oOo

There's an absence of stating any argument pertaining, so that doesn't much help your case thus far, however I will reply with the obvious more or less for what little time I have, but only up to and including link 5. For the rest, I will not read, but will await any actual argument relevant to the thread in as much as there is sincerity in the endeavour. It helps make my own arguments clear in replying, and that's the sole design of my own purpose in replying, to encourage deeper thinking in these interpretive realms, please keep that in mind and feel free to provide a rebuttal on any of my own perspectives below, I am open minded of course. To begin, it's important to empathise with the inner-world of the individual, otherwise its impossible to separate their real world from the culture that you project onto them. In the case of someone reflecting a perspective like, "I am transitioning from X stage to y stage", whether its spiral dynamics, if you're choosing to engage with the person it's more valuable to learn from their experiences more than just judge them with an overly simplified mirror as has been the major projection in this thread. Lastly, most of your examples are pre-2026. That's a very relevant point, and reveals how unhinged the original commentary is where what was instead required in any relevant thread that provoked this one's beginning, further reflection was needed in that engagement to provoke a greater expansion of peoples views more than contractive opinion; this would have at the very least reduced the need for beginning this thread. Let me run through every example from one to five now quickly: Link 1. How is this done inappropriately? Is it because they haven't gone into the in's and out's of their personal reasons? But you haven't engaged with the world they're creating with those positions. Pure engagement alone is going to modify their perspective and the more you're engaged earnestly if they're reciprocating you both have the potential to co-create a mini expansion on your worlds. Link 2. How is the way they have communicated about stages here inappropriate? The pattern I've seen so far with both responses is that they're leveraging spiral dynamics as a meta-frame to reconceptualise their world and the choices they will make within it, which is precisely what we all do unconsciously relative to our own personal influences. The difference is that they're doing it more consciously, which can be done with less or more consciousness and subsequent less or more healthy outcomes depending on alternatives relative to their inner environment. The second pattern I notice by comparison to the thread is that the first two examples are of people leveraging spiral dynamics with a general sense of self-awareness, not overly dogmatically, they're just casual in their descriptions. To the contrary, this thread is a clear example of the level of unconsciousness that is present in many peoples perception of both spiral dynamics and the way people that use spiral dynamics relative to the first two examples; and that unconsciousness is now not only reflecting prejudiced filtering its bordering on full blown collective neurosis. Link 3. Have you ever considered the possibility that Spiral Dynamics stage correlations potentially overlap with brain activation patterns analogous to Dario Nardi's work with MBTI? I am not saying that I agree with Dario Nardi's work nor endorsing its accuracy especially when further work would need to be done on any related hypothesis outside of MBTI like with Spiral Dynamics for any supposed credibility to reach its worth, but are you open minded enough to consider the possibility that perhaps as someone goes through a deep transition from one stage to the next that sometimes what goes along with that are indeed hormonal pattern changes, is that too far fetched for you? As for everything else they stated I point to my responses to 1 and 2 to fill in the gaps. Link 4. If someone is caucasian or someone is black, is there a clear difference? Of course. Is there any difference to their inherent value? Of course not. However the model itself is used to categorise people and people are invariably going to more probabilistically fall into category Y more than category X. Does this mean that the model itself is proven? No. Does this mean that the model itself is sufficient? Also no. However I point to responses 1-3 to fill the gaps in my response here, but that said to further add, as a social mapping and subsequent navigation tool, if you both had an equal understanding of spiral dynamics that was sufficient, do you believe you would be able to better discriminate between people that were more stage green or stage yellow analogous to one chemical property over another? The question should be on the qualifications one is making on the capacity to categorise a person, because analogous to a personal disorder it requires relative to how the average person categorises another person, at least a degree of expertise, or where those qualifications being made also include prefacing their statements with some kind of cautionary measures, "Even though I don't know everything about...", "I notice the pattern of X but...", "based on the best of my knowledge despite my weaknesses in X and y..." etc. All in all however, in this particular instance there does seem some potential spiral dynamics prejudice in terms of how people are being categorised and mentally ostracised by the person. But does that mean they're doing it because of the model, or that they're needing the model to help them map their present dissonances relating to the experience of separation and realignment in their life? This moves us back to point 1 as it concerns becoming genuinely curious about how the person is constructing their inner world about any phenomenon or model important to the conversation, with spiral dynamics just being one example. Link 5. Now this is more to the point of the actual purpose of the thread, but has the thread approached the subject with enough integrity or does it mirror the very behaviour they're trying to criticise? Vilifying people with integrity who socially categorise using spiral dynamics in a cynical way is very different from cynically villifying people that socially categorise people using spiral dynamics with integrity. This is the 8th pattern that is probably most pertinent to this discussion that separates what has utility to personal expansion versus what contracts and stalls genuinely positive learning from the interaction and greater discussion. It reveals precisely where the more nuanced discussion should be, how models themselves and those like spiral dynamics need to be used and discussed with integrity. By broaching the subject with that frame instead of a cynical one, you may not get as much "clicks" because people are like moths to flame when it comes to negatvitiy often due to their underlying broader negative states needing expression on average, now you also get to teach and learn simultaneously from the subject and how to do this for every other subject that needs to be engaged with realness, purpose and intelligence. Do you have anything to add to increase the credibility of your stance @something_else ?

