Haumea2018

Unfortunately that's a limited understanding because Green doesn't fully understand human psychology. It understands the part about the importance of emotions and identity, but not the part about projection and egocentric motivation. In essence, it has a blindspot.

I like that. Yes, but there is also the collective social reality of the time as well, such as an unhealthy or morally corrupt society. It's not like every socially unacceptable response is wholly the product of parentally induced childhood trauma; sometimes a society is just plainly sick and instigates division and hatred.

This is the "good" Green. The "bad" (i.e. dark side of) Green is exploitation of a different kind than Orange. It is exploitation of people by dividing them into victims and oppressors/perpetrators. Then victims are infantilized and patronized and oppressors harshly castigated or destroyed. The "bad" Green is an unfortunate addiction to this dichotomy. And yes, it is indeed exploitative. Is it about the oppressed or is it about your personal relevance and significance in caring for/protecting/uplifting the oppressed? Is it about credit-hogging? If their lives improve, was it because of your actions or theirs? Do they "owe it all to you?" These are very tough questions to ask oneself. In essence, what differentiates Yellow from Green is that Yellow understands that emotionality isn't the end-all-be-all of human flourishing; that overprotecting people can be harmful, and emotions untampered by other values (such as reason, wisdom, common sense) can be highly destructive.

They don't care. This is about cultural warfare and destroying the icons of the opposition that stands in their way. A decade is barely a blip. Here in the US they discredit everything in the past, no matter how far, no matter if it possesses much good, for being insufficiently "woke." It's just cultural vandalism.

If you have been fruitlessly working on it for a decade, it's not that you haven't been working hard enough. It's that you've been working TOO HARD. It should be easier. You're making it TOO HARD. You probably have way too many conditions placed on it (really, yourself) in the back of your mind, that it collapses of its own weight. It shouldn't be that hard, and you shouldn't be that hard on yourself. It should be FUN.

Veganism cannot be for all people as people are not identical genetically, anatomically, as far as blood or digestion. Scientists are even looking at gut flora differences in different personality types. We are not cookie-cutter. Any attempt to promote veganism to all is essentially religious in nature, and proselytizing vegans need to be treated as Jehovah's Witnesses. "Studies" on this don't mean much at all, as most studies do not address even a few confounding variables.

What if...YOU were the God that was creating it? That means you could recreate it as well.

Emerald is right that a POV is right only relative to a desired outcome. Where she is off is in maintaining that the Green POV leads to social harmony. That's simply not the case, and anyone who's been paying attention to current events all over the world can see it. Green ultimately leads to maximal social disharmony: elites vs. working classes, white vs. POC, men vs. women, etc. It is endless war, and they are the military contractors: the only beneficiaries in it. Greens don't get that you can't simply browbeat people into behaving the way they want them to in order to achieve their vision of society, that behavior has deep root causes and that social disapproval is not a tool that works when deep root causes are left unacknowledged. Or they get it but benefit (even if only in perceived social status) too much to change. Kudos to you, though, my friend. You just had an awakening.

Jordan B. Peterson.

I think you've got it right here. This is key. Without it, nothing is likely to help. Not meditation, not psychedelics. Those are just tools to facilitate changes in your life that make it better. But you still have to make the changes, otherwise the insights gained from those experiences are left unintegrated. Also, I would counsel serious patience. This is going to take as long as it takes. Really, when you say "meaningful experiences" to be less vague it means some kind of responsibility, a job, a career, volunteering, etc. It's easy to maintain depression when that's missing. JBP is right about that stuff 100%. You have to carry the load that you're capable of carrying, not less. Otherwise it's easy for all kinds of neuroses to sneak in. Good luck!

Free from imputations? Sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim. The imputations appear to be built into the structure of the language itself.

If your contention is that language has no ontological assumptions, then you are certainly free to believe that. Maybe it is my bias, but in that case I'm in pretty good company. If you want to posit that language is independent of or preceding consciousness, then you go right ahead. I tend to think that meaningless sounds and symbols are given meaning by consciousness. Nothing magical about a bunch of characters on the screen. As an example: read this and then tell me there are no ontological assumptions in the Hebrew language.

