Carl-Richard

It is superficial.

Watching the time can be stressful too.

What did he say exactly? From what I heard, I thought he had a nuanced response, pointing out the problems of spiritual bypassing and emotional repression, and then maybe dismissing some of the positive aspects.

He also has a degree in psychology and has been in therapy himself.

Why do you watch the time? To keep up with the world. Why do you watch the news? To keep up with the world.

Let's see what the ethics board says (Mr.Girl filed a report).

Watching the news is like watching the time(s).

Agreed. Some form of individual activism has to precede and initiate policy change, which then impacts the individual level again (forming actions, beliefs, more activism etc.). This initial activism is a hard process, which is what some ethically challenged meat eaters will use an excuse (which is the status quo justifying itself by saying it is the status quo).

I specifically brought up that individual meat eaters are able to use the fact that meat is deeply established in our society as a last cowardly retreat from having to recognize their fallible reasoning and change their habits. No. I said this is the reality we have to face. Activism on the individual level is one thing. Structural change, policy change, is another. And I'm saying black abolitionists played a crucial role. I get it. You interpreted my points as a hostile dismissal of veganism rather than the neutral assessment that I intended it to be. I should've been more cognizant that you were already in defense mode earlier in the thread and worded myself differently.

General life experience and introspection. Reading systems theory can speed things up, but it's not the main driving force. https://www.amazon.com/Community-Psychology-Pursuit-Liberation-Well-Being/dp/1137464097

Yes it is. Rape doesn't have a trillion dollar financial market. But hurdles are not mountains. My mind? I said you shouldn't stop trying. Were there no black abolitionists? Are free range farms vegan? I'm not dismissing it.

Just play your own video game on the side, join in on the fun

This conversation has everything: natural flow, authenticity, enthusiasm, mutual understanding and original thinking (structure), and relationships, politics, philosophy, ethics, meaning of life and psychedelics (content). The title and the intro severely undersells it.

A main hurdle is the idealism aspect. There is no way meat is getting phased out anytime soon, no matter how hard you push, and meat-eaters can always default to that when their dialogue tree gets deconstructed. It's not like Women's rights. The cows won't rise up to defend themselves. You won't be able to hold the policy makers' feet to the fire in the same way with regards to ethics (but there is always the more sexy environmental argument). That doesn't mean you shouldn't try though.

How do you know subjects exist?

I have the exact same experience. I just fear it too much.

If I lay on my back, I will never fall asleep but instead enter a dreamless void state which freaks me out.

Systems thinking as a technical term isn't necessarily Tier 2. It's rather about having a "mature systems view of life" (context awareness, construct awareness and theory pluralism). The concepts from systems thinking are nevertheless useful for conceptualizing this view.

I think the most interesting thing would be to apply it to cross-cultural persons, because that's how you can truly start to isolate universal attributes from cultural context. It's not enough to just look at different cultures, but also the interactions between cultures. Like Leo says, it's true that some developmental models have been tested in non-Western contexts, but there is still a general gap in cross-cultural developmental research that needs to be filled before we come close to something resembling true universality, especially in a growing techo-globalized world (the internet is technically a cross-cultural phenomena).

Work out with music on ?

My brain is permanently changed.

I like the parallels between normal science's closemindedness to intuitive insight (metaphysics) and psychic phenomena (clairvoyance) when that is essentially all that the revolutionary scientists/philosophers are doing (somehow predicting the next empirically accepted, dominant scientific framework) The individual-collective connection was already well-established with Bronfenbrenner in 1979 (a stage-less, systemic developmental theory). Also, other adult developmental theories (defined as 18-and-up, or just unrelated to age) were also popping up in various places. I think most of the intuitive innovation in the case of SD came down to simply connecting stage theory to value systems, which is thanks to Graves' student essay methodology and Beck & Cowan's application of memetics to create vMEMEs (and other things of course). I believe the dialectical framework is inherently baked-in to all of the structural stage theories (not just SD), mainly starting with Piaget and his logical constructivism, because they're constructivist theories that place the transaction principle (organism-environment interactions) across a developmental line: interactions forming new interactions etc., i.e. thesis, antithesis, synthesis etc.. It also applies to stage-less developmental theories like Vygotsky and Bronfenbrenner, which have a more "horizontal", social bent (focus on modelling person-person interactions). You could say that Bronfenbrenner's theory gives a more specific account of the individual-collective connection, which can help give an expanded understanding of this aspect of SD, just like SD can give an expanded understanding of the undifferentiated developmental aspect of Bronfenbrenner's theory ("chronosystem").

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/serious-covid-cases-spike-as-omicron-wave-engulfs-israel-1.10524711 The vaccines work.

So if I understand you correctly, the way you interpret the data and create the structure for the model first requires an intuitive framework, but the quantity and order of each stage (the content) is what the empirical data is for. So Clare Graves had to first have the intuition that he could structure the student's value systems into a developmental hierarchy before he could start gathering the data, and then when he got the data, he could fill that structure with specific content. Basically, it's one example of how empirical investigation is always guided by an a priori framework of interpretation (it tells you where to look and how to look at it).

Are they absolutist literalists or pluralist non-literalists? The former is Blue, the latter is compatible with Orange/Green. I guess my example doesn't take that into account.