Carl-Richard

Yeah. I was bamboozled by the context change from thinking it was Beans' thread on his general thoughts on grammar to it being a reply to a Kendrick Lamar thread. But also, ironically, he could have communicated it a bit better :>

By the way, sorry for derailing the thread, but @Yimpa baited me into it as he linked @Beans' post in this thread, and when you click on that link (without reading that it's a reply to a thread) and without scrolling afterwards, it looks like it was @Beans who made the thread.

Tell me, if you are unable to adapt to a social situation and we are interested in potential explanations based on the personal characteristics of that person, what options are there?

Let me re-iterate: if you engage with a certain social situation regularly and you are somehow not adapting to the expectations of that social situation (whatever they may be, e.g. proper grammar, or merely being able to speak, or not taking a shit next to somebody who is eating), people will not be happy with you, and in that sense, it's not good (and it may be caused by various "pathologies" like I mentioned).

Theld9ck lgogø ek jxii7 gikbnk ognno ndeinnf pmfmkrnf gjgofi. It's perfectly possible to eat a meal while somebody is taking a shit next to you. Yes. Maybe. I made a perfectly fluent point about the context. Would you listen to Kendrick Lamar if he sounded like theld9ck lgogø ek jxii7 gikbnk ognno ndeinnf pmfmkrnf gjgofi? It depends on the context. They are pretty explanatory for why people expect proper grammar in certain situations. I just explained why some people don't like improper grammar. No need to be offended.

Communication and being social in general is a game with rules. If you don't know how to play the game, people will be unhappy with you. It's not as much about grammar as knowing how to be social and follow a set of rules. And if you are unwilling to follow the rules, you are either lazy or a delinquent. And if you are unable to learn the rules, you are either disabled or unintelligent. These are generalizations, but all in all, a lack of rule-following (e.g. proper grammar) is generally not good. But of course, people with bad grammar hang out with other people with bad grammar, and for them, it's within the rules of the game, so it's not seen as a problem for them. Which rules to follow are dictated by the people you hang out with (hence why Leo made that post about what rules he wants us to follow).

😂

Why is it that when I derail a thread with an arguably not even tangential topic, everybody loses their minds, but when people do it with non-dual/awakening/enlightenment mumbo-jumbo, nobody bats an eye? 😃

The new Opeth album is finally out and it's amazing: What Opeth is known for is their insane dynamic range (jumping between soft prog rock and death metal in the same song), but with this new album, it is taken to new extremes, which I will explain: Their last four albums saw the elimination of death metal elements (particularly the death metal growls) and rather a revertion back to hard rock or heavy metal elements, while still keeping the dialectic with the soft elements. So until now, they have essentially had two main "modes" in their dynamic range which they play on. Now, as they have spent the last 13 years building that more classic hard rock heavy metal style, they have created a new mode, which when they reintroduced death metal elements on this album, creates three main modes. There are some songs where you can distinctly feel this, where instead of a sudden contrast between a soft rock section and a death metal section, you get a slow ramping up from soft, to hard, to death metal. And the death metal parts are really death metal (the song Paragraph 4 contains arguably some of the heaviest death metal parts I've heard). Now, there are some songs from older albums that seem to do this, but I think it has become a more mainstage quality of their songs with this new album.

True. Insanity is insanity of the mind, the ego. The ego reacts in fear, with rage. Awakening transcends the distinction-making ego that fears, that rages. The ego is left alone to be sane or insane if it wants. It's true that you have to let go of the fear of insanity, of the possibility of insanity, and giving yourself completely into that when transcending the ego which generally sustains itself on what it perceives to be sanity. But this is not the same as actually becoming insane. This is a dangerous conflation which can lead to a lot of unneccessary pain and suffering. If you are insane, you are insane, not You.

"The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight" - Joseph Campbell. The mystic does not shun sanity. He holds both sanity and insanity. You don't shun language just because you discover a part of yourself beyond language. Being troubled, chaotic and ungrounded is not a sign of wisdom, not a sign of maturity, not a sign of awakening. It's a sign of change and potentially a transition into the former. So no, conflating the relative with the absolute is not excused.

I don't think so. Doing intense work for a short period (20 minutes) and then resting for the next 47 hours and 40 minutes before you work again is most definitely not going to lead to "burnout", unless those 20 minutes are the most terrorizing and traumatic 20 minutes of your life. It will lead to an adaptation response which will increase your ability to handle those 47 hours and 40 minutes spent doing other things, which will actually lead to an overall reduction in burnout, and that is what you're after. Reading this sentence is more difficult than a 7-Back task.

