aurum

That's just your opinion. I could make a very strong argument for why it does.

How is it my horoscope explains me to a T???

Lol. Maybe if you're a woman.

Yes, unserious models can still be useful in a very limited context. Astrology can also be useful for certain people.

MBTI is not a serious model. You do not have an innate cognitive preference.

There's some overlap with masculinity and love, of course. Ultimately we could collapse all these distinctions if we wanted. But it's also not strictly the same. Masculinity requires less love.

Neither is Ralston.

I've not come across anyone who seriously uses sex in that way. Maybe some fringe tantra teachers, but that's about it. Sex, especially the pursuit of it, mostly just pulls you into the Dream. You're doing it for fun and pleasure, not contemplative work. Which is not to say you shouldn't have sex or pursue it.

If you can't learn from Ralston, who can you learn from? You might as well throw every teacher in the trash at that point.

Bro you are ASMR

I think if you are honestly capable of transcending sex, go for it. Sex can be a huge distraction from deeper consciousness work, especially if you're a man. The problem is I think almost no one is truly capable of that. So you're better off just owning whatever desires you have until you age out of them.

That doesn’t even make sense within the standard chakra model. ”Heart of a lion” as a phrase is more about bravery and courage, which would be third chakra. This is what I mean about epistemic sloppiness around the chakra model. People just interpret it however they want. I personally do not see masculinity as being about compassion, unconditional love and connection, which is typically how the heart chakra is described. That’s more about femininity. But quite frankly I don’t take the chakras all that serious to begin with.

According to who? The chakra model is badly inconsistent. Teachers claim all kinds of things, based on their intuition and what they want to believe. Some may have legitmate ESP, but even here the claims are often not consistent. I once took a class with a psychic spiritual teacher who swore he downloaded from God that the chakras had swapped colors.

Heart chakra is nice, but I wouldn't really consider it masculinity.

Environmental imposition is a necessary condition for self-learning to occur.

But the point is that it becomes much easier to develop those neural pathways because of previous generations. Neural pathways and development co-evolve. You will rapidly ascend to the center of your culture in neural / ego development. And this builds on top of each other, which is how cultures are able to evolve over time rather than starting from zero.

No generation is starting purely from zero. Each generation inherits massive developmental advantages from previous generations.

Why would it only be true at a personal level and not a cultural one? Are cultures not made up of people?

You don't need to believe in moral development. Just contemplate and observe. It should eventually become obvious that moral development must be true.

Worth learning about, but ultimately overrated. You can do much better than Jung.

Metamodernism channel:

Yes, that's the tension.

What uncharted territory? The only aspects significantly uncharted is our technology and the scale of society. Everything else is the same old, same old.

Clear Mountain Monastery Project:

@trenton So what would you prefer? How are you expecting to run society without an elite?