Carl-Richard

Theld9ck lgogø ek jxii7 gikbnk ognno ndeinnf pmfmkrnf gjgofi. It's perfectly possible to eat a meal while somebody is taking a shit next to you. Yes. Maybe. I made a perfectly fluent point about the context. Would you listen to Kendrick Lamar if he sounded like theld9ck lgogø ek jxii7 gikbnk ognno ndeinnf pmfmkrnf gjgofi? It depends on the context. They are pretty explanatory for why people expect proper grammar in certain situations. I just explained why some people don't like improper grammar. No need to be offended.

Communication and being social in general is a game with rules. If you don't know how to play the game, people will be unhappy with you. It's not as much about grammar as knowing how to be social and follow a set of rules. And if you are unwilling to follow the rules, you are either lazy or a delinquent. And if you are unable to learn the rules, you are either disabled or unintelligent. These are generalizations, but all in all, a lack of rule-following (e.g. proper grammar) is generally not good. But of course, people with bad grammar hang out with other people with bad grammar, and for them, it's within the rules of the game, so it's not seen as a problem for them. Which rules to follow are dictated by the people you hang out with (hence why Leo made that post about what rules he wants us to follow).

😂

Why is it that when I derail a thread with an arguably not even tangential topic, everybody loses their minds, but when people do it with non-dual/awakening/enlightenment mumbo-jumbo, nobody bats an eye? 😃

The new Opeth album is finally out and it's amazing: What Opeth is known for is their insane dynamic range (jumping between soft prog rock and death metal in the same song), but with this new album, it is taken to new extremes, which I will explain: Their last four albums saw the elimination of death metal elements (particularly the death metal growls) and rather a revertion back to hard rock or heavy metal elements, while still keeping the dialectic with the soft elements. So until now, they have essentially had two main "modes" in their dynamic range which they play on. Now, as they have spent the last 13 years building that more classic hard rock heavy metal style, they have created a new mode, which when they reintroduced death metal elements on this album, creates three main modes. There are some songs where you can distinctly feel this, where instead of a sudden contrast between a soft rock section and a death metal section, you get a slow ramping up from soft, to hard, to death metal. And the death metal parts are really death metal (the song Paragraph 4 contains arguably some of the heaviest death metal parts I've heard). Now, there are some songs from older albums that seem to do this, but I think it has become a more mainstage quality of their songs with this new album.

True. Insanity is insanity of the mind, the ego. The ego reacts in fear, with rage. Awakening transcends the distinction-making ego that fears, that rages. The ego is left alone to be sane or insane if it wants. It's true that you have to let go of the fear of insanity, of the possibility of insanity, and giving yourself completely into that when transcending the ego which generally sustains itself on what it perceives to be sanity. But this is not the same as actually becoming insane. This is a dangerous conflation which can lead to a lot of unneccessary pain and suffering. If you are insane, you are insane, not You.

"The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight" - Joseph Campbell. The mystic does not shun sanity. He holds both sanity and insanity. You don't shun language just because you discover a part of yourself beyond language. Being troubled, chaotic and ungrounded is not a sign of wisdom, not a sign of maturity, not a sign of awakening. It's a sign of change and potentially a transition into the former. So no, conflating the relative with the absolute is not excused.

I don't think so. Doing intense work for a short period (20 minutes) and then resting for the next 47 hours and 40 minutes before you work again is most definitely not going to lead to "burnout", unless those 20 minutes are the most terrorizing and traumatic 20 minutes of your life. It will lead to an adaptation response which will increase your ability to handle those 47 hours and 40 minutes spent doing other things, which will actually lead to an overall reduction in burnout, and that is what you're after. Reading this sentence is more difficult than a 7-Back task.

I've started on 7-Back and it's ridiculous. It's essentially challenging the 7±2 rule every 3 seconds (or every 7 trials depending on how you define it).

My favorite stage Red psychopath That wig is certainly stage Red

Not necessarily me either, but that's at least Wilber's model

Mysticism ("union with God"), awakening; I treat them as the same concept, and I think Wilber does as well (not that it matters much). Tier 3 is the transition from Tier 2 without mysticism to Tier 2 with mysticism.

