Carl-Richard

That's my point

Lol are you not going to elaborate?

Do you trust cyanide?

How bad?

If you listen to some people's experiences, it's hard to believe that it isn't a thing. 20:58 Jan Esmann talks about his moment of self-realization and discovering his past lives.

Stage Green vs Stage Orange scrambled eggs

I read fast though

Thank you! I appreciate the kind words. I've had problems formulating my thoughts on this for a while, so I decided to wait for an authentic moment of inspiration. Ironically, I ended up writing this as I was coming up on what is most likely a COVID infection . I guess my immune system activating was the final missing piece that enabled me to tap into the core of my message .

There is another thread where I expanded on the points in this thread, and your comment reminded me of this:

I know, I know, I haven't read the Spiral Dynamics book , but for the people who have, how exactly did Beck & Cowan address these points? (I know they did, but I can't find anything on it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graves's_emergent_cyclical_levels_of_existence#Criticism This is not a critique of Graves in particular. Most empirical research in Western psychology has a "WEIRD" bias: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird The extent of the problems caused by WEIRD bias depends on what is being studied, but for Spiral Dynamics in particular, which delves into cross-cultural analysis, the bias is more concerning. For example, how well does SD apply to somebody in China? What about cross-cultural persons, especially Third culture kids (TCK), i.e. growing up as a child in two or more different countries? What if cognitive development is a bit more orthogonal to specific value systems than SD likes to portray (especially in the case of Blue and Orange), maybe as a result of WEIRD bias? For example, it seems unfair to label a cross-cultural Muslim scholar pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at a Western university as "underdeveloped" for having more traditionalist values than a comparable American.

Namecalling and disrespectful attitude is against the guidelines. https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/

What is the difference?

Why do you say this?

Then the creations in existence are uncreated as well.

What created existence itself?

Creation created itself.

In what way is the UOL distinct from say the language it produces?

My point is that if you were to investigate what UOL is made out of, it's firstly not just one thing (it's many things), and it's secondly not a thing at all (because it's a concept). Concepts are made up.

What exactly is the UOL? Is it more like a physical thing or merely a conceptual thing? What exactly makes up the UOL?

"Paradigm" has a technical definition per Thomas Kuhn (with different interpretations), but you can generally think of it like a type of super-category that contains a large amount of sub-categories, and that the sub-categories themselves are interconnected in such a way to create a cohesive and self-consistent higher-order pattern. What is meant by Kuhn's concept of "incommensurability" is simply the statement that these higher-order patterns in their fullest form cannot be derived in any other way. In other words, when you view something from the perspective of one paradigm, the types of explanations that you are able to generate will not feasibly translate to or be readily accounted for by other paradigms. Any translation would be superficial at best or lead to a significant loss of information. For example, you can take a Freudian analysis of religion and say that it's driven by an unconscious projection of one's past relationships to one's father, which expressed as a mix of fear and admiration, and then you can take a Humanistic analysis and say that religion is driven by one's desire to elevate one's level of self-expression to higher and higher heights (self-actualization and self-transcendence). These two paradigms seem to be very much at odds with each other, but if you remove a lot of the details and reduce it to something like "the desire for meaning", then you might start to see a connection, but of course that removes a lot of the explanatory power of each paradigm. There does seem to exist some loopholes to this process (partial ones), namely systems theory, where different paradigms that at one time seemed to be incommensurable are partially united under a larger category (I say "partial" as there is much more to these paradigms than their systemic properties).

If people are really making that leap, I guess you're making the point that no one should ever talk about the scientific validity of anything on Twitch, as the chatters are generally just too ignorant to parse out the limit and scope of such statements. Like if I'm talking about some clinical anecdotes of the slipperiness of banana peels and claim that they might hurt you, people will jump to the conclusion that there is empirical evidence that bananas are dangerous to eat

We already do that, just after they're posted.

Nah that's too lax. We should have to send all posts by email to Leo for verification. Fuck it – snail mail, pigeons. Fuck it – only peer reviewed papers from top scientific journals.

Yes.

Omg ?