tsuki

It does not imply time. It is not movement of fear. Thought is mechanical in nature and it flows by itself. I had a period of being driven by thought, but now I am separate from it. I let it go its own way. For now, it is occupied with growth. It reorganizes itself. It feels as if the world shifts and warps around me. Thought and insight go hand in hand, mechanically. Thought acquired a new dimension, not predicated on fear. It has to run its course to become still once more. I won't be getting in its way. Bear in mind that we may be talking about two different things, friend. I may have not yet reached you, or you may have not yet reached me. There is no way to tell.

As generosity of interpretation I mean - extend your definitions of negative traits in such a way that they feel justified. Not, as justification in a sense of being weak and explaining yourself to authority, but genuinely justified. In what cases anger is justified? In what cases gossip is justified? Gossip is annoying in a sense that it tries to build trust on the expense of another person. Perceptive people understand that a person that engages in gossip will also gossip about the person they talk with. That is a method of building trust by undermining it. Ambiguity about gossip comes from the fact that you never know whether the person actually tells the truth or just makes shit up to sound knowledgeable about others. There is no way to tell lies from truth about other people, even if everybody talks the same stupid shit. Everybody could be repeating lies, for that matter. If this is not a reliable way to spread information then why do you care? Well, you care because of your reputation. You are trying to look good so that your work is appreciated by the higher-ups. After all, your career may crash if somebody said something stupid about you to your boss. But is this really the case? He is your boss, after all. He's been through this himself and is probably a veteran of gossip, so why would you think that he can't see what you see about gossip? Is it perhaps that you think that your boss is stupid yourself? Well then - perhaps people that talk shit about your boss behind his back think the same way you do? Perhaps they really think and mean what they say? Not in a malicious way, but are genuinely saying what bothers them about other people? That they are looking for connection with others because of fear of other people? That they are trying to gain your trust to open up, but you're actually being close-minded and judgmental? That all people are really pissed off by other people's gossip and cannot see that they engage in it? Because what are you doing right now? Talking shit about your workplace out of genuine concern for your well-being. Looking for connection with others! Gossip is not a strategy. You make other people gossip by judging them for what they say. This judgement then prevents you from genuinely listening to other people. Because what they say about others is an expression of their existence. Their understanding of others, however annoying it is, is them. You are the one that makes people into liars by judging their words. There is no way to tell truth from lies in a practical situation. All language is deeply ambiguous. TL;DR: the effect of making a model ambiguous is to produce disinterest. So that it does not trigger you. There is only one principle: benevolence that is not assumed, but seen. If you're asking about my teachers, I had none. I used to listen to Allan Watts a lot, but not anymore. These are observations from my everyday experience.

@MarkusSweden Perception of your surroundings is dependent on the degree in which you embody enlightenment/growth. Your model of growth that you habitually use to judge others is too constrained. You need to make it more ambiguous to be more generous with your interpretations of others' behavior.

@7thLetter Think of the mind as a pattern-matching device. As you experience things in your life, you spot things that recur in relation to your current knowledge. The problem with the mind is that it matches incomplete patterns. It does not yet see the limitations of patterns it tries to capture, and applies them to observable phenomena. An incomplete pattern that is being followed is mistaken for something that ought to happen. A likely prediction. When it comes to childhood trauma, the mind captures patterns of human behavior that it tries to understand. If you do not work through your childhood trauma and go about your life, you will match incomplete, imperfect patterns that result in a very miserable life. Just imagine if everything you did was in relation to fear of being hurt (physically or emotionally). You need to explore various routes through emotional kaleidoscope to get rid of patterns that always end up in someone being hurt. You need to make your patterns ambiguous enough to be free to choose different approaches. You will never get rid of all patterns unless you become enlightened, but as you experience more and more circumstances, the mind will give you openings in which you will be able to see things clearly. This is why you need to keep being open-minded about things and stop judging others for what they do. Judgement is the result of pattern-matching and it occurs in various dimensions of reality (emotional, kinesthetic, conceptual, etc).

