Carl-Richard

The brighest stars burn the fastest, just like his first account ?

What happened is that we separated the super aggressive Advaita dogmatists from the super aggressive psychonaut dogmatists ?

??

With forms? That requires positives and negatives. But without forms, yep — not much going on then ?

Here is a challenge: construct me a reality without positives and negatives.

If consciousness is all there is, it's redundant to say "consciousness of" something. Everything is "consciousness of" something. Just say what it is. If there is a body, there is a body. If there is a thought, there is a thought. It's all consciousness anyway. Then, you can make a category that describes these things, e.g. sense perceptions. A body, a thought, an emotion, a memory, an identity; anything that can be experienced as a form: all of it is sense perceptions, and consciousness is that which is even beyond sense perceptions. You can use different words than sense perceptions (e.g. "experiences of form"), but just call it what it is.

@Osaid In other words, the consciousness is the same but the sense perceptions are different

God is not a human.

My read on him was always Red > Orange. Looks like that might turn out more correct than it intended.

By typing you as the type I actually think you are? Notice how I've never before talked about what I think your type is. I've only shared my disagreements about your interpretation of SD as a model. I didn't change my mind about anything because of some personal stuff, only about whether I should share it or not.

Why would I be upset about somebody typing me the same as I type myself?

It's going to be fine now.

Maybe you'll learn something.

You want to at least pretend that you're not the one instigating all this, or? I said no more personal attacks. Last verbal warning.

@lxlichael @KH2 If you two start up again, I'll bring out the points.

This is not a good thing to do with things you can change.

@lxlichael No more personal attacks.

Why limit yourself to logic? Why not approach it experientially? You seem to be very worried about fine conceptual distinctions but not so much about what the concepts are actually referring to. I propose that this is the crux of the issue.

Aside from how it's generally just socially cringe to assess another forum member's "development", to obsessively pin down everything to a hyper-generalized framework like SD just becomes silly at some point. I also think @thisintegrated is an atypical individual in many ways which cannot be captured by SD. But if I were to begrudgingly concede to the task of pinning him down: Orange-Green.

Let me clarify: in the current world, even in the most developed parts of the Western world, you should not expect to find even the tiniest amount of Green 10-14 year olds, except maybe in some extremely extraordinary cases. The way children develop at this current stage of society is generally not conducive to it. If you look at Piaget's stages of cognitive development (actual mainstream science btw), Western children start having just basic logical deduction skills at 12-14 years old ("systematic cognition"), and if you're familiar with Ken Wilber's work, you would know that this correlates with Orange cognition. If you then look at Neo-Piagetian models, "meta-systematic cognition" is the next step above that, which correlates with Green cognition, and this is the start of context/construct awareness. Here, you're not just learning about how parts of a system fit together logically, but you're learning about many types of systems and their connections to other systems, both horizontally (e.g. seeing the differences and similarities between systems) and vertically (e.g. understanding how underlying assumptions affect a system, or how they can belong to a super-ordinate category, e.g. a paradigm). This is how Green people start being aware of things like privilege and cultural relativism, i.e. how things are largely a result of underlying historical and sociocultural systems ("context"), and how their own position in the world and how they understand it ("construct") is not "the only way" and is also a bit arbitrary. In this day and age, this requires a certain amount of life experience; of meeting different people and coming across different ways of thinking; and for people who are prone to Green and live in a place like the West, this usually starts happening at 18-21 years old, i.e. university age, hence why universities are considered the Greenest places (the most cognitively developed children, who of course are the most prone to Green, generally end up going to university and start being receptive to that kind of learning there). Maybe this will change significantly when we get AI and revolutionize information processing, which indeed would be a radical change in our "survival conditions", but for now, we're generally stuck with the 18-21 figure.

They're directly intertwined with each other, and you would know that if you have had any of those experiences. Sure, if we want to be autistic about it, you can have ego death and oneness without cessation, but you can't have cessation without ego death and oneness. Cessation is like I said when you let the effects of ego death and oneness maximize to the point where even sense perceptions (which are dualistic in nature) also disappear, and you're left with non-duality in its purest form.

Agreed.

"three Daniel Schmachtenberger videos"

I just don't like calling people underdeveloped.

Is it just mean, or is it also "for your own good"? ... "I'll just let him believe he is Turquoise, why crush people's egos for no reason?" Well, now there was a reason, so I did it.