So the underlying intent is to be able to understand how someone is making meaning and what reality do they see.  One way we can look at the metacrisis is that there's an underlying myth of separation.  We could call it a metamythic attractor. There's a story, a narrative, that's rooted in separation that is sort of guiding how we live and what we do.  And so we can say here that the underlying intention is to be able to understand, firstly and simply, that everyone is in a different reality.  Even though we seem to be in the same world, we see different things.  And not only that, we have a different perspective on those things that we can see.  And so first, if we just can admit that we don't all live in the same world and that the way that I see things is not the way that things are.  This is...  This is Ken Wilber's myth of the given.  Right.  We can recognize that the way I see things is not the way things are.  It then brings the next question, well, how do you see things?  What reality do you live in?  What's important to you?  And so by understanding these confluence of these three questions, I'm not so interested in what stage someone is at, as I've mentioned.  I'm more interested in what range of meaning making is someone moving through.  But the deeper intent is to understand.  I want to understand someone more deeply so that I can love them more precisely.  And I can show them that I care in a way that feels meaningful to them.  Welcome, everybody, to another episode of The Integral Edge through Integral Life.  My name is Keith Martin Smith, and I am the author most recently of When the Buddha Needs Therapy.  And I am here with myself.  I'm here with my friend and colleague, Alexander Love, who is a coach, and he's also a senior facilitator at the Neufeld Network.  Great.  And you work as an acupuncturist and a coach and sort of an integrative specialist where you really bring a lot of, I would say, whole body, whole mind, soul, shadow work together with your clients.  Yeah.  And I...  Yeah.  I've been a client of ours.  I've been a client of Alexander's and can definitely speak to his magical powers and powers of perception.  And we are both connected around this theory of Theriot-Fallon's called stages.  And today, what I really want to explore is putting stages into sort of a broader historical context of developmental models that have been out there for, you know, 90, 80, 70, 60 years.  And then really talking...  And then really talking about one of the reasons and some of the reasons that I find the model really incredibly useful and powerful as a tool in my own practice, in my own life.  And I know, Alexander, you use it a lot in your practice and in your life.  And so that's really what the conversation is going to be about today.  So...  Hi, Alexander.  Good to have you here.  Yeah, it's great to be here.  Really happy to be here to explore this with you and everybody.  Great.  Great.  So for people that aren't super familiar with states...  I would say, really, we would put it in the same family as a lot of the other developmental models that would include, like, Jane Lovinger and Robert Keegan and Susanna Kreuter.  And Terry's model really focuses mostly on the cognitive line of development.  So more than, say, the relational or the somatic or any of the other lines of intelligence.  And it, like these other models, is really a subject-object model where each developmental...  stage progresses when the thing that a person is subject to, say, magical thinking, becomes an object in the next phase of development where we have magical thinking.  So, you know, obviously I can imagine fantastical scenarios as an author and write about them, but I'm not writing only from magical thinking.  And so what I find interesting about Terry's model, like Suzanne's...  and Keegan's and some other ones, is that it really...  they really don't just talk about the idea of development as quantum levels, where, you know, one day you're Bob Keegan's 3.0 and on Monday and Tuesday you're Keegan's 4.0.  It's nowhere near that neat.  It's nowhere near that clean.  Development is messy.  You know, I think Keegan writes about the idea that, you know, roughly speaking, we have a center.  We have a center of gravity where roughly 50% of our cognitive decisions are made, and we may have a quarter that's on the leading edge and a quarter that's dragging behind.  I think the research in the last maybe two decades has also pointed out, like through Kim Barta, who is Terry O'Fallon's brother, that there can be things like shadow crashes where, you know, maybe...  like for me personally, I grew up in a sort of a corporal Catholic environment, and so if I'm exposed to sort of rules and regulations,  that my mature self finds confining or unfair, I might collapse down into an earlier developmental stage and react from that place rather than my fully differentiated, you know, consciousness when I'm well rested and have a good perspective on things.  And the model really, I think, one of the ways that it serves us most powerfully is it allows us the capacity to actually, from a heart place, to...  look at people and how they generate meaning and make sure that when we're speaking and communicating to others, whether they be clients or family or friends or children, that we're actually understanding how they make meaning and meaning them there, rather than doing what most of us do, which is speak over the heads of other people, presuming that they make meaning the way we do.  So for me, stages like these other models is really a great tool of empathy and connection.  Yeah, I love what you're saying.  I think that, you know, it's become common or popular in developmental circles to sort of look at stages like stair steps.  You know, I was here, and then now I'm more advanced, and those people are less advanced, and I'm trying to get to the next higher level.  And we have words.  We have words that we use, like levels.  You know, there's a higher level, there's a lower level.  And I think that there's a potential within stages to really help redefine the narrative around how we understand what development is.  It's not that those things are untrue.  I mean, we do go through stages of development, but I think that, you know, in Terry's conception of it, we're looking at a whole.  You know, I like to call them developmental waves.  There's, you know, these 12...  Developmental waves of the human whole, and there's a way in which that, as we grow up, we're also automatically enfolding what came before it.  And, I mean, we say in integral, transcend and include, but I often hear that transcend and include is like a parenthesis afterthought.  Right.  After we say something like, oh, I'm more advanced than everybody.  Of course, we don't say it directly.  I'm more advanced than everybody.  And then, oh, by the way, transcend and include.  I think that there's more that we can do to...  Yeah.  Really enfold.  Like, right now, you and I are using things that we developed as a newborn.  I'm hearing with my concrete ears.  We're sensing each other.  You know, at a very concrete level, we're literally using those aspects of the human whole while we're operating from a different place.  And so, I think that, you know, Terry's model has the potential to really help illuminate.  One way to say it is that, you know, all of the developmental waves are one gesture.  They're one unfolding process that are essentially a continuity.  Yeah.  Yeah.  And I think what happens, I mean, certainly it happened to me, and I certainly see this in the integral community, which is, you know, when you first learn about this model, and it answers so many questions, so many things you've struggled with, you know, in your life, interpersonally and personally, that it can be a little hard, as I was saying to you before this call started, it can be hard not to become an insufferable integralist, where you...  You sort of run all of reality through this frame, and especially all people through the frame, and you do a lot of sort of back-of-napkin guessing about the development that people might be operating from, often being incorrect and often generating some unpleasant opinions towards yourself in the process.  So maybe we could talk about the methodology a little of stages as you understand it, and sort of, you know, how it works, how these different...  The 12 stages, or the 12...  What did you call them?  12 waves of development.  12 waves, yeah.  How these 12 waves of development, like, some of the ways that we are able to differentiate one from another.  Yeah, so I think what you're bringing is a really good point, that very often what I see in developmental communities that love integral is that we learn these different stages, and they often have a different color, and we learn the different sort of ways that they might show up.  And this can...  Sometimes lead to looking at people as though they're a sort of a caricature.  You know, it's like, oh, well, if you're postmodern, then you probably are wearing patchouli, you know, or...  Right.  