He has the model with Tier 3, which to my understanding is when you are Tier 2 but you are also developing your mysticism. I have less problems with that model for a few reasons. Firstly, his models are not based on structured empirical methods like giving sentence completion tests to people. So there is nothing to really critique about things like sampling, because there really are no such things. He is basing his models on his reading of philosophical texts, history and scientific literature. Secondly, he has the system of "Tiers", which mark a significant disjunction between previous stages. If he wants to denote the transition of Tier 2 (high cognitive complexity) into a focus on mysticism (trans-cognitive, trans-personal) as Tier 3, that's at least more illustrative then having it all under the same umbrella of "ego development". After all, Cook-Greuter calls the stage in question "Ego-Transcendence". It lies in the word (but not only that) that you have in large part abandoned ego development, in favor of "trans-ego" development. Now, of course even after significant ego-transcendence, there is a dialectic between ego and trans-ego development, but nevertheless, there is a significant disjunction between them. Thirdly, it is indeed accurate to say that once you max out Tier 2, then maxing out mysticism is a "step up", which would make Tier 3 more developed. But of course, mysticism by itself is not more developed than Tier 2 (it's a different game). I think Wilber is more explicit about this than Cook-Greuter (but maybe I'm wrong). One issue though is that it makes the model in a sense historically contigent in a discontinuous way, in that any potential development past Tier 2 that is not classifiable as mysticism will not be captured by Tier 3 and would therefore need to be amended like a patch update. It's more intuitive that you would add stages that develop later in history (and that are more cognitively complex) on the very top of the hierarchy, but this would not be the case here. But maybe as the world develops that even lower stages could start to show discontinuity like this given enough time. Imagine a new stage popping up between Orange and Green.

It's a shame I was only parroting Wilber then 😂

The highest levels also include eating food and breathing air. But these also occur at lower stages. Same with awakening.

Well, let me then re-iterate: I'm not the one lumping things together. I'm talking about what I think the model is doing, trying to interpret what it is saying on its own terms (as far as that is possible), and that requires reading what the author said and the methods they used to construct it. And like, if you want to talk about your own understanding of reality, don't call it "Susanne Cook-Greuter's Ego Development Theory", if you see what I'm saying 😆 Maybe I will 🤓 (I've actually seriously considered this, for maybe a few minutes 🙂).

You would have to spell it out to me with concrete text examples from her 90-page document because I'm not convinced. It is, but I'm saying those are attributable to the stages below Unitive/Ego-Transcendent, not the stage in itself. Maybe she should have done more in-depth tests than sentence completions then (jk) That's good, I like swimming in those waters in this situation. And it was just a tongue in cheek way of describing the people who dominate the top of these models. I'm not lumping them together. I'm saying the people making the models are inadvertently lumping them together with the lack of diversity in their samples. See my above comment or just remember my whole thread on this. Notice this beautiful juxtaposition which underscores both my points (that Unitive = mysticism, and that the lack of diversity of samples is the probable cause of it being included as a stage at all): "Nine Levels Of Increasing Embrace In Ego Development: A Full-Spectrum Theory Of Vertical Growth And Meaning Making" (Cook-Greuter, 2013, p. 74). If only the samples had included rigorous selections of both Eastern and Western peoples at various levels of currently conceived "ego development", I believe this notion of Unitive/Ego-Transcendent as an ego development stage would collapse.

I'm simply not convinced that Unitive or Ego-Transcendent in its essence describes anything else than mysticism or awakening; whatever word you want to put on it. Maybe the only significant difference would be that you are also cognitively complex and are able to describe your mysticism in a "complex way" (and are also unlikely to steal, rape, abuse, etc.) rather than what the state of consciousness implies in itself. Which is again, the white collar, intellectual elite spirituality.

Not even some of the shamans? 🤔

But will some of them also be "Unitive" and "Ego-Transcendent"? 🤔 If you study these people from birth and into adulthood, you will likely find a distinctive developmental course, probably with some similarities to Western models, but maybe also some differences. But we won't know that before somebody actually does the study

