What level of cognitive complexity do you actually operate at?

[Carl-Richard]

So I was reading some of Hanzi Freinacht's The Listening Society some while ago. He went into how disillusioned he felt when observing the everyday interactions of otherwise quite brilliant people in his life and how cognitively not-complex they were, mostly situated around Level 10-11 Abstract-Formal in the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC). Level 10-11 is essentially the cognitive equivalent of high-Blue to low-Orange in SD.

In his book, he makes the distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code, and also presents the concept of downward assimilation. To put it as an example: it's possible for a cognitively Blue person to engage with ideas way above Blue (maybe even Yellow), because they have installed the language (symbolic code) of the higher stages, but they are engaging with it in a simplified way which is consistent with their cognitive complexity, "assimilating it downwards". So there is a big potential to fool oneself that one is more complex than one actually is.

Now, most everyday interactions don't need to be that complex, and that's fine. You might talk about a concept or two (10 Abstract), or you might string some of them together in a formal relationship (11 Formal), but rarely, if ever, do you need to construct an entire new system of thought (12 Systematic), certainly not a new concept that connects different systems together (13 Meta-systematic). However, it would be good to know what you're actually capable of, and a good estimate of this is proposed by Freinacht: do you regularly produce original ideas at a given level?

So I decided to test this on myself by reading through some of my own forum posts and seeing what is the most complex original idea I could find. At the moment, I've landed on this:

Before I get my hopes up, while on the surface it looks pretty "meta" and big picture, if we are going to be strict, this is at most 12 Systematic, i.e. cognitively high-Orange. It presents a variety of different concepts with a variety of different relationships, i.e. a system. And it's not just a few isolated relationships presented separately (11 Formal), but rather the relationships are quite interconnected, and often structured and layered, like categories or levels, and often circular in some way. For example, a relatively simple system is a feedback loop (you have inputs and outputs and outputs that become their own inputs).

Now, you can doubt that it's even original, but then I'll ask: have you ever seen that map before? While the concepts in the system are not original (e.g. being, meaning, virtue), the way they are being connected to each other seems original, or at least I don't remember ever consulting anyone for how to structure that map. It was something that came to me as an insight. Based on this, it should be classifiable as 12 Systematic thinking.

So if that was just 12 Systematic thinking, then what is 13 Meta-systematic (cognitively Green-Yellow) thinking? Again, it's when you come up with an original concept that connects different systems together, extracting a common theme from the different systems. Now, you could argue that the different concepts in my map are by themselves their own systems (e.g. Being is based in Eastern spiritual thought, Meaning is Western spiritual thought, etc.), and that I could therefore be using 13 Meta-systematic concepts to connect the systems together.

However, in that case, the only possible candidate for such a concept is "hierarchy" (from "most abstract", to "less abstract", to "more concrete"). I didn't invent the concept of "hierarchy" or "level of abstraction". I learned those from somewhere else. So no, I did not come up with my own concept that connects different systems, which means it's not 13 Meta-systematic thinking.

But what would be a meta-systematic concept like "hierarchy", "level of abstraction" or "downward assimilation" that I have created? I actually can't think of a single one.

Now, I think creating such concepts, regularly, on the fly, is ridiculous. Somebody who comes to mind is Eric Weinstein. I swear he has like his own wikipedia (theportal.wiki) where he offloads all of his meta-systematic neologism. Maybe that is why I think he sounds ridiculous sometimes when he speaks 😂 (I think it's also a stylistic issue, but anyways). But he also has his own Theory of Everything in physics, which is way beyond that, into 14-15 Paradigmatic–Cross-paradigmatic, so it's maybe not so surprising. Suffice to say, regularly operating at these levels of complexity is probably reserved to geniuses. But I'll keep digging for any meta-systematic concepts of my own.

 

What do you think is your level of cognitive complexity? What do you usually operate at and what is your peak? Keep in mind the distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code. Have you ever created an original meta-systematic concept before? By the way, I think me and most people here operate at 10-11 Abstract-Formal most of the time, mainly because we don't need to do anything else to live decently well.

Edited October 17 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

I think SD is way too much.  This seems to analyze your every breath. I think the over analyzation causes it to eat it's own tail.  But I feel the same about SD so don't mind me.   I know it's a helpful model as it can predict and classify people into groups based on behavior.  I'll look more into it when I have the time.

