Carl-Richard

If you say so.

I completely agree that it depends on your goals if this is something you would want to pursue. There are pros to having a spike that changes your functioning for a while, even if you're a scholar (it can open you up to new insights — "disruptive practices"). I've just presented one con to having that spike. And I can definitely see that having a "sensitive" approach can actually be a detriment in a highly competitive environment. My mom just got engaged to this super-efficient business CEO guy. He is highly energetic, just inherently (drinks caffeine too, of course), and he literally cannot sit still and just relax (it's like he is in constant pain if he is not actively doing something that demands full effort and attention). He often gets these dumb injuries from not being mindful enough, is really impatient with waiters, etc., and he is of course highly successful at his job. There are definitely aspects of him that I want to integrate in some areas of my life, but I'm again also very aware of the cons to that mode of being.

Do they? ?

I'm sorry, I forgot that MHC is a Neo-Piagetian model. It's not really value-independent at all ? Let's forget I ever said that. Back to the idea of an universal ladder of human complexity: We should clarify what we mean by "universality" in this discussion. So far (if we're following what the academics are saying), we've been talking about the development of individuals, and "universality" refers to the kind of development of individuals that exists irrespective of any culture. In other words, it's the type of development that is shared between an uncontacted Amazonian tribes person and a kid scrolling TikTok. Now, it's a different thing to talk about the development of the cultures themselves: what if all cultures, given enough time, eventually end up going through these higher levels of complexity postulated by Piaget, SD and Neo-Piagetian models? Maybe that is the question you should be asking.

Model of Hierarchical Complexity comes to mind, but it's considered a Neo-Piagetian model, so I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

Yes, and Bronfenbrenner maps out the arena where these different challenges and oppurtunities occur, in different concentric layers (like an onion). The layers are defined in an almost mathematical way, so it's hard to make a case that it doesn't apply in some way to all cultures. Although you could actually problematize the universality of the third layer ("exosystem"), as it describes pressures from people or structures that the individual is not directly involved with (e.g. politicians, judicial systems), which could be a problem for sub-Dunbar number tribes where you're technically able to be directly involved with everybody in the society.

Caffeine, L-theanine and all the other major psychoactive components of green tea, contribute to a short-term boom and bust effect on your consciousness. Whether it's a stimulant or a depressant is really beside the point.

"Life's a bitch and then you die". Jking. Models that map "developmental contexts" (e.g. Bronfenbrenner) seem to be better off in terms universality, as they don't assume one shared "developmental path", and the different "levels" have extremely generalized systemic definitions. Contextual models only need to articulate the developmental pressures that exist around an individual at all times, which is much simpler than laying out a step-by-step path of changing pressures. Of course, the problem is that you lose some specificity. If you want to use more specific models, just use them in the contexts where they apply and don't try to force some expectation of universality onto them (e.g. let SD and Piaget be eurocentric/WEIRD models).

Maybe. Some of the context for why I made this topic is that I went to the gym like I usually do, but I forgot my orange (or the equivalent amount of sweet fruit that I've been accustomed to eating at the tail end of my workout ?). The only thing that I could buy at the nearby store was a small 250 ml carton of orange juice. I drank maybe half of it at the usual point of the workout and planned to drink the other half later, and man, I felt like a wreck 20-30 minutes later. Maybe it was too small of an amount to do anything but fuck with my metabolism, but it was drastically different from eating an actual orange. Now, the tail end of a workout is of course an extreme situation where you're maybe extra sensitive to these things (and you should be careful with judging things based on one-time subjective reports), but I still notice the same effects when consuming other sources of fast carbs without an adequate balance of fibre or other foods. There is also a video that comes to mind of Tom Campell (an experienced 1st person consciousness researcher, author or "My Big TOE") echoing the same findings: fast sugar fogs up your consciousness.

Is memory confined to thoughts (mental chatter or imagery), or do you extend it to other things as well (e.g. sensory experiences, feelings, emotions)?

Psychedelics are illegal because some hippies essentially tried to destroy society with it in the 60s (said in the tone of Nixon, but still has some truth to it).

Does it not feel like other people are a bit like you? Then why should you not act like they are?

This is so good that it deserves its own thread (if you know both bands/songs, you know what I mean). Just wow. Most other mashups like this that I've seen are always a bit funny or weird, but this is almost seemless (except for the very end, of course, but that too shows the beauty of Opeth and what makes them so special). Here is also a more funny mashup that most of you will probably appreciate:

Welcome back. How would you define "direct experience"?

Give up the illusory control of your life and become the universe that is actually controlling your life.

Yeah, so what? Just share your songs, god damn it ?

The neurosis you're creating around it is arguably worse than the thing itself. I think there is a difference between movies and real-life videos depicting violence (and I'm speaking in terms of how I feel when I'm watching them). The context of knowing that it's real or not, understanding the real-life repercussions, and seeing the real emotions involved, is drastically different. Of course, it also depends on how realistic the movie is (e.g. some horror movies are bound to make you feel a certain way). But certainly in a standard action movie, the fight scenes are nothing like an actual fight, and the emotional footprint is more similar to heavy weightlifting than somebody fighting in a fit of rage. For example, my brother often scrolls through Instagram, and sometimes he shows me these clips from a page called "Hood crimes" (or something like that), and it's usually either somebody getting very hurt or beaten up. I can't watch that shit. It makes me feel very bad. And I think that is exactly why it's interesting to watch for some people. They got off on that feeling. It's morbid curiosity. But then I can watch a beautifully cinematic fight scene from any modern action movie (Mission Impossible - Fallout, the bathroom fight comes to mind), and it's nothing like seeing somebody actually get beaten up.

Do you take heavy and bass in any combination?

Barbara Rogoff (2003). The cultural nature of human development (page 240). Oxford university press.

Gregory Bateson's work (which spans many different fields) generally challenges reductionistic or linear ways of thinking. For example, in communication theory, he emphasizes how communication is a circular rather than a linear process, and that the meaning of an utterance is constructed as a result of what the interpreter brings to the table (their personal dispositions) and other contextual factors (e.g. time, place, past events). So a Bateson will be predisposed to making context aware critiques of stage theory, which is a field that generally lacks context awareness (as it's an older field). Pointing to a lack of cross-cultural validation is one example of a context aware critique. Barbara Rogoff has made similar critiques.

@nuwu Does this actually make sense to you when you read it?

No, because it literally just makes shit up.

ChatGPT lies.

I've never really made songs in any serious fashion, but I have the same thoughts when learning a song on guitar. The moment I've mastered it, it loses its specialness in a way, indeed because I've had to hear it so many times. On the other hand, you also become much more immersed in the song when you listen to it onwards, which makes it more special in another way. One thing about songwriting I do sometimes think about is that you'll have no way to know how a listener truly experiences a song from their perspective, exactly because of this myopia of focusing very hard on the details and how things fit together, as well as having conceived it through your instruments (or vocals). In other words, your relationship to your own creation is inescapably so very different from the listener, and it's a bit sad that you will never be able to hear it from their perspective.

Of course. It's Gregory Bateson's daughter