It's more like looking around at the selection of restaurants in the area and expressing exasperation at what you find. Or even better, you travel from town to town and you find that all the restaurants are essentially the same, like McDonalds: seductive on the graphic, consistent in delivery, actually decently tasty, but leaves you with a weird taste in your mouth and maybe a stomach ache. And as a consequence, you become a bit skeptical of McDonalds. It's not an overstatement: all famous linear, sequential developmental psychological theories have significant Western bias, both empirical and theoretical. What I'm most concerned about is the empirical aspect, and it's possible to work towards reasonably rectifying that. It will never be completely rectified, but no science is perfect. There is no absolute universality, no absolute statistical significance, causal explanation, etc. But there is still a reasonable level you can try to aim at, and it's at least above zero (which is basically the current norm in developmental psychology). A couple of cross-cultural samples that also controls for assumptions like modernity is a step in that direction. Some point out it has individualistic assumptions that doesn't translate well to collectivist cultures (e.g. Africa, Asia) and that it applies more to "American men" than other people. What does Wilber say about that? Again, what I doubt is that current models are other than Western, and I think you can make reasonable steps towards rectifying that. Well, for one, those things are made more explicit. It's in the name ("psychosocial", "ego development", etc.). But EDT is not for example called "Western Ego Development Theory". It's called "Ego Development Theory". So again, when looking at the name and the neat graphics, it has a facade (surface appearance) of universality. And when you suggest that it essentially doesn't matter that it's not actually universal, you subtly fuel that facade. This is a general phenomena that I believe happens when you survey Westerners about their "development" (particularly when not strongly distinguishing it from their "values"): On the almost top of the model, you will generally have Western, highly educated, rich people and their multiplistic, self-aware systems view of reality (the "intellectual elite"). And on top of those, you will have the ones who re-discover "spirituality" within that context (so-called "Unitive"), which is virtually always New Age. And in a sense, it is a logically "next step" in that context: people feel a bit better about themselves (stepping out from the spiritual black hole of modernity); people become more "open", "expansive", "flexible", "nuanced"; they get access to a "new" dimension of life (mysticism, "union with God"); etc. So this logically seems to place them higher. But of course, a step into spirituality can happen at any level of "true" ego development (which history proves and which e.g. Wilber has pointed out). Therefore, if you in your sample also control for cultures where spirituality has been shown to be stepped into at lower stages, then you can expect to conclude in your construction of the model that it's not a next step of "ego development" but rather something else (which Wilber identifies as "Waking up" as contrasted to "Growing up"). All in all, with a more culturally diverse sample, you would expect to shave off (at least) the top of the model and place it somewhere else (e.g. in its own developmental line). @Sandhu is not a Westerner (strictly speaking). We have many non-Westerners on the forum (again, cultural imperialism makes this more difficult, and us Zoomer internet kids are essentially all cross-cultural kids). Cross-cultural development (emphasis on cross) is also a whole other can of worms. It makes it specific in a sense, but it also makes it incoherent in a sense or at least unelegant. Namely, is it an "ego development model" or is it a "cultural development model"? Just look at what I described earlier: the model presents a cultural aesthetic that has been suppressed for cultural reasons at lower stages and which sometimes boils to the surface for other cultural reasons at higher stages, as the actual "progression of the psyche", rather than what it is: a cultural artefact. Also, because it's assumed to be an "ego developmental model" and not a cultural one, these cultural dynamics are not systematically accounted for. They are indeed only mentioned as a caveat about the limitations of the model and then brushed under the rug (something which Hanzi Freinacht has helped to address). And in this way, ironically, the model is quite Orange in its approach. Orange models routinely fail to systematically account for connections between seemingly disparate domains (and suffer accordingly). And you can expect to get such cultural conflation problems with all the stages, not just the higher stages (like with the earlier mentioned individualistic and male bias). Again, absolute universality is practically impossible, but my demand is at least some attempt at diversity, which aims at universality. It's possible to do it better than what is currently the norm (which again, is essentially zero). And it is extremely costly, but that is the story of science. Pushing the science requires pushing the boundaries, be it on a purely practical resource level or theoretically. Maybe AI can help us with that in the future. It could also inform us about what human development is rather than what happens in white collar suites where people happened to drop acid once and started taking more seriously the hippie magazine they just walked past.

I had the same thought, but you know what? I don't think these people are actually being "not careful" with their rhetoric. This is mostly Dave virtue signalling to his audience and strengthening his pathos. He is just as not careful with his clickbaity titles about whatever suits his narrative for the day as anybody else. Also, if we want to make some topics inherently off limits because of social risk, let's take Dave criticism of conservatism and religiosity. I don't imagine him being "careful with his rhetoric" there. If you're not "careful" about criticizing conservatism or religiosity, society will revert back to tribal warfare, crime and despotism. People will take drugs and drink themselves to death with unhinged hedonism, people will lose their meaning, connection, purpose, community, hope. Nope. At some point you have to let the grown ups talk and not let the babies dictate the narrative.

“I identified nine different self-stories, nine different ways of defining what is real and important in the Western world. These ways develop sequentially and represent increasing levels of individuation and integration.” That's exactly my point 😂. It's a Western-centric model. If you're interested, I have looked at her samples, and based on the information provided, you can deduce with virtually full certainty that none of the samples included people from pre-modern societies. She had UK and US samples and one "international sample". She mentioned nothing about the countries of origin in the international sample (for all we know, it could be 100% European). And when you call it "international sample" without specifying the countries of origin, the only reasonable explanation is that you used internet surveys where you didn't screen for the country of origin (probably because you wanted to maintain participant anonymity and simplify the ethical approval process). And of course, internet surveys skew heavily Western in general, either purely statistically based on the amount of Western internet users or culturally through Western imperialism. And of course, there is virtually zero internet in pre-modern tribes, almost certainly zero people surfing on their free time while randomly running into a survey on Western psychology. She could in principle (I re-iterate: in principle) have targeted such people through stratified sampling, but then it would be natural to mention at least something about that. So no, in no reasonable scenario were pre-modern tribal people included in the sample, and that is my request 😀 I doubt that claim. Source? It places a stereotypic, historically contigent, Western cultural phenomenon on top of the model: New Age spirituality. Yes, and I want to know how it develops independently of stereotypic, historically contigent cultural influences. Is my ego somehow less developed if I don't watch YouTube videos of Mooji and Eckhart Tolle? Feel free to read the part about the samples. Maybe I missed something 😗