Edited October 16 by Inliytened1

[Staples]

I don't really know this MHC theory you are referring to. I'll need to look into it. 

But to answer your question, my average cognition is really stupid. It takes a lot of solitude, focus and energy to generate creative and powerful thoughts. When I hit those levels, it's great, but it's difficult and isolating.

I struggle to be both smart and social at the same time. To be smart requires time and contemplation, but social requires one to be quick and reactionary. Respect to those people who can do both.

[Keryo Koffa]

I truly miss @nuwu, they were amazing at this. Now I gotta complexify language enough for both of us.
And the more I do, the more tedious writing gets, so I just make every word a noun/adjective/verb/adv.
And I just stack them at this point, so it's more efficient, using paradigms as every other verb 

On 10/6/2024 at 2:32 AM, Keryo Koffa said:

An adapivotal metasynch-stackembed econexi oniostalt of automorphogenic epimagnistranged fractogradients!

On 9/14/2024 at 8:13 PM, Keryo Koffa said:

I've been brainstorming meta-conceptual terminology with BaseGPT:
Coined the term 'Holopsynetic' combining:

• 'Holo' refers to holography, holons, holism, and holistic health, focusing on the dynamics of emerging wholes;
• 'Psy' refers to the psyche as a cornerstone of the structure;
• 'Syn' refers to synergy, emergence, cooperation, fusion, and intelligent cooperation;
• And 'Etic' emphasizes connection and interconnectedness.
  • The term balances concepts, length, aesthetics, and pronunciation. In adjective form, it describes an object, practice, or system related to multi-dimensional synergy and the emergent harmonization of self-structuring, multi-component systems.
  • The term 'Holopsyneticosm' would emphasize the symbiotic balance and dynamic of interrelated holarchies, similar to an ecosystem, combining micro- and macrocosm.
  • Variants like 'Holopsyntic' could describe a person or system with this harmony, while 'Holopsynto-' could be a prefix for words like 'Holopsyntodynamic' (focused on dynamic self-evolution) or 'Holopsynetics' (a field of study).
  • 'Holopsynetically' could describe actions done in a dynamic, interconnected, balanced manner, while 'Holopsynergize' could be a verb describing a system modifying itself or another to create new holarchies.

Of course, I take the concepts behind the new terms for granted at this point, so it's pretty redundant.
It was an exercise when I was overly enthusiastic, now I just embed all those meanings in base 'Holon' dynamically

Edited October 16 by Keryo Koffa

[KoryKat]

Definitely 14+

No capping 

Anyone level 12+ hmu , trying to find new friends at the top levels 

 

I would be interested in writing a Practical Guide to go from 12-->13 or something , if anyone would read lmk,  I'd like feedback on my works

Edited October 16 by KoryKat

[KoryKat]

@Carl-Richard was listening to Wilber and Dave Asprey talking about pre-rational rational formal ops thinking levels.

 

I'm gonna go on a deep dive with ChatGPT on it later.  I can refer you to that video's conversation ,if you want 

[KoryKat]

@Inliytened1 SD is one facet of 5 dimensions which must all be put together in a development structure of the holarchy (us) --  a piece of a fraction of the whole

Granted SD fucked my brain from age 27-32 , I couldn't move on from it until I went broader with Loevinger-Cooke and Terri Ofallons work to get off the hook of it

 

 

Edited October 16 by KoryKat

[Staples]

33 minutes ago, KoryKat said:

Definitely 14+

No capping 

😂

No cap, fr fr, I got that cognitive drip. Glow up, king. I have skibidi cognitive rizz.

Anyone operating at less than 14 cognition is so Ohio.

[Carl-Richard]

On 16.10.2024 at 5:19 AM, Inliytened1 said:

I think SD is way too much.  This seems to analyze your every breath. I think the over analyzation causes it to eat it's own tail.  But I feel the same about SD so don't mind me.

This isn't about SD, but cognitive complexity ☺️

Cognitive complexity is basically what distinguishes the people who make the theories from the people who teach them (or simply use them). If you have 160 IQ but you're mostly at 11-12 Formal-Systematic, you can be at top 1% of most published researchers and slowly inch the paradigm forward, but not a revolutionary scientist who shatters the paradigm.

