Carl-Richard

Why does this read like being patronizing for no good reason? What is being communicated here?

Which spiritual teachers say this?

I consider taking a definition as a kind of knowing. Whether you go beyond that or not is what depth entails, and it would be a deeper form of knowing. If you want to speak hyperbolically and say "language is so deep, I must say I feel like I know nothing about language", that's on you. Taking on a definition is so simple, we do it all the time. And you don't necessarily have to dig around that definition to get deeper knowledge. You can use it as a starting point. Communication, transfer of information, can be relatively unstructured so that you would be less likely to call it a language. Simply shouting loudly is an example. It can mean one million things. And what it means depends for example on context. Context is a central concept in communication theory (which is different from the study of language).

When I said learning about Jesus, I meant learning about Stage Blue Jesus. The bear your cross Jesus, the love thy neighbor Jesus, the Golden Rule Jesus.

A "good" model for Tier 2 will realistically not be based on the same empirical evidence as Tier 1 (Graves' survey methodology), because as those stages are exceedingly rare, you would need to survey an astronomical amount of people to get any resemblance of statistical significance between different stages (and you would need to survey other people than mainly young college students). Graves himself treated the equivalent of Turquoise as speculative. Maybe if somebody did a huge scale online survey (>100k people and of roughly all ages), you could start picking things apart. But of course, this still assumes mainly Western/modernised cultures. Until then, you would have to rely on dubious theoretical speculations from Tier 2 people.

If you were born into a SD indoctrination, it's likely you could've reacted the same to it. Indoctrination doesn't work if it doesn't resonate with your wants (or SD stage), unless you play the repression/acting game (pretending that you're something you're not, which many people do with all kinds of things). If you're a stage Red kid, of course Christianity doesn't really work on you, so you can become averse to it. But if you revisit it later with an open mind, putting aside your previous aversion, it would be more likely to resonate. Christianity resonates more with me now than it ever did as a kid (now, that doesn't mean I am a "Christian").

Thought you said "Norway or Sweden" and I was about to shout "NORWAY!" and loudly represent my side of the eternal national feud.

Akashic records baby.

Hyperbole is healthy when conformism is abundant. I mean using the word in a relevant and useful way, like in a sentence discussing some topic or while doing something useful, not finding a relevant and useful example of the word.

Here's a controversial one: rocks. i.e. minerals, such as NaCl, KCl, MgO, and solid H2O (ice) believe it or not.

You know what the problem I have with "conformity" as a concept? Any example of conformity you bring up, can also not be conformity. Now that's a challenge for you. And of course it's hyper-general and therefore hyper-uninteresting unless used in a relevant and specific way. Like a thread like this is about as interesting as "Food Examples Mega-Thread". It can really only be interesting if you have a fetish for foods.

@Butters Or it's just a time to get together and do things a certain way which creates connection. Like eating dinner with friends. "Who cares about eating dinner; why not just drink your Soylent while sitting in front of the computer?"

You could've also learned about Jesus and had a similar conversion. Any framework that puts degenerate behavior lower than an alternative could suffice.

As long as you acknowledge that the evidence is exclusively based on Western cultures (and 9SEDT, Piaget, etc., are not exempt from this), then you're alright.

Oh wow, it's almost like we're in a human body right now and we can't talk about the human body without being in a human body, so it shapes how we talk about it. Or like how we're in a community right now so it shapes how we talk about the community. Or we're conforming so it shapes how we talk about conformism. Self-reference is not deep.

This statement you made is ironically the most conformist statement I've ever seen.

Staph. Conformity does not equal bad.

Yuuuuge. But for real doe, getting an understanding for what language is is not that deep. But you can develop a deep understanding of language on top of that. As with anything.

Breh language is not that deep. It's symbols in a coherent framework. Vocabulary is the "what" of the symbols (the words, the gestures), and the grammar is the "how" (how do the symbols relate to each other). Symbols point to things. So using language means using a coherent framework for pointing to things. Coherent means the words/gestures (symbols) point to things in a consistent way, and that the rules of grammar are consistent. If somebody uses any of these inconsistently, you have a problem of communication.

Ok slow down

A couple of years ago, I found out Spiral Dynamics has a problem: sampling bias. Specifically, Clare Graves' essay samples consisted of only North Americans (primarily white, affluent college kids), and Don Beck's "samples" (I can't find anything on the methods he used) consisted of only North Americans and South Africans. Generally, the sample is biased towards Western cultures (and more importantly, it completely lacks Eastern cultures). When I first learned about this, I thought maybe it's not a big problem, because dozens of other models (although with similar sampling bias) have come to similar conclusions (Piaget, Holberg, Loevinger, etc.). However, these models generally do not include the equivalent of Turquoise. And this is exactly what turns out to be the problem: Turquoise itself seems to be the result of sampling bias. When Western people reach Green-Yellow, they get statistically more familiar with New Age ideas, particularly Eastern-inspired non-dual mysticism. This is because the West significantly repressed its mysticism for the last millennia, so you generally need to import it from other cultures to discover it (which obviously happens more often at Green-Yellow). You would expect these people to describe it as their highest value, which according to Graves' methodology would be their highest stage, in this case Turquoise. However, non-dual mysticism has of course existed all throughout history and at all stages of development. This is self-evident as you're importing these ideas from ancient religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Now, if the creators of SD had used samples from the cultures you're importing the ideas from, mainly Eastern cultures, then they could've easily ruled out mysticism as being its own stage, because again, it's essentially present at all stages in these cultures and not just at later stages. Had they done that, Turquoise would clearly be seen as an artefact of sampling bias. You can make the same case from a theoretical perspective, without relying on empirical data. For example, Hanzi Freinacht in The Listening Society, has pointed out that Turquoise fails to provide any critique towards Yellow (which I agree with). More specifically, it doesn't provide a higher level that "transcends and includes" the previous stage. It doesn't address any of the problems of the previous stage. It only sidesteps them, as I've pointed out, through mysticism. And maybe not coincidentally, Hanzi refers to Turquoise as New-Agey "holistic" or "integral" people. So to summarize, "Turquoise" is essentially what you get when you build SD based on data from Western educated youth and not much else. Its purported contributions to Yellow is not substantially different from New Age mysticism, and it does not critique or solve any of the problems of the previous stage.

This topic essentially claims Stage Turquoise is a product of a culturally-dependent sampling bias (i.e. had the sample included other cultures, the stage would not exist): This post in particular says there is also a problem with the sample size (it cannot be expected to capture Turquoise to the claimed extent): And this post says Susanne Cook-Greuter's 9SEDT does not fix these flaws: And here is an earlier topic going more into the problems with sampling bias as well as the cultural theoretical assumptions: And here is a long debate on 9SEDT that puts the above observations to the test and elaborates on some of them:

(God damnit I clicked "Bump topic" on accident. Nevermind me).

There's like a spectrum of fakeness all the way from the most mundane shit to the most synchronous things your mind can produce, but that's also essentially fake or an act you're putting on as an ego, as a self speaking and talking about stuff. Learn to accept the act in all its forms.

The last three or so New Years eve was alone but today I was with basically all my friends from high school. And I was the least sober one even while completely sober (kind of a joke but you know 😉). It's funny how much you pick up state from others in a let's say not so sober mood 😆