Carl-Richard

You schedule your watchtime?

Communication. If you want experience, go grab it

Black and white concepts like "grass" and "color" fall far short of truthfully representing experience. Experience is an infinite gradient.

MHC I first intuited the existence of by looking at the cognitive line of the AQAL map, but I just recently found it. I've only read the wikipedia. I haven't read Piaget's works directly. The things I've read is undergrad level curriculum for developmental psychology that deals with children ages 0-18. Piaget's model is mainly meant for childhood development in a Western context. It's the Neo-Piagetian models that often expand to include adult development. Wilber has too many books ? You should maybe ask someone who is not a zoomer. Zoomers read school curriculum and that's it ?

It's a skill in the sense that practice matters. The key to learning a language is to actually speak it regularly, every single day. The way they teach 2nd/3rd languages in school is essentially a waste of time. My Spanish is terrible despite having had 5 years of "education".

Are there not seasonal regularities? You have phenomenas like seasonal depression, suicide rates rising in the spring, different activities based on the season etc. Things like light intensity, air temperature and daytime length are huge determining factors for behavior with complex effects down the line. @Staples' point is related to that.

00:00-1:07 This is what the transition from systematic to metasystematic looks like – going from seeing one system to many systems: The step from systematic to metasystematic is in this case the departure from perceiving everything through one model (Newtonian mechanics) to getting familiar with many models (langangian mechanics, QM etc.), and then going from saying "this is the truth" (systematic), to "this system is right, all the others are wrong" (low metasystematic) to "they're all just different interpretative frameworks" (high metasystematic). High metasystematic is the advent of so-called relativistic thought ("so-called" because it's just what our modernistic or formal-systematic stage 10-11 culture calls it). It's relatively relative (more relative by contrast). In reality, there are different degrees of relativity all throughout the hierarchy which gets increasingly complex as you scale the stages. Now, the statement "they are all just different interpretative frameworks" is one level of construct awareness. A higher level is when you recognize how these frameworks interact, and that is where systemic models like MHC come in. MHC lets you see the systematic structure of the relationships between metasystems and how they form higher structures (here refered to as "paradigms"). One such structure is the nested holarchy structure, or the spiraling motions of "trancend&include" (Wilber). Here you can see that the structure of different cognitive operations reflect an underlying metaphysical structure of all frameworks (here we use the external dimension of the Integral Quadrant as an example): atoms include but transcend sub-atomic particles; molecules include and transcend atoms; proteins, sugars and lipids include and transcend molecules; cells include and transcend proteins, sugars and lipids; organs include and transcend cells; organisms include and transcend organs; groups include and transcend organisms; societies include and transcend groups; civilizations include and transcend societies; planets include and transcend civilizations; solar systems include and transcend planets; galaxies transcend and include solar systems; galaxy clusters include and transcend galaxies etc. This is what is meant by "the fractal nature of reality". This is also why Integral Theory is so genius because it goes meta on so many aspects of all frameworks. "Levels" is the so-called "vertical development" (stages of development in SD, MHC; all stage models) that follows a pattern of nested holarchy. Quadrants are different domains of frameworks (individual-collective x internal-external) that also follows a pattern of nested holarchy. Together, it creates AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels):

If you're so comfortable it makes you numb, try introducing some resistance into your daily life: heavy weight training, cold showers, sauna sessions, fasting once a week. That'll make you more embodied and dynamic. A negative outlook can stem from something as simple as a lack of variety. Change is the basis of energy and movement.

White people talk about racism. Black people experience it.

When you become God, you realize that you never become God

It's obvious, unless you're in denial.

Why?

Here is a framework for understanding the differences between the types of cognitive operations I'm talking about: Purple and Red cognition resides somewhere between stage 1-6 (up to "preoperational"). Blue resides between stage 7-9 (up to "abstract"). Orange resides at formal and monosystematic operations (10-11). Might as well add the next stages: Green is at stage 12 (metasystematic) and Tier 2 is at Stage 13-14 (paradigmatic and cross-paradigmatic). Transrationality is unlocked earliest at the metasystematic stage (but may be unlocked later as well).

The right to exist as their identity, just like you have the right to exist as a man. It's constantly ridiculed and not taken seriously. Combat sports use outdated ways of pairing opponents that need to be updated. The trans sports debate is very nuanced and not worth going much into here. This where we have to consider the arena of collective change: education, activitism, raising awareness. Why do people say they feel unsafe around trans people? Why do people say they feel unsafe around people of the opposite sex? It's possible to change these things.

Nice! I've only read some introductory stuff that gives a rough overview. I should probably read the actual book once because I'm curious about the depth of his methodology (e.g. how many revolutions he studied and to what extent they were revolutions). I'm sure Piaget had tests for measuring development, so it's surely possible with a Neo-Piagetian framework as well. However, I also suspect it gets increasingly more tricky to measure increasing levels of complexity.