It's like, you know, I'm oversimplifying, but I see this all the time, and what I notice in that sort of way of being with this kind of material, this developmental material, is that we lack precision.  We lack precision.  We lack precision.  We lack precision.  We lack precision.  Often because we are trying...  We're trying to fit the content that we observe in someone into a preexisting developmental box.  Now, what Terry's model offers is a deep structure of how developmental waves are formed, which allows us to let go of a lot of the content and really listen to what are the underlying...  In Terry's language, the underlying parameters.  That someone is expressing.  A way to say this is that Terry's model, in its sort of an essence of Terry's model, it holds the deep structure of evolution.  And so we're listening to how is the unfolding of evolution speaking through another human being in a very precise and elegant way.  This allows us to kind of cut through the sort...  Sort of content-related, I'm going to turn you into an archetype of some sort of way I think you should look.  You should have a suit on and have a briefcase, or you should be wearing patchouli and have tie-dye.  Right, right.  It really helps us cut through all that and see the deeper structure of the developmental unfolding.  I mean, I love your saying this.  This has been a big part of the last couple months of conversations I've had with a number of different...  Integralists, which is this idea of the structure-content fallacy.  And a colleague of mine, David Arell, has spoken about it, written about it quite extensively.  And it sounds like just what you're saying, this idea that if I was to say to you, like,  well, Alexander, you know, I think Trump is really making some necessary changes and, you know, glad that I voted for him.  Something that...  I'm not saying I said that, but if I said that, the content, right?  If you were a typical integralist, you would say, ah, Trump, he wants change.  Okay, so he's amber or he's orange.  Right, because you're going to presume...  Whereas you would...  What would you ask if I said that to sort of help suss out the level?  Yeah, so maybe what we can do is to kind of break down Terry's model a little bit and its sort of central parts.  The first question that I would ask is, what's the world space that they are witness to?  What's the ontological reality that they can see?  And Terry has three tiers.  Each tier, you can look at like its own world space.  And each world space has access to a different answer to the question, what is reality?  So we have the first tier, which is the concrete tier.  These are things like apples, fish, children.  There are...  We look at something called sort of the concrete emotions.  These are the emotions that you can easily see on someone's face.  Any baby can have anger, fear, surprise, things like that.  And then also within that concrete tier, we can get more nuanced as we grow up and start looking at rules and roles.  These can seem a little more abstract and they are compared to apples, but they can have a kind of, you know, the rules are you don't hit your friend.  They're very concrete in nature.  So we have that concrete.  Then we have a subtle world space.  Now things become more refined, like I'm sensing subtle energy, or I can envision a future that doesn't exist yet, or I'm able to see that I'm connected to this group of people through one context, but I'm connected to this other group of people through a different context.  And then we all share a third context.  There's sort of these threads, invisible threads of connection.  That are harder to see than all of your family members at the dinner table.  Right.  And then we have the third tier, which is the meta-ware tier, and things get more subtle, very subtle things.  Starting to be aware of awareness and starting to be aware of cross-paradigmatic interweaving between multiple traditions.  Looking at a trajectory of the whole cosmos as one unfolding.  And so, anyway, that would be the first question that I would be holding when someone's speaking.  Well, are they seeing a subtle world space, a subtle reality?  Are they seeing only a concrete reality?  Are they seeing a meta-ware and a subtle and a concrete reality?  So that would be my first question.  Now, the cool thing is, is that each of these tiers has four waves of development.  Each one of them has four waves of development.  each tier right so in terms of precision even if we just got good at recognizing what's the  ontological reality that you have access to you've now just narrowed down 12 stages into four  which is right right because if you if you we now know if you can see a subtle world well then  you're somewhere between those four subtle stages if you can just see a concrete world  you're somewhere within those four concrete stages this becomes uh are already a very  precise tool to narrow us into right right where someone's coming from and if you're an adult if  you're working with an adult then you know in the concrete you're really very likely only talking  about two of the three i'd say two of the four because you know because because most most likely  unless you're barring yeah yeah unless you're working in prisons or in people that have had a  lot of deep  seated um trauma and yeah yep yep well so that's really interesting and i love that like the model  says that for someone that is i guess amber and integral or 3.0 and keegan or 2.5 or 2.0 and terry's  model but they see the future they can only see the future as a continuation of the past so if we  talk to a fundamentalist christian who's not then we're not confusing our content with our structure  but someone who really believes the literal  word of god and you know believes in some sort of a second coming and you know believes you follow  the rules or you go to hell etc there you ask them about the future their future is going to be  a continuation of the past imagined forward in time because they don't have the developmental  structure to imagine a future that's different from the past is that accurate am i saying that  accurately yeah absolutely terry will say like you put the past in front of you or another way  we hear this is like oh like what do you want to be when you grow up you're going to be a part of  you know if we're talking to an eight-year-old or nine-year-old oh i want to be a firefighter  right and and what's not yet happening is sort of an envisioning of something that doesn't exist yet  it's taking the right concrete reality that i've had experience with already and saying well i'm  going to put that in front of me and that's what my future is going to be right okay so so you assess  these three things and you know one of the things that i find interesting also about terry's model  um and i guess  This would really be true for Robert Keegan's and Suzanne's as well, but I've just studied  Terry's more.  But this idea that as we go through the concrete, the subtle begins in Terry's model with moving  from what will be amber in the integral parlance to umber.  So be moving from strictly role defined and defined by group and a group identity to beginning  to ask the question, who am I outside of a group?  That's the moving stage into what will be early rational or early orange, right?  This umber phase.  Where I'm beginning to imagine a future that is beyond what I've been told is possible  and is defined by the structures that I've been told make up the cosmos.  That's right.  That's right.  Right.  Exactly.  So one of the things we see is that as someone progresses through a particular world space,  the first thing that they do is they develop their inner space.  Their individual identity.  So there's two waves that are dedicated to that.  So we have 1.0 and 1.5.  This is the emerging and the maturing aspect of the first person perspective or my identity  as an individual.  Once I have a degree of maturity as an individual, then as a concrete individual, then I begin  to interact with a collective.  And so this is where Terry's weaving in some of Ken Wilber's work in the four quadrants.  Where, okay, now that my individual concrete identity has come to a degree of fruition,  I'm now able to enter into the concrete collective.  And that too has an emerging stage, 2.0, and then a maturing stage, 2.5.  So once I get to 2.5, I have a well-rounded, hopefully, in the context of developmental  wellness, I have a well-rounded maturation of the concrete individual and the concrete  collective as features of my identity.  Once that occurs, it gives rise for a transition into a new world.  So the ceiling of maturity that I have entered into, I now poke through that ceiling and  I'm now looking at the ground floor of a new world space.  And so I now enter that new world space as a brand new individual, like a newborn, but  now in the subtle world.  So I'm able to look back and start to create some differentiation between this emerging  identity and the sort of the concrete collective of rule and role orientation.  But in transitions, as transitions go, I tend to sort of flow back and forth.  