@The Don Orange has its limitations because it sees no alternative approaches to solving problems that it perceives. We came out of the stone age not by disowning stones, but by seeing them as something that is basically the same as other things. We still use stones when we see them as appropriate. For building roads, for example. Just imagine a society in which science is as common and uninteresting as stones in modern times. A society in which science is so incorporated into the fabric of existence that you don't even think scientifically anymore. Science as raw material in which you build tools to solve problems. This is what we can achieve when we transcend orange.

@Bobby I thought about it as well. From the point of view of tier two spiral, Yellow is like Beige with respect to the dimension that is being opened. Yellow is just an animal that merely survives without even realizing that it exists. Imagining that just boggles my mind. It is a shame that Leo won't be releasing videos on Beige and Purple, as they may be informative for people in tier two stages.

@White Not going to argue with you. Your sources had been very helpful to me and I wish you best luck in your growth. Keep rockin, man!

Either you don't believe that we're tier two, or you don't believe that my proposition had worked for me. In both cases you're not using the advice because of your current understanding of us. In short: you don't listen because you don't want to.

@White Yeah, I'm sure all people will defend their definitions fiercely. Definitions are not the point of theory though. Integration is. If you do not see that, then perhaps Joseph is right about your color. Existentialist philosophy helps to transcend Green. You could take a look into that to evolve.

Or did you finally started to listen what I'm saying? Smartness and listening are two sides of the same coin. Oh, and thanks. I appreciate it.

@White What @Joseph Maynor says is to explain it with your own words, without referencing the text. See the commonalities between the theory and your understanding. Produce your own spiral dynamics. This is how you learn what existence is. It is beyond the mind. Trust your connection to it. Use it.

Knowledge is constituted in obviousness. Whatever is the content of your revelation that you understood at some point, the result of this understanding is obviousness. How could you ever thought otherwise, right? It is obvious that I'm writing a post. It is obvious that I understand what obvious means, right? It is obvious that his thing that taps the keyboard is my hand. How could it possibly not be my hand? Things are because they are self-evident, and still - you are the one that understands them. This is why you are not out there behind your eyes, but in here as you look at this post. You obviously exist. You know everything, because you are everything.

Humans are not animals. You connote animal with cruelty. Humans are not cruel. Humans are neither cruel, nor compassionate. Humans aren't even neutral. Cruelty is a judgement. Judgement is an expression of morality. You say that humans are cruel because they violate your morality. In order to uphold law, police has to be brutal sometimes. Law is a morality that lets itself be broken. Morality is not a control scheme that prevents things. It's a mask. It covers things up so that you do not notice them. To say that all humans are animals is to judge your morality. It is morality using its expression (judgement) against itself. You may be getting out of blue, friend. ----- EDIT: That's a lot of projections on my part. Sorry.

We suffer because we resist. Do not try to not resist though. Trying to not resist is to resist resisting itself. It won't get you anywhere. You can't help resisting, so you can't help suffering. Because you can't help it. To stop trying to succeed is to resist the urge to succeed. This is why you're suffering and ask these questions. Because you resist resisting. Resisting resistance is to suffer because of mere possibility of suffering. Everything is possible and these questions will get you nowhere. Just suffer. Weep and scream if you must. Haven't you said that you will die? Find solace in your death. Or better still, find solace in death of the idea of resisting resistance. In few weeks, or years, you will forget it. All memories fade. We usually think that it's sad this way. It is a blessing at certain points in our lives. We can forget our stupidity. Just weep. It's okay. Let go.

@Joseph Maynor In other words, Turquoise sees the network within himself and harmonizing the network is harmonizing the self. There is no clash between the society and the self, unlike for example in green. The green's standard of harmonization requires an equilibrium between the society and an individual. For turquoise, it is not a matter of equilibrium of opposing forces, but a synergy. It is a positive feedback loop.

True. That is the difference between tier one and two. In case of Turquoise however, intuition and ideology mix forming something else. Calling this something by a different name is not particularly useful, so I still call it an ideology. Can you see how all even stages are similar with respect to ideology? Tier two ideology is a completely different from tier one. It is a necessarily benevolent ideology. Benevolence is not because of the ideology, but it is it's cause and effect at the same time. Can you see what I mean?

Aren't all even stages like that? Blue, Green, Turquoise? Ideology has a different meaning for all people, mind you. Turquoise ideology is not something for the sake of something else, like in case of Green for example.

