Emerald

Based off of what I've experienced in myself and working with others, there could be a repressed child aspect of you that's still looking for someone to transfer your feelings about your mom onto in hopes of getting those needs met. And that can make you want to seek out new partners... because new partners are like a blank projection screen. And you can play out the psychological dynamic of getting your mom to take care of you emotionally with a new partner. But once you know them, they can no longer be the blank projection screen because the projection screen fills up. And that child part of you wants to go out once again... and search for 'mom' so that you can play through the cycle again. I call this dynamic relationship mirages... and it tends to lead to dissatisfaction in relationships because it's like being in a desert and spotting an oasis... only to find that it was a mirage. Then, you see another oasis in the distance and run over there... only to find another mirage. And repeat, repeat, repeat. (the oases represent each partner) The solution is to face that child part of you that's still trying to get your mom to take care of you... that is stuck on a loop like a skipping CD saying "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me"... And you must turn inward to care for that part of you, as it's really asking you to take care of it.

Insects are animals. So, it wouldn't be a Vegan-firendly option. But good news your you omnivores.

I think there is something to be said about men not getting certain emotional and psychological needs met... and how that makes them susceptible to succumbing to victim's mentality... and right wing radicalization by extension of that victim's mentality. But that's not a Democrats thing. I don't believe that Democrats have left men in the cold in comparison to other groups. But Democrats also aren't giving them compelling victim narratives to play out their suppressed feelings. So, Democrats aren't as interesting because it doesn't meet that need. The suppression of these emotional and psychological needs actually comes from old school patriarchal expectations that men suppress their emotions and always be stoic and strong. And then, the isolation of the internet age further compounds that issue. Those are the real problems facing men today. And there are these patterns of male suffering that are self-perpetuating and coming from within male groups and content that's geared towards a male audience. And within these groups, there is an expectation of living up to a certain agreed upon standard of Masculinity... which means toughen up and don't show emotions. And there are social consequences for not doing that within those male groups. You could get called a pussy and lose the respect of the group if they see you as too Feminine or not Masculine enough. And because of this social dynamic, a sizable percentage of men (especially young men) do have a lot of vulnerabilities that they aren't facing with. And men who have these vulnerabilities who aren't facing with them, often get hooked on right wing propaganda which gives them an outlet to sink into the victim role and feel the self-pity and self-compassion they've been denying themselves ... like "Feminists are oppressing you", "Immigrants are stealing your jobs", "black men are going to cuck you", "You're blamed for being a terrible Nazi even for the slightest thing.", "Western women are becoming too Masculine", "If you say literally anything at all, you'll be cancelled.", "You could get blamed for a rape you didn't commit because of Me Too", etc. And it gives all of these little mini-victim narratives to men to turn the other into the villain and to get to play the role of the helpless victim (but consciously they identity with the hero). And it unconsciously gives them a way to feel vulnerable about something else other than the real vulnerabilities that have been suppressed and repressed to maintain their Masculine identity. And that meets the suppressed need for feeling emotional and vulnerable. And it also solves some of the isolation because men who have these feelings gravitate together to get mad at the "villains" that are victimizing them. Like the Manosphere gives a place for the male victims to get together and get mad at and fight back at the female villains. There are also majority male spaces that function the same way that cast non-white people or gay/trans people as the villains to play out the victim narrative against. But if a man were actually okay with meeting his emotional needs and exercised deeper levels of self-compassion, he'd probably be less magnetized to these victim narratives. And unfortunately, Dr. K just gave another victim narrative for these guys to cling onto that will further block them from turning inwards towards the real problem. They can just go "Well Democrats didn't care about me." and totally overlook their real problems.

Yes, it's been emerging from the collective Shadow and into the public consciousness since 2015. Back then, if you mentioned the rise of Fascism people would just roll their eyes at you. But currently, I'd imagine that more than half of people are becoming conscious of the rising Fascism.... though some people will still be like "It can't happen here." The reality is that (relative to humanity as a whole over the course of human history) the behaviors and beliefs associated with Fascism are a LOT more commonplace than the behaviors and beliefs associated with democracy. We're a species that's had 49 genocides in the past 50 years. So Fascism and the Fascist impulse is common and banal... but has ben suppressed in America and other 1st world nations until about 10 years ago. And it rises more and more from the depths of the taboo blinders that it was shrouded as it becomes more normalized via internet culture.