Right.  As we were saying, it's not a quanta, it's a fluid process and over a reasonably long  arc of time.  Yeah.  But the emergent self begins to stabilize, right?  Exactly.  And I think for most of us that would be on this call or watching this, we probably remember  that first big transition where we went from really being identified with a 2.5 or amber  identity, where our identity was the group, to the rather painful transition as we sort  of, for a lot of us, maybe grade school, high school, as we begin to come into, well, who  am I outside of the group?  While also being very aware of the group dynamics and things like conformity and peer  pressure and wanting to look cool and wanting to be cool.  And yet there's this emergent self that is wanting to really create a future and an identity  that is transcending from any group identity.  And that process is, we usually remember adolescence because it kind of sucks in some ways.  Yeah.  Yeah.  And we can see this.  Yeah.  There's sort of an archetypal expression of this in the leaving home and going to college  kind of dynamic, where we're leaving behind all the things that we learned from our parents  and we decided were true.  And now we're engaging in an environment where teachers are inviting us to think for ourselves,  think outside of the box.  What do we care about?  At the same time, we're also navigating.  There's certain colleges that feel like...  Like old high school.  We're still navigating the concrete collective because that's the only collective we have  access to so far until we go into 4.0 and 4.5.  And so we're navigating both this exploration of the individual, the subtle individual,  but we're also still navigating that concrete collective, which now may not look like our  parents, but maybe it looks like our new friend group.  Right.  Or the sorority or the fraternity, which would be very appropriate developmental bridges,  right?  Because it's still a conformist group, but it's one that I've chosen to go into.  Exactly.  And so-  There's a degree of autonomy, right, that's potentially happening.  That's right.  And so if we put these two together, we now have the first and second question, which  helps us in our precision of getting to the deep structure of the stage.  We have the question of what world space or world spaces do you have access to?  Once we know that, we have narrowed down 12 waves of development to four.  But then we can say, well, what's your preference in terms of the way that you're in relationship  to the world?  Are you more coming from a place where you're exploring your individual identity?  Or are you exploring a collective identity?  Right.  And we have preferences.  Like a two-year-old, they're more foregrounding an individual identity.  That's my cookie.  Give me my cookie.  What I care about is me getting what I want.  Whereas an eight-year-old, 2.0, there's friendship, there's sharing, there's patty cake, there's  a collective preference.  Right.  So now, once we can get a sense of this person we're talking to, who said they voted  for Trump, just to use your earlier example, they voted for Trump, they're glad they did.  Then we can ask this question, well, what's their orientation preference in terms of collective  or individual?  Right.  Which is now in Arizona, four to two.  Because I could say that, well, I really believe too much taxes for me and too much, me, me,  me, me.  Or I could say, well, look, look at what's happening in the world, look what's happening  with our borders.  The way...  So you can sort of start to parse out what might be an individual focus and care or a  collective focus and care.  That's right.  And as I mentioned, the first two stages of every tier are the emergence and maturation  of an individual in that world.  Yeah.  And then the second two stages within every tier are going to be an emergence and a maturation  of a collective in that world.  And so now we've narrowed it down from 12 to two with just two questions.  Right.  Right.  And so it becomes a very...  The thing that has stood out most to me about Terry Stage's model is its usefulness with  real people.  In a coaching context, in a coffee shop.  Now, I'm not suggesting that other models are also not effective.  I don't know them to the depth to be able to say anything, but I had studied integral  for years.  I had learned about spiral dynamics and these different models.  And when I learned Terry's model, I was like, ah, I can use this in a practical way because  in a way there's a simplicity to it, even though there's a profound complexity to it.  Right.  Right.  And so what's your preference?  So the first question is, what's the world space, concrete, subtle, meta-ware?  And then if we're reasonably sure there, then we have four waves or four stages that are  in each one of those.  And then those have a social preference, which is either individual or collective.  Am I...  Yes.  ...carrying that back accurately?  Okay.  And so one of the things that I find interesting as we talk about the subtle space is that  the subtle space begins with what Terry and Suzanne call the expert, or what an integral,  which would be the umber, right?  So amber exit, orange entrance.  And then moves through Terry's 3.5, or the achiever, I think, in her model.  And that would be a full-blown rationality, logic.  Science, the idea of being aware of things like cognitive bias and being able to see  that that happens, having this so-called third-person perspective where there's this objective reality  and objective thing that I can look at and reflect upon.  And that creates, obviously, tremendous power of the mind to be able to see and parse and  understand reality and people and all these things.  And...  But...  But at 3.5, orange, we can be aware...  And help me understand this better.  My understanding is that we can be aware of what I will call more concrete traumas, like  overt PTSD, or shell shock back in the First World War, or really bad alcoholism, or different  addictions, sort of things that are sort of very easy for people to see and discern with  their immediate senses and pick up that Keith isn't doing very well, there's something  going on.  Maybe it's related to...  Maybe he should get some therapy.  So there is an ability to really see sort of a wide field of obvious trauma, but it's  much harder to see subtler forms of trauma.  Is that how you would understand orange or 3.5?  So we're talking about internal family systems, parts, an inner child, things like this.  Yeah.  So 3.5 has the ability for what we might call metacognition.  So that means that I can look at sadness and feel sad about it.  So I can feel about my feelings, I can look at some thought patterns, I can have thoughts  about how I'm going about thinking.  Let's look at how we're thinking about this.  So 3.5 is able to do that.  Now, what I would say in terms of internal family systems...  Yeah.  3.5 can learn how to do internal...  I mean, internal IFS, people are doing parts work with little children, using toys and...  You can walk somebody through an IFS or a parts work process at 3.5, absolutely.  But they're not going to come up with a system like IFS.  That's going to require a fourth person perspective at least.  Because once you get into the subtle collective, 4.0, 4.5, the fourth person perspective, here's  where we can start to see subtler relationships that are part of the self.  It's not just my thoughts and feelings, but there's a part of me that has thoughts and  feelings and impulses.  From a 4.5 perspective, we can see it's a whole little system.  Yeah.  Yeah.  3.5 isn't going to necessarily have that kind of nuance, but they may be more apt to  look at this like, oh, the sadness in me or the anger in me, if they're guided, because  they're able to reflect on their feelings and reflect on their thoughts.  Yeah.  Right.  So metacognition versus metasystemic thinking, would that be sort of an accurate differentiator  between 3.5 and 4.0, which is green for people that are familiar with that model?  Yeah.  So 4.0...  Yeah.  They can start to see systems, but they're had by them, right?  So they'll notice that there's systemic oppression, but there's a way in which they're still inside  the system.  So because they're an emerging subtle collective, they're inside the system.  They're not able to stand back from it, as you pointed out with subject-object, they  can't stand back from the system and start to actively manipulate it.  They can see that there's systemic oppression, and that we're all... and they're going to  feel that we're all had by it.  Whereas 4.5 can step back from that and say, okay, there's a system here.  How do we want to tweak the system in dynamic ways to support a systemic shift?  Okay.  So now we're getting into real beautifully complex territory.  So if we look at something that I've spoken about a lot, like diversity, equity, and inclusion,  and we talk about this idea of, okay, from a 3.0 expert stage, they're going to see that,  right?  They're going to see that, okay, we need to have these external systems that ensure  that people are being equitable.  