First of all, there are more than two options. Second of all, you're taking all kinds of ontological assumptions for granted. Even forgetting about self-concept, there's no reason to believe the decision isn't fated and that the options aren't an illusion. You would have to be entirely conscious of the machinery of your decision-making and...you're just not. Of course, as I said, it's kinda hard to forget self-concept in this context, since all language imbeds it implicitly and it is not clear what this "context" is. My best guess is as good as yours. Simply put, I don't see that this is necessarily inclusive of a non-dual context philosophically. The reason why is that a non-dual consciousness has no need of framing of such a philosophical concept. So I must conclude that it is the product of dualistic consciousness. A non-dual consciousness isn't seeking to answer that which it has no need of questioning. The basic question is, to reiterate: does the concept of Free Will have ontological assumptions built into it and what are they? If not, explain why not.

I take this context to be the discussion of the philosophical concept of Free Will. Otherwise it's meaningless, since "free will" in conventional language can mean different things at different levels of analysis. You can't answer a question about some free-floating and vague concept in conventional language.

Also depends how you define "anxiety" and "depression." Let me define them very carefully here: Anxiety and Depression as in DSM-IV (i.e. actual full blown disorders)? Not in full enlightenment where shadows and projections have been withdrawn and there's no repression of negative emotion. Normal negative emotions of sadness, fear, anger that arise and depart? Yes. Anxiety and Depression disorders only exist because of repressed content.

The illusion of free will is another way of saying the illusion of being the doer, a separate self. What has "free will"? The illusion of "separate self." The concept doesn't apply if there's no illusion of separate self. It's a category error. It's not a yes/no, it's a N/A.

It's like 10, but there's still a subtle duality between the "spiritual" and the "profane." The world is seen as impure, and there's a desire to isolate oneself from it. Easy to become a hermit. At 10, you're "back in the marketplace" i.e. you've accepted the profane as The Self.

It's just another ego and status game.

There's a range of consciousness before one stabilizes in non-duality where you can go back and forth between ego and no-self. Once you hit stabilization level, you're in the clear.

That's what a proper constitution is for, to protect the rights of the individual (who is the smallest minority.)

Demonstrable instances of employment, housing and educational discrimination should be redressed via civil rights legislation/litigation (and where appropriate, like repeat violators, consent decrees.). Racial profiling in police work (in the sense of disproportionately targeting a race based on statistical estimates) should be illegal. Maybe some others like that that I forget. Basic, meat-and-potatoes civil rights shit.

It's an important issue...period. If we shoehorn it into the "systemic racism" box we are unwittingly reinforcing it because that box reinforces paternalist notions. That's what I'm talking about here. This is Yellow stage stuff. There is no reductive, simplistic social theory "Green" way of handling this stuff (without being racist.) And how to actually do it is beyond my paygrade to fully describe; all I know is that it would be a remarkably nuanced and multifaceted approach. (In other words, if some smarter person manages it, I'll know it when I see it. :))

I'll give you a better argument than your mom. The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority. Most white SJWs of course don't see this because their entire theory is basically white paternalism, and it is rejected by a sufficient number of minorities as offensive. Green is the paternalistic racism stage. As an example: (from the Daily Beast, no conservative site:) https://www.thedailybeast.com/dear-white-people-well-meaning-paternalism-is-still-racist

I think what it means is that we stop treating minorities as eternal helpless victims without agency, stop creating simplistic theories out of complex social phenomena and start asking ourselves the really hard questions, such as "what ego investment do I have in seeing the Other as victim to be rescued?"

I'll give you a better argument than your mom. The problem with the whole "systemic racism" kick is that on some level it is deeply racist in its infantilization of minorities as helpless victims of an unjust system, forever in need of repentance as well as protection from the majority. Most white SJWs of course don't see this because their entire theory is basically white paternalism, and it is rejected by a sufficient number of minorities as offensive. Green is the paternalistic racism stage.