which implies that 1) stage four ends, and 2) when partial enlightenment has occurred, stage four has ended.
I parse that as “attaining partial enlightenment” implies “end of stage four”.
That is, the event sequence is: t0, t1, t2,… “end stage four”, “partial enlightenment”.
Where does total enlightenment fit in the picture?
Before reading these comments, I thought (as apparently luminosity did) that the sequence ends with something like … “total enlightenment”, “end stage four” (no more stages). So I probably misunderstood something. Can you post something like a flowchart or state/transition diagram of your model? (I’m better with visual abstractions.)
The model for higher stages of enlightenment is not one that I can fit into a blog post.
One reason is that I agree with what muflax said: the most-correct model I know of will have a fractal element, which will be hard to represent in a simple way. In my opinion, for the first four stages, this fractal element is less important. Afterwards, it’s more important.
I don’t think a model with a fractal element is necessarily the most useful one, though. I think a linear model (like the one I gave for the first four stages) can go pretty far. Problem is, I don’t think the really important stuff that happens after stage 4 is anything that I can describe in a way that makes much sense until you get past stage 4, fractal or not. For example, in this model, I describe lots of stuff that is easy to understand: mood changes, attention changes, etc. Most of what’s interesting about post-stage 4 is not really like that. Post-stage 4 stages involve repetitions of the qualities of earlier stages, but that’s not what’s interesting about them.
If you want a flowchart, it will be pretty unremarkable:
stage 1 --> stage 2 --> stage 3 --> stage 4 --> first stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> second stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> third stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> full enlightenment
“Some stuff” is not me being evasive, I just see no useful way to write about it here. Nothing under “some stuff” is scarier than what I wrote about stages 2 and 3, so I’m not declining to share anything that can ruin your life.
Keep in mind that this model, including only the first four stages, is itself simplified in relation to the more precise models that it is derived from.
I think the four stage model of enlightenment is insufficient (needs more stages), but I can’t easily explain what’s wrong with it, and the model I prefer is not very precise in the places that it differs from the four stage model.
EDIT: Just for clarity, “stage 1” through “stage 4″ are not related to the four stages of enlightenment in any straightforward way. Not related at all unless you use a model with a fractal element. “Stages 1...4” are one thing, and the four stages of enlightenment are another.
I parse that as “attaining partial enlightenment” implies “end of stage four”.
That is, the event sequence is: t0, t1, t2,… “end stage four”, “partial enlightenment”.
Where does total enlightenment fit in the picture?
Before reading these comments, I thought (as apparently luminosity did) that the sequence ends with something like … “total enlightenment”, “end stage four” (no more stages). So I probably misunderstood something. Can you post something like a flowchart or state/transition diagram of your model? (I’m better with visual abstractions.)
The model for higher stages of enlightenment is not one that I can fit into a blog post.
One reason is that I agree with what muflax said: the most-correct model I know of will have a fractal element, which will be hard to represent in a simple way. In my opinion, for the first four stages, this fractal element is less important. Afterwards, it’s more important.
I don’t think a model with a fractal element is necessarily the most useful one, though. I think a linear model (like the one I gave for the first four stages) can go pretty far. Problem is, I don’t think the really important stuff that happens after stage 4 is anything that I can describe in a way that makes much sense until you get past stage 4, fractal or not. For example, in this model, I describe lots of stuff that is easy to understand: mood changes, attention changes, etc. Most of what’s interesting about post-stage 4 is not really like that. Post-stage 4 stages involve repetitions of the qualities of earlier stages, but that’s not what’s interesting about them.
If you want a flowchart, it will be pretty unremarkable:
stage 1 --> stage 2 --> stage 3 --> stage 4 --> first stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> second stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> third stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> full enlightenment
“Some stuff” is not me being evasive, I just see no useful way to write about it here. Nothing under “some stuff” is scarier than what I wrote about stages 2 and 3, so I’m not declining to share anything that can ruin your life.
Keep in mind that this model, including only the first four stages, is itself simplified in relation to the more precise models that it is derived from.
I think the four stage model of enlightenment is insufficient (needs more stages), but I can’t easily explain what’s wrong with it, and the model I prefer is not very precise in the places that it differs from the four stage model.
EDIT: Just for clarity, “stage 1” through “stage 4″ are not related to the four stages of enlightenment in any straightforward way. Not related at all unless you use a model with a fractal element. “Stages 1...4” are one thing, and the four stages of enlightenment are another.