And if there is any...  If we see any injustice in the world, as far as unequal representation of, say, women in  the workforce, or people of color, or people of different gender backgrounds, the cause  has to be oppression.  And we need to do whatever means is necessary to...  Yeah.  ...get equal representation.  So they're going to be looking at it through a lens that is not terribly sophisticated  and perhaps quite inaccurate.  So 3.0 and 3.5 are going to start caring about human rights, but there's more of a focus  on the exteriors, such as the physical gender, right?  So you can see with your senses.  Well, you can see with your senses.  You can see with your standards.  So there's often there, there's a conflation of sex and gender.  So what they're really seeing is the sex, the biological body.  Men should be treated equally as women and vice versa.  So basically the color of your skin, everybody should be treated equally.  Once you get into the fourth person perspective, there becomes more nuance and a pluralistic  sort of capacity for understanding.  Well, wait a minute.  Sex and gender aren't the same thing.  Right.  You can have your body biologically be one thing, but then there might be a whole  spectrum of genders on the interior that you identify with.  And so you're going to start seeing nuances in terms of understanding what, quote unquote,  human rights means.  Right.  And when you've, I think you and I, I think you may have mentioned this to me, something  about using school children as an example of how they hold some of these things, say  grade school kids, right?  So maybe you could just repeat that, like sort of their understanding of DEI from what  would be either a 2.5 Amber or probably 3.0 expert or umbra phase would look like.  Because I think it's important, because I think it gets really, this is the content  structure fallacy, it gets really confused when we look at the world and see people talking  about things.  It's like not what they're saying, but from where are they saying it.  Exactly.  So like, you know, my daughter in middle school.  She's surrounded by people.  Yeah.  And she's surrounded by teachers and family members that have at least a fourth person  perspective capacity.  So there's a general inclusion of all genders.  So as that conversation has become more popular, you know, the school took that on.  And so, you know, on the first day of middle school, you were supposed to, the kids were  supposed to introduce themselves and their pronouns, right?  And so what will happen is there's a kind of gender inclusivity and recognition of spectrum  that's coming from the fourth person perspective, 4.0 and 4.5.  But then it gets adopted by kids that are more 2.0, 2.5.  And so you might see a kid, my daughter was like this, where, you know, now being inclusive  is the rule.  And if you slip up and accidentally use the wrong pronoun, you're like, you're in trouble  because you broke the rules.  And we all know.  Right.  Right.  Right.  So now this collective, there now becomes, there, there, there comes an individual, subtle  individual that starts to come online, that's now able to have some distance, not a lot,  3.0 is fluctuating back and forth, but some distance between understanding this as a rule  orientation.  And maybe I'm starting to find my own ideas, come up with my own ideas about what human  rights should look like.  That's maybe different than what my postmodern parents, grandparents, grandparents, etc,  parents and teachers told me. It is. Right. That's so fascinating. I mean,  I'm smiling because I'm thinking of Robert Keegan wrote about years ago how he would work with  parents who were horrified that they were in a place like Boulder or the Bay and they had moved  to someplace like Texas or Arkansas. An eight-year-old little Johnny would go from being  just full of these wonderful postmodern ideas of equality to being a little racist, right?  They couldn't figure out what happened. And his whole thing was, you know, little Johnny  doesn't hold your postmodern values of equality in anything approaching a postmodern view of  equality. He holds them in a completely rule-based absolute way. And he would  metaphorically burn someone at the cross for not being kind and equitable.  That's right. And if we look at this through Terry's model, you know, likely what happened  to this, I think you said, Johnny,  what likely happened to Johnny is he moves into a new territory. He was owning a 2.5  sort of certainty. And then he went into a new environment, felt a little more insecure.  It awakened more of a 2.0 where he's now, instead of being in his mature,  I know the rules, I know what we are, I know what we believe. He went to an earlier wave where now  he is in a newly-adjusted world. And he's now in a new environment where he's now in a new  emerging 2.0 collective. He did it once, but now he has to do it again.  Right, right.  And so he's now in this, when we're in an emerging phase, a 0.0, we're usually had by  whatever's occurring. And so now he's with all these people and he wants to belong more than  anything else. And so he's had by the new rules until he then takes on, okay, now I know the  truth. We're not inclusive anymore or whatever it is. Now we believe this other thing.  Right, right. Okay. That's very, very helpful. Right. The 0.0 versus the 0.5. Well, and then  4.0 or green is, as many of us have experienced, it is, as you said, they can be had by what they  see in the sense of the capacity. As we acknowledge, I guess there are systemic issues. There is  systemic sexism. There is systemic racism. There are systemic injustices. The reality of that is  fairly obvious to anyone who's watching this.  Or looks at the data. And yet the truth is very, very, very complicated. Again, as I've spoken  about a number of times, but the truth is complicated in that the difference between  oppression and naturally chosen differences can be hard to parse out. And one has to be very aware,  not just of cognitive bias, but of all kinds of different biases and different projections  and different presumptions about what may,  cause differences between people. And what I understand the 0.0, 4.0 green to be really  terrible at is being able, what may be incapable of, but is to be able to appreciate that  human reality is created by us creating frameworks of, of understanding that we then look through  the same way I'm looking through this window right behind my computer. The window helps define what  I see. It's a frame, but if I look through this window,  I see something very, very different. It's a different frame. And is it accurate to say that  it's at 4.5 or teal that the capacity to see and understand that we are in some ways had by our  frames begins to come online? Yeah. So, so 4.0 recognizes that we're  socially constructed and can understand that, you know, 3.5 can understand that I have an observer.  You know, I can, I can reflect on my, my thoughts and feelings and be like, okay, I'm thinking,  like this and that that's going to make me act in a certain way and it's going to get me certain  results. So, you know, even 3.5, you know, there, there's a sense of, I can see a kind of a frame,  but what 4.5 is able to do is begin to see that these frames are nested along a continuum of  development, that some, some perspectives are better than others in certain contexts. It doesn't  mean that, that this perspective is always better than this perspective. It's, it's able to hold  the dynamism of shifting contexts. The relative nature of reality without collapsing into nihilism  or deconstruction. Right. It's able to see that, oh, in this context, a 2.0 perspective is most  suited because what you need is for me to just hold your hand and tell you, I'm glad you're here.  Wow. Right.  Whereas in this other context, there's a, let's engage in a 3.5 debate of ideas  to support and nurture the sort of living dynamism in this college student who's  trying to sort out what they believe and take a position and, and hold that position and come up  with data that supports it. And so that's what 4.5 is, is able to do. Later in 4.5, they're also  able to recognize their own projections upon reflection. Right. I want to get to that. Yeah.  I was just going to say 4.0 can recognize when other people are projecting. This is why gaslighting  has become such a popular phrase. Right. 4.5, but they can't recognize it as well when they're doing  it. Well, of course people don't say like, well, I really gaslit the shit out of that person the  other day. It's like, you don't see a lot of posts about that. Right. Right. Exactly. But the one  thing I did notice in integral circles when I first started spending time with them was there was  in some ways a healthy obsession with projection because I think noticing our own projection became  like, wow, you found reality that you sort of became like, wow, wait, Alexander, am I projecting  onto you? Can you just, can, can we reality confirm that? No. Okay, great. I just want to make sure.  