Carl-Richard

@MarkKol HUAHUAA

Member and some invisible letter. It doesn't matter what the label is called. If you know what the label means, it essentially means "dummy".

Member.

Ah. I need the small brain label

I don't see what function it fulfills (the label).

No

Somebody posted this some time ago. It has a pretty good definition of evil.

It's mean.

I don't like it.

But exactly when does that happen? I see many people including myself who suffer but won't let go.

Budget pharmahuasca: chomp some oral DMT and chain smoke tobacco

When does one let go?

Knew it

I've talked about Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory a couple of times before, and it's by all means a great model. It's a so-called "contextual developmental theory", as it tries to explain psychological development by categorizing the contextual domains (e.g. social environments) that exist outside the individual: When most of you hear the word "developmental psychology", you most likely think about Spiral Dynamics or the 9 Stages of Ego Development (so-called "structural stage theories"), which are concerned with categorizing the temporal dimension of development, within the individual(s). Bronfenbrenner deals mostly with the interobjective domain (using Ken Wilber's Four Quadrants model), like social systems, but also some of the intersubjective domain (culture etc.). It's therefore a type of sociological ecology (how individuals interact with different parts of society). On the other hand, structural stage models tend to be more focused on the subjective and intersubjective domain (mind, cognition, beliefs, values etc.). This made me think of an idea: what would an "ecology of mind" look like? In other words, instead of modelling the relationships between different structures of society, what about modelling the relationships between different structures of mind? Now, what do I mean by structures of mind? Well, a good measurement of that would be everything that falls under the subjective or intersubjective dimensions in Wilber's 4 quadrants. We only need to find some suitable categories. Here is an example of what that could look like: The model works very similarly to Bronfenbrenner's model, but instead of thinking of the circles as directness of influence on the individual, it's rather about how fundamental they are to the structure of the mind. For example, perception and cognition is more fundamental and give rise to philosophy and religion, just like these things give rise to morality, which gives rise to politics etc. Maybe the premise is futile and there is too much overlap between each domain, but it's nevertheless an interesting concept. If it's done accurately, it can be used as a road map for understanding the mind and predicting behavior (and as a springboard for psychological research). Please share which main categories (the ones in bold letter) you think should be on there!

I mean, yes. That is why we need better categories

If the model was accurate, you could for example look at a persons political ideology and predict their moral system, their philosophical/religious stances and levels of cognition, in that order (again, given that these are accurate categories). You could say that you can get a low resolution indication of these relationships by looking at one stage of Spiral Dynamics, but this is about mapping out the actual structure of them. SD is more preoccupied with mapping the temporal dimension of development. An ecology of mind is more like a psychodynamic model (like Freud's id/ego/superego). If you think the model has problems, how do they differ from Bronfenbrenner's model?

What Mr. Girl said about Brittany are all valid concerns, but I don't know if he is correct. He is nevertheless good at pointing out the pitfalls of Green (spiritual bypassing, fake positivity etc.)

I don't represent Leo.

Nope

If he had said it without also being disrespectful, then maybe that wouldn't have happened

Because it makes everybody feel special

At one point, they take a critical look at what could've been done different 30 years earlier in the 60s (the counterculture/psychedelic movement) while also contemplating where the future lies. Now, another 30 years later, we're still asking the same questions, but like Ram Dass put it: it's about finding out how to execute on it.

I'm being vulnerable

Depends on what your breakfast is (or your general meals). Remember that cereals and milk have a bunch of sugars. Dips, sauces and dressings also contain a lot of sugar. These things can spike your blood sugar, which might cause dips in energy throughout the day that you would've otherwise counteracted by eating more sugar, which could be one explanation for your problem. You want something that doesn't produce too big of a spike, especially in the mornings. Adding a small amount of fruit to a low-carb base is just one option.