Yal acting all naughty and stuff! Hehe. Carlin was a hero among us in his heyday FOR his heyday as a kid growing up.

That's a solid reason for someone outside yourself to take your insight seriously. Don't be afraid to be more open about it, explore it deeper, and hone how you teach others that may benefit to get there a little easier.

I'd be surprised if many, if anyone else, ever took a university class, much less studied the most rudimentary level of psychology and personality theory.

People trying to establish common ground, instead of seeking true ground between one another. The latter leads to far deeper and longer lasting relationships, the former is ego management and so relationships resolve themselves only against the Clash of those Titans.

I haven't checked on him in a long time. I just clicked on his YouTube video. He is no longer Ye, he changed his channel name back to KanYe West. Ha.

Kanye's people would evolve as Kanye evolved. Trump voters, even if Trump evolved, would still be stuck in the image of Trump, on average. Presidential work requires a constant management of delusions, egotism and immorality because of the many different systems that one has to find the balance between, when quite often, the president is never going to be the Dalai Lama, much less the Dalai Lama with many surrounding seeking the same level of equanimous consciousness.

To me, its much less about unhinged-ness and much more the possibility that in this case, there's going to be world war three. Kanye facilitates a radically different interdependent social reality within the White House, working staff and tribal reaches. Trump has an authority complex, so socially this creates a vacuum around his decision making that becomes black and white. Kanye would invariably listen to people more and his environment in general, intuitively responding through a better consensus over the consensus merely being established by erratic tunnel vision. This is because in part, to bring it back to spiral dynamics (sorry to the naysayers on my use of spiral dynamics I just use spiral dynamics as a cultural reference; so work on your critical thinking) Kanye is far more developed in stage green than Trump. Green invariably wants to learn and move higher despite dogmatic thinking due to a lack of developed intellectual integration, the people around Kanye would have facilitated a more sophisticated management of his ego in this regard compared to how Trump is able to be managed @Leo Gura .

@Ulax How do people against Trump as president, not wish that Kaye instead was? All those Trump haters were Kanye doubters. So they only have themselves to blame for that. It's an interesting exercise to try to imagine the kind of changes Kanye would have wanted to create. It's now a trope that creative people get stifled down to be less creative when they speak in a language style that is uncomfortable for people. Then they get bullied, when their creativity is not a performance but a way of how their consciousness just is. I am not saying I supported Kanye, I am saying there's a meaningful enough difference that Kanye was genuinely the better choice despite what others may believe. I'd be happy to have a rational dialogue on it.

@Olaf That's an interesting perspective. And might I ask, how did you make that truth, the judgement that the highest truth is mystery, yours? Just so I understand your own personal process.

It's a natural defense mechanism when awareness does not supersede an ego threat. It's not my place to judge, however the thread began with a toxic judgement. I define a toxic judgement as a judgement that breeds toxicity. Toxicity doesn't even need to be intellectually measured per se, as the taste on the tongue informs the intellect immediately. The purpose of creating a thread on a personal development forum is to discern the truth of the notions being examined. No single person has cited one single example reflecting the historical accuracy of the thread creator, nor the thread creator themselves. Yet, in more ways than one, many have instead chosen to doggedly insulate themselves into this fictitious reality regarding spiral dynamics false self-assignments and the context of those representations. The question must be why, and how it happened; one of those is clearly social influence, the other is the initial imbalance (defense + awareness + threat) I noted. I have clearly stated where more critical thinking is required in this example: social + self + model; differentiated from the singular and whole identity of each of those three.

And break the stone into water. If you are water, you can handle the heat. Get it?

You guys are just being passive aggressive. You're sorting your beliefs out through the currency of the ecosystem. Self-reflect; interconnect; redirect.

He's just a young guy, you have to look at interacting factors. He became besties with Cam-Girls Tate for Christ's sakes. Plus where's his father and mother in all this. This never would have happened if Tate's authority influence leaned in a more integrous direction. He's just an avatar of toxicity that has been turned into a sellable brand of many kinds now. Bridge the causes not the symptoms. I barely know him, and there's societal patterns that must intersect.