Yeah, exactly. Because what we'll see, and this, this really brings us to the third question,  which is looking at the, the right side of Terry's model, which she talks about as a learning  sequence or like our preferred learning sequence. I like to think about it as evolution's engine.  It's the driver of the whole model.  And I guess what maybe I'll do is just back up for a minute and go through that and then talk  about projection in that context. So there are in every tier, there are four of these learning  styles or these four parameters. The first one. And I'm just going to pause you and say every  tier being concrete, subtle, metaware. That's right. Just so we can remind people. And then  in each one of those, there's the four learning styles. Exactly. So the way that I hold it is  it goes one, two, three, four, and then there's a transition. And then there's one, two, three,  four in the subtle tier. And then there's a transition. And then there's one, two, three,  four in the metaware tier, and then presumably a transition. And so the, the first, the first  parameter is receptive. This is the yin gesture. The yin.  This is when we're coming into a new, a brand new way of seeing the world.  Yeah. So a newborn.  They're receptive. They're open. They're not, they're not zooming in. They're, they're,  they're taking in. You see a little kid, maybe one years old. They're just, they just, they're  standing there and they're just, they're just receiving the world. And what we're doing is  we're taking in the, the, the, the, the basic contents, the basic reality, the basic features  of that reality without naming it, without categorizing it. We're just absorbing it like  a sponge. And then the second is the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,  the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the fact is that the baby starts being a little  bit more to  a second baby.  A little bit more when there's a  time period and, and a same relationship.  Now, what's, what's, what's the guy saying here?  Classy guy, right?  How does he argue with you?  I don't give the kid time.  It's not important.  voices cause Eti.  to a degree, then we move into reciprocity, right?  In the yin-yang symbol, this is the line in between yin and yang.  So we have the first is yin, the second is yang, and then the third is this, the middle,  the space in between, where yin and yang-  Which is also green, right?  That's also 4.0.  That's also 4.0, exactly.  So we can start to see that the stages model has octaves.  Because this right-hand column iterates, we can see that 1.0, 3.0, and 5.0 have an octave  relationship.  We can see that 1.5, 3.5, 5.5 have an octave relationship.  The same with 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, and then 2.5, 4.5, 6.5.  They all share a lot of similarities.  What's different is the-  The world space.  Right.  What's different is the reality that they can see.  So I interrupted you.  So, I mean, you said that it was receptive, active, reciprocal, and then there's a fourth  that you didn't mention yet.  Yeah, so reciprocal is the relationship.  This is the we.  This is the we space.  The pronoun we arises here, where there's a relationship between yin and yang.  I can give you something, you receive it.  You can give me something, I receive it.  Then we can go back and forth.  And then the fourth is-  Is interpenetration.  Interpenetration in the yin-yang symbol is the dots, right?  So I can see, I can look at you and I can see myself over there.  And you can look at me and you can see yourself over here.  And so in the concrete context, I can look at what's sitting on everybody's plates  and I can see, oh, everyone is eating vegetarian.  And then I can see on my plate, oh, I'm eating vegetarian too,  because we're the same and we have the same belief system  around how you're supposed to eat if you want to be spiritual  or whatever it is.  So that's concrete interpenetration.  We all start to look the same.  And that interpenetrative is the very last stage of each tier.  That's right.  Right, exactly.  So that will be, as I'm at 2.5, mature amber in the integral model,  I'm interpenetrating.  I'm interpenetrating.  I'm interpenetrating.  I'm interpenetrating, where I'm really, I'm noticing myself  and I'm noticing others and I'm in a constant back and forth  between those two things.  My identity has become the collective identity.  I'm one with it.  You hear this in cults and in religions where you ask somebody, like,  what's the meaning of life?  And everybody says basically the same thing.  What does a good person do?  Everybody says basically the same thing.  And so by this point,  you have developed a mature individual.  You've developed a mature individual within a mature collective.  And now the individual identity has started to become imprinted  with the beliefs of the collective.  Now, if we look at this in the context of 4.5,  the way that this shows up is...  And this is teal.  Teal.  Mature integral, yep.  Exactly.  This is teal.  The way that this shows up in teal,  in teal 4.5,  is recognizing projection on reflection.  I say, well, you're being, you know,  you're like a really shadowy expression of the king archetype.  And then an hour later,  and an hour later I'm reflecting and I'm like,  oh, wait a minute.  I'm being a shadowy expression of the king archetype.  And so that's how we begin to interpenetrate  with the subtle collective.  A collective that's filled with contexts.  A collective that's filled with archetypes.  Parts of the self.  I can start to see everything out there is also in here.  All the stages of development I see out there,  they're also in here.  Yeah.  Well, one of the ways I've tried to understand this  and present it hopefully correctly to people  is to say that, you know, 3.5 orange,  there's a robust understanding of the reality of cognitive bias,  which is that, okay, like, you know, I have a bias  and if I'm doing an experiment,  I need to have a double-blindness.  I need to have a triple-blind or triple-blind study  to make sure that my bias, which I can't control,  doesn't muck up the results.  Yeah.  And at 4.0, the next thing, I would say this,  it's sort of like, well, okay, there's a cognitive bias,  but it's writ large culturally.  So there's a subtler cognitive bias  where we all have opinions about people of color,  we all have opinions about women,  and we may internalize those things.  And so it might be a group of people of color  that are actually acting in a way that is against their own interest  on a certain subtle level,  because it isn't.  It's this bias that's been programmed  on this subtler level.  Would that be another way of sort of understanding that  in your understanding of the model?  Right.  So where 3.5 Orange is going to be looking at,  you know, to use your words, a cognitive bias  or to be able to really understand my mindset,  like that's a common 3.5 word,  like I've got a particular, I have,  so you can hear the act of ownership,  I have a mindset that is setting me up for success.  Right?  That's a 3.5 statement, right?  I have a mindset that is setting me up for success.  4.0 is going to expand that.  And as you pointed out,  start seeing larger cultural forces that are shaping us.  They are shaping us.  It's shaping me.  I'm had by it.  But I can see that there's a system that's doing that.  Now, 4.5, go ahead.  Yeah.  And that's where like in a lot of the green theorists,  you know, Ibrahim X. Kendi,  and, you know, the whole anti-racist idea  is that because you and I are both had by the system,  we have to fight actively against it all the time.  Right.  We have to throw elbows every breath.  And if we're not throwing elbows every breath,  then we're had by the system,  ergo we're creating a racist subculture, whatever.  Right.  Whereas someone like Carlos Hoyt, you know,  which I think is coming more from a 4.5 framing,  is looking and saying, well, hold on a second.  This whole thing of race is socially constructed.  Do we want that?  Do we want that lens?  And we can start to see, 4.5 can start to see,  okay, this particular lens is one of many lenses.  And is it the best lens in terms of what it's going to produce  in collectives?  And so he proposes, you know, he questions the very premise  of the entire race conversation and tries to create a new context  within which we can ask different questions  and look at the whole thing in a different way.  And what I see him doing is actively starting  to manipulate the system in a positive way  to try to get a different result in culture.  And what is 4.0 trying to do?  So they're not, I mean, they would certainly argue  they're trying to impact the system.  Oh, yeah, they are trying to impact the system.  Yeah.  Absolutely.  They're trying to impact the system  from inside the reciprocal dynamic.  Okay.  So maybe, actually, that's a great thing.  Maybe from this idea of learning style,  like let's talk about this with this example.  Okay, systemic racism is a thing.  So we start at 3.0 and we end 4.5 in the cycle.  