Nilsi

We‘ll leave out that part…

Leo could be 10x as big as Eckhart Tolle, if he really tried. This is obviously not a motivation of his. If you gave me free reign over Leos content and brand, I would turn it into a billion dollar brand within a decade. Water all the psychologically challenging stuff down and keep all the stuff that is agreeable and you have the perfect progressive philosophy for the 21st century -- LGBTQ, climate activists, the UN… you could get all of them behind this.

Ken Wilber started to publish books about Integral theory in a very down to earth way that every child can grasp and find meaningful. Something like this could totally be done with Leo's teachings (give me enough money and I'll make it happen myself). Now imagine a children's book about social darwinism and the psychology of power - not something I would want my kids to read.

Meh. Two completely different realms of accomplishment. To quickly settle this debate: I would gladly broadcast Leo's message all over the world, while I would shield 99% of people on this planet from Andrew Tate's influence. Virtually noone can actualize such levels of excellence anyways, so everything that's great about Tate is pearls before swine, while all his most pety qualities get propagated by the millions. I still love Tate though, don't get me wrong.

Fantastic. That's the definition of growth. It's not all karma though - attainments (be they material or spiritual) can be sustainably satisfying. Silly example, but I recently bought a very nice perfume and everytime I put it on, I genuinely appreciate the beauty of it.

That's a bit... vague. There's entire philosophy departments in universities with dozens of professors and hundreds of classes. What "genre" of philosophy do you enjoy most?

Very true.

A genius is someone creating something entirely NOVEL. That requires extraordinary education and dedication - hardly something you could ask for from a "mentally ill" person. This is why historically most geniuses came from the aristocracy - the rabble simply didn't have the education and sensibility required to produce something worthwhile. That is changing somehwat with the democratization of information and education the internet has brought us. Of course the pursuit of genius is an immense struggle, which is why people talk about "losing their minds" for their craft, but that's not what you would conventionally call "mental illness."

That much should be obvious. The even deeper problem is the implicit teleology in such models. Such an all encompassing and universalized ideal like "Stage TURQOISE" is the most dangerous of ideas. This is Marx's utopia all over again - literally! In some parallel universe, Ken Wilber went on to enact a Spiral Dynamics Stalinism, while people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate are suffocating away in the gulag.

Good one.

You mean actual architecture, or just hardware and shit?

Pro tip: become more successful than anyone else

Pre-ordered a ticket for the new Christopher Nolan movie "Oppenheimer." Haven't been this excited for a movie release in years!

Journaling.

I would delete myself from the governments database and leave everything else the same. Escaping the Kafkaesque nightmare that is German bureaucracy: The definition of FREEDOM.

If I had to pick one, it would be this.

Jungs "model" of Individuation and Nietzsche's idea of the Overman are viable alternatives to Spiral Dynamics. Maybe we should start color coding their ideas, so it's not too hard on the brain.

How is it not relevant? I brought it up as an alternative to basing your worldview on some teleological stage theory.

The problem is that Nietzsche and Jung are incredibly nuanced thinkers and presuppose massive understanding. Which is why sources like Wikipedia and silly YouTubers like "Eternalised" and "Academy of Ideas" butcher their ideas and miss the point entirely. It would be impossible to condense their work into something as elegant and easily digestible as Spiral Dynamics. If you were to engage with their work deeply, you would begin to see the wisdom in it.

I propose Friedrich Nietzsche and Carl Jung. Wouldn't it be silly, if there was only one viable way to interpret the world? Both Hegel/Wilber and Nietzsche/Jung offer a comprehensive explanation of the world. For the former God is the unattainable goal of life and for the latter God is a turning point in life, after which you are finally free to create your own meaning in life. This is more of an aesthetic choice than a matter of one person being right and the other being wrong.

I agree. That doesn't mean there aren't other philosophers who understand reality as deeply, but come to different conclusions on what to do about it.

Seems like a classic post-structuralist critique: "White men forcing their values on the rest of the world." Kind of a strawman argument though. The point of developmental psychology is to reveal the principles and "stages" of development that are common to all human beings. Piaget's developmental theory has been validated cross culturally (and I'm sure many more models have). To me the problem starts at the "higher stages" like "Turquoise," "Tier 3" or some other bogus. This is the biggest group think imaginable - especially with people like Ken Wilber explicitly labeling his followers and telling them how to become more "Turquoise" aka. "read more books, meditate more, give up your individality and become just like me (although you will never become as great as me)." Nora Bateson is very involved with Integral and adjacent communities and I can only imagine the circle jerk going on there... Nietzsche already identified this problem in Hegel. Hegel talked about phylogenetic and ontogenetic development as Spirit coming to self-knowledge, by developing through a series of developmental challenges (contradictions) to higher order resolutions. While these challenges were/are/will be acted out on the stage of world history, in personal development they are purely conceptual and so all development/spirituality was confined to sitting in a library all day. Nietzsche didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and came up with his own developmental model, the "Metamorphoses of the Spirit." For Nietzsche, development was all about becoming more of an individual (an overman), not some teleological equalizer.