Carl-Richard

What is a physical law? Here is an insight I had about gravity (an "original" insight): People often say gravity is not a force but an acceleration. But when I jump off a 10 foot diving board, I don't feel like I'm accelerating as if I'm sitting in a car that is pumping the gas (there is no feeling of inertia). I just feel like I'm weightless, in free fall. But still, my speed relative to the ground is increasing by the second (m/s^2), so I am indeed "accelerating" relative to the ground, but there is still no feeling of inertia. So what is more accurate to say is that when you're falling towards the ground, the ground is accelerating towards you rather than you accelerating towards it (but that is also not accurate if acceleration requires inertia in some part of the system, because the Earth certainly doesn't experience inertia either in that case). And now I just realized that the reason they say gravity is not a force is for the same reason that I experience inertia in the car but not when jumping off the diving board: When you are acted upon by a force (which can be expressed as "Force = mass x acceleration") and it causes you to move, you experience inertia. But you only experience inertia when moving relative to your own reference frame ("inertial frame"). The fact that you experience no distinction between the ground accelerating towards you and you accelerating towards the ground when jumping off the diving board, is because they are equivalent with respect to your reference frame. And not coincidentally, The Equivalence Principle states "there is no difference between an accelerating frame of reference and a gravitational field". So when accelerating due to a gravitational field, it's actually your reference frame that is accelerating, i.e. the thing you use to judge whether something else is accelerating, which is the same as experiencing something else accelerating towards you. Holy shit Einstein is a genius.

Wow

Now I'm actually unsure if you're actually Max. I'll stop derailing the thread now ☺️

100% Mr. Girl.

You're like Mr. Girl with conduct disorder.

He had one intrusive thought.

No. Absolutizing, dichotomizing, catastrophizing, Blue thinking destroys your life relatively speaking.

It's said that 1-2% of the population is Tier 2. Let's say you stumbled across this forum 6 months ago and you started learning about Spiral Dynamics, and now the concept of Tier 2 seems to make a lot of sense to you. It seems very wise and noble and all that. That said, you only started learning about the model 6 months ago. Advancing through a stage takes decades. Let's say you have spent 5 years on this forum and Tier 2 seems to make more and more sense to you and you notice that your understanding of it has deepened over time. Still, advancing through a stage takes decades. And maybe you realize that there is more to come and that you maybe didn't understand it all that well before when you had just learned about it. People on this forum come from all over the world. Let's assume you're at the stage where 40% of the world population is at, the most populous stage: Blue. That's still an optimistic estimate; "being average". You can be either above or below that. But let's assume you are above that: Orange is 30% of the world population. If you are not below that, it seems increasingly likely that you are within Orange. Put in another way: 90% of the world population are in or below Orange. Now, if you are above that (if you are Green), you are in the top 10% of the world. Let's assume that you, an average guy, is in the top 10% of development in the world; a true Greenie. Phew! Now... are you a part of those who just recently stumbled onto Green, or are a truly mature, deeply steeped, aged and refined Green? Did Green even seem familiar to you when you first learned about SD, or was it something "those other people" did — those "hippies and New Agers" — and that you had to "go back and integrate it" in order to "transcend it"? Maybe Green is something you have to grow into for the next decade? "Who knows?" Anyways, there are probably fewer numbers on that, but let's assume that out of the top 10%, the first 6% are new Greens while the top 4% are mature Greens. So, let's assume you are at the top 4% of development in the world. Now, and really only now, do you have a realistic chance of "stumbling onto" Yellow and truly resonating with it in such a way that you will develop towards it in actuality, and not just adopt a low-resolution, stereotyped, Temu.com version that everybody can parrot off after reading the first Google Images result they see of those graphs made by Wilber and maybe some knock-offs neatly explaining the model. And that's you developing towards Yellow, which yes, takes decades. Maybe in a decade, you are truly in the top 1-2%, in Tier 2. Unless of course, you were always in the top 1-2% and Yellow made perfect sense to you, Green seemed almost boring because of how familiar it is and the decades you spent there, Orange is of course perfectly integrated into your bones, having had a long career within that world, and of course Blue lies at your very foundation. If this does not sound familiar, if you have the even slightest doubt that you are a "Tier 2 thinker", most likely, you are not. "But how can that be possible? Tier 2 seems so cool, I can speak the language, I can list off the qualities, I can parrot the talking points, I know the authors, I even do psychedelics". Well, while that might be true, and while that might even help you develop, anybody else who has known about these things for 6 months, or well, read that fancy Google Image graph, can do the same things. The starting assumption that anybody should have; despite how many Actualized.org videos you have watched, despite how many hours you have spent on self-development, despite how intellectually curious and open and intuitively and holistically-minded you think you are as a person; is that you are not special. And to say that is not pessimism, because you can give whatever complicated sounding argument for how you truly understand Yellow, and it will change nothing, because I am willing to bet you have virtually nothing to show for it. Virtually nothing in the real world reflects it. It's only on paper, only in ideas, not integrated, not a part of your environment, not a part of your daily work. And if it is, good for you, but even then, you can have the 6-month Temu version. Even if you disagree with the specifics or indeed think that I'm too pessimistic, this has become more clear to me as I've met more people and spent more time in different places: that these ways of thinking that many call "Tier 2" are firstly nearly everywhere if you just know where to look (e.g. in many places in academia), that people are able to take on these ideas and present them clearly when you would otherwise want to say "oh but you're just a normie", that when people come across these ideas and start to wield them, they do not change much, it's mainly the words that change and maybe some learned behaviors that ChatGPT could teach you in a 5-bullet point list. True development is not about words, not about regurgitating talking points you have memorized, not about how many videos you have watched or even books you have read (although they can help), but how much you have lived. Life is where development happens; the theater of your mind and anything else is secondary.

