Get well soon!

Thank you for clarification very much! I probably understood the SD very shallowly while was reading other things in parallel. > It's possible, it's the way it is. The development is described as non-linear: we don't discretely jump to the next levels; multiple of them keep maturing in parallel. They are constrained by distinct phases though: full maturing of level is possible when previous levels also have finished this cycle (up to the exiting phase). Yep. Potential of higher level is constrained by potential of lower level. This is seen in variety of things: from complexity of hardware and software technologies to societal organizations. For the former, it's interesting that you could still have photo-realistic graphics on Amigas, but this was limited to photos, some specifically optimized demos and scene, static elements of games because of color calculation complexity and very few MHz CPU with very few KBs of RAM. Why we need higher level? Probably that's related to downward causality in which higher levels of complexity manage entropy at lower levels, to keep it from disintegration by interaction with chaotic environment, thus making meaning of existence of certain level of reality (the second law of thermodynamics is compatible with disintegration at physical level, r/K selection pressure at biological level which limits long-term/big scale adaptation). Disintegration manifests itself, for example, in monolithic legacy software, when adding new features risks stability of system (especially in hustle working environments). Collapse phase of development probably occurs at critical point of disintegration, when higher level of complexity attempts to scale in entropy more than lower levels of complexity (simplest form of environment push/pull?). > If you're curious it's defined in some detail for each level for instance in "Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change" (1996, Don Beck, Christopher Cowan); see "Exiting Phase" for each level/value system/vMEME. I see. I've read these points, good for introduction though I expected more formal explanation on these. I've been already familiar with non-linear dynamics of world development which combines long-term entropy increase with complexity of the world and growth, acceleration, stagnation, degradation and collapse phases which were inspired by cellular automatons and relativistic personal development. That's why I found SD interesting to look at. > Most likely I'm hallucinating. Do you mean that SD attempts to describe anything in relation to cognitive development? No. I attempted to apply SD for different entities of intelligent life. But lower development of operational, than mental, than worldview still aligns with the hierarchy of potentials in SD, if operational model has more possibilities, than mental model which has more possibilities, than worldview model. The latter is very specific, while the former are broader. In times of crises, the worldview model tries to increase in possibilities because it's easiest option at these moments, then creating downward pressure.

I love Nostr for its slower pace of communication, which is already set when you should sign events before sending them. Even a bit slower than in old forums with their lack of true real-time notifications #nostr #slowlife

Same. I used to write my own p2p network protocol based on JSON before I discovered Nostr. It never went into production though but was fun experience 😸 (many such things in life history tbh, only few things do actual stuff)

Spiral dynamics seems another Maslow's pyramid for neurotypical individuals, but covered into evolutionism. I think, main problems with it are: 1. What is "definition of done" for each level of complexity until it can leverage to new level of complexity? What if previous "levels" is developed for more after new level reaches its local maxima? For example, "cultural" level can evolve while lacking sufficient medication (for example, individual rituals and languages), autism does not totally block from integration into society. Thus properties from very different levels of complexity may be integrated at different stages of life. 2. Worldview complexity is not cognitive and functional complexities. The former may be ahead of the latter and vice versa. In beginning of 2010s I had deterministic worldview while most of knowledge and tools were experiential leveraged by magical thinking, not even complex logic was involved. Since these unresolved problems of any hierarchical foundation I've come to Platonism-like foundation for worldview with different abstract "elements".

Cried when I remembered lullaby from my childhood which was sung by male singer back in 2000s

To me it's matter if it's choice of own will or coercion. Filtering and speech can occur both in both ways. Sometimes processing signals from significantly huge amount of sources is practically impossible, so you still follow only those who match your vibe to certain degree.

Cried at night for the first time in 20 years

Ciphers and constructed languages are even longer story