It's important for you to develop your own opinion, but first and foremost, to value that path for yourself and as yourself, self-honestly. I very much believe in the power of every individual, and that at the core of every individual is pure goodness. What happens in life, to us, is when we learn one falsehood, it can lead to another and another. These manifest as disorders of mind, disorders of circumstance like not handling conflict well as one could have or just a disordered life. For me, a falsehood, so a non-truth, can be by degrees, or it can be really solid like physical reality. Moreover, something can be both a truth and a falsehood at the very same time, what matters is perspective. Like a guy getting punched in the face. The guy that swung, he's happy and that's his personal truth. And for the guy that got hit, its a falsehood against his well-being. But then we have the truth that it was true that it even happened at all, which is different from the truth that it was bad that it had happened from one perspective, and that it was good that it had happened from another perspective. So when I say "Truth", I mean that in the "What is intrinsically good for the health, well being and potential of the human being", and if that is pursued relentlessly, I truly believe, that even if a psychopath has this belief, that it will be good for other human beings given it changes the way they would reason about them. Because Truth means so many different things to many different people, its important for us uniquely as individuals to workout what we personally think alone, outside of others, what truth may mean from an objective, universal, personal and shared space. The shared space is just that point between us and the world where we get to learn and engage with others, including all the messiness in-between. You don't have to get things perfect, you just have to get the intention to be true, and not let the worlds messiness, including our own, get in the way of realising that truth within you.

Be less black and white about it. Think degrees. Physicalism is spectrum and spectrum requires spectacles.

Air is physical, and has degrees of non-physicality relative to a chair, or a cool ass looking Christmas beetle.

Yeah there's a lot of truth to that, because spirituality is first and foremost about connection to our own being and builds from there. The solution is in the absence of a healthy connection to our body. Let's flip the switch and go from body to mind, overweight body to an overweight mind. What is the very thing that someone struggling to accept not only the importance of critical thinking but the sheer joy in enhancing their own critical thinking? Their connection to it. What kind of connection though? Simple, the feeling itself. "What feeling though, because I feel hungry right now I want a Mc Donald's burger?" Or for the mind, "What feeling though, because I am using my mind I want to right now go on TikTok?" But are you connected with how other parts of your body feel about having a burger, and more so than the burger itself? Then its about increasing the connection with those parts. Or for the mind, are you connected with how other parts of your mind feels about TikTok, and more so than going on TikTok itself? The mind is actually a far more tangible example, because the brain experiences phenomenological experiences like the "Tetris Effect" which means mental activity transposes over anything we spend our time doing. If we spend our days doing X and continually get mental reinforcement for that, we will undoubtedly start to re-tune the brains interpretation of the world through that reality tunnel. Or if we take it more literally, is activity presently more in my prefrontal cortex, or my amygdala and what kind of activity is it? An individual needs to learn how to control the machine by simply learning how to activate one area compared to another, and the best place to start to navigate either the area of the brain or mind and the human body, is connecting with mindfulness. Mindfulness leads to increased sensitivity, increased sensitivity leads to a more refined perception and a more refined perception leads to a more informed capacity for working out the differences between impulses that serve us versus those impulses that don't, those that make us fat in the body or fat in the mind. And when you've got that down pat, now you have an increased sense of agency. From here, the rest is history; rinse and repeat the feedback loop and you're rock solid! Treat yourself kindly @Majed. Best.

Solidification. And to counterweight, degrees of solidification vs degrees of non-solidification. Done.

Truth. As a personal anecdote to help people that disagree understand, or just whitewash it as a cliche answer, this wasn't always my belief. But imagine a world where truth didn't matter. Or just imagine our inner world where truth didn't matter. Or just imagine any alternative to truth possibly being better, can you imagine it being better in actuality when truth is understood as a measurement of how to bring that alternative into being? For me, I have previously defined truth as "the absence of falsity", where the seeking of truth, is by removing falsity more than the insertion of truth. This is because our human brain is geared too much towards confirmation bias on average that I find it better to lean on our brains capacity for anomalous reasoning. We all have past sticking points from realising better beliefs and sticking points to present beliefs we already have. The key is understanding the interconnection points, to break, relieve, release and or reorder, and then reconnect.