At this point, I'm starting to think that Blue is the nonduality of Red. Orange is the nonduality of Blue. Green is the nonduality of Yellow, etc.

There is no way to tell which color any person is. By saying which color these quotes are, I express my understanding of spiral dynamics. Talking about others is an expression of your self. It is impossible to meaningfully say anything about anyone apart from yourself. Describing others is describing yourself. Can you see that? It is a non-ideological benevolence. Benevolence, not for the sake of anything else and not an existential assumption. Having said that, I'm going to judge those quotes. They are very reminiscent of the turquoise quotes on the spiral dynamics website. However, they express a longing, or nostalgia for the days in which Dylan thought that the world is simpler. When he believed in things (lies). I know that Dylan inspires you Markus. Aren't you absorbing his nostalgia with those quotes? Or perhaps, you're being drawn to him because of it?

@stevegan928 The person you're trying to type as yellow is not the same person @Joseph Maynor speaks about. Both of you have a perspective of JRE and you are expressing this perspective's color. This assessment is informed by your understanding of spiral dynamics, so you are actually both talking about yourselves. Turquoise is a network of perspectives not by acquisition, but by recognition. Can you see that, @Joseph Maynor ?

I came up with the following distinction and would like to hear a second opinion. Green sees that everybody has their own point of view and sees them as a part of society that should ideally work towards a common goal. It sees that everybody is essentially equal by the virtue of emotional response to transgression of personal values. It tries to harmonize and align their value systems so that they can account for everybody else in cooperation. The means through which it harmonizes people is by subjecting them to common good, the society. It is different from blue in the sense that rules of said society are not established by authority. The rules are established as the path of least resistance through various value systems and optimize mean happiness of an individual. They are not good or bad in the absolutist (blue) sense, but are at best good enough. They are established by consensus. Yellow on the other hand sees that not only everyone is equal in the green sense, but also every single one of them is always, strictly speaking, right. It sees that there is no common ground when it comes to comparing perspectives. Every single human has his own, disjoint world. A perspective is a self-contained universe that responds to stimuli in a way that makes sense for this particular perspective. When one person speaks, the other hears his own interpretation. The interpretation that is predicated on his perspective. When Green tries to subject Red to common good, Red sees common good as something else than Green. They may even agree on what to do (verbally), but go about it in opposite ways with benevolent intent. It makes no sense to judge Red from Green's perspective. All perspectives are disjoint. The key difference is that Green fails to see this crucial distinction that there is no common ground to compare perspectives. You cannot put people on a single playground and expect them to follow common rules, as they understand them differently. You have to treat each person as playing its own game, and construct society as a mechanism composed of different (living and feeling) parts. That's a whole different level of complexity that requires systemic thinking.

Not only do you think that you have control, but you also think that you have control over control itself so that you can give it up. You're silly. Control and letting go are a manifestation of something. Think of them like two directions of an axis. Positive and negative numbers that are connected by the virtue of sitting on the same number line. In order to explore that axis you need to experience both. You can also go about it in a different way. Pursue maximum, 100% control and see yourself go back full circle into having no control at all. Do that enough times and you will awaken to the axis. Good luck.

It may sound banal and cliche, but hear me out: there is no you to be lost. The empty bliss you experience is the natural state that is being clouded by thoughts. It is not that thoughts are covering it up. You have became aware enough so that you can experience both. This is a preliminary step to experience emptiness and thought at the same time. The thing that prevents you is that you think that you think your thoughts. You don't. Thoughts arise by themselves. They calm down by themselves. The fact that you sit and meditate has nothing to do with it. There is no you to be lost.

@White That is an absolutely outstanding piece of text. Thank you for sharing it. I will definitely go through the book. I can tell that what I called as Yellow in the OP is a stage that supersedes the Autonomous person. It is also backed up by @Joseph Maynor 's post. Very interesting. I'm kind of skeptical about all of this, as I'm trying to map theories onto my own experience. I identified as Yellow and tried to express my perspective, but it seems that I have transcended that as well. Skepticism comes from the fact that I'm only 29 without any formal study of self-actualization. It seems absurd to me. It's sounds like Ego talk, but for some reason I don't feel disgusted by it.