Carl-Richard

If the model was accurate, you could for example look at a persons political ideology and predict their moral system, their philosophical/religious stances and levels of cognition, in that order (again, given that these are accurate categories). You could say that you can get a low resolution indication of these relationships by looking at one stage of Spiral Dynamics, but this is about mapping out the actual structure of them. SD is more preoccupied with mapping the temporal dimension of development. An ecology of mind is more like a psychodynamic model (like Freud's id/ego/superego). If you think the model has problems, how do they differ from Bronfenbrenner's model?

What Mr. Girl said about Brittany are all valid concerns, but I don't know if he is correct. He is nevertheless good at pointing out the pitfalls of Green (spiritual bypassing, fake positivity etc.)

I don't represent Leo.

Nope

If he had said it without also being disrespectful, then maybe that wouldn't have happened

Because it makes everybody feel special

At one point, they take a critical look at what could've been done different 30 years earlier in the 60s (the counterculture/psychedelic movement) while also contemplating where the future lies. Now, another 30 years later, we're still asking the same questions, but like Ram Dass put it: it's about finding out how to execute on it.

I'm being vulnerable

Depends on what your breakfast is (or your general meals). Remember that cereals and milk have a bunch of sugars. Dips, sauces and dressings also contain a lot of sugar. These things can spike your blood sugar, which might cause dips in energy throughout the day that you would've otherwise counteracted by eating more sugar, which could be one explanation for your problem. You want something that doesn't produce too big of a spike, especially in the mornings. Adding a small amount of fruit to a low-carb base is just one option.

Some carbohydrates are necessary for optimal brain functioning. That is why I eat half a kiwi (or orange) with my breakfast (which is mostly protein/fat-based). If I don't, I get a bit slow. If I instead eat a whole fruit, I get jittery and anxious. Throughout the day, I only consume "real food" every 5-6 hours and water (+ one whole fruit during my workouts).

When you called out my statistics bluff, I became emotional and defensive. On top of that, I misunderstood how you were using the terms. So I felt a combination of needing to redeem myself while also feeling like you were gaslighting me (I was also on vacation and not eating or sleeping right). Not my best moment

Doesn't it feel fake?

You can't convince me to not drink alcohol as my preferred entheogen with your McKenna quote.

Meditation in school. Get them young.

Alcohol

It has made me able to think more clearly and meaningfully, but it's like it's not under my control anymore. It feels like the thoughts always have a significant purpose, and if I attend to that purpose (say completing some work), they quickly die down, but if I ignore them, it keeps the circuit open and the thoughts repeat. Thoughts feed off uncertainty and indecisiveness, and if you've figured out some of the big questions, then your mind will be a reflection of that.

Same as with all other force multipliers.

Yep. You also can't will what you want.

I'm going Neo-Advaita on this one: the period of my life where I was the most conscious was after I decided to stop meditating and stop seeking enlightenment. I genuinely didn't want it, and that lowered my defenses to a new level.

Symbols represent or point to some non-symbolic perception. All forms of thought (be it concrete mental imagery or abstract propositions) act as symbols, but they also comprise their own perceptual reality.

Being loved teaches you to be loving.

Molly is to psychedelics what chocolate is to coffee.

I had a thought along the lines of being critical of these theories that may not be more than tangentially relevant to your specific questions here, but I'll mention it anyway: When it comes to complex phenomena like human behavior and cognition, trying to make clear-cut categories is almost always a problematic way to go about things, whether it be personality typologies (most notably MBTI) or structural stage theories (SD etc.). It's just the case that these things are multi-faceted and spectrumy; that they vary over times and situations, and that they don't come in discrete, pre-prepared or ready-made packets. Now, there are certainly some aspects of the human organism that are more easily dichotomizable than others (e.g. monogenetic traits like male/female or blue/brown eyes), but when you look at broader categories like personality traits or thought patterns (which are largely polygenetic and environmentally determined), it's a different story. To account for this understanding, this is the proposal: rather than "stabilizing at one stage" (or even a "center of gravity"), there simply exists developmental altitudes that are unlocked in a specific order. It's a bit like how you're not able to jump 1.5 feet up into the air before you jump 1 feet. Also, just because you're able to jump that high, that doesn't mean you're constantly hovering 1 foot above the ground. Also, maybe you're only able to get one leg above that height (or one aspect of yourself). By doing this, you dial back some of the overly rigid aspects of categorization while still retaining the base structure or premise behind describing it that way and not another. Then it becomes up the particular model in question to lay out their own empirical data for how the categories actually behave, rather than smuggling it in a priori. That way you don't have to throw out all resemblance of predictive utility either (hence, it doesn't merely have to be a "schema", like you asked), but you just have to deliver the justifications for it on a case-by-case basis. In other words, if somebody is indeed able to successfully argue that you can be at one developmental stage, then so be it. Now, I'm aware that certain theorists like Ken Wilber have already steered in the direction of addressing these points ("facets/lines of development"), but what I'm doing here is simply justifying why that is the correct impulse, and how it's not endemic to just the higher echelons of structural stage theory, but rather the entire field of social science (especially psychology), namely the basic insight that humans are largely not black and white.

I weirdly felt some of this dynamic while watching Jordan Peterson (59) talk to Roger Penrose (90). They had a comparable level of vitality despite their relative age. After all, Peterson was very close to dying 2-3 years ago. When he recovered, it felt like he aged 15-20 years.