@RendHeaven That makes sense. There's an orientation to expansion as opposed to contraction. My orientation is towards contraction and limitation... which are the necessary birthplaces of meaning and beauty. And any experiences that I've had of Truth and the infinite have been to serve the path of the contraction, limitation, meaning, and beauty that I'm on. To me... infinite expansion and infinite knowing becomes so random. I've had experiences where an infinity of experiences flash before me as I scratched the surface of infinite knowledge. And the chaos of it has highlighted to me how much I appreciate that which small, limited, imperfect, ordinary, grounded, Earthly, and meaningful. I'm like a Hobbit more than I am a princess.

Romantic partners are wise to listen to and empathize with their partners' pain. But I don't know if that's an actual double standard that exists in the direction of men where men have to sympathize with their partners and not the other way around. My guess is that, if you polled a bunch of heterosexual couples, the woman would probably be the one doing the majority of the empathizing, emotional labor, and communication-related stuff in the relationship.

My entire point is to express my subjective perspective as a woman to shed some light on how that bias is from the lived perspective. I can sympathize and even empathize with male pain. And I try to share what it's really like for a woman to try to get men to see through the false narratives that cause them to suffer so much. But despite my ability to sympathize/empathize, that doesn't mean that I'm going to become buddy-buddy with a guy who gives off woman-hating vibes. It's just unpleasant to be around. And it's fairly obvious to pick up on. So, no woman who's got a decent level of self-esteem and a decent level of awareness is going to overlook things like that.

I think you mean MGTOW not Incels. What I'm talking about is very different than men who claim to avoid women to make their life better because they're saying they're avoiding women altogether. And that dynamic comes from overgeneralizing women and misogynistic feelings. But I would never avoid men altogether because there are plenty of men that are great people. And I am very blessed to have a lot of wonderful men in my life. And I am not a misandrist. I just naturally have learned to sort (men and women) from my social circle when they have qualities that aren't conducive to my own well-being. These are skills you learn early on as a woman. And if you don't learn to sort properly, it will be at your own peril. And if men give off misogynistic vibes, then I avoid getting close to them. I don't even have to consciously try to do it. It's just automatic.

Trump's public announcement of anything that seems too good to be true...

Would you like it if another country with more military power than us sent in an invading military operation and maybe dropped some bombs to fight the war on drugs in America? They'd come here to "fight the criminals" but you know the civilian death toll would be massive. It's honestly silly to think that Donald Trump waging a war on terror against drug cartels would cause anything but suffering for the regular people living in Mexico.

It makes total sense that you would be afraid. You never know what Donald Trump is actually going to do. I would stay put until there's real movement and not just talk. Donald Trump loves to talk about things and not do them. So, I wouldn't leave right now. But if I were in your position, I would create an escape plan, just in case. And I'd get my passports ready as soon as I can as well as any other necessary travel documents. And in the worst case scenario I would plan to go South to a Central American country. My pick would probably be Costa Rica. But I had a friend visit Guatemala, and he said it was really nice. I'd also look up what the naturalization process is if things become sustainably less safe. The important thing is to map out a route to safety in the worst case scenario... but continue to live as though the worst case scenario isn't going to happen. My family and I have a bug out plan in case he starts doing some crazy anti-immigrant stuff like genuinely invoking the Alien Enemies Act and not just talking about it. My husband is an immigrant, so we have to be vigilant. There's an 90% chance that it's just talk to fire up his base. But that's still a nonzero chance. Plan A for us is to drive to Toronto. Plan B is Costa Rica.

You're welcome

@PurpleTree I tend to think there's a some truth in the above. I suspect that Europeans came to dominate because food doesn't grow there all year round and innovations (like watercraft and weapons) had to be invented to cope with the harsher environment. But overall, I recommend checking out the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It gives a variety of different geographic explanations as to why certain societies came to dominate others and to develop more in terms of infrastructure and innovations. (like regular growing seasons in Europe and Asia because of its horizontal shape, easier to domesticate animals, having metal as a natural resource of the land, etc.) And the book doesn't rely on any ethnocentric ideas that the West was just smarter or more inventive. Also this has happened on smaller scales before. They gave an example where in Polynesia, there was a tribe of people. And the tribe got split (for reasons I don't recall) into two groups that were on neighboring islands. And one of the islands had better resources and access to metals. And the other didn't have access to metal and lacked in resources because of the land they were on. Within a couple generations, the side of the tribe that got the better land ended up dominating (and maybe enslaving, if memory serves) the other people. And there were certainly no major differences between the two groups other than one was on a better plot of land with more resources to dominate the other.

