Jwayne

Sustaining these insights and allowing them to inform their own applications - and being disciplined to stay engaged in other work (including with others) and intellectual pursuits - is what we are tasked with.

"If they tried a little meditation" is an exaggeration. Even given a committed spiritual practice one depends on physical health as an aid.

High GABA

Read Doctrine of the Buddha by George Grimm

This is normal. Its good to keep studying to organize your buzzing thoughts into terms easily relateable to others.

Follow your enthusiasm and you'll never get mentally tired from learning or working.

Self-identity naturally changes as we learn through experiences, including intellectual/spiritual contemplation.

The proper term would be "indefinitely large" intelligence. Infinity is that which is not limited (by any determinations, such as "intelligence").

This is very basic self-awareness. Rather than trading conclusions and egoically-invested opinions try to keep learning. This means you need a real community (including online) based on the dialectical production of knowledge rather than merely led by the personality of a presumed authority figure. Any real guru, in the original sense of the word, is concerned with your growth at heart rather than your allegiance.

People who subject the term "infinity" to something (i.e. more or less) don't understand the meaning of the word. But this is typical in the era we live in. People are more likely to become drug addicts than read books. Infinity is that which has no limits. Likewise it cannot be substituted for the word "consciousness" either.

I'll explain how a similar model should be created to avoid ideological defects. If you want to understand non-WEIRD psychologies, you must learn their language, participate in its traditions and experience its multi-faceted civilization identity from within (its own literature, art forms and ways of life, etc.). That approach will give you an experiential basis so as to first-hand be familiar with those peoples own phenomenology, so to speak, with their own epistemology. Which of course, won't be stated in such terms, but expressed howsoever that culture sees itself. Spiral Dynamics is just looking from a culturally and historically-contingent WEIRD perspective, with an obvious linguistic bias, from the outside at the rest of humanity in all its richness. And it assumes - erroneously - objectivity about its conclusions rather than seeing them as obviously self-conditioned.

I don't think in these terms at all, or find the model useful in any way. I think its highly reductive rather than clarifying. It's main purpose is in projecting an ascending hierarchy of psychological evolution with certain cultures and values above (chronologically) others. When people here say there is no hierarchy nor progressive evolution then I wonder what value they see actually remaining to the categories. Except to pseudo-intellectually reduce complex realities into colors and hence confuse yourself into thinking you have actually accomplished or understood something.

If we don't look at it hierarchically - meaning, not to wield it as a political weapon against other cultures (as Leo does) - then I see no serious danger in it as a intellectual framework of limited application that many apparently find helpful. All of the danger enters in by taking it as a color coded hierarchy of values and asserting you have ontologically-spiritually ascended higher than others. There are many dire consequences that follow immediately from that. I mean, imagine telling that to your family and friends ("I am at a superior level of psychological development than you") and see how harmful it will be to your relationships. And now imagine extending that at a global scale of international relations...

Doesn't the word 'spiral' connote a hierarchy? As do the words evolution and progression. A non-hierarchical model would have more intellectual integrity as it is less flippantly arrogant.

So that's the argument in a nutshell, right? We don't need to lower ourselves by doing philosophy and having intellectual standards because our truth is 'obvious'. Imagine if everyone in the world talked that way...

'Quite obvious' is an appeal to "common sense", which is an academic term you might to consult before taking ideas for granted.

Where's the evidence for 'psychological evolution'? Hegel tried to demonstrate this and concluded that Napoleon was the greatest man and the Prussian State was the peak attainment of Spirit. It is obviously ridiculous today. But he argued it is a matter of objective evolution. Spiral Dynamics is a universalist claim just like that.

The hierarchy is based on a value system.

The hierarchical model is based on what exactly, if not the current liberal worldview of present New Age Western culture?

'Human psychological evolution' is itself an ideological claim. It takes its subject matter for granted rather than examining whether it is so. Also, as if, we are now penultimate observers looking at it from outside rather than living within it as we speak. Also, as if we are 'more evolved' (i.e. superior) than those intellectual systems which oppose this worldview. It is not established why this ascendency occurs in this order but merely asserted. Like I said, all of its claims are taken for granted and not substantiated in a philosophical manner.

Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga is far a more serious and rigorous attempt to explain the evolution of consciousness.

The first objection should be its blindness, or lack of self-awareness, to its own political, linguistic and cultural biases. Next is its ensuing categorization of those biases into a universalist claim to objective knowledge rather than a model for instrumental ends and specific purposes (i.e. shorthand convenience within the ideological frame). Lastly, would be a critique of the actual contents. But that would take as a given the above mentioned ideological assumptions as a desireable standard and I'm not willing to grant that because I think it is flawed there too.

Anything color coded is obviously trivializing, unless its directing street traffic. Its reductiveness is a symptom of a degrading intellect and growing illiteracy of the audience. People today expect easy bite-sized portions and sound bites. They don't want to read The Republic and Nicomachean Ethics. They want the sparknotes version. Yet they then turn around and also believe to have systemized the ultimate hierarchy of consciousness that has ever existed. Well, you can't have it both ways. If you want to claim an objective absolute knowledge of consciousness you need to weigh all the doctrines, traditions and mysticisms together. And not merely a New Age synopsis of what they are, but actual scholarship in native tongue of how they describe themselves .

From start to finish it has an ideological bias, not only politically, but also linguistically and culturally. Not acknowledging that context, and remaining unaware and blind to itself, makes it pseudo-intellectual.

I agree its meaningful. But being meaningful is not the same as being an objective ('scientific') description of reality with universalist application (i.e. "excellent model to study evolution of consciousness"). How about we agree its one attempt to do such a thing while acknowledging its in-built ideological biases?