Carl-Richard

"Marr's three levels: A re-evaluation": https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00361036 Good for learning the difference between "the what" (quality, essence, semantics, content), "the how" (quantity, structure, form, algorithm, syntactics) and "the where" (physicality, spatio-temporality, implementation, medium).

@Leo Gura Is this true?

You can be lucid dreaming.

Has existed for more than a decade: 32:21-35:07

My mother is a doctor in her late 50s, she is very vibrant and capable, but the amount of work she does really zaps her.

@integration journey Or just read The Listening Society. Wonderful critique and contextualization of SD. Just ask AI for a summary, it could help a lot of issues and questions raised in this thread and by the OP.

He has done a lot of psychedelics. I like to poo poo psychedelic gnosis, but the higher dimensional mind spaces (sensory, perceptual, conceptual) are interesting. Does not seem like he has baseline / "perpetual" mystical/non-dual awareness like those examples you mentioned, he will probably tell you yourself.

Being smart in this thread would be kinda embarrassing.

Insane impressionist. His Warren character feels like a real human being. 3:47 His Bill Maher is also off the charts. And last but not least, RFK:

But he is "not political"? 🤔

I've never had to drop the soft A before this occasion. Tells you the seriousness of the situation.

My nigga, I'm serious, I think you should see a psychiatrist, these are serious symptoms of OCD. You can't just laugh off being suicidal and "oh well I was just sick". And "I can't breathe the air in the hospital". Bud, get help, seriously.

True word salad (the "intellectual" kind, not born in psychosis) cannot come from a sincere expression of one's own understanding. It comes from insecurity about how you're perceived by others, and you will in fact discount your own understanding to potentially gain that perception by others (and in a way, it makes you psychotic). The thinking is "if I can put it simply, if I can understand it perfectly clear, then other people might think I come off as simple, so I have to make myself more complicated / less understandable so that I come off as complicated instead". So if you have the balls to come off like a simpleton, or if you really try your best to say things that are completely simple and clear to you, you'll basically be immune towards "intellectual" word salad. But of course, you can think something like that is word salad if you simply lack understanding. But that's not actually word salad. Because at least somebody truly thinks it's simple and clear.

Stage Yellow people and above know that Stage Word Salad goes on the ignore list.

I'm interested in how the models were derived empirically. Clare Graves asked people (in reality mostly young people, mostly university students, and of course, exclusively Western ones) what they thought were a mature person, and he among other things observed that their conceptions sometimes changed over time in a predictive pattern (equivalent to blue->orange->green->yellow). If that is truly a consistent pattern he found (and in which case it was not just what he himself thought is the next level), then that suggests a developmental trajectory. It could certainly be the case that some personality traits would make such a trajectory faster or more obvious.

How do you know when somebody creates an ego around it?

Then you also have issue of placing yourself lower to appear humble and sophisticated which in fact is supposed to signal that you're somehow high up which means you're "implictly" placing yourself high because you increase the value of each stage.

Do you consider yourself as being a producer of testosterone? 🤠

No. It is just a rare form of consciousness. You can also respond to the substantive comment below that one:

1. You can read the rest of the thread. 2. Why?

You can conceptualize your encounters with the absolute, and those conceptualizations can be very profound (or the conceptualizations that happen right after encountering the absolute and when your mind tries to make sense of it can be very profound). I'm not equating that to like some insight into some mathematical proof or concept in physics. If you think that, then that's of course belittling. Nevertheless, it is conceptualization when your mind encounters something (be it the absolute or not) and it starts speaking language and spinning, well — concepts, and narratives about what it just encountered. If such a description angers you, please explain why.

Now that's belittlement.

It is a belittlement of the Absolute to conceptualize it, but as you say, the human mind has to belittle the absolute to "understand" it (conceptually). But me saying that is not saying "you're not having a profound experience, you're just deluded". No, it is very profound. My conceptualizations of "solipsism", "aloneness", "perfection", etc., were very profound. It's just I see what my mind was creating as a response to encountering with the absolute; concepts about the absolute. Love/bliss/energy is also very profound, and it is also "Maya". You see, there is no hyperbolic, black and white scapegoating here. It's clearly labelling what is going on.

I like how the presumption is that something being conceptual makes it less profound or valid, or that it is somehow offensive to label it as conceptual if it is experienced as profound. Very interesting. I mean, in a certain sense, there is nothing more profound than immensely eternal ego death where there is no way back and you're inside a black hole for eternity but you're somehow existing on a physical plane simultaneously. But realizing (conceptually) the immense perfection and necessity of reality being what it is, that's also profound. But of course, it's not the same as being that perfection for eternity. You're not merely crying for a few hours. It's for eternity.

@ZeroZeroes Feel free to rewrite all of that while dropping the unnecessary abbreviation of terms. When the words abbreviated are already short and you use many abbreviations, it can reduce comprehension rather than increase it.