It's not an ideology. It's something that can be observed. And the reason why Western countries were able to innovate is because they had the resources and were able to free up enough human potential to make those innovations. It's pretty impossible to do that, if you live in a poor country with few resources... and under the boot of an imperial power. But no, there are zero non-barbarous countries as humanity is not fully developed yet... but some are more or less barbarous than others. And the most barbarous in terms of foreign policy tend to dominate on the world stage... but also confer a bump in the standard of living and access to resources for its own people. And this enables more human potential to be freed up and put towards greater levels of societal development. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If you live in a place where the infrastructure is underdeveloped and there's little access to clean water... or there's no grocery stores... or you don't have access to a lot of medicine... or there's no affordable school in you're region... or your country is occupied by an imperial power... or you live in a place with an unstable government... ALL of the human potential will have to go to the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Physiological Needs and Safety Needs). And having to hyper-focus only on these bottom rungs, doesn't give a lot of opportunity to focus on Esteem and Self-Actualization needs, which must be collectively engaged for a society to move forward towards Community Actualization. So, what I'm saying is that living in an imperialist nation enables its citizens to Self-Actualize more. But at this juncture in history and all times before it, the way that a populace gets freed up to pursue Self-Actualization and Community-Actualization is through these extreme imbalances in power. And I have hope that we will grow past this with the development of new technologies, economic systems, and collective paradigms. But we must all first become aware of how all the positive things that those in "1st world nations" have access to has come at the expense of people from other nations. It's at once recognizing that human development is a bloody and barbarous process with lots of human sacrifice of human will and human life... while also aspiring to something greater and more holistic.

You guys don't know why Leo prefers what he prefers. It's like if I asked Leo "What's your favorite food?" And then one of you chimes in "Pizza." And the other of you chimes in "There are people who enjoy Mediterranean food and others who enjoy Indian food. One finds more joy in certain spices while others find joy in other types of spices." I'm asking Leo in particular because I want to know something about him in particular. It's a personality question.

I know lots of people all over the world. And while my travel experiences are minimal, I have been to a few other countries. And I don't sense that the US is uniquely under-developed compared to other places in terms of the experience of the average person living in the US. It's still probably in the top 20-30 countries on the planet in terms of quality of life for its citizens in most facets. Though it does have its uniquely terrible things like lack of universal healthcare and lack of paid vacation and maternity leave policies. And it's hyper-Capitalist and cut-throat. And its foreign policy is atrocious. Gun violence is also horrible here because of how easily accessible guns are. And there are many things that I disagree with and dislike. I'm very open in my critiques of the US.... in terms of both domestic and foreign policy. You seem to assume that I'm some hyper-nationalist USA defender. I'm definitely not. But my perspective on the US is nuanced and calibrated to what I know about the current state of the world, which is something that I'm always open to learning about. I have no attachment to the idea to any nationalist ideals. And I do resonate more with the societal supports that Scandinavian countries have. I wish that the US would move more in the direction if Social Democracy. But terror attacks rarely happen... and when they do, they're one-off situations. And I don't feel unsafe because I know that I'm a million times more likely to die in a car accident than I am in a terror attack. Only conservatives who watch Fox News get paranoid about things like that... and the same people get scared of the guy with he beard on the plane. And the War on Terror is just a way to get the people whipped into a frenzy of fear and xenophobia to support the government to have more control, wage profitable wars, and have more ability to skirt around due process as long as they label someone a terrorist. And next to NO ONE is better off with a foreign government toppling their own. Maybe in a really domestically authoritarian place with tons of human rights abuses, having a foreign country come in and take over could be preferable to the status quo. But that's so much instability... and the populace would be so vulnerable to the new power structure. Lots of unrest. And I trust that the US won't selectively attack some section of its own country because 1. It has no power-based interests to do that and 2. That would cause a genuine uproar in the populace which would create a lot more resistance to the powers that be... which is something that large power structures try to domestically avoid and only do outside the bounds of the country. And yes, there's definitely lots of economic warfare going on. It's definitely shifting to shrinking middle class and bigger gaps between the rich a poor... and that comes from a government that's in the pocket of billionaires and major industries. Now, in terms of my way of life... I do like my way of life. I wouldn't necessarily want to change that. Or if I did, I'd want to on my own terms. This is a very hyper-individualistic society, and I am pretty well adapted to that and really appreciate the achievement-focus. I find that very exciting. I also love having the support of my family and really like our little single-family home. But I intend later on in my life to create intentional community, because we do lack in terms of community connection. That said, I would not trade my freedom and authenticity for community connection. And it seems like people from cultures who emphasize collectivism over individualism have to sacrifice a lot of agency and authenticity to make that orientation to the world work. So, my goal is to eventually organize a small intentional community of like-minded folks to commune with so that more of those community and connection needs are met. And I don't care if the top 0.0001% have it better than me. I only care if they're impacting others negatively... which they are. But I don't care if someone has a lifestyle that's a zillion times better than mine... as long as I have everything I need. I don't like a lot of things about the US and how it functions. But that doesn't mean I want to leave. I like my life here. And I feel pretty lucky in many ways to live here, despite the shortcomings. But I'm still going to speak my mind about my issues with the US domestic and foreign policy... despite US nationalists saying "If you don't like it, then leave!"

