Carl-Richard

You literally bite and chew. Do you eat apple with a fork and knife? Have you not seen people eat steak with their hands?

Except with french fries, cookies, candy, chocolate, fruit, spear ribs, chicken wings, burgers, sandwiches, wraps, potato chips, pizza. Hygiene is conformity.

It is more a physical process than what people think. The way you breathe, your posture, your level of bodily relaxation, are all tightly intertwined with your level of awareness.

So this is purely a Western/modern issue?

Awareness through sleep is very "advanced" as they say. But then to frame it the other way, like with enlightenment, it actually happens all the time for all people, you just don't notice it because you're too identified (with perception and forms).

Eating sushi with chopsticks when you are Japanese is conformity. Eating with a knife and fork is the epitome of conformity.

Why does this read like being patronizing for no good reason? What is being communicated here?

Which spiritual teachers say this?

I consider taking a definition as a kind of knowing. Whether you go beyond that or not is what depth entails, and it would be a deeper form of knowing. If you want to speak hyperbolically and say "language is so deep, I must say I feel like I know nothing about language", that's on you. Taking on a definition is so simple, we do it all the time. And you don't necessarily have to dig around that definition to get deeper knowledge. You can use it as a starting point. Communication, transfer of information, can be relatively unstructured so that you would be less likely to call it a language. Simply shouting loudly is an example. It can mean one million things. And what it means depends for example on context. Context is a central concept in communication theory (which is different from the study of language).

When I said learning about Jesus, I meant learning about Stage Blue Jesus. The bear your cross Jesus, the love thy neighbor Jesus, the Golden Rule Jesus.

A "good" model for Tier 2 will realistically not be based on the same empirical evidence as Tier 1 (Graves' survey methodology), because as those stages are exceedingly rare, you would need to survey an astronomical amount of people to get any resemblance of statistical significance between different stages (and you would need to survey other people than mainly young college students). Graves himself treated the equivalent of Turquoise as speculative. Maybe if somebody did a huge scale online survey (>100k people and of roughly all ages), you could start picking things apart. But of course, this still assumes mainly Western/modernised cultures. Until then, you would have to rely on dubious theoretical speculations from Tier 2 people.

If you were born into a SD indoctrination, it's likely you could've reacted the same to it. Indoctrination doesn't work if it doesn't resonate with your wants (or SD stage), unless you play the repression/acting game (pretending that you're something you're not, which many people do with all kinds of things). If you're a stage Red kid, of course Christianity doesn't really work on you, so you can become averse to it. But if you revisit it later with an open mind, putting aside your previous aversion, it would be more likely to resonate. Christianity resonates more with me now than it ever did as a kid (now, that doesn't mean I am a "Christian").

Thought you said "Norway or Sweden" and I was about to shout "NORWAY!" and loudly represent my side of the eternal national feud.

Akashic records baby.

Hyperbole is healthy when conformism is abundant. I mean using the word in a relevant and useful way, like in a sentence discussing some topic or while doing something useful, not finding a relevant and useful example of the word.

Here's a controversial one: rocks. i.e. minerals, such as NaCl, KCl, MgO, and solid H2O (ice) believe it or not.

You know what the problem I have with "conformity" as a concept? Any example of conformity you bring up, can also not be conformity. Now that's a challenge for you. And of course it's hyper-general and therefore hyper-uninteresting unless used in a relevant and specific way. Like a thread like this is about as interesting as "Food Examples Mega-Thread". It can really only be interesting if you have a fetish for foods.

@Butters Or it's just a time to get together and do things a certain way which creates connection. Like eating dinner with friends. "Who cares about eating dinner; why not just drink your Soylent while sitting in front of the computer?"

You could've also learned about Jesus and had a similar conversion. Any framework that puts degenerate behavior lower than an alternative could suffice.

As long as you acknowledge that the evidence is exclusively based on Western cultures (and 9SEDT, Piaget, etc., are not exempt from this), then you're alright.

Oh wow, it's almost like we're in a human body right now and we can't talk about the human body without being in a human body, so it shapes how we talk about it. Or like how we're in a community right now so it shapes how we talk about the community. Or we're conforming so it shapes how we talk about conformism. Self-reference is not deep.

This statement you made is ironically the most conformist statement I've ever seen.

Staph. Conformity does not equal bad.

Yuuuuge. But for real doe, getting an understanding for what language is is not that deep. But you can develop a deep understanding of language on top of that. As with anything.

Breh language is not that deep. It's symbols in a coherent framework. Vocabulary is the "what" of the symbols (the words, the gestures), and the grammar is the "how" (how do the symbols relate to each other). Symbols point to things. So using language means using a coherent framework for pointing to things. Coherent means the words/gestures (symbols) point to things in a consistent way, and that the rules of grammar are consistent. If somebody uses any of these inconsistently, you have a problem of communication.