize it for that, that is the the Orange way of life. I would say this idea of your is in between Blue and Orange, with shades of red, since the idea of taking what you want to optimize and enforcing on others is a low Blue, Blue/Red way of dealing with stuff. Yellow would recognize that there are too many unknown factor for this to work. Once there was this guy who raised foxes for their pelts, he tried to breed only the most docile foxes to make his work easier. In the end, the pelt of the foxes ended up changing as well, so that it was no longer the product he wanted. Same thing would probably happen with your breeding programs, not to mention other forms of backlash from the people who are being coerced. This is literally everything Yellos know NOT to do. If a yellow person wanted to prevent IQs from dropping they would first try to conduct vast researches into the cause of the problem, it might be that high IQ people are having less babies, it might have to do with pollution, it may be both. If it is true that high IQ people are having less babies, try and find out why, then make policies that fix those problems so you can align your interest of having more high IQ people to their interests, whatever those are.

Why would this be yellow?

i was waiting for him to adress the question that it seems logical that if we can't perceive nor eat it, it can't perceive nor it us, the video didn't talk about this. I went to the comments and somebody pointed it out. Not to say there are no risks, but apparently that isn't nearly as dangerous as the guy makes it seem, it won't be capable of devouring us from the inside or anything like that, it will have to find a way to build it's nutrients from inorganic matter, which is more complicated than what most simple bacteria do. We will probably still find means of having a single person be able to wipe out all life, but apparently not so fast.

Each type of measure is useful in a certain context to help with a certain issue. The problem is when people turn said measure into an ideology and try to apply it to everything else. Argentina’s problem was public debt and lack of trust in the currency. he is cutting expenses, less expenses mean more money to pay the debt, less debt makes the currency more trustworthy. There is a cost of course, less money is flowing from the government and so the economy is cooling. That doesn’t affect their capacity to make money as much because they are an exporter of food and other basic products. But it does affect the population, as agrobusiness’s money usually doesn’t circle around a lot. So he is fixing the problem, the question is if his political capital will last long enough for the debt to be paid, since an increase in poverty can make the people angry.

Dude, you are talking like a propagandist of some sort. The media? It isn't the media who is telling us this, it is the rebel leader himself, all you have to do is look at the speach he gave, that was not a secularist speach, i could easily see the ayatolah saying those exact same words when he came to power in Iran. That it is not to say it will allign with Iran, stage blue can hate stage blue just as well as any other stage, but that guy is pushing for orange values. Also, saying that a country is unique is meaningless. Afghanistan was unique, so was Iraq, so was Brazil in 1964 and germany in the 1930s. Uniqueness doesn't mean much, every person is unique, and yet the illness one can suffer, so can the rest of them.

Just to register my view, i also, as everyone else here, hope the best for the Syrian population, but i find it very hard to believe there will be any sort of democratic government there in the near future. This is not a stage orange world, it is a blue world with a few orange great powers in it, and even they aren't free of blue. Brazil had a coup attempt not even 2 years ago. Trump tried that in the US and may try again soon. Democratic institution are very hard to build and maintain, and syria would have to build them from the ground up. We saw movements that carried the banner of democracy fail time and time again to build those, so i see no reason to be very hopefull the a self-proclaimed islamist leader, who did his first official speech in a mosque filled with took great care to shove as many blue memes he could within said speech will be very devoted or even capable of building those orange, democratic institutions. But i disagree that the west wants a "weak syria", as a weak blue syriamay go back to being friends with stage blue iran. I think Israel and the US are much more worried about making sure the new rulers are west-aligned than that they get cheap oil. The iraq war happened in an era were lots of people thought "history had ended" and stage orange had won, so it was all about cheap prices. Now people are aware that stage blue is far from trancended, and so, to the measure it doesn't hinder the west's capacity to function economically, i believe most would choose to pay a price a little bit higher in order to secure allies against iran, russia and china.

@Vercingetorix What skin in the game? what did these people feel? What did they experience that would suggest trump is a better choice? Policy wise trump makes no sense, he claims he will simulataneously end inflation and create tariffs which are inflationary as well as deport immigrants, which is also inflationary. He claims he wants to stop immigrants from taking people's jobs, but he convinced republicans to vote gainst a bill that created restrictions on asylum seeking. He claim he will bring about peace, but his proposal for ukraine involves having them ceed land to an aggressive invader, what will send a message to the world that invading to take land is back on the menu. He has no cohesion of thought or strategy, when asked about his plans for healthcare, all he could say was that he had the "concepts of a plan", but said nothing more on it. ANd how the fuck can you say others don't have skin in the game? are you claiming we live in another world? that we are aliens that can't comprehend life on earth? It is the billionaire who inherited his wealth who has "experienced first hand what is going on"?? give me a break

Man, i was about to right a post just like this one, but of a person a personally admired a lot, Liv Boeree. She wrote this on her Substack: https://livboeree.substack.com/p/reflections-on-the-election This tilted me so much when i read it, she was one of the people that got me interested in systems thinking, she has a whole damn podcast about it where she has interviewed Schmacktenberger and other great thinkers. I almost lost my apetite, and it is seriously making me rethink lots of what i believe. She based her arguments on the idea that the Dems wanted the country to be humble, whereas Trump represented pride and boldness. She further elaborates that she considers humbleness to be associated with shame, which is supposedly one of the lowest emotions and can lead to envy and attempts to bash on those who actually try to improve the world. (i don't particularly disagree with shame being a horrible thing to feel, though i think that the model she presented is BS, as it places anger way above shame, and anger can very well just be a cover up, and therefore can be "lesser" than shame) How could someone who clearly has a lot of tier 2 in her claim that being narcisistically pridefull is better than being humble? It almost smells like accelerationism to me This made me question if i am just morally lucky? The Dems clearly have a clearer big picture view, but how can someone who knows so much about "big pictures" like Liv fall for it? Shouldn't i have also fallen then? Did i resist just because my mind was already colonized by the other side?