I want a Stage Beige jungle shaman that believes she is Coral and tells me assertively that I'm Orange and should work on my income streams.

I believe that people call other people stupid mostly because they disagree with them or have other values than them. It has actually very little to do with intelligence. And if you believe otherwise, it's likely because your idea of intelligence is very specific and deeply tied to your values.

It's funny: the image of a genuinely retarded child brings compassion (for most people I know). "Retarded" used as a pejorative comes from a sense of frustration and anger, the opposite of compassion. You have compassion for the child because you are truly so far beyond them in capacities that you have a sense of understanding and acceptance of their behavior. But if you call someone "retarded" as a pejorative, it's because you are not so far beyond them that you can do the same. In fact, the people you call "retarded" are actually more like you than actually retarded people. And in order to view them with compassion, you must elevate yourself so far above them that you are actually divine. But we don't call that being an egomaniac, but being a saint.

Why do you expect people to be spiritual? Do you think this is a reasonable expectation to have on people? People barely know how to feed themselves. You need to accept what is true. Reality is not perfect. You are incredibly privileged to be able to be in the position of seeing another way, but you are not taking reality for what it is if you try to impose it on reality without setting your expectations low for how fast that will happen.

You could probably track something like Hawkins' Map of Consciousness onto proneness to disease with a very strong correlation. And you could peg various neurophysiological markers on each level (weighted with chronicity).

Think of them like they're retarded children who don't know any better. When someone hits so far below your expectations (or you just don't have many expectations of them), it no longer becomes a thing you react negatively to but simply "I understand why that is". But it sort of requires that you understand why they act the way they do, but it doesn't take a genius to do that, it's usually just about reminding yourself whenever the emotions kick in. I talked about exactly the same thing in this thread: I recently talked to a friend of mine about watching Destiny, and he said he really doesn't like him at all; he thinks he is too robotic and detached from his emotions, a psycho, etc. And I agree with that, but I still watch him, because it's a shitshow and it's entertaining (and he does say interesting things from time to time). What I didn't get to tell him is that I think that most people (and most of life) are a shitshow, so it doesn't make much of a difference (i.e. my expectations are already low). In a sense, getting angry at stupid people is a reflection of your own stupidity, because if you can't deal with stupid people, then how stupid are you? 😝 On the other hand, if you don't feel quite well (due to stress or other things), and you don't have the vigilance, vitality or frame to step back and think, it's natural to let the emotions take over. It takes resilience and good fortune to take the meta-perspective in any situation. But then it's simply about increasing your resilience and getting your emotions well-regulated. And of course, some things trigger you more than others, especially people who in many ways are actively working against your values. But the same things apply, it's only a bit more challenging.

Words for counting.

Tramadol is such a weird drug. I combined it with weed a few times many years ago and it's like being on every drug at once.

Not necessarily "doomed", but you will experience at least some of the effects I listed earlier at all times to some degree (cognitive narrowing, impaired learning, elevated cortisol and lowered stress tolerance, health damage and carcinogenic effects of smoking, numbing of emotions, disorganization of thought and behavior). If it's something you do every weekend, there is of course also the tendency to cause a dependency on weed to "have fun", but it's not quite at the level of depending on it to "function" (which is more if you smoke every day and when you stop smoking, you can't sleep or eat very well and your mood is severely disrupted). See what happens if you smoke every other weekend instead of every weekend. Maybe you will be forced to find out other ways to enjoy yourself and you will also feel an additional sense of freedom that you don't have to smoke every weekend in order to have fun.

I just think it's useful for people to know what thoughts and ideas people have about weed that smoke a little more than they are willing to admit. It's a seeming trend for weed users to paint this idealistic picture of weed that they aspire to inhabit but which remains mostly that; an aspiration, a dream, and a way to keep smoking while aiming at something higher and promising yourself that one day, you will be there. But as a stoner, your promises aren't often kept. It tends to remain an ideal, a dream, and the rubber never quite meets the road. The eternal curse of the stoner is the potential that could have been but never became. You know who talked about how the best way to use weed is to take long and good breaks and then smoke as much as you can in one sitting and treat it as a shamanic/psychedelic ritual? Terrence McKenna. He smoked weed every day.

Please state when you are using AI in your post. https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/

Are you literally just posting ChatGPT responses all the time? Life is not food, but food is good.

So every day?

How many times the last week?

Actual numbers.