Carl-Richard

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Firstly, cognitive complexity is not about the mind liking complexity as a sort of masturbatory exercise. It's just that complex problems require complex minds to solve them. The problem might be complex, but the solution might be simple (arguably, that is what a solution is on a fundamental level: a reduction in complexity). So cognitive complexity is the ability to solve complex cognitive problems. What is cognition? Firstly, cognitive complexity is what underlies Spiral Dynamics and all the other stage theories within the Western paradigm of academic developmental psychology, and since it's a construct of Western psychology, it deals with the concept of cognition that ascribes it essential qualities, or "content" (e.g. thoughts, feelings, perceptions). So in this sense, cognitive development means an increase in complexity of the contents of the mind (which is what Ken Wilber refers to as "Growing up"). On the other hand, non-dual awakening is about "Waking up", which I would describe as going meta on your own cognition. So unlike cognitive development, it's not about an increase in the complexity of contents, but it's about being able to take a step back and distinguish between contents (thoughts etc.) and the context of the mind (consciousness/awareness). "Cleaning up" is just a synonym for psychotherapy; uncovering trauma and fixing neuroses, i.e. the contents of mind that are generally hidden from view. Now, you mentioned Jed McKenna's model, which I can appreciate, however, you're then expanding the idea of cognitive development and stepping outside the realm of academic developmental psychology. McKenna's "Human Adulthood" seems to take the end result of Growing up, Waking up, and Cleaning up and smash them all into the same construct, which makes sense, because that is also what Wilber would consider the peak of human maturity. However, that is not what SD is doing, so equating Turquoise to Human Adulthood would be a mistake.

The fundamental values are the same: a house divided against itself cannot stand. The main difference is that the Game B guys are mostly academics, which means they're more analytically rigorous.

That's how all communication works. There is no meaning without context

@JoeVolcano The interpretation of Turquoise is obviously a hotly contested issue, so I'll admit that this is speculative without blaming myself too much . I'm firstly in the "growing up ≠ waking up" camp, so equating non-duality to Turquoise is a no-no. Other than that, I used to agree with the Nordic metamodernists that Turquoise is an unnecessary stage, because it's not really a new value system, or it doesn't seem to differ in any significant way from Yellow. However, we know that Tier 2 works differently from Tier 1, and that therefore maybe the progression from Yellow to Turquoise also can work differently, i.e. it doesn't have to be a new set of values. So given this assumption, maybe a good place to start would be this: by which criteria should we divide Tier 2 into an individualist and a collectivist component? Now, since it's no longer about a difference in values, what is left other than a difference in maturity, emphasis and focus? Can we also not make the case these can reflect differences in cognitive complexity (i.e. still following the same backbone of cognitive development)? For example, a Daniel Schmachtenberger could probably write a stellar article that lays out the blueprint of a post-rivalrous civilization, but does that make him on the same level as a Sadhguru who is arguably already laying the groundwork for that? Probably not. So yeah, this is basically a roundabout explanation of why I choose to conflate what you call proxy criteria vs. actual development, because again, there is imo not much else you can do if you want to chop up Tier 2 into multiple segments The Tobacco man? Probably not (btw I deleted everything I wrote by accident, so it took me more than twice as long to write it )

I don't generally consider non-duality to be an aspect of Turquoise.

How so?

How you would you explain the distinction between Yellow and Turquoise? Especially the individualist vs. collectivist aspect.

I specifically don't equate spirituality with Turquoise. That is sort of the main implication I had in mind while writing it (it actually came to mind while discussing this exact topic). So yes, SD is about mapping the contents of the mind, while spirituality is about going meta on the contents of the mind; two distinct things which may synergize, but are nevertheless still separate. Despite Sadhguru being primarily known for spirituality, he is still a good example Tier 2, especially Turquoise. His various projects are grounded in systems thinking, deep ecology and holism, just like the Game B guys, but the plurality and the scale of his approach is much more mature. He has been working within a Tier 2 framework for multiple decades, and it shows. I'm saying that a person at Turquoise needs to be fairly massive, and that includes possessing massive capital and a sphere of influence. That is how you make true collective change. If you don't know how to do that yet but you still have your Tier 2 vision, then you just need to work on yourself, which means you're still mainly at the individualistic stage of Tier 2 (Yellow).

No.

"Lionel Messi ● 12 Most LEGENDARY Moments Ever in Football ►Impossible to Repeat◄" Try to count out every time his foot touches the ball in the dribbling clips. Insane.

It ain't a thing yet.

What.

Bruh. The types of experiences that you personally associate with terror, fear and pleas for help will usually require a complex brain and are largely mammalian things.

I guess a hyper-prolactin state could make a cold feel more taxing in terms of energy levels.

If fapping caused colds, classrooms would be empty.

No.

Here is a summary of most of the points I've been parroting

I know exactly what you mean.

I used to think I squandered my potential as a professional musician, and that I really wanted all the fame and fortune that comes with that. I felt a lot of shame around it, and I've thought about how weird that was, because I've always thought that becoming a professional musician is not really something you aim for, so from a rational perspective, it shouldn't have bothered me this much. Then I really thought about it, and I concluded that it was not really about squandering my professional success, but rather my own spiritual success of mastering the instrument, which in a sense is even more heart-wrenching. It all boils down the day I made the stupid decision that "practice is ego" (which in fact was an egoic defense mechanism), and I consciously made myself believe that I shouldn't care about becoming a better player. I didn't realize that mastery is fundamentally what spirituality is about, and that consciously denying it was just a really crude form of spiritual bypassing. Oh well, we all have to learn these things in some way or another

Definitions are something you think up. You don't have to do a comprehensive swoop of your experience to construct one. You can just put a stake in the sand and say "this is what a woman is". This is in fact what you always have to do at some point, and it will never be perfect. Anyways, if gender is this strongly tied to experience, what is not an experience of gender? Isn't there a danger of the concept losing its meaning?

You could almost say the art of chess is to win.

@Michael569 @Flowerfaeiry Wow, side by side, you literally have the same profile picture

True. There are like 8 common definitions of man/woman and infinite genders. Why does "usually" matter? For example, you could think that you saw a plastic bag in the dark when it was in fact a rock, and even if you usually make that mistake, that does not make the rock a plastic bag. All you have to do is wait until sunrise (i.e. move from the public place to the bedroom) and that mistake becomes very clear. This goes back to practicality and context. You also don't have to take DNA samples to know that chromosomes are an accurate reflection of your experience of gender. Again, If I'm with a trans woman in the bedroom, I will quickly experience why I think that chromosomes have something to do with gender.

If I were to observe a passing trans person in public, I would probably think they're a woman. If I were to observe a passing trans person in the bedroom, I would not think they're a woman. However, whether I think somebody is a woman due to missing information, practicality and context, does not change the fact that they don't fit my definition of woman.