So how is that held with that learning style?  Yeah, okay.  So I'll give a try.  Yeah, yeah.  Put you on the spot a little bit there.  It's okay.  It's okay.  So firstly, you know, 3.0 is emerging  out of a concrete collective of rules and roles.  So in our scenario here, we have to decide,  well, what rules and roles are they stepping out of?  Let's just make something up.  They're in a traditional setting where maybe there is  some black and white thinking, you know,  where people are categorized.  They're categorized and described in sort of concrete ways.  This person has this color skin.  They act like this.  This other person has this color skin.  They act like that.  So then 3.0, they are entering into a receptive state  where they're beginning to receive impressions  from a subtle mind that they don't quite understand yet.  So here we can suppose that they will begin to be able  to make a differentiation  between what I think and where I grew up thinks.  So there's an ability to do that.  But at the same time, ideas can be coming in like rain.  They can be streaming in like in a way that's hard to capture.  So we may see a theory of race.  We may not.  We may see a questioning.  And then there's a question of what we would expect  from the structure of the previous structure,  which is a common thing that 3.0 is going to do.  Because it's receptive.  Because it's receptive.  And that's why in 3.0,  we also see people really looking to experts, right?  That's right.  That's right.  So there also may be influence from when they go to college.  And now all of a sudden,  they're getting in all this information about  maybe it's a postmodern...  From experts.  From experts.  Yeah.  around this? Does it spark their own ideas? Well, I don't agree with where I grew up. I agree with  sort of what this teacher said, but not all of what they said. I think maybe I'm starting to  come up with this idea. 3.5 is going to be able to get more active with it, right? So they're  going to be clearer about who they are as a subtle individual, what they think, what they're feeling,  how that's impacting the way that they're engaging in the world and how that impacts the world.  Mm-hmm. But they still have a concrete collective. So their focus may still be on,  can be on concrete features of someone's body because when they look at a collective,  they see a group of people. So they still could be unnecessarily categorizing people by race.  Then 4.0 is going to see, well, actually, this is not just a bunch of individuals with mindset.  It's collectives. It's a collective context that we're all soaking in. And there's a recognition  that, okay, there's this system. Systemic racism is making us see, if you look at the media and how  the media portrays a person of color, and you look at the legal system and how all of these,  and the world of marketing and advertising,  especially if we're looking, you know, it's still there now, but it was even more prominent  earlier on where someone with darker skin was portrayed in a very negative way, especially men.  They were portrayed in a very certain way that was on purpose. It was a marketing campaign.  So 4.0 is going to be able to see that the whole culture is being influenced  by this, by this system that's giving us bias. Right. That's giving us racial,  right. And then they can very easily lose the individuals in the collectives, right?  All, all black people are equally victims of racism, which is, that's right. Maybe not.  Right. Yeah. And we, so we, we start to see that for sure. And so there can be  a lot of work to try to change the system from within it, but we're still had by it to a certain  degree. So there's certain limitations, whereas 4.5, I mean, it had 4.5 has its own limitations,  but 4.5 is going to be able to start looking at developmental structures  within culture, that it's not just necessarily, there's a whole system of racial oppression. Yes,  we can acknowledge that, but we can also see that there are different stages of development that are  seeing the world in different ways. And if those stages of development have power and then express  shadow, then that's also going to bring forward other tones,  other notes in culture. And so there can be a way that 4.5 can get more active with trying to  meet every stage where it's at and also rectify the shadow to try to support a healthier collective.  Right. And that's the interpenetrative. That's the, that's the dot on the yin and yang where  I can acknowledge that like, okay, I see a lot of the truth of what you're saying, but let's look at  the, let's really unpack this and look at the nuance of it. I want to really both.  I want to steal, man, your argument. I want to both Andrew argument. I want to  show where we're in agreement and where you can learn perhaps that you're, you might be doing  unintentional harm by how you're holding things. And then how do we go into schools, for example,  and really support how children learn based on their developmental stages?  Right. Wouldn't that be something? Irregardless of the color of their skin,  but recognizing the realities of how the system has impacted certain demographics,  right. But then coming,  coming in with a developmental lens and saying, okay, what's needed for developmental wellness  for, for each group of children. And then creating a curriculum around that to, to meet them as they  grow. And yeah. Beautiful. Okay. I was just going to say, you know, just to kind of bring us back  to the, to the beginning, just to give a summary for folks, you know, in this larger question of  what makes stages different or how is it useful?  Um, in, in, in the developmental, in it, for folks that are interested in development,  we can say that one of the, the gifts of Terry stages model is its capacity for precision in  the moment with human beings so that we can better meet, love, care for, and understand  the human beings when they're acting with. In order to do that, we have a series of three questions.  The first question is what reality,  what do they see? And this subdivides our 12 developmental waves into four, two groups of four,  four concrete waves, four subtle waves, four meta wear waves. Then the next question is, okay,  I've narrowed this down to four. Do they have a collective preference or an individual preference?  And we see that the first two stages of every tier are developing the individual of that world space.  And the second stage, the two, the second two stages of every tier are developing the collective.  Uh, within that world space.  Mm-Hmm then the third question, so that narrows it down from four to two.  The third question, um, what is their preferred learning style or what  aspect of evolution's engine is foregrounded in their experience?  This now narrows our two down to one, we've got receptive.  Active reciprocal and interpenetrative. And so in that way, we can work with the deep  circle or within that deep circle. So So similarly, if, I mean, if we had real dots in the onto that,  structure of of the stages without getting too lost in content right and really pinpoint aha  this person is coming from this i would suggest this developmental range rather than  they're at 4.0 i'm more interested in oh they move between you know 3.0 and 4.0 um as we're speaking  right this gives me because range yeah right because that's something i mean it's something  i've seen you demonstrate which is really neat but just how in any given say paragraph of me  speaking about something that you know say i'm concerned about you know the capacity to see that  like you know i might be i might be coming from three or four different stages depending on what  the subject matter is and those could all be healthy right i think there's another misunderstanding  with the integral which is that well if i'm 4.5 teal then i'm always talking teal but you know  as you said at the top of this call when i go to walk and open my door  i'm not using a fourth person perspective i'm using a first person perspective the same as a  toddler right door hand turn knob walk through right exactly and you know this is where this  is probably for a whole other discussion but one of the things that terry discovered was how  these parameters are expressed through language that language is a language is generative and  it's an extension of cosmic becoming and so when we're using language  the deep structures of our language they reveal the deep structures of how we make meaning  and so as you pointed out we may be listening to someone and in one full sentence maybe three or  four sentences we might hear two three four stages in those four sentences which yes if we wanted to  we could say okay i think as a whole this person's coming from 4.5 but what's even more  interesting at least for me is that we can hear literally in the moment how four stages are  enfolded right in one three or four sentence expression right literally is how we talk about  things right um when we're expressing ourself that many of these waves are coming forward at  the same time or in concert with one another yeah yeah which is which