Nilsi

I have these phases as well. Just enjoy it while it lasts, you'll get bored with it sooner or later and will want to actually go and do something with your life; that's how it goes for me anyways.

If I were you I would throw my phone and PC away, enroll in the military for a few years and just think about what I want to do with my life. You are completely disconnected from any kind of common sense and this will fuck you up for the rest of your life if you're not going to do something about it sooner rather than later.

Dude, what are you doing on this forum anyway? This is the equivalent of a homeless person waiting in line for the new iPhone; you cant afford it, get over it and focus on what you can do, then you can come back and buy your fucking iPhone.

You're being pretty colonialist about your views for supposedly being so highly developed. All you're saying is "get on my level," which is cool, but you're not even really specifying where you are coming from. You just appeal to mysticism or awakening, as if that had anything to do with what we're talking about here.

Fair enough.

You get increasingly comfortable with "insanity," but you can always freak yourself out if you overdo it. I honestly don't see the appeal in these super extreme peak experiences. That's just way too much to make sense of and integrate, but to each their own.

I find it hard to explain things down to fundamental concepts honestly. Where do we draw the boundary? I'm not going to bother to explain anything in terms of neuroscience or whatever, and I don't know developmental psychology well enough to work this out from some kind of fundamental principles. I think very intuitively, so for me comparing these two models connects a lot of dots in my mind and that's how I usually reach insight, rarely do I study a field so thoroughly to be able to explain it down to the micro level (I tried to do that with molecular biology once, but it's just way too painful for me). So, I don't know. I'm just floating some ideas and see what works and what doesn't, that's how I usually come to conclusions about things. I'm not a scientist and I don't have a very high IQ, so I'm mostly trying to let my creativity and curiosity carry me as far as that's possible

I know that when I have a lot of energy that wants to come out, I basically have to do something creative (in the broadest sense possible) to alleviate it; write something, have sex, go for a run, throw a party etc. etc. The good thing is that this energy should allow you to be more productive and creative then you would normally be so just find a healthy outlet for it. You can of course also use it to fuel your spirituality.

I will read it. But, again, I would rather know what this stage, if it exists as such, looks like when embodied by an actual person. Im still not entirely sure, that spiritualty and stage development arent getting conflated here. This is just so hard to find common ground on. We would kind of have to define all those concepts first and then what were actually trying to figure out. Im not even sure what Im trying to get at here.

Its a different model but its kinda trying to explain the same thing, so I think its quite useful to compare the two and see how they can inform each other. They both have noise in them that should cancel itself out to some degree if you put them together. This is like saying "Why are you talking about the Quran, when we are trying to make sense of the Bible." Why do you think you can understand this model in a vacuum? All your sensemaking is informed by millions of sources anyway, so why not make it explicit? Im not sure if you are trying to undestand what Beck meant with Turquoise (in which case the comparison would not help) or if you are trying to understand what Turquoise actually is. I would rather have this be a 500 post thread, then keep it "clean" and have it not go anywhere.

I found these graphs quite useful in trying to wrap my head around this whole thing.

This is about the Cook-Greuter analogy; I think the relevant stages to understand there are the "Autonomous" and the "Construct Aware" stages. I think the 1st person, 2nd person... nth person framework is quite useful (although Im not sure I fully comprehend it) and I will try to lay it out here briefly. 1st person: Bascially unable to take other perspectives but ones own 2nd person: Now able to see that others also see me 3rd person: Now able to see self and other as separate persons and thus able to compare self and other 4th person: Now able to see the 3rd person self as embedded in history 5th person: Now able to see the 4th person self as but one way of making sense of live (this is where language and science is really questioned) nth person: the nth level of abstraction that one takes on making sense of life So the Strategist (Autonomous; 4th person; what I would consider to be the equivalent of Yellow) is the last stage where one understands oneself as a separate self. The strategist is able to look at his own historical context and thus his own developmental arc, so he understands that different people are at different stages of development and therefore is able to treat others appropriate to their levels of awareness. The Strategist believes that each person is responsible for themselves and their own growth (this tracks quite well with your hypothesis of Yellow caring primarily about itself). This stage to me seems to capture the whole Stoa/Rebel Wisdom kind of paradigm quite well. The Magician (Construct Aware; 5th-nth person; which I want to make the case for, is potentially what were looking for to be Turquoise) is able to see that his way of understanding and meaning-making is only one out of an infinite possible ways. For the Magician, the separate self is an abstraction - an idea rather than a literal reality. Language is understood as a way to freeze existence, to understand existence by containing it in bite sized chunks of knowledge - in an attempt to both make sense of the impermanence of the human self and to understand the reality of human existence; this is seen as beneficial in daily functioning, but as ultimately illusory. The experience of the self now includes both knowledge of ones connection to everything else, as well as the actual experience of those connections as the self. This tracks quite well with Turquoise which is described as "Self as part of larger, conscious, spiritual whle that also serves self." This is NOT non-duality yet, as it kicks this can down the road to the literal nth degree. I think it is inevitable to set nonduality as some kind of ultimate telos for cognitive development and then just keep adding new, more complex stages in between, as they emerge and are comprehensible. Its always hard for me to self-reflect how much of that view is just the nature of how development unfolds and how much is informed by my own spiritual pursuit (which should not be a given in a developmental model).