I've started on 7-Back and it's ridiculous. It's essentially challenging the 7±2 rule every 3 seconds (or every 7 trials depending on how you define it).

My favorite stage Red psychopath That wig is certainly stage Red

Not necessarily me either, but that's at least Wilber's model

Mysticism ("union with God"), awakening; I treat them as the same concept, and I think Wilber does as well (not that it matters much). Tier 3 is the transition from Tier 2 without mysticism to Tier 2 with mysticism.

He has the model with Tier 3, which to my understanding is when you are Tier 2 but you are also developing your mysticism. I have less problems with that model for a few reasons. Firstly, his models are not based on structured empirical methods like giving sentence completion tests to people. So there is nothing to really critique about things like sampling, because there really are no such things. He is basing his models on his reading of philosophical texts, history and scientific literature. Secondly, he has the system of "Tiers", which mark a significant disjunction between previous stages. If he wants to denote the transition of Tier 2 (high cognitive complexity) into a focus on mysticism (trans-cognitive, trans-personal) as Tier 3, that's at least more illustrative then having it all under the same umbrella of "ego development". After all, Cook-Greuter calls the stage in question "Ego-Transcendence". It lies in the word (but not only that) that you have in large part abandoned ego development, in favor of "trans-ego" development. Now, of course even after significant ego-transcendence, there is a dialectic between ego and trans-ego development, but nevertheless, there is a significant disjunction between them. Thirdly, it is indeed accurate to say that once you max out Tier 2, then maxing out mysticism is a "step up", which would make Tier 3 more developed. But of course, mysticism by itself is not more developed than Tier 2 (it's a different game). I think Wilber is more explicit about this than Cook-Greuter (but maybe I'm wrong). One issue though is that it makes the model in a sense historically contigent in a discontinuous way, in that any potential development past Tier 2 that is not classifiable as mysticism will not be captured by Tier 3 and would therefore need to be amended like a patch update. It's more intuitive that you would add stages that develop later in history (and that are more cognitively complex) on the very top of the hierarchy, but this would not be the case here. But maybe as the world develops that even lower stages could start to show discontinuity like this given enough time. Imagine a new stage popping up between Orange and Green.

It's a shame I was only parroting Wilber then 😂

The highest levels also include eating food and breathing air. But these also occur at lower stages. Same with awakening.

Well, let me then re-iterate: I'm not the one lumping things together. I'm talking about what I think the model is doing, trying to interpret what it is saying on its own terms (as far as that is possible), and that requires reading what the author said and the methods they used to construct it. And like, if you want to talk about your own understanding of reality, don't call it "Susanne Cook-Greuter's Ego Development Theory", if you see what I'm saying 😆 Maybe I will 🤓 (I've actually seriously considered this, for maybe a few minutes 🙂).

You would have to spell it out to me with concrete text examples from her 90-page document because I'm not convinced. It is, but I'm saying those are attributable to the stages below Unitive/Ego-Transcendent, not the stage in itself. Maybe she should have done more in-depth tests than sentence completions then (jk) That's good, I like swimming in those waters in this situation. And it was just a tongue in cheek way of describing the people who dominate the top of these models. I'm not lumping them together. I'm saying the people making the models are inadvertently lumping them together with the lack of diversity in their samples. See my above comment or just remember my whole thread on this. Notice this beautiful juxtaposition which underscores both my points (that Unitive = mysticism, and that the lack of diversity of samples is the probable cause of it being included as a stage at all): "Nine Levels Of Increasing Embrace In Ego Development: A Full-Spectrum Theory Of Vertical Growth And Meaning Making" (Cook-Greuter, 2013, p. 74). If only the samples had included rigorous selections of both Eastern and Western peoples at various levels of currently conceived "ego development", I believe this notion of Unitive/Ego-Transcendent as an ego development stage would collapse.

I'm simply not convinced that Unitive or Ego-Transcendent in its essence describes anything else than mysticism or awakening; whatever word you want to put on it. Maybe the only significant difference would be that you are also cognitively complex and are able to describe your mysticism in a "complex way" (and are also unlikely to steal, rape, abuse, etc.) rather than what the state of consciousness implies in itself. Which is again, the white collar, intellectual elite spirituality.

Not even some of the shamans? 🤔