Tier 1 vs. Tier 2

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, JoeVolcano said:

Sorry but it's just so painfully obvious, lol.  ?‍♂️

Is it? Try to guess how many times I've entered a non-dual state.

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano

Do you have a clue then? Have you made it your baseline? If not, on what grounds are you dismissing him?

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, JoeVolcano said:

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, although to be honest I don't really care that much either way. If he isn't clueless about it, then good for him. And then he wouldn't feel the need to convince me of it, would he...

What's troubling to me is that you reduce all of these positive states to a negative removal of ego. As an analogy, it's like saying pleasure is just the removal of pain. You've made the claim that once the ego is gone, the enlightenment begins, and the amount of ego gone-ness has an exact correlation with enlightenment levels. But what phenomenologically could you say about enlightenment and these experiences? How would you define terms like God, nirvana, savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhis, Nothingness, Everythingness, Nondual Union, Soul, Luminousness? How do you experience them? What is your emotional state? If you can't cough up excellent descriptions of these states and what they're actually like, it makes me think you've just been pretending to destroy some imaginary thing called the ego, when really nothing or at least less than what you believe has been happening.

[AtheisticNonduality]

Just now, JoeVolcano said:

Yeah it tends to have that effect on people...

I don't know what all those other things you mention are.

Cheers

Lol, you have been convicted of not having awakened. Maybe you have experienced some reduction in suffering, but that is not It.

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, JoeVolcano said:

We weren't talking about you.

That said, entering nondual states won't inform you much about what it is to become your baseline reality. The mere fact that you're both suggesting it does, should be proof enough even for the theorists.

I don't see how nonduality has anything to with this, other than it being used as a telos to imply that development ultimately leads to self-transcendence. Also, how does the experience differ from it being your baseline? I experience nonduality everyday, and I find it hard to believe that you could permanently lock this awareness, unless you become some kind of monk (it's really just "being;" once you're "doing," you will not have nondual awareness); also there are much more profound states of consciousness than nonduality that feel a lot more like "higher cognition."

Edited August 6, 2022 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

Just now, JoeVolcano said:

I bow to your superior judgement. Let me know when that reduction in suffering sets in.

 

Very few people know what nonduality really is. It gets misinterpreted and misrepresented as a matter of course, and everyone goes along with it and just assumes that must be what it means. Nobody ever questions a damn thing.

Even Leo is ranting against it these days.

I know about the states, I just don't care about them. They have nothing to do with anything. I've already said this.

It's fine. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses.

Cheers

Why don't you enlighten us then?

Nonduality is really just being aware without the ego mediating the experience. I can relax my mind right now and make it happen. That's what it is. Get over it.

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

I got over your version of nonduality a loooong time ago m8.

Cheers

This is not my version, that's just what nonduality means. You are probably talking about some kind of subtle or causal states of consciousness or some higher level of self-recognition or awakening or whatever the heck you are talking about.

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano Erm..

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@JoeVolcano

Do you have a clue then? Have you made it your baseline? If not, on what grounds are you dismissing him?

 

[AtheisticNonduality]

22 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

I bow to your superior judgement. Let me know when that reduction in suffering sets in.

If I gestapo-style tortured Jed McKenna, cutting his fingers off, beating him up, etc., he would experience suffering, regardless of egolessness. If I tweaked his brain in the right ways, I could make him bipolar or schizophrenic, and he would experience suffering, regardless of egolessness. If I killed his whole family, he would . . . etc.

I have also mentioned before that schizophrenics and the depersonalized experience no-self, and yet they're insane and suffer; so the connection is tenuous at best: it's a myth propagated by simplicity-addicted fools.

26 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

I know about the states, I just don't care about them.

We've, if we're thinking correctly, defined enlightenment as these states. But you have an "alternative" definition that comes with only two things: death of the ego (which is nebulously defined) and a vague positive state characterized by a reduction of suffering. And we have already proven that this is not necessarily the case with bipolarity or schizophrenia or physical torture or even just ordinary mental torture, since the ego is not required at all for any of these: see above ^.

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano You ran out of points?

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

I sure did! 

How about you?

Cheers

Ok. I wanted you to concede that you're not at a non-dual baseline (or Human Adulthood or whatever), and that whatever understanding you have on that topic is based on something like past experiences of non-dual states, intuitions or models, which then means that you're also clueless.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, JoeVolcano said:

I'll concede to whatever you want m8. Happy to oblige.

Cheers

Thank you for being so compliant.

[thisintegrated]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@AtheisticNonduality I know you're using a broader definition, but self-actualization in a purely Maslowian sense I would distinguish from SD development.

For example, I think Andrew Tate is a self-actualized person, but he has solidified himself at the lower aspects of Tier 1. That is who he is, unless he radically reinvents himself and somehow deconstructs decades of trauma and conditioning. 

Well I very strongly disagree with this.  But you're entitled to your opinions.

I would say this is a blatant bastardization of the SD model.  You make it out to be some arbitrary list of values completely detached from level of actualization/awareness, which is a completely misunderstanding of what SD is all about.

 

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Thank you for being so compliant.

He was saying you're impossible to argue with, which is something I happen to agree with.  Can't debate a Fi user.

Edited August 6, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Danioover9000]

   Does it stop at tier 2? Wasn't there a stage coral, above stage turquoise?

