Carl-Richard

This is a big oversimplification. It's not as simple as pointing out the exact moment where your fate is sealed. You have to look at it over a larger time scale and what environments you're exposing yourself to. The people you surround yourself with always influence your decision-making and determine the likelihood of being offered drugs. The odds are if you have friends who're into hard drugs, you'll most likely end up doing hard drugs yourself and get addicted that way. If the reporter in the documentary isn't in regular contact with people from the drug culture then the odds of him becoming addicted is relatively low.

What I get from the comments is that spiritual ego likes to project its own ideas of positivity, peace and humility onto no-ego and judge it for lacking those things. Well, of course it lacks those things, because it lacks ego

Right brain Green vs. Left brain Green

What do you mean when you say Green music? Let me hear it.

Substance addiction is a complex problem that often comes in the form of multi-drug use and isn't just fixed by the occational use of psychedelics. I actually believe most multi-drug users have tried psychedelics. They do produce insights and give direction, but again, not everybody has the privilege to follow up on that.

What kills your brain cells the most is the constant sleep deprivation, malnourishment, chronic stress and emotional turmoil from living as a homeless drug addict with no hope for the future. Toxic contaminants is also a factor. Pure methamphetamine is a prescription drug. How much you suffer the downsides of drugs is mostly up to privilege. There is a reason why Jordan Belfort doesn't come off as a permafried tweaker. With that said, don't try god damn meth ? Interesting little documentary though

It's still not enough, unless we're somehow fundamentally different from Israel

Locked for low quality

Suffering is separateness. Love is seperatelessness.

Last year, they removed the restrictions in the summer and reinstated them right before Halloween. Let's see how it goes this time.

It's radical, anarchistic Green. The idea of "decolonization" with respect to the intellectual traditions is a postmodern idea that has some validity. Reductionism is an example of the crique-worthy aspects of Western thought which has been used to delegitimize non-Western value systems.

Duh I wouldn't be so concerned about just one lifetime. Some awakened masters have been on the path for thousands of years

There is an interesting link between between a construct-aware epistemology, mysticism and systems thinking that I think is not much emphasized by people like Ken Wilber who emphasize the distinction between growing up and waking up. It's no coincidence that Fritjof Capra saw the link between non-duality and QM, was inspired by holistic philosophers like Thomas Kuhn and Gregory Bateson, and then went on to revolutionize systems thinking as a field, just like it's no coincidence that people who are averse to these ideas are also averse to systems thinking. Systems thinking emphasizes the ramifications of relationality/relativity, like the relationship between the observer and the observed in QM, the relationship between the map and the territory in metaphysics, between historical context and scientific discoveries, and the relationship between two dualities in a whole (yin-yan). It's not that mysticism is the whole story (like Ken Wilber points out with pre-rational mysticism), but it's that the marriage of mysticism and rationality leads to transrationality, and transrationality puts the rational in context so that one can observe the relationality of it, of how its constructed as a product of relationships, and hence you break into a construct-aware, paradigmatic systems view. In that sense, there does appear to be a connection between growing up and waking up that happens at the cutting edge of rationality (Green) that facilitates a movement into Tier 2. Other than that, a pre-rational mystic is still confined to Tier 1.

Do you count Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg as experts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics

I know my experience is closer to my experience

You want this Neutral Monism?

Legendary systems thinker Fritjof Capra https://www.amazon.com/Systems-View-Life-Unifying-Vision/dp/1316616436

That statement makes more sense in a self-contained ecosystem free from human interference, but less when talking about animal agriculture, due to its destablizing effect on ecosystems etc. Besides, ~90% of what warm-blooded animals eat is lost as heat. Whatever they give, they certainly take a lot. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/46%3A_Ecosystems/46.2%3A_Energy_Flow_through_Ecosystems/46.2C%3A_Transfer_of_Energy_between_Trophic_Levels

The difference is that she got to own all of the media for a day. You'll never achieve that by throwing some money at an activist organization

Part 3 will be 10 hours long . Great stuff ?

From another perspective, she invested 30k in socialist activism.

Ooooo Cornel West and Ken Wilber are friends? That might explain why Michael Brooks knew about Integral Theory.

Ah! That makes more sense . If I were to be a bit more accommodating of your model, you can say that in a sense what Orange does is that it recognizes Blue is being a bit too unrelenting in its repression of Red's impulses (the need to dominate, self-assert, enact power over others) and that it opens up and redirects this individualistic energy through these higher Orange principles (allowing the Red component more room). Then, the need to dominate others physically might instead manifest itself as the need to dominate others in the social game (financial status, relationship status etc.), and it justifies this by saying "everybody is free to do what they want as long as they're not infringing on other people's freedoms". Then you have Green that realizes that Orange's definition of freedom is in fact incomplete, as they're denying the collective ramifications of their self-asserting behavior which minimizes the freedom of unprivileged people, and then the pendulum swings back to collectivism again.

I think we agree that all stages retain some aspects of the previous stages within them and that there are other aspects which are emergent (not reducible to earlier aspects). I take more issue with the description that the individualism in Orange is derived from a Red subcomponent. It's not that I think your understanding of SD is inconsistent, but it's rather about the way in which the word "individualism" is used that I think is unclear. Firstly just to clarify, and as you probably know, the individualist/collectivist dichotomy is of course not black-and-white (all the stages have their own expression of each). The issue however is that Beige is an individualistic stage that occurs before Red. Surely, Red must have a Beige subcomponent, but you wouldn't say that Red derives its individualism from Beige. Do you see what I mean? That's why I prefer for clearness sake to just call it "Orange individualism" and "Red individualism", because while they're interrelated with eachother as "individualism", they're not reducible to eachother. Orange individualism is democratic and rational while Red individualism is machivellian and impulsive. Likewise, Beige individualism is primal and instinctive. If you think that I'm the one who is being unclear, I would like to hear exactly how the Red subcomponent creates the individualism of Orange .

Do Afghan refugees have a bad attitude?