No one has yet to even cite one clear example of someone that does the things the thread (edit) creator is talking about. Not even one. Instead there's mostly just reinforcing of one another's meta-beliefs around the thread. It's just an ego bubble mergence now in this thread; aka, reflective of the sycophantic cesspool I diagnosed the forum with. And the fact that people get uncomfortable with me pointing out these realities, without providing sensible argument for otherwise is evidence of this. Reality Check: The problem with the forum is the lack of critical thinking and the misuse of models because of that lack of critical thinking. The forum must improve in conversing with one another's identities, not getting butt-hurt, finding other butt-hurt people and then forging an intersubjective reality to massage that butt-hurt or seep into some other form of denial. The fact that people struggle to talk plainly to one another with evidence, examples and sensible reflections pertaining to is evidence of such. I am not going to submit to a lack of truth, I bend to no one. People are free to discuss as they please, as I said, I couldn't personally care what anyone thinks of me, but they're pretending to engage with reality rather than discussing it with self-honesty thereby only reinforcing further unhealthy forum patterns.

This is an excellent question. Based on my observations of humans and sentience to date, is that it is far more a problem for sentience than it actually is of our humanity. This may come as a surprise for some that I express it like this so far but let me finish. Integrity arises as a consequence alignment and alignment awareness that either existed towards you in the way you were taught or from you in the way that you adjusted. Moreover the discernment of integrity, a self-aware action. As we cannot move towards higher integrity if we are not conscious of that we were previously unconscious of in order to justify any movement towards higher integrity. Now here's the kicker however, upon what terms are we to be self-aware about exactly? What if a meteor hits not only someones cognitive apparatus but core functions that relate to the regulation of their emotions, or either, including when either contributes to dissociation from the body? There are many that may feel that they are cognitively self-aware while being totally and utterly feelingless when it comes to detecting their dissociation from their body. People that are more autistic than not make terrible social judgements on average. People that are psychopaths more than not make terrible ethical and moral judgements on average. People that are narcissists more than not make terrible intra-personal, interpersonal and universal judgements on average. Building integrity therefore is not just an intellectual capacity, but an intellectual outcome based on broader discernments on how one's internal ecosystem meets the outer world, the ability to be conscious of where one's judgement fails and how to develop adaptations while remaining conscious of those develops. Intellectually, humanity by comparison to its other weaknesses is actually quite formidable despite our overabundant supply of polar opposites. However we cannot as a species move forward until we use that intelligence to highlight where we are weak in the rest of the areas of our nervous system to develop true integrity to levels that at present, are not able to be articulated as we are yet to have the necessary lived experiences to develop that language. This requires developing a far more advanced understanding on the relationship between the rest of our nervous system and intra-personal judgements on the outer world, with the human heart being an excellent example; a cliche that actually has some very good science to it now. The absence of heart based judgements in purpose based reasoning in formulating meaning in and within the world around us is in part an example of body-dissociated reasoning. Because the western world has become so indoctrinated into both dopamine fuelled over-intellectualism and under-intellectualism we get two inevitable divides in worldviews, world formation demographics that become stubborn against outside cultural views that are actually not stubborn by way of that reason, but by way of the described absence and being unable to intellectually locate it because it cannot be sensed. This is where sensory blindness is a great analogy as it concerns developing our language on integrity from a phenomenological perspective, understanding that integrity, morality and empathy does not just have an intersubjective, intellectual or cultural currency, but that it has an irreducible epistemic realness that can be developed multi-sensorally, from heart to brain to the consciousness worlds that await our individuated habitation. We co-create the informational ecosystem that drives our self-perception on these terms like integrity which relies on our self-investigation into our lived experience of our personal reality, thus it is so important to look inward honestly in understanding both the gap and connecting point between our cultural understanding of ourselves and the world and our self-understanding of ourselves and the world so that we can partake as individuals in being meaningful participants in that co-creation. From an awareness perspective, this is where I would double down on how to develop integrity the fastest. Because the faster and deeper you can understand yourself and what a human supposedly is relative to your own understanding vs how the various cultures aim to characterise it, the greater ease you'll have in spotting genuinely solid areas where integrity can be meaningfully developed because its directly refining that interconnection point with the world at the most imminent epistemic layer, how we conceptualise our "who am I?", "who are they?". And how we answer those two simple questions, and the relationship between these two, says a lot about our own personal character and what we usually attribute as generally reflecting integrity from that which tends to not, whether that integrity is spoken or just silently experienced. Short version: body-mind connection is foundational more than fancy quotes, laws, principles, commandments or other intellectualisations despite them both being important signs and genuinely meaningful conversational points. Body-mind connection then is the basis for experience-reality connection, the deeper epistemic layer of integrity, and generally speaking, consciousness level. And as a brief *Further*: as they reflect that "humans were here" planting their flag kind of thing, a species lived here and said X and Y about an interpersonally lived reality, from an aliens visiting earth point of view, so what we say points back to that body-mind connection and that's how these ideas must be engaged. Not that they are epistemically unvarnished pieces of brainwashing, but that they point back to a lived experience that we can perhaps tap into beyond the veil of cultural connotations and into something that better connects experience with a more interconnected reality. Core follow-up question for developing integrity then @blankisomeone, "How do I better connect with myself and how do I make that connection better interconnect with greater reality which facilitates that connection?" That said, at a more intellectual level, the more developed one is emotionally and intellectually the more integrity there will be between intra-personal reflection on virtues and adapting one's behaviour towards greater alignment, this is where pure intellectualism, becomes pure interconnection. How sentient a being is can be answered by how much integrity a being has had to show in an environment in which integrity is compromised in the same way that understanding how much integrity a being has can be measured by the degree to which a being has been able to shed sentient light on where it previously didn't have sentience and the subsequent integrity that flourishes from said (greater) sentience. Best.

