Carl-Richard

@Ramu <-This mf really just conflated Gen X and Gen Z in a discussion about Baby Boomers.

LSD is weed^3 + clarity - retardation

Didn't you just make a topic on the distinction between words and concepts? The word "God" has been poisoned by thousands of years of history. You don't just use that word unapologetically unless you want to be certain you've been misunderstood.

If I were a girl and this guy asked me out and then invited me home and took his clothes off, I would be like "hang on..." That's how accurate the definition is.

I think the best definitions are the most restrictive ones. The inclusion sentiment boils down to social activism, not the soundness of definitions.

The goal of SD, as far as it's a developmental psychological model, is to map out levels of cognitive complexity. Tier 2 is complex enough to handle the problems that Tier 1 isn't able to solve, most crucially the exclusion of other points of view (and the pitfalls of that), by recognizing these views as parts of themselves (and not just retrospectively as a developmental arch, but as constituting their very being, i.e. Tier 2 is purple, red, blue etc.). It also understands the existential necessity of Tier 1 in all its forms as a means to its own development. In other words, there is a nurturing capacity analogous to parents for their child, where the ultimate solution to any problem regarding the child's behavior is clearly understood as adulthood, not annihilation. That doesn't mean that the only good parent is endlessly benevolent and lets their child devour them. That would go back to the importance of integrating the lessons from earlier perspectives (e.g. Red autonomy & respect, Blue order & restraint etc.). Yellow is when Tier 2 starts to take root in the individual. There may be aspirations to change the world, but the means are very limited. A good example of this is the Game B crowd and their various off-shots (e.g. the Consilience project). They're mostly stuck in a very one-sided approach to changing systems, e.g. writing articles, doing podcasts, conferences etc. On the other hand, a good example of Turquoise is Sadhguru, not because he is a mystic, but because he has managed to inspire and mobilize literally millions of people into taking action, changing government policies, talking at international forums, live TV interviews etc. And yes, Sadhguru is indeed a Tier 2 thinker (I can prove it ).

Are you a woman if you inhabit the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman?

That's all of metaphysics

Usually, but not always. The most parsimonious explanation is to not give an explanation, because that requires the fewest assumptions. Truly good explanations tend to give you an optimal grip on the situation: the optimal ratio between simplicity vs. complexity, specificity vs. generality etc. For example, Spiral Dynamics wouldn't be such a good model if you threw out all the color-coded vMEMEs and replaced them with something like a spectrum of low to high consciousness, even though that would be a more parsimonious option. It's the same when it comes to metaphysics: how can you give both a detailed and comprehensive account of what reality is? It's a question of balance and elegance.

It does explain reality though. If it didn't, we wouldn't give it any thought. Occam's razor (a.k.a. conceptual parsimony) is not the only epistemic criteria by which we give weight to different metaphysics (certainly the naturalist ones). You also have things like coherence, internal logical consistency, empirical adequacy and explanatory power. Physicalism does pretty well for most of these things. Yes, it's true that physicalism is less parsimonious than idealism, but traditional forms of idealism (everything except analytic idealism) notoriously lack empirically adequate explanations for how we get individualized personal perspectives. Physicalism might not have an explanation for how consciousness arises, but if consciousness is a given, then it has an explanation for how individual perspectives arise (through the arrangements of subatomic particles into separate bodies and brains), while traditional idealism does not. So in this scenario, which one should you choose: parsimony or explanatory power? So to summarize: if you're a fan of traditional idealism but you also value logic, science etc., then you have to choose between parsimony (in this case idealism) or explanatory power (in this case physicalism). However, if you're a believer in analytical idealism, then you don't have to make that choice

@Tyler Robinson All people live in a community or "tribe". That is not a contradiction. Edit: I just watched this and it reminded me of your comment ?: Red Joe stands up for daughter ?

Well, when Leo talks about God-realization, he talks about sticking 5-MeO-DMT up your ass. That is why the term doesn't mean anything.

These terms mean nothing. Do they also talk about entheogens?

?

The topic is also an example of self-bias. "Look how self-biased people's worldviews are. Let me try to sell you my worldview."

Tl;dr: words ≠ concepts.

?

Let it come and let it go.

Some people talk about "God consciousness", but it's thought of as a transitory stage.

Psychedelics might trigger a psychotic break in pre-disposed individuals, so I would discourage you from doing that.

Wrong. We need to stop perpetuating this myth that schizophrenia is somehow equal to mysticism or psychedelics.

Steve Vai.

I would've said this about myself some years ago as well.