TERF is not about dating preferences. It's about not recognizing trans rights. And no, it's not an interesting idea, not any more than homophobia is an interesting idea.

Imagine being canceled for not knowing the difference between sex and gender in 2021.

Nobody knows what coral is. In fact, we don't even know what turquoise is (at least I don't). I don't know how you would distinguish turquoise from yellow. I just refer to both as Tier 2. Everything is survival. SD just maps how large your circle of concern is. Turquoise (or Tier 2) is not an inherently mystical (or magical) stage. Differentiate between growing up and waking up.

Mooji: "show me the source" >:)

Turquoise isn't necessarily mystical/non-dual, but it's radically holistic. In either case, in non-duality there is no difference between nihilism and non-nihilism, and in holism, there is always an alternative to nihilsm (it doesn't define the whole).

Human beings cannot be comprehensively described by single personal adjectives either, but we still do: "I'm shy." "I'm introverted." "I'm depressed." There is no such thing as a grand theory of personality. Personality psychology has about 6 different domains, and MBTI seems to fall under the cognitive domain.

If you're completely unconvinced by the scientific rigour of the theory (e.g. low predictability), the cognitive functions are still useful to describe and categorize cognition and behavior. You don't necessarily have to treat cognitive functions as internal, behavior-determining structures to find them useful as concepts. For example, in a lecture we had to find a reason why we feel anxiety before group presentations, and the most extraverted person in the class said that she was afraid to let down the other members of the group, which is typical of Extraverted Feeling (Fe). Then from there, you can start making probabilistic statements like "she seems to express Fe rather often", and if you'd like, you could start building a case for her being an Fe user.

When something is empty, there is nothing in it.

I think I'm sensitive to some forms of narcissism in others because I recognize it in myself (<= fake humble statement, crypto-narcissism ). I could maybe give an example to answer your question. There is this funny situation at my school where I suspect one of the teachers is a bit above average in narcissism. She is very good at her job (teaching psychology and being a clinical psychologist), but there are some things that I pick up on that seem suspicious and that I've confirmed with others. My first impression of her reminded me of an old school teacher: strict, clear-spoken, to the point. Some friend of mine said she had "bad vibes", and that really resonated with me. She is usually fearless and charming in her presentation, but sometimes she seems very insecure about petty things like pronouncing long words incorrectly or just saying something wrong in general, something which most teachers will simply brush off like it's nothing. She likes to talk a lot about her own experiences as a way to illustrate a concept, which is not uncommon for a teacher to do, but it's the frequency of which it happens that seems unusual (and I've confirmed this with other students). She tends to use personal pronouns like "I", "me", "my" a lot. Other lecturers tend to be much more detached from their ego and focused on the topic. When a student asks a question, she is very quick to give an absolute yes or no answer, or say something like "no, that is not correct." Usually, most other teachers are much more sensitive and accommodating to the student's perspective. Generally, she is a bit blunt, and for example when she is role-playing being a sensitive therapist as a part of the lecture, it comes off as forced and inauthentic. Ironically, it feels more right when she plays the rude therapists that doesn't listen and wants to force their own perspective on the client . She also seems to have no problems repressing emotions in exposure therapy. She recalled a time where the client had to induce a panic attack, and as the client was crying, she said stone-faced "should we try again?" She said it almost as a point of pride, but then added a caveat of "of course you have to be a little sensitive to the client's own requests and let them have a cool-down period between each exposure", which is what you would expect from a good therapist, but nevertheless, it seems a little off. Ok, so nothing too conclusive so far. However, there is one thing that, if true, might seal the deal, but it might also just be my own imagination (I haven't confirmed it with other people yet). I remember one time when she was talking about the client-therapist relationship and how it's not that uncommon for therapists to sleep with their clients, and that it's of course not an OK thing to do. At first I didn't think much of it – it was nothing more than a fun fact, but then she mentioned it again, and again, and again: "you shouldn't sleep with your clients"; 3 times, relatively unprovoked, in the same lecture. That made me slightly suspicious. Then in some other lecture about communication techniques and personal boundaries, she managed to mention it again, twice, relatively tangential to the conversation. It made me cringe so hard. I started thinking "is this actually happening?" "Is she this unaware?" "am I completely deluding myself?" I'm pretty certain that I wasn't the only one who reacted this way, but it's such a wild thought that you automatically want to repress it, as if you're gaslighting yourself by thinking "that did not just happen". Another time, she talked about the Big 5 personality traits and that some personalities are less agreeable than others, and that her husband certainly knows what that feels like . I'm sure there are other minor things I could mention that doesn't enter my mind at the moment, but this is what stands out the most. What do you guys think?

https://www.amazon.com/Until-Light-Takes-Aaron-Aites/dp/B004IZO2S4