Husseinisdoingfine

Did Ken Wilber distort Spiral Dynamics?

40 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Wilber has never been interested in any one model. He studies and integrates dozens of models. So the idea that Wilber is somehow hurting Spiral Dynamics is like saying that a philosopher is hurting Christianity by studying other religions. If you are a fundamentalist Christian (Don Beck in this case with SD) then to you it will seem wrong and even evil that people study other religions. But to someone at Tier 2, this criticism is laughable.

"The better the model, the bigger the problem."

The simple fact that Beck devoted his whole life to one model, is his problem.

I'm interested how important it is to be highly developed to create a model like SD? I've kinda assumed that people who do that broad unbiased developmental modeling work from above. I'm currently reading Cowan's & Beck's book, but haven't yet deepened into the higher MEMEs, so I want to ask out of curiosity and eagerness; Is SD based on pure psychology on higher stages too? That would probably explain why your Stage Turquoise video was deleted from YT.

 

Edited by Snader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Snader said:

I'm interested how important it is to be highly developed to create a model like SD? I've kinda assumed that people who do that broad unbiased developmental modeling work from above. I'm currently reading Cowan's & Beck's book, but haven't yet deepened into the higher MEMEs, so I want to ask out of curiosity and eagerness; Is SD based on pure psychology on higher stages too? That would probably explain why your Stage Turquoise video was deleted from YT.

You'd be surprised. Strict empirical modeling by itself does not require much development or consciousness. In a sense, a monkey could do it.

Clare Graves scored himself around stage Blue.

It does not take a mystical genius to create SD. But what can happen is that once a non-genius mind creates such a model, it won't have enough intelligence or requisite variety to notice its limits and transcend it. Which is the whole problem with current science. Lots of good empirical science is done but it gets badly misused because proper use requires very high degrees of self-awareness. This is typically what happens when models are made without taking into account the existential, metaphysical, epistemic, and spiritual dimensions. SD misses these crucial aspects hence it will always fall short without being supplemented in ways that Ken Wilber does. Wilber is conscious enough to see these traps, Beck is not. Beck is operating from the materialist paradigm and that will never fully fly, although it's still pretty good. You can get pretty far with materialism, but not far enough.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Clare Graves scored himself around stage Blue.

Do you think Don Beck is right and honest of his own level of development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Snader said:

Do you think Don Beck is right and honest of his own level of development?

I don't know how he scores himself. But he certainly misunderstands Wilber if those Facebook posts are real.

Honesty is cheap in a sea of self-deception.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't know how he scores himself. But he certainly misunderstands Wilber if those Facebook posts are real.

Honesty is cheap in a sea of self-deception.

Last question before I go do my own research:

I don't know yet how your way to teach SD differs from the original model and how the book describes the stages especially from Green above, but I'm really curious about what is the main motivation for an individual to grow up the spiral according to the original model -- if there even is any? It seems like the epistemic and metaphysical aspects you bring into the model is exactly the only reason for anyone to even want to develop.

As just a purely academic scientific model it sound like it is just a cool model rather than a toll, as you represent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Snader said:

Last question before I go do my own research:

I don't know yet how your way to teach SD differs from the original model and how the book describes the stages especially from Green above

SD is a tiny portion of what I teach. And that's a big deal. If all I taught was SD, that would be a problem.

Just as one example, Cook-Greuter's model is better than SD.

Quote

but I'm really curious about what is the main motivation for an individual to grow up the spiral according to the original model -- if there even is any?

Survival, happiness

Quote

It seems like the epistemic and metaphysical aspects you bring into the model is exactly the only reason for anyone to even want to develop.

No, nobody gives a flying fuck about metaphysical or epistemic anything.

People mostly develop because they are either forced to by suffering or they are driven by an ambitious ego that wants goodies.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No, nobody gives a flying fuck about metaphysical or epistemic anything.

People mostly develop because they are either forced to by suffering or they are driven by an ambitious ego that wants goodies.

But I think it's exactly suffering that can trigger your open-mindedness towards metaphysics and epistemology and that way you ''accidentally'' end up perhaps being more interested in truth and fueling your development more from that perspective rather than from pure survival perspective.

Thanks for your replies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snader Suffering is a hell of a good teacher ;) But for a fool even that will not be enough.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these models are THE truth anyway, I dont even mean spiritually, they are however great for understanding people despite the models flaws. I guess Don put alot of time into writing his books etc and feels like he got left behind and is triggered, he should become friends with Wilber instead. 

You can use both of the models and see how the work, no need to be elitist about it. 

Edited by Rilles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

People mostly develop because they are either forced to by suffering or they are driven by an ambitious ego that wants goodies.

@Leo Gura Would you say that it is the case for stage turquoise/construct-aware stage +?


"In time you will learn that intuition is a higher form of knowledge and your feelings are in fact your sharpest tool."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have never failed a gentlemen meeting in which they discuss the underlying empiri of both models and their conclusive divergencies then i care not for the acusations.

For then i have reason to believe they have not even tried.


“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
― David Hume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

a gentlemen meeting in which they discuss the underlying empiri of both models

Lol


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Lol

ur a lol 


“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
― David Hume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

ur a lol 

I love when he does that, kills me 😂


I'm not friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.  Wilber had the basic 3 tiers/~9 levels framework in place by the late 70's.  Beck ripped KW off, not the other way around; very rich and ironic for him to claim the opposite.  Proof that apes can try to read philosophy, but typically can't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now