Carl-Richard

Ah, I didn't read it. He did say that it was a bit complicated, and I could understand his point if you consider the thing I said about pragmatism. What postmodernism is really threatening is the idea of realist truth claims: "this is the actual truth, independent of perspective". On the other hand, if you're a pragmatist, you simply use models to give you an understanding of the world, and your truth claims are merely tools to that end. You don't have to claim anything about the world that is independent of perspective. So the mistake that can happen when you use postmodernism to dismiss realist truth claims about say developmental psychology (which happens), is to fail to make the distinction that this doesn't apply to pragmatist truth claims about developmental psychology, and instead of merely being skeptical towards realist truth claims, you wholesale reject entertaining the models at all. So I think this is the possible trap in postmodernism that Leo could be alluding to: getting stuck in radical skepticism without moving on to pragmatism. It's not that developmental psychology is "above" postmodernism, but rather that pragmatism somewhat "escapes" the critiques of postmodernism, and that it's possible to approach developmental psychology from that perspective.

Mhm. What prompted you to make this thread?

Your preferences. I might be pursuing academic psychology as an area of specialization, but it's not like I'm placing it as my baseline epistemology. It's one of many interests. But it's true that I can't rationalize my interests by some absolute metric. But also, at some point, you have to "accept who you are" so to speak, live your life and continue moving forward. I could probably be pursuing music instead of psychology if I had made a few different choices, and my worldview would probably be very different (with a different set of biases and blindspots), but that's not where I am today.

Yes: pragmatism. To act like all perspectives are equal can in some ways be crippling. You don't actually structure your life that way, your mind doesn't work that way. You have preferences, and the postmodern mind can either consciously accept that, or it can pretend like it doesn't accept that (which of course would lead to some amount of inner conflict). Could you elaborate?

It isn't. But there are different ways of approaching developmental psychology, like with all things. You can approach it from a limited reductionist view (only subscribing to one or a few perspectives), or you can approach it from a meta-theoretic and post-structuralist view that synthesizes different perspectives and has a deep understanding of the underlying assumptions of each perspective. The latter view is generally something that happens "after" one has wrestled with some of the implications of postmodernism, which you can use to argue that it's "above" postmodernism, but it's not above it in any absolute sense.

I think I was using "psychic powers" in a very extended way. I would include that aspect of it as well as siddhis.

Forgive the dense rambling, but there is a point at the end: There is this thing called self-determination theory, and it presents different types of motivation. You can visualize it on a spectrum from low to high autonomy (the degree to which a behavior is decided by the self): amotivation, extrinsic motivation, introjected motivation, indentified motivation, integrated motivation and intrinsic motivation. It seems to me that "positive motivation" leans more in favor of the types of motivation associated with more autonomy, while "negative motivation" is more the opposite. Another thing is that it's possible for a given behavior to start off as being heavily "external" to the self, but then this behavior can be gradually integrated over time. For example, it's possible to perceive the behaviors associated with weightloss as something that people force onto you, which will often be felt as a negative experience (because people generally prefer their behavior to be self-determined), but then you can also internalize those behaviors such that they will feel less externally forced on you, and then you'll more likely associate weightloss with something positive. The "best" form of motivation is intrinsic motivation, which is when a behavior is done because it's inherently fun or pleasurable. It's a bit in a class of its own, because behaviors that start off as being external to the self are not very likely to translate to intrinsic motivation through the internalization process as described above, but for weightloss in particular, it's possible to become more aware of how being fit and healthy is intrinsically pleasureable in itself, which can be a legitimate way to increase motivation. In this context, practices like mindfulness meditation are known to be linked to higher levels of intrinsic motivation, and it's arguably the very definition of becoming "more aware" in this case. So there are many possible ways to alter one's motivation in beneficial ways that don't necessarily fit neatly into the "positive/negative" dichotomy

It can lead to uncomfortable feelings and mental instability.

So you didn't awaken for your first time around a year ago when you posted that thread?

I don't want to be harsh just for the sake of it, but the first year after your first spiritual awakening is usually spent floating between genuine spiritual insights and a huge spiritual ego, so don't be surprised when people tell you to pipe down. Just relax man No need to be the most awake person you can ever be yet.

Now I feel that this ironic attitude we just created in this discussion (and which also probably involves a shallow interpretation of the feminine) is counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve (i.e. not "othering" women), and it feels unironically not ok ?

Because I don't know how to do that without being inauthentic. Is this me being emotional? ? And aren't we talking about people things right now? ?

Lol. It felt very sincere to me Maybe it's the Easter sun. Hmm. What would that look like in practice?

How can I make my presence more female friendly?

I think the things you see on LSD when you close your eyes is merely an enhanced version of the normal kinds of imagery you have when you're daydreaming or falling asleep. To me, opening the third eye is either a direct reference to the final process of kundalini awakening (the snake exploding out the final chakras), or a metaphorical reference to the various psychic powers that are granted to you through spiritual growth. Either one can be practiced with third eye meditation (hold your finger so that it's almost touching your third eye area, and when you feel a tingling sensation, remove your finger and focus on the sensation while in a meditative posture). I will also say that you should be very careful with that particular practice. Kundalini energy is not something to be messed with.

Is encouraging people to lose weight positive motivation?

What is positive/negative motivation exactly?

@Someone here I find that sitting in an upright but relaxed position with at least one of your legs folded is very conducive for the meditative process. There is like an unwinding of tension going on that you have more control over, and there is less pressure on your internal organs and more room for your chest to expand as you breathe. When you let that run for over 1 hour straight, you're almost guaranteed to have something happen ime. Also, when you commit to just using one technique, you close off some of the potential for your mind to activate itself ("should I maybe change technique?"; "ah this technique is boring now"). It might seem like a subtle difference, but if you feel resistance from your mind when considering it ("it'll be too boring"), that means it will be a challenge and a sign for potential growth. Besides, small differences quickly add up the longer you sit.

Nice. I doubt you did 6 hours in the same posture. Try sitting for 1-1.5 hour in the same posture and stick to just one technique (I suggest watching the breath; and you can still do the body scanning "warm-up" if you use that). No movement of the legs to alleviate pain, no standing up, etc.

Many indigenous and primal cultures have engaged in things like tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption. It's possible to survive while engaging in behaviors that compromise your health and longevity. So the fact that something has been done by humans for a long time does not mean it promotes health and longevity. It could, but that would be for a different reason.

?

@Danioover9000 I think I understand what just happened: your point about the relativity of language seemed like a tangential point, but I still responded to it. Then you somehow tried to shoehorn that point back into the discussion, which is why I said "that's a weird twist". Then I thought we were moving on from that tangent, but you apparently kept rephrasing that same point in a more verbose way, and that is what threw me off.

This guy is very enjoyable to listen to, and he makes a very thorough case for why religions (or "grand narratives") exist and why we need them.

If you're an idealist, consciousness doesn't arise from anything, because it's beyond physicality, but sentience is a concept we ascribe to lifeforms. It does seem to have something to do with physicality. You wouldn't say a rock is sentient. It doesn't feel pain when you step on it. It doesn't have eyes to see with or ears to hear with.