They are not really mine. I got the thing with nth person perspective from Cook Greuters models. But yeah, this wasn't really high quality, I just wanted to get my thoughts out and thought maybe someone can pick up on something in there. I will sort my thoughts on this and lay it out more clearly. I dont have any profound insight into this myself, but maybe something can emerge from it.

I'm not familiar with McKennas work. It's been mentioned here so much, I'll check it out for sure (I guess his "Theory Of Everything" will do?). From the quote's I've read, it seems like he is just talking about awakening, not some developmental stage, am I wrong in that? Every stage I'm aware of would be quite easy to explain, so it's kind of sketchy that the one that nobody seems to really agree on, is also the one that apparently can't be explained. But yeah, good for you, if you're that developed.

So your claim is that you are at that stage? Why can't you then give a phenomenological account of what it is like?

I don't want to split hairs, but if your Tier 2 "awakening" (I don't even know how this is originally called) is not a paradigm shift, then I don't know what is. My original point was that I don't even buy the idea of turquoise at all so I'm with you on that.

Yellow is definitely a profound paradigm shift. You see all these aspects of yourself for the first time and realise that they are all valid and need to be satisfied somehow. It's a theory of cognitive/ego development after all, so saying, the mind cannot access turquoise, means that whatever you hold as turquoise is not it either.

I think this insanity is just the result of you trying to comprehend infinity. At a certain point you just have to accept that there is no way to explain this, and just allow the Love, so to speak. You could sit here all day and ruminate on these things and you would start to go crazy, but I dont think this will get you anywhere. The insight for me was, that when I turn my mind on itself for long enough, this will inevitably happen, so I just dont do it. You could also just lose your mind so often that its not a big deal anymore, but that seems sketchy to me and I dont see the value in it; once you get it, move on; thats how I feel about this at least. If you want to reach God, you will have to lose your mind. Im just not bought into the idea of doing it over and over again. I know, and thats really all that matters.

Make sure you are strong, healthy and grounded in your body, this will help alot. This is a bit fringe, but I smoke cigarettes and they are pretty effective at mediating this kind of energy (thats not why I do it, its just something I noticed), so I think anything resembling a sedative on the one hand or stimulant on the other hand can be used to manage your energy levels (which also includes psychotechnologies; e.g. without getting into the technicalities here, there is a lot of literature on different breathing patterns to mediate your "energy levels"), if you really want immediate relief.

Fair enough.

The only thing I could see turquoise being, is something like construct awareness, where you can now take a 5th-nth person perspective on the ego that's integrating all these prior stages instead of being the ego that's integrating. So you could create ever more complex thought structures and nth order integrations. I don't know if that's not just yellow on steroids though, but it would limit egocentrism (or at least make it more inclusive, considering that you're integrating all those prior integrators) thus maybe create this "global village" flavor or whatever. I could definitely see a world in which people that constantly take a n+1th person perspective on their own perspective could create amazing complexity and harmony; but this is also how I imagine an AI to think; and this kind of thinking is basically the trickster archetype, which would take us to mystics again. Aesthetically that would definitely track with Leo's and Beck's conception of turquoise and it feels intuitively right, but we're not there yet anyways, so it's really just speculation. The turquoise MEMEplex would then look something like (complexity, self-transcendence, mysticism, artificial intelligence, hive mind, trickster, transpersonal...). I'm not sure this feels right now that I look at it, but maybe there is something here that helps. What's also interesting is, that it seems like turquoise should be way more complex than yellow (which felt kind of counter intuitive at first, considering the usual stereotypes); yellow creates a simple integral framework, which turquoise blows up into this complex ever-expanding thing. This feels more like Schmachtenberger etc. again. This is probably 99% gibberish but maybe someone can build upon something here.

Its different in the sense that one trys to understand the problem as exhaustively as possible and the other tries to act on whatever limited understanding is available currently. I dont think transcendent wisdom and knowledge can solve multipolar traps and coordination breakdown; it might in theory, but how are you going to distribute it to everyone, which would be neccessary in a world, where one bad actor fucking shit up with some homegrown supervirus or whatever, is enough to end this whole endeavor prematurely? I welcome both and I think they are both doing tremendous good. Of course you can find some meta issue that they are both addressing, but I dont think thats helpful for actually understanding what these movements represent. Game B trys to find a definitive solution or way forward in a world where one mistake could mean the end, which may or may not be possible; Sadhguru comes from a place of faith in the Good, which may or may not be wise (from the POV of humanity wanting to continue; which is a whole can of worms in itself). I would rather have faith in the process of finding a solution, than have my solution be a process of faith.

Just to make this clear. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being awake as the dream character instead of as God; I'm not sure if there's a difference honestly, but to me it seems like you are awake as the whole thing, while I'm mostly living from a place of being the walking, talking character and only experience this infinitude as a peak experience.

You're just kicking the can down the road. Either you are imagining, in which case you are imagining everything, or you don't, in which case life is just a complete irreducible mystery. Both are true simultaneously and that's really all there is to it.