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Well I very strongly disagree with this.  But you're entitled to your opinions.

What do you mean "agree"? I just clarified what Maslow means by the term "self-actualization", a term he invented by the way. This fact might be even more poignant when Atheist is mentioning the term in conjuction with "self-transcendence", another term that Maslow uses in his model.

If you just meant that you disagree with Maslow being distinct from SD, that's ok, because I'm not saying they're completely isolated. There are overlaps, but they're still different models:

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I see. So different lines of the same developmental altitude probably correlate somewhat, but they're different things ?That goes back to my synergistic idea.

 

3 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I would say this is a blatant bastardization of the SD model.  You make it out to be some arbitrary list of values completely detached from level of actualization/awareness, which is a completely misunderstanding of what SD is all about.

That's not true. I just don't believe it follows your concept of actualization/awareness. I've already talked about cognitive complexity in depth. Again, your concept might correlate somewhat with SD, but when I say "SD is...", I'm talking about what SD is, not necessarily what it correlates with.

 

3 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

He was saying you're impossible to argue with, which is something I happen to agree with.  Can't debate a Fi user.

My last post to him was Ti as fuck. I pointed out a contradiction in his own logic (unless he wants to actually concede that he called Atheist clueless for no reason, or that he just likes to call himself clueless for no reason). He just pussied out as usual.

But yes, I agree that if you haven't read much about academic developmental psychology, you'll of course be offended when I use that knowledge to defend my stance on a theory that comes from academic developmental psychology (SD) 

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano The question I asked about your assessment of Atheist was a rather new development in the discussion. I hadn't seen an outright hypocritical statement before that.

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano Well, I guess the numerous personal comments about other people's development should've been a red flag in itself, so maybe you're right that we were indeed only going in circles ?

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

You might ask yourself what makes you so damn important in the first place that you think I owe you an explanation. Mister selfless...

I think the one who calls bad faith while simultaneously making sleazy personal comments is the one who considers themselves a bit too important ?

[Eph75]

This has been reduced to... 

"My developmental dick is bigger then yours" 

..and.. 

"Your spiritual dick is shorter than mine". 

The problem with agreeing on a definition of an emerging state is that you can't define it without developmental evolution having shown the territory, enough, for it to be attempted to be mapped. 

Using self as the only valid data point just won't work. We're all right from our own current perspective, and we have direct experience to prove it as we know our developmental trajectory, and hold it as proof.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate or make our experience wrong, depending from where it's being viewed. 

Imagine being a the forefront of development but operating through different means of sense-making and self expression, the emerging model wouldn't be the differences but the similarities. 

Whatever you argue being the truth is not likely to be the truth, but contain true aspects, where "arguing" becomes pointless. 

Argumentation is looking for a winner. You can't "win" development, as being a single definable definition or distinction of growth or manifestation of being. There is room for multiple manifestations and individual flavors that tend to move in "some" direction, that becomes mappable. 

In fact, you could be saying the same thing, and I read (am following this) that you do talk about similar things in different ways, through different lenses, putting too much emphasis on the chosen words, making the facets [righly so] impossible to agree around, as one being the ultimately correct one, but these are facets of that emerging development.

These are just models, they're not truth, and they're no more than lenses viewing the same thing, in different ways. They don't even depict something absolute, but variations that more or less fit into categories that become more of limiters than supporters towards further development when held on to in a too dogmatic way. 

Development happens prior to models, models can show up as a result, but you can only speculate what the future looks like, until it's there. If you think you're "it", well kudos for having an understanding of your next evolution of self manifestation, but I wouldnt hold it as truth, as that is pulling the handbreak on your own emerging self. 

In terms of development as seen through either model, and bringing in the aspect of enlightenment, to me they are detached and enlightenment can happen at any point on the developmental journey, while moving into second tier becomes the catalyzer that inevitably moves us in an enlightening direction as part of a fusion of states, and a more developed holistic self as a result. 

Maybe that integration, indeed is Turquoise. It certainly seems to be the case based on my own developmental trajectory, but it doesn't say much about anything. 

Ultimately, I know nothing, and maybe that's the path, the trancendance of models. Not saying that it can't be mappable, but mapping something that is dissolving becomes redundant to the being aspects of progressing developmentally.

It's rather a holding on, that once again, becomes the limiter, not the catalyzer. 

Again, seems to be supported by my own trajectory.

The complexity doesn't go away, it's there to forever stay, but it's showing up as a new kind of simplicity, opening uo for something completely different. 

Sometimes we have to let go to move on. Yellow is still holding on, just adding a depth of understanding that previously wasn't possible. In that sense, yellow is setting the stage for the mind to be able to make a transition into the next unknown, just like each other stage has done.

Looking at this from an ego development perspective and considering shadows, these could be shadows from the expert and achiever states, who wants to know, prove, and win the understanding of, rather than transcending the need to know, prove, and win.

Then again, it might all be gibberish. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Eph75

[Florian]

On 5.8.2022 at 3:40 PM, JoeVolcano said:

That reason being level of awareness, the hidden variable underlying the model.

I wouldnt say its the "hidden" variable since the model is about the evolution of the human psyche or consiousness, and awareness is basically a synonym for consiousness. So it's literally the key variable.