 

Quote

Now some of us build and some of us teach
Some of us build, some of us teach
And some of us kill what some of us eat

That is a fact of life
That is a fact of life

 

What is striking about this distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code is that you realize geniuses of history like Plato and Aristotle were extremely cognitively complex (14-15 paradigmatic–cross-paradigmatic), but because of their time, they had to work with what they had (essentially nothing) to create new systems of thought almost completely from scratch. And today, these systems of thought make up the very foundations of our society which us simpleminded people can install and "shoulder-stand" on. And today, we have people like Ken Wilber doing the same thing, providing free code for us to download. But just because you downloaded the code and speak the language, don't make the mistake of thinking you could've created the code all by yourself (or maybe he just read a lot, who knows 😝)

Edited October 17 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

I do think I have original meta-systematic thoughts at times where I discover connections between different systems, but I'm not necessarily able to to describe the connections with a single term.

For example, a few moments ago I was reading about the Cambrian explosion and started to see similarities to the advent of Stage Red (let's call it the "Faustian explosion"). You can draw comparisons in multiple domains, for example the environmental, developmental and ecological domain:

In the environmental domain, the Cambrian explosion coincided with an increased level of oxygen in the oceans, allowing organisms to grow more rapidly and expend more energy. The Faustian explosion coincided with an increased food availability due to the advent of agriculture, freeing up more time and labor and expending more energy elsewhere. The unifying theme is increased metabolism, energy output, work output and growth.

In the developmental domain, the Cambrian explosion saw the transition from mostly unicellular life to more multicellular life. Bodily structures complexified, particularly leading to the rise of metazoans (animals). The Faustian explosion saw the transition from tribes ("single cells") to empires ("multi-cells"); multiple tribes subsumed into a larger tribe. Social structures complexified, particularly into dominator hierarchies. The unifying theme is upscaling and complexification of biological or social bodies.

In the ecological domain, the Cambrian explosion coincided with increased predation due to increasing sizes of animals, enhanced predation strategies (e.g. shell crushing), and the advent of apex predators (no natural predators of their own). The Faustian explosion coincided with increased tribal warfare due to increasing sizes of tribes, enhanced tribal warfare strategies (e.g. metal weapons), and the advent of empires ("apex predator tribe" with no natural predators, greatly simplified). The unifying themes are increased predation, enhanced strategies and power monopolies.

As for finding a general term that connects the different systems: what would be a term which describes an explosion of "increased metabolism, energy output, work output and growth; upscaling and complexification of biological or social bodies; and increased predation, enhanced strategies and power monopolies"? "Monsterification"? "Hulkification"? Maybe you need to look at more examples of related systems before finding a good term.

 

Another time, I drew a connection between gated ion channels in cell membranes and electrical circuits: opening the ion channel allows for the flow of ions (charged particles), just like opening a switch in an electrical circuit allows for the flow of electrons (charged particles). Here, the obvious common term is simply "circuit" (electrochemical vs. electrical).

Edited October 17 by Carl-Richard

[KoryKat]

9 hours ago, Staples said:

😂

No cap, fr fr, I got that cognitive drip. Glow up, king. I have skibidi cognitive rizz.

Anyone operating at less than 14 cognition is so Ohio.

Nah pre-systems thinking is so Ohio... but not judging, just bored because there are no level 14+ clubs
 

Edited October 17 by KoryKat

[KoryKat]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think I do have original meta-systematic thoughts sometimes where I discover connections between different systems, but I'm not necessarily able to to describe the connections very well with a single term.

I've started seeing systems more fluid interchanging recently... Having a paradigm shift to look at truth as dynamic, multifaceted, multidimensional, emergent, evolutionary, co-created ... the main thing is the few I mentioned.. systems are not isolated , they interconnect/overlap in a multidimensional way

Higher-order thinking, you can practice looking at things from Sociological Psychological Economic Spiritual etc - simultaneous perspective integration

Do that on top of looking at a situation from the 4 Quadrants of AQAL 

Now do that while you are experiencing a peak state such as nondual enlightenment

Now do that at a higher-order perspective, seeing it through the each level on Spiral Dynamics

Do you see how there are so many combinations?  Not sure if that helps


Nowadays I realize that all systems are biased, and not just lego blocks, but also to reimagine them with elements of other systems (alchemy) to make new ones


I dont think it is against the rules to invent new terms - I remember being on mushrooms one time and inventing a word for your "sphere of influence". 

