The 9 Stages Of Ego Development - Part 2
By Leo Gura - September 7, 2020 | 8 Comments
Presenting Susanne Cook-Greuter’s developmental psychology research
Downloads:
Joel says: I can’t wait for part 3 when I find out once again that I am GOD disguised as a human. By the way, check out the YouTube videos of Alexander Malofeev, maybe the world’s greatest classical pianist.
Max Raoy Gron says: I don’t know about this, nothing is better than my conventional, traditional, proud, fundamentalist, strictly moral stage of the conformist, but I’m aware of the traps. It’s not a complex mixture of voodoo, sorcery, religion, mumbo jumbo, and stage purple religions what science is, science is merely the systematic knowledge and study of natural or physical phenomena, says the Collins dictionary, it’s a specific department of knowledge. Therefore physics, chemistry, botany, biology, ichthyology, ornithology, and other physical and natural systematic studies of any kind are science, not Christianity, psychology, philosophy, pseudo-philosophy and nihilism, you who stretches the boundaries of science, professor spirit! That’s pseudoscience, I’m not a scientist and I’m proud of it, and not anti-science, not even questioning science, that’s bullshit, what do you think theology is? It’s a science of religion! In all due respect you may kiss my arse!
Random College Kid says: No one said science being useless, or that philosophy, psychology, the humanities and so on were science. Just that science alone cannot explain everything in the world is the point here, not that science is useless. Did you even listen? Yeah, next time go listen to science (meaning hard science, not soft science) when you’re trying to date someone, figure yourself out emotionally from depression and anxiety, or trying to deal with anything that involves your social life. Being some IT nerd, I know why the stereotype of scientific nerds being clueless with anything having to do with social skills or showing basic human empathy can be so common. Yes, clearly, if you want to befriend others or even make someone fall in love with you, you have to calculate the “mathematical” instructions of their minds so you can get a life out there with other people!
I could understand not getting philosophy, humanities or anything spiritual as science, but psychology? I guess if you want to see a therapist when you’re depressed or anxious, because you’re so lonely, you don’t really bother to go at all because you don’t think psychology exists, so mental illnesses doesn’t exist. I guess mental illnesses is just caused by demonic possession now, or perhaps if you think only hard science exists, than your emotions or anyone’s emotions don’t really “exist” because you can’t measure feelings by numbers. Yep, pretty much everyone is a robot. I’m sorry psychologists saving people from the brink of suicide is not “science” to you, no matter how many scientific studies are out there on psychology.
Random College Kid says: I doubt this would do much as a thank you, other than the little monetary support I could afford and recommending this to the few spiritual friends I have, but thank you for all this work. I’m 21 now, and I was 15 when I first got obsessed with Actualized.org, actually. I do also feel like I was postconventional to some extent at this stage, though my comfort level was more around the achiever type level, really, or the higher conventional level.
Around that time, your first videos on consciousness were being put up, and so
I’ve been following how things then, so I’m glad I found your stuff so early on life too. I was already meditating though since I was a kid, not for deep spiritual insights, but just for stress. Helped that I lived in a pretty Asian environment, that doesn’t always regularly practice this stuff, but doesn’t actively ridicule it either, so good I had that, even when it was just basic secular meditation. Still move back to the achiever kind of state when stressed (burnout, workaholism, perfectionism, etc.), but my baseline average is more postconventional now, so this video really helped guide me on that.
I decided to rewatch a lot of your consciousness videos, and holy shit, after a couple years of this stuff, reading a lot of your recommended books as well as lurking the forum, I finally caught on to what the hell you were talking about. I doubt I’m understanding it to the level of yogis who are decades more experienced than me, but I’m glad you were here explaining this stuff to me at this age, rather than getting so confused the way you did around my age, also pondering the same big picture questions. I think I’d feel so much more lonely, confused and left out by life if it wasn’t for Actualized.org.
Probably, I’d just be one over thousands just thanking you like this, but you’ve had enough influence on me that I figured I would at least do you the pleasure of at least affording you my thanks like this. The best I could do at the moment to help.
Well, Leo, I’ll just continue recommending you to people as the open minded spiritual network around me widens, but for now, I’ll just make sure to watch your videos regularly.
Well, see ya around, Leo.
Max Gron says: The people at the level of inability to grab something being more real, not less real can’t be understood by the conventional stages, true, except, perhaps, a religious-minded, and not rationalist-materialist (Leo’s wording) conformist stage person, to which, if they’re stuck in their world of a literal God, that he wrote the Bible, that they’re either in heaven or in hell, the conformist stage alone can understand that certain things, or it, being God, can’t be grabbed and is thus real, although in Leo’s mind he’s on a tangent of wandering into the thinking of rationalist-materialists who can’t grasp that and isn’t himself depicting religiously-minded people. That’s the facts on the matter, not an interpretation, but how my consciousness grasps what Leo was talking about, anyone above might disagree and misinterpret me being stuck in interpretation mode, I say no, at a self-deceived level you can’t debunk me with more interpretations, you’re just giving me your thoughts, you’re not arguing with me into the meat of the matter as everyone here is a bunch of buffoons taking teachings on faith as if Leo’s not full of shit, without investing deeply in themselves and using their brains in the crux of the problem, it’s therefore a sin to use your intellect therefore in my reality this is to be ignored, case closed.
