Carl-Richard

He calls everybody Turquoise.

We're only talking about maps here. If you think you can ever talk about the territory, you're deluded.

Ok. That's just like, uh, your opinion, man. I'm not talking about "human development" (whatever that is). I'm talking about SD. I'm not placing all of human development under SD.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. An explanation is just the act of reducing something to something else, so it may include a comparison, but that's not the kind of explanation I'm looking for

Ok. However, a comparison is not an explanation, unless you can explain the comparison. An explanation reduces something to more fundamental concepts. For SD, the obvious choice there is Western psychology, but not necessarily. EDIT: I'm sorry, I misspoke. An explanation is just the act of reducing something to something else, so it may include a comparison, but that's not the kind of explanation I'm looking for

I don't understand. What do you mean by mystical? What do you mean by personal?

Why can I not read your thoughts, or feel what you're feeling, or see what you're seeing?

@Nilsi Why are you talking about Cook-Greuter anyway? It's a different model.

Some models or ways of talking about reality are mystical. Reality is reality. I swear all my disagreements with people regarding SD always boil down to them having some naive realist conception of reality. I'm an epistemic pragmatist: SD is not reality, mysticism is not reality; it's all conjecture.

I'm using a mainstream definition of cognition from cognitive science and psychology, i.e. the qualitative aspects of the personal mind. Spiral Dynamics are in the same vein as earlier cognitively oriented stage theories like Piaget, Kohlberg etc. However, mysticism and self-transcendence is about transcending cognition; it's transpersonal, it's beyond qualities. It's not about developing cognition. There does exist stage theories that are less cognitively oriented (or fully orthogonal to cognition), both in traditional psychology and mystical traditions, but SD is not that.

I know, but I don't know what it means other than some vague intuition.

It's the contents of the mind becoming more complex.

Cognitive complexity.

You're using neologisms without explaining what they mean.

Idk, but it seems like you're trying to pull the territory out of the map ?

You won't find Spiral Dynamics written inside your brain either, or at least nobody except you would call it that. You might not care about that, but then you're perpetually stuck under a glass ceiling of idiosyncrasy.

Obviously. I wouldn't be trying to intellectually derive what Turquoise is if I was already there. I would just say what it is. In fact, I wouldn't even entertain the model at that point. I don't care what you call it. All I said is that there is someone named Ken Wilber who calls something "Waking up". You're indeed talking about something else, and I actually mentioned that Wilber might call that specific thing maximizing Waking up + Growing up + Cleaning up. However, I also mentioned that SD is not that thing either. I get the sense that you're almost making the models about yourself. I don't care if the person who made the model was somehow low consciousness by whatever biased metric I have. I just try to represent what they were actually trying to convey to the best of my ability. It's not my model, it's not my terminology, so it's on me to try to represent it as accurately as possible, and that is as much as I expect from these types of things, despite how flawed or corny they might be. That's why I wanted to learn about developmental psychology in general.

That's completely fine. It has sort of been a mission of mine lately to ground my understanding of Spiral Dynamics in a more general understanding of developmental psychology, and I understand that this is not necessarily required to reap most of the benefit you can get from the model from a more general self-understanding point of view. He is simply championing the self-taught, intuitive approach that you and most people hold. That is the norm. I, like Leo, used to think that Turquoise was the non-duality stage, until Don Beck copyright striked his Turquoise video for making that exact mistake. You also don't need to go far into academia to get some solid verification of what I'm saying. Just listen to this short 3 min clip of Ken Wilber's Growing up vs. Waking up distinction: I was just pointing out where I think the source of our disagreement was. But yes, I would really much like somebody to just tell it to me straight what Turquoise really is. I'm fine about conceding my idea that Tier 2 can maybe be divided on something other than values, as long as it doesn't contradict what I know about developmental psychology in general (unless I'm wrong about that as well). No! I'm not satisfied with my understanding of Turquoise. I actually think your point about proxy criteria and actual values is probably right, but I don't know how exactly. I don't know in what way Turquoise values differ significantly from Yellow, or what kind of generalized principle we should use to make that distinction. On that note, Wikipedia has a decent summary of the Spiral Dynamics book, and you can take a look and tell me what you think:

I'm not saying the Game B guys aren't special. I'm just saying that Sadhguru shares their values. You don't have to be a nerd who uses a word from game theory every sentence to qualify as Tier 2.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Firstly, cognitive complexity is not about the mind liking complexity as a sort of masturbatory exercise. It's just that complex problems require complex minds to solve them. The problem might be complex, but the solution might be simple (arguably, that is what a solution is on a fundamental level: a reduction in complexity). So cognitive complexity is the ability to solve complex cognitive problems. What is cognition? Firstly, cognitive complexity is what underlies Spiral Dynamics and all the other stage theories within the Western paradigm of academic developmental psychology, and since it's a construct of Western psychology, it deals with the concept of cognition that ascribes it essential qualities, or "content" (e.g. thoughts, feelings, perceptions). So in this sense, cognitive development means an increase in complexity of the contents of the mind (which is what Ken Wilber refers to as "Growing up"). On the other hand, non-dual awakening is about "Waking up", which I would describe as going meta on your own cognition. So unlike cognitive development, it's not about an increase in the complexity of contents, but it's about being able to take a step back and distinguish between contents (thoughts etc.) and the context of the mind (consciousness/awareness). "Cleaning up" is just a synonym for psychotherapy; uncovering trauma and fixing neuroses, i.e. the contents of mind that are generally hidden from view. Now, you mentioned Jed McKenna's model, which I can appreciate, however, you're then expanding the idea of cognitive development and stepping outside the realm of academic developmental psychology. McKenna's "Human Adulthood" seems to take the end result of Growing up, Waking up, and Cleaning up and smash them all into the same construct, which makes sense, because that is also what Wilber would consider the peak of human maturity. However, that is not what SD is doing, so equating Turquoise to Human Adulthood would be a mistake.

The fundamental values are the same: a house divided against itself cannot stand. The main difference is that the Game B guys are mostly academics, which means they're more analytically rigorous.

That's how all communication works. There is no meaning without context

@JoeVolcano The interpretation of Turquoise is obviously a hotly contested issue, so I'll admit that this is speculative without blaming myself too much . I'm firstly in the "growing up ≠ waking up" camp, so equating non-duality to Turquoise is a no-no. Other than that, I used to agree with the Nordic metamodernists that Turquoise is an unnecessary stage, because it's not really a new value system, or it doesn't seem to differ in any significant way from Yellow. However, we know that Tier 2 works differently from Tier 1, and that therefore maybe the progression from Yellow to Turquoise also can work differently, i.e. it doesn't have to be a new set of values. So given this assumption, maybe a good place to start would be this: by which criteria should we divide Tier 2 into an individualist and a collectivist component? Now, since it's no longer about a difference in values, what is left other than a difference in maturity, emphasis and focus? Can we also not make the case these can reflect differences in cognitive complexity (i.e. still following the same backbone of cognitive development)? For example, a Daniel Schmachtenberger could probably write a stellar article that lays out the blueprint of a post-rivalrous civilization, but does that make him on the same level as a Sadhguru who is arguably already laying the groundwork for that? Probably not. So yeah, this is basically a roundabout explanation of why I choose to conflate what you call proxy criteria vs. actual development, because again, there is imo not much else you can do if you want to chop up Tier 2 into multiple segments The Tobacco man? Probably not (btw I deleted everything I wrote by accident, so it took me more than twice as long to write it )

I don't generally consider non-duality to be an aspect of Turquoise.

How so?