Again, very interesting behaviour I am observing. I'll take the time to compress things here with a follow-up. "Demanding that everyone uncritically accept your self-assigned Stage Coral label" = State where I made the demand either implicitly with any of my words or explicitly, or accept that you're trying to manipulate discourse. To the contrary, at the end of my response I clearly stated very plainly "people are free to state as they please." Are you able to accept this contradiction of your follow-up assessment, or do you feel the urge to double down on your own opinion? 2. "declaring any external evaluation "manipulative" is the exact definition of a closed ego loop." Do you see the manipulation with this statement? In fact I invited any further reflections on anything I stated with the assumption that dialogue would be done with intellectual dishonesty - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty . If I am inaccurate with my assessment so far, can you point out which attribute according to intellectual honesty here that I am not exhibiting? Can you see your own at present relative to what I have stated in this comment, where you may need correcting? 3. "is the exact definition of a closed ego loop" To the contrary, do you see how you are in fact the one stuck in your own? I am open to alternative interpretations, evidence and facts. I have also offered interpretations that are offered based on evidence and facts, while not cherry picking but instead taking a comment as it is presented as a whole while discussing the mechanics, as I requested others do when wishing to further examine anything I had stated in forming an accurate judgement. 4. "When high-stage claims can't survive basic inquiry or produce a single tangible real-world purpose, the diagnosis writes itself." And what has your inquiry thus far reflected, to date? And speaking of survival, upon which traits of intellectual honesty have your inquiries survived? For example let's go to 5 now. 5. high-stage claims I never actually intended to make an external claim, it was an internal judgement, relative to what I understand relative to a cultural interpretation of myself. Moreover, based on your examinations to date, by stating "high stage claims" it reveals you're treating this more from a competitive interpersonal frame more than a developmental relationship to reality. I am not expecting you to suddenly reveal all traits of intellectual honesty, though it would certainly help if you at least gave it ago, if not for the interaction, yourself. Apologies if I sound condescending, but at the same time I express that unapologetically in that you're just now wasting time as you have done in other interactions on the forum rather than being genuine in trying to break meaningful ground. Even better, you don't even have to try and mirror the traits in and of themselves, I am just asking for a little self-awareness here that would benefit any reader trying to interpret the underlying truth of the interaction. @LordFall We don’t need agreement on my self-assessment. I explained what the label means to me; nobody else is obliged to accept it. If you or anyone happens to be triggered by anything I have stated, too there, I apologise but there is no need to. I don't mean as well to make any interpretation of you as fact, only based upon the facts at the time. I have clearly detailed contradictions in your statements, you haven't meaningfully found any in mind outside of misplacing context. We’ve moved from discussing a model to making judgments about one another. I can acknowledge my contribution to that without accepting your broader conclusions about me. There’s enough here to reflect on, and nothing I need to settle by continuing the exchange. I’ll leave it here. All the best.

That's an interesting take. But I stand by my assertion that you're more manipulative than genuine in your assessment of my response. Notice how you decided to cherry pick rather than take my response as a whole, followed by trying to flip the narrative ("I think you might be at the exact opposite of being post-rational and land in the pre-rational camp my friend. "). My criticism of the forum stands, this is circular sycophancy the forum is infected by due to intellectual dishonesty, more than not. This isn't a matter of what is right or wrong, this is about what is ego integrative versus that which is not. I am someone you have never met, nor even interacted with at length, and yet you classify yourself as being more equipped at self-assessing me. This means that you trust your judgement better than my own on myself; if that is not entirely self-delusion on your part, I am not sure what is, and I am not being overly critical here, its factually extremely manipulative. I state this observationally, otherwise I am perfectly attuned, people are free to state as they please.

You're welcome @Natasha Tori Maru.