is sort of obvious and  beautiful and helpful and i think that's a really good point and i think that's a really good point and  healthy and you know i know in some of the conversations i've had with terry one of the  things that she's watches out for is if people get assessed and they and they're too top heavy  you know if people are sort of straining to make sure that they do everything through a higher  so-called higher level perspective that that's actually really a sign of um not healthy development  in some ways yeah and it also can be a sign that like i've got 36 sentence stems and i want to get  a good score because my  developmental community has told me that a higher score is better it's better right i'm going to try  to answer every one as complexly or as advancedly as i possibly can and we can use the test that way  but it doesn't it doesn't show us the person's if we do that it doesn't show us the full sort of  range that you know when i said goodbye to my daughter today i said i love you honey and she  said i love you too i didn't say like you are a nested unfolding  efflorescence i do do that if i want to get an eye roll but it's it can be occurring in the  context of you are an arising unfolding cosmic efflorescence but all i'm actually saying is like  a two-point i love you she goes i love you too you know like see you soon basic reciprocity  basic reciprocity beautiful well someone jerry has a question here uh can you give an example  of how the lang of how language can express itself and how language can express itself and  multiple stages in a short period of time yeah um okay so i'm thinking about my sadness  and it makes me feel joyous because when i consider this what it also brings up for me  is that there are many aspects of myself that are rooting for me to build a better relationship  with my emotions so  that was an example of two at least i started with 3.5 i'm thinking about thinking i'm looking at my  i'm looking at my thoughts i'm looking at my feelings i'm having feelings about my my feelings  but then i moved into 4.0 so when i look at my thoughts i feel really happy  because i've been trying to learn how to have a better relationship with my thoughts  there are many aspects of myself  that often pull me away from a positive relationship to my thoughts  and i notice that each of those aspects of the self  are different ages some are more complex some are less complex so what i want to do is root  in wholeness and have that be the organizing center from which i work with these different  parts until they're all on board in supporting me to have a positive relationship with my thoughts  so i started with 3.5 yep and i went into  4.0 and then i went into 4.5 yep great it's a great example it's a great example and again it's  it speaks to the beautiful complexity is working with someone and um being very careful and how we  might want to assign how someone makes meaning because it's you know there's three levels right  there and if i'm not careful i might latch on to the opener or that's right or just latch on to  the closer and miss miss that like okay there's there's at least three levels that are being  expressed here well that might warrant some more questions if i'm sort of new to this practice  that's right and and to me underneath that is the stages terry stages model is an invitation for us  to stay in a listening space right because if i stop listening and i extract myself  from the dynamic and i start  you know  creating my own ideas about what stage someone is at i'm actually no longer in a place of intimacy  in the dynamic i've separated myself and i've come to a conclusion which is what i see happen  more often than not yeah and then you're projecting right that's part of the problem  then you're projecting you're projecting your own you know usually it ends up that we're then  we end up projecting the the parts of us that are at an earlier developmental level that we haven't  um embraced and loves deeply enough and and what terry's model  does is it gives us rigor that and tools that really though invites just deeper intimacy i have  to stay listening because you know my 16 year old she could say something from 2.0 then 2.5 then 3.0  then 3.5 and it's only been like three minutes and to me that's more around how people are unfolding  they're unfolding in a range that slides around a little bit  right and we've got so accustomed to this where am i at i'm at teal and i need to get all the green  folks up to my level right but that's a common one we're missing so much nuance right that even  the person at teal over the course of a day is moving through a number of different stages based  on shifting contexts sure because we become with each other right so who we are changes when we're  in different relationships it's beautiful so i had a conversation with a friend of mine who was a  nihita minja and he talked about lacking a'mata the will to filter inside your body in 5.0  and she had a whole agenda here which was to get into 5.0 and spiritual states but i think if you're  up for it alexander we would just maybe have that on a different call because i think this is a  really good yeah because it's relatively straightforward to 4.5 and then when we  get into 5.0 the meta where things start to get a little nuts and a little confusing and i think  there's a greater chance that people well they might project all kinds of things onto that so  and talk about for me one of the things that really does make terry's work unique is this  integration of wilbur's states of consciousness with stages of ego growth and what happens as we  transcend out of teal or integral and into turquoise and begin to um awareness begins  to become aware of itself in a way that has just profoundly beautiful implications for how we see  the world on ourselves yeah beautiful yeah i'd love to have that conversation awesome okay so if  anyone has any questions here uh feel free to chat them in or to use the options at the bottom of your  screen if you would like to call in and um anything else that i've missed or anything else that's sort  of floating around for you that that feels alive no i think this is a really great um sort of entry  point into looking at um some of the unique aspects of  of  terry's stages model and and how it's um very effective on the ground for the purposes  not of evaluating each other  that's my this is my agenda here it's all the smile um for the purposes of understanding each  other and when we evaluation versus understanding yeah and one thing i'll just say is that if we  look at the right hand side of of the model the receptive active reciprocal  um  interpenetrative transition  interpenetrative transition  receptive active reciprocal interpenetrative transition and so on  if we look at that as evolution's engine that's where we see  the unbroken continuity that there's no breaks in this fabric  yeah there's no ladder here there there's a fabric of becoming  and for me when i see it that way it it immediately integrates um the domains of  process of become and then i see it as a way of becoming and i see it as a way of becoming Belar  philosophy with Whitehead, or we see Eastern Wisdom, it takes us out of noun orientation.  You are a noun, and you are standing on this stair step, and it brings us into process.  You're greening right now.  I what?  Or you're ambering right now.  Right.  You're greening right now.  You're ambering right now.  And in order for you to green right now or amber right now, you needed everything that  came before, including the entire world of life and the entire world of matter, that  we are an unbroken fabric from that whole thing.  And I think as integrally informed humans, if we can start to embody a model like this  from the perspective of process, the perspective of unbroken continuity, it fundamentally changes  the place from which we are listening to other people.  Because we're really always listening to ourselves as a larger distributed collective  that's never been broken apart and is always in symphony with itself.  Beautiful.  Yeah.  I love that.  So we have a few questions here.  Okay.  Okay, great.  Okay, so we have, let me just back up here.  So how does shadow projection and empathy fit into this system?  Well, empathy can occur.  As early as 2.0.  So empathy just means that I can, you know, my mirror neurons are firing and I notice  it, that when you're feeling sad, I feel sad in me.  So we can do that as early as 2.0.  It's not until 4.0 with help and 4.5, often also with help, that interest in shadow and  shadow.  projection starts to come online.  And I mentioned 4.5 also with help because I, I can't stress this enough.  Someone can be, uh, have a center of gravity in 4.5 teal and have never read Ken Wilber.  It's, and so this is also why, um, you can also have someone who has read Ken Wilber and  thinks they're in super mind and they're actually expressing 3.5 or 3.0 or 3.0.  And so, um, yeah, so w we can see here that, um, the developmental structure can be present,  but might not have the content we're all used to in it.  