An analogy for the first taste of a stage, being centered in a stage, and reaching the epitome of a stage:
It is like the first time we juggle three balls for five seconds...it is not juggling, but it is the first taste. We call someone a juggler when they can juggle three balls for a couple of minutes. And there are showmen out there who can juggle ten clubs, all on fire.
A person of great integrity who lives their principles is the epitome of Self-Authoring Mind. Many popular "saintly people", such as Nelson Mandela, symbolize this (symbolize: many of these secular saints, whether Mother Theresa or Nelson Mandela, seem to be pretty unsavory characters as flesh-and-blood human beings).
The Self-Authoring Mind starts peeking out when someone, after the first time they find resonance with a group, finds even a touch of voice while participating with that group. This might easily happen at age 8.
There is a shift of center-of-gravity, from the first self-authoring moment to when self-authoring is the central disposition (though not necessarily entirely consistent). Moving beyond that point, to become an epitome of a stage, is optional ― the initial blossoms of the next Stage can occur even when the Stage center-of-gravity has shifted only a little.
To become the epitome of a stage is absolutely optional as an aspect of the stage, and far more than is necessary as a foundation for the next stage.
Now, we can ask the question: what is the epitome of Stage 5? There are many symbols that might point to that. One is the symbol of the Daoist Sage (as symbol, not necessarily as flesh-and-blood). The symbol of the Dzogchen master, possibly also. Here, though, I speak only of the symbol.
Stage 5 peeks through, though, the first time someone successfully juggles, for a moment, conflicting principles. This may happen as early as late adolescence.
I think that you can get to Rigpa in a very traditional way and know nothing about systems. Having said that, not taking concepts too seriously probably resembles Stage 5. I am a SW developer, studied CS, I've always had tendencies to go meta, so for me Rigpa very naturally aligns with Stage 5. They are very related. But they are different concepts, aren't they? Having said that, what I was actually talking about regarding their similarity is that people tend to take them as holy. Rigpa actually feels so common and basic that you feel like crying 🙂
Hi David, I would prefer a daily email compared to a weekly one. I think I would rush through the longer content with the weekly email, especially on a Monday when it gets a little busier than the rest of the week. There is always this voice in my head telling me to not spend too much time on any single email. This voice is of course incorrect. Every email should not be treated equally. With the daily email, I do not have to deal with the voice. I could take the time to savor the content and think more about your message. Thank you!
All that being said, I'm curious if you do think there's something that could be legitimately be called stage six, and what it might be. Or rather, I'm curious what a qualitative improvement over stage 5 look like? Haha or is that a very non-stage 5 question? 🤣
I don't think there's any evidence for a stage six, or any coherent idea of what that would even mean.
I'd say there's one exception to this. It was pointed out to me by Charlie, who's observed it in coaching clients' development. I subsequently described it as "multi-systematicity versus meta-systematicity" in the meta-rationality book. And, Ari Nielsen posted something about this a day or two ago, actually! And, Susan Cook-Greuter also makes the distinction.
Multi-systematicity is skill in applying different systems in different situations, and (a step further) synthesizing more than one, bringing multiple ones to bear, in a single situation. It's still bound to systematicity, though. "Meta-systematicity," a perhaps unfortunate name now, is—by contrast—the further ability to work with situations directly, without interposing any system at all, in cases in which no system is helpful. It differs from pre-systematic stages in its panoramic awareness.
If this distinction is valid, which I think it probably is, then these could be considered stages five and six. Cook-Greuter does number them that way. However, other theorists don't make the distinction, and would include both ways of being within "stage five."
There's murky ontological questions here about "what even IS a stage" and "how do we know what does or doesn't count as 'a distinct stage'." The academic field has not done a good job of articulating clear theories here, much less of testing them.
Yeah that makes sense. I like the name multi-systematicity. I've been calling it the meta-religion. In the last few months I've been trying to study a lot more of Christianity. Even if I don't identify as a Christian, I can see the ways in which a Christian cognitive grammar influences the way I see the world. Moreover, the more I've studied the Bible, I have this uncanny feeling that I'm actually reading the Mahabharata and vice versa. And yet at the same time, they are very unique in different ways.
I suspect that Dzogchen by itself isn't really viable for me, because that's just not the broader set of cultural forces that I'm participating in.
>You can work towards stage five in a practical way.
Plausible, but there are no authoritative mainstream teachers, curriculum, or exams, so it's no surprise that people associate this with mystical or esoteric stuff. There are also near misses, like, say, the LW-style "rationalism" - they didn't have particular spiritual or metaphysical objections to doing practical work in this general direction, but were misguided just enough in various subtle ways and eventually fizzled out.
