Carl-Richard

And low in trauma, mental illness, family dysfunction, socioeconomic instability.

And a rock is a geological computer.

I swear all these new members are banned ex-members

Going to university is not such a big deal. I remember when I was 12 years old and was downhill skiing every winter, I was so envious of the bigger kids who had cooler looking jackets and skis than me. Now I look back and laugh at all the wasted mental energy I spent worrying about that trivial stuff. When you get older, university is the same thing.

Who cares?

You can know for certain that you yourself feel pain. You can then look at other humans, and you'll find that they are just like you: they have things like a skeleton and internal organs. So when they say "ouch", it's safer to say that they experience pain the same way you do than a computer program that has been programmed to say "ouch". A computer is nothing like a human.

If my rubber duck says "quack", does it have internal organs and a skeleton?

Ah, I didn't read it. He did say that it was a bit complicated, and I could understand his point if you consider the thing I said about pragmatism. What postmodernism is really threatening is the idea of realist truth claims: "this is the actual truth, independent of perspective". On the other hand, if you're a pragmatist, you simply use models to give you an understanding of the world, and your truth claims are merely tools to that end. You don't have to claim anything about the world that is independent of perspective. So the mistake that can happen when you use postmodernism to dismiss realist truth claims about say developmental psychology (which happens), is to fail to make the distinction that this doesn't apply to pragmatist truth claims about developmental psychology, and instead of merely being skeptical towards realist truth claims, you wholesale reject entertaining the models at all. So I think this is the possible trap in postmodernism that Leo could be alluding to: getting stuck in radical skepticism without moving on to pragmatism. It's not that developmental psychology is "above" postmodernism, but rather that pragmatism somewhat "escapes" the critiques of postmodernism, and that it's possible to approach developmental psychology from that perspective.

Mhm. What prompted you to make this thread?

Your preferences. I might be pursuing academic psychology as an area of specialization, but it's not like I'm placing it as my baseline epistemology. It's one of many interests. But it's true that I can't rationalize my interests by some absolute metric. But also, at some point, you have to "accept who you are" so to speak, live your life and continue moving forward. I could probably be pursuing music instead of psychology if I had made a few different choices, and my worldview would probably be very different (with a different set of biases and blindspots), but that's not where I am today.

Yes: pragmatism. To act like all perspectives are equal can in some ways be crippling. You don't actually structure your life that way, your mind doesn't work that way. You have preferences, and the postmodern mind can either consciously accept that, or it can pretend like it doesn't accept that (which of course would lead to some amount of inner conflict). Could you elaborate?

It isn't. But there are different ways of approaching developmental psychology, like with all things. You can approach it from a limited reductionist view (only subscribing to one or a few perspectives), or you can approach it from a meta-theoretic and post-structuralist view that synthesizes different perspectives and has a deep understanding of the underlying assumptions of each perspective. The latter view is generally something that happens "after" one has wrestled with some of the implications of postmodernism, which you can use to argue that it's "above" postmodernism, but it's not above it in any absolute sense.

I think I was using "psychic powers" in a very extended way. I would include that aspect of it as well as siddhis.

Forgive the dense rambling, but there is a point at the end: There is this thing called self-determination theory, and it presents different types of motivation. You can visualize it on a spectrum from low to high autonomy (the degree to which a behavior is decided by the self): amotivation, extrinsic motivation, introjected motivation, indentified motivation, integrated motivation and intrinsic motivation. It seems to me that "positive motivation" leans more in favor of the types of motivation associated with more autonomy, while "negative motivation" is more the opposite. Another thing is that it's possible for a given behavior to start off as being heavily "external" to the self, but then this behavior can be gradually integrated over time. For example, it's possible to perceive the behaviors associated with weightloss as something that people force onto you, which will often be felt as a negative experience (because people generally prefer their behavior to be self-determined), but then you can also internalize those behaviors such that they will feel less externally forced on you, and then you'll more likely associate weightloss with something positive. The "best" form of motivation is intrinsic motivation, which is when a behavior is done because it's inherently fun or pleasurable. It's a bit in a class of its own, because behaviors that start off as being external to the self are not very likely to translate to intrinsic motivation through the internalization process as described above, but for weightloss in particular, it's possible to become more aware of how being fit and healthy is intrinsically pleasureable in itself, which can be a legitimate way to increase motivation. In this context, practices like mindfulness meditation are known to be linked to higher levels of intrinsic motivation, and it's arguably the very definition of becoming "more aware" in this case. So there are many possible ways to alter one's motivation in beneficial ways that don't necessarily fit neatly into the "positive/negative" dichotomy

It can lead to uncomfortable feelings and mental instability.

So you didn't awaken for your first time around a year ago when you posted that thread?

I don't want to be harsh just for the sake of it, but the first year after your first spiritual awakening is usually spent floating between genuine spiritual insights and a huge spiritual ego, so don't be surprised when people tell you to pipe down. Just relax man No need to be the most awake person you can ever be yet.

Now I feel that this ironic attitude we just created in this discussion (and which also probably involves a shallow interpretation of the feminine) is counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve (i.e. not "othering" women), and it feels unironically not ok ?

Because I don't know how to do that without being inauthentic. Is this me being emotional? ? And aren't we talking about people things right now? ?

Lol. It felt very sincere to me Maybe it's the Easter sun. Hmm. What would that look like in practice?

How can I make my presence more female friendly?

I think the things you see on LSD when you close your eyes is merely an enhanced version of the normal kinds of imagery you have when you're daydreaming or falling asleep. To me, opening the third eye is either a direct reference to the final process of kundalini awakening (the snake exploding out the final chakras), or a metaphorical reference to the various psychic powers that are granted to you through spiritual growth. Either one can be practiced with third eye meditation (hold your finger so that it's almost touching your third eye area, and when you feel a tingling sensation, remove your finger and focus on the sensation while in a meditative posture). I will also say that you should be very careful with that particular practice. Kundalini energy is not something to be messed with.

Is encouraging people to lose weight positive motivation?

What is positive/negative motivation exactly?