Here's a meta-analysis on food groups associated with higher and lower risks of all-cause mortality... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28446499/ With the exception of fish, meat consumption was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and plant consumption was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. Also, you can look up more yourself on Pub-Med and type in keywords and phrases like "diet and all-cause mortality" or "diet and stroke risk" or "diet and heart attack risk" etc.

Here's a study about plant based diets and their inverse relationship with all-cause mortality... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33951994/ But there was a very large meta-analysis where they cross referenced thousands of individual studies on the impact of diet on all-cause mortality (and maybe some other factors). And they found that the fewer animal products and the more plants are in someone's diet, the lower the risk of all-cause mortality. I'll try to track that one down again.

I never said that no one would have negative effects on a Vegan diet. That would be an unsubstantiated claim. Any diet could potentially react negatively with someone's individual make-up. What I said was that the scientific consensus is that the Vegan diet is a diet where you can get all your nutritional needs met at any phase of life... and that's its associated with better health and longevity according to various studies and meta-analyses. And it's associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality... and lower risk of heart disease and stroke. And these are all scientifically based claims. And I said that Integral's perspective was making unsubstantiated alarmist claims that Vegans are generally unhealthy and start looking like skulls and have all these health problems. And I said that his perspective is not holistic because he is valuing personal anecdotes from people who agree with him over the scientific consensus to maintain his unsubstantiated 'Veganism inherently causes health problems' claim. But I'm sure that some people could react negatively to a Vegan diet. It's just not common that people do. There has to be something really specific going on... like a particular condition. Like I know that people with epilepsy often benefit from a Ketogenic diet, which would be much more difficult on a Vegan diet compared to an animal-based diet. There are also cases where people who already have auto-immune issues could have a negative reaction to quite a lot of plants. So, that might make a Vegan diet more challenging. But for most people, Veganism doesn't create any health problems. That said, it's really common when someone quits Veganism that they come up with ways to rationalize their decision to themselves... and adopting beliefs that Veganism is unhealthy can be one such rationalization. That's what I think is going on with Integral.

100% I find that applying Spiral Dynamics on the individual level is totally counter-productive for the reasons you mentioned. It's incredibly helpful for understanding collectives. But everyone starts identifying themselves as a "Tier 2" multi-perspectival thinker without understanding what being multi-perspectival really entails. And it locks them in place in the mono-lens perspective they're coming from.

