Carl-Richard

No.

Once you see that meaning is something you construct, there is nothing that stops you from constructing the best meaning you can.

It's a symptomatic solution, like giving anxiolytics to a patient having a panic attack. The symptom is a certain emotional state (sexual urges, panic attack), and the solution is the alleviation of that state (porn, medication). It's not an ideal solution (there are potential side effects and it doesn't fix the root causes), but it's still a valid preventative measure.

Do physically healthy things and don't be afraid of your emotions.

You need passion, and that's pretty much it.

If you feel tired when meditating, it simply means you didn't sleep enough or that you're meditating on a full stomach. Get enough sleep and meditate 2-3hrs after a meal. You should also not meditate for longer periods at night as it will make you less tired.

1960s is not comparable to early 1800s though. Back in those days, things like Women's rights, environmentalism and anti-capitalism basically didn't exist. Again, romanticism misses that crucial social, meta-systematic and collectivist component which distinguishes Green from Orange, which is why I did the analysis on the level of facets.

Sure. It's natural for the higher stages to include aspects of the lower stages, but Green additionally has some more refined aspects like sensitivity, compassion, social awareness, which all ties into collectivism. What are hippies protesting against and on what grounds? Is protesting really care-free?

It's a bit simplistic to assume that just because a movement is reacting to one facet of Orange (cognitive facet) that it must necessarily belong to a different stage. Stages have different facets, and every stage has an emotional facet, and you can put different emphasis on different facets. Without emotions, you'll have no motives or drives, and that's also true for a heavily cognitive Orange. Søren Kierkegaard referred to the romanticist movement when describing the aestheticist stage of his existentialist model, which is an individualistic, hedonistic, disinhibited and care-free stage. These are Red or Orange motives/drives. The reason it's not Red is because the movement happened in a world with a strong Blue-Orange cultural baseline, and the reason it's not Green is because it misses the overt collectivist component (and dare I say ethical and emotional component – social justice and sensitivity). But what about the focus on nature? Is that not Green? Not really. It's only the cognitive component of Orange that demystifies nature, and you can react to that component from any stage, including from within Orange. Green also emphasizes nature from more than just an aesthetic/emotional perspective. Don't forget that Green also has a cognitive component which is pro-nature (meta-systematic, quasi-holism, worldcentric collectivism; sees larger interconnectedness). To summarize, I'm arguing that the romanticist movement is best explained as a movement that emphasized the emotional facet of Orange and neglected the cognitive facet. Early 18th century was also not a sufficiently developed time for widespread Green to appear. That takes centuries of Orange.

Karma is like Newton's second law of motion: every action has an opposite and equal reaction. It has nothing to do with punishment and it's not just that actions have consequences. You can look at it from a cognitive perspective: if you consistently act in disharmonious ways, you'll build internal structures (schemas and heuristics; automatic ways which you interpret the world) that will further facilitate such behavior in the future, and those actions will have consequences. If you act like an asshole in some aspect in your life, that will sooner or later affect you in some other aspect of your life. Shedding karma is about acting harmoniously with the evershifting nature of reality. It's in a way the opposite of egoic survival.

SD is an intellectual pursuit. I have nothing against intuition, but you generally approach these things with deliberate thought, especially when somebody is asking for clarification.

But why? ?

@k0ver What you're critiquing has more to do with models in general than SD itself. Models are supposed to categorize, idealize and not least simplify. There are possibilities of othering/demonization with any categorization of psychological qualities, not just developmental levels (examples like diagnoses of mental illnesses, personality disorders etc.), but also any framework in general (ideological, political, ethical, religious etc.) . These flaws are baked in the human psyche more than anything, but that shouldn't stop us from using these powerful tools. It's not the gun that shoots - it's the person. If you end up misusing SD, that's on you. If SD predicts anything, it's that these problems will be solved by people working on themselves.

Good example of relativity.

Literally sounds like my mom

Atleast explain why lol

When looking at particular events in history, it's never that simple. It's generally only possible to see a linear SD progression when you summarize all of history, but there are no clear-cut points and it's all a muddy gradient. Also, no single movement is homogeneous in its expression of SD. In some ways it took the individualism of Orange and enhanced it in the self-expression domain (aesthetics), but it did so in the reaction to Orange reductionism and demystification of nature. You also have to realize that there were strong nationalistic variants to that movement (originating in Germany which eventually borned Nazism and the WW1&2). The World wars worked essentially as a purge of these anti-Orange ideals. Green didn't truly become a prominent feature of any widespread movement before the 60s imo.

I check all of those boxes.

Let's just not. It's already obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

@Preety_India There is a reason why some gurus have secret teachings. Then again, technically any non-dual teaching can be misunderstood in this direction. It then boils down to how explicit you want to be about it. Then the question becomes if Leo were to establish essentially a monk order where only the advanced seekers get access to the juicy parts, then that certainly wouldn't help the cult accusations (not that they're valid in any way). The problem in this case though is that SoonHei gave the impression of being a rather advanced seeker in many ways, which strengthens the case that you can't account for everything. These things do happen and it's sad, yet that is life.

Idk but my canine nose tells me there is some tier 3 transphobia incoming.

Things like this shows how important the relative/absolute distinction is.

Relative/absolute conflation.

If that's your way of phrasing it, I guess both.