An analogy for the first taste of a stage, being centered in a stage, and reaching the epitome of a stage:
It is like the first time we juggle three balls for five seconds...it is not juggling, but it is the first taste. We call someone a juggler when they can juggle three balls for a couple of minutes. And there are showmen out there who can juggle ten clubs, all on fire.
A person of great integrity who lives their principles is the epitome of Self-Authoring Mind. Many popular "saintly people", such as Nelson Mandela, symbolize this (symbolize: many of these secular saints, whether Mother Theresa or Nelson Mandela, seem to be pretty unsavory characters as flesh-and-blood human beings).
The Self-Authoring Mind starts peeking out when someone, after the first time they find resonance with a group, finds even a touch of voice while participating with that group. This might easily happen at age 8.
There is a shift of center-of-gravity, from the first self-authoring moment to when self-authoring is the central disposition (though not necessarily entirely consistent). Moving beyond that point, to become an epitome of a stage, is optional ― the initial blossoms of the next Stage can occur even when the Stage center-of-gravity has shifted only a little.
To become the epitome of a stage is absolutely optional as an aspect of the stage, and far more than is necessary as a foundation for the next stage.
Now, we can ask the question: what is the epitome of Stage 5? There are many symbols that might point to that. One is the symbol of the Daoist Sage (as symbol, not necessarily as flesh-and-blood). The symbol of the Dzogchen master, possibly also. Here, though, I speak only of the symbol.
Stage 5 peeks through, though, the first time someone successfully juggles, for a moment, conflicting principles. This may happen as early as late adolescence.
I was like, substitute Rigpa for Stage 5, the talk basically still works 😋🤭
Yes, there is at least a structural similarity! I’m struggling to understand more clearly (and maybe eventually explain) how they differ.
I think that you can get to Rigpa in a very traditional way and know nothing about systems. Having said that, not taking concepts too seriously probably resembles Stage 5. I am a SW developer, studied CS, I've always had tendencies to go meta, so for me Rigpa very naturally aligns with Stage 5. They are very related. But they are different concepts, aren't they? Having said that, what I was actually talking about regarding their similarity is that people tend to take them as holy. Rigpa actually feels so common and basic that you feel like crying 🙂
Hi David, I would prefer a daily email compared to a weekly one. I think I would rush through the longer content with the weekly email, especially on a Monday when it gets a little busier than the rest of the week. There is always this voice in my head telling me to not spend too much time on any single email. This voice is of course incorrect. Every email should not be treated equally. With the daily email, I do not have to deal with the voice. I could take the time to savor the content and think more about your message. Thank you!
That's helpful, thank you!
All that being said, I'm curious if you do think there's something that could be legitimately be called stage six, and what it might be. Or rather, I'm curious what a qualitative improvement over stage 5 look like? Haha or is that a very non-stage 5 question? 🤣
I don't think there's any evidence for a stage six, or any coherent idea of what that would even mean.
I'd say there's one exception to this. It was pointed out to me by Charlie, who's observed it in coaching clients' development. I subsequently described it as "multi-systematicity versus meta-systematicity" in the meta-rationality book. And, Ari Nielsen posted something about this a day or two ago, actually! And, Susan Cook-Greuter also makes the distinction.
Multi-systematicity is skill in applying different systems in different situations, and (a step further) synthesizing more than one, bringing multiple ones to bear, in a single situation. It's still bound to systematicity, though. "Meta-systematicity," a perhaps unfortunate name now, is—by contrast—the further ability to work with situations directly, without interposing any system at all, in cases in which no system is helpful. It differs from pre-systematic stages in its panoramic awareness.
If this distinction is valid, which I think it probably is, then these could be considered stages five and six. Cook-Greuter does number them that way. However, other theorists don't make the distinction, and would include both ways of being within "stage five."
There's murky ontological questions here about "what even IS a stage" and "how do we know what does or doesn't count as 'a distinct stage'." The academic field has not done a good job of articulating clear theories here, much less of testing them.
Yeah that makes sense. I like the name multi-systematicity. I've been calling it the meta-religion. In the last few months I've been trying to study a lot more of Christianity. Even if I don't identify as a Christian, I can see the ways in which a Christian cognitive grammar influences the way I see the world. Moreover, the more I've studied the Bible, I have this uncanny feeling that I'm actually reading the Mahabharata and vice versa. And yet at the same time, they are very unique in different ways.
I suspect that Dzogchen by itself isn't really viable for me, because that's just not the broader set of cultural forces that I'm participating in.
>You can work towards stage five in a practical way.
Plausible, but there are no authoritative mainstream teachers, curriculum, or exams, so it's no surprise that people associate this with mystical or esoteric stuff. There are also near misses, like, say, the LW-style "rationalism" - they didn't have particular spiritual or metaphysical objections to doing practical work in this general direction, but were misguided just enough in various subtle ways and eventually fizzled out.