I never said you were crazy. I was saying that you were saying untrue things... and that what you were saying negates the scientific consensus and is thus not a holistic perspective. To me, given what you've said about once being Vegan... it comes across to me that you're defending your choice to stop being Vegan to yourself by creating these narratives and convincing yourself that your perspectives is a higher perspectives based in health concerns. And you could just make that personal decision without having to go on such a mission about it.... which indicates to me that your views are more based in your own guilt about your dietary change and feeling like you need to narrativize (in lieu of real evidence) that Veganism is this horrible unhealthy diet that makes people look like skulls. And my bet is that it could be a way of assuaging personal guilt around making choices that are against your own values. So, really be honest with yourself and question why you're holding onto these fear-mongery "Veganism kills" ideas. But regarding your point about getting perspectives from individual people about their experiences and lifting that up above the scientific consensus... the thing is that you could find all sorts of personal anecdotes of people touting the benefits or drawbacks of any diet. And hearing others talk about a diet that happen to agree with you, just is not an accurate measure of how healthy or unhealthy a diet is. I could find a tons of personal anecdotes from people who are experiencing tons of health benefits from the Vegan diet and who had all sorts of health problems from an omnivorous diet. I hear them often because I watch a lot of pro-Vegan content. And you probably hear a lot of anti-Vegan anecdotes and perspectives because you watch a lot of anti-Vegan content that probably touts the benefits of other diets. But these personal anecdotes don't hold any objective weight over how healthy a diet is because you can't possible hear every single anecdote in the world. You're going to be mostly listening to the ones that already agree with your worldview. And you cant's chalk that up to "Well I'm coming from a more holistic perspective... so in that holistic perspective personal anecdotes can be better than scientific studies ". You have to actually study it in a more controlled way to get a real empirical sense of what's going on. And if your perspective is that personal anecdotes hold more weight than peer reviewed double blind studies, that's just a negation of the scientific perspective. And for your perspective to be holistic, it can't negate science or any other perspective. Holistic means whole. If you're negating empiricism and science to uphold your views, then you're not being holistic. You're just lying to yourself and doing mental gymnastics to find a way to square the circle. And it comes across as silly and pompous that you view your perspective as more holistic just because you view selective anecdotes from people who agree with you as more reflective of truth than controlled studies and meta-analyses that directly measure the physiological impacts of different diets on a variety of people.

Certainly all societies steal a lot of a human potentials from their constituents. And undoubtedly that's true across the board including in the US... we're all limited by the level of infrastructure that our society has developed. But I am privileged in the sense that my country is highly unlikely to be invaded by another imperialist nation, because the US is the main imperializer of the world with the biggest military budget. I'm also unlikely to have a foreign government topple my government. As a US citizen, I'm 100% sure that we'll never be in a Gaza-like situation. There are just certain military-related safety concerns that I don't have to consider, just because of where I live. I also have access to resources (like food, clean water, medicine, hospitals, roads. public schools, public libraries, public fire departments, etc.) that some places just don't have. And they don't have them because of the imperialism-based imbalances between countries. So, just on these dynamics alone that's a CRAZY amount of privilege. And it would be a lie to not admit that to myself. And I'm grateful for these privileges... but I don't like the fact that these are privileges that many people around the world don't have access to.

Thank you

I have been down these rabbit holes of questioning many times. This line of questioning is not new to me... and sounds like my inner voice on a day where I can't quite narrow the aperture of my awareness to focus on what's in my power. It has tended to torture me quite a bit since childhood because I've never been able to be 100% unconscious or numb to these imbalances... and I go around and around in my head recognizing that my existence is propped up by lots of suffering of other sentient beings. It's this constant powerless spinning of the wheels of wanting desperately to change how things are but not being able to. And I've only recently come to more of an acceptance/resignation to it to realize that I cannot change the fact that my life is only as good as it is because of tremendous amounts of historical and present human suffering. The reality of the matter is that I don't have much personal power to change these dynamics in a real way other than to raise awareness about how these power structures are functioning or perhaps boycotting companies that are supporting these dynamics... and donating to funds that help people in precarious situations. But if I did have the power and it was in a real trolley problem where if I sacrifice myself then an entire society of people get to have a better life, then I'd probably have to work up the courage to die for a worthy cause. I would do my best to embrace being a sacrificial lamb if it was clear that my death and sacrifice would lead to a better world. Though I know I would not be able to sacrifice my children for any cause, no matter how noble. Don't expect any higher conscious sacrificial behavior from a mother bear protecting her cubs. I hate imperialism and all the corrupt power structures. But I'm also grateful that my children are in a position within the current state of the world where their suffering isn't so great. And I wish that for other people's children as well. But I recognize that my children's lack of suffering in many ways comes from other children's suffering. So, it's a mixture of relief, guilt, and inner turmoil.

But you could've chosen any game to play while you're here. The medicine experience that I mentioned indicates to me that God itself doesn't seem to prefer playing the Truth-seeking game over other games. It's not like the Truth-seeking game is superior to other games. It plays lot of games. It's perfectly fine incarnating as a sea urchin and playing the sea urchin game as it is to incarnate as a human who's in the process of awakening to higher Truths. It showed me that it values the limitations of incarnation. And it's okay with any limits... including and especially limits on Truth. So let me ask the question from another angle... God... why are you choosing to focus on Truth in this lifetime?