Right.  I've met people that have 4.5 capacities that haven't really learned much about shadow.  I mean, that was certainly true for me when I was in 4.5 as a center of making meaning.  I didn't know much about shadow, um, but shadow projection tends to come up later.  4.5.  4.5 and 4.0, if they're in a collective that keeps talking about it.  Right.  Right.  Okay.  Um, okay.  So Roger wants to know what the best resource for going deeper with understanding and applying  the stages framework might be.  And, and one, I'd say, Roger, Terry O'Fallon and I are working on a book right now, um,  on stages, which should be out in probably 18 months, but that would be a whole book  that would get into a lot of this stuff.  But in the meantime, Alexander, what other resources are there?  Yeah.  So, I mean, what, what I would say one is like, yes, Terry's book when it comes out.  Um, another, um, you can go to stages international, um, and see what courses are there.  Um, there's some online evergreen courses.  Um, I teach a course you typically in the spring, um, on recognizing developmental stages.  We work with videos and looking at movies and just playing with that.  Um, I've taken it.  It's very cool.  Yeah.  Yeah.  It's a great course.  And, um, and then also I'm working.  I'm working on a book that will be coming out sometime soon, um, which builds on Terry's  research and situates it in a different way in terms of what the map looks like.  But it's, it's fundamentally the same, um, uh, research and, and findings.  Yeah.  Great.  Yeah.  So Roger, the, the, the answer is, you know, the, there aren't enough resources out there  yet, but we are, Alexander and I together are working to sort of see if we can get some  more recess resources out into the world.  Um, and then Andrew has a question, which is, uh, could you go over inner, inner penetrative  again, please?  Yeah.  So interpenetrative is often the one that folks get the most confused about.  Um, I also like the word Terry doesn't use this word.  She used interpenetrative, but I like the word interreflective also.  So imagine that you're in a group of people, you're, you're with a group of people and  there's a mirror in your heart and there's a mirror in everybody else's heart.  And you can all see this mirror in everybody else's heart.  So when I look into your heart, I see my own reflection.  And when you look into my heart, you see your own reflection.  And so in this way, this is an, I'm giving more of a subtle inner penetration example.  We are all the same, but we haven't collapsed into like a non-dual oneness.  I'm still over here and you're still over there, but I can see that we're the same.  We both have.  Young parts in us that feel abandoned.  We both have the Amber stage of development in us.  We both have the King archetype and the magic, the magician archetype.  And so what starts to happen is it's the dots in the yin yang symbol.  I'm over here in yin, but I look over there and I see a reflection of yin over in yang and vice versa.  Another way you can look at this is like two clouds start to pass through each other at first.  They're separate.  But.  And they start to move together and they can start to see, oh, we're made from the same stuff.  We both think that we should eat, you know, steak to be real men, or we should be a vegetarian to like preserve our karmic future or whatever the, the belief is.  There's a way that we all share the same thing.  We start to look the same.  Got it.  And I can see where this would be confusing in some ways, because, you know, since I'm, if you're looking to assess me, I'm also going to be speaking sort of all over the developmental map.  So I might be speaking from a inner penetrative place.  But it might be much earlier in a penetrative place.  Right.  And that's where we need to be asking the question of what's the world space that they have access to, because what we might see is they have access to a subtle world space, but only through the development of a subtle individual.  But every time they talk about a collective, it's the people.  It's the family.  It's the rules.  It's the laws.  And so this is also a beautiful thing that Terry's model will illustrate is we can start to see, oh, they have access to a mature, subtle individual.  And then what they see as a collective is a mature, concrete collective.  What they don't have is a subtle collective yet.  And that'll come on later with green 4.0.  Got it.  Okay.  Okay.  And then we'll do one more question here, which is from Pablo, which is, what's the intent behind going through the three questions and getting a feel for where the other coming from in this specific model?  Yeah.  What is the intent?  Yeah.  Yeah.  So the underlying intent.  The underlying intent is to be able to understand how someone is making meaning and what reality do they see?  We tend to, you know, we can, if we step back and look at the metacrisis, one way we can look at the metacrisis is that there's an underlying myth of separation, right?  There's a, we could call it a metamythic attractor.  There's a story, a narrative of that's rooted in separation.  That is.  Sort of guiding how we live and what we do.  Sure.  And so we can say here that the underlying intention is to be able to understand firstly and simply that everyone is in a different reality.  Even though we seem to be in the same world, we see different things.  And not only that, we have a different perspective on those things that we can see.  And so first, if we just can admit that we don't all live in the same world.  And that the way that I see things is not the way that things are.  This is Ken Wilber's myth of the given.  Right.  We can recognize that the way I see things is not the way things are.  It then brings the next question.  Well, how do you see things?  What reality do you live in?  What's important to you?  And so by understanding these confluence of these three questions, I'm not so interested in what stage someone is at, as I've mentioned.  I'm more interested in what range.  Of meaning making is someone moving through.  But the deeper intent is to understand someone more deeply so that I can love them more precisely.  And I can show them that I care in a way that feels meaningful to them.  So if my daughter, when she was seven, is completely enamored with fairies, I'm not going to sort of put on top of her like a rational perspective of fairies.  Fairies are just a construct.  Yeah.  Either.  Either.  Fairies are just a construct or fairies are just make-believe.  Instead, I can live into the world of fairies with her.  Right.  And support her in that concrete reciprocity until that aspect of her becomes robust.  This is the next intention.  If we support and love people in a developmentally healthy way, it nurtures developmental wellness.  When we get what we need developmentally, it nurtures robustness.  So then this allows us to grow up.  We don't grow up skinny.  Right.  Instead, we grow up full and rich.  And it means that we're more oriented towards wholeness, which any stage can access, not just the later stages.  Sure.  Because we've been getting what we need.  This allows us to have a predisposition towards being more curious about other people and more caring towards one another.  So to me, that's the deeper intention.  Beautiful.  Beautiful.  And ideally then, you know, like parenting this way or partnering this way, we don't have to do as much work on integrating some of these sort of fractured, disowned, messy selves, you know, having a messy Amber or maybe a messy this or messy that where, you know, there's a lot of reintegration, reparenting, reattunement that has to happen to help make my development not skinny.  That's right.  Exactly.  Yeah.  Beautiful.  Okay.  Great conversation.  Yeah.  Love it.  Love it.  I really enjoyed it.  So we'll find a good time to talk and we'll announce that, you know, when this gets posted, we'll have our next sort of whenever Alexander and I can carve out some time to have a second conversation on 5.0 and above.  Yeah.  Love it.  And in the meantime, if people want to know more about you, want to work with you, where would they go?  Yeah.  So there's two places.  One place would be the EOSLearningCollective.com.  There's, you can find some other podcasts.  Can you spell that?  Yeah.  E-O-S and then LearningCollective.com.  My email address is connection at EOSLearningCollective.com if you want to email me with any questions or anything.  And then also, you can always find me at the Newfield Network, which is NewfieldNetwork.com.  This is a global coach training organization focused on personal development.  We're deeply, integrally informed.  I work a lot with supporting the creation of the curriculum there.  And it's a fantastic organization.  So that's the other place you can find me.  Great.  Okay.  So wonderful to talk to you.  And we will speak again in the near future.  And thank you, everybody, for listening and participating in the call.  It's wonderful.  Thanks, everybody.  Thanks, everybody.  Take care.  Bye-bye.  Take care.  Bye-bye.