One fascinating thing I like to remember is in a deck of 52 cards, there 8×10^67 combinations of cards... and if there are that many combinations, then given the English language, it is highly likely we construct unique sentences all the time.

 

 

Edited October 17 by KoryKat

[Davino]

On 16/10/2024 at 4:12 AM, Carl-Richard said:

do you regularly produce original ideas at a given level?

I'm having insights all the time. It's finner distinctions, connections and novel discoveries in my craft

On 16/10/2024 at 4:12 AM, Carl-Richard said:

What do you think is your level of cognitive complexity? What do you usually operate at and what is your peak? Keep in mind the distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code.

An important point is that I don't regularly need to operate at those levels anyways, even if I could.

When I was doing peak deconstruction of science and in some wild awakenings I haven't talked about, this needs to be integrated into some sort of meta-paradigm and it certainly has to be self-made and self-adjusted.

However, on an everyday bases I would say I'm average unless I'm doing deliberate contemplation.

Quote

Have you ever created an original meta-systematic concept before?

Probably a term that comes to mind is Self-Contained, I searched it and it exists but for me it has a very distinct meaning. It was a genuine autonomous cognition of an existential property in the universal fabric of Reality. It symbolizes an integration of Absolutism, Infinity and Strange Loops. It feels like when all dots connect, all cables eat themselves like snakes, all becomes its own reason for being, self-sufficient, all it needs already is, indeed Reality is Self-Contained. It's such a high level abstraction I feel like I would need three hours to explain this term and still it wouldn't be Awakening or the grasping of Reality itself.

Edited October 17 by Davino

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, KoryKat said:

Definitely 14+

No capping 

Oh really? What new paradigms have you created recently? 

[zurew]

Coming up with actually original ideas and systems of thought is very impressive - if its actually novel.

Gibberating and being vague about things and claiming that there is novel substance there, doesnt count though. The problem is that its hard to differentiate sometimes between gibberish ideas and between actually novel ideas.

 

This is a tangent , but generally speaking it seems to me that people sometimes think that being vague  about a given idea is necessary or it is an entailment if the idea itself is on an abstract level or if its a big picture idea. Verveake outlined this very well with the following statement "Do not confuse the properties of a theory with the properties of the thing being referred to".

In other words, I should (if there is actual substance there )  be able to talk about abstract concepts in a highly detailed way if I am pushed on it and I should be able to point out in a specific way how that given abstract idea is different from other abstract ideas (without gibberating and with actually showing a distinction). The application of rigor and the ability to point out the specific differences are both compatible with abstract ideas and big picture thinking.

One can be vague about abstract ideas and concepts , on the other hand one can be specific and detailed and make meaningful arguments and be nuanced and know the relevance of these concepts and ideas.

 

One herusitic to check whether you are gibberating or not: Check whether you are context sensitive (whether you are aware of how your given idea changes and applicable given different contexts and check whether you know how and when your idea is relevant) and check whether you have a  clear understanding of what kind of norms your idea can be or should be judged by and lastly check whether you can clearly articulate how your idea is different from other ideas that are highly similar to yours.

Edited October 17 by zurew

[LoseYourvelf]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Coming up with actually original ideas and systems of thought is very impressive - if its actually novel.

Gibberating and being vague about things and claiming that there is novel substance there, doesnt count though. The problem is that its hard to differentiate sometimes between gibberish ideas and between actually novel ideas.

I can see the Beelzebub Cheshire grin 

Edited October 17 by LoseYourvelf

[KoryKat]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Oh really? What new paradigms have you created recently? 

Tell me you cant read without telling me you cant read. lol

What do you think Cross-Paradigmatic means?    Never used words saying I created any paradigms.   

Sleepy friend?

Edited October 17 by KoryKat

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, KoryKat said:

Tell me you cant read without telling me you cant read. lol

What do you think Cross-Paradigmatic means?    Never used words saying I created any paradigms.   

Sleepy friend?

Quote

cross-paradigmatic: Fit paradigms together to form new fields .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

What kind of new field(s) have you created?

[KoryKat]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

What kind of new field(s) have you created?

Meta-Integrative Holistics  - interweave and transform.  Dont steal that its not out yet.

Edited October 17 by KoryKat

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, KoryKat said:

Meta-Integrative Holistics  - interweave and transform.  Dont steal that its not out yet.

Let's go down a level: what 13 Meta-systematic concepts have you discovered?

Edited October 17 by Carl-Richard