Jwayne

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?

Spiral Dynamics is highly ideological, liberal universalist gibberish. It's childish, reductive and pseudo-intellectual. It's a kind of intellectual-spiritual degeneracy that reaffirms the ego of its ideologues that their personal ideals are higher than everyone else who has ever existed. It's incredibly arrogant and also quite violent, in that respect. A kind of blind, authoritarian cultural-epistemic imperialism.

'Rags to riches' is vulgar Marxist propaganda from the opposite direction - it is class warfare of the rich against the poor. Blame the working clsss for their own structural exploitation. Its a kind of intitutional gaslighting, actually. There used to be a strong labour movement in the United States in the early part of the 20th century (and before) and they won important achievements for their working conditions, rights and wages. They did it by collectivizing and mobilizing together for their self-interest against the forces institutionally incentivized to keep them poor (i.e. owners, robber barons, legislation condoning oppressive working conditions). 'Rags to riches' is meant to dissuade people from that kind of radical social action. Its intended to keep you atomized from others. To keep you from posing a threat to injust and unfair institutional realities.

I had brain fog for a few days after a week of COVID in December. I took some progesterone (a couple pumps of cream) and it went away in 24 hours.

There is a large and difficult language barrier. I suggest having a local friend connection to show you around otherwise you are restricted to formal tourist activities. I love most of the food. But not things like duck blood, chicken feet or octopus/squid. I don't train martial arts. But you can find old people doing Tai Chi outside everywhere, and lots of children learn Tae Kwon Do. Many gyms have boxing. You can find anything you like in a big city.

I've spent years in China

China has developed extreme wealth inequality since introducing more capitalist elements under Deng's Reform and Opening Up and that's a primary concern that their government has moving forward. China has a mixed socialist economy but the major parts are owned by the state, such 80% of the major banks or so are state-owned and not privatized. Which is very different than other systems.

What does martial arts have to do with eliminating povery or socialist development? I anticipate people are going to begin listing all of the crimes against humanity that the CCP has been involved in. My point isn't whether illiberal One Party Meritocracy or liberal Multi-Party Democracy is better. My position is each society must decide for themselves and solve their own problems. Rather my point is about the success of the Chinese economic model which is basically a non-ideological matter. All the markers of economic growth are measurable. And my further point would be that to understand a foreign culture one would ideally learn its language and history, become personally familiar ith its people and land, and try to understand it on its own terms. Because that is so difficult to do, we are obligated towards a kind of restraint of opinion. Just as I don't presume to speak about Ghana because its a foreign culture to me.

I imagine if you are a 50-year old conservative man taking psychadelics for the first time it may be 'mind shattering'. But if you read and experimented a lot with mysticism from a young age, then there isn't much 'mind shattering' that is left to happen. I suppose it is a kind of adaptation. 'Mind shattering' insights happen early and later ones are more subtle. But that doesn't mean they're less profound. They are greater than the early ones and they thus require more attention and observation.

Can we agree that reducing poverty and building schools are good things?

Firstly you need something to contribute, as in unique experiences, knowledge or services. Then you need an audience. To get an audience you need to produce content. That means testing lots of content on different platforms to see what works best and then iterating upon your successes. Finally, you need to retain clients by remaining valuable to them.