Carl-Richard

Btw, Kohlberg was heavily inspired by Piaget, and Piaget is a cognitive as it gets. The Neo-Piagetian models like Model of hierarchical complexity are super reductionistic (could be examples of the "cognitive backbone" of Western psychdev stage theory), but of course it loses some specificity and explanatory power. Maslow was interested in motivation, so cognition becomes less central to his model, but there is of course some overlap between developmental altitudes (motivational complexity ≈ cognitive complexity), hence Wilber's model (however, I don't think he overtly places Maslow in there?).

It's one aspect of human development. He carved out a niche for himself and mastered it, just like Leo did with Actualized.org, or what a musician does with their craft etc. We all have our own niche, and self-actualization is about mastering that niche. The niche can be cognitively simple or not overtly "spiritual"; low SD or low spiritual development.

@AtheisticNonduality I know you're using a broader definition, but self-actualization in a purely Maslowian sense I would distinguish from SD development. For example, I think Andrew Tate is a self-actualized person, but he has solidified himself at the lower aspects of Tier 1. That is who he is, unless he radically reinvents himself and somehow deconstructs decades of trauma and conditioning. You can hear it when he speaks. His default state is flow ("Being-cognition"), and he seems to embody the "Being-values". He has maximized his potential in this aspect. Not everybody is meant to have complex worldview. Maybe he will evolve into a Tier 2 person in the future (I highly doubt it), but he will do that as a self-actualized Tier 1.

If it's normal, why do you seek help?

Leo doesn't have motivation problems.

Do you do weight training?

Kill em with Red, love em to death, whatever it takes ?

Greeners gonna include The boomers included women and got fixated on that, so they viciously attack any threats to that. The zoomers included trans people instead, so of course they'll clash. Perfect example of how T1 inclusion is fake (and gay)

TERFs = Green boomers Trans activists = Green zoomers That is all the analysis we need ?

I don't know what those stages of indigo and up even mean (other than being vaguely mystical), but I guess putting all of it into a new Tier (3) can do a lot of work for justifying such a move.

When it comes to mysticism and my rigid view of SD, I like to think of it as a synergistic relationship rather than it being an inevitable marriage at the higher stages. In other words, maximizing one aspect of development will naturally increase the chances of exploring new avenues of development or maxing out other existing avenues (it's both a statistical thing and a functional thing). To say that there is absolutely no overlap between different aspects of life is of course stupid, but to place very different models along the same developmental line is also stupid imo.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not SD though That's actually a good example of a traditional psychology model which has less emphasis on cognition (throwback to one of my earlier posts).

He calls everybody Turquoise.

We're only talking about maps here. If you think you can ever talk about the territory, you're deluded.

Ok. That's just like, uh, your opinion, man. I'm not talking about "human development" (whatever that is). I'm talking about SD. I'm not placing all of human development under SD.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. An explanation is just the act of reducing something to something else, so it may include a comparison, but that's not the kind of explanation I'm looking for

Ok. However, a comparison is not an explanation, unless you can explain the comparison. An explanation reduces something to more fundamental concepts. For SD, the obvious choice there is Western psychology, but not necessarily. EDIT: I'm sorry, I misspoke. An explanation is just the act of reducing something to something else, so it may include a comparison, but that's not the kind of explanation I'm looking for

I don't understand. What do you mean by mystical? What do you mean by personal?

Why can I not read your thoughts, or feel what you're feeling, or see what you're seeing?

@Nilsi Why are you talking about Cook-Greuter anyway? It's a different model.

Some models or ways of talking about reality are mystical. Reality is reality. I swear all my disagreements with people regarding SD always boil down to them having some naive realist conception of reality. I'm an epistemic pragmatist: SD is not reality, mysticism is not reality; it's all conjecture.

I'm using a mainstream definition of cognition from cognitive science and psychology, i.e. the qualitative aspects of the personal mind. Spiral Dynamics are in the same vein as earlier cognitively oriented stage theories like Piaget, Kohlberg etc. However, mysticism and self-transcendence is about transcending cognition; it's transpersonal, it's beyond qualities. It's not about developing cognition. There does exist stage theories that are less cognitively oriented (or fully orthogonal to cognition), both in traditional psychology and mystical traditions, but SD is not that.

I know, but I don't know what it means other than some vague intuition.

It's the contents of the mind becoming more complex.

Cognitive complexity.