Max Gron says: About transcendent morality I understand the altruistic tendencies and self-sacrifice came before Leo’s convenient installation of pre- and post-conventional and conventional morality, altruism is still at the conventional stage of morality, it’s not a new, reinvented morality but it’s the morality a squirrel has for protecting its baby squirrels by literally getting itself killed, that’s a reality no rationalist-atheist and selfish person can stand and I doubt how good it still is. I’m at the post-conventional stage of morality, I’ve risen to that level and I intend to refuse to move to Leo’s personal transcendent morality just to martyr myself and have the trouble either of a self-sacrificing Danger Mouse or to its excesses like that of Jesus Christ. I refuse to go to that “stage”, my post-conventional morality is the biggest evolution in morality and you know it, that nothing’s above that stage, and consists of making up my own morals from “some contract”that “we’re all in this together” type of rationale, although Leo sidesteps the reason of this by seeming to claim to insist that “one must make self-sacrifice then they “merge” into the godhead”, poppycock! I never heard of such an evil being sugar-coated with such a horrendous tone and justified as “good” when selfishness is “evil”, he misunderstands that what’s that which most people don’t do as “selfish and evil” is in fact selfish and good, and that there are good reasons for not being self-sacrificing, everyone with such an attitude would make people kill them and that would justify murder, when it’s illegal. And further down the line the devil is the one who doesn’t get killed, who doesn’t die, and who “deceives himself” in Leo’s lingo nonsense, little does he realise what dangers he’s creating when he tells me to self-sacrifice and therefore as he can do anything he wants, it stops there, since I can do anything I want, and what I think is right is not merely the survival of the mind even though future generations will preserve my thoughts in my previous writing and that would survive, but the survival of my body is also right and therefore I’m staying alive and if you don’t like it tell that to an altruist who can’t smell his own shit if he was swimming in it, that’s why it’s total chaos and total destruction of altruism and following my own rules, anything goes.
Max Gron says: Of the globalism stated in that snippet of dialogue from Leo Gura, the evils stated about globalists talked about by Leo whatever that is, downtreading the globalists only made me want to be an anti0globalist, it doesn’t prove that I’m to buy into anti-ideology, it’s quite the opposite, it only endorses an ideology’s opposition rather than anti-ideology, and neither discourages ideology nor anti-globalism. That’s a problem Leo should untangle as I found the loopholes in his supposedly post-rationalist thinking. It’s far complicated but Leo makes it seem like there’s a simple solution to the problem, to be anti-ideological when he fails to embody it here. I think the endorsing of the solution and not the solution to the problem is to simply take my chances and be an anti-globalist, how dare black Africans without proof of globalisation mix with equally philosophical men like myself when there should be a lot of white people on Oldfield Street, not the other way around. The problem’s as bad as that, and how dare there’s free trade of which I have no proof of, whereby a man sells chaotically in the free market and sells soe illegal and possibly shoddy goods like hemp butter and marijuana in the USA, hemp butter in Adelaide, when that person needs to lower their buttocks and get kicked in it. I’m not against Adelaide in any sense, I’m actually pro-Adelaide and won’t badmouth any wrongdoing in such a province, what I take issue with isn’t Adeliade’s behaviour but the world’s behaviour, as everyone has seen me on the internet praise this lovely province a very few times but it’s been done nonetheless. As for rational wiki I read that article on Leo Gura which is a tribute to him and no insult, but it’s a misunderstanding of his abuse of the incompleteness theorem, and a misunderstanding of his arguments about science, materialism, mathematics and counter-arguments of the validity of God, yet with pride it seemingly worships Leo as God, that’s a bastardisation of rationality when rationality requires not denial of existence of God, but the debunking in religious terms that any man is God or the rationalisation that cult leaders are God if they’re embodied that way. That seems to be a misunderstanding, when rational wiki is on the ball about Leo since he is God and I see him as a God in human form who falsely claims that jsut because a nihilist like him can become his own God that it applies to everyone, not to me it doesn’t, I’m not a nihilist and I overcame the nihilist problem when I was embodying philosophy and not only destroying nihilism but destroying whole systems or trying to without resorting to nihilism, that ideology of nihilism isn’t necessary and I never used such an ideology, further down the loophole there’s a class struggle between economies and it matters a lot, as with Leo’s conformist stage in the guise of the unity stage, still, he has traits of the symbiotic and pluralist stages. I’m at mostly the conformist stage and trying to maintain as a system only the conformist stage, it says a lot of why the conventional stages matter, transcendent is inexistant because Leo made it up both with morality and ego development, there’s no transcendent, that’s an abuse of the models made about human behaviour and it’s not to be added to to make up something that fits your made up religion or something that fits your denial of the dictionary’s definition of truth and think you have the truth at your fingertips, truth is that which is based on fact, religious people have no idea, as even I will probably reject this and fall into God-belief and deny that there’s no reason to believe in God, if I stated it and I think it’s true that religion’s disgraceful and guilty in this regard I would reject it, I might mistake myself for mistaken, that I’m not stating fact, actually I am, the problem of your self-deception is that you deny it and when you state unwanted truths and doubts without proof to yourself you’ll reject it, that’s the problem with religious people.
Max Gron says: By the way as I am a Puritan I don’t reject that religion’s disgraceful and guilty in regard of denial of facts, it is guilty and disgraceful in this, but I still believe there is a God as I’m not contradicting myself here, that Leo’s God, and I’m not an antitheist no matter how good the above argument sounds, it’s not a defence of antitheism, it’s an attack on any religion that deludes itself and is horribly stupid, Puritanism doesn’t have such a regard as it is truth-telling, when it was meant as an experiment to see if I’ll reject it or become or be an antitheist, it makes antitheism easy to believe but I’ll anger a truthful person if I reject it, therefore religion is getting in the way, also I’ll anger a truthful religious person if I reject religion, so it’s a beast of a situation. So to untangle this mess with religion I just call it unknowable and would have to take it on faith, and think God is real and good, to love God, believe in God, and be a Puritan. The good news is I’ll make a whole lot of Christians happy.