Carl-Richard

I don't like it.

But exactly when does that happen? I see many people including myself who suffer but won't let go.

Budget pharmahuasca: chomp some oral DMT and chain smoke tobacco

When does one let go?

Knew it

I've talked about Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory a couple of times before, and it's by all means a great model. It's a so-called "contextual developmental theory", as it tries to explain psychological development by categorizing the contextual domains (e.g. social environments) that exist outside the individual: When most of you hear the word "developmental psychology", you most likely think about Spiral Dynamics or the 9 Stages of Ego Development (so-called "structural stage theories"), which are concerned with categorizing the temporal dimension of development, within the individual(s). Bronfenbrenner deals mostly with the interobjective domain (using Ken Wilber's Four Quadrants model), like social systems, but also some of the intersubjective domain (culture etc.). It's therefore a type of sociological ecology (how individuals interact with different parts of society). On the other hand, structural stage models tend to be more focused on the subjective and intersubjective domain (mind, cognition, beliefs, values etc.). This made me think of an idea: what would an "ecology of mind" look like? In other words, instead of modelling the relationships between different structures of society, what about modelling the relationships between different structures of mind? Now, what do I mean by structures of mind? Well, a good measurement of that would be everything that falls under the subjective or intersubjective dimensions in Wilber's 4 quadrants. We only need to find some suitable categories. Here is an example of what that could look like: The model works very similarly to Bronfenbrenner's model, but instead of thinking of the circles as directness of influence on the individual, it's rather about how fundamental they are to the structure of the mind. For example, perception and cognition is more fundamental and give rise to philosophy and religion, just like these things give rise to morality, which gives rise to politics etc. Maybe the premise is futile and there is too much overlap between each domain, but it's nevertheless an interesting concept. If it's done accurately, it can be used as a road map for understanding the mind and predicting behavior (and as a springboard for psychological research). Please share which main categories (the ones in bold letter) you think should be on there!

I mean, yes. That is why we need better categories

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.