SeaMonster

The test is simple. Self-awareness and harm. Is one aware that one is doing it, and is the habit harmful? If I'm doing something I know is harmful in some way (directly or indirectly), and I can't stop myself, then why am I doing it? Why can't I stop? I see a lot of "just because" answers on the forum. Please. People don't just harm themselves for no reason. There's a pay-off. People aren't entirely irrational.

As I suggested above, there's an ulterior motive to conscious development, and due to that it's rife with self-deception. (I'm referring to the kind of moral development Wilber hawks, not development towards some particular goal, like learning to play guitar to impress women or something like that.) Let me explain something about Wilber -- his fatal flaw is that he takes something that is arguably observable (different people are at different stages of development) and turns it into a kind of ethics (this is the hierarchy you should climb.) He takes an IS and turns it into an OUGHT. You can be a philosopher-ethicist or you can be a developmental psychologist. When you try to mix the two you get dogshit. Developmental psychology is about what actually works for people, not what we would like. If my perspective is limited, can you provide any evidence that Wilber's prescriptions actually work in the real world?

I was referring to Wilber, not you. Your comments are right on.

I think the kinds of models he hawks for personal development just get people more into their ego (in insidious ways) as opposed to towards "wholeness." So he's leading a lot of people astray. Also, there's a cult-like element to the community and teachings. I fundamentally disagree with the premise that one should consciously develop along the dimension of structures of consciousness (in other words, Orange -> Green -> Yellow, etc.) Anyone who suggests such a thing is either a cult leader or simply doesn't understand psychology. The egoic element in man loves shit like that and seizes on it with glee. "Wholeness" is about accepting that you aren't morally perfect -- it's about finding a balance of the psyche. All attempts at moral perfection are doomed to failure. If naturally being at some stage isn't good enough for you, you're trying to compensate for a lack of this balance.

...and if you are using a word in a way that's different from commonly accepted meanings, you might be a narcissistic manipulator.

It's impossible to simply cut out bad habits without adopting good habits. All you're going to do is pick up other bad habits in their place since they are typically there as a stress response. You need to conceive of what a healthy lifestyle/routine looks like, in a holistic sense. In other words, what good habits do you need to minimize stress and maximize well-being? That's what "radical wholeness" looks like.

If he'd titled the book, "Finding Wholeness," how would it have made the meaning any different? It wouldn't. He may as well have titled it "Finding Super-Duper Wholeness" by Ken Wilber The Pretentious Asshole. He's basically saying "that other wholeness authors talk about? That's not the ultimate wholeness. Mine is." A guarantee he's full of shit, in other words.

Probably nothing. The title itself is stupid. "Radical wholeness"? You're either whole or you aren't, no need for adjectival modifiers. Only a complete asshole would title a book that.

Energy cords are a well-known concept in the area of psychic/spiritual healing. Supposedly, psychic healers can actually see them. I would have him cut the cords and see if you feel better as a result, and maybe you can get her out of your life. You haven't really provided a detailed description of her behavior, so how would one know? It sounds plausible that she's toxic af and an energy vampire. People like that certainly exist.

Well, the problem with this (as is the problem with the "multiple intelligences" idea) is the question of measurement. How does one actually quantify these constructs, aside from simply opining ("hey, that guy is good with money, he must have a high financial IQ!".) It's pretty much where we are already anyway - subjectively recognizing that different people have different talents or abilities.

You have to look at this topic in a historical context. Before the 1960s sexual revolution, second-wave feminism, and the breakdown of traditional gender roles, there wasn't a need for pickup artistry or the manosphere. It's not so much about shame or pressure to match up to an impossible masculine ideal. The issue is that women's liberation has ruptured the traditional mating market and created a lot of confusion which the manosphere has attempted to remedy. The traditional approaches to dealing with women weren't working for men. Before that time, young women primarily looked for a good provider to secure as a marriage partner. After, women could afford to engage in years of unmarried sex before settling down at a later age. The kind of men they favored for this were often different than what one would traditionally consider as a good marriage partner. That's all it is. The manosphere attempts to deal with that reality in a maximally advantageous manner for men by teaching them the skills to navigate this new environment. It's simple adaptation. Roughly speaking, women in the West don't want to marry until their late 20s or early 30s. Of course any man who doesn't understand or willfully denies this reality is not going to be successful with women. So unless men are "naturals" with women you get guys who either give up (such as blackpill) or adapt (PUA.) Most women don't understand or care how the proverbial sausage is made. They just see losers and winners and act accordingly.

Blackpill is not 100% truth, it's more like a self-fulfilling prophecy. What is 100% truth is that in life you're dealt a certain hand, and your outcomes depend on how well you play that hand, not intrinsically on the hand itself. If you change everything you're capable of changing for the better, you're going to maximize your success in life. Blackpill is basically a rationalization for not doing the hard work of changing what you can change. Let's say you're short and ugly. Can you hit the gym? Yes. Can you dress well? Yes. Can you learn how to talk well and be charming, have a sense of humor, learn how to dance, e.g., play a musical instrument? Yes. Those things get you a long way. But blackpill guys are secretly whiny, entitled babies who don't want to do hard work. They are immature and frightened. They are looking for an excuse to give up. That's the crux of the matter. You can maximize your potential or give up because it's hard, or you don't feel like it, or you feel entitled not to.

If you're interested in spirituality, you've probably already passed the threshold for the IQ required to get awakened. The rest has to do with self-awareness of a certain type, which isn't necessarily something a high IQ provides. IQ is just IQ, it's not a global measure of a person's character, worth, professional success or mental well-being. There are certain correlations, and it's certainly difficult to conceive of a functional modern society when the mean IQ is below a certain level, but one can't pick two individuals at random and predict their condition based on IQ disparities. You could have a multimillionaire pro athlete with a 100 IQ and some guy who works at a comic book store with 150.

If this were the case, we would be able to prove it by measuring a person's IQ before and after college. Let's say in 12th grade vs. after getting a PhD. Do you know a lot of studies that show this? If they existed, we would be hearing about them every day. No, sorry, IQ <> education. IQ is what enables one to profit from an education. There are raw capacities such as working memory, spatial visualization and abstract reasoning that you can't teach.

I would focus on figuring out a technique to get yourself into the right mood. Think back to these times and reverse-engineer how you got there. There was probably a sequence of some kind.